- cross-posted to:
- steam@lemmy.ml
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- steam@lemmy.ml
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- hackernews@derp.foo
A high dynamic range screen, a longer-lasting battery, faster downloads, and much more
7nm > 6nm isn’t a night and day performance node change. thats the same node change as the PS5 had with its silent revision. smaller chips are affected even less as they are still contrained with power consumption targets where faster devices which have higher turbos don’t.
The base steam deck can already get better sustained clocks if you upgrade its cooling options. that’s more likely to affect performance more than just the single nm change in process.
Nintendo when it went from 20nm Tegra X1 to 16nm Tegra X1+ chose not to change clocks.
Single nm in this case is a 15% improvement. The number of nm isn’t the important part.
And Valve isn’t Nintendo. Their hardware strategies, developer strategies, and manufacturing strategies are wildly different and really shouldn’t be directly compared
its a 15% improvement, only if you use the same die size. a die shrink shrinks said design to a smaller one, so the end product is smaller. they do not add any more transistors to the die, which is the mistake you’re making.
if theres a performance, its the increased memory speed and new cooling hardware. Valve has stated themselves that they don’t expect many performance differences at all.
They told you the performance target is the same.
It would be silly to expect the performance to be meaningfully different.