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 the patched Steam client at about 5.23 seconds and Epic Games Launcher V2 in preview at about 5.47 seconds. The narrow result challenges Epic’s speed pitch, but the source does not provide enough testing details to establish a broad or independently verified performance ranking.
A RespawnFirst comparison reports that Steam’s startup time fell to about 5.23 seconds after a client update, narrowly beating the roughly 5.47-second cold-start result for Epic Games Launcher V2 in preview. The reported difference undercuts Epic’s speed-focused pitch in that test, but the available account does not establish that Steam is faster on every system or under consistent, independently verified conditions.
The report says Epic announced and released its new launcher in preview a day before Steam’s update. Epic’s marketing had emphasized loading speed in comparison with Steam, according to RespawnFirst. The source then cites basic test-system measurements putting Steam ahead on cold boot by about 0.24 seconds.
The same comparison lists Epic’s tray-restore time at approximately 0.36 seconds, against around 0.42 seconds for Steam. That means the results do not show Steam leading on every listed measure: Epic restored from the system tray more quickly in the reported test. RespawnFirst describes Steam’s architecture as an optimized modular CEF image and Epic’s as AI-assisted, using the phrase “vibe coded”; those labels are the report’s characterization, not independently documented technical findings here.
The figures are presented as results from “basic test systems,” but the report does not give system specifications, sample sizes, repeated-run averages, or detailed testing procedures. Its numbers should be read as a limited comparison rather than a definitive benchmark. A small startup difference may also vary with hardware, software versions, background processes, and how each test defines a completed launch.
A Narrow Win on Cold Startup
Launcher speed affects how quickly players can reach their libraries, and Epic’s comparison with Steam made performance part of the new client’s public pitch. The reported Steam result matters because it suggests a small update can erase that particular advantage, at least in one test. It does not show that the update makes Steam consistently faster for all users.
The wider choice between storefronts also depends on features, reliability, game availability, and user preferences. RespawnFirst lists many features it says Epic lacks, including community forums, user reviews, guides, workshop-style mod support, and family sharing. That inventory is the publication’s assessment; the supplied material does not independently verify each feature’s current status. Still, it frames why a fraction of a second in startup time is only one part of the competition.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Epic’s Preview and Steam’s Patch
The report places the comparison in a rapid sequence: Epic introduced Launcher V2 in preview, promoting its speed relative to Steam, and Steam then received a small client update. RespawnFirst says the newer Epic build is a substantial improvement over the company’s older launcher, while arguing that Steam’s subsequent result displaced its speed claim. No detailed changelog or engineering account for the Steam update is included in the supplied source.
The article also references a social-media post dated October 14, 2026, which it presents as criticism of bugs in the AI-built Epic store. The post is a user’s characterization, not proof of the launcher’s overall stability or a formal assessment. The source material does not provide a response from Epic or a separate review of the preview build.
““Only 24 hours after Epic dropped its faster launcher, Steam pushed a small update to make its client faster than Epic.””
— RespawnFirst report
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Benchmark Details Still Missing
The source does not identify the test hardware, operating systems, launcher versions beyond the broad labels, number of runs, or whether the reported times are averages. It is also unclear whether the tests were conducted by RespawnFirst or drawn from another tester; the table credits an image to a Reddit user, but that alone does not establish who performed the measurements.
There is no independent benchmark in the supplied material, and neither Valve nor Epic is quoted confirming the figures. The result cannot show whether performance changed across different computers, whether the update is available to all Steam users, or whether Epic’s preview has since been revised. The tray-restore figures also favor Epic, underscoring that the result depends on which task is measured.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
More Testing Could Settle It
The clearest next step would be repeatable tests that compare current versions of both clients on the same hardware, using published methods and multiple runs for cold starts and tray restores. That would help establish whether the reported 0.24-second Steam lead persists beyond the basic systems described by RespawnFirst.
Epic’s launcher remains identified as a preview in the source, so later builds may change its performance or features. Valve could also issue further client updates. Until either company or independent testers publish fuller results, the available evidence supports a limited conclusion: Steam recorded the faster cold start in the reported comparison, while Epic recorded the faster tray restore.
gaming launcher performance monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Was Steam measured as faster than Epic’s new launcher?
Yes, in the cold-start test reported by RespawnFirst: Steam took about 5.23 seconds and Epic Games Launcher V2 about 5.47 seconds. The source does not provide enough methodological detail to treat this as a universal result.
Which launcher restored from the system tray faster?
The reported figures favor Epic’s launcher, at about 0.36 seconds compared with Steam’s roughly 0.42 seconds.
Was the comparison independently verified?
The supplied report does not include an independent verification or full test methodology. Hardware, repeat counts, and the precise testing process are not specified.
Is Epic’s new launcher a final release?
No. The source describes Epic Games Launcher V2 as being in preview. Its performance and features could change in later versions.
Source: hn
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
