7 ms·

The existing Alienware Alpha (which is basically what the SteamOS box is) benches about the same as an Nvidia GTX 750Ti, which outpowers both the XBox One and t

by jcastro 11y ago

The existing Alienware Alpha (which is basically what the SteamOS box is) benches about the same as an Nvidia GTX 750Ti, which outpowers both the XBox One and the PS4. It should have no problem matching or exceeding either console's performance, just like the existing Alpha. The debut price is about the same as the PS4/XBone, but doesn't include the monthly fee for multiplayer, and if you look at the long-term total cost of ownership it's cheaper than a console, especially when you consider that in the future you can upgrade to new hardware without rebuying your games, which consoles cannot guarantee.

ekianjo 11y ago
> The existing Alienware Alpha (which is basically what the SteamOS box is) benches about the same as an Nvidia GTX 750Ti, which outpowers both the XBox One and the PS4. It should have no problem matching or exceeding either console's performance, just like the existing Alpha. Except that it runs on Linux, which has less performing drivers than on Windows, and Linux ports are usually far less optimized than their Windows counterparts as well (which is not hard to understand since most games are made with DX in mind).
- jcastro 11y ago
  Steam Machines don't compete with Windows, they're complementary to existing Windows machines (game streaming); they directly compete with Xbox/PS4. Most Steam Machines are Nvidia based, which makes sense, they have the best drivers, and they're generally 1:1 as performant as their windows drivers. I have a GTX970 in my Ubuntu machine and it rocks, supports my gsync monitor and everything; trumping console performance is pretty much a no-brainer with modern nvidia maxwell stuff...
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > Steam Machines don't compete with Windows, they're complementary to existing Windows machines (game streaming); they directly compete with Xbox/PS4. I hope you are joking, because branding-wise the Steam Machines are a clear mess and completely confusing for people who don't know how to read PC specs. Hell, you have Steam Machines planned with only Intel HD graphics and also called "Steam Machines" just like the Alienware Alpha and the Syber ones, while power-wise they fall in totally different categories. That's the best way to kill your brand, at least 3DO never did that kind of mistake. > they're generally 1:1 as performant as their windows drivers. No, this is clearly false. I don't know where you get this impression, check almost every benchmark out therefore for Borderlands 2, CS:GO, Witcher 2, Bioshock Infinite and almost every other AAA game out there, you will see that the Linux performance is clearly behind. I'm a Linux gamer as well but at least I don't pretend we are at the same level as Windows, because that's a clear lie at this point. > trumping console performance is pretty much a no-brainer with modern nvidia maxwell stuff... It should be, but many ports on Linux are far from being optimized (some rely on OpenGL 3.x to maintain compatibility with AMD while it's clearly less efficient than OpenGL 4.x calls) while console ports are much more likely to be tested thoroughly on a single hardware based and optimized for it.
    - jcastro 11y ago
      > I hope you are joking, because branding-wise the Steam Machines are a clear mess and completely confusing for people who don't know how to read PC specs. The entire point of Steam Machines is not to deal with this, just buy the cheapest Alienware, done. If you care about that sort of thing, you buy a different one. > check almost every benchmark out therefore for Borderlands 2, CS:GO, Witcher 2, Bioshock Infinite and almost every other AAA game out there. Doesn't matter. I have an Alienware Alpha and I can get 60 fps on every one of these games in SteamOS, as least as good as the modern consoles, Windows performance it depends; some are better, some are not; all TVs and projectors are 60hz, so unless someone is coming out with 144hz gsync TVs, then it's more than fine. Sure, we get boned by games like Dying Light, but that's just software, totally fixable. > t should be, but many ports on Linux are far from being optimized You could make that argument about any crossplatform game.
      - ekianjo 11y ago
        > The entire point of Steam Machines is not to deal with this, just buy the cheapest Alienware, done. If you care about that sort of thing, you buy a different one. Yeah, and then complain that the newest games in 2016 don't run well on your hardware, while you thought it was just like a console! What a surprise! > I can get 60 fps on every one of these games in SteamOS Put in ultra details, with anti aliasing maxed up, and I'll be very surprised if you still get steady 60 fps, in all honesty. And oh, it's been benchmarked that anti-aliasing makes the performance go down significantly, I'll get numbers for you if you don't believe me. > Sure, we get boned by games like Dying Light, but that's just software, totally fixable. Yeah, except that it has taken them 3 months to fix to an acceptable level. Please explain that to consumers buying it on Day 1. Oh, and remember, they are "console gamers" since you said so, so I hope you enjoy the fun communication with people who don't care about specs or optimization or drivers. > You could make that argument about any crossplatform game. Yes, except that the requirements for Linux ports are usually higher than for Windows. Source: Steam requirements. Again, please go explain that to console gamers.
        abroncs 11y ago
  - higherpurpose 11y ago
    Once the Vulkan drivers are in (and the games written for it) I'd expect Linux to have even better performance than Windows in gaming.
  - squeaky-clean 11y ago
    > I have a GTX970 in my Ubuntu machine and it rocks, supports my gsync monitor and everything; trumping console performance is pretty much a no-brainer with modern nvidia maxwell stuff Yeah, when your graphics cards costs mores than the entire console (Groupon has a deal right now for a $304 Xbox One without Kinect, and the cheapest GTX970 on PCPartpicker is a Zotac at $310.95), that tends to happen. > Steam Machines don't compete with Windows, they're complementary to existing Windows machines (game streaming) Sure they do. If anything, they compete against Windows much more than they do against consoles. There are reasons to own both a console and gaming PC. There's no reason to have a Windows gaming PC and a Steam Machine. Windows is a superset of a Steam Machine's gaming capabilities. The main reason for people owning a gaming console along with a gaming PC are the exclusive games, people will buy an entire Xbone for Halo or Destiny. There are no Steam Machine or Linux exclusive games.
- girvo 11y ago
  > Except that it runs on Linux, which has less performing drivers than on Windows Thats... not quite true, interestingly enough. Excuse the ZDNet link: http://www.zdnet.com/article/valve-linux-runs-our-games-faster-than-windows-7/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/valve-linux-runs-our-games-fast...
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    That's a clear exception. Even CS:GO from Valve runs slower than the Windows version. All other recent benchmarks keep showing Windows ahead in FPS for the same games running on Linux. And hey, I'm a Linux gamer (almost exclusively these days), and for me this is not a problem, but it's just a fact.
    - reddotX 11y ago
      Ubuntu 15.04 vs Windows 8.1 : Team Fortress 2 benchmark with a GTX 680 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK7uEv8LTYU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK7uEv8LTYU
      - ekianjo 11y ago
        You know that in that video, Windows wins clearly in FPS in high settings right ?
        cwyers 11y ago
        And who cares about benchmarks for games on DirectX 9? Especially since the OpenGL port was made nearly 7 years after the DirectX version was released, and it's possible Valve could have made all sorts of optimizations based on advances in the meantime (either in their understanding of rendering or being able to take advantage of features that are in the newest versions of OpenGL but weren't around in a DirectX 9).
- reddotX 11y ago
  i've seen some game reviews with the linux version running faster on Ubuntu than Windows
- bad_user 11y ago
  So now we aren't discussing that there are no games for Linux, but about the performance of Linux games. What an odd world we live in.
  - WalterGR 11y ago
    What an odd world we live in. Do you mean that discussing the performance of Linux games is an unfair moving of the goalposts, or that it's odd that Linux caught on enough that we're now discussing the performance of Linux games rather than just their existence?
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    I think there is still a problem of "not enough developers supporting Linux" - that issue is not completely gone yet, while it has massively improved. The next step is having a stronger adoption from devs + first-citizen kind of performance. But I agree with your sentiment, the improvement has been massive in the past 2 years.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      Well ... with the incoming low level apis support on linux should be easier. You need only disk access, network sockets, sound and audio system to make a game. First two are solved problems multiplaform-wise. Remove the drivers from the equations and there is no good reason why porting should take a lot of work.
      - ekianjo 11y ago
        There are many tools used for Game development that are platform specific and have no Linux version. That's also why some porting efforts are stalled currently.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jsingleton 11y ago
You can't really compare hardware specifications between a PC and a console to get an idea of relative performance. Developers are able to squeeze a lot more performance from consoles as they aren't running a full OS and other things in the background. They are much more consistent so you don't need to leave as much leeway. At least that used to be the case. Perhaps the modern generation of consoles are so complex that they can be compared to PCs.
- greggyb 11y ago
  XBox will run Windows 10, so I think your final statement seems accurate.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    The Raspberry Pi will run Windows 10. I don't know that "running Windows 10" is a meaningful indicator of anything in this context. It's certainly not running the same sort of Windows 10 that desktop and laptop PCs are running -- Windows Universal apps will be able to run on it, but traditional Win32 apps (like any Windows game on Steam) won't run on the Xbox One.
cwyers 11y ago
> The existing Alienware Alpha (which is basically what the SteamOS box is) benches about the same as an Nvidia GTX 750Ti, which outpowers both the XBox One and the PS4. It should have no problem matching or exceeding either console's performance, just like the existing Alpha. It's a lot easier to optimize for the Xbox One or the PS4 than it is PC games, because there's only two hardware targets for console games, and so you don't have to code around drivers or corner cases that only affect some users, you can optimize to your heart's content and everyone has hardware identical to what you're testing on. Being more powerful than an Xbox One or PS4 is not the same as being able to run the same games well. Cost of ownership is a more complicated question than you posit here -- you have to buy new hardware more often, and if you're taking advantage of the in-home streaming feature to fill the massive AAA gap these things have, it's almost impossible to recapture the cost of TWO gaming PCs compared to the cost of one Xbox/PS by saving money on games.

by jcastro 11y ago

ekianjo 11y ago

jcastro 11y ago
Steam Machines don't compete with Windows, they're complementary to existing Windows machines (game streaming); they directly compete with Xbox/PS4. Most Steam Machines are Nvidia based, which makes sense, they have the best drivers, and they're generally 1:1 as performant as their windows drivers. I have a GTX970 in my Ubuntu machine and it rocks, supports my gsync monitor and everything; trumping console performance is pretty much a no-brainer with modern nvidia maxwell stuff...
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > Steam Machines don't compete with Windows, they're complementary to existing Windows machines (game streaming); they directly compete with Xbox/PS4. I hope you are joking, because branding-wise the Steam Machines are a clear mess and completely confusing for people who don't know how to read PC specs. Hell, you have Steam Machines planned with only Intel HD graphics and also called "Steam Machines" just like the Alienware Alpha and the Syber ones, while power-wise they fall in totally different categories. That's the best way to kill your brand, at least 3DO never did that kind of mistake. > they're generally 1:1 as performant as their windows drivers. No, this is clearly false. I don't know where you get this impression, check almost every benchmark out therefore for Borderlands 2, CS:GO, Witcher 2, Bioshock Infinite and almost every other AAA game out there, you will see that the Linux performance is clearly behind. I'm a Linux gamer as well but at least I don't pretend we are at the same level as Windows, because that's a clear lie at this point. > trumping console performance is pretty much a no-brainer with modern nvidia maxwell stuff... It should be, but many ports on Linux are far from being optimized (some rely on OpenGL 3.x to maintain compatibility with AMD while it's clearly less efficient than OpenGL 4.x calls) while console ports are much more likely to be tested thoroughly on a single hardware based and optimized for it.
  - jcastro 11y ago
    > I hope you are joking, because branding-wise the Steam Machines are a clear mess and completely confusing for people who don't know how to read PC specs. The entire point of Steam Machines is not to deal with this, just buy the cheapest Alienware, done. If you care about that sort of thing, you buy a different one. > check almost every benchmark out therefore for Borderlands 2, CS:GO, Witcher 2, Bioshock Infinite and almost every other AAA game out there. Doesn't matter. I have an Alienware Alpha and I can get 60 fps on every one of these games in SteamOS, as least as good as the modern consoles, Windows performance it depends; some are better, some are not; all TVs and projectors are 60hz, so unless someone is coming out with 144hz gsync TVs, then it's more than fine. Sure, we get boned by games like Dying Light, but that's just software, totally fixable. > t should be, but many ports on Linux are far from being optimized You could make that argument about any crossplatform game.
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      > The entire point of Steam Machines is not to deal with this, just buy the cheapest Alienware, done. If you care about that sort of thing, you buy a different one. Yeah, and then complain that the newest games in 2016 don't run well on your hardware, while you thought it was just like a console! What a surprise! > I can get 60 fps on every one of these games in SteamOS Put in ultra details, with anti aliasing maxed up, and I'll be very surprised if you still get steady 60 fps, in all honesty. And oh, it's been benchmarked that anti-aliasing makes the performance go down significantly, I'll get numbers for you if you don't believe me. > Sure, we get boned by games like Dying Light, but that's just software, totally fixable. Yeah, except that it has taken them 3 months to fix to an acceptable level. Please explain that to consumers buying it on Day 1. Oh, and remember, they are "console gamers" since you said so, so I hope you enjoy the fun communication with people who don't care about specs or optimization or drivers. > You could make that argument about any crossplatform game. Yes, except that the requirements for Linux ports are usually higher than for Windows. Source: Steam requirements. Again, please go explain that to console gamers.
      - abroncs 11y ago
- higherpurpose 11y ago
  Once the Vulkan drivers are in (and the games written for it) I'd expect Linux to have even better performance than Windows in gaming.
- squeaky-clean 11y ago
  > I have a GTX970 in my Ubuntu machine and it rocks, supports my gsync monitor and everything; trumping console performance is pretty much a no-brainer with modern nvidia maxwell stuff Yeah, when your graphics cards costs mores than the entire console (Groupon has a deal right now for a $304 Xbox One without Kinect, and the cheapest GTX970 on PCPartpicker is a Zotac at $310.95), that tends to happen. > Steam Machines don't compete with Windows, they're complementary to existing Windows machines (game streaming) Sure they do. If anything, they compete against Windows much more than they do against consoles. There are reasons to own both a console and gaming PC. There's no reason to have a Windows gaming PC and a Steam Machine. Windows is a superset of a Steam Machine's gaming capabilities. The main reason for people owning a gaming console along with a gaming PC are the exclusive games, people will buy an entire Xbone for Halo or Destiny. There are no Steam Machine or Linux exclusive games.
girvo 11y ago
> Except that it runs on Linux, which has less performing drivers than on Windows Thats... not quite true, interestingly enough. Excuse the ZDNet link: http://www.zdnet.com/article/valve-linux-runs-our-games-faster-than-windows-7/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/valve-linux-runs-our-games-fast...
- ekianjo 11y ago
  That's a clear exception. Even CS:GO from Valve runs slower than the Windows version. All other recent benchmarks keep showing Windows ahead in FPS for the same games running on Linux. And hey, I'm a Linux gamer (almost exclusively these days), and for me this is not a problem, but it's just a fact.
  - reddotX 11y ago
    Ubuntu 15.04 vs Windows 8.1 : Team Fortress 2 benchmark with a GTX 680 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK7uEv8LTYU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK7uEv8LTYU
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      You know that in that video, Windows wins clearly in FPS in high settings right ?
      - cwyers 11y ago
        And who cares about benchmarks for games on DirectX 9? Especially since the OpenGL port was made nearly 7 years after the DirectX version was released, and it's possible Valve could have made all sorts of optimizations based on advances in the meantime (either in their understanding of rendering or being able to take advantage of features that are in the newest versions of OpenGL but weren't around in a DirectX 9).
reddotX 11y ago
i've seen some game reviews with the linux version running faster on Ubuntu than Windows
bad_user 11y ago
So now we aren't discussing that there are no games for Linux, but about the performance of Linux games. What an odd world we live in.
- WalterGR 11y ago
  What an odd world we live in. Do you mean that discussing the performance of Linux games is an unfair moving of the goalposts, or that it's odd that Linux caught on enough that we're now discussing the performance of Linux games rather than just their existence?
- ekianjo 11y ago
  I think there is still a problem of "not enough developers supporting Linux" - that issue is not completely gone yet, while it has massively improved. The next step is having a stronger adoption from devs + first-citizen kind of performance. But I agree with your sentiment, the improvement has been massive in the past 2 years.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Well ... with the incoming low level apis support on linux should be easier. You need only disk access, network sockets, sound and audio system to make a game. First two are solved problems multiplaform-wise. Remove the drivers from the equations and there is no good reason why porting should take a lot of work.
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      There are many tools used for Game development that are platform specific and have no Linux version. That's also why some porting efforts are stalled currently.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jsingleton 11y ago

You can't really compare hardware specifications between a PC and a console to get an idea of relative performance. Developers are able to squeeze a lot more performance from consoles as they aren't running a full OS and other things in the background. They are much more consistent so you don't need to leave as much leeway. At least that used to be the case. Perhaps the modern generation of consoles are so complex that they can be compared to PCs.

greggyb 11y ago
XBox will run Windows 10, so I think your final statement seems accurate.
- cwyers 11y ago
  The Raspberry Pi will run Windows 10. I don't know that "running Windows 10" is a meaningful indicator of anything in this context. It's certainly not running the same sort of Windows 10 that desktop and laptop PCs are running -- Windows Universal apps will be able to run on it, but traditional Win32 apps (like any Windows game on Steam) won't run on the Xbox One.

cwyers 11y ago

> The existing Alienware Alpha (which is basically what the SteamOS box is) benches about the same as an Nvidia GTX 750Ti, which outpowers both the XBox One and the PS4. It should have no problem matching or exceeding either console's performance, just like the existing Alpha. It's a lot easier to optimize for the Xbox One or the PS4 than it is PC games, because there's only two hardware targets for console games, and so you don't have to code around drivers or corner cases that only affect some users, you can optimize to your heart's content and everyone has hardware identical to what you're testing on. Being more powerful than an Xbox One or PS4 is not the same as being able to run the same games well. Cost of ownership is a more complicated question than you posit here -- you have to buy new hardware more often, and if you're taking advantage of the in-home streaming feature to fill the massive AAA gap these things have, it's almost impossible to recapture the cost of TWO gaming PCs compared to the cost of one Xbox/PS by saving money on games.