Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Nov 2013 18:31 UTC
Games

Valve's official Steam Machine prototype isn't cheap, but it won't be the only Steam-powered video-game console available come 2014. This morning, iBuyPower revealed a prototype of its own upcoming Steam Machine, which will go on sale for just $499 next year. For the price of an Xbox One, the computer will offer a multicore AMD CPU and a discrete AMD Radeon R9 270 graphics card - that's a $180 GPU all by itself - and come with Valve's Steam Controller as part of the package deal.

That's an absolute steal. This is exactly what Valve is betting on: for the same price, an x86 SteamBox will be more powerful than the new consoles. with SteamOS, it has all the convenience of a console, too. With the launch titles for the two new consoles being total and utter garbage, the argument "but SteamOS has no games!" is moot.

I can't wait until CES coming January when Valve will unveil its publishing partners. That's the make-or-break moment. If SteamOS will get all the same major titles as the consoles, why on earth would anyone want a limited, locked-down, proprietary, slower console?

Thread beginning with comment 577599
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Nov 2013 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

At that number of FPS I think there is something else at play.

It kinda like using Quake 3 as a video card benchmark these days ... it is really a CPU benchmark since the game can't max out anything beyond a 64mb graphics card.

With all statistics, you have to know what the conditions were tested or what the sample was to make any real decision.

I am running Sitecore and Sharepoint on my machine and I have to shutdown my DB server to play games ... because both pieces of software kill my ageing machine, but it is fine playing Crysis 3.

Also you didn't take into account the game engines being compared were Direct X 9 or whatever the OpenGL equivalent is. When Direct X 10 and above is faster.

Numbers don't tell the whole story.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Wed 27th Nov 2013 21:39 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Well then, I'll do Metro: LL benchmark on my machine. It's very recent, DX11-game and all. Will take an hour or so.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Nov 2013 21:49 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well then, I'll do Metro: LL benchmark on my machine. It's very recent, DX11-game and all. Will take an hour or so.


Please provide results with running exactly the same software on both operating systems, make sure every service is exactly the same version, running the software with exactly the same settings ... with video drivers of exactly the same quality and performance on well know benchmarking tests.

I don't think you can do that in an hour ...

The point I am trying to make is that software testing is not an exact science.

While I applaud their efforts to optimise the drivers, saying one systems is faster than the other and thus implying better programmed as a result is not fair because of the differences between them.

Edited 2013-11-27 21:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3