Based on what I've heard it seems most cross-platform games released for next-gen can run similarily or even better on a rMBP/iMac with a simple 650M/750M. The real test will be when games like Watch Dogs are released for PC. I haven't got to try yet but aren't gamers almost maxing out Battlefield 4 and Ghosts on their Macs?
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.
OS Neutral 650M/750M vs Next-gen Consoles
- Thread starter MICHAELSD
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
well, whats the matter with all those questions... you cant compare consoles with a mid end mobile gfx card..
imacs will perform better than macbooks, yes, cause i guess the voltage is higher (-> more power)... but i assume they wont ever have better performance than a next-gen gaming console.
Sadly console devs don't care about actually optimising and coding efficiently on PC's.
http://www.videogamer.com/pc/assass...ucer_says_pc_optimisation_isnt_important.html
Black flag is having issues with people that have Dual GTX Titans, and other games are forcibly capped at 30FPS.
If you unlock the FPS the game speeds up as if it was an old DOS game.
The consoles are essentially low med in PC's, but they're just being lazy when it comes to multi-platform, and they're handicapping games on the PC sadly.
A Retina MacBook Pro shouldn't have any issues playing those games at Console resolutions of 720, 900, and 1080p. Although you won't be maxing it soon due to laziness on the developer part.
Sadly it'll be a few years before we ever see any benefits of the more PC like consoles, if any at all.
The nice thing about Ghosts, and BF4 is that they're developed from PC graphics engines, and coded on PC's for PC's first. Performance on them are rather good. Sadly not all devs are like that.
http://www.videogamer.com/pc/assass...ucer_says_pc_optimisation_isnt_important.html
Black flag is having issues with people that have Dual GTX Titans, and other games are forcibly capped at 30FPS.
If you unlock the FPS the game speeds up as if it was an old DOS game.
The consoles are essentially low med in PC's, but they're just being lazy when it comes to multi-platform, and they're handicapping games on the PC sadly.
A Retina MacBook Pro shouldn't have any issues playing those games at Console resolutions of 720, 900, and 1080p. Although you won't be maxing it soon due to laziness on the developer part.
Sadly it'll be a few years before we ever see any benefits of the more PC like consoles, if any at all.
The nice thing about Ghosts, and BF4 is that they're developed from PC graphics engines, and coded on PC's for PC's first. Performance on them are rather good. Sadly not all devs are like that.
I am curious about commensurable benchmarks between next gen consoles and PC equivalents (sans CPU, comparing the consoles with a roughly equivalent card like the HD 7790).
An HD 7790 can't run BF4 maxed at 1080p, 60fps currently, neither can a 750m (the 7790 is roughly 30-40% faster than a 750m).
But of course, I've not really answered your question.
An HD 7790 can't run BF4 maxed at 1080p, 60fps currently, neither can a 750m (the 7790 is roughly 30-40% faster than a 750m).
But of course, I've not really answered your question.
This isn't even an apples to oranges comparison. It's more like Apple's to M&M's or something.
First:
Console ports are not all created equally. The COD franchise and Battlefield make a lot of money on "PC ports", because they're PC games. Keyboard and mouse input is of the primary concern during their API development. They're optimized to run really well on PC hardware and you can make them look very 'comparable' to their console counterparts using manipulation of high resolution textures, draw distance and anti-aliasing.
Some console ports, however, are not so fortunate. Need for Speed, for example, some Grand Theft Auto ports, Resident Evil ports are not made with the same conditions in mind.
Dark Souls for example, is a console port of a critically successful game that was both the leading contributor to hours of playtime on my Playstation and dozens of curse words screamed at my TV. It was ported to PC which was seen as an amazing contribution to PC gaming and it also came with bonus material.
However:
It had terrible controls and an almost non existent way of mapping your keyboard, mouse or gamepad properly. The game was based on an almost "barbaric" method of showing you controls in action and you experimenting with them firsthand. However, this method works well with a Dual Shock 3 but can lead to a lot of death and confusion with a 102-key typing tool and a mouse. The framerate was also terrible due to some V-Sync issues and dynamic shadows and fog.
A PC can play Dark Souls on maximum graphic quality with upgraded shaders and higher resolution textures if it were given the proper API features, but unfortunately they just "dirty ported" it. Most of these issues were fixed by clever users who made PC patches and programs that map a Dual Shock 3 to a Direct Input controller (Dark Souls was 100% compatible with the 360 controller) and a graphics hack that removed V-Sync and motion blur. The final product was a great game that looked great and played great, but it had those issues to overcome. The other issue was that Dark Souls was one of those "Games for Windows Live" titles that uses Cloud storage to save your character data and online progress which will leave people abandoned when Games for Windows Live shuts down next year.
The end result is that PC gaming for "console style" titles can be a great experience or a terrible experience, depending on the direction the developers take. But there's no such thing as a blanket statement that PC gaming is going to "bottom" out or that consoles are catching up. It's simply not true. It would take Sony another 15 years to match the multi tasking and production utility of a MacBook with their gaming system and by then OS11 will be out and we'll have moved on to some newer features and hardware that will blow that away.
However PC gaming will never need to "catch up" to console gaming because it is and always will be a comparable experience depending on what you desire in gaming.
First:
Console ports are not all created equally. The COD franchise and Battlefield make a lot of money on "PC ports", because they're PC games. Keyboard and mouse input is of the primary concern during their API development. They're optimized to run really well on PC hardware and you can make them look very 'comparable' to their console counterparts using manipulation of high resolution textures, draw distance and anti-aliasing.
Some console ports, however, are not so fortunate. Need for Speed, for example, some Grand Theft Auto ports, Resident Evil ports are not made with the same conditions in mind.
Dark Souls for example, is a console port of a critically successful game that was both the leading contributor to hours of playtime on my Playstation and dozens of curse words screamed at my TV. It was ported to PC which was seen as an amazing contribution to PC gaming and it also came with bonus material.
However:
It had terrible controls and an almost non existent way of mapping your keyboard, mouse or gamepad properly. The game was based on an almost "barbaric" method of showing you controls in action and you experimenting with them firsthand. However, this method works well with a Dual Shock 3 but can lead to a lot of death and confusion with a 102-key typing tool and a mouse. The framerate was also terrible due to some V-Sync issues and dynamic shadows and fog.
A PC can play Dark Souls on maximum graphic quality with upgraded shaders and higher resolution textures if it were given the proper API features, but unfortunately they just "dirty ported" it. Most of these issues were fixed by clever users who made PC patches and programs that map a Dual Shock 3 to a Direct Input controller (Dark Souls was 100% compatible with the 360 controller) and a graphics hack that removed V-Sync and motion blur. The final product was a great game that looked great and played great, but it had those issues to overcome. The other issue was that Dark Souls was one of those "Games for Windows Live" titles that uses Cloud storage to save your character data and online progress which will leave people abandoned when Games for Windows Live shuts down next year.
The end result is that PC gaming for "console style" titles can be a great experience or a terrible experience, depending on the direction the developers take. But there's no such thing as a blanket statement that PC gaming is going to "bottom" out or that consoles are catching up. It's simply not true. It would take Sony another 15 years to match the multi tasking and production utility of a MacBook with their gaming system and by then OS11 will be out and we'll have moved on to some newer features and hardware that will blow that away.
However PC gaming will never need to "catch up" to console gaming because it is and always will be a comparable experience depending on what you desire in gaming.
Yes you can play games but don't expect high end results like on a PC let alone match the PS4 or Xbox One.
The 650/750 in the rMBP is quite literally the worst of both worlds.
edit: At the very least, get a Razer Blade. At least that machine is designed to play games without throttling, and has much better driver support for Windows.
- A rMBP is NOT a gaming machine, it will throttle after a while
- a 650/750 is not a great card now, it will only get weaker as developers learn how to abuse the new GPU power of the consoles
- A console port is rarely as good as the console version, so PC gaming for console games won't be great.
edit: At the very least, get a Razer Blade. At least that machine is designed to play games without throttling, and has much better driver support for Windows.
I would hope a $2,500+ desktop computer would perform better than a $400 console...
Sony is making money on each PS4 sold now (Around $5-$10 lol, but still). You can build a $400 machine that's as strong as the ps4:
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/171158-can-you-build-a-gaming-pc-better-than-the-ps4-for-400
And then load steamOS on it, and SteamOS streams all non linux games you buy.
Remember, all it has to do is run most things in 720p and a few in 1080p.
The new consoles are a joke power wise.
I doubt it. The material and basic manufacturing estimation was just about equal to the final selling cost. There is no way Sony is making any money on it. They are probably losing at least 10% of the $400 price tag on each one sold.
That wasn't just marketing, but r&d, everything. The price of the console itself was like $240-$280 (I forget the price). Final cost was something like $380.
No that estimation doesn't include any cost outside the immediate cost for each unit, meaning just the Bill of Material and manufacturing. Then we have warranty, logistics, fixed cost for manufacturing, etc. Likewise R&D doesn't get accounted for either. Unless Sony's aim is laundering money, that's not a good business.
Sony is still losing money from hardware, they are just losing less than they used to do. Which is understandable since the console business just isn't as profitable as it used to be. That explains why Microsoft is trying so hard to expand beyond simple gaming.
I know. I was pointing out how ridiculous your previous statement (the part about the 680MX) was within the context of this thread.
When you look at the hardware included in the "next-gen" consoles, it becomes clear that they're most equivalent to mid-tier PC parts. They're NOT supercomputers. The thing people like about consoles is the predictable, consistent frame rates expected from title to title. You don't have to worry about changing settings to make a game playable. But, on the flip side, you usually don't even have that option. High-end gaming, graphics-wise, is still some sort of PC gaming. As PCs, Macs are quickly getting closer to parity in terms of performance to Windows machines. However, like consoles, Macs have hardware that is largely baked-in and non-upgradeable. Hopefully, external Thunderbolt graphics options will change that, but it's still a work in progress. OpenGL in Mavericks is at the closest to parity on Windows that we've EVER had, and that is exciting.
So, as late-2012 21.5" iMac owner with the GeForce GT 650M AND a performance-minded Mac gamer (OSX exclusively), I play almost exclusively in 1080p - like in next-gen consoles - and I'm having a ball.
Next gen consoles don't play exclusively in 1080p. Most titles are 720p or 900p..
That's why I said "almost exclusively".
Would fit the context better if you said almost exclusively in 720p
Would fit the context better if you said almost exclusively in 720p
Titles for the XBone and the PS4 are mostly 720p?
Do you have a link or list?
Actually from this list the ps4 is mainly 900p and 1080p. The xbone is:
4 720p
7 1080p
2 900p
Alright, better then I thought, but still ultra terrible for a 'next gen' console.
http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates
4 720p
7 1080p
2 900p
Alright, better then I thought, but still ultra terrible for a 'next gen' console.
http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates
1) your iMac is roughly 4-5 times as expensive.
2) launch games always suck. They are unoptimized and mainly ports of older gen /pc games. You won't see them take advantage of their hardware for a good while.
A next gen console is a great investment if money is tight. If you want a Mac but can't afford a gaming PC, a console is a really good 5-7 year investment. It's a financially good investment.