Quoting: pete910Or better still a Tux logo next to the windows and console logos :grin:

Biggest example like that was Steam Deck logo in AMD's presentation alongside other consoles.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pete910Steam deck 2 my just persuade en mass, can valve make that many for that level of demand? Over time they could I guess. Time will tell.

I think they are selling all their current devices, so I don't think they worry about lack of demand so far. With new version they can scale further. I mean if Nintendo has such huge amount of users, clearly gaming handhelds market isn't tiny.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pete910

Quoting: ShmerlThey didn't reach Nintendo market size yet, which demonstrates that growth potential is still untapped.

Whom? Valve or Sony ?

Valve. They clearly have a lot of room to grow for the existing level of demand for gaming handhelds.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pete910Still don't see it personally, Cant see Valve selling 20 odd million to be honest, would be epic if they did. That would be the sort of numbers it would require I think .

They didn't reach Nintendo market size yet, which demonstrates that growth potential is still untapped.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JuliusSo what internal resolution is this running then? I assume it up-scales to 720p?

edit: https://gpuopen.com/fidelityfx-superresolution-2/ [External Link]
Balanced mode upscales 1.7x

Yeah, to upscale to 720p it would have to run at really low res.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: raptor85

Quoting: ShmerlAnd as above, for games I care about I'm not even getting 100 fps so far.

Driver/wayland issues maybe? There's no reason your card, which is newer than mine, should be getting worse FPS in games.

No, games like Cyberpunk 2077 or Star Citizen are just very heavy / demanding. So I use this as a metric for target framerate / resolution balance, and 4K would clearly not be optimal for that yet :)

But I agree, a lot of that depends on the games. For less demanding ones it's less of an issue.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: raptor85Movies/streaming, work, there ARE other things we do on computers besides games you know :P

I'm fine for that with 2560x1440. You can't have a separate monitor for every use case, so I think that's still the optimum, while 4K is just ahead of current generation of GPUs when it comes to gaming.

99% is not my experience. If I'd be getting ≥ 144 fps with my current GPU and resolution, then I'd consider a higher res screen.

And as above, for games I care about I'm not even getting 100 fps so far.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: raptor85though it's pretty borderline on many so I tend to keep it at 1440p to maintain 120+ fps

That's exactly the point. Why pay for 4K screen if you can't run many games at high enough framerate and need to lower resolution? To me it would feel like paying and not using it. That's why I think 2560x1440 is still the optimal resolution that GPU can handle currently.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I expect translated games to stay around. May be some native Linux games will appear, but many will still be Windows only. So possibly Linux considerations for hardware will always be different from Windows on some level.

That doesn't just apply to potential target framerate on given resolution. For instance VRAM requirements on Linux are generally higher than on Windows in case of vkd3d-proton.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think in a couple more GPU generations 4K will become feasible with good framerates without upscaling.

By that time they'll be marketing 16K may be, lol. But who cares ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments