That's just the reality of the current state of Mac gaming. Beyond the handful of native games you have to run through Rosettta 2, Parallels, Crossover, etc.
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.
M1 Pro/Max's GPU performance for gaming is quite poor.
- Thread starter sunny5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's just the reality of the current state of Mac gaming. Beyond the handful of native games you have to run through Rosettta 2, Parallels, Crossover, etc.
case closed, since sunny just provide us his own chart that clearly shows that a non-native AAA game is around 3070 mobile gpu . So if TR will get native will be around that 100W 3080 on battery....since the razer 3080 unplugged is worse
I knew it. I explained to you in the very post you quoted why that argument was fallacious and you made it anyway. You ignored basically the entire post and just rinsed and repeated your argument without even bothering to vary it. Which is exactly what I thought you would do. Not worth it.
check again...since the M1 it was a fact that Rosetta 2 it has a 20% pentaly
Stop trolling. The actual game performance is around Mobile 3060 which proves my point.
Yeah that’s not what we’re arguing over.
Riiight. I actually respond to your posts and address your concerns while you simply repeat the same statement over and over again no matter what anyone tells you. You did it with me despite me writing *exactly what you’d say* and why it was wrong.
So no it doesn’t prove your point. If you bothered to read my post you’d see that but I bet you didn’t even bother.
check again please...check a game that came under rosetta2 with the M1, and native went around 20% performance, it was a package 20% penalty. its clear you dont know the history since the M1
Jesus christ...
Anandtehc got a similar result already which proves my point. You do not think about CPU performance, huh?
Attachments
32 core performance is equal to 3060 laptop which proves my point. I have no idea what you are talking about. GFXBench didnt prove it.
I know you don’t have any idea what I’m talking about. Do you actually want to try? Because if you don’t care there’s no point.
Last edited:
Come on guys, this guy will try to find a game that will run under 3000 of layers to show us that will be on par with 960M nvidia from 1000 year ago 
))))
))))I keep saying that M1 Max has 3060 laptop's performance and yet you dont even care.
Stop trolling. If you cant see the result properly, then it's totally pointless. Benchmark isn't the actual result.Come on guys, this guy will try to find a game that will run under 3000 of layers to show us that will be on par with 960M nvidia from 1000 year ago
he cant understand even his own videos and charts
)))) there is a video where a guy says ,a game that was under rosetta2, is using binary and have access tot he M1 gpu now as a native appso you are a hypocrite? ok, dont insult me..stay on topic if you can. Read the rules
He's right. Rosetta has absolutely zero impact on GFXbench for instance (the test is 100% GPU bound, the CPU is hardly used).
For Tomb Raider, I also believe it is GPU-bound at high resolution and I don't expect Rosetta 2 to have an impact.
Tomb Raider games are not bad Metal ports. In fact, SoTR performs better on macOS than on Windows if you have an intel iGPU.
However, AAA games are not coded with TBDR in mind. These include Tomb Raider games, as a developer from Feral confirmed. He said that performance would increase after some tweaks (but I doubt Feral will update the game).
And there are many games like Borderlands 3 which, even though they use Metal, are just awful ports. For BL3, developers probably just hit the compile button on UE4 IDE, checked that it ran on a Mac without crashing, corrected a few bugs here and there, and that's it. The game runs very poorly on macOS.
Fine, I'm not continuing this conversation with you as you keep trolling over the result by not accepting facts.he cant understand even his own videos and charts
Not really, because what you are saying doesn't make much sense. Synthetic benchmarks show high performance, well optimized games show high performance, some low-quality ports show worse performance. Your conclusion: hardware sucks for gaming. Where is the logic?
Go back and read what I said "from the comparisons I've seen and done on mine". Don't mind putting in the effort to jump through hoops to set up games on my MBA M1 but not going to pay for Crossover and game genres like BG3 that I'm not into when it's effortless to game on the PC desktop and laptop or even the $400 Lenovo Yoga 6 that gets ~60fps @ 720p on Doom Eternal.
I do care.
That’s what I wrote. Yes for many games the mobile 3060 is where there GPU will lie … because they aren’t actually written for the M1 GPU.
As I said: I am responding to you, but you aren’t returning the favor. The difference between you and me isn’t that I’m ignoring your numbers as you are everyone else’s and their arguments, it’s that I know what the numbers mean. As you yourself have said, you don’t get it. In and of itself, that wouldn’t be so bad. This is a complicated, technical subject. But you also have been showing no willingness to learn or at a baseline even engage honestly with other people’s posts.
Last edited:
again ignoring what he wrote. He wrote that well optimized games also show it. You ignored that.
And btw synthetic benchmarks which have been optimized for the GPU are actually what you want to use to measure and compare the performance potential of a new GPU that doesn’t have an analog in the PC world because games won’t be optimized for it.
Bet you ignore all or most of this post.