this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
128 points (100.0% liked)

Steam Deck

591 readers
2 users here now

A place to discuss and support all things Steam Deck.

Replacement for r/steamdeck_linux.

As Lemmy doesn't have flairs yet, you can use these prefixes to indicate what type of post you have made, eg:
[Flair] My post title

The following is a list of suggested flairs:
[Discussion] - General discussion.
[Help] - A request for help or support.
[News] - News about the deck.
[PSA] - Sharing important information.
[Game] - News / info about a game on the deck.
[Update] - An update to a previous post.
[Meta] - Discussion about this community.

Some more Steam Deck specific flairs:
[Boot Screen] - Custom boot screens/videos.
[Selling] - If you are selling your deck.

These are not enforced, but they are encouraged.

Rules:

Link to our Matrix Space

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Moxvallix@sopuli.xyz
codus@leby.dev
Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
RolAIDS05@sopuli.xyz
128
I used to be a frame rate snob but owning a Steam Deck has made me realise the error of my ways (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 7 months ago by mr_MADAFAKA@lemmy.ml to c/steamdeck@sopuli.xyz
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] anon232@lemm.ee 82 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I don't like this line of thinking because especially now where new games seem to always suffer from performance issues, it lowers the bar that these developers feel like they'd need to set as far as the experience they're offering for their games.

I think the minimum standard should be at least 60fps, in cases with steam deck and other low-end hardware of course concessions must be made, so either lower graphics settings or deal with lower framerates.

But there's no reason a new game should be suffering poor framerates on modern desktop hardware (looking at you Dragons Dogma 2).

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Lower frame rates can be perfectly fine, I find I'm far more bothered by inconsistent frametimes.

The main reason 40fps feels fine on the deck is that the display can come down to that same Hz and operate in lockstep.

I'll take consistent 60 over hitchy 165 most of the time, though VRR means you can occupy kind of a middle ground. But even there frametime inconsistencies can make for a shit experience.

My point is that game developers should aim to deliver games that render at similar framerates throughout.

So many of these recent games do hit decent framerates, but then there's that one in-game location, enemy type, player ability, or particle effect, that just makes the framerate completely shit itself.

It's like these studios are designing each element with a given GPU budget, pushing things right up to the limit, and then do a surprised pikachu face when things run like shit once they try to put more than of these elements together to make an actual game.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

165 that dips to 100 is unquestionably better than 60 with no dips, especially with GSync.

165 that dips below 60 is very bad.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 months ago

That depends. VRR works beautifully when you walk through in-game locations and the framerate smoothly shifts up and down.

What it's absolutely shit at dealing with, is VFX that cause the frametimes to spike by an order of magnitude for just a frame or two. Something which is common in some games with a lot of player ability and enemy attack effects going off.

In these cases I will actually just turn VRR off, and play at lower framerate that are consistently achievable.

VRR is nice, and I absolutely do use it most of the time, but its very nature means that the latency in the human processing loop that is hand-eye-coordination becomes inconsistent. When it's working smoothly with the framerate smoothly shifting around, it's fine.

But the kind of hitching I'm talking about isn't the kind where the overall framerate shifts, but the kind where just couple frames take orders of magnitude longer to render, and that interfering with my hand-eye-coordination. I would have been in better shape to pull off a turn, shot, movement or whatever, had the game been running at that framerate the whole time.

[–] narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My point is that game developers should aim to deliver games that render at similar framerates throughout.

Scenes in most games usually have a high variety of complexity, so the way you'd achieve that is through getting a baseline quite a bit higher than your target FPS, and then limit FPS to your target FPS. This way the game won't utilize near 100 % of the GPU most of the time, but peaks in scene complexity won't cause FPS to drop below the set cap.

This is how it works or at least use to work for a lot of games on console. On PC, you almost always have to make the choice yourself (which is a good thing if you ask me).

For many games with a lot of changing scenery I have to target around 45 FPS with graphics settings to even have a chance of achieving somewhat consistent 30 FPS/33.33ms on the Deck.

On the one hand the Deck is heavily underpowered compared to even lower-end PCs. On the other hand tests show that the Z1 Extreme/7840U isn't much faster at these lower wattages (10-15 watts TDP), so there hasn't been a lot of progress yet.

But it's also that many games don't scale so well anymore. I feel like half the settings in many modern games don't affect performance to any noticeable degree, and even fewer settings affect CPU usage. And if there's low settings, the game often looks unrecognizable because these lower setting models, textures and lighting/shadows are simply generated by the engine SDK and rarely given second thoughts.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 months ago

Tech like nanite rendering does bring a potential of maybe solving that variability. But even before that, LODs, detail render distance limits etc. already allow frame rates to be leveled out, if utilized.

And I would consider 30 and 45 within that "similar" range. I'm not asking the framerate to stay within even 10% of an average at all times. But games are getting a lot worse than that.

A recent game even my desktop has been struggling with is Forbidden West, which I tuned the settings on to achieve 80-100 fps, yet in some locations (larger settlements) it will chug down to 20-30.

Some newer games aren't just losing 33% fps at worst vs best. But more like 70%. At that point you end up having to target 200fps just to never drop below 60, and that's tricky even on high end desktops.

[–] Icalasari@fedia.io 9 points 7 months ago

Eh, not caring too much about frame rates can be healthy in terms of how long you go between upgrades. Which could have a knock on effect of forcing devs to more often consider weaker builds as people don't upgrade as often

Just depends on how you approach it. If you have relatively new parts, then yeah, you should expect at least 60 FPS. If you have an older system, then the only thing that matters is that it's still enjoyable

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 5 points 7 months ago

Now that they don't have to optimize for last gen console hardware anymore, that's going to be even more rare for any triple-A game. Even a well optimized PS5 game is going to seriously struggle to run on the Deck as even if you reduce the graphical setting, the PS5 essentially has an 8 core version of the 4 core CPU in the Deck.

Combine that with the 15W shared TDP limit and the game would basically have to be able to run using only roughly 25% the CPU load.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I've never needed high frame rates. What is more important is consistent frame rate. I'd rather have a consistent 30 than a range of 40-60.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 points 7 months ago

Consistency is nice for all games, but some just don't play well at low frame rates.

I struggled to get into Dark Souls, but after installing DSfix the effect was transformative and I was able to read the game a lot better.

[–] squeakycat@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Same here. I went through applying a 60 fps patch for dark souls 1 (cause I do prefer it) and once I hit a listed bug of getting flung off a ladder I unapplied that shit immediately. It's not worth it.

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

Just so people understand, there are bugs that simply make you die because 60fps and ladder don't agree with each other.

I just play it at 30 because of this.

[–] polle@feddit.de 9 points 7 months ago

Probably has something to do with the screen size. 30 fps on a small screen is way less exhausting on the eyes than sitting Infront of a 27" or bigger screen.

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 8 points 7 months ago

I the portability of the steamdeck. Years ago I had a desktop gaming PC that over time I used less and less because the lass thing I wanted to do after sitting at a desk all day was to sit at a desk some more.

I bring my deck with me when I travel for work, go on vacation, when my wife and I spend the afternoon at my parents. I'll even bring it with me if I have to bring my car to the shop and I have to wait. I play games in my recliner, and in bed. I've never been a frame rate snob so the steamdeck suits me just fine.

[–] Templa 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Never really had the privilege of being a frame rate snob. My teenager years was pretty much playing games that my computer didn't have the minimum requirements to run.

Now I am a steam deck owner and I am very happy. My only complaints are when games have really bugged UIs or when controller have these nonsensical key binds you can't change like L3 + left D pad (Path of Exile).

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 6 points 7 months ago

theres a lot of factors that impact tolerance. for example motion blur. I personally hate a lot of post processing effects, so having motion blur off makes low fps gameplay pretty jarring.

Currently im going through pokemon violet, not on my switch, but on emulation, and the 30fps is really rough, and the 60fps mod has tradeoffs. If im complaining about ot on emulation on a reletively high end pc, I couldnt even imagine how bad the performance was on native hardware, given it was one of its biggest complaints.

[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 5 points 7 months ago

I've intentionally kept myself desensitized to higher frame rates over the years. I'll occasionally go up to 60fps on some titles that really need it, but usually if I play most everything at 30fps I never am bothered by it.

[–] Draconic_NEO@sopuli.xyz 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

As someone who used to play mostly on older consoles with framerates locked at 60 or even 30 FPS I never really understood framerate snobs, the only real time I see it making sense is for VR since you need high frame-rate for that, but for normal games (no I will not call them 'flat games') it's overkill, at least in my opinion.

[–] ElectroLisa@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 months ago

I find framerate more noticeable when I'm closer to the screen. Which is why I don't mind the framerates of my phone/Steam Deck, but on a desktop monitor 60 Hz is not enough