My understanding of the op is that Apple will have 50% of gaming capable computers in use, not that they will have 50% of the market or that they will replace Windows.
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
Ok,
But since we can only look at shipments by brand, its pretty clear that Apple is not selling 50% of machines that are capable of playing AAA games. Its great that apple is able to increase marketshare and the MBP is a great computer, its not 50% of the marketshare, in total or for gaming machines
Since we can only see shipments by brand, we can’t say either they have or haven’t made significant progress.
Neither you or the op can prove their point with these figures.
Agreed, but I can offer my opinion - Given that Apple 8.8% I feel a logical conclusion is that manufacturers like Dell, Lenovo and Asus have many (most?) models capable of playing AAA games, its likely that apple is not selling 50% of AAA capable machines.
Mathematically, if Apple achieves, say, 10% market share next year, then the 50% figure (for computers in use) would be attained if, say, 50% of the Mac installed user base can play AAA games, but only 6% of the PC user base can.
Making this more concrete: Let's suppose there are a billion computers worldwide, consisting of 900M PC's and 100M Macs. Then the 50% figure would be achieved if 50M Macs and 50M PC's could play AAA games, i.e., if AAA gaming capability were found with 50% of Macs, but only 6% of PC's.
However, the thread's title notwithstanding, I don't think the OP was referring to the % of the installed user base, but rather the % of new computers sold:
.]
Making this more concrete: Let's suppose there are a billion computers worldwide, consisting of 900M PC's and 100M Macs. Then the 50% figure would be achieved if 50M Macs and 50M PC's could play AAA games, i.e., if AAA gaming capability were found with 50% of Macs, but only 6% of PC's.
However, the thread's title notwithstanding, I don't think the OP was referring to the % of the installed user base, but rather the % of new computers sold:
[I can't vouch for any of the above figures; I can only vouch for my algebra
.]
Last edited:
I'm not convinced those assumptions are correct. By your own admission we can't know the breakdown of gaming vs non-gaming laptop in the sales figures you provided. The last I heard the average price of a laptop sold was between $600-$700. Can they play games? Kinda sorta. Are they gaming laptops? Not really.
EDIT: I just went to Dell and had a quick look. The vast majority of laptops < $800 had Intel UHD graphics. Hardly gaming.
Most people buy the tool for the job they want to do. They don’t buy the tool, then find a job for it. I think this is the biggest issue with this entire post.
People that identify themselves as wanting to play games are going to seek out the tool that best plays these games. That’s not a Mac.
On the flipside of this equation, there is a possibility that Apple could target current Mac users that have this tool, but are not currently interested in gaming. If they could get those users into playing games on the existing Mac hardware, that is a potential source of income and growth.
People that identify themselves as wanting to play games are going to seek out the tool that best plays these games. That’s not a Mac.
On the flipside of this equation, there is a possibility that Apple could target current Mac users that have this tool, but are not currently interested in gaming. If they could get those users into playing games on the existing Mac hardware, that is a potential source of income and growth.
Yeah, that really is the biggest issue—what percentage of those who've bought these new, more powerful AS Macs are now going to want to play AAA games, if they weren't using it for those types of games before? As you said, hardware is only half of it. It does seem like Apple is moving gradually in that direction, by including the RE Village presentation at WWDC this year. But that's not enough by itself.
I’m not sure if they’re going in any direction. So far the only two games that I’m aware of for Apple Silicon is the Resident evil game and WoW. You can effectively remove WoW from the equation because Microsoft bought Blizzard. You know the direction that’s going.
So basically we’re down to one game. That’s not even a trend?
Am I not aware of some titles possibly? Maybe I’m missing some minor titles, but when it comes to AAA games that’s the only ones I can think of.
They announced No Man’s Sky at the same time as RE Village. Along with a Feral title.
That will be interesting. Maybe this will carve out a niche segment of the gaming community playing on Mac.
I always get excited when macOS or Linux gets some sort of boost because right now Microsoft has a stranglehold on the computer market. Anytime you have more competition, you have better products. I don’t like saying, If you want to game, you have to have a Microsoft Windows computer. I hope one day I can say, You can just pick whatever OS you want and the games will work.
There is another issue: how many gamers use laptops? How many use desktops? I guess we can largely rule out desktop Macs as gaming machines. The Mac mini lacks the graphics power, the Macs further upmarket are simply too expensive for the mass market
The Mac laptops, while pretty performant for what they are, are unlikely to be gamer‘s choice.
When the M1 was released I hoped for a Mac desktop PM G4/MP 5.1 - style. Well, that bubble burst a long time ago. I cannot, therefore, see why a gamer would use a Mac. Heck, even I run a Intel/Linux desktop these days.
While Mac laptops are unbeatable at present, I cannot see myself using a desktop Mac anytime soon. Or ever again, in case Apple continues on the trajectory they took off to with the M1
The Mac laptops, while pretty performant for what they are, are unlikely to be gamer‘s choice.
When the M1 was released I hoped for a Mac desktop PM G4/MP 5.1 - style. Well, that bubble burst a long time ago. I cannot, therefore, see why a gamer would use a Mac. Heck, even I run a Intel/Linux desktop these days.
While Mac laptops are unbeatable at present, I cannot see myself using a desktop Mac anytime soon. Or ever again, in case Apple continues on the trajectory they took off to with the M1
The Mac Studio is actually quite cost-effective. Configure the base model with a 32-core GPU and an 1 TB SSD, and you get a mid-range gaming desktop for $2400. Comparable gaming PCs with an RTX 3060 Ti from a premium manufacturer are roughly $1800 to $2400, depending on the other components.
Leaving the vast difference in available games aside, and just considering the hardware, I don't think a MacStudio is a good value for a gamer. In terms of general GPU performance, the 32-core Max is just below the 3060 (non-Ti), while for $2400 you can get a 3070Ti gaming computer, whose GPU is twice as powerful as the Max's. Plus the NVIDIA GPU's have hardware RT, so they are better optimized for gaming.
FP32 TFLOPS
M1 Max: 10.4
3060: 12.7
3070Ti: 21.7
And this value disparity will like grow next year, when we compare the M2 Max with the 4070 (non-Ti):
M2 Max (est.): 14
4070 (est.): 43
If Apple instead leapfrogs to an M3 Max with hardware RT, that would require a new analysis.
Of course, the Max Studio is, by most measures, a much nicer computer than any equally-priced 3070Ti desktop PC—but just not for gaming.
I think you need to read the original post again. Hell, just read the title.
The only point of the original post is that Apple Silicon provides every single Mac with a GPU capable of playing AAA games, significantly boosting the number of Macs sold yearly capable of running AAA games. Quick math suggests it'd be 50% of all gaming PCs sold within 3 years. So yes, next year, we can see where we're at.
Gaming PCs. You posted data on all PCs. The vast majority of PCs sold are not capable of playing AAA games. Please read the original post. All the data you need is there.
Last edited:
While there is no problem with the analysis per se, I can’t see anyone actually doing it for practical purposes. If gaming on the computer is a major justification for the purchase, software availability will completely determine the outcome.
I have the Studio, own a gaming PC, and have still done most of my recent gaming on a Switch. TFLOPS don’t even enter into the picture. RT is an utterly uninteresting feature. The industry/media around selling gaming devices and the topics they use to drive sales have little relevance for gaming enjoyment.
Macs actually sell pretty well, mostly to end users, with funds, who might enjoy some recreational gaming on their systems as well. That doesn’t map particularly well to the AAA titles, that these days are becoming ever more targeted at promoting particular platforms, and where the publishers that aren’t platform holders favor platforms where they know they can rely on a customer base.
Tech has very little to do with with the gaming market, or mobile wouldn’t dominate the software revenue, and the Switch wouldn’t dominate in console space. It’s just very difficult for the technologically inclined to acknowledge.
Last edited:
I'll update the back of the napkin math since people here can't seem to do it.
First, let's look at the original IDC gaming PC tracker. They've taken this down but a Google cached version is still available. Here it is:
Let's use the 2021 shipments because we don't have 2022 numbers. Desktop + laptop gaming PCs = 45.4 million total in 2021.
Next, let's look at Macs sold in the latest quarter, Q3 2022.
Apple sold 10 million macs. Let's assume that Apple will sell 40m Macs in 2022. Let's subtract 5 million from the total because Apple said Q3 was exceptionally good. So we have 35 million Macs in 2022.
Let's assume that gaming PCs did not grow in 2022 (it probably declined).
So we have 45.4m gaming PCs sold in 2022. and 35m Macs sold in 2022. Thus, Macs represent 43% of total computers sold capable of playing AAA games.
tldr:2 years later, back of the napkin math suggests Macs represent 43% of total computers sold capable of playing AAA games. It's not far off from 50%. I think Apple will comfortably beat 50% by year 3 set out in my original post because PC shipments are generally declining while Macs are gaining.
First, let's look at the original IDC gaming PC tracker. They've taken this down but a Google cached version is still available. Here it is:
Let's use the 2021 shipments because we don't have 2022 numbers. Desktop + laptop gaming PCs = 45.4 million total in 2021.
Next, let's look at Macs sold in the latest quarter, Q3 2022.
Apple sold 10 million macs. Let's assume that Apple will sell 40m Macs in 2022. Let's subtract 5 million from the total because Apple said Q3 was exceptionally good. So we have 35 million Macs in 2022.
Let's assume that gaming PCs did not grow in 2022 (it probably declined).
So we have 45.4m gaming PCs sold in 2022. and 35m Macs sold in 2022. Thus, Macs represent 43% of total computers sold capable of playing AAA games.
tldr:2 years later, back of the napkin math suggests Macs represent 43% of total computers sold capable of playing AAA games. It's not far off from 50%. I think Apple will comfortably beat 50% by year 3 set out in my original post because PC shipments are generally declining while Macs are gaining.
Last edited:
I want to quibble with your arbitrary limit of what constitutes a ”gaming PC” since people demonstrably game on whatever they have handy.
But the real question is how the hardware market shift affect the software publishers. The AAA publishers are a) being bought up by platform holders, and b) are very conservative both in terms of content and business practices due to the investments required.
I do think that eventually we’ll see the games market on Macs grow if their market share keeps growing, but the time frames involved are opaque.
Computers that are capable of playing AAA games? You are distorting numbers to play to your narrative. I have an old laptop (7 years old) paid $600 at the time. Not in the specific "gaming class" for laptops. Can still play AAA games. Sure it may not play them at the same standard as today's $2k laptop but still plays AAA games.
I have an older PC than the laptop, still more capable at playing AAA games.
I have an older PC than the laptop, still more capable at playing AAA games.
Gaming is not data science. Faster is not automatically much better.
Current-generation consoles form the baseline. Almost all games are designed to run well on them. Once your GPU is fast enough to compete with them, you have a mid-range system that will run most games well. As the current generation gets older, the price of a mid-range system goes down. The 32-core M1 Max is already fast enough for gaming, and the M3 Pro or M4 Pro will probably be good enough as well.
Another approach is starting from the monitor. Its size and viewing distance determine the resolution you need, and the resolution determines the GPU power you need. For example, if you have a 34" monitor with 3440x1440 resolution, the only real benefit from the next GPU generation is cheaper GPUs.
Depending on the game you play framerate may also be a concern, especially if you do not have a VRR display. Faster GPU means you can reliably play at v-sync in more titles with higher settings, without having to use resolution scaling.
I think senttoschool is counting systems with dedicated graphics, which is mostly correct. Technically Vega (and integrated RDNA 2) and Xe iGPU can also play AAA games "well enough".
Whilst the focus is only on shipments today there is a big segment missing that is not recorded in those numbers.
The people who build their own PC
Those who upgrade what they already have
Gaming still has its players firmly on the desktop over the laptop still. The self-build numbers are growing yoy. You don't see any of that in the numbers above.
The number of people that will throw in a better GPU to their existing system than build again or buy something else. Still quite relevant.
You can cut it and slice data in many ways. If you take a narrow view you will get what you want, that is how most tend to interpret data. It is never the true story though.
The people who build their own PC
Those who upgrade what they already have
Gaming still has its players firmly on the desktop over the laptop still. The self-build numbers are growing yoy. You don't see any of that in the numbers above.
The number of people that will throw in a better GPU to their existing system than build again or buy something else. Still quite relevant.
You can cut it and slice data in many ways. If you take a narrow view you will get what you want, that is how most tend to interpret data. It is never the true story though.
Displays would probably be a weak point in Mac gaming. If you have a gaming PC, you most likely have a VRR display, as they also work well enough in desktop use under Windows. On the other hand, macOS really prefers high-resolution displays, and you can't have both due to limited bandwidth.
I guess that only matters if you can drive that high resolution display at high frame rates, which I admit Apple can do more easily, now that it has MetalFX.
To be blunt, we just now have gotten (a) GPU that can push 4k native RT at over 60 fps. So Apple has some time, lol.