Looks like buying the 64GB version is the better value

[WolfEisberg]

https://youtu.be/4AIY5wH77Po

IN that video they did game load time tests, and they found that eMMC and SD card load times for games were 2 seconds faster than the SSDs. While 2 seconds is practically nothing, what it really shows is spending more for SSD storage provides no real benefits, since you can buy 256 GB SD Card for ~$25, making it about $100 cheaper than the 256GB model, or buy a 512GB card for ~$60, making it about $190 cheaper than the 512GB model (no way the different colored case and etch glass is worth $190)

[ᑕYᗷEᖇᑕᗩT]

That depends on how much money you have and what you want is worth. I got the 512 model be it really ain't all that much money to me plus when the upgraded 2.0 models come out i'll gift the old one to my GF's kid who loves his steam gaming, so that extra storage without any hassle will do great for him.

[voniac79]

All the choices are the best value . At that cost (for us) everything is win-win-win-etc. Either you are casual, don't have a library that measures in lots of Tb getting the 64 Gb is great. For me e.g 6 games that I really enjoy add more than 450gb. That's the part for the storage which is the main difference between them. The rest adds are more prestige and to tell you the truth the more I give it a thought, the more I see that it's what a person can afford. I've already written in other discussion some months back that "If not of all, at least the 64Gb is sold at a loss". That said, everything is a bargain.
And don't forget the extras for each version counting the differences in money....

[Shibitari]

I don't like the shiny lcds. I'll pay the extra. They still sell it at a loss. Don't need to take a dump over it. xD

[ugafan]

The results are very surprising, especially considering the fact that Valve is advertising the higher priced Steam Decks as having faster storage.

[Prezidentas]

Originally posted by ugafan:

The results are very surprising, especially considering the fact that Valve is advertising the higher priced Steam Decks as having faster storage.

the storage is faster, now it's up to the software to use that extra speed

[Prezidentas]

Originally posted by Inn Keeper Einar:

https://youtu.be/4AIY5wH77Po

IN that video they did game load time tests, and they found that eMMC and SD card load times for games were 2 seconds faster than the SSDs. While 2 seconds is practically nothing, what it really shows is spending more for SSD storage provides no real benefits, since you can buy 256 GB SD Card for ~$25, making it about $100 cheaper than the 256GB model, or buy a 512GB card for ~$60, making it about $190 cheaper than the 512GB model (no way the different colored case and etch glass is worth $190)

I wonder how much game is actually loaded when the game is going to the menu. seems like the real test would be loading into a level, when all textures and models are actually loaded.

[IceGoalie31]

Originally posted by Inn Keeper Einar:

https://youtu.be/4AIY5wH77Po

IN that video they did game load time tests, and they found that eMMC and SD card load times for games were 2 seconds faster than the SSDs. While 2 seconds is practically nothing, what it really shows is spending more for SSD storage provides no real benefits, since you can buy 256 GB SD Card for ~$25, making it about $100 cheaper than the 256GB model, or buy a 512GB card for ~$60, making it about $190 cheaper than the 512GB model (no way the different colored case and etch glass is worth $190)

Well for some people it's to late too change without going back behind 3 years worth of people in the queue lol

[V𝐢𝐧𝐢gas Ba𝗸𝗸 🫎]

After using 512GiB's model myself:

64GiB's model is definitely better value if you planning to replace internal (compatible) SSD of your choice and planning to put 9H hardened glass screen protector (which renders 512GiB model's treated screen useless, because screen protector annihilates that). But in case of warranty you will need to swap it back, which adds extra hussle.

Plus queue is shorter for 64GiB's model, which is nice.

It would be cool if SteamDeck would utilize SSD as write-buffer for SD card, so games would be able to download faster on high speed internet. I may look into that myself, what can be done through terminal.

PS. Also don't cheap out on SD card, if you are planning to put it in.

[IceGoalie31]

Originally posted by LTUV𝐢𝐧𝐢gas Ba𝗸𝗸:

After using 512GiB's model myself:

64GiB's model is definitely better value if you planning to replace internal (compatible) SSD of your choice and planning to put 9H hardened glass screen protector (which renders 512GiB model's treated screen useless, because screen protector annihilates that). But in case of warranty you will need to swap it back, which adds extra hussle.

Plus queue is shorter for 64GiB's model, which is nice.

It would be cool if SteamDeck would utilize SSD as write-buffer for SD card, so games would be able to download faster on high speed internet. I may look into that myself, what can be done through terminal.

PS. Also don't cheap out on SD card, if you are planning to put it in.

At least you get the community avatar thing with 256 and 512...

[Prezidentas]

Originally posted by LTUV𝐢𝐧𝐢gas Ba𝗸𝗸:

After using 512GiB's model myself:

64GiB's model is definitely better value if you planning to replace internal (compatible) SSD of your choice and planning to put 9H hardened glass screen protector (which renders 512GiB model's treated screen useless, because screen protector annihilates that). But in case of warranty you will need to swap it back, which adds extra hussle.

Plus queue is shorter for 64GiB's model, which is nice.

It would be cool if SteamDeck would utilize SSD as write-buffer for SD card, so games would be able to download faster on high speed internet. I may look into that myself, what can be done through terminal.

PS. Also don't cheap out on SD card, if you are planning to put it in.

Better to use the 16 gigabytes of ram for cache instead of wasting write cycles of the SSD

[@R+5]

also you should know that the two most expensive versions of the deck have a different screen, of higher quality. that may be relevant if you are planning to play "outside", or in places with a lot of light (the screen in the "basic" version of the deck is more reflective, and the other versions are more "glossy", ie less reflective).

[Prezidentas]

Originally posted by @R+5:

also you should know that the two most expensive versions of the deck have a different screen, of higher quality. that may be relevant if you are planning to play "outside", or in places with a lot of light (the screen in the "basic" version of the deck is more reflective, and the other versions are more "glossy", ie less reflective).

in what way "more glossy" means "less reflective"? Also only the 512GB has the better display.

[SockDog]

Mmmm I'm calling some flawed testing there on the basis Valve and other have shown the reverse results. That said, it's cool that we're bickering on seconds for either so it's great news on those who had to go for a 64gb model.

[Maniac Mike]

Happy with my 64GB. Would not have been worth $650.

[SockDog]

Originally posted by Inn Keeper Einar:

Originally posted by SockDog:

Mmmm I'm calling some flawed testing there on the basis Valve and other have shown the reverse results. That said, it's cool that we're bickering on seconds for either so it's great news on those who had to go for a 64gb model.

Can you provide a link that shows reverse results?

Phawx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxKd0nr6uYw&t=2214s

Again, we're talking seconds in many cases. Which is exactly what Valve showcased prior to the Deck launch. My point is, that in such a small window, other factors may lead to the SD outperforming the SSD in some situations. The video you posted even notes that first loads are considerably slower on SD, so maybe there is some caching occurring.

I'm not saying anyone is lying. Just that there is counter evidence and it should be considered that where we're making a claim that the on paper stats for SD vs SSD are being reversed, it may be due to a flaw in the testing rather than an actual hardware flaw.

In any case it's great that everyone gets a good experience regardless of the unit they chose and that should be the most important factor.