In 3 years, 50% of all computers capable of playing AAA games will be Macs

[JMacHack]

But ask those who take videogames seriously and want to be competitive or even just run the game at an acceptable framerate and quality if they want to play on a potato computer.

You do realize that most esports titles are't very demanding right? Further than that, the most demanding titles aren't esports. A lot of the players of competitive titles I've met run on potato computers even.

Even an RPG like Cyberpunk 2077 doesn't really require lightning fast player interaction.

Or to work at all apparently.

Can everyone stop worrying about the Mac being able to play AAA releases when AAA releases are almost universally *******? I swear "gamers" are the dumbest demographic, always circlejerking over specs and every frame, yet none will ever own a $1,000 GPU, a $1,000 CPU, or the rest of the system to run it. For every 3080 owner there are 10 times as many on last-gen gaming laptops, check the Steam surveys.

Who buys a super expensive Mac for gaming when you can buy a $499 gaming console which runs games at 4K@120hz.

You can use a computer for more than just work or play, you're allowed to have a device that does more than one thing.

In 3 years time, there will be new consoles that will handle games at 8K probably.

The typical time between console releases is 5 years, bud.

 

[diamond.g]

You do realize that most esports titles are't very demanding right? Further than that, the most demanding titles aren't esports. A lot of the players of competitive titles I've met run on potato computers even.


Or to work at all apparently.

Can everyone stop worrying about the Mac being able to play AAA releases when AAA releases are almost universally *******? I swear "gamers" are the dumbest demographic, always circlejerking over specs and every frame, yet none will ever own a $1,000 GPU, a $1,000 CPU, or the rest of the system to run it. For every 3080 owner there are 10 times as many on last-gen gaming laptops, check the Steam surveys.


You can use a computer for more than just work or play, you're allowed to have a device that does more than one thing.

The typical time between console releases is 5 years, bud.

It was 3 years for PS4 to PS4pro. If the same happens this generation then you would be looking at potentially doubling the GPU computing power.

 

[diamond.g]

It was 3 years for PS4 to PS4pro. If the same happens this generation then you would be looking at potentially doubling the GPU computing power.

The Xbox -> One X tripled the GPU computing power in 4 years...

 

[JMacHack]

It was 3 years for PS4 to PS4pro. If the same happens this generation then you would be looking at potentially doubling the GPU computing power.

That's what's known as a "refresh" hence why the "PS4pro" is "PS4pro" and not "PS5."

The Xbox -> One X tripled the GPU computing power in 4 years...

By using a node shrink, increase in die size, adding 4gb more ram, going to a newer architecture, more than doubling the CUs, and going from DDR3 to GDDR5.

Hint: the XBO was underpowered to start with, and bringing it up to standard made the jump look big. New consoles are coming out swinging this time, the jump will not be as big.

 

[Ethosik]

Who buys a super expensive Mac for gaming when you can buy a $499 gaming console which runs games at 4K@120hz.

In 3 years time, there will be new consoles that will handle games at 8K probably.

There are no games on the Series X or PS5 that run on 4K at 120Hz. Even 4K at 60 is not as common as it should be. Its usually 4K 30.

 

[Ethosik]

I'd rather use two systems until Mac "catches" up with PC, if that ever happens.
nVidia & PC with Windows are deadly combination yet to be matched by other competitors.

The fact that Apple's first and worst processor running in a fanless system running at 14 Watts max beats or at least competes with a GTX 1050 Ti which is the top #1 or #2 on the Steam hardware survey says a great deal. Imagine the GPU performance on the Mac Pro

 

[diamond.g]

That's what's known as a "refresh" hence why the "PS4pro" is "PS4pro" and not "PS5."


By using a node shrink, increase in die size, adding 4gb more ram, going to a newer architecture, more than doubling the CUs, and going from DDR3 to GDDR5.

Hint: the XBO was underpowered to start with, and bringing it up to standard made the jump look big. New consoles are coming out swinging this time, the jump will not be as big.

Sony could go wider and MS could up the clocks. Isn’t RDNA 3 supposed to incorporate a procces shrink as well?

 

[theorist9]

senttoschool, I think you're right that the introduction of the AS Macs presents intriguing possibilities for an increase in AAA gaming on the Mac. But I think you're underestimating some of the barriers.

AAA games can cost hundreds of millions to develop. Developers need to release the games on just about every platform they can.

I'm not a gamer, but aren't there a lot of PC-only AAA games, i.e. games whose developers have not done the work to release on PS, XBox, etc.? And doesn't that tell us that it's not enough for a platform to be game-capable, and used by gamers, for a company to release a version for that platform?

I.e., the PS and XBox are two automatic markets those devs aren't taking advantage of. There has to be a reason. I suspect it's that developing games for other platforms is a lot of work, and those devs have decided that, even for these guaranteed additional markets, the ROI isn't enough.

But as I have written many times, most gaming computers sold are laptops. This proves that most people are not hardcore about gaming and will just play popular games such as Fortnite, WoW, CS: Go on their laptops. These games were already ported to Macs when it was only ~2% AAA-capable gaming machines. Now imagine 50%. This is the whole point.

According to the article you linked, IDC's definition of a gaming computer is one containing a "Premium or Performance grade GPU". Since you linked that article, do you know what that means? I don't, but (a) "Premium or Performance grade GPU" says to me that people buying gaming computers aren't as casual as you claim, even if they're buying laptops—"Premium to Performance" very likely doesn't mean a 1050 Ti, since that's entry-level. I expect it would be a GTX 1650 at the least; and (b) That means dGPU's (even laptop dGPUs) in the premium-to-performance gaming range are more gaming-capable than that in the M1. Thus someone who wants an equivalently gaming-capable AS Mac laptop is going to have to spring for an AS MBP, i.e., for something whose cost is likely significantly more than that for an equivalently gaming-capable PC laptop. Plus don't most gamers who buy laptops prefer a larger screen? If so, that means springing for a 16" AS MBP rather than the (likely) 14" model.

E.g., according to this list of top-performing gaming laptops from notebookcheck.net (https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Best-Gaming-Notebooks.98628.0.html), you can get PC gaming laptops with an RTX2070 Super Max-Q for < $1300. How much do you think you'll need to spend to get an AS Mac laptop with equivalent GPU performance? [Though if you did buy an AS MBP with equivalent GPU performance (if such will exist), then you would be getting better CPU, better screen, better everything else for your money vs. the $1300 gaming laptop; but I expect most people are going to want to stay closer to $1000 than $2000...]

An equivalent analysis could be done for PC gaming desktops vs the AS Mac Mini, if Apple decides to offer the AS Mini with a sufficiently high-end GPU.

• The 1050ti is the second most common GPU according to the Steam Survey

That's what Steam users have in their current computers. The more relevant survey would be the most common dGPUs AAA Steam users (not all Steam users play AAA games) are purchasing now. The last point is particularly important, since that's what Apple has to compete with—not the dGPUs in older computers. Think about it: In assessing the purchase of an Apple computer, a gamer is going to compare what Apple offers to what he/she can get for the same $$ in a PC today—not to what's in the older PC they're replacing.

We're going off topic, but I'll bite...

There are 2.5 billion gamers worldwide, which is 32% of the world's total human population. Take away babies and toddlers and very old people and most adults are considered as gamers.

Source:

There will be 2.5 billion mobile gamers worldwide at the end of 2020

By the end of 2020, it is believed that there will be 2.7 billion gamers around the world according to a Newzoo report.

www.pocketgamer.biz

Can people here do some basic fact-checking and run some basic math before posting? It's not hard. Just google stuff.

That statistic isn't relevant to your OP, which was about AAA gaming. Most in that article were using games on their phones.

 

[jeanlain]

In their assessment that 50% of the PCs capable of playing AAA games will be Macs, the OP seems to assume that all iGPUs that are not from Apple won't be able to run these games.
But Intel has made huge progresses lately, and AMD will certainly put RDNA 2 GPUs into APUs. In three years, who know if Apple iGPUs will be the fastest?

 

[jeanlain]

I'm not a gamer, but aren't there a lot of PC-only AAA games, i.e. games whose developers have not done the work to release on PS, XBox, etc.? And doesn't that tell us that it's not enough for a platform to be game-capable, and used by gamers, for a company to release a version for that platform?

I.e., the PS and XBox are two automatic markets those devs aren't taking advantage of. There has to be a reason. I suspect it's that developing games for other platforms is a lot of work, and those devs have decided that, even for these guaranteed additional markets, the ROI isn't enough.

I'm sure that many decisions about porting games are not based on an informed analysis of the ROI, and that more often than not, they are based on feelings and personal preferences. Some game developers simply don't like consoles (assuming games do not require a keyboard and mouse). Some despise mobile gaming, Macs, or Apple in general.
OTOH, I'm quite sure that the existence of many Mac games is solely due to the fact that some key developer or manager has Macs at home.
After all, as long as you're making enough profit and that investors leave you alone (if you're a public company), why bother doing something you don't want (e.g., porting to consoles) or why wouldn't you do something you want (e.g., supporting the Mac)? Valve is the perfect example of the that. They just do whatever they want, and they don't care about the profit that every project may generate. They have their asses covered by Steam revenues.

 

[theorist9]

I'm sure that many decisions about porting games are not based on an informed analysis of the ROI, and that more often than not, they are based on feelings and personal preferences. Some game developers simply don't like consoles (assuming games do not require a keyboard and mouse). Some despise mobile gaming, Macs, or Apple in general.
OTOH, I'm quite sure that the existence of many Mac games is solely due to the fact that some key developer or manager has Macs at home.
After all, as long as you're making enough profit and that investors leave you alone (if you're a public company), why bother doing something you don't want (e.g., porting to consoles) or why wouldn't you do something you want (e.g., supporting the Mac)? Valve is the perfect example of the that. They just do whatever they want, and they don't care about the profit that every project may generate. They have their ass covered by Steam revenues.

It sounds like, regardless of reasons, that you are broadly agreeing with my point — that some devs still aren't going to port their games to the Mac platform just b/c, going forward, many more Macs will have capability to play their games well.

 

[leman]

According to the article you linked, IDC's definition of a gaming computer is one containing a "Premium or Performance grade GPU".

[...]

E.g., according to this list of top-performing gaming laptops from notebookcheck.net (https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Best-Gaming-Notebooks.98628.0.html), you can get PC gaming laptops with an RTX2070 Super Max-Q for < $1300.

These numbers pain a very strange picture by the way. So there were around 20 million gaming laptops shipped in 2019. Various data I found on the internet suggest that the global gaming laptop market in 2020 is valued at 11 billion US $. Let's make it 13 billion for 2019 to be extremely conservative. That's $650 per laptop. What kind of premium laptop GPU are you getting in a $650 laptop? Most entry-level 1650 models start at $800 or higher. And that is the average. Kind of gives you an idea about what passes as a gaming laptop out there.

Also, I went on amazon looking for RTX 2070 laptops... I couldn't find any for $1300. There is an Asus ROG for $1500 which is sold out.

In their assessment that 50% of the PCs capable of playing AAA games will be Macs, the OP seems to assume that all iGPUs that are not from Apple won't be able to run these games.
But Intel has made huge progresses lately, and AMD will certainly put RDNA 2 GPUs into APUs. In three years, who know if Apple iGPUs will be the fastest?

With their much more efficient rendering technology, Apple GPUs deliver about 3-4 times more performance per watt than AMD and Nvidia dGPUs. I would be curious to see some figures on Tiger Lake graphics power consumption but I didn't find anything. It is true that Intel had some major advancements but in the end they are still playing catch up with AMD's integrated. Apple is quite far ahead here.

I'm sure that many decisions about porting games are not based on an informed analysis of the ROI, and that more often than not, they are based on feelings and personal preferences. Some game developers simply don't like consoles (assuming games do not require a keyboard and mouse). Some despise mobile gaming, Macs, or Apple in general.
OTOH, I'm quite sure that the existence of many Mac games is solely due to the fact that some key developer or manager has Macs at home.
After all, as long as you're making enough profit and that investors leave you alone (if you're a public company), why bother doing something you don't want (e.g., porting to consoles) or why wouldn't you do something you want (e.g., supporting the Mac)? Valve is the perfect example of the that. They just do whatever they want, and they don't care about the profit that every project may generate. They have their ass covered by Steam revenues.

And this is the crux of it. n the end, it's down to decisions made by people. And it depends on what people believe. If the executives don't see the Mac as a target for their software, their software won't get implemented for the Mc. Plain and simple.

The hope is that the performance and energy efficiency advantage of the new Macs will change how people perceive them. Right now, Macs are "expensive and under-performing" in the eyes of gamers. They might become something else.

 

[onfire23]

These numbers pain a very strange picture by the way. So there were around 20 million gaming laptops shipped in 2019. Various data I found on the internet suggest that the global gaming laptop market in 2020 is valued at 11 billion US $. Let's make it 13 billion for 2019 to be extremely conservative. That's $650 per laptop. What kind of premium laptop GPU are you getting in a $650 laptop? Most entry-level 1650 models start at $800 or higher. And that is the average. Kind of gives you an idea about what passes as a gaming laptop out there.

Also, I went on amazon looking for RTX 2070 laptops... I couldn't find any for $1300. There is an Asus ROG for $1500 which is sold out.



With their much more efficient rendering technology, Apple GPUs deliver about 3-4 times more performance per watt than AMD and Nvidia dGPUs. I would be curious to see some figures on Tiger Lake graphics power consumption but I didn't find anything. It is true that Intel had some major advancements but in the end they are still playing catch up with AMD's integrated. Apple is quite far ahead here.



And this is the crux of it. n the end, it's down to decisions made by people. And it depends on what people believe. If the executives don't see the Mac as a target for their software, their software won't get implemented for the Mc. Plain and simple.

The hope is that the performance and energy efficiency advantage of the new Macs will change how people perceive them. Right now, Macs are "expensive and under-performing" in the eyes of gamers. They might become something else.

Tigerlake igpu at 28w TDP is currently faster than the fastest Amd igpus. It is faster than the mx350 in most games too.
Geekbench compute for tigerlake g7 igpu is around 18000 points, which is around the 7 core M1.

Swift 3 and Msi prestige 14 evo are the only non gimped versions of tigerlake g7. Most reviews are on dell xps or Hp spectre which are severely gimped.

 

[EntropyQ3]

And this is the crux of it. n the end, it's down to decisions made by people. And it depends on what people believe. If the executives don't see the Mac as a target for their software, their software won't get implemented for the Mc. Plain and simple.

The hope is that the performance and energy efficiency advantage of the new Macs will change how people perceive them. Right now, Macs are "expensive and under-performing" in the eyes of gamers. They might become something else.

Do we have a consensus around this?
That having high production value (and cost) gaming titles on MacOS is determined by financial, not technical, concerns? And that those decisions aren’t necessarily incredibly well researched? And since decision makers are people with opinions, those opinions could conceivably change, if the general perception of Macs in those circles change?

I actually think we do have a consensus - which still leaves the question if the new Macs will be popular enough to signify a shift in market share on top of the undeniable lifting of the performance base line. I haven’t seen any numbers yet. While we won’t have a good picture until a couple of years down the line, early trajectories do give hints. To game industry executives, for instance.

 

[theorist9]

These numbers pain a very strange picture by the way. So there were around 20 million gaming laptops shipped in 2019. Various data I found on the internet suggest that the global gaming laptop market in 2020 is valued at 11 billion US $. Let's make it 13 billion for 2019 to be extremely conservative. That's $650 per laptop. What kind of premium laptop GPU are you getting in a $650 laptop? Most entry-level 1650 models start at $800 or higher. And that is the average. Kind of gives you an idea about what passes as a gaming laptop out there.

IDC says the avg. price of what they consider a gaming laptop is $967:

Gaming PCs and Monitors Will Benefit from Increased Time at Home and GPU Refresh in 2020, According to IDC

IDC examines consumer markets by devices, applications, networks, and services to provide complete solutions for succeeding in these expanding markets.

www.idc.com

Also, I went on amazon looking for RTX 2070 laptops... I couldn't find any for $1300. There is an Asus ROG for $1500 which is sold out.

I just googled one of the laptops listed in the notebookcheck.net link I posted: $1300 from Newegg, which gets knocked down to $1200 after the rebate. And it's in stock.

What's your best guess of how many GPU cores an AS chip would need in order to be comparable to the 2070 Max-Q?

Gigabyte Aorus 15P - 15.6" 144 Hz - Intel Core i7-10750H - GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q - 16 GB DDR4 - 512 GB SSD - Windows 10 Home - Gaming Laptop (Aorus 15P WB-7US1130SH) - Newegg.com

Buy Gigabyte Aorus 15P - 15.6" 144 Hz - Intel Core i7-10750H - GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q - 16 GB DDR4 - 512 GB SSD - Windows 10 Home - Gaming Laptop (Aorus 15P WB-7US1130SH) with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

 

[jeanlain]

It sounds like, regardless of reasons, that you are broadly agreeing with my point — that some devs still aren't going to port their games 0to the Mac platform just b/c, going forward, many more Macs will have capability to play their games well.

I don't disagree with you. That's why I've been saying that if Apple wants to attract AAA games, they need to do more than just equip Macs with better SoCs.

 

[diamond.g]

There are no games on the Series X or PS5 that run on 4K at 120Hz. Even 4K at 60 is not as common as it should be. Its usually 4K 30.

IIRC Ori Will of the Wisp is 4K120.

 

[leman]

IDC says the avg. price of what they consider a gaming laptop is $967:

Gaming PCs and Monitors Will Benefit from Increased Time at Home and GPU Refresh in 2020, According to IDC

IDC examines consumer markets by devices, applications, networks, and services to provide complete solutions for succeeding in these expanding markets.

www.idc.com

Interesting, that would put the global market at 20 billion, which is almost 100% of the other estimates I've seen. Regardless, looking at the market prices, $1000 won't get you much. Looking at Newegg, virtually all gaming laptops under $1000 are GTX 1650... which again corroborates the point that the vast majority of gaming hardware out there is entry-level.

I just googled one of the laptops listed in the notebookcheck.net link I posted: $1300 from Newegg, which gets knocked down to $1200 after the rebate. And it's in stock.

Ah, well, you can find all kinds of stuff during sale season. If you look around, laptops of that type usually start at $1500 or more (with average price being closer to $1700). In other words, because a certain laptop with an 2070 sells for $1200 at Newegg now, it doesn't imply that everyone who owns a comparable laptop paid $1200 or less.

What's your best guess of how many GPU cores an AS chip would need in order to be comparable to the 2070 Max-Q?

32 Apple GPU cores with RAM bandwidth of 200GB/s should do it, at a TDP of around 25-30 watts.

 

[neinjohn]

In their assessment that 50% of the PCs capable of playing AAA games will be Macs, the OP seems to assume that all iGPUs that are not from Apple won't be able to run these games.
But Intel has made huge progresses lately, and AMD will certainly put RDNA 2 GPUs into APUs. In three years, who know if Apple iGPUs will be the fastest?

On the other hand if AMD and Intel push for more capable iGPUs, change the laptop market but don't outright beat it on key metrics, or the final product, it would play exactly in Apple wants/their vision. If the baseline graphic power on iGPU increases to a point where the compromises/decisions you have to do for a $900-$1200 dGPU laptop become more of a niche choice on the market it aligns with their offers and interests.

 

[Argon_]

On the other hand if AMD and Intel push for more capable iGPUs, change the laptop market but don't outright beat it on key metrics, or the final product, it would play exactly in Apple wants/their vision. If the baseline graphic power on iGPU increases to a point where the compromises/decisions you have to do for a $900-$1200 dGPU laptop become more of a niche choice on the market it aligns with their offers and interests.

We could also get mighty APUs in the desktop market that compete with two year old DGPUs, simultaneously reaping the benefits of shared memory. It would also make silent or overclockable PCs easier to build. You'd need a 200W CPU socket though.

 

[theorist9]

Ah, well, you can find all kinds of stuff during sale season. If you look around, laptops of that type usually start at $1500 or more (with average price being closer to $1700). In other words, because a certain laptop with an 2070 sells for $1200 at Newegg now, it doesn't imply that everyone who owns a comparable laptop paid $1200 or less.

Well, there's two separate issues we were discussing. Here I was just responding to your contention that 2070-equipped laptops can't be had for ~$1300. I still contend that's readily doable. For instance, here's another that's $1300, and which is not on an extreme sale — it's just $100 off its regular $1400 selling price. And $100 off is pretty routine. Plus this only took me a few minutes to find:

MSI GL65 Leopard 10SFK-062 15.6" FHD 144Hz 3ms Thin Bezel Gaming Laptop Intel Core i7-10750H RTX2070 16GB 512GB NVMe SSD Win 10

MSI GL65 Leopard 10SFK-062 15. 6" FHD 144Hz 3ms Thin Bezel Gaming Laptop Intel Core i7-10750H GeForce RTX 2070 16GB 512GB NVMe SSD Win 10.

www.amazon.com

But the bigger issue is what's the average GPU configuration of new gaming laptops:

Interesting, that would put the global market at 20 billion, which is almost 100% of the other estimates I've seen. Regardless, looking at the market prices, $1000 won't get you much. Looking at Newegg, virtually all gaming laptops under $1000 are GTX 1650... which again corroborates the point that the vast majority of gaming hardware out there is entry-level.

32 Apple GPU cores with RAM bandwidth of 200GB/s should do it, at a TDP of around 25-30 watts.

I agree with your statement about under -$1000 gaming laptops—I myself previously said that IDC's gaming laptop definition probably means a GTX 1650 or better. The average price of a GTX 1650 laptop is under $1k (maybe $800?). So a $970 average selling price indicates to me a mix of mostly GTX 1650's and RTX 2060's, plus smaller numbers of the more powerful chips (along with whatever is the equivalent from AMD). According to benchmarks, the RTX 2060 is about 10% less powerful than the 2070, so let's say Apple needs ~32 GPU cores to equal that one as well. And the benchmarks I've seen of the GTX 1650 say it's ~half as powerful as the 2060, which make it equivalent to ~16 Apple GPU cores.

In summary, the average cost of a gaming laptop sold today is ~$1000 (if IDC's analysis is correct), with most having GPU capability ranging from a 1650 to a 2060, i.e., from 16 - 32 Apple GPU cores.

Even to get just 16 GPU cores in a 15+" Apple laptop (people buying gaming laptops typically want larger screens), you're going to need an entry-level 16" AS MBP. Apple tends to keep its prices about the same when it introduces new models, so I expect the base price of the 16" AS MBP will be about the same as it is for a current Intel model: $2400. Even with student discounts, that's still going to be ~$2200. That's more than twice what you'd need to spend to get a PC gaming laptop with equivalent GPU capability. Of course, the AS MPB will have a far more powerful CPU than a $1000 gaming laptop. But how much does the CPU matter for gaming performance (I don't know myself)?

So if you're a PC gamer who plays AAA games, has $1000 to spend, and is in the market for a new laptop, it seems unlikely you'd buy and Air or base 13" MBP, given that you'd get a smaller screen, and a GPU that is half as capable, vs. what your $1k would buy you in the PC world. Plus you'd have to switch from an OS with which you are familiar. [The exception would be a PC gamer who's decided to switch to Mac for other (non-gaming) reasons.]

Thus, for the most part, the potential expanding market for AAA games on the Mac wouldn't come from PC gamers who switch to Mac. It would come from those who are already Mac users, but don't play AAA games now. Are those Mac users who aren't AAA gamers going to start playing AAA games just because their computers suddently have that capability? Mostly not, I'd expect, if they're adults. But children who are just starting to play games, if they have Macs, might represent the demographic that expands AAA gaming on the Mac. If there are enough AAA games for them to play.

 

[UBS28]

There are no games on the Series X or PS5 that run on 4K at 120Hz. Even 4K at 60 is not as common as it should be. Its usually 4K 30.

Yes they are.

 

[jinnyman]

The fact that Apple's first and worst processor running in a fanless system running at 14 Watts max beats or at least competes with a GTX 1050 Ti which is the top #1 or #2 on the Steam hardware survey says a great deal. Imagine the GPU performance on the Mac Pro

I'm talking about AAA games. I run 3090. Apple is yet to prove itself in this sector.
It's not only the performance that's problem. Apple's platform is !@#%tty in FPS due to mouse control problem.
They have a lot to catch up to, and no I don't plan to use mac for any gaming.

I've got a M1 mini for leisure (for home theater machine), and I'm blown away by what it can do, but almost no nothing in gaming availability based on my preference. So no still no. And WoW runs so wonderfully better in 3090 PC machine period.

 

[senttoschool]

I'm talking about AAA games. I run 3090. Apple is yet to prove itself in this sector.
It's not only the performance that's problem. Apple's platform is !@#%tty in FPS due to mouse control problem.
They have a lot to catch up to, and no I don't plan to use mac for any gaming.

I've got a M1 mini for leisure (for home theater machine), and I'm blown away by what it can do, but almost no nothing in gaming availability based on my preference. So no still no. And WoW runs so wonderfully better in 3090 PC machine period.

You're in the 0.0001% of gamers that own a 3090. The vast majority own a 1050ti or 1060 level GPU. Also, you don't need a 3090 to run WoW. M1 runs it fine.

No one expects an entry-level Apple Silicon to run the latest Call of Duty at 4k high settings. No. But we can expect it to run at 1080p at low settings while you're traveling with your thin and light Macbook. That's the point.

 

[EntropyQ3]

Thus, for the most part, the potential expanding market for AAA games on the Mac wouldn't come from PC gamers who switch to Mac. It would come from those who are already Mac users, but don't play AAA games now. Are those Mac users who aren't AAA gamers going to start playing AAA games just because their computers suddently have that capability? Mostly not, I'd expect, if they're adults. But children who are just starting to play games, if they have Macs, might represent the demographic that expands AAA gaming on the Mac. If there are enough AAA games for them to play.

We are trying to predict the future here, and crystal balls are notoriously murky.
Anyone currently using Macs and have a strong interest in the AAA game products, have a supplementary gaming device, PC and/or consoles.

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t less AAA-gaming focussed Mac users that would pick up the additional AAA game if available.
Boot camping (which made game porting a difficult proposition - how can you sell a game on the Mac that is two years late, costs $49 for the Mac when it’s $19 under Boot Camp, and lack features of the PC version), is not an option on the new Macs, so those who used it for gaming will have to assess their options.
All those that previously bought Macs with integrated Intel graphics that couldn’t run heavy titles, will now be able to do so, the step up in base line capabilities is huge.
Those people who do have supplementary gaming systems might prefer to consolidate devices or simply like to be able to game on their Macs as well. Macs are nice, so wanting to use the nicer system for gaming as well is only natural.
And of course, if the new Macs provide good value there will be an influx of new users who, while likely not shifting platforms for gaming purposes, might like to play the odd big title.

So there’s every reason to assume that the amount of money spent on gaming on Macs will increase. Whether the AAA game publishers will be around to pick it up however, is questionable. And if they are not - well, that just means more money for the alternatives.