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.
If my consideration between 24-core GPU and 32-core is about gaming, is there no point spending the extra for the 32?
- Thread starter WinterEmerald
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What gaming on Mac?
And if there are games on Mac, it is a complete waste as games are optimized for consoles.
And if there are games on Mac, it is a complete waste as games are optimized for consoles.
If you like to game on Mac, then go for the 32 core model. But it is a waste of money imo.
Seriously why are people still talking about gaming on a Mac.
This is not something that Apple ever shown interest in,
Arcade shows that iOS is where Apple sees gaming on its platform.
Seriously just buy a windows machine or games console and keep the Mac for what a Mac does well. Hint gaming is not one of those things.
This is not something that Apple ever shown interest in,
Arcade shows that iOS is where Apple sees gaming on its platform.
Seriously just buy a windows machine or games console and keep the Mac for what a Mac does well. Hint gaming is not one of those things.
I love a bit gaming but I have a PC for that and my Mac for productivity. If you are set on a Mac for whatever games are on offer then 32 cores of GPU seems overkill for the titles available but it's the best experience you will get I guess so your money, your choice.
I agree that Mac is not the place to game. HOWEVER, it kind of pisses me off that Apple doesn’t even try.
These GPUs, in Apples mind, are for content creators mostly focused on video processing.
I’d like apple to offer me a Mac that does both. That way I don’t have to buy a second Windows PC just to game on. Because of this, I will never buy a Mac for personal use. It will always be able my work. And that just sucks.
These GPUs, in Apples mind, are for content creators mostly focused on video processing.
I’d like apple to offer me a Mac that does both. That way I don’t have to buy a second Windows PC just to game on. Because of this, I will never buy a Mac for personal use. It will always be able my work. And that just sucks.
What is it that you think Apple needs to do here? I'm honestly curious because as I look at it, Apple has been making some big strides just in the last 18 months as part of the transition. But there's limits to what they can do on their own. I suspect they could put Nvidia, AMD and Intel to shame, and still be a minority player in the PC market, and thus have issues getting game developers to take them seriously.
Cater to the game development community. Create utilities that can be integrated into the most popular game creation tools that easily allows devs to export their games compiled for Mac. Have programs that incentivize devs to provide ports to Mac. Work with Microsoft to find a way to get Dx12 on Mac.
That’s a short list, but I’m sure there’s plenty more that could be done. They need developers to be on board and they could remove barriers and pay for content to get things moving. They’re just not doing it.
Well Unity was featured in the keynote today. Unreal 5 early access already supports Apple Silicon binaries so I am hoping by the time Unreal 5 is released officially it will have robust support for AS.
Gaming on Mac is such a missed opportunity. 
Imagine this beast playing the games on my steam library.
Imagine this beast playing the games on my steam library.I hope with Valve's work on the Steam Deck and Proton that some of it gets picked by other i.e. CodeWeavers
I’ve given up hope. I figure that Apple will make its move on the PC gaming scene when it’s ready, if that ever happens. Not gonna hold my breath because the likelihood seems nil to none.
Unreal is a complicated situation due to the ongoing legal battles between Epic and Apple.
Unity is known more for mobile games than high-end, modern PC games.
Sure, that’s progress, but not anything to get hopeful or excited about.
I've had plenty of fun playing Civilization and other games through Steam on Mac, and Parallels will give me the chance to play some Windows games on there too.
I'm struggling to understand why people are being so dickishly patronising about this "lol". I've had plenty of fun playing some games on Mac and Parallels is a good option too. It was a simple question. In any case, I went with the 32 and am looking forward to it.
Do games run well using Parallels? Never considered that an option, but good to know if they do.
Don’t listen to them. Hope you enjoy your new Mac. It’s quite a beast
My understanding is that Parallels, that is now optimised for Apple silicon, runs like an absolute dream, so I'd like to think they'll play games very nicely. I will see and report back. Counting the days for my new Mac to arrive...
As much as I wish games were more on Mac, games are the sole reason I still have a PC desktop.
A couple notes in my time as an engineer:
* Leaders in a space have zero incentive (or more accurately, negative incentive) to help a competitor be more competitive. MS licensing the DirectX API to Apple is not that different from handing a mugger your weapon. Nvidia similarly will not license CUDA to AMD or Apple.
* Subsidizing developers doesn’t really work if they aren’t interested in your platform to begin with. If the interest is there, but they are on the fence, sure. But if they aren’t on the fence, it doesn’t matter unless you outright buy them out. I’ve seen that first hand on a project.
* Subsidizing developers also only makes sense if the developer won’t freak out when the subsidy goes away. You don’t want the developer to feel like the subsidy is what keeps the platform profitable, or it will turn into a shakedown.
Unreal Engine already supports macOS as a platform target, as does Unity. Game developers working with Unity build their stuff using .NET IIRC, and so the engine handles everything for the different platforms on your behalf for the most part (Kerbal Space Program relied on this for Mac support). Larger publishers though use in-house engines and creation tools. EA‘s Frostbite for example. So you get into a problem where you’re basically trying to convince a publisher to port their (legacy) ecosystem to a new platform, and you have to do it on a publisher by publisher basis.
Yes, you have to start somewhere, but I’d argue that it’s already been the case that Apple has done that work a while ago by working with Epic and Unity, deprecating OpenGL in favor of Metal which is faster and easier to port to from DirectX, etc. iOS demonstrates that Apple platforms are viable targets for game development, from a technical perspective. Epic wouldn’t have pulled the stunt they did with Fortnite if there wasn’t so much money on the line. Targeting the Mac would remove barriers compared to iOS and funnel a larger share of revenue to the developer, but even that’s not happening in any big way. There’s more to it than simply Apple’s disinterest. And it’s not like Apple to try a bunch of deals, fail, and then start whinging on about it in public when it falls though (or most companies, really).
One thing I’ve learned working on certain large engineering projects has been: Sometimes, you can do everything in your power, and still fail.
Wouldn't sweat over +$200 when spending $3000+ but you'd probably want to check the short list of native but mostly old games, mobile ports, etc. so very few recent top AAA games. You'd want to supplement with at least an Xbox Series X if not gaming PC/laptop.
https://www.applegamingwiki.com/wiki/Home
https://www.applegamingwiki.com/wiki/Home
How does that work? Parallels would be hosting an ARM version of Windows, and then using the x86 emulator in Windows to run the games?
Just get a gaming PC, why would you waste twice the money to game with Parallels?? That's literally insane.