A Google search preview from the official Barcelona Asus store “Asus by MacMan” has accidentally revealed what many feared: the ROG Xbox Ally X will retail for €899, while the standard model sits at €599.

Not sure how this would translate to USD 1000 to be honest. Prices in euro usually include taxes, which is what, 21% in Spain? So minus taxes the 599,-€ model would translate to about $550 (taxes not included).

This still doesn’t undercut the Steam Deck which I feel it should do considering it’s likely using the same APU and the Deck is a couple years old at this point, but it’s not as bad as the headline/article makes it sound.

openSUSE Slowroll. It’s the same with ex. Fedora though.

I don’t know, Wi-Fi frequently disconnects with the Intel AX210 in combination with my Unifi 7 Pro when using the 6 GHz band under Linux. Works perfectly fine with the AMD Wi-Fi card (RZ717 or whatever it’s called, made by MediaTek I think).

I don’t think Europe has competitive SoCs.

What’s “Apple Plan”?

There isn’t official pricing nor reliable sources out there so I’m going by rumors.

With your calculation you have to keep in mind that the Switch 2 cards have to somewhat match microSD Express speeds, so a more accurate comparison would be these, but they aren’t available in 64 GB sizes.

All I’ve heard is that they’re expensive and with the larger sizes often required for Switch 2 games it’s an even bigger problem than with Switch (1). These key cards exist for a reason. And I’d bet Nintendo takes a margin on these instead of only requiring the publisher to cover the manufacturing costs.

Cyberpunk is on a 64 GB card that holds the entire game.

My point is that Nintendo does play a big factor in the price choice.

For someone owning both devices and actually trying to decide which version to get, both are decent in portable mode with the Switch 2 taking the lead in docked mode (as the Deck doesn’t increase its power limits in docked mode whatsoever). So I’d probably get the Switch 2 version if I didn’t have a desktop PC to go with my Deck, but I do, so my “docked” experience (playing on my PC) is vastly superior anyway, with the Deck getting the portable part done.

For a technical comparison it’s kind of inaccurate I think. Yes, it’s certainly impressive that the Switch 2 can run this game in portable mode likely consuming less than 10 watts for the entire system while producing okay graphics. And it’s clear that DLSS does a lot of heavy lifting here, but:

• The 8.9 watts figure is likely somewhat inaccurate because it’s based on approximate battery life while playing the game. Even if the game is played from 100% to 0%, there’s still inaccuracies because the specific battery likely won’t have 19.3 Wh exactly. Instead it’ll likely be a bit higher than that when brand new, and a bit lower with 100s of cycles.
• The Switch 2 clearly consumes less power than the Deck needs to achieve “playable” framerates in Cyberpunk 2077, but that doesn’t tell us that much about the efficiency of just the SoC. I’d assume the Deck requires a little bit more juice for its OLED screen and also more for the rest of the system, for example the standard NVMe drive it uses. The “approximately 9 watts consumption” comparison they’re doing makes it look like the Switch 2 is around 3 times as efficient, but that’s not how efficiency curves work. You’re comparing the Deck at a power consumption level that’s probably the peak of Switch 2s efficiency curve.
• Game settings are (currently?) impossible to match. Some can be matched, others are either some in-between on Switch or even “lower than low”, for example some models/geometry. I assume these changes have a large enough performance impact that CDPR thought they were worth to implement just for the Switch 2.
• Scene-specific pixel counting wasn’t really done, so it’s not possible to say which device renders more “real” pixels (even though DLSS certainly seems to make the most out of these pixels).

I still think the Switch 2 is very impressive in terms of performance in portable mode, certainly more than I expected when hearing about the rumored Ampere architecture and the Samsung manufacturing process.

It also shows that something comparable to DLSS (likely FSR 4) would be hugely beneficial to PC handhelds so I hope that the Deck 2 will properly support that. Sad that AMDs Z2 series don’t, but I hope Valve is cooking another custom chip with AMD soon.

Well, at least for the physical edition, they have to account for the cost of the 64 GB game card they are using. Wasn’t that rumored to cost like $16 a piece?

I wouldn’t say we’re over-reliant on Steam, but maybe on Valve to some extent.

If Valve would suddenly stop all their work on/around Linux, that’d certainly affect Proton and also things like the open AMD GPU drivers. Sure, others would likely continue their work (it’s not like they’re doing it all alone now anyway), but Valve certainly brings a lot of expertise and also commercial interest.

While I agree that Proton is awesome, running a game originally released for PS3/360 with enhanced visuals at 60 FPS (instead of 30ish) on a 1660 Ti is hardly anything to write home about.

To be honest I think most issues Intel Arc has under Linux just come down to the tiny user base. Intel provides solid Linux support, I’d say it’s probably on par with AMD.

Proton and such will have more incompatibilities, as will Mesa. You can report issues with specific games in Valve’s proton repository. Sometimes someone will have a workaround for you, and usually issues will be fixed eventually, especially if you’re willing to test changes and provide feedback.

https://news.itsfoss.com/organic-maps-fork-comaps/