I mean that if you are using macOS, you want a high-resolution display for normal desktop use. At the same time, if you have a mid-range gaming desktop, you want a VRR display to smooth out fluctuations in fps. A Mac gamer would want a high-resolution VRR display (which don't really exist yet), which they would use at half resolution for games.
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
eww, half resolution?
Native resolution gaming or bust... (I may entertain resolution scaling: MetalFX)
EDIT: yes I know that is being bougie. We pay a lot for our hardware, no compromise!!!!!
But is every mac capable of running AAA games, i.e., M1, MBA, Mac Minis? I don't use those, but I hear how hamstrung in many ways, particularly the MBA since cooling can be an issue
Edit: let me also add that I think there's a flaw in your logic. You're counting all macs, which I noted about some may not be capable. But conversely, you're not (also unable too) count PCs that were sold but not "gaming PCs" There's plenty of Lenovos and HP machines that are not gaming machines but can certainly comfortably play AAA games.
So there's a huge swath of PCs being undercounted imo, which pushes the percentages down on the Mac side
Yeah but "gaming computers", or gaming PCs running Windows are not equivalent of a passively cooled M1 Macbook. Such a laptop can't really be considered a proper "gaming computer".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:
[I can't vouch for any of the above figures; I can only vouch for my algebra.]
Also if the asumtion is regarding "computers capable of playing AAA" there are way more PC's being sold in a year that qualify than Macs. My Asus laptop is marketed as a "creator's laptop" but it does have a RTX 3050 so you know it can comfortably run AAA games.
Last edited:
They don't need to be "gaming laptops" which is a distinct category. A passively cooled M Macbook isn't a gaming laptop either.
Anyway, any Windows laptop with a decent GPU, either integrated(the recent Radeon 680M for example) or dedicated can run AAA games.
Passively cooled laptops don't really qualify as "gaming computers", a computers who's main purpose is to run games.
Your theory was flawed from the start.
Any PC can run games if it has an OK GPU, they don't need to be gaming PC specifically.
Last edited:
Within the context of this discussion, "gaming laptop" means a laptop capable of playing AAA games. Not flashy led lighting etc.
From the op:
"Tldr: Within 3 years, basic math suggests Macs will be 50% of all computers sold yearly capable of playing AAA games."
Capable of playing games means having a good enough gpu. Stuff like Intel UHD doesn't really count..
Indeed, is it gaming capable or gaming credible? Big difference.
My M2 Air on my casual game (World of Warcraft) is great vs an old intel-based Apple device. I can play casually at around 45 fps on my 32-inch 4k with some tweaks to the graphics (turn them down), stays pretty cool. Now, that is still really great vs older devices. But that said, even for a game with a very old engine I can't go into group events without really turning the settings down. Not a great experience. I need a PC for that.
Ok, but you say that then change the goalposts
Intel UHD is certainly not as great as a dedicated GPU but many AAA games can still be played on it.
Ask the devs that said no intel mac with integrated gpu was good enough to make games for. It's a little rich to say a few years ago "macs don't have good enough gpu" and now move to "every gpu is fine".
As I said. Take the opinion of those that said Mac gpus were not capable of gaming, and apply it directly to the pc market.
Yeah, there was a reason for that, they were all ovens. I mean all you had to do to make an Intel MBA, MBP or MM perform poorly was turn it on. Terrible thermal design. For long enough all you even got in a MM wasn't even a desktop CPU.
You can't apply past performance on Apple with past performance on PC when comparing the same internals. They were absolutely not comparable, I can assure you.
I mean, you definitely can’t assure me. I have sold laptops for 20 years. many pc laptops have and do have significantly worse thermal performance.
I can because I have had virtually every Apple device in the last 20 years. As well as windows PC and laptop. I know what worked well, what didn't and why across all devices when it comes to gaming.
It's ok to be wrong and I am ok with you not being able to admit it.
So your claim is that you owned every Mac made in the past 20 years and every pc and that in all cases the pc had better thermal performance?
This is something you publicly stating… while sarcastically talking about others being wrong?
You're putting words in his mouth to skew the conversation. @LeeW said virtually all macs, so for most people that means he's own most not every single mac. Secondly he never stated he owned all windows PC and laptops but rather he owned windows PCs and Laptops. Seems more like an attempt to obfuscate the discussion in your part.
The issue is, there's no clear cut definition of what is capable of running AAA games. Is 20FPS capable? My RTX2060 gets 20 FPS in Cyberpunk with ray tracing on - does that man my desktop PC is NOT capable
I've had many laptops in my life, some of which with IGPUs and I will say some of those were very capable. AMD has some nice APUS that allow even better performance then intel's integrated gpu.
I will also say I've also spent many years selling, building, and repairing computers, my experience dates back to when the 286 roamed the earth, so you're not the only one with experience on this topic. In fact @diamond.g has continually shown himself to be incredibly knowledgeable on this topic.
The issue is, there's no clear cut definition of what is capable of running AAA games. Is 20FPS capable? My RTX2060 gets 20 FPS in Cyberpunk with ray tracing on - does that man my desktop PC is NOT capable
This is what it keeps coming back to.
A twisted view for sure. I will and have regularly pointed out that since the M1/M2 Apple has changed their game, not so much the game when it comes to gaming.
That is when you look at any intel device Apple has brought out even just over the last 10 years and compared it to the M1/M2, the difference is just simply stunning not just in raw performance but thermals as well which matter. The future of Apple whatever you use the device for is looking amazing.
Prior to the Mx chips when I compare the performance of a like-for-like system the difference was significantly in favour of PC vs Mac. Some of that is on Apple, and some on intel for their real lack of advancing their roadmap of future chip ability.
Performance was bad in Macs of the past and developers just weren't interested in it along with the low number of gamers that only had a Mac.
I am sure it will change, in time. Just not that soon.
WTH is gaming PC? All PCs can game but at different resolutions and graphics quality settings. You can triple AAA game on $400 integrated graphics. Heck, you can even AAA game on a lot of free curb PCs.