this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
84 points (97.7% liked)

Games

32513 readers
1554 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hope it is successful.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Time will tell. On paper, yes. In practice, who knows

[–] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Most of the handheld benchmarks have been 3% or 4% higher compared to the Steamdeck at 15 watts, which often is a 1 to 4 FPS difference. This would explain why Valve isn't in a hurry for a Steamdeck 2. If you plan of playing on battery, then that is what you'll probably running around that if you plan on playing a while. The main advantage of these newer chips is when used plugged in.

[–] funkajunk@lemm.ee 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The Steam Deck is already a couple of years old, so it's not that hard to do. This thing has better specs across the board, with even the base model having twice the cores and threads as the Deck.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not really sure core and thread count is a good metric. The steam deck is getting more specific support and there's more to consider about a CPU.

[–] DdCno1@kbin.social 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. That's what nearly all of the competitors fail at. Sure, they might have more performance, are slimmer, have this feature or that advantage, but when it comes to actually getting games to work with them and the user experience, none are as good as Valve's handheld.

[–] Dioxid3@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is the reason why I am looking at Steam Deck, despite the competition in raw power.

[–] DdCno1@kbin.social -4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Avoid the OLED model (due to the danger of burn-in) and get it. It's a great device for portable gaming, both for games running directly on it and emulation up to and including Switch. It's fantastic for rediscovering games in your library. Just be aware that the slick user interface gets replaced by bog-standard (and extremely unpleasant to use on the small display) Linux clunkiness the moment you need to tweak anything outside of Steam and games.

[–] c10l@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

This is terrible advice. The OLED model is better across the board. The risk of burn-in is also wildly overstated.

The only reason to get the original model would be price.

Don’t get me wrong, I have an original and it’s great. I don’t consider the OLED model enough of an upgrade to justify the extra cost but I wouldn’t think twice if I was getting my first.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

Steamdeck performance is still pretty good though, imo the most important factor in the handheld pc market is battery life. If games take a 5% hit to performance for an extra 40 minutes of battery life, the tradeoff becomes obvious to me.