TL;DR
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
RespawnFirst reports that a Steam client update brought its cold-start time to about 5.23 seconds, slightly below the 5.47 seconds recorded for Epic Games Launcher V2 in preview. The figures come from a limited test, and the report does not provide enough methodology to establish a broad performance advantage.
Steam’s patched client recorded a 5.23-second cold start, narrowly beating the 5.47 seconds reported for Epic Games Launcher V2 in a comparison published by RespawnFirst. The result challenges Epic’s pitch that its new preview launcher loads faster than Steam, but the report gives limited information about the test setup, so it does not establish that Steam is faster for all users.
RespawnFirst’s comparison lists Steam’s post-update cold-start time as about 5.23 seconds and Epic Games Launcher V2’s as about 5.47 seconds. That is a difference of roughly a quarter of a second in the reported test. The figures are presented as results from basic test systems; the article does not specify the hardware, operating system, number of runs, or how the measurements were taken.
The same table reports a different result for restoring the clients from the system tray: Epic at about 0.36 seconds and Steam at about 0.42 seconds. On that measure, Epic is quicker. RespawnFirst also characterizes Epic’s new launcher as AI-assisted or “vibe coded” and Steam’s client as using an optimized modular CEF architecture, but the report does not independently verify how the products were built or establish that architecture caused the measured timings.
The report frames the update as arriving within 24 hours of Epic’s announcement of its launcher preview. That timing is part of RespawnFirst’s account; the source material does not include a Valve statement confirming the update was specifically intended as a response to Epic’s performance claim. The comparison therefore supports a narrow point about the measured cold starts, rather than a conclusion about overall client quality or speed.
A Narrow Test of Launcher Speed
Launcher startup times affect how quickly players can reach their libraries, particularly when an app is opened from a fresh system start. A result favoring Steam gives users a reason to question a broad claim that Epic’s preview is faster, especially if that claim rests on a comparison with Steam. But the reported gap is about 0.24 seconds, and the missing test details make it difficult to know whether it would persist across different computers or repeated runs.
The tray-restore figures also show why a single metric cannot settle the comparison: Epic’s launcher is faster on that reported measure. For players choosing between platforms, launch speed is only one consideration alongside their libraries, features, and the games they want to play. RespawnFirst lists a number of Steam community and convenience features that it says Epic lacks, but those feature comparisons are the outlet’s assessment, not findings from the startup-time test.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Epic’s Preview and Steam’s Client
Epic introduced Epic Games Launcher V2 in preview, with faster loading presented as a central selling point relative to Steam. RespawnFirst says Steam’s client received a small update shortly afterward and reports the resulting startup comparison. The source describes Epic’s new version as a substantial improvement over its older launcher, while also arguing that the Epic client lacks many features found in Steam.
Those broader feature claims include community forums and guides, user reviews, Workshop-style mod support, family sharing, and controller features. They provide context for the wider competition between storefronts, but they are separate from the speed figures and are not independently documented in the supplied report. The available evidence here is a single comparison table, not a systematic review of either platform.
““On basic test systems, Valve’s client boot time dropped to 5.23 seconds.””
— RespawnFirst
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Test Conditions Remain Unspecified
The report does not name the test computer specifications, operating system, measurement method, or number of repetitions. It is also unclear whether both clients were tested under identical conditions, how a “cold boot” was defined, or whether background processes affected the results. Without those details, the figures should be treated as one reported comparison, not a general benchmark.
Valve’s motive for the update is also unconfirmed: no direct statement from Valve is included tying it to Epic’s preview. The source offers no direct comment from Epic on the results, and it does not establish whether either figure reflects the clients’ current performance for all users. The reported times may vary with hardware, software versions, network conditions, and individual settings.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Broader Benchmarks Could Clarify
A more informative comparison would publish the hardware and software configuration, describe the timing method, and repeat each measurement across multiple runs. Testing both cold starts and tray restores on the same systems could show whether the small reported differences are consistent. Until then, the figures offer a snapshot rather than a definitive ranking.
Epic Games Launcher V2 remains a preview in the source report, so its performance and feature set may change. Valve could also continue updating Steam. Neither company’s next changes or public response to this comparison are confirmed in the material provided.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Is Steam confirmed to be faster than Epic’s new launcher?
Not across the board. RespawnFirst reports a faster Steam cold start in its comparison, but Epic was faster on the reported tray-restore measurement. The test details are limited.
What startup times did the report give?
The report lists about 5.23 seconds for patched Steam and about 5.47 seconds for Epic Games Launcher V2 on a cold start.
Which launcher restored faster from the tray?
Epic’s preview launcher was listed at about 0.36 seconds, compared with about 0.42 seconds for Steam.
Was Steam’s update confirmed as a response to Epic?
No direct Valve statement in the supplied report says the update was made in response to Epic’s announcement. The reported timing alone does not establish the reason for the update.
Can these results predict performance on my computer?
Not reliably. The report does not provide the system specifications or testing method, and launcher performance can vary across computers and settings.
Source: hn
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
