As someone who recently invested in a Steam Deck LCD, I can safely say that even with the announcement of the new Steam Deck OLED model, there’s no buyer’s remorse on my end, and here’s why you shouldn’t feel any either.
Embrace the Classics on LCD
For enthusiasts like myself, who primarily enjoy indie titles and reliving the glory of past gaming eras through emulations from consoles such as the PS2 and PSP, the Steam Deck LCD model is more than sufficient. The graphical intensity of these games is relatively modest, and the LCD’s capabilities are well in line with the requirements to provide a great gaming experience.
A Look at the Specs
APU and CPU: Both versions sport the same AMD Zen 2 architecture with 4 cores and 8 threads, which means you’re getting the same processing power.
GPU: The same AMD RDNA 2 architecture and clock speed mean indie and emulation games will run just as smoothly on both.
RAM: While the OLED model has faster LPDDR5-6400 RAM, the difference in performance for non-intensive games is negligible. The LCD’s LPDDR5-5500 RAM is plentiful and fast enough for our gaming purposes.
Display: Sure, the OLED offers a slightly larger screen and a higher refresh rate, but the LCD’s display is crisp, vibrant, and has a charm of its own, especially when you’re playing pixel-art indie games or older titles.
Storage: Options for storage are ample in both models. Games from past generations and indie titles don’t usually demand as much space, so even the base model’s storage is adequate.
Network: Wi-Fi 5 and Bluetooth 5.0 are more than capable of handling the download speeds required for the games I play. The upgrade to Wi-Fi 6E and BT 5.3 in the OLED model is a nice-to-have but not a necessity.
Battery Life and Portability
Battery: The LCD’s 40Wh battery is sufficient for extensive gaming sessions, and since indie and emulated games are less demanding, you’ll likely find yourself charging less often than you’d think.
Weight: The LCD is marginally heavier, but when you’re engrossed in a game, that difference is hardly noticeable.
Price and Availability
Let’s not forget the price point. The LCD model is often more wallet-friendly and getting your hands on the newer OLED model might mean a long wait.
Personal Preferences and the Emotional Factor
Lastly, there’s something to be said for the joy of owning a device that you’ve been eyeing for a while like I did. If the Steam Deck LCD has met or exceeded your expectations and brings you joy, that alone can outweigh the benefits of any new features.
Conclusion
The new Steam Deck OLED certainly has its allure, but for those of us who have recently purchased the LCD model and are happily gaming away on our indie and retro titles, the current experience is already top-notch. So, rest easy fellow gamers, your Steam Deck LCD is still a fantastic portal to the games you love.
You must log in or register to comment.
The OLED model is clearly better.
I paid $360 this summer for a 64GB model on sale and then upgraded the SSD for $60. The cheapest OLED model is still $550 and has a smaller hard drive. When factoring in tax, etc. - would I have paid $150 for the screen and improved battery life? Maybe, but I’m not sure. It’s still a 35% price difference.
Had I bought a 512gb model at full price I’d be much more annoyed.
Yeah, the OLED is better, but I couldn’t resist the LCD for the price today and finally got an order in.
Stop gaslighting yourself the OLED is superior in every single way
Thanks for your input. You’re right in pointing out that the OLED model boasts superior specifications in many ways. From its screen technology to its improved battery life, there’s no doubt that it’s an impressive piece of hardware.
The intention behind my original post wasn’t to dispute the technical advancements of the OLED model, but rather to highlight that for certain users and specific use cases, the LCD version still holds its own. For example, for gamers like myself who primarily play less graphically demanding indie games or enjoy retro emulation, the LCD model’s capabilities align well with our needs.
It’s important in tech to recognize that while newer models often offer better specs, the ‘best’ device is subjective and varies based on individual needs, preferences, and gaming habits. The OLED is certainly superior in a technical sense, but not every upgrade will impact every user in the same way.
Appreciating the advancements while also being content with what one currently has can coexist. Again, thanks for sharing your perspective. It’s valuable to have these straightforward discussions.
LCD’s display is crisp, vibrant, and has a charm of its own, especially when you’re playing pixel-art indie games or older titles.
Copium. 2017 Switch had a better screen. The last screen as bad as LCD Deck I had was on my 2012 gaming laptop that cost 600€ new.
I see where you’re coming from, and the screen quality is definitely a significant aspect for many gamers. The Nintendo Switch, even in its 2017 iteration, did indeed have a noteworthy display, and advancements in screen technology have been remarkable over the years. It’s true that the OLED technology offers deeper blacks and more vibrant colors compared to traditional LCD screens, which is a big draw for many.
However, it’s also worth noting that screen preference can be subjective and depends on what you’re looking for in your gaming experience. While OLED screens are generally superior, the LCD screen on the Steam Deck is still quite capable, especially considering its intended use for a range of games, including many that don’t necessarily require the highest-end display technology to be enjoyed.
Regarding the comparison with older gaming laptops, technology has indeed come a long way. But even so, the Steam Deck’s LCD model offers a unique blend of portability, power, and price that still holds appeal for a segment of the gaming community.
Ultimately, it’s about finding the right balance between your gaming needs, budget, and personal preferences. Thanks for sharing your thoughts—it’s always good to have different perspectives in the discussion!
cope
but basically a lot of the OLED proponents don’t mention that the screen is only available on the $500+ models, in keeping with the “basic model is loss leader and grabs attention but more expensive models are what consumers want” sales tactic. I would say it’s an improved strategy over the old 64GB paradigm; consumers can’t replace screens as easily as storage.