Gaming on M1 will be BETTER than PlayStation 4 and Nintendo Switch

[MK500]

I think there is a misconception about how good the new M1 based Macs will be for gaming and 3D graphics intensive applications. Sometimes it can help to compare it to something many people have experience with, so here are the technical specifications for the Sony PlayStation 4:

CPU : x86-64 AMD “Jaguar”, 8 cores GPU : 1.84 TFLOPS, AMD Radeon™ based graphics engine
Memory	GDDR5 8GB

The 8 core GPU in the Apple M1 specifications are: 2.6 TFLOPS. So the M1 will likely be more than 40% faster on the GPU side.

As has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, the CPU in the M1 is one of the fastest single cores in the entire industry, and the multi-core score scales well. So the M1 will be multiple times faster than the PS4 CPU.

While the PS4 is now old, and has been updated to the PS4 Pro and PS5, it is still a very fun and usable high definition gaming system. 1080p AAA gaming is absolutely possible on the PS4 even today, even though some games need to drop to 900p.

As a further comparison, the Nintendo Switch GPU TFLOPS are estimated to be around 1 TFLOPS.

Yes, games must be optimized for this new architecture, and that’s going to be the biggest limiting factor. But the fact that ALL the excellent iPad and iPhone games will run on day one is no small thing. As a gaming platform, iOS is already quite competitive with the major gaming platforms. I wouldn’t be surprised if iOS is already more profitable. This means games developers already have a massive installed base to sell into, and optimizing for Mac use cases has become almost trivial.

iOS Games that support controllers will play amazing on the M1. Some big name examples are PUBG and Minecraft. These games will play BETTER than the vast majority of Windows laptops on day 1.

This is a MASSIVE change vs. the incredibly terrible Intel integrated graphics MacBook and Mac Mini users have been suffering with. And the M1 is even quite a bit faster than the integrated GPU in the mighty AMD Ryzen 7 4700G, which offers around 2.15 TFLOPs. This is the best offering the PC industry has for integrated graphics.

THIS is why Apple dumped Intel and didn’t consider AMD. They are way ahead in GPU TFLOPS per watt. And graphic performance is important for much more that just gaming.

 

[eulslix]

Gaming is not about the raw power of the console. No one gives a damn about raw power there, especially Nintendo. A good gaming console is about a minimal stable system OS, an accessible and focused hub UI, but even more importantly about the quality of peripherals, their haptics, their feel and their standardisation when it comes to dev support.

And last but not least, the most critical aspect: An eco system that is developer friendly. The reason why companies like Sony and Nintendo were so successful in the past is because they heavily invest into first party titles and they support a well curated selection of third party developers.

Apple ticks of NONE of these boxes. Their efforts in the Arcade+ are cute, but they are light years away from their competitors. The only segment that Apple could compete with, other than the mobile segment (which doesn't really care about performance), is the PC Master Race segment on Steam. Considering that the latter one prides itself hating Apple, I hardly doubt that is ever going to happen though.

But yeah, other than that, the performance of this small thing is insane.

 

[MK500]

Gaming is not about the raw power of the console. No one gives a damn about raw power there, especially Nintendo. A good gaming console is about a minimal stable system OS, an accessible and focused hub UI, but even more importantly about the quality of peripherals, their haptics, their feel and their standardisation when it comes to dev support.

These are absolutely fair points. My goal with this thread was more about offering an imperfect comparison. And to maybe open a few eyes as to what is possible with this kind of raw performance. Apple certainly has a very long way to go before it becomes a true competitor in the gaming market.

But at least they are no longer being held back by hardware.

Thanks for the reality check

 

[Lord Hamsa]

A general purpose machine is going to have a hard time doing as well as a console. Apple might have it a little easier than the PC world because they have complete control of the hardware configurations and don't need something that will work with nearly-unlimited combinations of components, but it's still an issue.

The only way Apple gets truly competitive in this space is to produce their own console, likely something like "Apple TV Max". The M-series chips will absolutely serve as console-quality but they're going to need the rest of the package, and most of all, games that will draw people to the platform. Anything is possible, but I don't see it as likely right now.

 

[Frankied22]

It may have the power now, but where are the games? Apart from baldurs gate 3 being released for it, I don't hear a lot of other game devs rushing to make ports of their games to AS.

 

[wyatterp]

It may have the power now, but where are the games? Apart from baldurs gate 3 being released for it, I don't hear a lot of other game devs rushing to make ports of their games to AS.

Would be mostly from the growing cat of iPad/iOS games? THey are getting increasingly better looking - but definitely not PS4 quality by any stretch yet. Hopefully devs willing to use M1 capes to increase graphical fidelity. I'd even rebuy some favorite games if prices are reasonable and they put the effort in. For example, would be nice to get a version of Civ VI, my favorite strat title, updated for M1 with updated textures/graphics and leader animations turned on, along with a higher framerate.

 

[pmiles]

How about someone with an ARM Mac Mini fire it up with one of the few games written for the Mac platform (since bootcamp and wrappers are no longer an option) and see for themselves how it really plays under a load? The fun part is, the really intensive games won't even run on a Mac, so you can't even test them.

Preferably tested by someone who is nit-picky and sees every flicker or stutter that the rest of us hardly ever notice. You need that kind of detailed look at how the device performs, because in the end, that is the only true test of the hardware.

I have yet to see any real proof that these integrated GPUs with shared RAM have the ability to compete with systems that have dedicated RAM for the CPU and dedicated RAM for the GPU. Until these babies end up in the hands of people not getting sent devices for free, who have a personal interest in whether these things really are worth their money, we're just going to be flooded with the usual hoopla around a new machine release.

When some ugly flaw is revealed after real world usage, then you see it for what it really is. No one thought anything of the butterfly keyboard... until later when it showed it was not as good as advertised.

We need some real usage, not some internet shill telling us how great the thing is. Might as well replay the Apple Keynote over and over again. Time for users to actually break the thing... because that is what we do best... find flaws. If we find it's everything and more... than you have your answer... I don't trust the marketing until I see it for myself... and not in some stupid benchmark test.

 

[JMacHack]

Sorry my dude, raw power just doesn't make for the best experience, us Apple users should know this by now.

As far as games go, the best in recent memory (in my opinion) haven't even been super power-intensive ones. AAA is just schlock meant for gullible people who'll buy into the latest gambling scam.

Preferably tested by someone who is nit-picky and sees every flicker or stutter that the rest of us hardly ever notice. You need that kind of detailed look at how the device performs, because in the end, that is the only true test of the hardware.

I don't think you'll have to worry. The well-heeled PCMR shills (LTT) will be all over this and ready to tear it to shreds.

 

[wyatterp]

How about someone with an ARM Mac Mini fire it up with one of the few games written for the Mac platform (since bootcamp and wrappers are no longer an option) and see for themselves how it really plays under a load? The fun part is, the really intensive games won't even run on a Mac, so you can't even test them.

Preferably tested by someone who is nit-picky and sees every flicker or stutter that the rest of us hardly ever notice. You need that kind of detailed look at how the device performs, because in the end, that is the only true test of the hardware.

I have yet to see any real proof that these integrated GPUs with shared RAM have the ability to compete with systems that have dedicated RAM for the CPU and dedicated RAM for the GPU. Until these babies end up in the hands of people not getting sent devices for free, who have a personal interest in whether these things really are worth their money, we're just going to be flooded with the usual hoopla around a new machine release.

When some ugly flaw is revealed after real world usage, then you see it for what it really is. No one thought anything of the butterfly keyboard... until later when it showed it was not as good as advertised.

We need some real usage, not some internet shill telling us how great the thing is. Might as well replay the Apple Keynote over and over again. Time for users to actually break the thing... because that is what we do best... find flaws. If we find it's everything and more... than you have your answer... I don't trust the marketing until I see it for myself... and not in some stupid benchmark test.

I mean, of course - it will be sorted in time. As far as the comment about "real proof that integrated GPUs with shared memory work" - umm, this shared memory is how all SoC's in gaming consoles have worked a for a long time - further we know it works in iGPUs on the Intel and AMD APU side as well...Iris plus, and Iris Xe now can deliver pretty decent performance on some titles now. So I'm not sure what you mean there. Combined with unified memory architecture, removing northbridge for SSD access, large cahces, and even GPU dedicated paging cache as well, I think things look really promising. The thing holding back mobile title development hasn't been chips, it's been the business model - consoles have carefully crafted markets, and incentivize devs to make triple A titles because the ROI, not because of chip capabilities.

 

[MK500]

I have yet to see any real proof that these integrated GPUs with shared RAM have the ability to compete with systems that have dedicated RAM for the CPU and dedicated RAM for the GPU.

Having RAM that can be directly accessed by the CPU and GPU is actually cutting edge. It’s one of the big steps forward the PS5 and XBox Series X are using to increase game performance. It is also coming to PC high-end gaming with AMD “Smart Access Memory” which allows Ryzen CPUs to pair with the new 6000 series “big Navi” GPUs for a claimed 11% speed increase. This isn’t the slow “shared RAM” you are thinking of from years ago.

 

[JMacHack]

It may have the power now, but where are the games? Apart from baldurs gate 3 being released for it, I don't hear a lot of other game devs rushing to make ports of their games to AS.

Because there weren't many big devs making in-house ports to MacOS on x86 in the first place. Most were farmed out to companies like Aspyr and Feral.

 

[bill-p]

But at least they are no longer being held back by hardware.

Apple has not been held back by hardware or software for years.

The reason gaming on the Mac has not picked up is because of many key reasons:
1. Apple themselves doesn't invest as heavily in gaming as other companies. This is mentioned above.
2. Marketshare
3. Demographic: I doubt many people buy a Mac with the express intention of gaming on it. It's a nice "add-on" but never the main point.

As long as all 3 of those are not addressed all at once, gaming will never take off on the Mac. iOS had #2 and #3, and that prompted Apple to introduce Arcade... but that's the furthest they have done.

P.S.: also, as very succinctly put by some posters above: gaming is all about the "experience" and not just about hardware power. To that end, M1 Mac is actually the WORST machine to game on. It doesn't have a touch screen, which makes playing iOS games annoying. It doesn't natively support all game controllers on the market, and it doesn't currently have any game built to run on it natively, with the provided input methods. So in that respect, literally any gaming console is better than the M1 Mac.

 

[MK500]

Apple has not been held back by hardware or software for years.

It is false to claim that Apple has not been held back by hardware for GAMING. The integrated GPU in MacBooks and MacBook Pros often can barely support 720p at 15 to 20fps for games; and this has gone on for years. These iGPUs have been completely anemic.

The new Apple iGPU is many many times faster, and this is a big deal.

Many of the other things you say are true, but miss the point.

 

[dmccloud]

I have yet to see any real proof that these integrated GPUs with shared RAM have the ability to compete with systems that have dedicated RAM for the CPU and dedicated RAM for the GPU. Until these babies end up in the hands of people not getting sent devices for free, who have a personal interest in whether these things really are worth their money, we're just going to be flooded with the usual hoopla around a new machine release.

Here's the thing: AMD has been pursuing shared memory for years now, and their Infinity Fabric is a step towards their ultimate goal. So this isn't just some wild theory that people are proposing. The other big difference between the unified memory Apple is using in the M1 and dedicated CPU/GPU RAM is that only the Apple approach grants the CPU direct access to the RAM. Even the highest performing Intel or AMD systems access both system RAM and GPU RAM through the I/O bus, which means the read/write speeds are reduced and latency is increased. The split approach currently used by AMD and Intel also creates situations where the same data is copied twice (once into system RAM, once into the GPU RAM). Unified memory actually eliminates this problem because both the CPU and GPU in the M1 can access the same copy of data in RAM and perform the necessary operations on it in real time, without dealing with redundant copies and the I/O bus potentially bottlenecking the data as it's being transferred.

I think there is a misconception about how good the new M1 based Macs will be for gaming and 3D graphics intensive applications. Sometimes it can help to compare it to something many people have experience with, so here are the technical specifications for the Sony PlayStation 4:

CPU : x86-64 AMD “Jaguar”, 8 cores GPU : 1.84 TFLOPS, AMD Radeon™ based graphics engine
Memory	GDDR5 8GB

The 8 core GPU in the Apple M1 specifications are: 2.6 TFLOPS. So the M1 will likely be more than 40% faster on the GPU side.

As has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, the CPU in the M1 is one of the fastest single cores in the entire industry, and the multi-core score scales well. So the M1 will be multiple times faster than the PS4 CPU.

While the PS4 is now old, and has been updated to the PS4 Pro and PS5, it is still a very fun and usable high definition gaming system. 1080p AAA gaming is absolutely possible on the PS4 even today, even though some games need to drop to 900p.

As a further comparison, the Nintendo Switch GPU TFLOPS are estimated to be around 1 TFLOPS.

Even though the M1 is capable of more TFLOPS than what's inside either the PS4 or Nintendo Switch, those systems also do not have to run an OS that is as resource-intensive as Mac OS. That factor alone would eat into the perceived advantage of the M1 compared to either console. The other consideration is that both consoles are designed primarily to run games, not to check email, browse the internet, write papers, edit photos, etc. With that being said, none of your post even matters if game developers choose not to build their games for Apple Silicon. Sure most iOS/iPadOS games can be played on a Mac running the M1 processor, but the vast majority of those games are a) designed for a touch-based interface (which means they allow for greater latency in touch controls), b) are more casual in nature (i.e., a Temple Run style game or even an idle clicker), or c) are based on the IP of an existing console/PC game but have a different control/playstyle.

If developers follow the lead of the Baldur's Gate 3 team (which is a fairly resource intensive game even on a gaming PC) and port AAA titles to the Mac and the M1 processor, then the platform may start building a name for itself in the gaming community. However, this is the type of transition that will take a while, most likely longer than Apple's own two-year roadmap to complete the transition to Apple Silicon.

 

[bill-p]

It is false to claim that Apple has not been held back by hardware for GAMING. The integrated GPU in MacBooks and MacBook Pros often can barely support 720p at 15 to 20fps for games; and this has gone on for years. These iGPUs have been completely anemic.

The new Apple iGPU is many many times faster, and this is a big deal.

All the other things you say are true, but miss the point.

I think you're the one missing the point. It's never about the bottom line. These same iGPUs are present under Windows as well. Hell, they have better drivers under Windows so they work 4-5x faster. And yes, that applies to Bootcamp as well.

Look up the GPD Win, GPD Win 2, etc... those run on the same hardware that supposedly "held back" Apple, and yet people still happily game on them.

The whole point stands: it's not about graphics or power. It's the whole experience. Wii and PS2 ran some games at 20fps at 480p too. Hell, sometimes not even at 480p. Those consoles were still very successful and people can still game on them today. No Mac computer for the past 10 years has had worse graphical power than the PS2 or Wii.

Also, case in point: the Switch downscales some games as low as 360p (Witcher 3? Wolfenstein?) just to be able to "sometimes" sustain 30fps. Some Switch games dip down to 10fps at 720p (Dragon Quest Builder 2), and yet it's a very successful gaming system. By your logic, the Switch should fail because it can't handle the likes of Gears 5 or Forza Horizon 4, but that's not the case at all.

 

[leman]

And last but not least, the most critical aspect: An eco system that is developer friendly. [...] Apple ticks of NONE of these boxes.

I'm not sure that I agree with the last point. By going full-custom, and promoting their own proprietary APIs, Apple is giving the developer a lot of control over the hardware. So this is a "potential" advantage over Windows gaming. Vulcan and DX12 still have to support different hardware vendors, while Apple can just make the hardware and the API fit each other seamlessly.

There was a demo of M1-native Baldur's Gates 3 smoothly running at ultra settings full HD on an M1 Mac mini. I can't get that kind of performance out of my 5500M, not even under Windows. With Apple giving the developer essentially console-level control over the hardware, decent developer tools, and reasonable baseline performance, Macs have a good chance on grading a bit of that gaming pie — if the users and the developers are there of course. But I think that seeing how well games will run even on lower-end Macs will push more devs to take the platform more seriously.

By the way, in Big Sur Apple has superb support for game controllers. They support PS and Xbox controllers with all the custom features, and they give you some cool APIs to play around with haptic feedback etc.

 

[leman]

I think you're the one missing the point. It's never about the bottom line. These same iGPUs are present under Windows as well. Hell, they have better drivers under Windows so they work 4-5x faster. And yes, that applies to Bootcamp as well. [...] The whole point stands: it's not about graphics or power. It's the whole experience.

I both agree and disagree

I disagree that the bottom line doesn't matter — I think it matters a lot. Windows bottomline is different than the Mac bottomline though. Not many people out there game on Intel Iris graphics... because there are a lot of cheap crappy gaming PCs that get the job done better. On the Apple side the problem is that over 90% of Macs are simply not capable of gaming due to a combination of weak hardware and low-quality drivers. You need to spend over $2000 to get something remotely comparable to entry-mid-range Windows gaming machine. Nt much sense to target a platform like that.

I wholly agree with the second part though — it's all about the experience. M1 kind of changes that. It gives you great performance and great driver quality. It makes things easier for the developers as there are less bugs and weird things they have to deal with. It has great controller support. It has great displays with huge range of colors. The conditions are there which were not there before. I for one am hopeful for the future of Mac gaming.

 

[bill-p]

Yeah, I'm just pointing out the fact that people still game on Iris Pro. Those same people don't mind that the iGPU can't run the latest and greatest games, because there are plenty of games that are low on resources that run well. Mega Man 11, for instance.

And if the 13" Pro will be meant for gaming, I hope the redesign will bring faster refresh rates (120Hz?) or OLED. The current screen is okay, but it sucks even for a 60Hz screen. It ghosts too much.

So while the future is hopeful, I don't think Apple wants to invest in it yet. We have bits and pieces here and there, but far from full integration like Xbox Live on Windows 10 with its own hub and everything... and heck, I'm not sure if Steam will work properly on M1 Macs. Having controller support doesn't really say much, either because you know it's more than that.

From what I can see, MacBook remains more of a productivity tool, and personally, I'm okay with it.

 

[wyatterp]

Yeah, I'm just pointing out the fact that people still game on Iris Pro. Those same people don't mind that the iGPU can't run the latest and greatest games, because there are plenty of games that are low on resources that run well. Mega Man 11, for instance.

I always find it quite fun to see how many older titles can run on an integrated GPU. I wish more developers and hardware makers would focus on this. For example - on an intel i5-1035G1 machine, I can get Batman Arkham City running at 45-60FPS at 800P, and it's actually quite an excellent experience. There are framerate hiccups here and there, but that could be sorted out if devs and hardware makers worked together. Of course, no real money in it - or supporting aging titles. I can also run Mad Max, an open world game, at 800P and frame-rates are still in that well north of 30FPS range.

So the answer is that the M1 of course will be able to game - it's just a matter of at what rez/settings, and whether or not Apple can monetize/incentivize it to happen. The ever present need to chase "MOAR" pixels and higher framerates should not be the only place we see advancements. I think the Nintendo Switch has proven this point; the market is big enough to support the high end (and I'm high end with a RTX 2060SUPER 9700K desktop machine) - and also making it so the huge back-cat works. I would even be willing to pay for m1 versions (as long as not unreasonably priced) of older games that I never finished.

 

[Bandaman]

How is gaming better when it doesn't have any games?

 

[MK500]

How is gaming better when it doesn't have any games?

Every game on the iOS App Store runs on the M1 Macs fully native. At least tens of thousands of games. And there are many stunningly beautiful games I play on my iPad.

 

[the8thark]

Overall it seems we all agree on:

• The M-Series is very capable of gaming to a high degree. It's an intustry leading chip.
  Apple don't know the first thing about gaming outside prociding the tech (like metal and other stuff) and the platforms to the developers so they can make their own games.
• Gaming is all about compromising. No developer can max out the specs. Not even the Sereis X can do 2160p plus Ray Tracing plus 120 fps all at the same time. Compromises in game design to have the best overall experience.
• Gaming is about raw power but it's as much raw power you can squeeze within a certain price point.

Also

• Will the PC game developers also port their games to ASi? Apple has not made a compelling arguement for developers to do so.
• Console exclusives are becoming more and more of a thing. Nintendo's first party games. The Microsoft bought studios. IPs and games Sony purchases exclusivity for. All this stops the games from being ported to PC. Sure a few of them do get very late PC ports but that's vew and far between.
• Microsoft has already tried to get xCloud and gamepass on MacOS and iOS but so far Apple said no.
• Apple seem to be sticking to their core markets. The same ones Jobs recognised in 1997. Education and creative professionals. Slowly expanding to others like health.

 

[ArPe]

Some games on the PS4/Xbox S can look as good as a game running at ultra Q on an RTX card. Optimised routines and very low level APIs make consoles excel and perform better per teraflop than Windows or macOS can. They can milk the hardware for every last drop of power.

I have no doubt the M1 will be capable of good things considering its limited power consumption, but keep your expectations realistic. Look at the games in Apple Arcade. There is nothing triple A quality there and all those games run on 7-8 year old computers.

 

[Homy]

In graphic (not compute) tasks, the M1 could be on par with the Radeon Pro 570X (and way ahead of the 560X). The TBDR architecture of the M1 (for which Metal has been tailored) benefits graphics more than it benefits compute. Also, Apple GPUs can use 16-bit AND 32-bit numbers in shaders, for precision and to boost efficiency, which PC GPUs can't.

That's great! I suspected that since it can render more pixels/s:

M1 41 GPixel/s, 82 GTexel/s
Pro 560X 16.06 GPixel/s, 64.26 GTexel/s
Pro 570X 35.36 GPixels/s, 123.8 GTexel/s
Pro 580X 38.4 GPixels/s, 172.8 GTexel/s
Pro 5300 52.8 GPixels/s, 132 GTexel/s
Pro 5500 XT 56.22 GPixels/s, 168.7 GTexel/s
Pro 5700 86.4 GPixels/s, 194.4 GTexel/s
Pro 5700 XT 95.94 GPixels/s, 239.8 GTexel/s

 

[LinkRS]

A general purpose machine is going to have a hard time doing as well as a console. Apple might have it a little easier than the PC world because they have complete control of the hardware configurations and don't need something that will work with nearly-unlimited combinations of components, but it's still an issue.

The only way Apple gets truly competitive in this space is to produce their own console, likely something like "Apple TV Max". The M-series chips will absolutely serve as console-quality but they're going to need the rest of the package, and most of all, games that will draw people to the platform. Anything is possible, but I don't see it as likely right now.

Sorry to bring back an old post, but I think this will get a chuckle... So an Apple console like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Bandai_Pippin

Rich S.