Runs on a version of linux (SteamOS), which is fucking cool. You can also install other game stores and run normal programs on it.

Here are some tech specs:

  • CPU: Zen 2 4c/8t, 2.4-3.5GHz (up to 448 GFlops FP32)
  • GPU: 8 RDNA 2 CUs, 1.0-1.6GHz (up to 1.6 TFlops FP32)
  • 16 GB LPDDR5 RAM (5500 MT/s)
  • 1280 x 800px (16:10 aspect ratio)
  • 7" optically bonded LCD
  • Bluetooth 5.0 (support for controllers, accessories and audio)
  • Wi-FiDual-band Wi-Fi radio, 2.4GHz and 5GHz, 2 x 2 MIMO, IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n/ac
  • MicroSD slot to add more storage

Is this any good? Looks better than the switch, but idk.

Sources:

  • Valve preorder site: https://www.steamdeck.com/en/
  • Polygon: https://www.polygon.com/22578782/steam-deck-handheld-valve-release-date-price
    • Dirtbag [they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      For real, PC games are more bloated than I am.

      :Hoggers:

      • SerLava [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Guess why they're 100gb

        Ok did you guess

        It's all the skins. Even if you don't buy them your computer has to render them on other players.

        • wantonviolins [they/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          It’s not the skins, it’s the horrible compression and lack of optimization that devs end up with when crunch sets in and they have to start ignoring things in order to get the project out the door.

          Games could easily be half their current size or lower without sacrificing audio and visual fidelity (and would run better, too) if they had the time to work on shit like that.

          • dpg [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            No they explicitly don’t compress assets for better performance.

            • wantonviolins [they/them]
              ·
              3 years ago

              I fail to see what performance benefits are gained from having a 50MB WAV file instead of a 2.5MB OGG, or [the same comparison but using texture formats instead]. Lossy compression creates files that are quickly and easily loaded, with negligible overhead, and have been in use for decades. The primary goal here isn't disk space savings, but decreased load times and lowered RAM usage.

              Even if you employed on-disk compression (which is what I think you're suggesting), there are plenty of fast compression algorithms and situations where it's literally faster to read the compressed file from disk and decompress it than it would have been to read the entire gigantic uncompressed file from disk directly into RAM.

      • wantonviolins [they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        The OS is going to be like 3GB, probably less. 64GB will work fine if the only thing you’re playing is lightweight indie titles.

        Totally out of the question for anything AAA from like 2017-on, though.