TL;DR
Play games on Amazon Luna for your game nights, included with Prime
- A rotating selection of games, no download needed
- Play on TV, laptop or phone
- Fast, free delivery for your gear, too
A report says a small Steam Client update brought its cold-boot startup time to about 5.23 seconds, compared with about 5.47 seconds for Epic Games Launcher V2 Preview. The reported gap is narrow, and the testing method and systems are not detailed, so the figures do not establish a general performance advantage.
Steam Client reportedly edged out Epic Games Launcher V2 Preview in a cold-start test, posting a startup time of about 5.23 seconds against Epic’s roughly 5.47 seconds. The comparison follows Epic’s launch of a preview build promoted for its speed, but the test setup and results have not been independently documented in the available account.
The reported comparison lists Steam’s cold-boot time as 5.23 seconds and Epic’s as 5.47 seconds. That is a difference of about a quarter of a second in this test. For tray restoration, however, the figures go the other way: Epic is listed at 0.36 seconds and Steam at 0.42 seconds. The numbers therefore do not show one launcher winning every startup measure.
The account describes Valve’s change as a small Steam Client update and says the test used basic systems, but it does not identify the hardware, software versions beyond the listed client builds, number of runs, or timing method. It also characterizes Steam as using an optimized modular CEF architecture and Epic’s preview as AI-assisted or “vibe coded.” Those descriptions are presented in the report, not supported there by technical documentation or statements from either company.
Epic’s new launcher remains a preview release. The report says its launch was accompanied by a marketing comparison with Steam’s loading speed, while the subsequent Steam result countered that performance pitch in the cited test. Neither company is quoted directly about the numbers, and the material does not establish whether the Steam update was designed in response to Epic’s release.
Launcher performance · Reported October 2026
Steam Edges Epic’s New Launcher in a Narrow Test
A reported cold start put Steam Client at 5.23 seconds and Epic Games Launcher V2 Preview at 5.47 seconds. The gap is small, testing details are missing, and Epic was quicker at tray restoration.
Reported cold-start comparison
Difference: about 0.24 seconds in the reported test. This is a limited snapshot, not a general ranking.
Different startup measures, different leaders
The comparison gives Steam the shorter cold start, while Epic leads when restoring from the system tray. Neither figure alone settles which launcher is faster in everyday use.
| Measure | Steam Client | Epic Games Launcher V2 Preview | Reported edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cold boot | 5.23 seconds | 5.47 seconds | Steam · 0.24s |
| Tray restoration | 0.42 seconds | 0.36 seconds | Epic · 0.06s |
Times are approximate and come from the supplied account. No independent benchmark publication is provided.
A quarter-second result needs context. Without repeat runs and matched test conditions, the reported 0.24-second cold-start difference cannot show whether the result is repeatable or applies across PCs.
A snapshot, with important gaps
The figures offer a point of comparison after Epic promoted its preview’s speed. The available account leaves key details unresolved, so the result should be read narrowly.
A small Steam update
The account says Steam Client’s cold-boot time slightly beat Epic’s V2 Preview in a basic comparison.
Test conditions
Hardware, operating system, network conditions, run count, averages, and timing method are not identified.
Broader performance
There is no independent verification or direct response from Valve or Epic in the supplied material.
From headline to evidence
A useful performance comparison depends on more than one pair of numbers.
Compare the measure
Cold boot favors Steam in the reported figures.
Separate tray restore
Epic is quicker on the separate restoration measure.
Check the method
System specs, run counts, and timing procedure are absent.
Wait for repeat tests
Matched systems and repeatable results could clarify the gap.
Startup time is only one part of the experience
The report describes Epic’s client as a preview and says it was promoted as a faster-loading redesign. It also raises questions about features and bugs, but the supplied account does not include technical documentation or a company response.
Feature comparison claims
The report says Steam offers a wider set of community and player tools. This is an assessment in the account, not a confirmed roadmap comparison.
Preview status matters
Epic Games Launcher V2 is described as a preview. Its final performance, feature set, stability, and release timing are not stated.
A social media post reportedly alleged bugs, but the material provides no reproducible bug list or company response. The allegation is not confirmation of widespread defects.
What can we say so far?
Which launcher had the faster reported cold start?
Steam Client, at about 5.23 seconds versus Epic V2 Preview at about 5.47 seconds. The test is not independently verified.
Did Epic win any part of the comparison?
Yes. Epic’s reported tray-restoration time was about 0.36 seconds, compared with Steam’s 0.42 seconds.
Does this prove Steam is faster on every PC?
No. The account does not identify the test hardware, method, run count, or a wider range of systems.
Is Epic Games Launcher V2 a finished release?
No. The material describes it as a preview. Final performance, features, and release timing are not stated.
A Narrow Result for Launcher Performance
Launcher startup speed matters to players who open a storefront to play a game, check downloads, or use community features. But the reported roughly 0.24-second cold-start gap is small, and the faster tray-restoration figure belongs to Epic in this comparison. Without repeatable testing across hardware and software configurations, the result is better understood as a single reported benchmark than as proof that Steam is broadly faster.
The development still gives players a concrete point of comparison after Epic made speed a selling point for its preview. It also illustrates how a performance claim can be tested against a competing client almost immediately. The comparison alone does not settle which launcher offers the better overall experience: load time is only one aspect of a storefront, alongside stability, game management, accessibility and community tools.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Epic’s Preview and Steam’s Feature Gap
Epic Games announced and launched Launcher V2 in preview shortly before the reported Steam comparison. The account says the new build was presented as faster-loading than Steam and as a major change from Epic’s older launcher. The supplied material does not provide an official Epic benchmark, test procedure or full technical description of how the preview was built.
It also argues that Epic’s client lacks many features available in Steam, including user reviews, discussion forums, guides, screenshot sharing, controller support, family sharing and a mod hub. That list is an assessment in the report; it does not establish which features are planned or whether Epic intends to add them. The distinction matters because a startup-time comparison cannot measure the broader services players may use after opening a launcher.
A social media post cited in the material alleges bugs in Epic’s AI-built store, but no reproducible bug list or company response is provided. That allegation should not be treated as confirmation that the preview has widespread defects. The available information supports only that concerns about bugs were raised online.
gaming launcher performance upgrade
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Testing Details Still Missing
The comparison does not specify the test hardware, operating system, network conditions, or measurement procedure. It is also unclear whether both launchers were tested under identical conditions, whether the figures are averages, or how many runs were performed. Those omissions make it difficult to judge how repeatable the difference is or whether it applies beyond the systems described generally as basic.
There is no independent verification, formal benchmark publication, or direct response from Valve or Epic in the supplied account. The claim that a Steam patch arrived within 24 hours of Epic’s launch is reported as timing, but there is no evidence that Valve made the change in reaction to Epic. The preview’s stability, feature roadmap and final performance may also differ from the current build.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Repeat Tests Could Clarify the Gap
The next useful development would be a repeatable comparison that identifies system specifications, client versions, test conditions and run counts, while reporting cold starts and tray restoration separately. Until those details are available, readers should treat the figures as a limited snapshot rather than a general ranking of launcher performance.
Epic’s build is still labeled a preview, so its performance and features may change. Valve could also issue further client updates. No next benchmark, company statement or release date for a final Epic launcher version is provided, leaving the longer-term comparison open.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Which launcher had the faster cold start in the reported test?
Steam Client was listed at about 5.23 seconds, compared with about 5.47 seconds for Epic Games Launcher V2 Preview. The test details are not provided, so the result is not independently verified.
Did Epic’s launcher win any part of the comparison?
Yes. The reported tray-restoration time was about 0.36 seconds for Epic and 0.42 seconds for Steam. The comparison therefore gives different results for cold boot and tray restoration.
Does this prove Steam is faster on every PC?
No. The account does not identify the test hardware, method, number of runs or broader range of systems. The numbers describe a reported test, not a universal result.
Is Epic Games Launcher V2 a finished release?
No. The material describes it as a preview. Its final performance, feature set and release timing are not stated.
Source: Hacker News
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
