Did the Lenovo Legion go just kill the steam deck?

[[?]legit]

Yeah, this thing is a beast. 97% DCI-P3 color gamut, 144hz and a whopping QHD + resolution... :O Detachable sides, a huge screen and more importantly: Magnetic Hall sticks.

It's also worth to note that it isn't locked down behind a restrictive OS (such as bottleneckOS a.k.a. steamOS).

Thank you Valve for opening the desktop handheld market, and thank you Lenovo for developing a far better product.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Yeah, that is an absolute lie lol. I have a 144hz monitor that I sometimes mirror to my TV which is only 60hz so I have to cap the fps at 60 for games sometimes.

It doesn't look any smoother on my monitor than the TV because they are running at the same framerate.

The screen tearing happens faster and the "offset" in the teared frames is slightly lower, hence why it looks smoother, when you're not playing with something like vsync.

If you're playing fast paced games like cs go or cod the difference is rather huge.

I never said anything about screen tearing. The reason for that is because it doesn't happen and wasn't what I was talking about.

[[?]legit]

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

The screen tearing happens faster and the "offset" in the teared frames is slightly lower, hence why it looks smoother, when you're not playing with something like vsync.

If you're playing fast paced games like cs go or cod the difference is rather huge.

I never said anything about screen tearing. The reason for that is because it doesn't happen and wasn't what I was talking about.

That doesn't change anything about the fact that your post above is false.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

I never said anything about screen tearing. The reason for that is because it doesn't happen and wasn't what I was talking about.

That doesn't change anything about the fact that your post above is false.

It isn't.

Even at a higher refresh rate, capping the FPS to 60 won't make the game look any smoother than it would if the refresh rate was 60. Literally have to do it all the time as explained in the above post you didn't read.

[Drak3]

Publicado originalmente por fender178:

But I bet those devices that existed back then had terrible hardware and weren't as capable as the ones they are making now. Especially those early GDPwin devices had Intel Atom CPUs in them NOT very good for gaming.

Prior to the Steam Deck, for the most part, yes. The hardware was trash, but that was before AMD and Intel started producing parts that got good performance at low TDPs,

However, the 6800u released 2 months after the Deck, and it didn't take long after that for 6800u handhelds to launch.

[[?]legit]

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

That doesn't change anything about the fact that your post above is false.

It isn't.

Even at a higher refresh rate, capping the FPS to 60 won't make the game look any smoother than it would if the refresh rate was 60. Literally have to do it all the time as explained in the above post you didn't read.

Yes it is. 60fps @ 144hz does make a difference compared to 60hz. You not noticing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Screen tearing is inherently part of the subject, when talking about monitor refresh rates and fps games, lol. Sure, you can chose to use vsync or other mechanisms to eliminate screen tearing at the cost of lag. But that doesn't mean everyone else uses them and doesn't want to get the advantages of 144hz.

Apart from the difference in screen tearing, you get better frametimes @144hz, meaning less latency, as the frames are refreshed more frequently on the screen. Yes, even at 60fps.

[fender178]

Publicado originalmente por Drak3:

Publicado originalmente por fender178:

But I bet those devices that existed back then had terrible hardware and weren't as capable as the ones they are making now. Especially those early GDPwin devices had Intel Atom CPUs in them NOT very good for gaming.

Prior to the Steam Deck, for the most part, yes. The hardware was trash, but that was before AMD and Intel started producing parts that got good performance at low TDPs,

However, the 6800u released 2 months after the Deck, and it didn't take long after that for 6800u handhelds to launch.

Yup very true. After the Deck it didn't take long for AMD to release decent SOC that is capable of playing games form the graphical side of things.

[Drak3]

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

It isn't.

Even at a higher refresh rate, capping the FPS to 60 won't make the game look any smoother than it would if the refresh rate was 60. Literally have to do it all the time as explained in the above post you didn't read.

Yes it is. 60fps @ 144hz does make a difference compared to 60hz. You not noticing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You're right.

60FPS @ 144Hz is inferior to 60FPS @ 60Hz or 120Hz. Any FPS/Hz ratio where the Hz isn't cleanly divisible by the FPS results in pull-down/pull-up, tearing, or stuttering.

VRR is one method of fixing this. Lenovo decided (idiotically) to not use this.

One would think that the person that is constantly spouting off about the "bad" screen on the Deck would know that a gross mismatch of FPS and Hz is something to avoid.

[Seth]

Publicado originalmente por Drak3:

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

Yes it is. 60fps @ 144hz does make a difference compared to 60hz. You not noticing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You're right.

60FPS @ 144Hz is inferior to 60FPS @ 60Hz or 120Hz. Any FPS/Hz ratio where the Hz isn't cleanly divisible by the FPS results in pull-down/pull-up, tearing, or stuttering.

VRR is one method of fixing this. Lenovo decided (idiotically) to not use this.

One would think that the person that is constantly spouting off about the "bad" screen on the Deck would know that a gross mismatch of FPS and Hz is something to avoid.

Imo slapping a minimal experience increasing screen on a handheld device makes no sense, because need to maximize battery-life.

[[?]legit]

Publicado originalmente por Spaceromantic:

Publicado originalmente por Drak3:

You're right.

60FPS @ 144Hz is inferior to 60FPS @ 60Hz or 120Hz. Any FPS/Hz ratio where the Hz isn't cleanly divisible by the FPS results in pull-down/pull-up, tearing, or stuttering.

VRR is one method of fixing this. Lenovo decided (idiotically) to not use this.

One would think that the person that is constantly spouting off about the "bad" screen on the Deck would know that a gross mismatch of FPS and Hz is something to avoid.

Imo slapping a minimal experience increasing screen on a handheld device makes no sense, because need to maximize battery-life.

Well, I wonder why all higher tier smarphones have 120hz screens then? Do the phone manufacturers want to waste the battery time on their phones? Or maybe they add them because it *does* actually increase the experience?

[[?]legit]

Publicado originalmente por Drak3:

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

Yes it is. 60fps @ 144hz does make a difference compared to 60hz. You not noticing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You're right.

60FPS @ 144Hz is inferior to 60FPS @ 60Hz or 120Hz. Any FPS/Hz ratio where the Hz isn't cleanly divisible by the FPS results in pull-down/pull-up, tearing, or stuttering.

VRR is one method of fixing this. Lenovo decided (idiotically) to not use this.

One would think that the person that is constantly spouting off about the "bad" screen on the Deck would know that a gross mismatch of FPS and Hz is something to avoid.

Ah, so per your logic, capping the frames at 60fps will not result into screen tearing on a 60hz screen, right? Like what? This is not how things work.

Yeah, the higher the fps, the more tearing lines you get, BUT the offset between the teared frames decreases. At some point, the tearing isn't even noticeable on a 144hz monitor anymore, because it happens too fast.

VRR would have been nice, but I guess you can't have everything. To be honest this is a tiny sacrifice, compared to all the ones the deck's screen made.

[Drak3]

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

Ah, so per your logic, capping the frames at 60fps will not result into screen tearing on a 60hz screen, right? Like what? This is not how things work.

So long as frame times are consistent, capping the framerate to 60FPS on a 60Hz screen will significantly reduce tearing.
Grossly mismatching frame rate to refresh rate will result in tearing, and that's the primary issue VRR was made to address. Some software will work with an OS to drop the refresh rate if a cap is manually set, if the developer is aware of the issue and is willing to implement that fix, and the OS and API(s) the software requires support it.

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

Yeah, the higher the fps, the more tearing lines you get, BUT the offset between the teared frames decreases. At some point, the tearing isn't even noticeable on a 144hz monitor anymore, because it happens too fast.

Not only is this just outright false, it's an incredibly stupid statement. Prior to VRR becoming nigh standard on 144+Hz displays, screen tearing was a huge argument against using one if your PC couldn't maintain a stable 144FPS. It's still incredibly noticeable, especially if watching or playing fast content, like many games.

What's less noticeable is tearing on a portrait display that's been rotated to a landscape position (like the Deck's, or nearly all handhelds other than ASUS' Ally), but it's definitely not gone.

[[?]legit]

Publicado originalmente por Drak3:

Not only is this just outright false, it's an incredibly stupid statement. Prior to VRR becoming nigh standard on 144+Hz displays, screen tearing was a huge argument against using one if your PC couldn't maintain a stable 144FPS. It's still incredibly noticeable, especially if watching or playing fast content, like many games.

What's less noticeable is tearing on a portrait display that's been rotated to a landscape position (like the Deck's, or nearly all handhelds other than ASUS' Ally), but it's definitely not gone.

Neither is it "incredibly supid", nor an "outright false" statement. The more fps you get, the smoother your image gets. The negative effect of screen tearing does indeed get less problematic, the more frames you get. Because the difference between a 1/144s offsetted image is far, far more difficult to perceive than in a 1/60s old frame.

Also not sure how everyone is suddenly expecting VRR as a standard, when even the steam deck doesn't have it.

And please keep in mind that whilst VRR is a great feature, it's not the ultimative magic solution for everyone. VRR still introduces a little latency, and you may have to limit your frame rates to lower than your refresh rate. As a competetive gamer, who cares about every single millisecond, I wouldn't enable it anyways, in order to get the best possible latency.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

Publicado originalmente por Drak3:

Not only is this just outright false, it's an incredibly stupid statement. Prior to VRR becoming nigh standard on 144+Hz displays, screen tearing was a huge argument against using one if your PC couldn't maintain a stable 144FPS. It's still incredibly noticeable, especially if watching or playing fast content, like many games.

What's less noticeable is tearing on a portrait display that's been rotated to a landscape position (like the Deck's, or nearly all handhelds other than ASUS' Ally), but it's definitely not gone.

Neither is it "incredibly supid", nor an "outright false" statement. The more fps you get, the smoother your image gets. The negative effect of screen tearing does indeed get less problematic, the more frames you get. Because the difference between a 1/144s offsetted image is far, far more difficult to perceive than in a 1/60s old frame.

Also not sure how everyone is suddenly expecting VRR as a standard, when even the steam deck doesn't have it.

And please keep in mind that whilst VRR is a great feature, it's not the ultimative magic solution for everyone. VRR still introduces a little latency, and you may have to limit your frame rates to lower than your refresh rate. As a competetive gamer, who cares about every single millisecond, I wouldn't enable it anyways, in order to get the best possible latency.

Unless you are actually going to sponsored tournaments and getting paid, you aren't a "competitive gamer".

[Drak3]

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Publicado originalmente por ?legit:

Neither is it "incredibly supid", nor an "outright false" statement. The more fps you get, the smoother your image gets. The negative effect of screen tearing does indeed get less problematic, the more frames you get. Because the difference between a 1/144s offsetted image is far, far more difficult to perceive than in a 1/60s old frame.

Also not sure how everyone is suddenly expecting VRR as a standard, when even the steam deck doesn't have it.

And please keep in mind that whilst VRR is a great feature, it's not the ultimative magic solution for everyone. VRR still introduces a little latency, and you may have to limit your frame rates to lower than your refresh rate. As a competetive gamer, who cares about every single millisecond, I wouldn't enable it anyways, in order to get the best possible latency.

Unless you are actually going to sponsored tournaments and getting paid, you aren't a "competitive gamer".

He competes on paper specs and demonstrating Dunning-Kruger.

His insistance that 60FPS on 144Hz being “smoother” is a perfect demonstration of that.

[ShadowShifterMarlith]

Valve wanted to test the waters is the reason why the Deck has not so great hardware.

Valve has a record of Hardware under performing, the Steam Deck isn't the first,
& it won't be the last. Also it was always expected to under perform. Then there
is the fact that many People have actually claimed they want to get rid of the
Steam Deck they already paid for. The Steam Deck isn't as good as People make
it out to be, & there are People who straight up won't pay for it, especially when
they can already get their Library Free on the Computer, but People like you continue
to argue constantly that the Steam Deck is worth buying, when it's really not.