OS X The future of Mac gaming is bright

[diamond.g]

So did any of the games anounce during Gamescom last night (or so far) say anything about macOS support?

 

[Nugat Trailers]

So did any of the games anounce during Gamescom last night (or so far) say anything about macOS support?

Two, but it's only opening night.

Return to Monkey Island by Terrible Toybox

Return to Monkey Island on Steam

Return to Monkey Island is an unexpected, thrilling return of series creator Ron Gilbert that continues the story of the legendary adventure games.

store.steampowered.com

Moon Breaker by Unknown Worlds Entertainment (Subnautica)

Moonbreaker on Steam

Moonbreaker is a turn-based strategy, tactical skirmish game. The game is designed to be a true digital miniatures experience, set in an expansive sci-fi universe crafted by Brandon Sanderson. Direct Captain and Crew in gripping, ever-changing competition and adventure.

store.steampowered.com

A few already announced titles were also shown off, Verne: The Shape of Fantasy, The Wandering Village, Farewell North, Moviehouse, Espiocracy, The Dungeon of Naheulbeuk DLC, Chained Echoes, ODDADA, The Last Outpost, Gloomhaven DLC, Alliance of the Sacred Suns.

It's likely the most intensive game there for Mac is Moon Breaker. (recommended specs, Ventura with 16 GB RAM, and either an M1 8 core, or an 8 GB graphics card)

 

[diamond.g]

Two, but it's only opening night.

Return to Monkey Island by Terrible Toybox

Return to Monkey Island on Steam

Return to Monkey Island is an unexpected, thrilling return of series creator Ron Gilbert that continues the story of the legendary adventure games.

store.steampowered.com

Moon Breaker by Unknown Worlds Entertainment (Subnautica)

Moonbreaker on Steam

Moonbreaker is a turn-based strategy, tactical skirmish game. The game is designed to be a true digital miniatures experience, set in an expansive sci-fi universe crafted by Brandon Sanderson. Direct Captain and Crew in gripping, ever-changing competition and adventure.

store.steampowered.com

A few already announced titles were also shown off, Verne: The Shape of Fantasy, The Wandering Village, Farewell North, Moviehouse, Espiocracy, The Dungeon of Naheulbeuk DLC, Chained Echoes, ODDADA, The Last Outpost, Gloomhaven DLC, Alliance of the Sacred Suns.

It's likely the most intensive game there for Mac is Moon Breaker. (recommended specs, Ventura with 16 GB RAM, and either an M1 8 core, or an 8 GB graphics card)

Nice I saw the MoonBreaker trailer and thought this would be fun to play on macOS, but at the end it mentioned PC but not macOS so I didn't think to look at the steam page to see if the meant "both" operating systems.

 

[diamond.g]

Oh wow, 126 games associated with GamesCom are available for macOS

Gamescom

store.steampowered.com

 

[Daibhidh]

Good points! There may be more pressure to port Mac native games now...though that pressure might be slightly lessoned by the viability of emulation (e.g. Parallels and VMware Fusion) or other compatibility softwares (e.g. Wine-based Crossover and Porting Kit) for Windows gaming. Certainly neither of those solutions is a perfect substitute for native gaming, but Apple Silicon is impressive enough that those options aren't half bad either.

For compatibility Boot Camp can't be beat, but considering that the AMD 5600M was the best laptop GPU prior to Apple Silicon Macs (correct me if I'm wrong) and considering that the mid-range M1 GPUs stomp the 5600M, my guess is that performance for Windows games running in compatibility environments on mid-range Apple Silicon compares favorably to performance in Boot Camp on the best MacBooks. Of course desktop macs could be configured with even more powerful (and very expensive) GPU options, but the point is that it's conceivable that even in compatibility environments Apple Silicon gaming is generally an improvement (with the major caveat that not all Windows games are compatible with emulation and/or Wine).

What do you folks think? Does Emulation/Wine gaming on Apple Silicon outshine native Windows Boot Camp gaming? Is the compatibility of non-native Windows games on Apple Silicon too spotty to make broad comparison statements with Boot Camp? Is there hope for Emulation/Wine compatibility to improve much in the future?

When you say ‘mid-range’, what exactly do you mean?

I’m in the middle of a purchase dilemma: bought the baseline Mini for basic use and in the main for Pages, so it works fine. But I really fancy playing a few up-to-date games and am pinning my hopes on Homeworld 3 coming out native or via Crossover. Either way I’m unsure as to whether I should return go for a 16GB Mini or plump for the Studio. The latter seems complete overkill given I don’t edit videos, especially if it’s still going to be sub-par for gaming.

Slàn.

 

[Daibhidh]

Even during the height of Boot Camp compatibility, featuring performance Intel CPUs and AMD graphics, the Mac has never been a good gaming platform compared to what a hand-built Windows PC would offer. Often times, the experience and value is better with an AMD CPU and Nvidia GPU, which weren't options that Apple made available.

The best gaming Macs have also had a poor value proposition. The best x86 gaming experience is the 2019 Mac Pro paired with a 6900XT AMD GPU. Even when purchasing used from Ebay, that's easily a $5,000+ expenditure, which most likely involves purchasing the graphics card separately and replacing the older GPU inside the used Mac Pro. I should know, I've researched this heavily, and always came to the same conclusion. For the price of a used base model Mac Pro, you can build roughly three mid-range gaming PCs.

Even when doing the "budget build" on the Mac side, it's less than ideal. My primary computer is a base model 2018 Mac mini with a speed demon 3.6Ghz quad-core i3 and a spacious 128GB internal SSD. I bought the base model four years ago because, at the time, the rumors of Arm Macs were strong, so I purchased this to tide me over. Instead of being a stopgap, it's become a crutch. Since my initial purchase, I scrounged used markets to upgrade it with 64GB of system memory, supplemented it with a 500GB external Samsung T5 SSD, added a BlackMagic RX 580 eGPU, and somehow managed to get an brand-new 21.5-inch LG UltraFine off of Ebay for half the original MSRP.

Doing the math, I saved about 50% off of the original cost of these components, but even then, it's been a poor value for gaming. I like to say that my Mac is held together with sticks and bubble gum and will fall apart if looked at the wrong way. Getting Boot Camp working properly has been a nightmare, because eGPUs aren't officially supported by either Apple or Microsoft on the Mac, so that makes the situation even more challenging. Plus, a random update from Microsoft or Apple can deep six your eGPU working within Windows, thus making every update from Microsoft or Apple becoming fraught with anxiety.

My point being is that, even when you do your absolute best to cobble together a gaming Mac to play PC games using Boot Camp, it's not necessarily worth it. Honestly, the sooner the Mac moves over as a platform to Apple Silicon, leaving Intel behind entirely, the better, simply because it won't feel like a half-baked effort.

Just as @Nermal alluded to, in the past, game developers could tell Mac users to "just use Boot Camp" and have an easy out, even though most Intel Macs can't run intensive games, and even if they can, it often involves much more than just installing Windows. The time and financial investments aren't easily dismissed.

Also, @casperes1996 has rightly pointed out that VMs like Parallels, and compatibility layers like CrossOver, are less than ideal solutions. For every PC game that functions, there are ten that won't even launch. Even then, you have to sacrifice a small woodland creature to the computing gods, on a Saturday night at 9:31pm GMT during a leap year, under a full moon, to even have a chance of properly playing a specific title. I appreciate the work that Parallels and CodeWeavers have put into their products; they have allowed many games to work on machines that they clearly were not designed for. However, I see neither virtualization nor compatibility layers as solutions for anything other than older or less demanding titles.

For instance, I very much want to play Alan Wake II when it is released around the middle of next year. Remedy doesn't have a history of releasing their games on the Mac. It doesn't even appear to be on their radar. This is one of the few game franchises that I would crawl across broken glass to play, but there is no reason to think that there will be a Mac version, nor will it likely work well with Parallels or CrossOver. It may be available through GeForce Now, but that has its own issues; game streaming uses massive bandwidth, has added costs, and there's a good chance of incurring overage charges, and I refuse to pay Comcast with its extortionist pricing.

Once my Mac mini ages out, which it will likely do soon, I'll either have to be satisfied with the computer games available for the Mac, or build a side PC. I can't see myself ever going back to Windows, I've only owned Macs since I switched in 2005, but a supplemental gaming PC may be the only realistic alternative, if things stay the same as they currently are. I don't want to spend $1,500+ or whatever the going price is to build a mid-range gaming PC with inflation, when I could instead put those funds into a better Mac purchase, whenever I do need to replace my anemic 2018 Intel Mac mini.

Fortunately, the situation is fluid and Apple appears to be working to improve Mac gaming behind closed doors. Metal 3 and mainstream games getting substantial attention during Apple's last event highlight this. Cliff Maier, a former Opteron architect who wrote the draft for x86-64 that is used in billions of PCs every day, who knows the Apple Silicon engineers from his days at AMD and Exponential, has been saying for months that, according to his contacts within Apple, they are serious about gaming, are aware of the deficiencies in this area, and are actively working to improve gaming on the Mac. The difference between now and previous efforts that Apple has undertaken is that, according to him, Apple is willing to "do it themselves" if they can't convince major game developers to support the Mac. What we are seeing with Metal 3, GRID Legends, No Man's Sky, and Resident Evil Village are just the tip of the iceberg, assuming Apple follows through with the plans that they currently have.

Finally, as you mentioned @tubuliferous, Apple Silicon is very impressive in regards to providing a baseline of performance. In that respect, it's similar to consoles, in that every game developer will have a minimum set of specifications to target. Unlike the experience suffered with Intel's pathetic iGPUs, the base model M1 is a performant, capable SoC that allows for quality gaming. During Apple's presentation, it was said that Resident Evil Village has no problems running on a standard M1 Mac. Compare that to the hodgepodge mess that have to be catered to with x86 systems, both Mac and PC.

On top of this, the Mac continues to gain marketshare, and there appears to be no reason for that to not continue. Tim Cook specifically said that the 10% shortfall in Mac revenue last quarter was due to the shutdowns in Shanghai because of lockdowns implemented by the CCP. In fact, Apple was impressed that they only took a 10% revenue hit, considering how restrictive government controls were during that time period. Those pressures are alleviating, most Macs ship within a reasonable time frame, and even the Apple Studio Display is no longer facing major delays. Couple that with a successful launch of the M2, the expected announcements of the more advanced M2 Pro/Max/Ultra/Extreme in the coming months, completely finishing the transition from Intel to Apple Silicon, then the picture should be more clear. Apple's appeal to quality over quantity appears to be paying off and they may be the only major computer manufacturer to experience shipment growth in the coming quarters, as they are finally able to meet demand. PC makers are interchangeable, and can only compete on price, whereas Apple offers value with the Mac that goes beyond dollar signs and the race to the bottom of the value proposition.

So, between an increase in market share, a renewed push into the gaming market both publicly and privately, and a strong baseline performance with Apple Silicon, I see reason for optimism. Of course, healthy skepticism is warranted, but the prognosis is better than it has been in years; in fact, perhaps better than it has ever been for the Mac.

Mac gamers don't need access to every PC title, just enough games to make the Mac a more enticing gaming platform. The hardware and software pieces are falling into place, now we just need more gaming studios to take notice. The Mac platform may be attractive as an underserved market, particularly since there isn't much competition among "AAA" gaming studios, which means they could potentially grab a large slice of a small but growing market (Mac), rather than a small slice of a gigantic declining market (PC).

Once developers are familiar with Metal 3 and Apple Silicon, they won't need to worry about every edge case that is a result of some revenant lurking within an old Nvidia driver implemented to supplement poorly written code from the 1990s, the cruft leftover from the 1980s buried within Microsoft Windows' ancient bloated registry, or some barnacle still lurking within an Intel CPU built upon a foundation laid in the 1970s.

There's still a lot of work to be done. I've been hanging on to my 2018 Intel Mac mini for much longer than I had anticipated, mainly because it's taking games a long time to finally switch to native Apple Silicon. However, once the transition is complete, I'm hoping that a good number of quality games will become available for the the Mac, leaving behind the hacks I have had to use with Intel Macs, not to mention the entire kludge that is the Windows PC ecosystem.

Even during the height of Boot Camp compatibility, featuring performance Intel CPUs and AMD graphics, the Mac has never been a good gaming platform compared to what a hand-built Windows PC would offer. Often times, the experience and value is better with an AMD CPU and Nvidia GPU, which weren't options that Apple made available.

The best gaming Macs have also had a poor value proposition. The best x86 gaming experience is the 2019 Mac Pro paired with a 6900XT AMD GPU. Even when purchasing used from Ebay, that's easily a $5,000+ expenditure, which most likely involves purchasing the graphics card separately and replacing the older GPU inside the used Mac Pro. I should know, I've researched this heavily, and always came to the same conclusion. For the price of a used base model Mac Pro, you can build roughly three mid-range gaming PCs.

Even when doing the "budget build" on the Mac side, it's less than ideal. My primary computer is a base model 2018 Mac mini with a speed demon 3.6Ghz quad-core i3 and a spacious 128GB internal SSD. I bought the base model four years ago because, at the time, the rumors of Arm Macs were strong, so I purchased this to tide me over. Instead of being a stopgap, it's become a crutch. Since my initial purchase, I scrounged used markets to upgrade it with 64GB of system memory, supplemented it with a 500GB external Samsung T5 SSD, added a BlackMagic RX 580 eGPU, and somehow managed to get an brand-new 21.5-inch LG UltraFine off of Ebay for half the original MSRP.

Doing the math, I saved about 50% off of the original cost of these components, but even then, it's been a poor value for gaming. I like to say that my Mac is held together with sticks and bubble gum and will fall apart if looked at the wrong way. Getting Boot Camp working properly has been a nightmare, because eGPUs aren't officially supported by either Apple or Microsoft on the Mac, so that makes the situation even more challenging. Plus, a random update from Microsoft or Apple can deep six your eGPU working within Windows, thus making every update from Microsoft or Apple becoming fraught with anxiety.

My point being is that, even when you do your absolute best to cobble together a gaming Mac to play PC games using Boot Camp, it's not necessarily worth it. Honestly, the sooner the Mac moves over as a platform to Apple Silicon, leaving Intel behind entirely, the better, simply because it won't feel like a half-baked effort.

Just as @Nermal alluded to, in the past, game developers could tell Mac users to "just use Boot Camp" and have an easy out, even though most Intel Macs can't run intensive games, and even if they can, it often involves much more than just installing Windows. The time and financial investments aren't easily dismissed.

Also, @casperes1996 has rightly pointed out that VMs like Parallels, and compatibility layers like CrossOver, are less than ideal solutions. For every PC game that functions, there are ten that won't even launch. Even then, you have to sacrifice a small woodland creature to the computing gods, on a Saturday night at 9:31pm GMT during a leap year, under a full moon, to even have a chance of properly playing a specific title. I appreciate the work that Parallels and CodeWeavers have put into their products; they have allowed many games to work on machines that they clearly were not designed for. However, I see neither virtualization nor compatibility layers as solutions for anything other than older or less demanding titles.

For instance, I very much want to play Alan Wake II when it is released around the middle of next year. Remedy doesn't have a history of releasing their games on the Mac. It doesn't even appear to be on their radar. This is one of the few game franchises that I would crawl across broken glass to play, but there is no reason to think that there will be a Mac version, nor will it likely work well with Parallels or CrossOver. It may be available through GeForce Now, but that has its own issues; game streaming uses massive bandwidth, has added costs, and there's a good chance of incurring overage charges, and I refuse to pay Comcast with its extortionist pricing.

Once my Mac mini ages out, which it will likely do soon, I'll either have to be satisfied with the computer games available for the Mac, or build a side PC. I can't see myself ever going back to Windows, I've only owned Macs since I switched in 2005, but a supplemental gaming PC may be the only realistic alternative, if things stay the same as they currently are. I don't want to spend $1,500+ or whatever the going price is to build a mid-range gaming PC with inflation, when I could instead put those funds into a better Mac purchase, whenever I do need to replace my anemic 2018 Intel Mac mini.

Fortunately, the situation is fluid and Apple appears to be working to improve Mac gaming behind closed doors. Metal 3 and mainstream games getting substantial attention during Apple's last event highlight this. Cliff Maier, a former Opteron architect who wrote the draft for x86-64 that is used in billions of PCs every day, who knows the Apple Silicon engineers from his days at AMD and Exponential, has been saying for months that, according to his contacts within Apple, they are serious about gaming, are aware of the deficiencies in this area, and are actively working to improve gaming on the Mac. The difference between now and previous efforts that Apple has undertaken is that, according to him, Apple is willing to "do it themselves" if they can't convince major game developers to support the Mac. What we are seeing with Metal 3, GRID Legends, No Man's Sky, and Resident Evil Village are just the tip of the iceberg, assuming Apple follows through with the plans that they currently have.

Finally, as you mentioned @tubuliferous, Apple Silicon is very impressive in regards to providing a baseline of performance. In that respect, it's similar to consoles, in that every game developer will have a minimum set of specifications to target. Unlike the experience suffered with Intel's pathetic iGPUs, the base model M1 is a performant, capable SoC that allows for quality gaming. During Apple's presentation, it was said that Resident Evil Village has no problems running on a standard M1 Mac. Compare that to the hodgepodge mess that have to be catered to with x86 systems, both Mac and PC.

On top of this, the Mac continues to gain marketshare, and there appears to be no reason for that to not continue. Tim Cook specifically said that the 10% shortfall in Mac revenue last quarter was due to the shutdowns in Shanghai because of lockdowns implemented by the CCP. In fact, Apple was impressed that they only took a 10% revenue hit, considering how restrictive government controls were during that time period. Those pressures are alleviating, most Macs ship within a reasonable time frame, and even the Apple Studio Display is no longer facing major delays. Couple that with a successful launch of the M2, the expected announcements of the more advanced M2 Pro/Max/Ultra/Extreme in the coming months, completely finishing the transition from Intel to Apple Silicon, then the picture should be more clear. Apple's appeal to quality over quantity appears to be paying off and they may be the only major computer manufacturer to experience shipment growth in the coming quarters, as they are finally able to meet demand. PC makers are interchangeable, and can only compete on price, whereas Apple offers value with the Mac that goes beyond dollar signs and the race to the bottom of the value proposition.

So, between an increase in market share, a renewed push into the gaming market both publicly and privately, and a strong baseline performance with Apple Silicon, I see reason for optimism. Of course, healthy skepticism is warranted, but the prognosis is better than it has been in years; in fact, perhaps better than it has ever been for the Mac.

Mac gamers don't need access to every PC title, just enough games to make the Mac a more enticing gaming platform. The hardware and software pieces are falling into place, now we just need more gaming studios to take notice. The Mac platform may be attractive as an underserved market, particularly since there isn't much competition among "AAA" gaming studios, which means they could potentially grab a large slice of a small but growing market (Mac), rather than a small slice of a gigantic declining market (PC).

Once developers are familiar with Metal 3 and Apple Silicon, they won't need to worry about every edge case that is a result of some revenant lurking within an old Nvidia driver implemented to supplement poorly written code from the 1990s, the cruft leftover from the 1980s buried within Microsoft Windows' ancient bloated registry, or some barnacle still lurking within an Intel CPU built upon a foundation laid in the 1970s.

There's still a lot of work to be done. I've been hanging on to my 2018 Intel Mac mini for much longer than I had anticipated, mainly because it's taking games a long time to finally switch to native Apple Silicon. However, once the transition is complete, I'm hoping that a good number of quality games will become available for the the Mac, leaving behind the hacks I have had to use with Intel Macs, not to mention the entire kludge that is the Windows PC ecosystem.

Looking at your post and that you’d em to think the Mac gaming will improve, can I ask what your thoughts are on future-proofing?

I ordered a Mac Mini 16GB yesterday having decided to return the 8GB I bought the previous week. As you can see from this pattern, I’m no expert!

All I know is that I bought it to replace a near-eight year old 13” MB Pro, will use it for light daily use - lots of Pages, some web-browsing, and the lightest video editing one can imagine. I will definitely, however, play some demanding games. I’m dying to play the next Homeworld, and dare say I wouldn’t mind some even more system-intensive games later in the year.

I was considering the baseline Studio over the 16GB Mini, and while the latter will be fine for most games in terms of RAM, perhaps the GPU and CPU may not have the guts. This, and future-proofing v sticking with what I’ve ordered and waiting to see what comes out in six months with regards games and new Macs. It seems that Studio is for video editors, is not perfect for gaming, and is complete overkill. The Mini may however not be up to the task.

Any thoughts appreciated.

 

[casperes1996]

Looking at your post and that you’d em to think the Mac gaming will improve, can I ask what your thoughts are on future-proofing?

I ordered a Mac Mini 16GB yesterday having decided to return the 8GB I bought the previous week. As you can see from this pattern, I’m no expert!

All I know is that I bought it to replace a near-eight year old 13” MB Pro, will use it for light daily use - lots of Pages, some web-browsing, and the lightest video editing one can imagine. I will definitely, however, play some demanding games. I’m dying to play the next Homeworld, and dare say I wouldn’t mind some even more system-intensive games later in the year.

I was considering the baseline Studio over the 16GB Mini, and while the latter will be fine for most games in terms of RAM, perhaps the GPU and CPU may not have the guts. This, and future-proofing v sticking with what I’ve ordered and waiting to see what comes out in six months with regards games and new Macs. It seems that Studio is for video editors, is not perfect for gaming, and is complete overkill. The Mini may however not be up to the task.

Any thoughts appreciated.

This was not targeted at me but if you'll excuse it I'll punt at an answer for you.

The M1 Max Mac Studio would definitely be way better for gaming performance. It's not just a video editor's machine. The GPU in the M1 is comparatively weak and I'm not even really sure the 16GB of RAM will help much in a gaming aspect; If you don't have a lot of other stuff needing memory in the background while gaming, you're likely to hit other performance limiters before the 8GB of RAM becomes a concern for games. That said we have no guarantees any given game will get a Mac port or run through emulation/translation. And future-proofing typically means paying more now for a little gain instead of putting money away for a faster upgrade to a new computer where you'll get way more for the money with future technology.

If gaming means a lot to you, get a cheap Mac and a console/PC for now. Once the Mac gaming future is more proven you can jump on it at that point. And I say this as someone who cares a great deal about Mac gaming. For now, gaming on macOS is not something you buy a Mac for. You do it if you already have a Mac

 

[Daibhidh]

Not at all - I really appreciate your input.

What you say about other performances limiters engaging before even 8GB of RAM is affected is interesting. The question then is does the Studio get round these limits by simply having more GPU and CPU?

And yeah you are correct when you talk of buying the gaming PC as a bridge until we see what the future of Mac gaming is. It would likely be cheaper than the £800 difference between a Mac Mini 16GB and the Studio. I presume I can run a PC through my Studio Display? Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to get my Switch through it without a lot of trouble.

Feel awful I'm even considering a PC, basically because I detest Word. Maybe I should return what I have, use my old MB Pro, and wait for the new mac Mini. Which I assume will have bit more GPU power.

 

[Daibhidh]

Oh my 8GB (which you've half-concinced me to retain) has just had CleanMyMac inform me that I'm running low on RAM. I only opened mail! 😀

 

[casperes1996]

Not at all - I really appreciate your input.

What you say about other performances limiters engaging before even 8GB of RAM is affected is interesting. The question then is does the Studio get round these limits by simply having more GPU and CPU?

And yeah you are correct when you talk of buying the gaming PC as a bridge until we see what the future of Mac gaming is. It would likely be cheaper than the £800 difference between a Mac Mini 16GB and the Studio. I presume I can run a PC through my Studio Display? Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to get my Switch through it without a lot of trouble.

Feel awful I'm even considering a PC, basically because I detest Word. Maybe I should return what I have, use my old MB Pro, and wait for the new mac Mini. Which I assume will have bit more GPU power.

I mean, I dislike Windows a lot but I still have Windows installed on my iMac for games. Whatever tool accomplishes the task it's assigned for. Use Macs for everything you want, doesn't mean anything negative to also have a PC as a form of gaming console.

As for the Mac Studio and gaming performance in general, the by far most important computing resource for gaming needs is the GPU. And GPUs scale in performance almost linearly with number of cores in them (assuming other aspects stay equal like memory bandwidth and access times, architecture and frequencies), so a 32 core M1 Max will be around 4x the performance of an 8 core M1. And that is the biggest factor for gaming performance.

Oh my 8GB (which you've half-concinced me to retain) has just had CleanMyMac inform me that I'm running low on RAM. I only opened mail! 😀

8GB of RAM still is not *a lot*. It's middle--of-the-road I would say and definitely not recommended for heavy use. Though the M1 machines have very fast swap disks too making memory constrained situations less noticeable than had they been equipped with slower disks. 8GB is perfectly fine for normal usage but is not fit for being pushed in multitasking or large datasets. For games, given the unified memory architect, the biggest use of RAM is textures. Higher quality textures take up more memory. So do other aspects of course but that's the largest memory eater in games. But to turn up your settings to a point where RAM becomes the limiter in games if you're not multitasking while playing would require a beefier GPU otherwise the frame rate would be low due to that long before RAM becomes an issue.

If you like to multitask a lot 16GB of RAM can still be justifiable for that, it's just not a big gaming concern

 

[Daibhidh]

I mean, I dislike Windows a lot but I still have Windows installed on my iMac for games. Whatever tool accomplishes the task it's assigned for. Use Macs for everything you want, doesn't mean anything negative to also have a PC as a form of gaming console.

As for the Mac Studio and gaming performance in general, the by far most important computing resource for gaming needs is the GPU. And GPUs scale in performance almost linearly with number of cores in them (assuming other aspects stay equal like memory bandwidth and access times, architecture and frequencies), so a 32 core M1 Max will be around 4x the performance of an 8 core M1. And that is the biggest factor for gaming performance.

8GB of RAM still is not *a lot*. It's middle--of-the-road I would say and definitely not recommended for heavy use. Though the M1 machines have very fast swap disks too making memory constrained situations less noticeable than had they been equipped with slower disks. 8GB is perfectly fine for normal usage but is not fit for being pushed in multitasking or large datasets. For games, given the unified memory architect, the biggest use of RAM is textures. Higher quality textures take up more memory. So do other aspects of course but that's the largest memory eater in games. But to turn up your settings to a point where RAM becomes the limiter in games if you're not multitasking while playing would require a beefier GPU otherwise the frame rate would be low due to that long before RAM becomes an issue.

If you like to multitask a lot 16GB of RAM can still be justifiable for that, it's just not a big gaming concern

I’ll install Windows on the Mac to play games I suppose, but the question is which Mac - if I’m not buying a refurbed gaming PC - will suffice. I think I’ll wait for the 16GB Mini to arrive then try a game or two on it. Or even run Parallels to play the original Homeworld Remasters. Surely it’ll be able to run such old games well enough. My MBP 2015 managed it after all.

 

[Colstan]

Looking at your post and that you’d em to think the Mac gaming will improve, can I ask what your thoughts are on future-proofing?

@casperes1996 mostly covered what I was going to say, but I'll still chime in anyway. Right now, the most future-proof Mac, that will not completely deplete your bank account, is the M1 Mac Studio Max, if you're most concerned about gaming. My next Mac is going to be either a Mac mini with a theoretical M3 Pro chip, or a Mac Studio with an M3 Max. They are both within a price/performance range of each other, if such products are released, of course. I would say that 16GB is the bare minimum. We probably won't be getting new M2 Macs until around March, at the earliest, so I'll be waiting a while, but I'm okay with that.

However, I don't consider the base model Mac mini to be powerful enough for long-term gaming. That's why I'd want at least a "Pro" or "Max" chip inside of my next Mac.

I'm not a huge console fan, because I prefer keyboard/mouse input. I'm perfectly content with seeing where the Mac is headed, and staying with my preferred operating system and computing platform. However, if you feel that you absolutely must get a PC for dedicated gaming, then I would consider this little box. It's the closest thing that you'll get to a Mac mini in PC form. It's reasonably powerful and affordable, considering what it provides, and you can bring your own RAM, SSD and OS. It's got a solid CPU and GPU, and would go nicely right alongside your Mac mini just fine, being about the same size, and likely be able to use the same peripherals.

The most appealing aspect is that it is very quiet. I would suggest you read this review. Again, I probably won't be purchasing another x86 computer. My next Mac will likely be either an M3 generation Mac mini "Pro" or Mac Studio Max. However, if you're looking for a simple, silent solution to play PC games, then I'd take a look at the Neptune HX90G.

 

[Colstan]

It's official. Apple Silicon has now displaced Intel as the majority architecture for Mac gamers on the Steam survey, as of last month, going over the 50% mark.

It does make me wonder how much longer game developers, and indeed Apple itself concerning macOS, will continue to support x86. We've already seen Resident Evil Village being released as Apple Silicon only.

 

[Nugat Trailers]

Honestly, the most interesting thing about the Steam November stats is the appearance of two new Mac IDs on the model section.

Mac14,6 and Mac15,4

 

[Daibhidh]

Honestly, the most interesting thing about the Steam November stats is the appearance of two new Mac IDs on the model section.

Mac14,6 and Mac15,4

I wish I had any sort of idea what this meant! But hopefully good news for my Mac Mini getting the odd new game.

 

[casperes1996]

I wish I had any sort of idea what this meant! But hopefully good news for my Mac Mini getting the odd new game.

It means someone has been using steam with yet unreleased macs.

 

[Daibhidh]

It means someone has been using steam with yet unreleased macs.

That’s so cool. I kinda wish I’d hung on and waited for an M2 Mac Mini.

 

[casperes1996]

That’s so cool. I kinda wish I’d hung on and waited for an M2 Mac Mini.

I wouldn't worry too much. Whilst it's an improvement, it's not too huge a difference from M1 to M2 and you get to have the device that bit earlier to compensate for the slight performance difference - Enjoy it

 

[diamond.g]

As a side note, the 1650 has overtaken the 1060 as the most common GPU. It is a slower GPU than the 1060, so WTF...

On topic, I am hoping macOS share breaks 3% this year. It isn't just having Apple Silicon as the majority of Macs, we also need the actual market share of Macs to increase as well.

 

[Homy]

Honestly, the most interesting thing about the Steam November stats is the appearance of two new Mac IDs on the model section.

Mac14,6 and Mac15,4

Where do you find that?

 

[Nugat Trailers]

Where do you find that?

Valve still hasn't properly updated the hardware survey, so there's a few Mac models appearing that aren't being sorted.

It's in the models section of the Mac survey, along with the two Mac Studios, the M2 Air and M2 Pro.

 

[Homy]

Valve still hasn't properly updated the hardware survey, so there's a few Mac models appearing that aren't being sorted.

It's in the models section of the Mac survey, along with the two Mac Studios, the M2 Air and M2 Pro.

That was interesting. Never seen that section. Didn't noticed you could filter the survey. Had to look around for a long time before I found it after all these years.

 

[nasmdhgf]

Are you sure? I think its game platform can be said to be terrible after Apple opposes continuing to use OpenGL, because apart from Vulkan, an immature API that often has small problems, the only API that can cross the platform is OpenGL. A lot of games (including XBOX, PS4 and Nintendo's handheld game console) are developed from computers, and then transplanted from PC platforms to these platforms in brackets. The most consistent is OpenGL. Vulkan is obviously not mature and widely used by the public (although some large companies have already used it).
Few people will develop games on Apple's machines, including me.
Except for Apple fans who are extreme (referring to people who only use Apple's products), this is of little significance.

 

[Rodan52]

Few people will develop games on Apple's machines, including me.
Except for Apple fans who are extreme (referring to people who only use Apple's products), this is of little significance.

And that attitude my friends is why there aren't many good games for macOS.

 

[Irishman]

Are you sure? I think its game platform can be said to be terrible after Apple opposes continuing to use OpenGL, because apart from Vulkan, an immature API that often has small problems, the only API that can cross the platform is OpenGL. A lot of games (including XBOX, PS4 and Nintendo's handheld game console) are developed from computers, and then transplanted from PC platforms to these platforms in brackets. The most consistent is OpenGL. Vulkan is obviously not mature and widely used by the public (although some large companies have already used it).
Few people will develop games on Apple's machines, including me.
Except for Apple fans who are extreme (referring to people who only use Apple's products), this is of little significance.

You seem to have a very "this is the way" tone for your support of OpenGL. I'm not even sure you're aware that you're coming off that way.

Let's shift gears maybe and talk about Vulkan, as it's open source, just like OpenGL. Vulkan may not be as mature as OpenGL, but they're both designed to solve similar problems, without anyone having to pay licensing fees, right?

Please, convince me that Vulkan should not be allowed to mature over time via versioning similarly to how OpenGL has. And won't they get there faster with yours and other diehard supporters of OpenGL than without it?