Hope it is successful.

      • RedWeasel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

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

            • DdCno1@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 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.