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 basic cold-start test measured Steam’s updated client at 5.23 seconds, compared with about 5.47 seconds for Epic Games Launcher V2 preview. The figures suggest Steam narrowly beat Epic’s headline speed claim in that test, but the report does not provide enough testing detail to establish a broad performance result.
Steam’s updated client recorded a slightly faster cold startup than Epic Games Launcher V2 preview in a test reported by RespawnFirst, undercutting Epic’s new launcher’s central performance pitch. The reported times were 5.23 seconds for Steam and about 5.47 seconds for Epic, but the available account does not establish how the result holds across other computers or testing conditions.
RespawnFirst says Epic announced and released a preview of its redesigned launcher shortly before the comparison. The report characterizes the new client as AI-assisted or “vibe coded” and says its marketing emphasized faster loading than Steam. About a day later, according to the report, a small Steam update preceded a test in which Valve’s client came out ahead on cold startup.
The comparison lists Epic’s cold-boot time as about 5.47 seconds, against Steam’s 5.23 seconds after the patch. It also gives tray-restore times of 0.36 seconds for Epic and 0.42 seconds for Steam. On that second measure, Epic was faster; the result is not a win for Steam across every listed task.
The source describes the Steam implementation as an optimized modular CEF build and Epic’s as AI-assisted. Those architecture descriptions and benchmark figures are reported by RespawnFirst; the provided material does not include a detailed test protocol, hardware specifications, repeated runs or independent verification. The comparison should be read as a narrow reported test, rather than a definitive ranking of the two launchers.
A Narrow Win on Startup Speed
Launcher startup is a visible part of everyday PC gaming: players may open a client to install a game, check updates or reach a library. A measured difference of roughly a quarter of a second is small in practical terms, but the result matters because speed was a stated selling point of Epic’s preview. If the reported figures are reproducible, Steam’s update shows that a competitor can respond quickly to a performance comparison.
The test does not settle which client is better overall. Epic is still described in the source as a substantial improvement over its older launcher, while Steam’s broader appeal also depends on features, library management and community services. The reported tray-restore result, in fact, favors Epic. For users choosing between platforms, the numbers provide one limited data point, not a complete assessment of reliability, usability or feature value.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Epic’s Preview and Steam’s Update
The immediate comparison followed Epic’s launch of Launcher V2 in preview. RespawnFirst says the new version’s main marketing argument was that it loaded faster than Steam. The report then places Steam’s small update roughly 24 hours later, framing the timing as a quick response to that claim. The available material does not independently establish the exact release times or whether Valve described its update as a direct response.
RespawnFirst also contrasts the platforms’ feature sets, listing community tools available on Steam that it says Epic lacks. These include user reviews, discussion forums, guides, screenshots, groups and a mod hub, alongside functions such as family sharing and local network transfers. That inventory is the publication’s account, not a feature-by-feature verification supplied with the benchmark. It helps explain why the speed comparison is only one part of a wider competition between PC game storefronts.
“Steam Client is now faster than Epic’s new vibe coded launcher”
— RespawnFirst report
Testing Details Still Missing
The source material does not identify the test computer, operating system, network state or measurement method. It also does not say how many runs were performed or whether the listed figures are averages. Without those details, it is not possible to determine whether the quarter-second gap is consistent, or whether other hardware and startup conditions would produce a different ordering.
It is also unclear which precise Steam client build was tested, when the update reached users, and whether all users received the same performance change. Epic’s launcher remains a preview, so its speed and features may change before or after a wider release. No independent benchmark or direct statement from Valve or Epic is included in the supplied material.
More Tests Could Clarify the Gap
The next useful evidence would be repeatable tests on matched systems, with the same startup conditions and a clear distinction between cold boot and tray restoration. Updates to either client could also change the comparison, particularly while Epic’s release remains a preview. The source does not provide a date for a full launch or further benchmark testing.
For now, readers can treat the result as a reported snapshot: Steam was marginally quicker to cold-start in RespawnFirst’s comparison, while Epic restored from the system tray faster. Whether that pattern persists across machines, later client versions and independent testing remains open.
Key Questions
Which launcher was faster in the reported cold-start test?
Steam was listed at 5.23 seconds, compared with about 5.47 seconds for Epic Games Launcher V2 preview. Those are figures reported by RespawnFirst, not results accompanied by a full testing protocol.
Was Steam faster in every measurement?
No. The report lists Epic’s tray-restore time at 0.36 seconds and Steam’s at 0.42 seconds, making Epic faster on that measure.
How large was Steam’s reported cold-start advantage?
The listed times differ by about 0.24 seconds. The source gives no repeated-run data or uncertainty range, so the practical consistency of that gap is unknown.
Does this prove Steam is generally faster than Epic’s launcher?
No. The report describes a basic test but does not provide hardware details, a methodology or independent confirmation. It supports a limited comparison of the figures reported, not a universal performance conclusion.
Is Epic’s new launcher available as a full release?
The source describes Epic Games Launcher V2 as a preview. It does not give a date for a full release or details of any subsequent changes.
Source: hn
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
