post
Looks like many do forgot, this is mid-cheap intended machine, not top tier tech race.
Still some depends on price, but I'm hyped for 500€ upgrade of whole 6yo rig, all in one, well build (not like most supermarket prebuild crap). I see flaws in Cube, may need to spend some 100€ extra for missing things (sdd to usb adapters, audio extractor from hdmi to 3.5jacks, extra sdcard for less intense data), still hyped.
Like this is cheap family car talks, Koenigsegg is 2 links to the left.
I'm sure it does, considering even my old busted laptop has hit the Steam hardware survey before, but it's not one of my primary gaming PCs.
Another way of saying this is Steam Machine is slower than about 44 million gaming PCs (30% x 147 MAU, a very conservative number since that's monthly and number of users instead of number of computers).
The fact that its GPU is slower than the 5 year old PS5's, and it only has 8GB VRAM, makes me question Steam Machine's longevity. And it apparently can't do FSR4 cause it's RDNA3.
It needs to be cheap.
I'm rocking a 2060 with an astounding 6GB VRAM... And the only game that gave me trouble so far is Clair Obscur. I had to close everything else, and use a mod to optimize the graphics.
I'll blame the shitty Nvidia drivers for Linux though, cause there is no shared RAM, unlike on Windows. 8GB with an AMD card should be fine -if a bit limiting- for a generation, except for high end AAA gaming I guess.
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.
This thing has 1/6th the ongoing utility cost of a spec’d out gaming pc (assuming 850w psu and something like 4090 and 7900x3d). Granted it’s not much to run a pc like that, like 15-20 a month, but running this thing will cost like $2-3 at most. Its power supply is 43% smaller than a ps5s.
Not gonna be the deciding factor for most people but something to consider. Does 4k120 really matter vs 4k60? Do you really need to turn every slider to ultra? In a world that is boiling with energy costs that are ever increasing?
In my humble opinion, 4k is a bit of a joke. I pick a high as possible frame rate over 4k any day of the week.
With AAA game graphics, 4K is kind of silly.
It kind of makes sense on consoles with fixed hardware when the devs design specifically to hit that target.
On a PC, I think high framerate 1440p is a much more reasonable goal, but frame generation and upscaling are sold to consumers like some magical solution to poor performance instead.
Yeah I tried playing Dispatch on my TV in 4k, and it sounded and felt like my laptop was going to catch on fire.
Lowered the TVs resolution to 1080p, and the game looks exactly the same and the fans barely even turn on.
That could be an optimization issue though I guess.
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.
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.
Power optimization of chips has long been good enough to make that a completely moot point. Unless you're doing something 100% of the time like crypto mining, or extremely pressed on the price of power, it doesn't matter.
Even top of the line CPUs and GPUs idle at extremely low wattage.
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
Depends on Tarriffs. Unfortunately a $500 PC in 2024 can be like an $800 PC now due to Trumpflation.
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
It'll be a mistake if they just put the tag of 500 dollars on the steam store.
It'll be much much better if they put a fake price like, 1500 dollars but it's discounted to 500.
People are dumb enough to fall for that, lol
Lol with multiple gaming PCs, you are far far removed from the target consumer. Im pretty sure it will be cheap. Unlike PC hardware manufacturers they can do what the console companies do and price at/below cost and make it up in game sales.
Source on RDNA3 on Linux not doing FSR4? Linux drivers are far ahead of Windows drivers.
Source is RDNA3 not being able to handle FP8 on any OS. It just can't do FSR4.
There is an unofficial INT8 version of FSR4 that was leaked from AMD that works on RDNA3, but it's a lot slower, and FSR4 is already pretty heavy.
https://gpuopen.com/fidelityfx-super-resolution-4/
uses the hardware-accelerated feature of the AMD RDNA™ 4 architecture
AMD FidelityFX™ Super Resolution 4 upscaling requires an AMD Radeon RX 9000 Series GPU or better and can only be used on appropriate hardware.
Requirements
[FSR 4 Upscaling] AMD Radeon™ RX 9000 Series and above
It's possible they add compatibility at a later time (with reduced performance and/or quality due to lack of hardware acceleration), but they haven't announced anything like that currently
It's not a hard requirement. Gamers have used the SDK to get FSR4 working on Steam Deck. Here's a video of it in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95N6-2U5YQo
TL;DW -- It's good to have as an option but not necessarily better than FSR3 on Deck due to tradeoffs. Depends on the game.
Yeah you can hack it in but that's not official, which results in what you see: performance is not so great. That video only shows a small performance loss because FSR4 is only outputting to 720p, but making FSR4 output to 4k (like a normal TV) is a much bigger demand. But maybe some specific optimizations can be made.
Steam survey is monthly too and most people don't have two computers
It needs to be cheap.
However, when comparing to the power of locked up device such as ps5, it never hurts reminds that the supposed GPU processing power of a ps5 doesn't come for free... even if you've fully paid your console. Aside for demos or jailbreaked devices (piracy on console) the only way to run graphics at full potential on the locked ps5 is paying full AAA (which now is settling around 80$/€) for EACH product. There are alternatives in the spending (ie: the Netflix alike from Sony's store)... but those are only options that Sony allow you to (you can't run weekly free games from EGS, itch.io... or even web browser games!).
Whatever power you pay for any generic PC potentially cover you in any way: you can play arcade vector games as Asteroid at 4k (or even teorical 32K when the hardware will exists).
The difference Valve could make is showing the topical console gamer customer an easy to use access to it: once they'll see the light... things may go different also for console-only customers (Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo wouldn't want to lose more customers to Valve's better deal)
Just wanted to post this video. If this tiny undervolted, underpowered, palm sized APU machine can run these games at these FPS, I am willing to bet that steam machines gonna run games without dropping a sweat at 4k.
Also, a portable Steam Deck can run BG3. Steam machines will be fine.
I rarely play the latest games, so that machine would be a good upgrade for me. Especially with the ability to load a different OS that I could use for both productivity and gaming.
Bump it to a bigger SSD and 64GB of RAM and I'll be happy with it.
SteamOS in desktop mode is still pretty great for productivity, im pretty sure you can set it to automatically boot into desktop mode too.
I believe I saw that both were user upgradeable in YouTube videos, though I am curious what options they will have for purchase.
The majority of gamers game at 1080p. Both on PCs, and especially on consoles. Most people's TVs aren't even big enough for people with average eyesight to see a difference between 1080p and 2160p.
So the question to ask is if the steam deck is too slow, because the steam machine at 1080p will solidly beat the steam deck at 800p.
If you want something faster for desktop, just build a matx mid tower with a 9070xt. It'll cost double, but you'll be able to game in 2160p.
I'm amazed they went for 4k.
It's fake upscaled 4k from 1080, though.
Fascinating. Is that how the ps5 and Xbox whatever work?
Most people's TVs aren't even big enough for people with average eyesight to see a difference between 1080p and 2160p.
Why do people keep repeating something so easily disprovable? You can tell 1080p and 1440p apart on a laptop, let alone 1080p to 4k on a TV.
It really depends on your viewing distance and the size of the display. If you're sitting 15 feet away fom a 55 inch TV, the difference between 1440p and 4k is going to be a lot less noticable than when you're 2 feet from a 32 inch monitor.
It depends how far away you sit. And size (inches) of the TV. You sit closer to a laptop than a TV.
If you have 20/20 vision, you need to sit 2 meters away from a 55" to be able to tell the pixels apart. You might see some improvement from 4K but it wont be that significant. If you are 3-4 meters away, you need a bigger TV if you want to start thinking about gaming in 4K.
3 meters away from a 55" TV gives you a very poor 23 degree viewing angle, let alone 4. The maximum SMPTE recommended viewing distance for that screen size in 16:9 is 2.3m.
In other words, for 4K to stop being perceivable, you have to make your experience worse in other ways.
It's all about PPI. Pixels per inch.
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.
Yes, but mostly because most of the gaming PCs in Steam's hardware survey are not really gaming PCs but just some piss poor spec laptops that can still run old games. Just having a dedicated GPU puts it in the top half.
The GPU in this is in the 7600 RX range of things. It's marketed as a 1080p card. Can certainly hit 4K on older titles, and output 4K with upscaling.
Don't expect miracles from it. It's PS5 level hardware. But that's good enough for most of us.
I get your point, but since people claim Steam is a monopoly, then by that logic they have a large swath of data on what counts as a gaming machine to the user base.
I get its not going to compete with a watercooled watt sucker, but that doesn't seem to be the majority.
As a person that has gamed since 1983: Up until recently I was gaming on a 2013 dell mobo converted to a Core V21 case (that's a lot of rewiring conversion --thanks dell), and using a CAD GPU.
Then work bought us new laptops with RTX cards. So graphics have improved for me.
Both of those are not hardcore gaming PCs, and this steam machine will probably outperform them.
My point being these were valid systems for gaming by a gamer. Not everyone needs an F1 car to enjoy the ride to work😀
It’s PS5 level hardware that is still gonna have lower performance than a PS5 because it has too little VRAM, but hopefully we get PS5 level optimization for the hardware and for linux if it’s successful enough.
12GB seems to be the sweet spot for VRAM, but I suspect the real issue is PC devs not really giving a fuck how hit runs on less than their dev kit.
But then a lot of PC gamers seem to think a game should always run at ultra, no matter how good their rig is.
And I will die on this hill: raytracing has been a colossal waste of everybody's time and money.
Why use the word "claims"? They have the Valve Hardware survey to prove the statement.
Well, if you are adding my 15yo Core2Quad in the percentage, of course those numbers come easy.
70% is not so hard to beat.
I wish dual CPU motherboards were mainstream.
I could then use the one I am keeping aside, during compilation/encoding tasks.
But my current computer definitely come above on everything other then the VRAM.
That's not how you compile fast. I mean they exist but better buy a second PC for the price. Or optimise your project, or get a build cache.
Yeah, I get it.
But what if most motherboards were just expected to have 2 slots, you know?
Of course I won't be switching to Threadripper just for getting 2 CPUs on a single motherboard and have kept the other CPU lying around, thinking of using it for keeping all the storage HDDs, and maybe offloading all re-encoding stuff onto it.
For compilation though, I'm fine with just using my main PC, although I did look into distributed computing options, specially when using my laptop, I think I'm fine for now.
It's more like a fleeting though that came to me a few times, when I felt like playing a game while reencoding, but was unable to properly set the CPU usage for the encoders in ffmpeg.
Time to get a little homelab :-) ! Like it can encode stuff for days without getting in the way and keep those drives accessible. Nowadays any tiny pc comes with an ethernet port so usually its just plug & play too.
I was looking more towards something that can use my spare CPU and have enough SATA ports to last a long time.
And while USB to SATA is expected to be inherently unreliable, all PCIe SATA devices I see seem to be problematic in their own right^[doesn't make sense to have a SATA adapter that goes around corrupting the data in a way that it is hard to detect] (from the reviews).
The only one that seemed fine was the PCIe SCSI device, for which, I would be very careful, making sure I don't get a fake.
Then the available motherboards having >6 SATA ports seem to all be high end ones, which doesn't make sense considering I am trying to save some money.
What's the spare CPU?
Maybe an old mobo with 6 sata can be found for cheap.
I totally agree with the sata (or raid) cards.
The spare one is a 5600X which was previously in the same motherboard before I switched to a 5800X.
I am considering getting a B550 motherboard once I have the funds, but the number of SATA ports is kinda low. My current one is X570 with 6 ports.
I am not planning on RAID for now, as I don't really plan on ever having enough for redundancy, but I definitely want to be able to use the system for any and every task I can program to control via a local SSH. So definitely going with a full distro, like Debian or sth, and not a NAS specific thingy.
I can even make use of my old Radeon 4650 for a display while setting it up.
The 5600X is a beast IMO, I had a 2600X IIRC that my kid now has, very good CPU, I understand why you'd like to compile with it 😁.
I also remember mobos were kind of bad, like 2 RAM lanes and few connectics compared to how it usually was "before".
I made sure to get one with 4 slots (still haven't managed to use them all though) and good component cooling.
Thinking back, getting the G version would have done better, but I didn't intend on swapping with a 5800X back then.
Now it's just about getting the right parts to accompany the CPU and RAM I have lying around. And the HDDs of course. The Toshiba one ended up having an undesirable delay, meaning I would have to go with the Seagate ones priced 50% higher.
And then a router not having a backdoor.
Hopefully I can find one with OpenWRT without having to choose ASUS.
E8400 for the win! Q6600 is soo out!
"Outperforms 70% of Gaming PCs" is the sort of statistic you'd only quote if you thought it sounded more impressive than it actually was, and it already doesn't sound impressive.
(edit: genuinely surprised how controversial a statement that turned out to be?)
top 92 comments