4k is 4x the resolution of 1080p, so that’s not totally surprising. Good thing you did this too, because I was reading some comments just the other day about people’s gaming laptops failing because of repeated/prolongued overheating.

I saw a really good video from someone who seemed very well-informed do a bill of materials analysis and come to the conclusion that it will be priced between $449 and $599 depending on how aggressive Valve wants to be, with the caveat that the current tariffs and RAM pricing could throw that off. The BOM for it totaled $425, from what I recall. It seemed like quite a bit better analysis than the wild guesses some other people have been throwing out, like $1200, etc.

Here, I found it in my history - someone here on Lemmy had recommended it to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJI3qTb2ze8

Usually when people post a source, the numbers say that at median screen sizes and distances from the screen, 4K isn’t perceptibly better than 1440p, and the person writing it up as an article has misunderstood the conclusion as saying 4K isn’t better than 1080p rather than that it isn’t better than 1440p. TVs tend not to be made with 1440p resolution, so upgrading from 1080p gets you right to 4K, skipping the sweet spot.

Like running a video game at 4k120 with ray tracing for 4-6 hours straight? Bc that’s the use case, not idle

You’re getting a direct use out of that power, then. It’s also dependant on the hardware in it. I can run 4k gaming all day and never break 1kw, because I don’t use nVidia that just throws more and more power at their problems instead of engineering them away.

(even they still do not idle at crazy power usage, too)

You’re missing the point:

4090 with 7900x3d and 850w psu running games at max will generally use about 550w. The same build swapping in a rx 7900xtx is ever so slightly more economical at around 520w. Getting into pissing matches about brand loyalty (when they’re both companies that will ultimately fuck you over for another cent) is stupid, and doesn’t change that this box, if accurate to advertising, does 80% of the work they do at 140w under load (essentially 1/4 the power of your precious amd, which you’d still be using here btw).

It would matter more for the environment if tons of gamers actually had these GPUs but based on what valve is saying here (and the fact that as others have said they likely have very good statistics on the machines accessing steam) they likely don’t. Most fancy GPUs probably go to crypto farms and llm bullshit, which is dumb and means this doesn’t really matter I guess

Would FP8 be exposed as the VK_KHR_shader_float8 vulkan extension?

Yeah, we sit about 2 meters from our 100" projector screen lol

I just ordered thebparts for a ~$900 gaming pc that boils down to Ryzen 7500F and Radeon 7600. I’ll believe “priced like a PC” to mean that.

I have some of the same concerns with the Frame. It is a stabdalone headset, but also just runs Steam games; it’s not its own ecosystem like a Quest which has different versions for the headset vs what you stream from PC. But I haven’t seen much hands-on stuff other than a physical hardware breakdown; never anything running on it.

Like, how well would it run Half-Life Alyx vs how well it might run something like Gorn? How is it gonna handle informing users what games would actually run well in standalone vs PCVR streaming?

The difference is, is that the Steam Deck is a handheld and for what it can do as a handheld is actually impressive. Given how the handheld market is dominated by Nintendo.

The Steam Machine is marketing itself as a console and a PC, two things in where it can be outclassed in.

It literally uses AMD, so you’re just being a fuckwit for saying there is no brand competition here…

I just replaced that exact card in my machine last week in preparation for dual booting Linux for the first time (I needed a new NVME as a Linux drive and figured I’d future-proof my setup at the same time with an RX 9070 XT for the native AMD drivers), and the only games that I hadn’t been able to run on medium-high settings had been unoptimized games, bad ports, and early access stuff like Monster Hunter: Wilds and Cities Skylines 2.

IMO 8 gigs is plenty for the average person, all things considered.

Fascinating. Is that how the ps5 and Xbox whatever work?

Which is totally fine. Not every game has to support older hardware. Games are allowed to use “newer” tech.

Worth noting that I played Indy at 1600p/60 on an RTX 2080, which is a card from 2018 that I bought used for 200 bucks two years ago. This card can still run every single game out there and most of them extremely well, despite only having 8 GB of VRAM.

The whole debate is way overblown. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t games that could run a whole lot better, but overall, PC gamers with old hardware are still eating good.

Gaming laptops are notorious for dying from overheating. These things need to be meticulously maintained if you want to use them for their intended purpose for long.

It would be funny if Steam sold it lower in other countries, and gave the US a special inflated tarrif cost.

I think you just have poor reading comprehension bc I literally said it uses amd?

Interesting, thanks for confirming!

Valve has incentive on getting developers to make games that will play on lower speced hardware. Also, not everyone cares to pay premium prices for premium specs.

It will do just fine and it should accomplish Valves goals.