They are brining features over to the Mac version, so it is essentially ahead in features.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
In 3 years, 50% of all computers capable of playing AAA games will be Macs
- Thread starter senttoschool
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd rather use two systems until Mac "catches" up with PC, if that ever happens.
nVidia & PC with Windows are deadly combination yet to be matched by other competitors.
If Apple seriously want to prove itself in gaming, they better spend money in it and introduce some kind of a console with same architectures as Apple Silicon Mac and purchase a AAA gaming studio in order to boost transition of gaming trend to Apple's platform.
nVidia & PC with Windows are deadly combination yet to be matched by other competitors.
If Apple seriously want to prove itself in gaming, they better spend money in it and introduce some kind of a console with same architectures as Apple Silicon Mac and purchase a AAA gaming studio in order to boost transition of gaming trend to Apple's platform.
This is 100% the money post , MS are the biggest monopoly in gaming , for all the anti trust things that are going around , i cant believe no one is going after DX , that API controls the gaming scene to a point for its almost impossible to compete with it , as it cost so much money to develop to different API`s (and not just write , optimize) , so only PS and Nintendo are able to get AAA games due to sheer amount of users.
Apple cannot abandon Metal because MS wont let them use DX , and OpenGL is not how you want to resolve the technical deficit vs DX.
Why would you try to compare an older Ryzen 5 processor with older integrated graphics to a current-generation part and try to pass that off as an "Apple Tax"? The better comparison would be this one that is on sale for $599.99 on Best Buy's website, normally sells for $799.99:
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lenovo...tate-drive-abyss-blue/6426703.p?skuId=6426703
Keep in mind that that model ships with Windows 10 S Mode, so you would first have to upgrade to Windows 10 Home to install any games not already in the Microsoft Store.
Speaking of gaming and the Mac, I just stumbled across something interesting related to Steam. I do not know when this was added, but I can stream games from my Windows machine to this Mac and play them remotely. Just played Batman Arkham City that way.
Very few games use graphics APIs directly. Most use a game engine.
Because DirectX is responsible for at best, ~25% of all gaming revenue. PS5, Nintendo, Apple, Android does not use DirectX.
Virtually all major game engines like Unreal and Unity support multiple rendering methods, including Metal, Vulkan, OpenCL, etc.
Sure , if but we are talking about Mac gaming aren't we? in the world there are almost 0 games available , how come not all Unreal/Unity games work just out of the box on MacOS ? not to even mention that a LOT of the big studios have their own engines to save the cost of paying unreal/unity , in the end of the day , we cannot play RDR2 or GTA5 or CP 2077 (although that one seems bad right now) or any other major AAA game out there;
So if your premise is that Apple are a big player in mobile gaming , sure I agree , but to discuss AAA + Mac , this is where I believe DX does matter and hamper Apple ability to compete.
Go read up on borderlands 3 for example (one of many) , where its an Unreal game , but its still poorly optimize for Mac and runs better on bootcamp on the same HW.
I would agree with your other premise that if a baseline computer from Apple is gaming capable , it should incentives game developers (that are not MS bought , which there are more then 20+ right as we speak) to port to Mac`s , also because folks that buy 1000$+ computers are more likely to pay for games.
Because even if Unreal/Unity supports MacOS metal, doesn't mean it can work out of the box. Developers still have work and optimization.
But the real answer is in the original post. Developers deemed an extra 2% of the audience as not worth it.
It doesn't mean that no translation layer is used.
Sometime, translation is done at runtime, which is generally bad for performance. This is the case for Cider/crossever games, but also for games that can are called "native" and compiled with Xcode. I think Virtual Programming (infamous for their bad ports and awful support) used such translation scheme. This was the case for OS X versions of Valve games at first. They used "toGL" at runtime, which results in rather poor performance on the Mac. But they didn't say it, it was Netkas who found the trick.
Sometime, translation to openGL/Metal is done before runtime. At some point, Valve moved toGL at compile time, because performance of Linux versions was too low in their testing. The macOS versions saw a large speedboost after that (though they were claiming that bad performance was mostly due to Apple's openGL...
).AFAIK, indirectX (used/made by Feral) and MoltenVK do not translate at runtime. But when you use such tool, you're not using the Metal "best practices". So even if there is no overhead since no translation occurs at runtime, it doesn't mean your Metal game runs as fast as it possibly could.
So who knows if Blizzard uses some translation tool for the Metal version of WoW.
And even if no automatic translation layer is used, more ressource are spent in the D3D version of a game.
Last edited:
No, I don't think it means that. Some apps use some Metal code, and others use frameworks based on Metal, such as core animation, scenekit, coreML and such... Even core graphics is based on Metal. So basically, every app that has a GUI on iOS uses Metal.
As silly as it sounded at first, I keep thinking about this rumour according to which Apple was developing some e-sport Macs. This rumour didn't make any sense at that time; Apple and e-sport couldn't be further appart. But with MX Macs, Apple has be potential of making the best e-sport hardware for a given class of PC. The best laptops for gaming, the best AIOs for gaming. You could have the peformance of a PC laptop that is twice as heavy, is twice as loud and has half the battery life.
Because Apple masters the whole stack from silicon to display, hardware and software, they are in the best position to extract the most performance of their design. They could include 120 Hz "ProMotion" displays in laptops and AIOs, they could reduce latency to a minium,... in a way no one else could.
Of course, this would require some radical change in Apple's strategy toward gaming. They would need to partner with e-sport game studios to optimise their engines. Apple could see this effort as a way of showcasing their new Macs. Who knows?
But all this is wishful thinking.
The ONLY way the demographics of game playing on Macs is ever going to increase is if Apple constructively focus on building gaming Macs. Apple have had that opportunity for decades and they've never done it and thus I do not believe moving to ARM will change that position because in my opinion, gaming computers are well below Apple's ethos of what a computer should be. Apple see's a computer as something so much more than just a gaming machine and thus as a company it will not stoop to the low level of building gaming machines.
I don't think it's the only way or even the best way. Gaming Macs will always be more expensive and less attractive than PC counterparts, for the vast majority of users. Yes, Apple may release ultrabooks that run games better than comparable PCs, but I don't think it'll make much difference. Desktop PCs will remain much better at gaming than Mac towers (larger choice of GPUs, more games...).
What Apple could do is release a gaming-oriented AppleTV (in essence, a console) bundled with a gaming controller and sufficient storage (1TB at least). If this comes with an M1 or M1X, this would have better performance than the PS4 or PS4 pro (if it gets the M1X). Apple would tout the ability to play the same game on your Mac, Apple TV, and iDevice (if the game isn't too demanding).
It would have to be priced reasonably (< $300). Apple would have to make profits form the software, not the hardware, otherwise it would not stand a chance against competing consoles.
But Apple is late to the party. They had a chance to make the AppleTV a better game console, and they screwed up.
Also, I don't think Apple is willing to sell hardware at a loss, which is what all console makers do. The console business model is very far from Apple's business model, yet making a game console is their only way to attract AAA games, IMO.
Apple makes all-round machines. A Mac is by design a jack of all trades. They won’t make a gaming-oriented Mac, since that’s not their style. But they don’t need to. Apple Silicon is flexible enough to do gaming. That’s the point.
Maybe because those steam PCs are second hand hardware, older hardware or whatever. Doesn’t matter.
M1 has become the slowest Mac already thanks to M2 rumour.
Still, Mac does not have 90% market share, and apple will not produce $500 MacBook. Saying 3 years Mac market share reaches the level you described in OP feels kinda strange to me, even counting apple’s world’s first class marketing machine.
I don’t really have time to read through posts, so those are just my feeling. Feel free to ignore and move on. Time will tell, and I have no doubt about apple hardware being more powerful than lots of popular brand new mid rage ($700-$1200) PC a few years down the line.
Even when the obvious is made clear, why do members still think M1 or their next gen will be the machines that edge Apple closer to gaming machines? It's never going to happen. When Apple had very powerful powerpc machines, they never focused on a gaming machine. When Apple transistioned to Intel, again they had very powerful machines and again Apple ignored producing machines for gaming. Therefore, why would Apple change their stance on gaming just because they've transistioned to ARM cpus?
When it comes to gaming, gamers traditionaly look for the machine that can give them the best of both worlds, a machine that can handle what ever AAA game is thrown at it and also a price that is within an acceptable budget. As has already been pointed out, Mac computers are more expensive than their PC counterparts and thus if you have a gamer who is specifically looking for a computer to play certain AAA game titles on, are they going to purchase an expensive Apple Mac or a cheaper PC. I think the general consensus would be that the gamer would purchase the cheaper machine.
Apple have had plenty of oppertunity to build gaming machines in the past but they haven't. I therefore do not think about will change it's stance just because they've now moved to ARM cpu's.
When it comes to gaming, gamers traditionaly look for the machine that can give them the best of both worlds, a machine that can handle what ever AAA game is thrown at it and also a price that is within an acceptable budget. As has already been pointed out, Mac computers are more expensive than their PC counterparts and thus if you have a gamer who is specifically looking for a computer to play certain AAA game titles on, are they going to purchase an expensive Apple Mac or a cheaper PC. I think the general consensus would be that the gamer would purchase the cheaper machine.
Apple have had plenty of oppertunity to build gaming machines in the past but they haven't. I therefore do not think about will change it's stance just because they've now moved to ARM cpu's.
You are misunderstanding the argument. We all can pretty much agree that Apple won’t be making dedicated gaming machines, that’s not what Macs are about. But the point is - Apples hardware is so much better that all Apple Silicon computers are competent gaming machines on their own. Even the passively cooled MacBook Air has enough GPU performance. With an ARM Mac, you don’t have to choose between mobility and performance - you get both.
Also gamers like to customize their case. Whether it is DIY or bought from Dell, there is some personalization to it. If Apple was serious, they would be more open about this.
And let’s not discount e-sports, which is a huge industry world wide.
I just don’t see this happening in the near future. Hardware and audience are not the only factors. There are a lot of other things that need to be part of the discussion.
Yes you get both, but at a premium. So why would a gamer pay more just to get a stock Apple instead of going with an improved dedicated PC with better support that cost less or is superior in specs...
All 100% true.
Apple missed the boat on having gaming rigs a long time ago. And we also have to be gently reminded of a certain lady from Aspyr who said (and I paraphrase):
1 GHz is 1 GHz, regardless of processor architecture. And if you want a timely port, you're not getting Altivec or any other saving graces those processors have.
(back to me)
Now these ASMacs have the potential to be a massive game changer in terms of getting Mac games, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Computer gaming sailed and hit the iceberg a while back. It's CONSOLES (XBox, PS, Nintendo, etc) now.
No I am not misunderstanding the point. M1 machines are not powerful enough and thermal protective enough to run AAA games at ultra or very high GFX levels. A mac user might accept lower GFX levels when wanting to play the odd game but not gamers. Gamers will want a machine that can handle ANY AAA game at max to ultra GFX levels and M1's are just not capable of doing that, no matter how much people try and promote just how good the M1 machines are.
That's not accurate, if you look at Steam surveys. "Hardcore gamers" constitute a small proportion of people playing AAA games.
Last edited:
Because only few people only get computers for gaming. If you have a lot of money and space, sure. As I was saying, most folks out there that enjoy games do it on a machine bought for study/work/home use.
I don’t know the context of this quote, but it just sounds terribly wrong to me. No, a Ghz is not a GHz and no competent computer engineer would claim that. They mention AltiVec... so I guess it was back in times of PowerPC. Times have changed. I spent last couple of weeks building various open-source projects for my M1 and you know what? Almost everything just works. People just don’t write assembly code per hand anymore.
That’s what people were claiming ten years ago. Fast forward to today and there is actually talk of console makers quitting the business because the hardware is getting to large and too expensive. In mid-term perspective, my money for high-end gaming is on closure gaming services.
Apple Silicon has a potential to be a game changes simply because it’s a different paradigm. They need less space, power and memory bandwidth to do the same work graphics-wise.
I think your definition of a „gamer“ might be a bit restrictive. Sure, there are a lot of people who build large gaming PCs and buy latest 300Watt GPUs... but they are just a small part of the gamer demographics. Look at the steam hardware survey and will see what an average gamer uses. I certainly consider myself a passionate gamer and yet my primary gaming machine fir the last 8 years was a 15” MacBook Pro... and I could still play all the games I wanted.
It’s very unlikely that Macs will ever appeal to the „elite“ gamers (or whatever you want to call them). But as far as the gaming capability of a Mac goes... the original post is spot on. Rom the capability (performance, features) standpoint, any Apple Silicon Mac will be perfectly capable to run any contemporary AAA game - not on highest settings of course, but smooth enough to allow satisfactory gameplay. The same won’t be true for an average PC.