Skip to main content

OneXPlayer Launches $840 Mini AMD Ryzen 7 Powered Steam Deck Competitor

OneXPlayer
(Image credit: OneXPlayer)

OneXPlayer this week began sales of its OneXPlayer Mini portable game console based on AMD's Ryzen 7 5800U in China, less than two months after releasing the same handheld based on Intel's 11th Gen Core 'Tiger Lake' processor. The news, which reaches us via Liliputing, sees a lower cost AMD Edition of the console, designed to improve availability of the system as demand increases for x86-based consoles in light of Valve's Steam Deck release. 

Just like many other Windows-based portable game consoles these days, OneXPlayer Mini is equipped with a 7-inch IPS display featuring a 1920 x 1200 or a 1280 x 800 resolution (the latter option is only available with and AMD's chip). The original OneXPlayer Mini uses Intel's Core i7-1195G7 processor with four cores as well as an Iris Xe GPU with 96 execution units (which is comparable to 768 stream processors) clocked at up to 1.40 GHz. By contrast, the new OneXPlayer Mini AMD Edition is powered by AMD's eight-core Zen 3-based Ryzen 7 5800U processor with AMD Radeon Vega 8 GPU with 512 stream processors operating at up to 2.0 GHz, reports Liliputing. Both systems are equipped with 16GB of LPDDR4X-4266 memory as well as 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB NVMe storage. 

AMD-based OneXPlayer Mini with a 1280 x 800 screen and 512GB drive starts at ¥5,299 ($840), which is considerably lower when compared to the cheapest Intel-based OneXPlayer Mini that carries a $1,259 MSRP in the USA. Meanwhile, the most advanced OneXPlayer Mini AMD Edition (1920 x 1200, 2TB) costs ¥6,899 ($1091), which is dramatically lower when compared to the top-of-the-range Intel Inside Mini console priced at $1,599. Still, even the cheapest OneXPlayer Mini is more expensive than even the most expensive Steam Deck option. Steam Deck carries a price tag between $399 and $649 in the U.S., but only has up to 512GB of storage, unless you fancy tearing it down and adding your own.

Onexplayer

(Image credit: Amazon)

Evidently, OneXPlayer Mini with AMD's Ryzen 5800U offers more general-purpose cores and higher CPU performance than the original Mini (and Steam Deck), though it is hard to determine which of the two OneXPlayer Minis — with AMD's Radeon Vega 8 or Intel's Iris Xe Graphics G7 96 EU — has higher graphical performance. Meanwhile, the lower resolution display (which matches the resolution of Valve's Steam Deck) of the AMD variant will certainly assist in improving framerates.  

In any case, both OneXPlayer Mini consoles are expected to be slower in terms of graphics performance when compared to Valve's Steam Deck that is equipped with a custom AMD system-on-chip featuring an RDNA 2-based GPU with 512 SPs operating at 1.60 GHz and which works with LPDDR5-5500 memory.   

At this point, AMD Edition of the OneXPlayer Mini is available only in China and we do not know whether the company has plans to bring these units to other markets. At the end of the day, consistent quality (i.e., resolution) and performance (i.e., usage of the same hardware) is a must for game consoles, so offering two versions of the same system may not be optimal from game quality point of view. 

Yet, it is a good way to improve availability of the system as well as drive its price down. The latter could be the main motivator to bring the AMD Edition OneXPlayer Mini to the U.S. and Europe as Intel-based variant is too costly when compared to Valve's Steam Deck. 

Anton Shilov
Anton Shilov

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.

  • LuxZg
    So now we wait for an AMD 6xxx series version, right? Wonder if they will offer it by the autumn
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    Honestly, these custom "Hand-Held Gaming PC's" make no logical sense.

    We should just repackage them into former "NetBook" sized chasis and re-brand them as "GameBook" PC's.

    Tell the customer to BYOC (Bring Your Own Controller).

    Use a more innovative portable format where the NetBook naturally stands up in a "A-Stand" configuration for good airflow / ventillation and has a 100 Wh battery with a flat rubber base with a screen that opens up for better viewing angles at a elevated height where you won't strain your neck as much by having to look down.

    Stop trying to make a heavier portable hand held.

    The Nintendo Switch sucked in terms of ergonomics/weight, you can't hold it for longer than 1-2 hrs without your arms getting tired.

    Making a larger/heavier hand-held gaming platform isn't going to solve the problems of weight/mass along with bad ergonomics.
    Reply
  • dalauder
    Kamen Rider Blade said:
    Honestly, these custom "Hand-Held Gaming PC's" make no logical sense.

    We should just repackage them into former "NetBook" sized chasis and re-brand them as "GameBook" PC's.

    Tell the customer to BYOC (Bring Your Own Controller).

    Use a more innovative portable format where the NetBook naturally stands up in a "A-Stand" configuration for good airflow / ventillation and has a 100 Wh battery with a flat rubber base with a screen that opens up for better viewing angles at a elevated height where you won't strain your neck as much by having to look down.

    Stop trying to make a heavier portable hand held.

    The Nintendo Switch sucked in terms of ergonomics/weight, you can't hold it for longer than 1-2 hrs without your arms getting tired.

    Making a larger/heavier hand-held gaming platform isn't going to solve the problems of weight/mass along with bad ergonomics.
    I don't get who is buying any of these, yeah.

    If you want a Nintendo Switch, get that. It's better and cheaper.

    If you want a gaming PC, get that. It's better and the same price or cheaper.

    Also, these all tend to use an overpowered CPU and underpowered GPU. Doesn't that defeat the point of a "gaming" device?
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    dalauder said:
    If you want a Nintendo Switch, get that. It's better and cheaper.
    Only if you want Nintendo Exclusive games, which is usually their 1st Party lineup. Otherwise, you might as well wait until it comes to PC.

    If you want a gaming PC, get that. It's better and the same price or cheaper.
    True, a gaming Desktop will be infinitely superior for the cost, the only down-side is that it ain't portable.

    A Portable Gaming LapTop will be "Over Priced" and under performs compared to your DeskTop, but there are sacrifices to be made for Gaming LapTops.

    Also, these all tend to use an overpowered CPU and underpowered GPU. Doesn't that defeat the point of a "gaming" device?
    Depends on the resolution you're targeting. Gaming at 1K resolutions of 1280x720p @ 60 fps is do-able for these low powered APU's or cheapo ARM APU's like the Nintendo Switch.

    But the one thing they aren't is "Light Weight", "Small", or "Ergonomic".

    And they get REALLY HOT when you push them.
    Reply
  • fearlessknight
    Kamen Rider Blade said:
    Only if you want Nintendo Exclusive games, which is usually their 1st Party lineup. Otherwise, you might as well wait until it comes to PC.


    True, a gaming Desktop will be infinitely superior for the cost, the only down-side is that it ain't portable.

    A Portable Gaming LapTop will be "Over Priced" and under performs compared to your DeskTop, but there are sacrifices to be made for Gaming LapTops.


    Depends on the resolution you're targeting. Gaming at 1K resolutions of 1280x720p @ 60 fps is do-able for these low powered APU's or cheapo ARM APU's like the Nintendo Switch.

    But the one thing they aren't is "Light Weight", "Small", or "Ergonomic".

    And they get REALLY HOT when you push them.

    You could also have a dedicated home server that you can remote into with ParSec from a average laptop when traveling and run games or anything else that is gpu or cpu core intensive.
    Works for me.
    Reply