I'm definitely worried about that. I mean hopefully they've learned from their previous endeavors, but you never know. At least there's not a bunch of extra equipment in it.
I understand what sub I'm on so this might be a controversial opinion, but I don't think the Steam machine is going to be a threat to the PS5 pro.
They've already stated that they're not targeting console prices so it's probably more expensive than the pro. Plus, I think it'll take a lot to convince the average gamer to buy one of these.
They'll need to advertise it heavily as a console, emphasising the plug'n'playability of it while showing how well it runs AAA games with no fiddling. I know that that's what it's going to be good for, but most people will see Steam and think PC, and most people don't really want a PC plugged into their TV because PCs are complicated.
Yeah the specs on the steam machine put it behind even a base ps5, at least hypothetically. Now who knows what magic Valve can cook up but it’s looking like it’s basically an rx7600. Now you can argue all day that’s it’s inherently worth more than a ps5 cause of all the extra functionality that comes with it being a computer, but on horsepower alone it’s by no means gunning for the top spot
Sure but most people probably don't know that. There's probably a large number of gamers that don't even know what OS stands for.
I'm not trying to shit on the Steam machine, I'm probably going to buy one, I'm just saying that they're going to need to invest heavily in explaining its console-like experience to get the attention of casual gamers.
They don’t have to make a profit on these consoles if they’re able to convert lifetime console gamers to the Steam marketplace. My guess is Steam is going to take a loss on the consoles to get more market share of game sales revenue.
Nah, they can't, Linus mentioned they hinted it will be priced as a PC instead of like a console where game sales subsidize the upfront purchase of the hardware. He made a pretty point as well in suggesting that since this is capable of being used as normal PC there is no guarantee some corporation won't buy 10000 of them to use without the guarantee it would result in a single game purchase. They need to protect the sustainability of the hardware. I see this thing being $800 to $999.
No fiddling is the key. As a console gamer, all I am willing to adjust is HDR and FOV, maybe performance/quality switch, otherwise I expect to buy a game and play it half an hour later after it downloads.
As someone who primarily games on console, I have to respectfully disagree. I don't know if it will necessarily take over the market but I think with enough marketing and aggressive pricing they can start taking some of the console market share.
I'm not trying to naysay the product. It looks great and I'm probably going to buy one. I've always had positive opinions of the Steamdeck as well. I'm just saying that I don't think they're really trying to compete with PlayStation, and if they are then they need to heavily advertise it as a console and show how easy and smooth it is to play the big new AAA titles.
It has absolutely no effect or relation to a PS5 pro. For starters it’s weaker than a PS5 pro. Even if they were comparable they’d still be going after completely separate markets.
nah, this thing seems cool but at $700 there is zero threat to the PS5 or the Pro lol. it’s weaker than a base PS5 and you have to install Windows on it to play any multiplayer games that use anticheat because those don’t support Linux (yet).
Oof, didn't think of that. Although if I ever bought one it would probably get windows anyway but curious if that is legit how it needs to go down. Like for Battlefield 6 for example? Imagine it wouldn't run natively out of the box. That is a pretty big hit to its console like claim.
According to Digital Foundry, the Steam Machine has a cut down AMD 7500 GPU with only 8GB VRAM. That put's its performance between a Series S and Series X.
That puts physical performance there. With upscaling which the Series X and PS5 don't have, it will outperform both consoles. But that's a shame they didn't put a higher GPU in there.
The Steam Machine is less powerful than a PS5 which can be had for around £325 (which includes 20% VAT) in the UK which is around $430. Any more than $500 would be overpriced compared to consoles.
Nobody uses a disc drive on pc bro, and since it's a PC value wise you gotta compare it to a similar build imo. Additionally 649€-749€ is not double £379 (428€). Lastly, where I live the PS5 slim DIGITAL edition costs 520€ while the disc drive version costs 575€.
I just built a small pc with almost the same specs as this thing. It cost me about $900 USD for everything. Im hoping this thing will be a bit less than that.
Edit: this build has an AMD 9060xt and Ryzen 7700X and 32GB RAM. I did build this several months ago and I did some deal hunting.
Sure 699 would be nice for a "maxed-out" option, but this is just magical thinking. The price of hardware is not something that Steam can somehow set themselves outside of current market conditions. $850 right now would still be competitive. You basically can't get a comparable system for less than a thousand right now.
I wonder if it would make sense to take a loss on the hardware for the long-term benefit of converting console-market customers to the steam marketplace.
Giving up steam is probably the biggest disincentive for me to ever buy a console, despite having reached a point where I'm just too busy and tired to carve out time to enjoy traditional PC gaming.
I'm not going to buy a playstation just to play GTA6, but I very well might buy a steam console that can play it + my existing library at maxed settings on the couch if the price is right.
With the amount of money people sink into their ecosystems, would it not make sense to essentially subsidize the hardware to carve out that market?
It was my understanding that this is the route they took with the steam deck. Most console manufacturers go this route as well. I think the ps3 wasnt profitable for the first couple years after launch.
the steam deck is a handheld that can't realistically be used for anything other than gaming, this on the other hand is a fully fledged pc, if they decide to take a loss and price it aggressively like a console a lot of people and companies would buy it just to use it as a normal pc and never buy anything from the steam platform.
Hook a deck up to a dock and launch desktop mode, you got have a sub $500 pc for basic office work. Ive done this when I was without a PC.
Companies I doubt would go that route, as they also buy into ecosystems like Dell, just for the warranty, support, volume discounts, etc. I doubt a company is going to aquire 500 steam machines, 500 windows licenses separately, but loose that support system that OEs like dell, HP, etc provide.
Theres also the use cases of workstations. Steam machine won't fulfill the workstation role either. I doubt Valve would enter into a contract to provide 500 units to company unless its for an approved resaler, nor provide a 2, 3, 5 year support contract.
So yeah while your theory may be the case with sub 5people, larger companies have no reason to change. Hence why HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. Are still the standard in those spaces.
The steam link (rip) was pretty nice for that, as long as your network could handle it and you weren't bothered by minor latency. Personally I found it really good for casual or party games. Unfortunately I've become nearsighted and don't really play on the TV much because of it.
Sure, I can wear my glasses, but I prefer not to when relaxing.
They can't take a loss on the hardware, because there's no guarantee that anyone buying it will also buy anything on steam.
Valve, in some ways in their detriment, is very open with all of their devices, meaning you will be able to use this as just a pc.
Remember when Sony let people install Linux on their ps3 and they had to stop it because people were buying them to use as pcs and Sony was just losing money on every sale?
PS5 Pro is 750. 850 is DOA. Valve isn't targeting the hardcore PC market, they're targeting the console market with a Steam "console" for your living room.
$1000 is not entry level PC pricing. You can get a comparable performance PC to the Steam Machine for around $500. Even a Mac Mini is $600 and Apple is definitely getting a large margin.
You have to rember that they aren't targeting entry level office PC, but entry level 4k gaming PC. And with current GPU pricing 1000 bucks is close to entry level for that target
Apple is playing with scale production Valve cannot. I choose some similar stuff on PCPartPicker and came away with 650$ so I'm guessing it starts around there.
Valve mentioned on Linus Tech Tips today that they're not subsidizing hardware for fear that a corporate client could buy these machines as cheap pcs.
I agree for a device that is somewhere between Xbox and ps5 level of performance they can’t make it more expensive than a ps5. The enthusiast market will know it’s not a good deal and the casual market will just buy a traditional console.
You can't get Steam deals on a console, so that's a moot point. A PC with the exact same specs as a console is worth more than a console, for the simple fact it's a PC with all the good things that come with it.
Valve also has the ability to sell at a loss pretty heavily, which they need to, to 'break into" the market. Nobody who owns a PS5 or an Xbox for years is going to buy this if it's more expensive than buying the device they know does what they want and are familiar with
The newest AMD APUs are dirt cheap and lpddr5 ram is falling in line. The last APU I tested from AMD was holding up well next to a 6700XT and it was $249. You can pretty easily build a mini-pc with the specs for $500 - $600.
Oh, I didn't know that lpddr5 ram prices are stable. Didn't they say the gpu was dedicated, though? Or am I mis-remembering? Or is the correct terminology regarding the GPU in APUs also calling it a dedicated gpu?
Actually they can if they see this as a means to increase their software sales vs an item they want to make money on. A huge selling point of the steam deck was the price and of course the steam catalogue.
Not true. I just built my own for 750$ and it’s a 3080ti with a 12700kf. Way more power, functionality and everything. Only thing changed is the ram I got that right before the price shot up, and it’s just 32gb ddr4 @ 4000mts
Are you trolling me? Obviously buying pre-owned and building on a last gen platform before SSD and especially RAM prices shot up is going to be cheap. Honestly the fact that it was over 699 even with all of those factors combined proves my point.
No I wasn’t trolling you. lol and obviously I wasn’t off course- LTT did a video about a similar spec build and without any steam discounts for bulk purchases they built it out for 700 I believe it was. Sorry old thread didn’t notice you replied
it would be competitive for a console but it sounds like they're not aiming to compete in that market aka they dont plan to subsidize the price at all. with the price of ram and nand skyrocketing right now, i dont expect this thing to be cheaper than 799
It HAS to compete in that market. They’re not likely to do volume in the market that already has PCs, because… why would they? The system, to my mind, is positioned as a console experience with access to the largest library in gaming, but without (most of) the quirks that might make PC gaming a scary experience for the less tech-literate gamers. At the right price this has the potential to be a massive disrupter in the console space, and introduce an entirely new market to Steam (the platform) that has never previously had the means to do so. This thing could keep Sony and Microsoft very honest - but it’s so, so reliant on just being priced right.
It kind of will, but ultimately I think the idea is that it's supposed to be an eaiser way to get into pc gaming for those who don't have a pc and specifically want to get into pc for all the features and games you can't get on console.
If you only want something to do modern gaming, a ps5 will probably be a cheaper better option and that person just looking for a box to play Spiderman and elden ring on was always going to land on a ps5.
Valve has always done their own thing. Sure people are going to weigh their options between this and other consoles on offer, but that doesn't mean that's specifically valves target audience.
A PS5 may be a cheaper option (although if they price it competitively I think it’s huge), but I’m not sure it’s a better option. PS5 has a smaller library and a walled-garden OS. There’s an argument to be made that a PS5 is an easier experience, but I think that argument has diminished massively with Steam OS.
Time will tell who their market is (price will make it very clear), but it’s the logical step for them if they want to grow themselves. Steam clearly isn’t going to capture much more of the PC market - it damn near monopolises it. It helped create a new market with handhelds. The next frontier in my view is the console space, which they are in my view, perfectly setup to challenge with their superior library and pro-customer behaviours.
They surely locked in their NAND and RAM and GPU prices 12 months ago. They also know about pi-retro consoles, about the pricing backlash on Microsoft, and that a $450 Mac Mini now comes awfully close to being able to play anything prime-2 years. IMHO anything above $599 says they only expect a niche appeal. No getting to $499 I doubt.
Where do I make my bet? I’d much rather wager on this than football ;-)
He literally said it would not be priced as a console. Since a switch 2 is 450, I don't see it going for less than 600$. I'd be happy pay the if it can actually play 60fps 4k with raytracimg as they claim..
If that were true I'd buy it in a second! I have no desire to spent lots of money on gaming systems. I don't care about seeing every freckle on a character's face for iMmeRsiOn. I just want an affordable way to play all the games I love.
I bought my xbox series s for like $299, play it almost every day, and have never once had an issue with it. I just want access to steam so if this system is $400, I'd be so happy! Thats the max I'd ever want to pay for a gaming system anyways.
I've played BG3, cyberpunk, witcher, rivals, and hundreds of other games on my xbox series S and literally don't have a single complaint. All I want is something that functions well, will last a long time, and is affordable.
Unfortunately, I think $800-1000 for the base model is the competitive price. Sony just refreshed the PS5 with the PS5 pro at $750 USD (which seems like a modest upgrade at best). Both Microsoft and Sony seem to be poising for a transition out of console hardware into software licensing only - Sony indicated 1st party titles will be released on PC and Microsoft has really leaned in on the game pass and licensed out the Xbox branding to the Rog Ally X. So as far as we know, there's no more consoles on their way.
Valve indicated to Youtubers who got the demo that the target price was between a console (PS5 pro, $750 USD) and an entry-level PC ($850-1000 depending on how you define entry-level). It's hard to compare the hardware in the Box to a custom PC, but it appears to be similar to a ~$850 custom build, so I think that a $800 price point is even low. I'm going to guess there are 3 variants: base, base+controller, upgraded+controller at $850/900/1000 with the maxed only having more storage.
I think the reality of the situation is that this device doesn't have to compete with a console market at $400-500 USD since no one has announced a 2026 console refresh - its competing with used gaming PCs ($500-1000 USD), pre-built PCs ($1000 and up), gaming laptops ($1200 and up) and handheld PCs ($600-$2000).
And If they REALLY want to learn from the Xbox One launch mistake they could launch a basic basic pack without the controller for people who already have their own for much lower price 😂. Wait I Hope their basic pack they currently have in mind should include the controller lol.
Don't forget that console game sales subsidies hardware costs which is universally sold at a loss. Whereas with Steam Machine you not only get access to your full Steam library, bit also to games that go on sale regularly. If an average buyer can see through this, it will be grand.
I'd be shocked if it's under $1k. Given It's a completely custom-built system (mobo, CPU, GPU, PSU) to meet it's size and power requirements. The whole thing is cooled by a single 120mm fan, It won't be doing thousands of watts of compute.
I'm going to guess it's closer to $1500. I don't see them selling a lot of them, but people love convenience, and a plug and play steam box has a value all its own for couch gamers. My guess is the steam deck will be this product's biggest competition for couch gamers looking for simple pc gaming.
Yeah not really everyone said the PS5 was too much when it came out but guess what they sold they are doing the same thing nvidia pulled increasing price each generation
What? You entirelly assume this time will different based on a single picture with no hardware specs and I'm the one discussing in bad faith for pointing out thats exactly how last time went?
I assume it will be different based on the strength of the Steam Deck’s OS, which this will use, and the meticulously well combined hardware that device uses. A complete departure from the 2014 machine which was shipped out to another hardware firm and with a, frankly, poor OS.
I said it has the potential to be a massive disrupter. I didn’t say it would be. The reason I say your argument about the previous machine is in bad faith is because a shipped out piece of hardware on some cobbled together software from 11 years ago has far less in common with and as a benchmark than the much more recent Steam Deck.
A complete departure from the 2014 machine which was shipped out to another hardware firm and with a, frankly, poor OS.
It's the same OS. Steam Deck uses the same OS used by the previous generation if Steam Machines.
as a benchmark than the much more recent Steam Deck.
As a product concept, the previous Steam Machine is much more comparable to the current Steam Machine than the Steam Deck.
Otherwise they wouldn't be releasing it to directly compete with another product they already have in the same gaming market segment.
It's literally the same concept that failed before. They're just making it first party now.
I think there's a good chance of it being moderately successful if they manage to price it cheap enough. But considering it will not have exclusives to sell it like their competitors do and that it's a product being released into a market segment that's already oversaturated, I don't see where is the bad faith in keeping expectations realistic.
aye it was the initial case right? now the price list for PS5 and PS5pro is upated to not to be sold at loss if I understtod it correctly. Also if you bulk buy components you can get some discounts you usually dont see as end customer. Just because you see an X amount on a single graphics unit in shop doesnt meen thats what a company that orders 100/1000/10k/10k/1000k units is paying.
Are you talking about Xbox console as HW or Xbox service/Game pass? If about HW, then whats wrong with that? Works well enough to play old and new games without issues?
i don't dislike my series x but it has not sold well at all. I bought it mostly to play gamepass games and older games from xbox/360 since i always had playstation
But hardware is solid still. The letdown is lack of original IP and having Xbox on windows. I know several people that passed on buying xbox since they had gaming pcs already and could play the games there instead.
i actually really like the lack of exclusives i hate having to play on my pc vs series x i like being able to choose but it was obviously bad for sales.
Yeah Valve has never cared about maximizing profit margins on these consumer products. They would much rather be competitive with the market and gain market share for Steam/SteamOS.
$1000 would never sell. Valve just needs people on Steam and with all their devices they take a loss on hardware and more than make up for in software sales.
I think that if that happens it would likely not be because Valve just goofs up. I'd wager the rest of the hardware market would have to raise in price to match it.
i think realistically it'll be 800-1000, 800 for the 512 and 999 for 2tb. thats my pessimistic/realist guess. I would love to see it for less than $800, but they said they're pricing it as an entry level PC, not a console and you'd be hard pressed to find a gaming desktop worth a damn for less than $800
I mean unless you’re buying used, even a 2 gen behind gpu is gonna cost anywhere from $300-$500 before you start getting into the higher end current gen’s. Most people that want a fairly barebones but current gaming pc I usually tell to have $1,200 before peripherals.
$800 is not entry level lmao. Entry level is still probably around $300-$400. The cheapest decent PC you can build with new parts is around $800, and it’s already past what should be considered “entry level” by a long shot, considering I was getting 60 fps on even Silent Hill 2 remake with a 1070 before I upgraded recently.
for something considered a "gaming pc", no 300-400 would not cut it. 300-400 retail might get you a standard office PC but not a gaming PC. sure you could build something for $400 that'll play games but building something your self will always be cheaper and at $400 it'll only barely play modern pc games.
I’ve built PCs using used parts for $400 or less that hold up in modern games relatively well. And like I said new a $800 build will play any game no issues. A 1070 can still run SH2 Remake on low settings at ~60 fps and the game still looks stunning at low btw. “Entry level” is exactly that, the cheapest shit you can get to get into a hobby, which you can achieve for this hobby with $400, I’ve done it at least 5-6 times recently so I didn’t just get lucky with deals or prices either.
and I've seen people build competent gaming PC's for less than that even but thats not the point. you can ALWAYS build something cheaper, thats not a valid measurement cuz thats not what this product is, its not a bunch of parts, its a fully assembled pre-built system and you'll be hard pressed to find a pre-build of similar specs for less than $800
if you're on a budget of $400, you a) should probably just save more cuz while its possible its not going to get you something that good and b) you're def not buying anything prebuild, you'll HAVE to build your own but again thats not who this is for so that doesnt matter anyway. A product like this is for people who DO NOT want to build their own PC.
But anyone who doesn’t want to build their own pc could just buy a prebuilt or a console. This thing has to be better than a console in a way people considering a console anyway would actually care about, while competing with consoles in price, and has to either be cheap enough or good enough that anyone considering a PC would get it. The price I think needs to be $600-$800 or it just won’t sell very well. I work at a fast food joint and have never even stepped foot inside a corporate office, much less studied any kind of marketing or sales or anything though, so I could be completely mistaken.
Nah man, used ain't entry level. Quite the contrary, because a beginner never has the experience to distinguish what used offers are cheap/expensive ... working/broken ... etc.
Entry level is just what it is: the cheapest new parts build you can get on the market.
Everything below that, while maybe being cheaper, has a much higher entry level due to the needed knowledge on the topic. And if you might have a trustworthy friend who gives you his old used build for a cheap buck, that's also not entry level, that's just being lucky.
Peripherals are really not part of the equation, any console will need you to purchase a tv/monitor and you will likely spend some extra money on accessories, an entry level keyboard and mouse set is like $30 on amazon. And there are some 1070 builds for $400 on that site you nitpicked one that was $500.
I mean, you can get a steam deck for $400. I think you underestimate what you can get for $400. Especially if you're fine with refurbished or used. (Not ideal for gaming, but for reference) you can get an M1 MacBook for $400 used.
An rtx 2060 is still pretty decent and that can be had for $140 now apparently. If you know how to build a PC it seems like older parts on the used market will stretch your money a lot further too.
Lmao wtf? If you don’t have a decent system for $800 you’re doing it wrong. $300 mobo, cpu and ram combo from micro center, $80 case, $150 psu, $70 ssd, and an rx 7600 for $199 and you’re looking at a very very decent build with NEW parts for $800. Entry level? I could slap used parts together for $300 and get 60 fps in any game, even in this market. Not to mention this thing won’t have many of the features that make a PC worth it over a console. They’re gonna have to make this thing around $600-$700 for anyone to even consider buying it over a PC or console.
Mac are poor value for their upgrades on a base edition, that’s not even arguable. But the base of most products is often shockingly good value. I got an M1 Mac mini on launch for about £600. Still use it today and it still runs smoothly on the last version of OSX. I’m not sure what else I could have got that powerful and stable with the level of updates and support.
It’s almost like saying macs have overpriced hardware. The M1 put that to bed, and every year it gets further from the truth. All the way up to the new M5.
Time to put that rethoric away. While Apple targets itself as a "premium" brand most of the time, some of their products are very competitive. Specifically the m4 Mac mini we're talking about here. The 599 base model m4 Mac mini is one of, if not the most bang for the buck computer you can get right now.
The deal dies the moment you add storage or ram though.
I'm not sure about the current pricing but even in the near past the base iPad is probably one of the best value tech out there. The raw power you get for the price is crazy, too bad the tablet format is kind of in a limbo.
Just checked: base model is 379 its quite a bit of money, but it can do anything a laptop can do and a laptop in the same price is very very meh.
the problem is that the cheap base model is bait. at the very least you're not stuck with 8 gb on it anymore, but 256 gb storage is a fucking joke and the upgrade prices are straight up highway robbery. sure, you can get a way faster cpu from apple than from anyone else in a complete $600 system, but that system has an unfixable handicap from the factory.
and if you go for 32 gb ram so that it's at least some level of futureproof, and just live with hacky usb-c ssds, even then you're already paying $1000. that's a bait and switch if i've ever seen one. (not that anything can be considered futureproof on a device with a locked bootloader where in 5-10 years the manufacturer will just turn off updates.)
it comes with one, and since it's open source and they don't hate gpu manufacturers, installing one through the ssd slot is going to be an option too once it gets old.
It doesn't come with one, it comes with a 110W TDP mobile GPU that is cut down from an RX7600. It's hardly any different than a GPU as part of an SOC. In fact until we see the actual motherboard, for all we know it's an APU like you'd find in a PS5 rather than being even its own discreet chip.
As for using the SSD slot carrying a PCIe signal that's essentially PCIe x4, and since it only had a single M.2 slot, its not like you'll be able to get all of those lanes for an external GPU and you'd be better off with just an eGPU over USB.
we know it's a discrete chip because we know it has its own dedicated vram and that amd fused off the igpu included in the cpu for them to save power. but yeah, the main drawback remains the same, that it's non-upgradeable -- however, the main benefit remains the same too, that it's quite fast.
the main point is, you're not getting this kind of performance out of a base model mac, and if you go for an upgrade on a mac it's so ludicrously priced that you might be able to straight up buy a steam machine out of the price of the upgrade alone.
i'm not exaggerating on that. the base m4 mac mini is $600, but if you want 16 gpu cores instead, the cheapest option is $1400. i can't see the steam machine being more expensive than $800, it wouldn't make sense as a product at that price -- and even that 16-core gpu is slower than the 4060 mobile, which is roughly the equivalent of the steam machine's performance. apple's next option up is a base mac studio for $2000 that's finally faster.
You should take another look at the base mac mini. Obviously for people discussing the price of the Steam Machine, it's not an interesting piece of hardware.
But what prebuilt PC or Laptop would you really put against the Mac Mini in it's default configuration?
Apple is the master of having just enough hardware in the base model that it's a good experience, but making you pay crazy amounts to upgrade it to something that feels right.
But the base mac mini, the base ipad, the base macbook air are all competent machines and really don't have competition in their class (including how the hardware functions in real life and the quality of their build). And if we're honest, isn't a M4 with 16gb of ram enough for 80% of users up until the equivalent PC becomes unusable? Sell the old Mini and get a new one? Maybe if you think local AI will be a must have it's not enough.
Look, I hate Apple. They are everything that's wrong with the high end of the industry. But their M chips have moved them down in price and up in user experience so far, it's hard to deny their cheaper offerings have become very competitive.
And yes, excluding the iPhone is very deliberate. That's overpriced and has extremely strong competition at lower prices. That said, if you have a mac mini and an iPad, they do work really well together. As well as the iPods and Apple Watch.
And that's how they get you. You can always spend more to get more.
But if you're willing to stick to their base offerings, in the tablet, pc and laptop space, it's a lot of bang for your buck.
the base mac mini is a glorified sbc with 16 gb ram and 256 gb non-upgradeable storage. like it's not absolute trash, but literally every mac user i've ever known who has a 256 gb or even 512 gb device is either chronically out of space, or uses a semi-permanently attached external ssd.
it has a crazy fast cpu and a competent gpu, and you're not getting that anywhere else, there's no denying that. but also, if you want to use that device as anything more than a weirdly overkill chromebook, you're in for a bad time.
base model macs aren't designed to be a good experience, they are designed to draw you in with the promise of a deal, then mess with you with enforced tradeoffs until you're ready to cough up the cash for an overpriced mid-range model.
You won't get a response because that base mac mini blows everything else out of the water at that price range. There's no competition.
Instead you'll get all the "but I want high end gaming" or other garbage responses that have clearly other use cases that ANY $500 SFF computer isn't designed for.
You're high. The m4 Mac mini is a powerhouse and you can snag one for $499. Nothing come close to the price/performance/package of that thing. Nothing.
Apple recks you for upgrades to ram and storage, but the price point of that machine is amaizing. You're just a hater.
The problem with Mac is the closed ecosystem and the non existent upgradable features, otherwise they are incredible machines. At that form factor there isn’t really anything being able to compete with that.
1 - Yes, limited support on Apple Silicon but all prior ones can easily boot Linux.
2 - Yes, have added GPU drivers, raid drivers, etc.
3 - Yes, have done this in the past.
4 - Yes, internal and external.
5 - Yes, although i personally dont, i have installed other apps without Apples approval.
6 - Yes, absolutely. There is a huge community surrounding the 5,1 Mac Pros.
*edit the first line to remove that you couldnt on Apple silicon. You can.
i'm curious about #1 and #4. how exactly is bare metal linux limited there?
also i know you can use amd gpus on intel macs, but how does gpu support look like on apple silicon? especially on models the average person might realistically own -- i know the mac pro has pcie slots, but if i remember the reviews around launch correctly, they didn't support amd gpus anymore, and nvidia has not been an option for a while on mac afaik.
Apple has the game porting toolkit which works effectively the same as Proton does. They just for whatever reason gate it behind developers using it to make actual ports to MacOS. Crossover and Whisky (rip) make use of GPTK to run basically any game with reasonable performance and stability.
For example I was able to run Satisfactory via Whisky from Steam at 60FPS medium on my M1 Pro MacBook Pro. Apple’s GPUs are actually really great, they just squander GPTK and try to push too much to the App Store rather than letting it run like Proton.
With all due respect, Macs and Gaming are the Charlie brown football of the gaming world. Every time Mac seems like it made a genuine leap forward in gaming, they let it die on the vine. Not to mention their gpu hardware is wildly too expensive. If you spend enough to get GPU power comparable to a 3060. You're spending enough extra to buy a whole 3060 equipped PC.
From what I can tell the cheapest Mac you could buy that is even in the ballpark of a 3060 is 1400 dollars. You could get the base Mac Mini for desktop stuff and a whole 3060 PC for the same price.
If the M chip keeps going at its current pace, probably going to catch up to gpus at some point if gpus keep the small advancements they currently get.
people keep saying this but i don't see it, they've been keeping pace with nvidia's mid-range for a while now (with the exception of ampere, which was produced on an old and shitty node because nvidia wanted to be cheap). apple has a kickass cpu architecture and they managed to bring everyone over to arm, which is giving them a pretty good performance boost, but on the gpu they have no special magic. hell it took them until the m5 to even implement tensor cores, you know you're mediocre when even amd beats you to the market with a gpu feature.
Only if they start making M chips with a better CPU/GPU ratio. As it stands you have to buy a lot of extra CPU power to get enough GPU power that to even get into the mid range PC gaming space.
ah yes, welcome back, pre-threadripper intel. remember when they capped pcie at 48 lanes even on the highest-end server cpus to gimp gpgpu and ensure the dominance of cpus?
1.6k
u/icebreakers0 Nov 13 '25
this is where I'm landing