Valve: No Performance Upgrades for the Next-Gen Steam Deck

Steam Deck
(Image credit: Valve)

Valve is not looking to improve performance of the next iteration of Steam Deck, the designers of the portable console told The Verge. Instead, the company will for now try to improve the battery life and display quality of the device. Once computer architectures evolve significantly, Valve will possibly consider a major upgrade.  

"I think we will opt to keep the one performance level for a little bit longer, and only look at changing the performance level when there is a significant gain to be had," said Pierre-Loup Griffais, a Steam Deck designer. 

Many new games do not really run smoothly on Steam Deck's custom-designed Aerith system-on-chip featuring four Zen 2 cores with SMT at 2.40 to 3.50 GHz and an RDNA 2-based GPU with 512 stream processors operating at 1.0 to 1.60 GHz. As a result, demanding gamers (who tend to buy plenty of games) would prefer a Steam Deck with a higher-performing SoC in order to enjoy their latest titles on the go. But for now, Steam Deck designers Lawrence Yang and Pierre-Loup Griffais are looking forward to improving battery life and display in their next Steam Deck iteration.

While they tend to cost quite a bit more than the Steam Deck, there are competing handhelds that may find more of an audience with demanding gamers. The Aya Neo 2 is based on the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U (eight Zen 3+ cores, RDNA 2-powered Radeon 680M iGPU with 768 SPs), which delivers higher performance, but at the cost of battery life. 

"Right now, the fact that all the Steam Decks can play the same games and that we have one target for users to understand what kind of performance level to expect when you are playing and for developers to understand what to target... there is a lot of value in having that one spec," said Griffais. 

Indeed, there are many reasons why it makes sense for Valve to retain the same level of performance with the next iteration of the Steam Deck. If it didn't, it would need to run two separate Steam Deck Compatibility programs for two consoles with different specifications. Secondly, game developers would have to target two hardware configurations, which means longer time-to-market and higher costs for them. Thirdly, some owners of the first-generation Steam Deck would feel left behind once the second-generation launched. Finally, reducing the costs of the Steam Deck to make the hardware profitable makes more financial sense than increasing performance and not making any money on hardware. And as long as the Steam Deck is continuing to sell well, the company has little reason to make major upgrades.

While PC gamers may not exactly feel great about the lack of Steam Deck upgrades in the foreseeable future, it is a normal practice in the console world to keep hardware specifications stable for years. For example, Nintendo could have introduced its 'Switch Pro' based on a more powerful Nvidia SoC by now, but the only upgrade that the Switch console has seen over its five-year lifespan is a better OLED display. 

And if you're a company that's new to the console market and looking to stay there for a long time, you could certainly do worse than looking to Nintendo for some guidance. 

Anton Shilov
Freelance News Writer

Anton Shilov is a Freelance News Writer at Tom’s Hardware US. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • Elusive Ruse
    I think they have their priorities straight, a handheld gaming device's battery needs to be top notch. What's the point of a portable gamer if it needs to be plugged in most of the time?
    Reply
  • gman68
    Elusive Ruse said:
    I think they have their priorities straight, a handheld gaming device's battery needs to be top notch. What's the point of a portable gamer if it needs to be plugged in most of the time?
    I agree. Also, if you are gaming at home and you really want to use the steam deck, you can stream from a more powerful desktop or gaming laptop.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    I'm confused by them saying this because AMD's newer architectures (Zen 3/4) are much higher performing and much more efficient. I certainly understand them not changing the GPU/RAM situation, but if they were to leave the CPU side alone it would be for pure profit reasons and nothing else.
    Reply
  • prtskg
    thestryker said:
    I'm confused by them saying this because AMD's newer architectures (Zen 3/4) are much higher performing and much more efficient. I certainly understand them not changing the GPU/RAM situation, but if they were to leave the CPU side alone it would be for pure profit reasons and nothing else.
    GPU has changed by one generation only, rdna3 from rdna2 and CPU change is not that important for gaming, so it's understandable that they're not changing performance.
    Reply
  • The Historical Fidelity
    thestryker said:
    I'm confused by them saying this because AMD's newer architectures (Zen 3/4) are much higher performing and much more efficient. I certainly understand them not changing the GPU/RAM situation, but if they were to leave the CPU side alone it would be for pure profit reasons and nothing else.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    thestryker said:
    but if they were to leave the CPU side alone it would be for pure profit reasons and nothing else.
    They had a pre order cost of $5 and the decks are so cheap that they probably don't even make any money from them directly.
    Keeping the cost down will be great for users that don't want to be paying nvidia money for a deck.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    prtskg said:
    GPU has changed by one generation only, rdna3 from rdna2 and CPU change is not that important for gaming, so it's understandable that they're not changing performance.
    In the case of the Steam Deck the CPU side is very important given the limited power profile of the device. The current CPU cores in it are the weakest point of the device and moving to a newer architecture would both increase performance and allow it to be more efficient (they don't need to increase the number of cores just the type). If you need an example of the type of performance difference possible just look at the 4700G/4750G vs 5600G (the latter has fewer CPU/GPU cores, and even the 5300G can periodically beat the 4700G/4750G).

    TerryLaze said:
    They had a pre order cost of $5 and the decks are so cheap that they probably don't even make any money from them directly.
    Keeping the cost down will be great for users that don't want to be paying nvidia money for a deck.

    Valve almost certainly isn't losing money on the Steam Deck, but they may not be making a lot of profit (I'd assume the profits are mostly on the higher models). Keeping the existing APU as it is or with a node shrink would be a way to save money on development so they don't have to make it back with a new Steam Deck. I'm not suggesting they should use a 6xxx series APU in these as that'd be a terrible choice price/perf/efficiency wise.

    If they were really worried about battery life though they'd be looking to remake the APU with Zen 3/3+ based cores as that could have as much of an impact as a larger battery/node shrink. This shouldn't cost them anywhere near as much as the original APU did development wise (if they leave GPU/Memory configuration), but the result would be higher performance with a lower power envelope.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    Valve has the correct priority, I think. Mobile is mobile, so it needs to be mobile. That would make battery life the obvious target. Keeping it constantly plugged in is counterintuitive.

    Since Steam Deck uses the Linux-based SteamOS, Valve doesnt have to give up on the home gamer. They just have to release an ISO and leverage the flexibility that comes standard with the Linux platform. Now all PCs are potential Steam boxes.

    An Aerith with a die shrink and gobs of X3D gaming cache would make a lot of sense.
    Reply
  • kyzarvs
    thestryker said:
    In the case of the Steam Deck the CPU side is very important given the limited power profile of the device. The current CPU cores in it are the weakest point of the device and moving to a newer architecture would both increase performance and allow it to be more efficient (they don't need to increase the number of cores just the type). If you need an example of the type of performance difference possible just look at the 4700G/4750G vs 5600G (the latter has fewer CPU/GPU cores, and even the 5300G can periodically beat the 4700G/4750G).



    Valve almost certainly isn't losing money on the Steam Deck, but they may not be making a lot of profit (I'd assume the profits are mostly on the higher models). Keeping the existing APU as it is or with a node shrink would be a way to save money on development so they don't have to make it back with a new Steam Deck. I'm not suggesting they should use a 6xxx series APU in these as that'd be a terrible choice price/perf/efficiency wise.

    If they were really worried about battery life though they'd be looking to remake the APU with Zen 3/3+ based cores as that could have as much of an impact as a larger battery/node shrink. This shouldn't cost them anywhere near as much as the original APU did development wise (if they leave GPU/Memory configuration), but the result would be higher performance with a lower power envelope.
    But as the article states, this would mean 2x compatibility programs, 2x architectures for developers to support etc etc. If keeping architectures works for the market leader (Nintendo), I think from a sales point of view it may well be the way to go.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    kyzarvs said:
    But as the article states, this would mean 2x compatibility programs, 2x architectures for developers to support etc etc. If keeping architectures works for the market leader (Nintendo), I think from a sales point of view it may well be the way to go.
    Huh?! The what now?!
    We are talking about Steam and PC games. There are dozens of "compatibility" and "architectures" they have to design for anyway, not that they ever do any optimization but at least in theory.
    AMD makes linux drivers anyway and even if they wouldn't steam would only have to make drivers.
    The only additional thing for the deck would be for everything to be controllable by the controller and for the writing to be big enough to be visible, both of those don't change no matter of the CPU changes or not.
    Reply