I'm interested in the APU it uses... So it's a custom piece that's essentially something similar to what the PS5 uses?
Aside from using Zen2 with RDNA2, it's not anywhere close to the new console hardware in terms of performance. CPU-wise, it has half the cores, which might be fine enough for most current multi-generational games, but may not hold up as well when AAA titles really start focusing on the new consoles.
And graphics wise, it only offers a fraction of the performance of a PS5, around 15% or so going by their advertised "peak performance" numbers. The PS5's graphics hardware performs somewhere near the level of an RTX 2070, 3060 or 5700XT, while this device will likely perform more like the integrated graphics in AMD's desktop and laptop APUs, or not much better than a GT 1030 or RX 550. So it's a lot like one of those laptop APUs from what I can gather, probably most like the 4-core, 8-thread Ryzen 5300U, only with 8 RDNA2 CUs in place of the 6 Vega CUs on that part.
Of course, when you only need to render games at around 720p, that level of graphics hardware should go a lot further. At that resolution, it only needs to render around 11-12% of the pixels compared to native 4K. Though most games targeting the PS5 will likely render at lower resolutions and upscale to 4K, whereas upscaling to 720 is probably not going to look too good, making upscaling a less-viable option on this device. The level of performance does seem like it should be reasonable enough considering the form-factor though.
This just shows that there is a huge demand for on the go gaming, phones is just the easiest way to do it but I very much doubt that people prefer smart phone gaming, it's just the only thing they have access to, you always have it with you.
I kind of wonder how many people would want to bring something like this with them "on-the-go" though. Unlike a phone, which doesn't take up much space and can be slipped into a pocket, this device is quite bulky. Even compared to the Nintendo Switch, it's notably larger in every dimension. A Switch with Joy-Cons attached is 239 x 102 x 29mm and weighs 398g, while the Steam Deck is going to be 298 x 117 x 49mm and around 669g. That makes it around 25% wider and 15% taller, making the face around 43% larger in terms of area. It's also around 70% thicker when including the grips and thumbsticks on both devices, and nearly 70% heavier as well. That's not necessarily bad, since it offers considerably more performance than a Switch, along with access to a wider selection of games, but it is quite bulky, and not something one will be able to discreetly carry with them and easily tuck away when not in use.
And while I suspect most Switch owners primarily use their device at home as a means to get access to Nintendo's games, that seems like less of a compelling usage scenario for the Steam Deck. It's not going to have platform exclusives, and most of this device's target market probably have a better PC at home already. I do like a lot of things about the device though.
The 64GB version seems like it would be the way to go. If the base model can be upgraded with a 2242 NVME drive, those can be found for under $80 for 512GB. If it uses the smaller 2230 drives, those might be a little harder to find, but still should be available for far less than what they are asking. That is, assuming it includes a port for an M.2 drive, though it seems likely that they would be using the same board for all of them, seeing as storage is the only major difference between the three models.
As an update to this, they added some additional details to the specification page regarding the SSD...
"All models use socketed 2230 m.2 modules (not intended for end-user replacement)"
So, it sounds like a 2230 drive would apparently work, though that size tends to be primarily sold to device manufacturers, and is uncommon at retail. And the "not intended for end-user replacement" part is a bit vague, though that could imply it might be difficult to access the drive without tearing the whole thing apart, and it's hard to say how feasible that might be until the device has been released and teardowns are available. Though again, there's always the MicroSD option for expanding storage, so I still feel the 64GB version would likely be a considerably better value than the others. Of course, they could very well limit the number of $400 units to avoid potentially losing money on them at that relatively attractive price, while selling most units with the less-attractive $530 and $650 storage configurations, as those will undoubtedly offer much better profit margins for them. So it might be hard to even find one of these at that $400 price point.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram