| ▲ | Ekaros 14 hours ago |
| >RAM 16GB DDR5 + 8GB GDDR6 VRAM Hmm. Not that it is big deal, but I would be somewhat worried about true longevity with the VRAM. Not sure if SteamOS helps there, but on PC some new titles are going over the 8GB VRAM. |
|
| ▲ | keyringlight 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| One of the things I've noted for a while is that PC gaming as a platform seems to be polarizing between high and low spec, especially if you look outside of North America/Western Europe to places like South America or SE Asia. The steam deck and now this seem to be a reference/target platform for the low spec group. It might not be able to play the prestigious high spec titles well if at all, but so long as "your mileage may vary" is messaged well I can't see it being a problem, it hasn't so far. |
| |
| ▲ | SchemaLoad 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's a certain category of person who spends thousands of dollars seemingly just to see bigger numbers in benchmarks and to flex their consumerism on people. I've seen quite a lot of commenting about how certain games are "unplayable" on the steam deck, games which I have been playing just fine. I just turn the settings down to low and enjoy the game. |
|
|
| ▲ | AnotherGoodName 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's a very low end Radeon 7000 series. It's absolutely incapable of the highest texture quality and rendering resolutions that need more than 8GB of VRAM. You'll likely never go above 1080p on this card (1440p is going to be rough based on benchmarks of the existing low end 7000 series). There's absolutely no reasonable way to use more than 8GB of VRAM on this card. |
| |
| ▲ | hs86 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Even modern low-end GPUs should have more than enough fill rate for high-res textures. The texture quality setting in games is usually not affecting performance at all until VRAM runs out. | | |
| ▲ | AnotherGoodName 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Part of that is that the texture detail scales to the point where on a low end card at low resolutions you aren’t seeing any difference between high and low detail textures. |
| |
| ▲ | ThatPlayer 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No DisplayPort 2.0 is interesting because RDNA3 should support that. More importantly, FSR4 (currently) doesn't support RDNA3, so you'll be limited on upscaling too. |
|
|
| ▲ | aboringusername 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Games publishers/developers are going to have to wind in their necks a little. Whilst memory is abundant it's also still quite expensive. We should still be aiming for efficiency and the chances are 16gb+ are in the minority here. Fact is, the more VRAM and compute you demand the smaller your customer-base becomes. I've played many games with 8GB VRAM* and will do so for the forseeable. If that's not enough, I am not a customer. Simple as. The truth is, there is going to be a massive motivation with the likes of Steam Deck/Machine to actually make titles that are optimised and perform well within their hardware parameters. It's money you won't want to ignore. *One example was Silent Hill remake on PC, which used the unreal engine. It was optimised beautifully and ran without visual glitches and stutters even with the highest graphic demands on a 8GB RTX |
| |
| ▲ | esskay 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think it does also help that a big chunk of Steams userbase are playing smaller indie titles that don't need obscene amounts of vram. The steam deck audience for example has a lot of people playing both a mix of AAA and smaller games. Given this is advertised as 6x as powerful as the deck I'm sure they'll be fine. It's not meant to be a top of the line console thats for sure, and if it was people would be moaning that its too expensive. | | |
| ▲ | lawlessone 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not using the highest settings obviously but i can run RD2 and CP2077 on the deck fine. It will be a while before there is ps6 or new xbox. | | |
| ▲ | esskay 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | oh 100% I've completed CP, RD2, Fallout 4, and god knows how many other games, it handles it all like a champ. Valves clearly following their own hardware survey results on their hardware plans as the modest specs are better than what most people active on steam are using right now so I think it'll be fine |
|
| |
| ▲ | SchemaLoad 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Memory is also not that abundant anymore. Over the last month PC memory costs have more than doubled due to AI datacenter builds buying out all the manufacturing capacity. |
|
|
| ▲ | msabalau 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You always have the option of streaming a game, though. 8 GB is good enough for most everything, and can you stream on an exception basis, if something truly demanding catches your eye. |
| |
| ▲ | energy123 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | It should be good enough for any game with a toggle on textures quality, which is pretty much every big title for the foreseeable future? |
|
|
| ▲ | Mr_Bees69 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| it meets or exceeds the ps5 and xbox series x, so it might not be top tier, but it'll be fine. I have a plenty good time on my series x, cant think of any stutters. |
| |
|
| ▲ | hs86 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not sure how heavy SteamOS is, but wouldn't modern games actually prefer a flipped memory configuration? So, 8 GB RAM and 16 GB VRAM would make this a more 'balanced' gaming appliance. But it is advertised as a general purpose PC, so 8 GB RAM wouldn't be enough. |
| |
| ▲ | esskay 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The RAM's upgradable, it's standard DDR5 on a SODIMM module | |
| ▲ | Yokolos 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 8GB just isn't enough for modern AAA games. Battlefield 6, probably the most highly optimized AAA game to have come out in the past few years, still has a 16GB RAM minimum and Arc Raiders, which is also incredibly optimized, still has a 12GB minimum. Games are only going to become more resource hungry from here, so 8GB in early 2026 would be a terrible idea. | | |
| ▲ | cheema33 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > most highly optimized AAA game to have come out in the past few years, still has a 16GB RAM minimum. Are you talking about VRAM or system RAM? Steam machine has 16GB of system RAM and is expandable. VRAM is limited to 8GB. | | |
| ▲ | Yokolos 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm talking about RAM. Otherwise I would've written VRAM. I was replying to a comment saying it would be better if the Steam Machine had 8GB of RAM and 16GB of VRAM. |
| |
| ▲ | 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | wiredpancake 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Battlefield 6 being "highly optimized" is a joke. Runs pretty poorly on a RTX 4080 with 5800X3D @ 1440p. It also legitimately looks worse than the Battlefields that predate it, even up to Battlefield 1, which is over a decade old now. A better example is Arc Raiders. | | |
| ▲ | Yokolos a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, no. You're wrong. It's extremely optimized. I get 60-100 FPS on a 3060. It's ridiculously optimized. If you're having issues, it's particular to your system for some reason. |
| |
| ▲ | vel0city 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://www.ea.com/en/games/battlefield/battlefield-6/system... Minimum PC System Requirements
OS: Windows 10 (Proton, maybe, probably anti-cheat issues)
Processor(AMD): AMD Ryzen 5 2600 (Yep √ )
. . .
Memory: 16GB (Yep, 16GB of system RAM √ )
Graphics Card(AMD): AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT 6GB (8 GB of RAM √ )
I do agree 8GB of VRAM is a little low for a device to release in 2026 though. But it technically does meet all memory requirements for Battlefield 6. | | |
| ▲ | Yokolos 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was replying to a comment saying it would be better if the Steam Machine had 8GB of RAM and 16GB of VRAM. My point being that 8GB of RAM, not VRAM, would not be sufficient. |
|
|
|
