Steam Machines back on the Horizon.

I was only thinking to myself the other day whatever happened to these Steam machines and there disappearance on the release front.

Apparently they were delayed due to the Steam controller not been up to scratch.

Now this morning This has appeared.

Notice the crazy price structure and the amount of manufactures producing these units,i was half interested but I'm not exactly Playstation 4 crazy.

I posted that why you was still in bed. You colour blind or what?

The Zotac one I linked to (you know, the one you didn't click Mr. Magoo) I would be happy with the spec for the price. Good base spec, multi screen support, upgradeable, pre built for me, $999 = £665 if I can buy it in dollars.

NVIDIA GTX 970M graphics
4x HDMI 2.0, support 4K UHD @ 60Hz
2D/3D NVIDIA Surround
HDMI in
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
HARDWARE SPECIFICATIONS

CPU: Intel® 6th Gen Processor
GPU: NVIDIA® Geforce® GTX 970M with 3GB GDDR5
Memory: 8GB DDR3 SODIMM bundled
Storage: 2.5� 1TB HDD + 64GB M.2 SSD

A few more links for ya

You get back and learn how to drive,myself and Jorkila have got some Zombie killing to do later this evening.

yeah thats because those hardware manufacturers only make money on the hardware not software, so sony and microsoft will sell their consoles for less for 2 prime reasons.

Costs of scale, consoles produced all one spec in huge numbers.
Profit from software.

These steam consoles seem a bit gimmicky to me, and I am not sure who is going to buy them either. More expensive than existing consoles, and PC owners wont ditch their PC for one.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 07-Mar-15 21:34:33)

Its probable a gaming PC with a proper 970 (not mobile version like that console has) and a 4790k intel processor (4core/8thread) can be built for that price.

4690k £181 or 4790k £264 (in my view 4690k is plenty and would be my choice)
Gigabyte Z97P-D3 Intel LGA1150 Z97 ATX Motherboard (4x DDR3, 4x USB3.0, 10x USB2.0, GBE, LAN, HDMI) £60 (6 sata ports)
2tb WD hdd £60
evga 500watt psu £35
Asus Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 Strix Graphics Card (4GB, GDDR5, PCI Express 3.0) £280
Antec VSK-4000E 3 Bay ATX Solid Metal Construction Case - £28

Approx £640 with the 4 core intel chip or £720 with the 4 core 8 threaded chip.

So I wasnt correct a PC could be comfortably built, but this pc would be superior to the console, as the 4690k/4790k will easily overclock 30% or so and its a proper 970 not the mobile variant.

Cost excludes keyboard, mouse, controller.

Note a PC can be made to still boot into steamos, and connected to a HD tv. So basically it can be used as a console if thats the choice of how to use it.

forgot to add ram

Corsair CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9 Vengeance 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600 Mhz CL9 XMP Performance Desktop Memory Kit Black £54

I did check the zotac on the site time2die linked to but they very vague on the cpu spec, just saying 6th gen intel.

Found this comment on a site

"Apparently its going to run a quad-core Skylake i5. And in typical Zotac fashion, it will be cooled by hopes and dreams."

So interesting it be next gen intel (after broadcom) but i5 so probably the skylake version of the 4690k.

I suppose given it be next gen intel, and the inclusive wireless stuff its probably not too bad value, and especially if you prefer the smaller size fo the device.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 07-Mar-15 21:52:28)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WFboU_bjZE

Not what i would buy,if i plumbed for one of these so called Steam Boxes it would have to be of a higher spec.

I actually thought these Steam Boxes were like Mini PCs situated by your television and it didnt literally stream stuff from your bigger better much more high powered Pc you have in your house already.

I thought this was a Cloud technology and not governed by other stuff and hardware.

well given PC's are for more flexible and are fully modular yes I would get a PC instead, and this wont attract someone who already owns a PC.

To me its only selling point is the small size of the unit, it will look better next to a TV than a desktop PC would.

For someone who only wants to play games on a box thats convenient, a PS4 is probably a better choice unless they want Microsoft platform exclusive titles, in which case maybe a xbox one.

But you can build PC's in quite small cases, some build HTPC's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_theater_PC.

My set top tv box is a linux box. (vix solo2).

It be interesting to see if mrnelster ends up buying one.

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 10-Mar-15 18:50:55)

If you buy the steering wheel contraption he bought then logic suggests he will be buying one come rain or shine

Im buying a Apple Watch thats a cert.

In reply to a post by jorkila:

A few more links for ya

Thank you please.

I doubt I'd notice the difference over the PS4 unless it was full on Titans or the like and that ain't worth £1500 to me.

What I do believe though, is that the only advantage the average decent spec PC has on the PS4, is the lighting. That's why it only interests me for driving games. It really brings them to life where PS4 still needs a rub around the edges (literally).

Yeah, I was gonna say you forgot RAM and a cooling set up, which seems even more appropriate after reading the quote you posted!

My requirement is for 4k compatibility and I reckon that 970M is more than capable of matching the PS4 and boosting the resolution. I don't want Xfire, SLI or over clocking. Can't be arsed with all that malarkey (see my reply to Timey). After watching your linked video though, it's put me right off. I had no idea how small that unit was and I know it will be even noisier than my ps4 at full puff.

I would want one with a slightly larger form factor.

In reply to a post by time2die:

If you buy the steering wheel contraption he bought then logic suggests he will be buying one come rain or shine

Im buying a Apple Watch thats a cert.

They can do a million and one things, but they can't teach you to tell the time. Have you tried Toys R Us?

My wheel set up rocks and has proved how controllers are too easy when it comes to cornering. Wotty bought the same set up and now we're heading back to Simply Race in MK tonight for a Formula One session. On a proper set up you find yourself driving slower and going faster.

Best purchase in a long time.

One of these from Kila's link might be a better replacement, and has a three year warranty?

I guess it all depends on how well the PS4 version stacks up at the end of the day, as to whether I bother with the hassle of another set up. The PS4 suits me for gaming so I'll have to wait and see how it plays out, but I do know that I don't want the bother of building a marginally higher spec PC for £750, if I can buy one of these off the shelf with a 3 year warranty.

Looks nice i shall buy one for each room�..I don't see the steering wheel and pedals on it though

a single 970 I think would struggle at 4k, pixel count is a huge gpu resource eater. The 970M is also weaker than the 970.

Despite the hype 4k gaming is a niche thing, and its expensive.

A modern game like DA:I e.g. with its details turned up (but not max possible) stresses my 970 probably between about 50-90% range at 60fps, and I game at 1050p not even close to 4k.

Now granted at 4k you could probably turn MSAA off and not see the difference, which will save gpu cycles I think a single 970 would still struggle unless you turned down all the affects and then the visuals would be "disappointing".

There is a rumoured new titan card coming out tho, that may be ok without SLI but it will probably also be very expensive. The new amd 300 series cards I think the highest model will beat the current gtx 980.

I also wouldnt be surprised if a gtx 990 is released which will be 2 980s in one card.

note here, some are even saying 2 970s may not be enough. http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/2ol100/dis...

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 11-Mar-15 13:14:18)

it will be better than a ps4 (the last model) but I think still not good enough for a good 4k experience. 1440p might be ok tho.

In reply to a post by time2die:

Im buying a Apple Watch thats a cert.

Why on Earth would you want one of those massively overpriced things?
I wouldn't even have an iphone

Apple Watch Sport is composed of customized aluminum alloy. Comes in silver or Space Gray. Color bands are made of high-performance plastic. $349 for 38mm, $399 for 42mm sizes. In Australia the pricing runs AU$499 and AU$579 and that's £299 and £339 in the UK.
Apple Watch (steel case) starts at $549 (38mm) and goes up to $1,049, depending on band. 42mm is $50 more. In Australia the pricing starts at AU$799 and goes to AU$1,629 depending on the band. The UK starts at £479 and runs up to £949.
Apple Watch Edition (18-karat gold case) starts at $10,000, with options ranging all the way to $17,000. That's AU$14,000 to AU$24,000 and from £8,000 up to £13,500 over in the UK.

Will yours be gold??

Edited by deleted (Wed 11-Mar-15 13:54:52)

Don't be so stupid > Platinum

The manufacturer said it will support 4k on one screen or 4 screens at 1080p? Do you not trust them?

In reply to a post by time2die:

Don't be so stupid > Platinum

Standard or the Duck Biilled? Oooh, suits you sir!

I never said it cant output at 4k

running well at a reasonable framerate with high detail is an entirely other matter tho.

Dont be fooled by marketing.

A £30 card can output at 4k but it would run like [censored] in games.

Not being fooled, is not the same as seeing deceipt everywhere. You tend to be negative towards many of my posts PC wise. It'd more helpful if you offered reference material.

You are, after all, just a bloke on the Internet. You need to prove to me why I shouldn't believe the manufacturer over you. Otherwise it just appears elitist.

Believe me, if I had the time to get into PC's properly, I would make you look strictly amateur.

I'm a genius.

well I can stop advising you and let you spend and be disappointed instead?

Companies dont care about misleading marketing, the gtx 970 farce should tell you that.

If you think a single gtx970m can be great at 4k gaming then why are people using dual titans?

You accept my word or you dont.

MY knowledge is simply from years of experience and I tend to research as well, given I only recently brought my 970 I have done a lot of recent research as well as following pc news.

All you need to do is google for reviews, benchmarks, read pc tech forums, maybe watch some pc tech videos and you will see for yourself.

One of the guys I sub from reviewtechusa has done a few steam box videos.

here is one, if you fine with 30fps

http://www.eteknix.com/4k-gaming-showdown-amd-r9-290...

Note tho newer games tax gpu's more. The gtx 780 is roughly about 30% more powerful than a 970m.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-970M-vs-GeForce-...

That gpuboss comparison is actually worse than the reality as its trivial to overclock a 970 by 30% or so, e.g. I run mine at 1460mhz, a 970m is locked at 924mhz.

So even tho the 970m has a similiar name its not close in performance.

Thsi paints a even more grim picture.

Look at the framrate for TWO 970 overclocked cards. barely 30fps.

http://www.techspot.com/review/898-geforce-gtx-970-s...

2 970s overclock I would guestimate to be about 300% of a 970m at least.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 12-Mar-15 19:08:30)

That's as maybe, but sharing your experience with others takes a little more than simply saying "how it is". It all starts to sound trite otherwise.

I'm happy to accept objective advice. If I think it sounds like a drum being banged, I tend to tune out and go and research for myself. I don't believe you need Titans to achieve 4k. I still don't believe the manufacturers would build in 4 monitor support at less than 1080.

And I also seem to remember you saying you had decided that 30fps felt better than 60 not so long back and that you get used to the change very quickly?

yeah but what I am ok with is irrelevant to what you want.

are you happy with 30fps if at 4k?

The single 970 on the crysis benchmark still only managed 16fps tho.

As I said before the steam box will allow you to play at 4k, but the performance will probably leave something to be desired, this will depend on the game but newer games will likely be more demanding than older games. I think in another thread I mentioned that you could turn down various options to make 4k run faster, but then the game wont look very nice, more pixels but with less visual detail and effects.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 12-Mar-15 22:34:06)

I've been quite clear what I want it for though and that is only one game. Do you think Project Cars will run at 4k on it? Do you think racers are as demanding as Crysis and the like?

DriveClub on Ps4 performs incredibly and if you ignore the 60/30fps bickering, you can't knock it visually at all. You say that processor will outperform the ps4, so it sounds reasonable to me that it may be able to reach 4k at 30 frames on a game (Project Cars) with noticeably less detailed visuals than DriveClub? Untrustworthy marketing (possibility or not) is a diversion to any real analysis or evidence based on the specs.

What about Ultra on a 40" display? Will it look just as good and is there any need for 4k then? Do you think the Zotac can handle that?

The thing is Chrysalis, it's easy to find PC elitists all over the web slagging off SteamBoxes, but it sounds just like the normal PC/console fanboyism. I'm trying to find objective comparisons with evidence.not podcast rants and the like. They're not constructive.

Question is ��..Do we all get a wedding invite

My new Project cars Kit.

You know me Timey only has the best

Edited by time2die (Fri 13-Mar-15 08:27:49)

I'm interested in what you're saying

In reply to a post by time2die:

My new Project cars Kit.

You know me Timey only has the best

You been wasting your money again? You know you'll be bored of it a few seconds after it comes out of the box

In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

In reply to a post by time2die:

My new Project cars Kit.

You know me Timey only has the best

You been wasting your money again? You know you'll be bored of it a few seconds after it comes out of the box

.

Bet its better than Nellies

good luck with your purchase I think my advice has gone as far as it will go, maybe someone else will offer their view as well.

But your last question I dont know how well it will run that game as I dont know how demanding and optimised that game is, if you happy with 30fps there is a chance it will be ok.

Racers at a guess I think are on average less demanding than FPS and other 3rd party view games.

My guess regarding PC people shooting down the steambox, is similar to my view, which is no PC gamer is going to get rid of their PC for a steambox. Although a steambox might be something that can be used alongside a PC to stream the game to another room.

I dont think steam boxes are terrible I have changed my view since they were first announced, my feedback to you was based on a 4k gaming experience, the high end ones are definitely good enough for 1080p/1440p.

Damn, mine hasn't got a shifter!

Personally i don't think i will bother with these Steam Boxes,if they were stand alone PCs sitting along side my consoles i might be interested ,but streaming stuff from another PC really ?

And i bet its not got the colours of the rainbow either

Its made out of a light weight material that new on the market called Plastic....Beat that spec if you can ..

You on later this evening,think I'm booked up with Frag for some Zombie killing which we adore,did send you a shareplay invite the other night when i saw you on but it was ignored or you had your head in another packet of Doritos

That's not what they're meant for. That's just the usual elitist [censored].

good luck with your purchase I think my advice has gone as far as it will go, maybe someone else will offer their view as well.

But your last question I dont know how well it will run that game as I dont know how demanding and optimised that game is, if you happy with 30fps there is a chance it will be ok.

I'm sure I will be happy with 30fps if it looks spectacular. I've said that up thread in relation to DriveClub. I've also mentioned that I believe racing games to be far less demanding than say, Crysis or Assains agreed.

Here I am attempting to enter the PC market and your general demeanour is slightly (intentional or not) condescending. You should be more than aware of the law of diminishing returns. The 970M gets some great write ups if you aren't bedroom bound hardcore with your PC gaming. I would love to hear you say "Mate, it's not bleeding edge, but for what you want it will probably be fine if you don't mind 30fps. And hey? It's upgradeable if you find it doesn't quite live up to your expectations." That's a more welcoming approach to a non pc gamer. It's the glass half full, not half empty approach that would make your advice more palatable to a newcomer, rather than technically intimidating.

I'm also a big boy and very capable of raising a family of three kids, running my own company and being a go to source of technical advice for many local colleagues in my industry. I don't need somebody to point out the integrity of manufacturers or their marketing. I'm more than capable of looking after myself in that respect, but it's the thought that counts so thank you.

On topic, your barebones advice is appreciated. I just don't think we are on the same hymn sheet. If you could explain the difference between Max/Ultra and Ultra HD in real terms, and in terms of display size, that would help me understand where you are coming from, image quality wise. For example, if I take your advice on 4k needing the detail to be reduced dramatically, would (as I was hoping you were going to address earlier) ultra @ 1080 (if there is such a setting) deliver comparable results on a 40" display? Would I even need to worry about 4k at the size?

ultra, high, med low etc. is independent of resolution.

So you can play at ultra at 800x600 or low at 4k, the choice is there.

The difference between all these settings will differ per game.

Some games people will analyse and post screenshots so people can compare, other games its trial and error to see what suits you best.

e.g. on DA:I I noticed using HBAO full was causing some performance issues on my rig, I took it down one setting to HBAO and those issues disappeared, try as I a might I cannot see a visual difference.
On the other hand when I adjusted effects quality, the difference was immediately noticeable between ultra and high, whilst the visual difference was obvious it seems to have little effect on performance so that I left on ultra.
Tessellation quality tends to be noticeable on performance, what that setting does is add extra details to objects, so lets say e.g. someone is wearing a crown with jewels on the crown, the tessellation level will probably remove some of those jewels when its reduced.
Texture detail level, I think the best way to describe this one is the resolution/compression of textures, the main impact of this setting is VRAM usage, but it does also affect GPU processer usage as well, personally on DA:I I see very little difference between ultra and fade touched (fade touched in that game is the top setting, so ultra equivalent to high) visually, but it has a massive impact on vram usage, I do keep it on fade touched as I can get away with it. I do notice a bigger difference visually when setting it below ultra tho.
There is a post process quality setting which I am unsure exactly what it does, but the tooltip says is related to motion blur and depth of field, I have it maxed and nmever tried to reduce it to to compare the effects.
Some settings dont just affect visual details tho but also affect how many objects are on the screen, so e.g. if you turn down vegetation quality in DA:I it actually removes vegetation from the game, so instead of say 100 bits of weeds in an area, you might only see 10, there is a very noticeble difference between ultra and high visually, but I am ok using high as I can live with less vegetation. According to the tooltip it also affects draw distance, so a higher setting also has them showing at a larger distance.
Post processing antialiasing is enabling of FXAA and how much of FXAA to use, FXAA is faster than MSAA but tends to blur things, I turn it off.
MSAA is an option in the vast majority of games, which basically sharpens edges and rmeoves jaggies, the higher the resolution the less of a need for MSAA, MSAA is definitely GPU intensive.
There is even more options you will find in games, and a youtuber totalbiscuit goes through them all on every game he reviews, he also plays with them to show the viewer the performance impact and visual differences, he does sometimes come across settings he has no idea what they do.

In the first PC patch of DA:I bioware made an error which forces some low quality mesh details, and people were showing before and after pictures of the affect on visual quality, and the difference was pretty big. This is why I say pixel count isnt everything, my view is someone playing at 1080p with everything on ultra/high will have better visuals than someone playing at 4k with everything turned down.

In terms of me been condescending, I dont know what you mean by that, but I am not going to lie to make a product sound better than it is. You asked for advice on 4k gaming and I gave it.

Every game is different as well, the settings in each game will have different impacts and affect on visual quality.

Shadow of mordor when I played with settings there was a very noticeable difference in visual quality when going down one level of setting.

I do agree that it is likely drive club will run better than those 2 games, but its not a definite. We may get surprised.

Also an option is to render at a lower resolution and then upscale to 4k. Upscaling is very cheap.

Do you have links to where people say 970m is decent for 4k?

Do you have links to where people say 970m is decent for 4k?

I didn't say that, I just said it had decent write ups. It's Zotac that is claiming 4k and none of the PC review sites that I read (a quick google brought up loads) were bemused by that claim. They are in fact just re reporting and obviously haven't reviewed the sn970 yet, but none appeared dubious or showed any immediate concern. Thatay change on release.

You can check out Linus' Tech Tips as one example, for his opinion of the 970 and 980m. Please don't point out that he is sponsored.

I said condescending "intentional or not", because of your constant warnings of corporate deceit. If I were to subscribe to that view I would never buy anything, so it's not constructive. I don't think every company is out to deceive and loose lips sink ships. Take Timey for example. Your negative approach has led him to the conclusion that these are pointless other than as streaming devices from another PC. Granted, he's from the midlands, but he now thinks the worst of a machine that is unarguably very capable.

That helps nobody.

they not deceiving, the device can output at 4k.

If they said the device is aimed at 4k gamers then thats an entirely different matter, however I dont believe they have said that.

I checked this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGF5_vZJDI

But it doesnt say anything to promote the product for 4k usage.

Also note one of the people commenting reminded people the 980m is 7% weaker than the plain 970.

I dont know what you want me to say? it seems you want me to lie.

You saying that someone tells you a device is not as powerful you thought it was isnt helpful? then why did you ask.

I would link you to reviewtechusa who doesnt take BS from any manufacturer but you would call him a pc elitist fanboy for saying the truth.

He's from the midlands���.Lol It has nothing to do with Chrysalis comments matey i just don't need a glorified streaming PC thingy stuck next to my consoles.

here we go, a single GPU marketed for 4k. get a steam machine with one of these in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTr0rfUZgqg
http://www.redgamingtech.com/r9-390x-features-8gb-hm...

I would link you to reviewtechusa who doesnt take BS from any manufacturer but you would call him a pc elitist fanboy for saying the truth.

I rarely comment on Xbone or PC threads, but whenever I question your opinion, you always harp back to the fanboy accusations.

The sites you link to are never authoritative, just podcasts and the like from enthusiasts. Like I said, loose lips sink ships. Talk is cheap, so I make a point never to subscribe to tittle tattle. I want that law of diminishing returns put into context when talking about performance. I suspect 7% is irrelevant to all but the hardcore elitist. Unless you can link me to two different example videos to see the difference for myself, I can't imagine it being at all dramatic. Maybe I'm wrong.

In reply to a post by time2die:

Personally i don't think i will bother with these Steam Boxes,if they were stand alone PCs sitting along side my consoles i might be interested ,but streaming stuff from another PC really ?

An old but clear synopsis of the vision and possible pros and cons of the Steam Box.

http://www.pcgamer.com/steamos-the-pros-and-cons/

Also, note the same hopes for optimisation improvement as with the estaished consoles:

With SteamOS, however, Valve claims it has "achieved significant performance increases in graphics processing,"

I will be using it with my wheel, but as long as I don't have to use "a owl" controller , I will be able to play non ps4 released games too. It could be win, win so don't let negative attitudes affect your thoughts just yet. The most vocal opponents know no more detail than you or I. I reckon its a great idea and deserves a chance. I certainly wouldn't be contemplating PC gaming if it weren't for the Steam Box approach and I suspect their will be a lot more like me.

That can only be good for gaming, right?

I am not here to argue with you, I just offered my information.

Valve are in a dream world if they think developers will ditch windows, they develop where the numbers are. The best case outcome for steamos is if every game is also made linux compatible, games wont be made linux only.

In regards to the PROs on that page they are just a point of view.

1 -- It adds couch friendly games.

To me this is no pro as I prefer to game on a monitor and sitting close to it. The article makes an assumption that is what everyone wants, but regardless steam already has big picture mode, which basically puts a console interface on a pc.

2 - It adds competition in the console market.

This is a bad thing, the more consoles there is, the more exclusivty occurs and as such gamers have to buy more hardware, this is not a good thing, although the only exclusives I ever see the steam box getting is maybe valve titles. The steam box is also priced too high to be price competitive to the existing consoles.

3 - No need to pay for windows

This is a small advantage, the problem is steam machines are expensive anyway, meaning if you trying to argue there is a cost advantage there simply isnt on the overall picture. Especially now that microsoft are making it free to upgrade from one version of windows to another.

This is my view, doesnt mean I am a pc elitist. Its just what I think.

PC's have their own advantages over these steam machines. Which I think you seriously need to consider especially as you said you dont need it to be a small size.

1 - Upgradeability, at some point the steam machine will get obselete, buy a steam machine and then you will eventually have to buy another steam machine. PC's however are pretty much fully modular, every component can be switched out independently. So whilst an initial PC purchase if from scratch is expensive, from that point on it becomes cheaper. e.g. you can buy/build a PC with a single GTX 970 in, get your game, try it in 4k, if it runs like trash, just stick a second 970 in there to SLI it, better than having the whole investment wasted.

2 - Multi purpose.

3 - Customisation.

Also the optimisation aspect wont stick for steam machines, the main reasons consoles have that as an advantage is that the consoles are single spec, every PS4 is the same. Not every steam machine is the same, there is dozens of different models. It is still going to be the same games that run on PCs that are used on the steam machines. The steam machines are basically handicapped PCs.

PC's however are pretty much fully modular, every component can be switched out independently.

Not strictly true... The problem is normally when you need to upgrade processor. If upgrading to a new generation you generally have to switch motherboard. Switching motherboard has also, often, meant replacing memory.

Adding an extra graphics card could push the PSU over the top so may also require that replaced. Replacing a graphics card if they have updated the bus specs could also drive a new motherboard.

And if a major tech jump is made (like PATA to SATA in the past) then you potentially also have to replace drives.

I understand where you are coming from but once you get to a certain point you may end up having to build a new machine from scratch rather than switch parts.

I am a PC gamer myself and for some years have been building my own machines but there are times where it is far more complex to upgrade than others. There is a simplicity to consoles but even my latest attempt has failed as I still prefer to use the PC than to fire up the console and use those horrible controllers.

I much prefer to use a controller than a keyboard and mouse,the only time a keyboard and mouse has a edge are FPS and thats it,everything else is way better using a controller and thats why so many PC gamers have controllers for there PCs.

A driving game without a controller is a complete waste of time,using a keyboard is just plain ridiculous.

I have been a avid pc gamer many years ago but found the switch to consoles with the use of a controller a breeze and don't understand why so many people complain about not been able to adapt to a nice console controller,personally i find it much more easier to use and you don't have to be tied to a desk about a foot from a monitor.

Edited by time2die (Mon 16-Mar-15 11:14:18)

I know many people prefer controllers. I have been using keyboard/mouse for so long (about 24 years) that I just don't get on with controllers. Did play Forza with controller and that was OK but even then I could only play for about an hour before I started getting RSI.

Think its horses for courses Ian and each to there own,if you find using a PC set up better for you than a controller then why not.

I just think its way easier say playing a platform game with a controller than using a keyboard .

I still play the odd PC game and near enough always plug my Xbox controller in!!

now days the need to upgrade a cpu is infrequent.

the cpu is still modular, just on the intel side of things cpu's tend to be tied to a certian chipset.

and replacing a psu to upgrade the gpu is still better than replacing a steam machine, but you forget newer gpu's are now reducing power consumption anyway, the gtx 970 is twice as powerful as a 760 but uses less power.

when I switched from i5 750 to haswell 4670k i did change the mortherboard but all other components stayed the same including the ram. so was new cpu, ram and cpu fan. This haswell will probably last me at least 5 years.

you can do either.

I play DA:I on my pc using a 360 controller. Modern games will detect it and give the same controls as consoles.

a new video for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsCIdqIqbgM

note on one game he got above 70fps and another he was down to low 30s so game to game is variance.

The titan X was also overclocked, but based on that he said it was equal to two overclocked 780s I would say the card is about 3-3.5x as powerful as a single 970m.

no surprise shadow of mordor was worse as third person view games tend to be more demanding.

Well I played grid autosport a driving game, and it is indeed light on the GPU compared to other games, with everything on ultra at 1050p "and" 4x msaa the card was about 40% used at 60fps cap and uncapped manages about 125 fps.

1440p an extra 70% pixels over 1080p, I would say I would still be at 60fps, at 4k probably above 30fps but below 60fps, however without msaa possibly 60fps. On a single 970 (overclocked).

Not my Quote Just a header.

Im still unsure what they actually do and what they deliver,i don't want some fancy looking mini PC box down by the side of my television that basically streams Steam games to it.

Price structure is a joke,to many companies making the equipment and the basic models cost more than a Xbox One and a Playstation 4.

Im thinking best part of a grand here for a decent one,if it had mind blowing games with amazing effects a graphics and wasn't just some Steam add on i might be interested.

Call me ignorant but I'm a tad confused by all of these steam machines,I'm looking at this as some sort of PC by your television unless somebody wants to explain it in simple terms. What exactly the consumer is buying into here.

some sort of PC by your television

That's exactly what you're buying, except instead of Windows you will be running on a Steam Ecosystem. Just like you do the PSN or Xbox Live. Hopefully with much improved graphics and a wider range of games.

I keep telling you, don't get hung up on that streaming thing. It's like the vita TV box thingy that Sony came up with. That didn't force you to stream anything to your PS4 did it? It's just an extra option.

The recommended requirements certainly don't appear too taxing for the £600 - 700 Steam Boxes.

The 8350 I originally thought about if building my own PC is even in there, although I understand people prefer i7's. NVIDIA's drivers also seem to be performing better than AMD's at the moment, if some of the current build testers are to be be believed.

Shut upa ya face

recommended will be good performance on mainstream resolutions.

4k is a niche resolution, according to steam data less than 0.2% of gamers use it.

e.g. you need 3 980s or dual titan X's to play DA:I at 4k reasonably yet thats not in the recommended specs.

generally I take published recommended specs with a pinch of salt anyway.

ultimately you wont know for sure what is good enough until the game is released.

whats DA:I when its out .

Dragon Age:Inquisition

update, there is a high res texture pack for grid autosport, downloaded it and tried it out, had no impact on performance just used more frame buffer.

I hate it when people type the initials and not the game in question,my memory is not what it used to be and i would never have guessed it was a game i have yet to play not that I'm that interested to be honest.

Cheers matey I wouldn't have slept tonight worrying about it

You have played it haven't you? Thought you couldn't get on with it!!

Well if you can call playing a game like this for about 30 minutes playing a game then yes.

Your talking 80 hours here so I'm not qualified to comment really,i was sucked in by the trailers but once i loaded it i wasn't that impressed if I'm honest and to be totally brutal i never ever liked the previous games either.

Edited by time2die (Tue 24-Mar-15 15:39:37)