"Sam Altman you will answer to Allah for the crimes you've committed"
cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/shit/p/1213362/sam-altman-you-will-answer-to-allah-for-the-crimes-you-ve-committed
368
Comments100View original on piefed.world
cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/shit/p/1213362/sam-altman-you-will-answer-to-allah-for-the-crimes-you-ve-committed
Getting the etsy witches to put a hit out on Sam Altman
sam altman is just a useful puppet from the self-proclaimed anti-christ. has since largely fled to argentina, and you notice immediate reduction in influence in vance and altman.
Too bad none of the imaginary sky beings exist.
Baby Sam Altman in my eyes joined the list of Baby Hitler, Baby Stalin, Baby Elon Musk, and Baby whoever the fuck came up with the idea that we must turn western democracies into christian fascist states.
I appreciate that nobody used the weapon of our enemy to make this.
“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!” — Mario Savio, 1964
That's not the lmao part
In performance, it's just a mid-tier 6600XT-6700 equivalent.
Even a 6600XT is so overkill I have a RX 580 with a DDR3-era processor, and most games run at over 60 FPS, hell Elite Dangerous run fine at 80-85 FPS
I really struggle to understand why that much compute is needed for gaming It just comes as wasteful for me
A 6600XT is overkill now? Is this just valve fanboy copium or something? It's 5 year old mid tier card
Elite Dangerous is not a demanding game either. The only demanding part is playing on foot on generated terrain where it's horribly optimized
Anyone who wants to game at 4K is not going for a 6600XT, period
I game on a 1440p ultrawide monitor at my desk, and a 4k TV (though I don't actually game at 4k). I upgraded from a 6700XT to a RX 9070 after Expedition 33 ran like shit and couldn't run constant 60 fps on high settings even when dropped to 1080p with FSR. A 6600XT is hardly overkill.
Also, it's hardly wasteful when my 9070 performs better, yet runs cooler and actually has a lower tdp / wattage than the 6700 XT did.
I blame the competitive gamers that barely understand what theyre doing. I seen guys complaining about their frame rates dropping below 120 on a 2k display.
Maybe, something higher than 120 provides an advantage to players with extreme reactive skills in the most intense close quarter first-person combat, but there otherwise wouldnt be a reason to sustain anything above 120. I dont think there are any monitors that refresh above 120.
Imagine bottlenecking 200+ frames a second, at 2k resolution, through a 60 hertz monitor. What a waste of gpu.
I'm sorry what are you talking about? I have a 240Hz monitor and you can easily buy one with over 500Hz. And 240 feels so much smoother than 120, even in story heavy games.
Yeah, wtf. I have a cheap (or was cheap at the time) LG 1440p ultrawide, nothing fancy, and it can do up to 165 Hz.
I see. I hope you’ve optimized your gpu, otherwise you could be burning out that thing for no good reason. The science behind how much visual information the brain can process is ongoing. I guess the consensus is that humans can process as much as 200 frames a second with some suggesting that a person could reach 1000 frames a second. That last one sounds ridiculous to me.
It's funny you blame competitive gamers who don't understand what they're doing, yet don't seem to know how any of this works.
Higher refresh rates reduce frame timing, reducing both visual and input latency. It's why a game at 30 fps often "feels" laggy compared to one at 60 or 120 fps. Even if you can't see the increased frame rate you can certainly feel input latency. It's also why "fake frames" from things like optiscaler or FSR/DLSS don't help when already at low frame rates, they actually increase latency, which is already bad when your frame times are higher.
I'm not into competitive gaming at all, btw, just sensitive to (and annoyed by) input lag.
Try something AAA made in this decade, on a monitor made in this decade. Valve also isn't marketing this as a retro console.
They said 60fps at 4k.
They lied.
Okay, Triple-A. What is one advantage or genuine improvement that Triple A has done on gaming in general that isn't just "yet another change to make things more realistic"? Asset streaming, huge worlds, hell the Nintendo 64 can do it.
We have so much computing power available on your mom's Dell Pavilion she uses at work that is just not even used to its full potential, just for the sake of "number go big" because Nvidia or AMD or Intel needs to sell more chips.
My computer has a Xeon E3-1220 V3 with 16 GB of RAM I do Gamedev, work development (with Rust AND C++ cross-compiling to both Windows and Linux), embedded development (ESP32), 3D modelling on Blender and more. Its Firefox with multiple tabs + YouTube running for music, VS Code, and whatever toolchains/compilers I need, on a dual monitor setup (fair its only dual 1366x768 but still two framebuffers) And I really need to push the computer through hell to make it stutter.
Why the fuck does gaming needs that much compute? What the hell are the devs doing that a fucking 6600 XT, which is a absolute behemoth with 2048 Cores and 8 fucking Gigs of memory struggles with?
Hell, I've made a fucking Dreamcast, which is a console from 2001 have 1:1 Parity with a fucking Linux game I made using Raylib with a full blown 3D 6DOF(6 Directions of Freedom) Flight racing game, loading and generating 3D geometry and calculating physics on the fly in runtime And that fucking thing predates the whole concept of graphics pipelines and shaders, it only has a PVR.
You don't have to sell me, I agree with you. I use a 3600 and a 6600XT and I play indies mostly.
...but that's not what the mainstream wants. They still want their giant blockbuster AAA pretty games and they'll pay for it. They'll have to lmao.
AAA titles work just fine at 1080p, possibly even on 1440p at optimised settings (and games come with optimised settings on Stream). The 4k claim was a lie.
What annoys me is not that you are wrong, but that LTT made same big claim, while acknowledging that Valve said "with FSR" in same sentence about 4k at 60. No one ever said "native 4k 60". And yes, maybe you need to drop target resolution to as low as 1080p or 900p to achive that target, but it still achivable, hence not a lie.
On top of that, AMD released INT8 (I assume) FSR4.1 at same day, that supports this hardware, so quality wise it will be manageable. PS5 often used upscaling not based on ml and still looks okay.
And another thing — if new downgraded by AMD FSR4 won't suffice, you can use full version of FSR4. On Linux it's a thing, you can just drop FS4 dll to the game, add launch params to steam and use Proton-GE or Proton-Cachyos, those have patch for FSR3 override. I tested it on 7900xtx and ryzen z1extreme (apu), in both cases it performs better than FSR3 quality wise, while still providing perf uplift compared to native resolution.
I don't care if you're annoyed. Go wipe up and run a lap. FSR isn't native, quit larping with your mid-tier garbage.
Hell, a Switch 2 looks just as good, is cheaper and you can carry it around.
*FSR enabled
Get me a piece of paper and a pencil. We can play hangman or X's and O's, and not have to shell out hugely gross amounts of our hard earned cash. Everyone should start carrying a paperback novel and a deck of cards in their back pocket again. How about now tech bros? Can you cheat us now? Soon you will not be able to afford all of that hair product you use.
I mean, if a fatwa halves the price, I'm happy to issue two!
Inshallha
I wanna know what's happening with all those finished wafers they bought.
If they aren't being made into memory modules I think someone should go to jail.
79 dollars for a controller?
Is that expensive? I can't even tell anymore.
Xbox Elite series 2 controllers are $200, Switch 2 joycons are $100 for a pair, a base PS5 controller is $60-75, 3rd party wired controllers are like $20-30.
$80 for a controller is about average.
Just for some comparison, wireless Xbox 360 controllers sold in 2006 for US $50, PS3 controllers slightly more, and Wiimotes as low as US $40 (without nunchuck/motionplus).
PS4 controllers were $60, Xbox One controllers were slightly less, and Switch pro controllers were $50 (more comparable than comparing to Joycons).
Now Dualsense controllers for PS5 are $75, Xbox Series controllers are $65, and Switch 2 pro controllers are $90(!!).
US $1 in 2006 is the equivalent of $1.60 today when adjusted for inflation, so that $50 Xbox 360 controller at launch would come to $80 now. Not that those figures necessarily translate into buying power, but it does seem that (Nintendo aside), the price is keeping pace or just shy of inflation.
Nintendo's sharp jump from the cheapest to most expensive option is likely factoring in inflation with anticipated tariff adjustments during the console's launch...which they'll never walk back even with the scary numbers gone.
Considering the competition starts at $60 and doesn’t have touchpads, back buttons or a dedicated wireless receiver, I’d say it’s pretty reasonable.
Depends on what you compare it to I’d say. From reviews the quality is really high, and if you would use them a lot the trackpads might already be worth it compared to conventional controllers. But if you just want a standard controller, a PS5 controller has pretty much all other features and also has a very good build quality. (xbox controllers don’t have gyro which is stupid in this day and age) and also brands like 8bitdo have caught up a ton in terms of build quality and features and offer great cheaper options. So imo it really comes down to the trackpads and perfect steam integration.
Regardless, I still have ps2 controllers from 18-25 years ago that i can use for every non-keyboard game on my steam. Humblebrag.
yea very, its about 1049 512Gb, and 300 more for the 2tb one.
How much do you think a controller with similar capabilities should cost?
Yeah good point, i've just double checked their capabilities (steam store link)
No, 69 euros for a controller.
Ah in OP's original post they linked a dollar version of the image so i was looking at that when inkade the comment
Xbox controllers are around the same price.
Microslop though
I love how it's more expensive in Europe
How much more once you add tax? EU prices have tax factored in already.
So it costs $1050 which converts to 922€, so about 100€ more expensive.
The point is that in Europe sticker price always includes tax, you pay the exact amount there, while reputedly in the US it does not work that way.
Yeah and also considering they gotta ship it from the US to the Netherlands warehouse which prolly isn’t free either
Is it made in the US though? It seems kinda silly to ship the parts from predominantly China to the US back to Europe.
Especially since IIRC the US PC market is smaller that that of Europe.
And also, tariffs.
Honestly no clue. But I just checked my steam controller and it says „assembled in China“ so I guess not, but it still has to be shipped
It has to be shipped to the US as well. Shipping isn't a meaningful extra cost. But you have to compare netto prices with US prices. The Euro price is lower than the USD price.
I guess I would buy this if I was a huge gamer, but I game on my pc and it's fine.
Why? You can buy an Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 for like $1,300 with a 2 year warranty. A QHD oled 240hz screen, 32gig ram, 1tb ssd with room for a second, 275HX, 5070ti. And it's a laptop so you can just unplug it and do whatever wherever in one unit.
I know they're going for the super compact convenient thing but that's a hell of a premium for what they're selling.
I'm seeing the Acer for 2000 EUR with a 5060 and 16 gigs of RAM. You sure your prices aren't from a few months ago or something? 5070/32GB is over 2300 and that's not ever the 5070Ti.
"Hell of a premium"? The steam machine cost roughly like the build i made to match their power
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/j4n34g
People are really underestimating the cost for components these days.
And from what I read, even Valve couldn't get a good deal on RAM and stuff, everything's going to the big AI companies
A 5070ti mobile is not a 5070ti. the makor thing is 4GB more VRAM, performance wise hiw much stronger is it at 60W GPU TDP? Maybe 25%?
That laptop is also 25% more expensive with an inferior and louder cooling system. The screen is redundant for the living room, 16GB RAM on Linux are still ok for gaming, this isn't Windows. SSD capacity is inconcenience but not a oerformance issue.
So yeah, I would say, the laptop is certainly comoetitive performance wise but it is not a rrpkacement for a compact silent living room PC.
I'm not sure why everyone is so upset about the price.
It's a gaming computer with steam on it.
It's significantly less than a gaming rig with similar specs that you can custom build.
It's a really good product for the price.
Because this is a 6~700 dollar machine that is now this price because of Sam Altman and his competing AI cronies having gone full scorched earth on the hardware market for no good reason. A new branch of people is now confronted with this reality actually affecting them.
Youtube's full of people that build comprable or better performing machines in this broad price bracket. There's obviously more to this steam machine than just performance, but it's not particularly cheap in any respect.
I'm not concerned with what YouTubers are doing.
What I know is that if I walk into my local Micro Center and try to build a comparable machine, I'm getting dangerously close to $3,000.
My current PC is already very close to the Steam Machine's specifications, and it cost me around $2,500 when I built it back in 2022.
We also live in a time when hardware is more expensive than it has any right to be.
The price-to-performance ratio on this product is acceptable, if not slightly underpowered by today's standards. But people also need to remember that this is a fully assembled Linux gaming machine that someone can take out of the box, power on, and use immediately.
It's also worth remembering that traditional consoles are often sold at a loss because manufacturers make their money back through game sales and platform fees. That's not the business model that Valve is pursuing.
At this point, I honestly think people would have been upset no matter what Valve did. If they priced it higher, people would complain it was too expensive. If they priced it lower, people would complain it wasn't powerful enough.
I have a massive issue with this claim. Just what kind of parts (comparable in performance) do you choose to bring it up to that point?
This claim sounds bogus. Send the pcpartpicker list.
At most, you should end up at like 1500$, but only if you spend on looks or are clueless of what you're doing.
It's really not difficult to make a PC with similar or possibly better performance at that price.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DPMv4g
Here you go. I will admit prices have gotten much better since last I built a PC.
The above build is somewhat worse than the steam machine and it's close to 1200 bucks.
And this isn't my microcenter and doesn't involve taxes and assembly.
I'd say that I'd be pushing closer to two grand not three.
And pc parts picker isn't the end all be all for pricing. It's a relatively close estimate.
Still easier for most people to simply buy a steam machine and plug it in.
My point still stands it's fine for what it is and what it's supposed to be.
Which is pretty much what people are saying about it anyway so if you want to complain about price feel free to do so but you'd be wrong.
My only complaint was that you have to really try to make a similarly-priced build cost $3k, I don't know what you would even put there to bring the price that high up.
Other than that, yeah, Steam Machine costs about what a regular PC would cost.
Is it? Capped at 1080p, low power consumption to control heat, but at a performance cost. Overall pretty meh.
That's the issue with the PC gaming community. A lot of people seem disconnected from how most people actually game.
The most common graphics card on Steam is still the 3060, and the most common resolution is 1080p.
Only a relatively small segment of gamers is chasing 4K at 60 FPS or higher. The Steam Deck is not a particularly powerful device by modern PC standards, yet it's proven to be extremely capable for gaming.
So, yes, I see a decent product here. It will work perfectly well for the overwhelming majority of people who are actually going to buy it.
Luckily, you don't run a business, because dismissing a product simply because it doesn't cater to the enthusiast minority is a great way to ignore the customers who make up most of the market.
A PS5 pro blows this out of the water for a lower price. This thing has less performance than a base PS5.
Valve targeted a price/performance point that did not exist anymore. They advertised 4k/60FPS, you're just not getting that with this box. They ended up targeting 1080p. As component prices got more expensive they ended up compromising on performance to keep the cost somewhat manageable, but ended up in a very unfavorable part of the price/performance curve. That's why it's so underwhelming to people.
You can build an equivalent or more powerful pc for slightly less than this. But if you're willing to shell out a couple hundred more, you get a multiple of the performance this thing offers. It's outcompeted on both price and performance.
I was quite hyped to get one of these but I'm not shelling out that money for what you get right now. I'd rather spend a little bit more to get something that will actually last and stay relevant for a few more years.
Why everyone us this stupid argument? The PS5 pro cost less because sony will get back the money with the games they sell on the playstation store and the monthly subscription you are forced to pay if you wanna play online
The playstation plus essential is €70 for a year, let's say you will pay for 5 years, it will be €4350 sum it to the €898 of the console and you get €1248 spent
The steam machine with 2TB is €1359 (or 1428 if you really want the controller) and you can use it forever, run old ass games with emulators, mod games, play pirated games, use it how you want, even for productivity and without any subscription
Do you see why Valve can't sell hardware for less like Sony does?
This is NOT a console! It's a PC that offer a plug-n-play expirience for who don't want to build a PC and then config it!
You just sit on the couch, turn on the gabecube with the controller and it give the same plug and play expirience of a console but with the freedom of a computer, you won't spend 5/10 minutes to find the TV remote, turn on the TV, walk to the computer to turn it on, select the HDMI source on the TV, take a keyboard and a mouse to open steam, and THEN play.
You aren't the target audience if you don't care about all this
That's the thing, I do care about all of that. But it's still a very expensive deal for what you get. That's why I was very interested in it, but the price/performance scared me off.
The only thing hard to match right now is the small form factor. But honestly, that's not the primary selling point of this thing that most gamers care about when they're happily purchasing consoles or pcs several times the size.
Everything else it offers is matchable or handily exceeded with a pc build you put together (or let someone put together for you). Just today LTT put out a budget build video that doesn't do anything complex to reach essentially double the Steam Machine's performance, for the same price. If you want to fix the minor things they compromised on you end up maybe paying 100/200 more. Sure it's a tiny bit more expensive, but when you get twice the performance out of it it's an easy deal to make. Especially given that it means you'll make the build last much longer, and it's more easily upgradable making it much cheaper in the long run. And you still get all the benefits that you mentioned that the Steam Machine offers (especially if you install SteamOS on it, which ended up running better than on the Gabecube as it showed an apparent bug with quick-resume).
The comparison to consoles makes the Steam Machine a bad deal for those who just want a console-like experience. For those who care more about PC gaming, it's a bad deal due to the bad spot it sits in in the price/performance curve. This narrows the target audience to a very small sliver of gamers, who then need to be willing to shell out that much money on an already dated system that will be harder to upgrade in the future.
You don't really get enough performance for the AAA games, and there's cheaper out there if you're just an indie enthusiast. Given the pretty overwhelmingly dismissive response from the community, I doubt this thing is going to sell very well.
I didn't watch the LTT video yet, how much they cheaped out to make it way better? I made a build too and couldn't get anything better for the same price od the steam machine lmao
(I tried to make an ITX tho)
It's funny how you say this as if valve doesn't make money on steam sales. The mental gymnastics on display in this thread are definitely something. Sony doesn't even sell their consoles at a loss anymore lol.
But anyway, the multi-billion dollar corporation needs defending, so defend away
Games aren't a physical object, it doesn't take 30€ to host a single game so it's really not a problem to make discounts on games
I don't defend a company because i like it, i hate corpos but this time y'all are saying no sense
If they wanted to gain market they should have included a AM4 option that matches PS5 price and performance.
Ps5s are sold at a loss.
They could have done the same thing but then again a steam machine isn't a PS5.
People would immediately abuse that and start buying these up in bulk for reasons other than gaming on them.
PS5s are not sold at a loss. They're sold at cost. Sony stopped selling at a loss this gen.
Greedy Gabe would never even consider such a thing even though valve would still easily come out ahead from the steam sales alone.
The ceo of valve has more money than sam altman, valve is a for profit company, what makes you think they want to sell you something for cheap?
the argument isn’t that steam would sell at a loss if it wasn’t for ai, it’s that price is close to market parity, when we know the original price was projected to be $750
$750 according to who? Valve? The most honest and knightly and chivalrous of all tech companies? They wouldn't lie or mislead, would they?
are you implying that valve would massively gouge people for a computer by $500 over market parity, if the price of all computer components didn’t skyrocket during the development of the machine?
that price is slightly higher then what the cost would have been to build the computer like a year ago. and that was the price the leak had proposed. what possible purpose could lying about something so mundane have?
... So people will buy it? For profit companies tend to like it when people buy stuff from them.
Their goal is to maximize profits, if they get more money by selling costly units they will stick to these
16gb ram? What is this the 2000's.
I switched my 32 GB desktop from Windows to Linux and, honestly, 32 GB is probably a waste for most users. I'm using 7/32 GB's and I'm actively:
I just launched Steam and RAM went up to 8 GB's, which is a fraction of what Windows uses while doing nothing. I can only see myself needing the extra overhead when running VM's which I don't see a lot of people wanting to do on a device aimed at gaming.
It's cool and all when we are talking about native apps, but in modern day and age most of the work tools for remote work is usually in the browser. And in browser if page takes 1gb of ram on windows, it will take same 1gb of ram on linux. It just how it is.
On top of that, things like discord (unofficial clients banned, mind you), Spotify, vscode, etc. all use electron, which means just another browser. Oh and games also will take same or more ram, cause in best case scenario (for ram use) it's a container with steam runtime and native executable and in worse — just windows game running thru proton.
This is similar to what I've experienced too but don't be surprised if someone tells you that it's impossible for windows to use less ram than Linux. There's one of those people in every thread.
Huh? He's literally saying Linux is using way less.
Which is what I'm agreeing with..?
Quite literally not how your comment reads to me. It reads as if your experience is that windows can use less but people will argue that it's not possible.
Oh shit you're right. I said that but meant the opposite lol
no thx
Without context that data means nothing.
Here's my server (not my desktop) hosting just a few services:
I am curious, what are you running that's using that much RAM?
Two web browsers and vscode (so another web browser... Sigh). No other dev stuff though as that's all remote.
16 GB is perfectly usable even for heavy games, it's still more than what the PS5 has (which is 16GB but shared with the GPU)
The PS5 is about to be a last gen console. I would absolutely not buy a new PC without 32GB of RAM. But gamers have to defend literally everything gabe does no matter what.
I graduated highschool in 2004, so I'd say roughly around 2002 I was marveling at the massive 1GB hard drive my friend got lol
I think 16GB of ram would have blown our minds.
More than 4GB of RAM isn’t even addressable with a 32-bit OS like we had back then.
When I was a in high school Staples ran a deal for a 64GB flashdrive for $64 (1/2 off). My mom and I each bought 1 and it was such a steal! I felt like the coolest nerd at school with so much capacity! I considered trying to install UT2004 on it to play at school (I never did but knew nothing about computers and thought it'd work at that age).
I bought a 16Gb laptop in 2012, which is out of the noughties, but still 14 fucking years ago.
14 years before that I had 32Mb; a 500* multiplier.
Huh, I got a PC in 1997 with a 2GB hard drive. It didn't take long (a year or so) for that to start feeling small compared to others my friend had. He got an 8 GB HD in probably 1998 and a 20 GB shortly after. It was ram I remember being so small. That PC I mentioned from 97 had 24 MB RAM which was good in 1997. It took a couple of years for anyone I knew to exceed 64 MB.
Gonna guess you mean USB drive, and not HDD.
In 2004, 128 and 256 GB HDDs were pretty standard, and if you had some extra budget to throw at a PC, you could get a 512GB.
My budget laptop in 2004 had a 128GB HDD, 256MB RAM (quickly upgraded to 768MB) and like a 1ghz dual core processor.
I remember having a 512MB usb stick and thinking that I would never have to delete anything off it, because I would never have enough word docs or projects at school to fill it up all the way.
Is it even 16gb of ram or is 8 gb set aside for the GPU?
I mean we are in the 2000's