Valve announces the Steam Deck, a handheld gaming PC starting at $399

arrowflash

Posts: 460   +498
I really don't get why Valve went with that 1280x800 screen at 16:10 aspect ratio. A 1280x720 or 1366x768 16:9 screen would be much better, since most games nowadays are designed for that AR, all media is also designed for 16:9.

I still have a very old HP Pavillion laptop with a 1280x800 screen. 16:10 is actually better than 16:9 for work, reading and web browsing. But for gaming and media 16:9 is better.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,587   +1,606
TechSpot Elite
For gaming? sure. For browsing internet or doing some more PC stuff, not so much. You will be seeing pixels pretty clearly. That is a handheld device, quite close to the eyes.
Pixel density on an 8" display at 1280x800 (185) is twice that of 1080p on a 24" monitor (95) and 33% more than 1440p on the same size monitor. (All rough but close Im sure)

Of course there is more to it but, not much.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 334   +452
I was with you on that until you mentioned Dual Micro SD and raid 0...
Why? SD Cards read performance is pretty poor. And Game install files are not important. A card could fail and all data on those SD lost, but you shouldn't be out anything that couldn't just be reinstalled.

Plus I'd rather have one large storage pools than two. And a single SD slot just isn't enough. Dual SD Card slots are a must IMO.
 

dangh

Posts: 256   +334
Pixel density on an 8" display at 1280x800 (185) is twice that of 1080p on a 24" monitor (95) and 33% more than 1440p on the same size monitor. (All rough but close Im sure)

Of course there is more to it but, not much.
that's right, but I'm 100cm from my 24 inch screen, and 30cm from my handheld.
according to this:
for the steam deck resolution, pixels are visible 44 cm from the eye
[HEADING=3]Visual Acuity distance: 0.44 m (1.4 ft)[/HEADING]
and for 24 inch monitor:
[HEADING=3]Visual Acuity distance: 0.96 m (3.2 ft)[/HEADING]

so yes, perceivable image quality will be better on 24 inch screen 90 cm/3 ft from your eye than 30 cm / 1 ft on steam deck.

Additionally, it is clearly visible from maximum distance. On deck maximum distance is much lower than than acuity distance. To achieve best quality on max distance you actually need to have full hd:
Maximum distance:0.30 m (1.0 ft)
Visual Acuity distance: 0.26 m (0.9 ft)
this mean, pixels are already blending and yet you still see a good angle of the screen.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,587   +1,606
TechSpot Elite
that's right, but I'm 100cm from my 24 inch screen, and 30cm from my handheld.
according to this:
for the steam deck resolution, pixels are visible 44 cm from the eye
[HEADING=3]Visual Acuity distance: 0.44 m (1.4 ft)[/HEADING]
and for 24 inch monitor:
[HEADING=3]Visual Acuity distance: 0.96 m (3.2 ft)[/HEADING]

so yes, perceivable image quality will be better on 24 inch screen 90 cm/3 ft from your eye than 30 cm / 1 ft on steam deck.

Additionally, it is clearly visible from maximum distance. On deck maximum distance is much lower than than acuity distance. To achieve best quality on max distance you actually need to have full hd:
Maximum distance:0.30 m (1.0 ft)
Visual Acuity distance: 0.26 m (0.9 ft)
this mean, pixels are already blending and yet you still see a good angle of the screen.
Ok man, here is what I did. First I read your post a number of times, then I thought I would translate as best I could. I just can't translate to real world use though. My Switch has a 720p screen and is free of jaggies and clear. Games and text. But regardless, feel free to grade me.

1280 x 800 on an 8" screen is just fine. Unless one bungee cords the device to their face. :D
 
Last edited:

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,403   +1,999
Why? SD Cards read performance is pretty poor. And Game install files are not important. A card could fail and all data on those SD lost, but you shouldn't be out anything that couldn't just be reinstalled.

Plus I'd rather have one large storage pools than two. And a single SD slot just isn't enough. Dual SD Card slots are a must IMO.
I would be concerned with the reliability of that array running on SD card Flash memory!
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 334   +452
I would be concerned with the reliability of that array running on SD card Flash memory!
We're talking about game installs. Who needs reliability?...

A SD card shouldn't be trusted with anything important even by itself.

The array could fail, you'd simply need to replace SD cards and redownload games. No loss.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,403   +1,999
We're talking about game installs. Who needs reliability?...

A SD card shouldn't be trusted with anything important even by itself.

The array could fail, you'd simply need to replace SD cards and redownload games. No loss.
Meh this most likely will never be implemented so guess it doesn't matter.