Compare to system requirements

[Zudz]

I'll answer my own question: You cannot. There is no meaningful way to look at upcoming titles and know if the Deck will run them reasonably. Buy literally anything else.

[Minneyar]

It's hard to actually make a direct comparison because the APU architecture is fundamentally different from the traditional CPU / GPU split you see in typical desktop systems. If there's a specific game you're curious about, you can usually go to protondb.com and see what other users' experiences with the game are like.

In general, the Steam Deck's graphical performance is similar to a GeForce GTX 1050, and you should expect at least that level of performance from it, but having a shared cache with the CPU and better memory bandwidth means that it can perform significantly better in certain situations.

[Canadian Gamer]

It's about a 1060 at 720p. CPU is about a PS4 level.

[Prezidentas]

my r9 380 was more powerful than the deck. so definitely not 1060 levels of performance lol

[Zudz]

Originally posted by Minneyar:

If there's a specific game you're curious about, you can usually go to protondb.com and see what other users' experiences with the game are like.

The problem with this is that I'm trying to be predictive. I can see the system requirements for (e.g.) Redfall, but obviously there's no user testimony yet.

I'm trying to look forward at the year before I commit to the Deck. No sense in buying in (at least as a primary device) if it's not going to run what I'm anticipating, y'dig?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Minneyar:

In general, the Steam Deck's graphical performance is similar to a GeForce GTX 1050, and you should expect at least that level of performance from it, but having a shared cache with the CPU and better memory bandwidth means that it can perform significantly better in certain situations.

Originally posted by Škoda 14Tr:

my r9 380 was more powerful than the deck. so definitely not 1060 levels of performance lol

Yo isn't Steam Deck a midrange PC? And since there is no direct PC counterpart you can't just compare it to PC parts like that.

[Mahjik]

Originally posted by Zudz:

I don't have a Steam Deck, but I'm considering picking one up. I'm trying to compare it to upcoming titles that I'm interested in playing, but the tech specs for the deck are... not that helpful. I don't really know what "GPU: 8 RDNA 2 CUs, 1.0-1.6GHz (up to 1.6 TFlops FP32)" means in comparison to "Graphics: AMD RX 580 / NV GTX 1070 / 6 GB VRAM".

Is there a tool somewhere that will help me make a meaningful evaluation? Or at least a rule of thumb I can keep in mind?

It's not an apples to apples comparison. The "recommended specifications" assume a base of 1080p and 60 fps. The Steam Deck isn't designed for 1080p so those game specifications won't really matter.

Valve introduced the "Verified" system for the Steam Deck to give indicators on what does or doesn't work well on the Deck. For the most part, any decently programmed title will run just fine at 720/800p on the Deck. If you expect to put on a dock, attach a 1080p/4K monitor and run the same games at the monitor/TV's native resolution, YMMV.

[Mahjik]

Originally posted by Zudz:

Originally posted by Minneyar:

If there's a specific game you're curious about, you can usually go to protondb.com and see what other users' experiences with the game are like.

The problem with this is that I'm trying to be predictive. I can see the system requirements for (e.g.) Redfall, but obviously there's no user testimony yet.

I'm trying to look forward at the year before I commit to the Deck. No sense in buying in (at least as a primary device) if it's not going to run what I'm anticipating, y'dig?

How do you expect to play Redfall? Are you expecting to play it in handheld mode?

[Prezidentas]

Originally posted by Ralf:

Originally posted by Minneyar:

In general, the Steam Deck's graphical performance is similar to a GeForce GTX 1050, and you should expect at least that level of performance from it, but having a shared cache with the CPU and better memory bandwidth means that it can perform significantly better in certain situations.

Originally posted by Škoda 14Tr:

my r9 380 was more powerful than the deck. so definitely not 1060 levels of performance lol

Yo isn't Steam Deck a midrange PC? And since there is no direct PC counterpart you can't just compare it to PC parts like that.

Steam Deck is a very low tear PC. And why couldn't I compare? The end result is FPS. If I get more FPS with R9 380, then it's better (assuming I have enough braincells to isolate GPU shortcomings from CPU).

[Minneyar]

Originally posted by Škoda 14Tr:

Steam Deck is a very low tear PC. And why couldn't I compare? The end result is FPS. If I get more FPS with R9 380, then it's better (assuming I have enough braincells to isolate GPU shortcomings from CPU).

Because it's not a linear comparison. Even suggesting that you could "isolate GPU shortcomings from CPU" is wrong because the Deck does not have a separate CPU and GPU. The fundamentally different architecture means you can't say "If a game gets 60 FPS on a PC with a GeForce 1060 then it'll get 50 FPS on a Deck."

Some games will perform better and some will perform worse; it depends on what types of operations they rely on and where they're bottlenecked. It can also depend on whether the developers have tested their game on the Deck and optimized for it at all. A good example of this that I just recently played is Atelier Ryza 2, which, out of the box, struggles to get 30 FPS on low settings on the Deck; but a minor hack that makes no difference on a Windows desktop computer improves the performance by almost 50% on the Deck, to the point where it can run at 45 FPS on medium/high settings.

As Mahjik said, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

[Prezidentas]

Originally posted by Minneyar:

Originally posted by Škoda 14Tr:

Steam Deck is a very low tear PC. And why couldn't I compare? The end result is FPS. If I get more FPS with R9 380, then it's better (assuming I have enough braincells to isolate GPU shortcomings from CPU).

Because it's not a linear comparison. Even suggesting that you could "isolate GPU shortcomings from CPU" is wrong because the Deck does not have a separate CPU and GPU. The fundamentally different architecture means you can't say "If a game gets 60 FPS on a PC with a GeForce 1060 then it'll get 50 FPS on a Deck."

Some games will perform better and some will perform worse; it depends on what types of operations they rely on and where they're bottlenecked. It can also depend on whether the developers have tested their game on the Deck and optimized for it at all. A good example of this that I just recently played is Atelier Ryza 2, which, out of the box, struggles to get 30 FPS on low settings on the Deck; but a minor hack that makes no difference on a Windows desktop computer improves the performance by almost 50% on the Deck, to the point where it can run at 45 FPS on medium/high settings.

As Mahjik said, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

well in that case you couldn't even compare two different desktop GPUs since the internals are a lot different from one generation to another. Also, optimizations? It's just a Linux computer, so comparing two different systems running Linux is definitely fine.

[CJM]

Originally posted by Zudz:

the tech specs for the deck are... not that helpful. I don't really know what "GPU: 8 RDNA 2 CUs, 1.0-1.6GHz (up to 1.6 TFlops FP32)" means in comparison to "Graphics: AMD RX 580 / NV GTX 1070 / 6 GB VRAM".

It is an 8 4 core 2.4 GHz processor (up to 3.5GHz), which should be enough to handle properly threaded games up to 2022. As games push the multi-core baseline, the Deck is going to struggle more.

The 1.6 GHz processor should be enough for old single core games, though there are some titles that might suffer if they are too demanding on single threaded performance.

The RDNA 2 graphics is a weaker chip, and generally sits on the low end of graphics. I've so far found it roughly on par with a GTX 970 4GB at 720p on a Core i7 3770 Quad Core with a PCI-Express 2.0 bus. The i7's nearly double clock speeds probably compensate for the halved core count.

I generally look for RTX 950 in the system requirements for a game I want to run on the Steam Deck.

As it is a 720p screen, and a small one at that, texture detail is less of a concern. I can run a number of games since 2014 on Medium Textures.

[Zudz]

Originally posted by Mahjik:

It's not an apples to apples comparison. The "recommended specifications" assume a base of 1080p and 60 fps. The Steam Deck isn't designed for 1080p so those game specifications won't really matter.

I mean... not to put too fine a point on it, but that's why I asked if there was something that could help me make a meaningful comparison. I already understand that there are assumptions that don't fully map to the Deck. That's not even subtext. It's the whole point of the OP.

Originally posted by Mahjik:

Valve introduced the "Verified" system for the Steam Deck to give indicators on what does or doesn't work well on the Deck.

That's great, but irrelevant. I want to be able to make reasonable predictions about the future.

I already understand the problem. If there's not a solution, I'll just buy something that can provide more than a well meaning shrug when I have questions. Hence my question:

Is there a tool somewhere that will help me make a meaningful evaluation? Or at least a rule of thumb I can keep in mind?

[Prezidentas]

Originally posted by CJM:

Originally posted by Zudz:

the tech specs for the deck are... not that helpful. I don't really know what "GPU: 8 RDNA 2 CUs, 1.0-1.6GHz (up to 1.6 TFlops FP32)" means in comparison to "Graphics: AMD RX 580 / NV GTX 1070 / 6 GB VRAM".

It is an 8 core processor, which should be enough to handle properly threaded games up to 2022. As games push the multi-core baseline, the Deck is going to struggle more.

The 1.6 GHz processor should be enough for old single core games, though there are some titles that might suffer if they are too demanding on single threaded performance.

The RDNA 2 graphics is a weaker chip, and generally sits on the low end of graphics. I've so far found it roughly on par with a GTX 970 4GB at 720p on a Core i7 3770 Quad Core with a PCI-Express 2.0 bus. The i7's nearly double clock speeds probably compensate for the halved core count.

I generally look for RTX 950 in the system requirements for a game I want to run on the Steam Deck.

As it is a 720p screen, and a small one at that, texture detail is less of a concern. I can run a number of games since 2014 on Medium Textures.

The CPU on the deck is a quad core. Also, if R9 380 outperforms the deck, how could a 970 be "on par"?

[CJM]

Originally posted by Škoda 14Tr:

The CPU on the deck is a quad core. Also, if R9 380 outperforms the deck, how could a 970 be "on par"?

Maybe the RDNA 2 gives it an edge over GTX 970's architecture? I've actually seen better frame rates on the Deck. Edit: The Steam Deck does have a faster clock for its GPU.

I think I need glasses, having trouble reading a spec sheet on Windows Central that was the first in a Google results search...

Originally posted by Zudz:

Or at least a rule of thumb I can keep in mind?

GTX 950 4GB
2.4 GHz Quad Core.

Redfall lists the Intel Core i5 8400 and Ryzen 5 1600 as minimum. These are 6-Core 3 GHz processors.

OS Windows 10 64-bit
CPU Intel Core i5 8400 / AMD Ryzen 5 1600
RAM 16GB
GPU Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 8GB / AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB
Storage 100GB

[Mahjik]

Originally posted by Zudz:

Originally posted by Mahjik:

It's not an apples to apples comparison. The "recommended specifications" assume a base of 1080p and 60 fps. The Steam Deck isn't designed for 1080p so those game specifications won't really matter.

I mean... not to put too fine a point on it, but that's why I asked if there was something that could help me make a meaningful comparison. I already understand that there are assumptions that don't fully map to the Deck. That's not even subtext. It's the whole point of the OP.

So, you already know the answer, then why ask? You are basically asking if an apple is like an orange. They may both be label fruits, but that's about it.

The bigger question is if the Deck can support "how" you want to game. If by that you mean in handheld mode running 720p/800p, the answer is yes. You can use Doom Eternal as a decent benchmark for Redfall. However, if you are expecting to game outside of that function (i.e. outside of handheld mode), likely your money will be best spent elsewhere.