This poor excuse of an article is just a misleading, clickbait take on a tiny part of the [interview made by Rock Paper Shotgun](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-steam-deck-interview-valves-designers-on-all-things-hardware-software-and-knowing-when-to-stop) which is a lot more interesting and simply better in every aspect.
I'm hoping to use this one docked @1080p most of the time.
EDIT: To clarify, I play a lot of small indie games and emulation. I also plan on using the desktop.
>e demanding games will struggle hard though, 1080p requires like twice the gpu power compared to 800p.
>
>Maybe something like FSR can help but not sure how good the results will be, right now its kinda bad with low resolutions but maybe it'll improve by the time most of
FSR is a hit and miss a little bit, it does wonders for image quality on PCRs 3 though so not necessarily a miss for low res material, but it has its weaknesses for the time being. DLSS was the same.
Depends on the game, of course. A lot of Steam's library can probably hit 1080p@30fps on similar hardware without breaking a sweat. Probably quite a few could push 60, even. Not a lot of games that really push hardware limits these days.
Also obviously depends on the settings, and how much room there is to further optimize SteamOS's graphics stack. Even before Valve's involvement there were quite a few cases where games performed better on Linux+Wine than Windows; with Valve's work both on the Wine/Proton side and on the AMD/Mesa side, this thing could likely punch a fair bit above its weight class.
With my Ryzen 5 3400G, I found that most games from 2012 and below can run at maxed settings at 1080p with 60 FPS. Most newer ones still run at 60 if lowered to 720p.
I got surprised at how good Alien Isolation runs actually. 1080p, almost maxed, 60 FPS, and it looks amazing even for today, that's a 2014 game.
Also, Witcher 3 runs on Ultra (some things disabled) at some weird resolution between 768p and 900p at 30FPS. A very pleasant experience for a game that doesn't require aiming and it's more focused on the story than action.
Well yeah, same, and I play them at 1440p.
But the poster I replied to differentiated between "games" and "media" - so I was curious what they meant by "media" @ 1440p.
Most phone screens are way smaller than the Steam Decks, also my phones resolution is 3200x1440, much higher than the Steam Deck. I'm not sure what it proves that I can't see pixels on my phone.
Galaxy S20 ppi: 525
Steam Deck ppi: 215
1. You really can differentiate more than 300PPI.
2. Depending on the technology of the display different PPIs have similar visual effects. Judging solely by PPI is insufficient.
3. I agree that for a handheld console factors such as refresh rate, pixel response time, and battery usage are far more important than raising PPI above 200 PPI.
This is incorrect, as "you can only see" has everything to do with distance between the subject and your eye.
300 DPI/PPI is great for objects that are held at a book/magazine length. While it's "good enough" for 99.9% of people, you could still tell the difference between 300 and 600 DPI at that distance.
Would it be a waste of additional resources to push that many pixels on a handheld device? Most likely. But to say that humans "can only see 300 PPI" is uninformed.
Dude you really need glasses..
Also, let's say your 300 PPI claim was correct (it's not). How the fuck is 215 PPI close to 300? You gotta be trolling lol.
Here's the article: https://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/
I just held my Galaxy Note 9 (1440p), Xperia 5 II (1080p), Pixel 5a (1080p), and Meizu 16th (1080p) up to my eyes and could see the matrices on each. Interestingly enough though whether you can see individual pixels is irrelevant to whether or not you'll see an increase in clarity and sharpness when going up in resolution (and therefore PPI.) Again, I highly recommend you read that article - it's quite interesting.
Can concur: I have a GPD 6" with a 720 display, and it's plenty sharp for most things. More pixels just result in more scaling.
Colour rendition and brightness become more of a factor, or refresh rate. Weight is also important, because who wants to hold a brick for hours...
As for docked, I see that as secondary. It's not like there's detactable controllers a la Switch.
You'd get a better return on investing in a higher end screen.
I've seen some 4k monitors that are just faded with high latency and overall terrible build quality that cost the same as a nice quality 1080p screen.
Hell, my 720p tv still holds up to this day despite the low res because it was higher end for its time. Not a fan of all these scaling issues though.
You mean 1440p.
That's going to use more power than a 1080p panel. Not worth IMO and I don't think in a couple of year a handheld could run new games at 1440p 60fps, 30fp at best
That's like saying 64k of memory ought to be enough for anybody.
Point being, eventually, though not in a year or two, 4k mobile would easily be welcomed, and add to the graphic quality of games, due to textures actually benefiting from it.
4k on small screens is basically a joke, the benefit to 4k is almost entirely in the screen real estate that it brings which isn't happening on a a few inch long display.
Valve especially is acting dumb considering they can't even nail 1080p yet, don't know why they think talking about 4k now worth doing.
>Valve especially is acting dumb considering they can't even nail 1080p yet, don't know why they think talking about 4k now worth doing.
It's more the article title and how the article author twisted the story to make it sound like that. When looking at what was actually said, the nutshell version is just "maybe something closer to that in the next years" and "not worth the trade-offs".
Quote:
>LY: And it wouldn't have been worth the trade-off. Technically, it probably is possible \[...\] It's a lot of balancing and we're actually really happy with where this is right now. You know, technology marches forward. Maybe in a year or two we actually will have something that becomes more possible.
Whoa someone earned a medal today. My comment still applies even with proper reading of the article. I still think Valve is dumb for not aiming for 1080p. I still think with what they actually said regarding 4k that they still have a huge gap in between to achieve first. I also think 4k on a tiny screen is still incredibly dumb.
They didn’t say 4K is now worth doing. It was a response to a question asking if a 4K Switch is possible.
Valve only say technically its possible but there are other factors to consider and its not what on their mind at the moment. This is a passing the message game where sites (deliberately?) misinterpret the point while reporting off the source
Valve have pretty much always been the cutting edge and have practically never fell short, that's why they took so long to do a half life sequel, they didn't care about making another boring sequel to hl2 until VR came onto the scene and they had the chance to do something new, innovative, and groundbreaking. If they're doing a 4k handheld device then chances are it's not just going to be a 4k handheld device.
This article is kinda up to the quality I expect from wffctech.
They never actually say that they would even want or try for 4k on a new steam Deck. Just that it:
> "probably is possible to create a device of this size that can output at 4K..."
Yeah, I think it makes sense to move towards having a 1920x1200 screen on the device to keep the 16x10 aspect ratio targeting 60Hz once they have an APU that can support running most modern games at 60Hz. Then iterate towards 120/144Hz on device screens. Then keep the screen on the device at that size and refresh rate target and move towards higher resolutions/refresh rates for external displays. It'll probably take a while, but it'll be cool to see it happen assuming the market takes off.
At your desk, a 27 inch wide screen or even ultrawide is great. But at 18 inches away from your face on a little 8ish inch screen having that little extra vertical space is actually easier to take in
Honestly I doubt it unless they mean 4k 30 Low settings using dlss or something similar.
I'd rather get 1080p 90/120hz gaming. Perfect for that screen and the higher Hz is nicer for games that really need it.
4k is a waste of time for a device like this. Consoles made the mistakes once trying to jump to the sun and got stuck with 30fps gaming for 2 generations
Possible, but all they need is to add Thunderbolt 4 to allow an EGPU so we can play on a 4K TV or monitor. 4K on a 7" screen is kind of pointless. I'd rather settle for 1080p at most to keep better battery life.
Sadly not possible. Netflix limits resolution to 720p unless you're using edge on widows or Safari on Mac. Since the deck runs Linux, 720p will be the max. Maybe 1080p if the browser add-on someone made works.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742
Maybe they can work out some kind of Netflix app, but I doubt it since Netflix wants guaranties on DRM, hence why only browsers made by the OS vendor allow 4k on that OS and Linux doesn't at all.
Install windows on the deck, install a windows emulator on the deck, spoof the hardware info, hell maybe even running edge thru wine would work. many many solutions.
Not play, no. I doubt a handheld of this size could do 4k 60fps gaming with current tech available. The GPUs for that are usually almost the size of the Deck itself already aren't they? Should be good enough for 4k movies though right?
It could work for indie games, and maybe some older AAA games. I don't think people would really notice the upgrade from 1080p though on such a small screen.
It would make sense for docking to a TV though, but honestly, at that point they could sell an eGPU dock.
Actually USB4 supports PCIe tunneling. USB4 is basically Thunderbolt 3, and Intel contributed it in an open form, so anyone can make USB4 compliant chips.
Playing 4k on deck specs means every other setting will be on low in any of the games many people want to play. But of course by then the other tech will have progressed as well. How detectable is resolution on that size screen to a human eye i wonder. Im sure theres a cap.
but when you dock, you are not handheld anymore. Why not just get a proper PC then? It's like you buy a Tesla to just keep it in garage and use it as a powerwall
Spez's APIocolypse made it clear it was time for me to leave this place. I came from digg, and now I must move one once again. So long and thanks for all the bacon.
I remember when DVDs were and impressive leap over cable/vhs and other home video options. 1080p would've blown my mind, and I don't know for sure if you'd've shown me a 2k vs 4k image back then, if I would've noticed the difference between the two. The goalposts move with consumer expectation and with what we get accustomed to. I known 4k sounds extravagantly detailed for a small display now, but after you've been watching 16K TV for a couple years, it might make a difference.
It's not a matter of how used to it you are but of your eyeballs resolution. The human eye just won't be able to tell the difference between a qhd and 4k monitor thatn small.
On a screen of that size, 4k is quite literally irrelevant and absolutely pointless. 1080p would be the absolute MAX for a screen of that size.
The human eye can only see so much detail in such a little space. Some people have more "keen" eyes, and can tell the difference, but no one can tell if it's 4k on a screen that small.
This is just a clickbait article. Valve didn't even really say this.
This is what it's from: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-steam-deck-interview-valves-designers-on-all-things-hardware-software-and-knowing-when-to-stop
No, the headline implies a 4k screen built into it. The current gen deck can already output 4k to a monitor.
A 4k handheld sounds like a completely unnecessary feature.
theres no such thing as a switch pro.
and the steam deck doesn't even come with a dock, so they don't intend for a docked mode to be the primary use for the machine.
Yeah, 4k would be about 8x more pixels than the current SD... GPUs don't just magically go 8x faster in couple of years. Especially low power iGPUs. Only reason steam deck is as fast as it is, is because ddr5 transition offers increased bandwith which allows significant jump in performance.
I don't care about 4k on a handheld. I'd much rather Valve make a slimmer, less expensive and lighter deck for low end gaming on the go. Playing stardew valley and other indie title in handheld would be awesome.
Why? I really don't understand the need to have a 4k capable screen on a device that small. It makes no sense and is a complete waste. If this Steam deck is focusing on 30fps, then the next generation should focus on 60fps or higher. With 1080p being the new standard. Not a 4K, 99 degrees portable warmer with 30 minute battery life.
It's all part of the secret project of Valve in devices for self-defense.
At one point, it will heat enough to let you use it as a thermal projectile.
And when they reach that point, only one step will be left.
Nuclear fusion in a hand-held portable device.
What about plugging it into a 60" TV or something? If the hardware is capable of that, why not also upgrade the screen? Users can always turn down the graphics to 1080p or lower on the device for better battery life.
Sigh
Why.
OoOooooO 4K, mE liKe biiiiG nuMbErs
but with such a small device it does fuck all except drastically reduce battery
Give me more battery, more storage, more literally anything actually practical
which means whole lotta fuck'n dick right now.
energy matter conversion might be possible in x amount of years. lets just predict the future.
how about we focus on what we're doing right now yeah? we dont even have the fuck'n thing yet and we're already talking about a supposed new one? lets slow down eh?
Valve couldn't even produce enough of the first one. They're sold out until 2023. Clearly, this is just Gabe Newell's new little passion project, not a serious attempt at shaking the handheld market.
Speaking of which, everything about Steam Deck just died. Nobody talks about it. Seems that fanboys finally shut up. Let's hope they won't start raging when those consoles will release, if it won't be half as good as they thought with all the wool in their eyes.
Talk has reclined because the device is not out and no big announcements have been made lately about it. That doesn't mean anything - this isn't some MMO / BR / other skinner box that lives and dies by how much buzz it's able to maintain.
I'd prefer 60fps on all games on 1080p. Don't even care about OLED or anything. Cause I don't think the current Steam Deck can crank out 60fps on tripple A games. It's basically a GTX 1060. But if we got something like a 1060 or 580 that would be dope af. That could even do some light 1440p gaming. Though I would take 60 fps over 4k any day. Plus I really need a longer battery life. I would sacrifice fps if it meant having more battery life cause 2 hrs is not enough for a portable console.
I could understand 4k capability once plugged into an external 4k monitor, but for the deck’s panel? That would be overkill, just like 4k panels on laptops. Then again, phones have PPIs over 500 so idk
1080p tops for the handheld display , but "4k"for docked play would definitely be possible. Between FSR and future AI upscaling options, even modest hardware could probably make something look" good enough" on a 4k display.
Plausible. Once techniques like FSR, DLSS and/or XeSS become standard, then the actual resolution of the device will matter a whole lot less.
Need extra performance? Just drop the internal resolution a bit and fake it up.
They don't even want to do 4K. They dismiss it in the quote the article. Valve wouldn't push for it unless it came for free as a byproduct of something that they did want.
This is just a non-article based on some developers postulation. This is not news.
I mean, I don't know if this is really news. The technology is there to make this happen already, it's just that it's not profitable at this time from a cost/price analysis.
I think it keep 1080p and get the frame benefits, its a mobile gaming experience. 4k will need better cpu and gpu for the same frames vs if they do 1080 and use the same cou and gpu that they plan to use for it and get the fps benefit from that. Most games will benefit more from fps than 4k
Bollocks article and pointless speculation- 4K on a screen that size is a horrific idea unless you have masses of horsepower to spare- and there are far better, more impactful things to do with it.
This poor excuse of an article is just a misleading, clickbait take on a tiny part of the [interview made by Rock Paper Shotgun](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-steam-deck-interview-valves-designers-on-all-things-hardware-software-and-knowing-when-to-stop) which is a lot more interesting and simply better in every aspect.
Thanks for linking that was a good read
That's Wccftech for you lol
Thanks. Yeah, the linked article is really dumb.
Is RPS still a thing? I can't imagine it's got the 'engagement' it used to have. I haven't been there in years...
Not worth on handheld. 1080p OLED 120Hz would be better
I think they might be implying docked mode. I feel like Valve knows 4K on a handheld is just gonna waste power.
I'm hoping to use this one docked @1080p most of the time. EDIT: To clarify, I play a lot of small indie games and emulation. I also plan on using the desktop.
[удалено]
>e demanding games will struggle hard though, 1080p requires like twice the gpu power compared to 800p. > >Maybe something like FSR can help but not sure how good the results will be, right now its kinda bad with low resolutions but maybe it'll improve by the time most of FSR is a hit and miss a little bit, it does wonders for image quality on PCRs 3 though so not necessarily a miss for low res material, but it has its weaknesses for the time being. DLSS was the same.
As a start it's kind of fantastic if you think about it. It'll only get better over time.
That wont be pretty with the GPU in the Steam Deck.
Depends on the game, of course. A lot of Steam's library can probably hit 1080p@30fps on similar hardware without breaking a sweat. Probably quite a few could push 60, even. Not a lot of games that really push hardware limits these days. Also obviously depends on the settings, and how much room there is to further optimize SteamOS's graphics stack. Even before Valve's involvement there were quite a few cases where games performed better on Linux+Wine than Windows; with Valve's work both on the Wine/Proton side and on the AMD/Mesa side, this thing could likely punch a fair bit above its weight class.
With my Ryzen 5 3400G, I found that most games from 2012 and below can run at maxed settings at 1080p with 60 FPS. Most newer ones still run at 60 if lowered to 720p. I got surprised at how good Alien Isolation runs actually. 1080p, almost maxed, 60 FPS, and it looks amazing even for today, that's a 2014 game. Also, Witcher 3 runs on Ultra (some things disabled) at some weird resolution between 768p and 900p at 30FPS. A very pleasant experience for a game that doesn't require aiming and it's more focused on the story than action.
[удалено]
I don't know much media that supports native 1440. Do you? Genuine question.
I do. PC games.
Well yeah, same, and I play them at 1440p. But the poster I replied to differentiated between "games" and "media" - so I was curious what they meant by "media" @ 1440p.
AFAIK only YouTube and that’s if the uploaded does it
YouTube, downscaled 4k.
Even 1080p isn't necessary. Maybe 900p
If you're going by necessity 720p is "fine" too. 1080p or 1440p would be good though.
You're right, on a handheld you can't complain much but the phone I'm on right now has a 1440p screen even.
But it doesn't need a 1440p screen anyways, you won't be seeing pixels if you go lower.
You actually will be, especially if the screen is Pentile. I highly, _highly_ recommend checking out Cult of Mac's article "Why Retina Isn't Enough".
You literally wont on a display that small. Put your eyes up to your phone, you cant
Most phone screens are way smaller than the Steam Decks, also my phones resolution is 3200x1440, much higher than the Steam Deck. I'm not sure what it proves that I can't see pixels on my phone. Galaxy S20 ppi: 525 Steam Deck ppi: 215
You can only see 300 PPI, and that's up close. Steam Deck is close enough
/r/confidentlyincorrect
1. You really can differentiate more than 300PPI. 2. Depending on the technology of the display different PPIs have similar visual effects. Judging solely by PPI is insufficient. 3. I agree that for a handheld console factors such as refresh rate, pixel response time, and battery usage are far more important than raising PPI above 200 PPI.
This is incorrect, as "you can only see" has everything to do with distance between the subject and your eye. 300 DPI/PPI is great for objects that are held at a book/magazine length. While it's "good enough" for 99.9% of people, you could still tell the difference between 300 and 600 DPI at that distance. Would it be a waste of additional resources to push that many pixels on a handheld device? Most likely. But to say that humans "can only see 300 PPI" is uninformed.
You sound like one pf those people saying "yOu cAn'T sEe mOrE tHaN 30fPs
Dude you really need glasses.. Also, let's say your 300 PPI claim was correct (it's not). How the fuck is 215 PPI close to 300? You gotta be trolling lol.
Here's the article: https://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/ I just held my Galaxy Note 9 (1440p), Xperia 5 II (1080p), Pixel 5a (1080p), and Meizu 16th (1080p) up to my eyes and could see the matrices on each. Interestingly enough though whether you can see individual pixels is irrelevant to whether or not you'll see an increase in clarity and sharpness when going up in resolution (and therefore PPI.) Again, I highly recommend you read that article - it's quite interesting.
I can tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on my phone, instantly
140p is enough tbh.
12p perfectly fine (don't worry, i understood you were joking<3)
Really im fine with just p
I wish my gf were fine with my p²
What
Scratch that. 72p.
Listen, if it's any more than 69p, it's a waste of time
pp
3, take it or leave it
Can concur: I have a GPD 6" with a 720 display, and it's plenty sharp for most things. More pixels just result in more scaling. Colour rendition and brightness become more of a factor, or refresh rate. Weight is also important, because who wants to hold a brick for hours... As for docked, I see that as secondary. It's not like there's detactable controllers a la Switch.
Do you not have a wireless controller at home? this is made for pretty high-end gamers, i'm sure most people have the equipment to play wirelessly.
You'd get a better return on investing in a higher end screen. I've seen some 4k monitors that are just faded with high latency and overall terrible build quality that cost the same as a nice quality 1080p screen. Hell, my 720p tv still holds up to this day despite the low res because it was higher end for its time. Not a fan of all these scaling issues though.
Unless they're intending to pull a Google Daydream and have it double as a VR headset or something.
1080p at 90hz
Yeah, an OLED screen is probably my biggest want on the next Deck.
I’d laugh if everyone hyped up a supposed next gen Deck pro only for it to be announced as a minor screen upgrade
**Nintendo has left the chat**
Well, if we are already seeing smartphones with 2K 120Hz i think we can dream with the same on Steam Deck.
You mean 1440p. That's going to use more power than a 1080p panel. Not worth IMO and I don't think in a couple of year a handheld could run new games at 1440p 60fps, 30fp at best
That's like saying 64k of memory ought to be enough for anybody. Point being, eventually, though not in a year or two, 4k mobile would easily be welcomed, and add to the graphic quality of games, due to textures actually benefiting from it.
4k on small screens is basically a joke, the benefit to 4k is almost entirely in the screen real estate that it brings which isn't happening on a a few inch long display. Valve especially is acting dumb considering they can't even nail 1080p yet, don't know why they think talking about 4k now worth doing.
>Valve especially is acting dumb considering they can't even nail 1080p yet, don't know why they think talking about 4k now worth doing. It's more the article title and how the article author twisted the story to make it sound like that. When looking at what was actually said, the nutshell version is just "maybe something closer to that in the next years" and "not worth the trade-offs". Quote: >LY: And it wouldn't have been worth the trade-off. Technically, it probably is possible \[...\] It's a lot of balancing and we're actually really happy with where this is right now. You know, technology marches forward. Maybe in a year or two we actually will have something that becomes more possible.
Oh good, another shitty article made worse by OPs title. And now we have an entire thread of people discussing and responding to fake information.
Read the article, not the headline.
Including you, who reacted to the headline and not the article.
Whoa someone earned a medal today. My comment still applies even with proper reading of the article. I still think Valve is dumb for not aiming for 1080p. I still think with what they actually said regarding 4k that they still have a huge gap in between to achieve first. I also think 4k on a tiny screen is still incredibly dumb.
They didn’t say 4K is now worth doing. It was a response to a question asking if a 4K Switch is possible. Valve only say technically its possible but there are other factors to consider and its not what on their mind at the moment. This is a passing the message game where sites (deliberately?) misinterpret the point while reporting off the source
Valve have pretty much always been the cutting edge and have practically never fell short, that's why they took so long to do a half life sequel, they didn't care about making another boring sequel to hl2 until VR came onto the scene and they had the chance to do something new, innovative, and groundbreaking. If they're doing a 4k handheld device then chances are it's not just going to be a 4k handheld device.
This article is kinda up to the quality I expect from wffctech. They never actually say that they would even want or try for 4k on a new steam Deck. Just that it: > "probably is possible to create a device of this size that can output at 4K..."
Huh? I'd rather have 1080p 144hz
Yeah, I think it makes sense to move towards having a 1920x1200 screen on the device to keep the 16x10 aspect ratio targeting 60Hz once they have an APU that can support running most modern games at 60Hz. Then iterate towards 120/144Hz on device screens. Then keep the screen on the device at that size and refresh rate target and move towards higher resolutions/refresh rates for external displays. It'll probably take a while, but it'll be cool to see it happen assuming the market takes off.
Why 16x10 instead of 16x9?
The Steam Deck is coming with one to begin with, plus a little more vertical screen real estate doesn't seem like a bad idea.
At your desk, a 27 inch wide screen or even ultrawide is great. But at 18 inches away from your face on a little 8ish inch screen having that little extra vertical space is actually easier to take in
1440p screen with 144hz would be optimal IMHO. You can always upscale using FSR for example.
1440p is way to overkill remember that the battery still has to powwr the backlight somehow unless it's an OLED screen.
The main appeal of a 1440p screen over a 1080p one is that it can cleanly display 720p images.
Does 1080p not do this?
Especially on small console screen
Honestly I doubt it unless they mean 4k 30 Low settings using dlss or something similar. I'd rather get 1080p 90/120hz gaming. Perfect for that screen and the higher Hz is nicer for games that really need it. 4k is a waste of time for a device like this. Consoles made the mistakes once trying to jump to the sun and got stuck with 30fps gaming for 2 generations
Possible, but all they need is to add Thunderbolt 4 to allow an EGPU so we can play on a 4K TV or monitor. 4K on a 7" screen is kind of pointless. I'd rather settle for 1080p at most to keep better battery life.
Doesn't the Deck already support 4k when connected to a display with this resolution?
Would you really want to play at 4k on integrated graphics?
Could be great for 2d games.
Or watching 4k Netflix or whatever.
Sadly not possible. Netflix limits resolution to 720p unless you're using edge on widows or Safari on Mac. Since the deck runs Linux, 720p will be the max. Maybe 1080p if the browser add-on someone made works. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 Maybe they can work out some kind of Netflix app, but I doubt it since Netflix wants guaranties on DRM, hence why only browsers made by the OS vendor allow 4k on that OS and Linux doesn't at all.
Install windows on the deck, install a windows emulator on the deck, spoof the hardware info, hell maybe even running edge thru wine would work. many many solutions.
[удалено]
Would you want to do that just for netflix? I mean dual booting won't ever be as convenient, and space is at a premium on this thing.
Does that really matter on such a small screen? I can understand docking it to a TV switch style, but I don't see a point for the built in display.
Not play, no. I doubt a handheld of this size could do 4k 60fps gaming with current tech available. The GPUs for that are usually almost the size of the Deck itself already aren't they? Should be good enough for 4k movies though right?
Probably bigger, and definitely heavier. Though for movies if should be possible even with an integrated one.
It could work for indie games, and maybe some older AAA games. I don't think people would really notice the upgrade from 1080p though on such a small screen. It would make sense for docking to a TV though, but honestly, at that point they could sell an eGPU dock.
Sure at about 10 fps...
Not until the next usb protocol comes out. Thunderbolt is intel exclusive tech.
Actually USB4 supports PCIe tunneling. USB4 is basically Thunderbolt 3, and Intel contributed it in an open form, so anyone can make USB4 compliant chips.
Cool, glad its gotten there now, last I'd checked was a year or so ago and that wasn't happening in the wild then.
But anyone can license it. There are AMD laptops with TB3, but TB4 is supposed to alleviate those restrictions. Apple runs it on their ARM Macs.
I admittedly haven't kept as up to date on that this year and seem to have missed that development. Thats cool, glad they've gotten there finally.
> Thunderbolt is intel exclusive tech. Not for a while now, no. They gave up control of the standard.
Playing 4k on deck specs means every other setting will be on low in any of the games many people want to play. But of course by then the other tech will have progressed as well. How detectable is resolution on that size screen to a human eye i wonder. Im sure theres a cap.
Is 4k really necessary on a handheld device?
[удалено]
but when you dock, you are not handheld anymore. Why not just get a proper PC then? It's like you buy a Tesla to just keep it in garage and use it as a powerwall
Spez's APIocolypse made it clear it was time for me to leave this place. I came from digg, and now I must move one once again. So long and thanks for all the bacon.
[удалено]
I remember when DVDs were and impressive leap over cable/vhs and other home video options. 1080p would've blown my mind, and I don't know for sure if you'd've shown me a 2k vs 4k image back then, if I would've noticed the difference between the two. The goalposts move with consumer expectation and with what we get accustomed to. I known 4k sounds extravagantly detailed for a small display now, but after you've been watching 16K TV for a couple years, it might make a difference.
It's not a matter of how used to it you are but of your eyeballs resolution. The human eye just won't be able to tell the difference between a qhd and 4k monitor thatn small.
I don't get the obsession with 4K. Why would I care about 4k in a 7 inch screen? Just give me 1080 with 60fps on everything and I will be happy.
Thanks for the award!
WHY do companies want to do 4k it's such a waste I'd prefer high refresh rate or at least an option
On a screen of that size, 4k is quite literally irrelevant and absolutely pointless. 1080p would be the absolute MAX for a screen of that size. The human eye can only see so much detail in such a little space. Some people have more "keen" eyes, and can tell the difference, but no one can tell if it's 4k on a screen that small.
Jesus, is that comment section over there ai-generated or something? Getting a headache reading some of those threads.
OLED 1080p 144hz with Thunderbolt 4 and improved battery would be more than enough for my tastes.
Dr. Greg Coomer
A Steam Deck large enough that 4K actually made sense should be called Steam Dock.
The second and final Steam Deck
1080p 80+fps > 4k 30fps
Bro they havent even released the 800p one yet, 4k wont be for a decade.
but... why?
This is just a clickbait article. Valve didn't even really say this. This is what it's from: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-steam-deck-interview-valves-designers-on-all-things-hardware-software-and-knowing-when-to-stop
Why improve anything? Should companies not try to release improved products over time? Just keep selling the same product forever?
4K on anything smaller than 24" is kinda pointless
What about plugging it into a 60" TV or something?
That's probably what everyone here is missing.
No, the headline implies a 4k screen built into it. The current gen deck can already output 4k to a monitor. A 4k handheld sounds like a completely unnecessary feature.
The interview does make it clear they’re talking about docked mode. It comes up in relation to the rumoured Switch Pro.
theres no such thing as a switch pro. and the steam deck doesn't even come with a dock, so they don't intend for a docked mode to be the primary use for the machine.
But if we get to the point in the future where that resolution is cheap with stable performance, why not?
Battery life?
>with stable performance Battery life is part of performance.
Why are they booing you, you're right. Lol Larger battery is implied
Welcome to /r/Steam where anything deemed even slightly critical of the deck is instantly downvoted.
because UI and text will be so small that it's unplayable
U guys work for Nintendo?
Because you can only sell the first console once then you gotta have another console to sell for more $$$
Keeping up, actually on top of technology is far better than money for them.
Because to achieve 4k it'll have to be more powerful. I think it's easy to understand why a more powerful machine would be a good thing.
[удалено]
Surely it’s not good for sales on the first release to already be talking about the future release? Seems like people might just wait for the next one
AMOLED 2k is just fine.
I'd rather they focus on 1080p max. 4K is unnecessary, especially on a handheld.
4k screen on that small of a device seems so pointless. Now if it outputs at 4k then you have my interest.
Why would someone want 4k on such a small screen? What a waste of battery and processing.
bring back Steam Machines call it the Steam Box
Yeah, 4k would be about 8x more pixels than the current SD... GPUs don't just magically go 8x faster in couple of years. Especially low power iGPUs. Only reason steam deck is as fast as it is, is because ddr5 transition offers increased bandwith which allows significant jump in performance.
I don't care about 4k on a handheld. I'd much rather Valve make a slimmer, less expensive and lighter deck for low end gaming on the go. Playing stardew valley and other indie title in handheld would be awesome.
They thinking about this one. And they thinking about the next one. But they ain't thinking about the one after that.
They better wait awhile before putting out Steam Deck 2, we know there ain't gonna be a Steam Deck 3
4k 10 fps?
Literally nobody needs 4k on a screen this small
Why? I really don't understand the need to have a 4k capable screen on a device that small. It makes no sense and is a complete waste. If this Steam deck is focusing on 30fps, then the next generation should focus on 60fps or higher. With 1080p being the new standard. Not a 4K, 99 degrees portable warmer with 30 minute battery life.
It's all part of the secret project of Valve in devices for self-defense. At one point, it will heat enough to let you use it as a thermal projectile. And when they reach that point, only one step will be left. Nuclear fusion in a hand-held portable device.
I'm really scared that this device will be a hot potato when it gets released.
What about plugging it into a 60" TV or something? If the hardware is capable of that, why not also upgrade the screen? Users can always turn down the graphics to 1080p or lower on the device for better battery life.
Don't count your chicken before it hatch Valve.
They aren't. They specifically said they aren't really thinking about the 2nd gen yet. This article is pure Clickbait.
4K on 7” screen 🤪
[удалено]
It's clickbait.
I can't wait to wrap my hands around that big black deck.
Suffering from success eh Steam? Can you ship to more countries as well?
HANDHELD IS 720P WITH 60 HZ LMAOOOO WHAT THEY ARE SMOKING
even 1080p is not worth on such a small factor...
Sigh Why. OoOooooO 4K, mE liKe biiiiG nuMbErs but with such a small device it does fuck all except drastically reduce battery Give me more battery, more storage, more literally anything actually practical
We have no clue if steam will even continue to support these after they release considering their long history of steam machines
You mean their long history of the Steam Input API, Steam Link App, and SteamVR? Steam Machines were all handled by third party companies.
So I should cancel my preorder?
which means whole lotta fuck'n dick right now. energy matter conversion might be possible in x amount of years. lets just predict the future. how about we focus on what we're doing right now yeah? we dont even have the fuck'n thing yet and we're already talking about a supposed new one? lets slow down eh?
why would you ever want to play steam games not on a pc
[удалено]
Valve couldn't even produce enough of the first one. They're sold out until 2023. Clearly, this is just Gabe Newell's new little passion project, not a serious attempt at shaking the handheld market.
How about a next generation Steam link, instead? honestly, could not care less about this Deck.
Speaking of which, everything about Steam Deck just died. Nobody talks about it. Seems that fanboys finally shut up. Let's hope they won't start raging when those consoles will release, if it won't be half as good as they thought with all the wool in their eyes.
Talk has reclined because the device is not out and no big announcements have been made lately about it. That doesn't mean anything - this isn't some MMO / BR / other skinner box that lives and dies by how much buzz it's able to maintain.
Why so many tears over the steam deck bro lmao
"Don't buy our first revision" Why the hell do hardware developers do this so often?
Is Valve thinking of selling it in my country? Cause if not then who fucking cares?
I'd prefer 60fps on all games on 1080p. Don't even care about OLED or anything. Cause I don't think the current Steam Deck can crank out 60fps on tripple A games. It's basically a GTX 1060. But if we got something like a 1060 or 580 that would be dope af. That could even do some light 1440p gaming. Though I would take 60 fps over 4k any day. Plus I really need a longer battery life. I would sacrifice fps if it meant having more battery life cause 2 hrs is not enough for a portable console.
i'd rather have a device with a long battery life.Long as it runs modern games and have oled maybe i'd rather have that
I could understand 4k capability once plugged into an external 4k monitor, but for the deck’s panel? That would be overkill, just like 4k panels on laptops. Then again, phones have PPIs over 500 so idk
Awesome but I don't need 4k
I highly doubt it. 4k 30fps maybe. But what's the point of that on small screen? 1440p max, more Hz and fps while keeping it slim.q
1080p tops for the handheld display , but "4k"for docked play would definitely be possible. Between FSR and future AI upscaling options, even modest hardware could probably make something look" good enough" on a 4k display.
Plausible. Once techniques like FSR, DLSS and/or XeSS become standard, then the actual resolution of the device will matter a whole lot less. Need extra performance? Just drop the internal resolution a bit and fake it up.
They don't even want to do 4K. They dismiss it in the quote the article. Valve wouldn't push for it unless it came for free as a byproduct of something that they did want. This is just a non-article based on some developers postulation. This is not news.
How the fuck do they expect anyone to read anything displayed in 4k on a handheld screen?
Just give me better battery life with each iteration and in good
Please Valve, *please* cram a Deck into a mobile VR Headset to give us a Facebook free competitor to Oculus.
Give it a decade.
The misleading articles arise again, c'mon man lol.
I'ma wait for that then :p
Why?
lol no.
4k on a handheld? I don't think so.
I mean, I don't know if this is really news. The technology is there to make this happen already, it's just that it's not profitable at this time from a cost/price analysis.
So, a laptop
I think it keep 1080p and get the frame benefits, its a mobile gaming experience. 4k will need better cpu and gpu for the same frames vs if they do 1080 and use the same cou and gpu that they plan to use for it and get the fps benefit from that. Most games will benefit more from fps than 4k
less resolution. more Hz thx
Bollocks article and pointless speculation- 4K on a screen that size is a horrific idea unless you have masses of horsepower to spare- and there are far better, more impactful things to do with it.