• @just_another_person
    link
    English
    -31 year ago

    It could be Arm64, but the games aren’t. Not many devs or studios are compiling for both x86 and Arm, so unless you want to emulate the instructions, x86 is the preferred platform.

    • @just_another_person
      link
      English
      41 year ago

      I’ll reply to my own comment since so many people decided to give me shit and not understand what I was saying:

      • Valve is primarily a software distribution company, not a hardware company
      • they went with x86 because it makes sense since not many studios are distributing arm64 compiled versions of games
      • Distributing multiple versions of games in different architectures is HARD
      • instruction emulation is SLOW
      • there is no reason why Valve would go with a custom Arm hardware platform when literally 99% of all gamers are running x86
      • running an emulation layer to translate removes all power savings benefit for the most part, especially since in gaming it’s almost all GPU instruction taking the brunt of the power draw
      • shipping multiple architectures on Steam is equally HARD, as you’re not just debugging one architecture, you’re debugging multiple, and then variants of Arm versions.

      x86 makes sense, and will into the near future.

    • @ryapric
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      Just making sure you know that you are indeed commenting on a post about an x86 emulator.

      • @just_another_person
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        He’s talking about Valve making a decision to stick with x86 hardware, which I reinforced. What am I missing here?

    • dinckel
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • @just_another_person
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        He’s talking about Valve going with x86. I just reinforced Valves point to do so and the reason behind it.