129
Valve says the Steam Machine is better than what 70% of PC gamers have at home (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 9 months ago* (5 children)

Yes but those PC's are not being sold as new. This is a bad argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    I put together a minimum spec pc for $100, so it depends on how much better it is for me. HP Z240 office machine plus an rx480 8gb.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    rx480 8gb

    Based on the news saying the Steam Machine should be roughly equivalent to an RX 7600, it's going to be 2.5x faster than an RX480. I don't really think that's a comparable PC at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    I'm just saying that you can build a decent pc for $100-$300 with older components or even just use a laptop. That's why the average hardware is so much lower. The steam machine is estimated to be around $750.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Well, you get what you pay for. A $100-300 PC and a $500-750 PC are not really competing with each other when what you get is an order of magnitude faster with one of them.

    A useful comparison would either try and match performance at a lower price, or match price at a higher performance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think most people notice the performance difference when it comes to fps or even resolution unless things are stuttering or slowing down. I definitely think value is something to consider, especially because most people play games that don't require high performance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago*

    It entirely depends on what you're doing with the computer. Sure people won't notice a difference between a game running at 60 vs 70 fps, but that card is going to struggle with modern games. From a quick search it sounds like it will barely hit 60fps in Cyberpunk at min settings 1080p.

    I'm sure your 10 year old card will have no problem playing 10 year old games. If that's all you play, then you're right, you don't need to spend any more.

    An RX 7600 vs RX 480 could be the difference between something running at stuttering 25 fps and something running at smooth 60 fps. Or it could be the difference between running on min quality vs high settings, it all depends on the workload.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Yup. I was happily using an RX 480 up until maybe a year or two ago. I'm sure it would still be perfectly good for most current games, aside from any intentionally pushing the limits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent