Prototype 'Steam Machine' dusted off and tested — running Windows on an old AMD APU ten years later

The Xi3 Piston Steam Machine.
(Image credit: Future)

One of the first Steam Machine prototypes has been detailed and tested by YouTuber Bringus Studios. Unlike pretty much every other Steam Machine prototype and final product, this Xi3-made PC ran Windows instead of the Linux-based SteamOS operating system. The PC, which Xi3 later launched as the Piston, has middling gaming performance according to Bringus Studios' benchmarks, and even in its own time wasn't very fast.

When Bringus Studios first acquired this strange mini-PC, the YouTuber actually didn't quite know what he had, because it didn't have a product name, just the logo of Xi3. After some digging, he concluded this PC was a prototype of Xi3's Piston, which was supposed to be one of the first Steam Machines. The apparent prototype doesn't seem very different from the final product, except for the fact that Bringus Studios' model doesn't have the Piston branding on it — adding credence to the idea that it's a prototype.

Technically, the Xi3 Piston isn't actually a Steam Machine. In fact, when it was first revealed in early 2013, the term Steam Machine wasn't even official. The PC community used the unofficial term Steam Box instead. While it initially seemed Valve was directly invested in Xi3's Piston PC when it was revealed in early 2013, just a few months later Valve said it actually had nothing to do with the Piston and that Xi3 was on its own. The Piston did eventually launch for $1,000, but not under the auspices of Valve, and it wasn't a Steam Machine or even a Steam Box.

Under the hood, the Piston has an AMD Trinity APU and 8GB of RAM. This APU is an embedded model going by the name R-464L, but it's actually the same silicon as AMD's old A10-4600M from 2012. When we tested it 12 years ago, the A10-4600M didn't exactly provide an amazing gaming experience, and the Xi3 prototype is no different. In Bringus Studios' testing, it struggled to get the Piston to run many games well. Half Life ran fine, but Half-Life 2 barely hit 60 FPS. Portal 2 was clinging on to 30 FPS as best it could, but it was still laggy, and Team Fortress 2 was dipping into the mid-20s.

There were mixed results for more modern games. Bringus Studios was actually able to get Doom (2016) to run pretty well at 50% resolution scale and 480p, but Counter-Strike 2 was essentially unplayable even with some truly atrocious-looking graphics settings.

The reasons why Valve canceled its partnership (if there ever was one) with Xi3 are unclear. It might have been due to the high price tag or the poor performance, but more likely it was because Xi3 wanted to use Windows. Not only was the Piston made for Windows, apparently it really doesn't work well with Linux, as Bringus Studios failed to get it to boot on two different distros. However, it worked fine on both Windows 11 and 10.

In the end, Valve went ahead with Steam Machines that used the Linux-powered SteamOS instead of relying on Windows like Xi3. While the Steam Machine wasn't really successful, SteamOS continued on and now we have SteamOS 3 on the Steam Deck. Had Valve gone with Windows instead, the landscape of PC gaming could look very different today.

Matthew Connatser

Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.

  • Avro Arrow
    I dunno, I still use an twelve year-old Llano (A8-3500M) craptop for watching YouTube instead of using a tablet and it runs just fine using Windows 7 and Opera. I wouldn't try using it for much else but it works just fine for general browsing, playing Starcraft II or Armada II and watching YouTube. To be fair, I did replace the HDD with an SSD but other than that, it's 100% stock except that I doubled the RAM to 8GB of DDR3-1333 when I bought it. It appears that was a smart move on my part.
    Reply
  • edzieba
    While the Steam Machine wasn't really successful
    Now THAT's an understatement!

    As for SteamOS itself: SteamOS 1.0 and 2.0 were Debian-based distros developed to be widely installable on a variety of hardware. Support for this version of SteamOS has ceased entirely.
    SteamOS 3.0 is based on Arch, and is only officially available for the Steam Deck - can can require some heavy modification to get running even vaguely normally on other hardware (officially it's been 'coming soon' from Valve for well over a year).
    The two share a name, but are pretty different.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    Avro Arrow said:
    I dunno, I still use an twelve year-old Llano (A8-3500M) craptop for watching YouTube instead of using a tablet and it runs just fine using Windows 7 and Opera. I wouldn't try using it for much else but it works just fine for general browsing, playing Starcraft II or Armada II and watching YouTube.

    That sounds reasonable since the YouTube videos will be set aside and processed separately on the UVD decoder. That leaves most of the rest of what the computer can do for general browsing and gaming.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    I'd like to see the original Steam Machine tested using HoloISO or actual SteamOS 3.0+ if it can be had.
    Reply
  • brandonjclark
    Avro Arrow said:
    I dunno, I still use an twelve year-old Llano (A8-3500M) craptop for watching YouTube instead of using a tablet and it runs just fine using Windows 7 and Opera. I wouldn't try using it for much else but it works just fine for general browsing, playing Starcraft II or Armada II and watching YouTube. To be fair, I did replace the HDD with an SSD but other than that, it's 100% stock except that I doubled the RAM to 8GB of DDR3-1333 when I bought it. It appears that was a smart move on my part.
    You have a dedicated PoS for just watching YT?
    Reply
  • 35below0
    brandonjclark said:
    You have a dedicated PoS for just watching YT?
    Bigger than a phone. I'm sure it can do other things.
    Reply
  • coromonadalix
    lol they where sold for almost nothing on Ebay, and now the prices are absurd
    Reply
  • TechLurker
    If I'm not misremembering some of the background, the guy behind the Xi3 company was retired military, and part of the reason it reportedly cost so much was because of the costs of developing the novel modular board layout that allowed for upgradable modules that could be replaced as tech got better. As well, he reportedly also marketed the idea to the US military, who were interested in potentially being able to use semi-off-the-shelf tech, as well as marketing them to hospitals and healthcare facilities where its small size was perfect for thin clients and simple standalone PCs.

    Most of the Xi3 mini-PCs, including higher end models, mostly ended up in healthcare settings until they were obsoleted due to Xi3 going under and offering no more upgradability, and ended up as e-waste, although some could be had on eBay as a novelty item (or in some use cases, a Pihole/mini-media server with performance).

    Personally, I think it's an idea that was too ahead of its time; but with companies like Framework putting out modular laptops and the rise in interest in mini-PCs, the Xi3 could have probably found a market nowadays.
    Reply