Its higher resolution 1200p vs 800p makes it less of a good idea to me. The few pixel more doesn’t make it much better looking, but much worse performance (less fps and battery life). There might be old games and emulation where you could take advantage of, but otherwise I would not recommend this as the default replacement if you don’t have a good reason for higher resolution. It would have been a real shocker if they made a bigger screen with less or no bezels. Maybe if they have good touch screen, it would be worth it too. Because the touch screen element of original Steam Deck is not good.
When the Deck screen breaks and one want to replace it, I would still recommend the original screen as default and tell about the alternative.
Yeah performance and energy efficiency is one of the factors behind the decision Valve made with the screen. The display is on par with entry small factor laptops from late '00s (in resolution, otherwise obviously better).
I don’t think the Deck HD is ideal as UI scaling is also off with the Deck’s UI (unless Valve also supports 150% fractional scaling with their update), but battery life would only be affected in a meaningful way when the game is actually rendered in a higher resolution.
Having a higher resolution target for upscaling with FSR(2) can lead to (slightly) improved image quality even with the same internal resolution and obviously sharper UI. 2D games should look great with the higher pixel density (though at the cost of battery life in this case).
We ran both SD’s on GTA V single player mode with a FPS cap at 30 starting from 100% charge. Both SD’s had the same brightness level and resolution (800p). The testing duration lasted just under 3 hours when DeckHD’s SD turned off when the original SD had 3% battery left.
So just having more pixels to render the UI with or whatever doesn’t really change much. 3% is within margin of error.
I doubt it’s possible to fit a smaller-bezel screen in the LCD’s case.
The touch screen is supposedly a lot better and the color reproduction obviously is as well.
If you need a replacement anyway, I don’t see why you shouldn’t get a better replacement for a similar price to the original anti-glare screen, especially now that Valve starts “officially” supporting it. If you’re looking for a bigger upgrade instead of a replacement because you need a repair, selling your working LCD Deck and upgrading to the OLED model is probably the better option.
So just having more pixels to render the UI with or whatever doesn’t really change much. 3% is within margin of error.
Don’t trust marketing benchmarks of hardware from hardware manufacturers. Besides that, they run it with same resolution at 800p, which defeats the reason to use the DeckHD. My comment was about running games in higher resolution and having less battery life.
I doubt it’s possible to fit a smaller-bezel screen in the LCD’s case.
Why do you doubt it?
If you need a replacement anyway, I don’t see why you shouldn’t get a better replacement
Better is in the eyes of the beholder. To me this is not better, its downgrade one way and upgrade in another; a tradeoff. In example not everyone likes the anti-glare layer on the biggest LCD model. I would want an 800p screen again for my original LCD Deck. If it was an 800p screen or at least with less bezels, then it would be almost a non-brainer for me. If I was about to replace the original screen, then the cheapest option would be preferred. And in that case the 800p LCD replacement from ifixit with a complete set of tools together cost 30 Euros less than the 1200p DeckHD. Another factor to consider (if both are available in your country).
It’s not a black and white / better or worse situation here. There are nuances to this decision and the original 800p LCD is a safe replacement without tradeoffs.
Its higher resolution 1200p vs 800p makes it less of a good idea to me. The few pixel more doesn’t make it much better looking, but much worse performance (less fps and battery life). There might be old games and emulation where you could take advantage of, but otherwise I would not recommend this as the default replacement if you don’t have a good reason for higher resolution. It would have been a real shocker if they made a bigger screen with less or no bezels. Maybe if they have good touch screen, it would be worth it too. Because the touch screen element of original Steam Deck is not good.
When the Deck screen breaks and one want to replace it, I would still recommend the original screen as default and tell about the alternative.
Yeah performance and energy efficiency is one of the factors behind the decision Valve made with the screen. The display is on par with entry small factor laptops from late '00s (in resolution, otherwise obviously better).
I don’t think the Deck HD is ideal as UI scaling is also off with the Deck’s UI (unless Valve also supports 150% fractional scaling with their update), but battery life would only be affected in a meaningful way when the game is actually rendered in a higher resolution.
Having a higher resolution target for upscaling with FSR(2) can lead to (slightly) improved image quality even with the same internal resolution and obviously sharper UI. 2D games should look great with the higher pixel density (though at the cost of battery life in this case).
From their own FAQ:
So just having more pixels to render the UI with or whatever doesn’t really change much. 3% is within margin of error.
I doubt it’s possible to fit a smaller-bezel screen in the LCD’s case.
The touch screen is supposedly a lot better and the color reproduction obviously is as well.
If you need a replacement anyway, I don’t see why you shouldn’t get a better replacement for a similar price to the original anti-glare screen, especially now that Valve starts “officially” supporting it. If you’re looking for a bigger upgrade instead of a replacement because you need a repair, selling your working LCD Deck and upgrading to the OLED model is probably the better option.
Don’t trust marketing benchmarks of hardware from hardware manufacturers. Besides that, they run it with same resolution at 800p, which defeats the reason to use the DeckHD. My comment was about running games in higher resolution and having less battery life.
Why do you doubt it?
Better is in the eyes of the beholder. To me this is not better, its downgrade one way and upgrade in another; a tradeoff. In example not everyone likes the anti-glare layer on the biggest LCD model. I would want an 800p screen again for my original LCD Deck. If it was an 800p screen or at least with less bezels, then it would be almost a non-brainer for me. If I was about to replace the original screen, then the cheapest option would be preferred. And in that case the 800p LCD replacement from ifixit with a complete set of tools together cost 30 Euros less than the 1200p DeckHD. Another factor to consider (if both are available in your country).
It’s not a black and white / better or worse situation here. There are nuances to this decision and the original 800p LCD is a safe replacement without tradeoffs.