New Steam hardware inbound

[72westy]

https://store.steampowered.com/sale/hardware

[scommander2]

If the hardware runs on Steam OS ... mmm.... will DCS totally be compatible?!

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, scommander2 said:

will DCS totally be compatible?!

no, dcs needs: OS: Windows 10, 11

[Minsky]

8 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

no, dcs needs: OS: Windows 10, 11

It says you can install your own OS. But what's the point? With 16GB RAM and 8 GB VRAM, this rig is on the lower side of mid-range for DCS needs.

[diego999]

I'm more interested in the VR headset. The Steam Machine is already well below of what most of us have.

[scommander2]

57 minutes ago, diego999 said:

I'm more interested in the VR headset. The Steam Machine is already well below of what most of us have.

Yup, I was thinking the same thing  

[72westy]

7 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

no, dcs needs: OS: Windows 10, 11

Unsure, given one can purchase DCS (Steam Edition) thru Steam. It uses Linux as an OS.

7 hours ago, Minsky said:

It says you can install your own OS. But what's the point? With 16GB RAM and 8 GB VRAM, this rig is on the lower side of mid-range for DCS needs.

One can add RAM and storage.

I'm in for the Steam controller. Still have my original one and a brand new boxed one (backup).

Edited Thursday at 08:10 AM by 72westy

[Scott-S6]

35 minutes ago, 72westy said:

Unsure, given one can purchase DCS (Steam Edition) thru Steam. It uses Linux as an OS.

DCS does run on steamdeck so it ought to run on the steam machine. I really can't imagine that it's a good option for it though.

 

CPU Semi-custom AMD Zen 4 6C/12T, up to 4.8GHz, 30W TDP

GPU Semi-custom AMD RDNA 3 28CUs, 2.45GHz sustained clock, 110W TDP, 8GB GDDR6

Edited Thursday at 08:45 AM by Scott-S6

[72westy]

59 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

DCS does run on steamdeck so it ought to run on the steam machine. I really can't imagine that it's a good option for it though.

 

CPU Semi-custom AMD Zen 4 6C/12T, up to 4.8GHz, 30W TDP

GPU Semi-custom AMD RDNA 3 28CUs, 2.45GHz sustained clock, 110W TDP, 8GB GDDR6

If my Acemagic Tank03 runs DCS without issue the Steam machine will as well.

[kksnowbear]

7 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

DCS does run on steamdeck so it ought to run on the steam machine. I really can't imagine that it's a good option for it though.

Precisely.

This has been discussed elsewhere (see thread below), and the bottom line is that the (various forms of) 'mini PCs' are not really good options for 'high-performance' gaming (as with VR) - with perhaps one notable exception, that being if there are severe space/size/portability concerns.

Moreover, the real disappointment will come when trying to upgrade such a machine.  Proprietary hardware designs never lend themselves well to the very intent of 'clone' PCs, which is that you can essentially buy readily-available parts like GPUs, motherboards, storage and RAM from most any manufacturer, and it will fit the form factor.

Unlike ATX, mATX, and mini-ITX (which are standardized form factors) these mini-PC designs are simply a classification of chassis size (as opposed to form factor), therefore there's no standardized form factor that manufacturers will produce hardware for. "SFF" is essentially a marketing term, and there's no actual spec for it (by way of dimensions, etc).

In short, finding a motherboard, GPU, even RAM or storage, will be a long shot if not outright impossible.  If you stick with the standardized form factors, most of the major manufacturers make components that will fit.  If it really has to be small, mini-ITX is the way to go without screwing yourself into a proprietary corner.  In fact, there are mini-ITX cases that are comparable in size or not much bigger than many of the SFF designs, so you can get a small machine/footprint without having to resort to under-powered, proprietary designs that can't be upgraded.  Even if you go mATX, I just did one recently that was 8x10.5x11.6 and fully compatible with mATX-class components (including a real desktop 4070 and 7600X CPU).

Adding RAM or storage isn't going to overcome the fact that these machines sacrifice the very performance so crucial to high-end desktop gaming, in exchange for a cute little box with a laptop-grade CPU/GPU, and only a 300 watt(!) laptop brick for power.  You simply cannot get that level of horsepower from that kind of hardware.

I personally do not care for or subscribe to the concept of 'future-proofing', for a number of valid technical reasons.  I look at it as a sort of fool's errand, from a technical perspective.  However, I do understand it's a commonly expressed concept, typically considered as important by those looking to build a new PC.  They want something 'future-proof' so they can run a platform more than a year or three, generally by building in an 'upgrade path' to stretch the time before a full platform upgrade is necessary.

These mini-PCs are not at all future-proof; in fact, they're the extreme opposite - if future-proofing is a thing, then these machines would properly be considered 'future-vulnerable'.

Seems to me what Steam is trying to do is basically lure people into something akin to a console.  These things - consoles, mini PCs and laptops - all have their place and purpose.  They are great for certain very specific constraints regarding budget, space, etc.

Steam is calling this a "console-PC hybrid", but I would suggest that it's far (far) more console than what might be considered a gaming PC.  The single distinction being whether the machine is capable of being upgraded with standard, readily available components which can generally be installed by even laypersons.

That said, I build a lot of PCs for clients, and many of them are actually looking to get away from consoles, explicitly for this very reason; performance falls off over time as game(s) require more and more of the hardware, coupled with inability to upgrade, forcing them to buy an entirely new machine periodically.

Referring back to the above concerns about upgrading, I'm sure Steam will be there, ready to sell you another 'disposable' miniPC once the game(s) advance to the point that yours needs to be replaced (as opposed to upgrading).

Here's a link to the other thread, which oddly enough was started by someone trying to upgrade one of these small form factor machines.  Regretfully, he discovered exactly what I'm describing here: Come upgrade time, you're screwed.

 

Edited Thursday at 04:16 PM by kksnowbear

[scommander2]

7 hours ago, 72westy said:

It uses Linux as an OS.

Reinstall as Windows perhaps. 

[72westy]

Off the Steam forum from developer:

 

Not as far as I am aware.

DCS is windows only currently, that may change in the future after we switch to vulkan, but to early to say.

thank you

 

As for DCS on SFF...the game will run fine at 60+ PFS on my older desktop with i7 3770K, RTX 2070, 32GB DDR3, SATA SSD. It runs even better on the Acemagic Tank03 I purchased to replace my sons old MSI GL75 Leopard (10th gen) w/GTX 1660ti

Specs on the Tank03

i7 12700H

32GB DDR5

RTX 3060 (12GB VRAM)

2TB nVME (OS drive)

4TB nVME Crucial

 

When it comes to upgrade time everyone these days is screwed with prices. DCS itself is not (software wise) groundbreaking hardware shattering anymore with much of the hardware available today or even a few gens or so back.

Edited Thursday at 04:17 PM by 72westy

[kksnowbear]

57 minutes ago, 72westy said:

When it comes to upgrade time everyone these days is screwed with prices.

Nope.

First of all, the SFF machines are screwed as far as upgrading regardless of price.  The machines simply can't be upgraded (adding some RAM and more storage capacity doesn't count for much as far as performance goes).  Any meaningful increase in performance will require replacing the entire thing.  (Which, incidentally, is exactly what anyone selling these things wants you to do).

Secondly, not all upgrades are screwed because of price.  Not by a long shot.  I do upgrades frequently using fairly recent generation hardware, without running into the kind of ridiculous prices of some new, retail stuff.  And the cost over time can be much less than repeatedly having to buy a new mini PC that's become hopelessly outclassed and cannot be upgraded.

So it's absolutely inaccurate to say everyone is screwed at upgrade time with prices.

As already discussed in that other thread, those specs you cite are laptop variants of desktop components.  They are well known for being nowhere near as capable as their desktop counterparts.  The "3060" in that thing is not comparable to a desktop 3060, nor is the CPU comparable to a desktop i7-12700.  They just...aren't.

These SFF or mini PCs are just not a good value as performance gaming computers, and they have zero upgrade path.  As I explained above, the question of "future proofing" alone is the key distinction.

Edited Thursday at 04:58 PM by kksnowbear

[72westy]

29 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Nope.

First of all, the SFF machines are screwed as far as upgrading regardless of price.  The machines simply can't be upgraded (adding some RAM and more storage capacity doesn't count for much as far as performance goes).  Any meaningful increase in performance will require replacing the entire thing.  (Which, incidentally, is exactly what anyone selling these things wants you to do).

Secondly, not all upgrades are screwed because of price.  Not by a long shot.  I do upgrades frequently using fairly recent generation hardware, without running into the kind of ridiculous prices of some new, retail stuff.  And the cost over time can be much less than repeatedly having to buy a new mini PC that's become hopelessly outclassed and cannot be upgraded.

So it's absolutely inaccurate to say everyone is screwed at upgrade time with prices.

As already discussed in that other thread, those specs you cite are laptop variants of desktop components.  They are well known for being nowhere near as capable as their desktop counterparts.  The "3060" in that thing is not comparable to a desktop 3060, nor is the CPU comparable to a desktop i7-12700.  They just...aren't.

These SFF or mini PCs are just not a good value as performance gaming computers, and they have zero upgrade path.  As I explained above, the question of "future proofing" alone is the key distinction.

I'm not talking/mentioning of upgrading a SFF. I'm very well aware of the upgrade path regarding SFF. The difference in performance between the SFF 3060 and desktop variant is minimal. The further you go up the GPU tree the performance difference becomes more noticeable. Bottom-line is it will run DCS with ease. This isn't a FPS where your much more worried of max FPS. It's about options for one who does not want a big desktop taking up space.

[kksnowbear]

You said everyone upgrading was screwed because of price, as if that means people who buy into SFF machines are no worse off than those who stick with standard form factors - which is not accurate.

And I've said repeatedly that the inability to upgrade a SFF machine is key in what makes it a poor choice - which it does.

The performance difference is real and well-established, and is just another reason why these SFF machines aren't a good choice as performance gaming platforms (particularly where VR is concerned, which is part of what Steam is advocating).

I've built enough machines to know that if we put a laptop-variant 3060 machine down at low levels, in densely populated areas, on certain maps, especially at higher resolutions and/or settings...performance is going to suffer pretty badly.

Again, I recently built a fully desktop compatible mATX machine, with a real 4070 and a 7600x, in a case that's 11.6x10.5x8...that's exceptionally small compared to typical desktops...

...and the owner doesn't have to settle for under-powered laptop variants of the CPU or GPU, plus has upgrade options when the time comes.  Without a full-sized desktop machine.

Here's the deal: If Steam (or other manufacturers) want to take advantage of the typical twitch gamers' ignorance about PC performance and market a machine that's far more console than PC (while claiming it's a capable gaming computer)...good for them.

If people want to buy into it because its cute, or cool, or even if they have legitimate space constraints such that a 6" cube will fit, but not anything more...then good.

But it's not accurate to claim these things are equivalent to capable desktop machines they pretend to be.

I've had to answer "Why can't my SFF perform good enough or be upgraded" way too many times to count.  Just like the other thread shows, it comes up from time to time.  Thing to do is educate people so they don't fall for it in the first place; explain the realities and let an informed buyer decide based on facts, not marketing.

BTW you also said "It's about options for one who does not want a big desktop taking up space."

What that means is you're making a choice; compromising on performance in favor of physical size.  And that's perfectly fine.  Absolutely up to you/the individual, and I'm not claiming anything to the contrary.

But it's a choice, and it is still a compromise.  I just believe it's appropriate to call it what it is, and I think it's best to let other readers know the facts at issue.

Edited Thursday at 06:49 PM by kksnowbear

[72westy]

33 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

You said everyone upgrading was screwed because of price, as if that means people who buy into SFF machines are no worse off than those who stick with standard form factors - which is not accurate.

And I've said repeatedly that the inability to upgrade a SFF machine is what makes it a poor choice - which it does.

The performance difference is real and well-established, and is just another reason why these SFF machines aren't a good choice as performance gaming platforms (particularly where VR is concerned, which is part of what Steam is advocating).

I've built enough machines to know that if we put a laptop-variant 3060 machine down at low levels, in densely populated areas, on certain maps, especially at higher resolutions and/or settings...performance is going to suffer pretty badly.

Again, I recently built a fully desktop compatible mATX machine, with a real 4070 and a 7600x, in a case that's 11.6x10.5x8...that's exceptionally small compared to typical desktops...

...and the owner doesn't have to settle for under-powered laptop variants of the CPU or GPU, plus has upgrade options when the time comes.

Here's the deal: If Steam (or other manufacturers) want to take advantage of the typical twitch gamers' ignorance about PC performance and market a machine that's far more console than PC (while claiming it's a capable gaming computer)...good for them.

If people want to buy into it because its cute, or cool, or even if they have legitimate space constraints such that a 6" cube will fit, but not anything more...then good.

But it's not accurate to claim these things are equivalent to capable desktop machines they pretend to be.

I've had to answer "Why can't my SFF perform good enough or be upgraded" way too many times to count.  Just like the other thread shows, it comes up from time to time.  Thing to do is educate people so they don't fall for it in the first place; explain the realities and let an informed buyer decide based on facts, not marketing.

This thread was never about building a desktop computer. The difference is Valve is doing 30W TDP. That means this is meant to be a quite small boy that can push modern titles around 60 fps with upscaling. Sure if one wants a big box sitting by your TV that makes too much noise and costs you triple in power costs then by all means build one yourself. 

The point is that this is a completely different market than a gaming PC. Same as the Steam Deck. The cost of an "alternative" build is irrelevant, because the alternative for the target market is not building their own PC, it's getting an Xbox/PS5. Against those, the hardware is competitive enough and the user experience of Steam games and SteamOS is a major advantage.

 

To be fair, one won't be playing modern AAA games at 4K60 maxed on anything beyond flagship tier cards (or using upscaling heavily). I agree that Valve probably should have been more careful in their statements, but, realistically, there is physically no way to create even a reasonably inexpensive 200W PC that could be capable of 4K60 in modern horribly performing AAA slop. It’s impossible. In something like MGS Delta, even a 5090 can’t hold 60 at 4K native.

[kksnowbear]

LOL the point is that buying into a SFF machine for use as a gaming machine where higher-end performance matters is a mistake.  Regardless of who makes it, or what TDP they're going for.

The overwhelming majority of "gamers" who will consider these machines couldn't give a hoot less about levels of power consumption.  Mommy and Daddy pay the electric bill (and most of the ones I know wear headphones so could give a care less about noise).

As is evident in this very thread, most people who are familiar with DCS' peculiarities understand that these machines arent likely to perform all that well in such an environment.

Even if everything else were the same (though it's not) there's still the question if what happens when it's time to upgrade. And at that moment, the SFF owner is screwed, no matter about prices.

(Incidentally, looking above, it was actually you who brought up the miniPC first, not me)

Sure if its just about consoles, by all means.  I said that already.  But let's not act as if a machine that's more console than anything is actually as capable as a real desktop gaming machine.  It's more like a console on steroids, maybe.  But there ain't enough testosterone on the planet to make those things perform like a real desktop

Edited Thursday at 07:39 PM by kksnowbear

[72westy]

Who brought up desktop? The mention of the mini PC is closer related to the Steam hardware. Which is why I made no mention of desktop comparison. 

As I said prior most previous gen PCs will run DCS with little issue. Certainly runs well on the mini Acemagic Tank03 PC my son has 60+fps @2560x1080. So if one is needing to upgrade it's likely not solely because of DCS itself suddenly running poorly (bar no hardware issue/s). At that point one is likely looking at a new build regardless of what they have.

Again that isn't what this thread was about. Options, more options. Have a look at what most are playing on Steam and you'll see you don't need a 5090 powered demon rig.

https://store.steampowered.com/charts/mostplayed

[kksnowbear]

I said, quite clearly, you brought up the miniPC before I said anything.  You did, and you've also compared the miniPC you bought to a desktop gaming PC, more than once, including in this thread.  You compared it in terms of running DCS, before my first post.  None of that was me.

Just because you've said certain PCs will run DCS "with little issue" doesn't make it fact.  Several others (in just this thread) have expressed doubt these same machines will do very well in DCS.  It's not just me saying that.

Options: As I said, there are better options, in comparatively small cases, without having to settle for laptop-class variants with zero upgrade path. (Of note is that my audio amp is bigger than the small machine I built, and uses about twice the power...yet it's very unobtrusive in the media center rack, so I'm sure a small mATX like the one I built would be just fine there.)

If you're happy with the machine you bought, good for you.  I'm just presenting another perspective, for the benefit of readers who might not know any better.  It is a discussion forum, after all.

Edited Thursday at 08:34 PM by kksnowbear

[72westy]

Should have I brought up desktop (such as you) from the get go? Of course not. Apples to oranges.

'Expressing doubt' is just that. Actually playing it and knowing (seeing) it is more fact based. And on (2) different systems at that. The first being system (1) in my signature and the other the SFF (Tank03) I aforementioned. I currently use the system in signature (2). But that's not in anyway related to DCS performance. It was fine prior to using system (2). The issue came with none other...MSFS 2020/2024 and system (1). That is where system (2) came into play. The Acemagic Tank03 my son has plays both 2020/2024 fine as well, much better than the MSI GL75 Leopard (10th gen) w/GTX1660ti he had.

This (Steam machine) is another option for those who don't wish to build their own system (plenty out there). Those folks are also not going to be the types to know how to even upgrade hardware when it comes time either. Also another perspective (option) for those who don't know or care to build their own.

The 3060 (12GB VRAM) SFF is roughly 8 percent slower than the desktop 3060 12GB variant and 5% or so faster than the 3060 6GB desktop variant. Don't expect a major overall performance difference between the two GPUs unless the work you do is very VRAM heavy.

Edited Thursday at 08:48 PM by 72westy

[kksnowbear]

The others expressing doubt also have experience playing DCS on multiple machines.

2 different systems?  I've loaded/run DCS on so many machines now I've lost count, and I've built or consulted on builds/custom machines for several others here on this very forum (including multiple builds for at least three of them, and also simmers on other forums).  I have four benches in my shop, and I'm often working on at least two machines at any given time.  My experience aligns with what others have said; that a machine like the ones you're advocating aren't likely to do very well in DCS.  You can take that or leave it, but that's the reality.

As I said, you brought up the miniPCs; both the Steam machine, and your own in comparison to desktop gaming machines.  That's also the reality.  Can't really get upset at others for discussing what you actually mentioned first.

And the idea of "options"...well, again, you brought it up, and the reality is that there are better options than the miniPCs (whether from Valve or whomever else).  I already acknowledged a miniPC might be appropriate in some very limited circumstances - but it will never be as capable as comparable desktop hardware, and no matter why someone might find it appealing, performance and a viable upgrade path are being sacrificed in favor some other factor. Those are the realities as far as "options" go.

Interestingly, out of all the gaming machines I've built, I've never had anyone say they wish they'd have bought something like these MiniPCs...and I've also never worked with anyone who had a SFF machine and didn't regret it when it came to performance and upgrades.

Edited Thursday at 09:07 PM by kksnowbear

[72westy]

The reality is I did not bring up (upgrade path) which is why I stuck the comparisons of SFF to the Steam machine. I have to leave it, seeing is believing and I'm not the only one who's seen similar results with similar hardware wise. Not upset at all, I didn't bring up (what if you want to upgrade). I'm well aware of the limited path on SFF upgrade. It's why I have system (2). But that does not take away from what I aforementioned. It works.

"As I said, you brought up the miniPCs, both the Steam machine, and your own, in comparison to desktop gaming machine"

You were the first (10th post) in this thread to mention (desktop talk) such. That is reality. There was no comparison to desktop prior to your first (10th) post. My SFF comparison was due to...

DCS does run on steamdeck so it ought to run on the steam machine. I really can't imagine that it's a good option for it though.

 

CPU Semi-custom AMD Zen 4 6C/12T, up to 4.8GHz, 30W TDP

GPU Semi-custom AMD RDNA 3 28CUs, 2.45GHz sustained clock, 110W TDP, 8GB GDDR6

Edited Thursday at 09:08 PM by 72westy

[kksnowbear]

I said you brought up your miniPC in terms of running DCS before my first post.  And you did exactly that, in the 9th post (9 coming before 10 and all that).

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

I said, quite clearly, you brought up the miniPC before I said anything.  You did, and you've also compared the miniPC you bought to a desktop gaming PC, more than once, including in this thread.  You compared it in terms of running DCS, before my first post. 

11 hours ago, 72westy said:

12 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

DCS does run on steamdeck so it ought to run on the steam machine. I really can't imagine that it's a good option for it though.

 

CPU Semi-custom AMD Zen 4 6C/12T, up to 4.8GHz, 30W TDP

GPU Semi-custom AMD RDNA 3 28CUs, 2.45GHz sustained clock, 110W TDP, 8GB GDDR6

Expand  

If my Acemagic Tank03 runs DCS without issue the Steam machine will as well.

That's the 9th post, just for reference.

Edited Thursday at 09:19 PM by kksnowbear

[72westy]

5 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

I said you brought up your miniPC in terms of running DCS before my first post.  And you did exactly that, in the 9th post (9 coming before 10 and all that).

That's the 9th post, just for reference.

Yep, and why do you think I made mention of the SFF?

[kksnowbear]

As I said, you brought all this up yourself, before my first post.

You can't complain about others discussing what you brought up first.