Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There’s a ton of discussions in the Mac gaming forum, the summation is even with apples more gaming friendly stance, they’re moves have done little to move the needle
Depends what you class as moving the needle I guess. There’s no doubt that many posters are incredibly pessimistic and class anything less than absolute parity with Windows as failure.

As for me, I’m happy with the games that have been released natively. For games that haven’t, I find Whisky/Crossover allows a significant number to be played. YMMV.
 
New games. We really don’t see too many AAA games being released for the Mac. We see publishers falling over themselves trying to get their games in the switch 2. I don’t see anywhere that level of desire or excitement for the Mac
We don’t see anyone port their games to Linux and yet all their users assure me gaming on Linux is a triumph. As I said, there are many definitions.
 
Depends what you class as moving the needle I guess. There’s no doubt that many posters are incredibly pessimistic and class anything less than absolute parity with Windows as failure.

As for me, I’m happy with the games that have been released natively. For games that haven’t, I find Whisky/Crossover allows a significant number to be played. YMMV.
I don’t think you’ve read the posts by the people in the gaming forum. Almost all of them seem to have reasonable expectations, and some even cautiously optimistic.

Whisky is officially abandoned by its creator who lost interest in the project, and crossover is a paid for third party compatibility layer.

If we’re judging the state of gaming on the Mac platform it’s not objectively a good situation. The one light that we got from Apple officially was GPTK, and according to them it’s a tool to use in the process of making a native port. With said ports not materializing.

I don’t play many games anymore, but for example I was disappointed to see the System Shock 2 remaster being Windows-only. Despite the original System Shock 2 on Steam being Mac compatible (though it uses Wine to do so).

At the very least, you can say that Apple is definitely not accomplishing their goal of having more games on the Mac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maflynn
I don’t think you’ve read the posts by the people in the gaming forum. Almost all of them seem to have reasonable expectations, and some even cautiously optimistic.
I have read them. There are some optimists and many who believe the only way forward is for the Mac to be a PC.
Whisky is officially abandoned by its creator who lost interest in the project, and crossover is a paid for third party compatibility layer.
Yes, that’s why I used both it and Crossover. For me, it’s not an issue to pay for good software. I realize that’s not the case for everyone.
If we’re judging the state of gaming on the Mac platform it’s not objectively a good situation.
There’s no objectivity to this. It’s better than it was 5 years ago and not as good as it should be imo.
The one light that we got from Apple officially was GPTK, and according to them it’s a tool to use in the process of making a native port. With said ports not materializing.
I mean, I”m playing them. Are there hundreds? No. But a fair number imo.
I don’t play many games anymore, but for example I was disappointed to see the System Shock 2 remaster being Windows-only. Despite the original System Shock 2 on Steam being Mac compatible (though it uses Wine to do so).

At the very least, you can say that Apple is definitely not accomplishing their goal of having more games on the Mac.
Now that is objectively wrong. There are more now than a few years ago. I think we all want many more however.
 
We don’t see anyone port their games to Linux and yet all their users assure me gaming on Linux is a triumph. As I said, there are many definitions.
Actually, that's not entirely correct. Steam has something called Steam Deck Verified and on steam it shows what games can run on steamos and/or Linux. Additionally developers are working towards ensuring their games are compatible for the steam deck.
1751449834119.png


As I said, there are many definitions.
No, there really isn't. Either The Mac platform is getting more games, and is having a reputation of being good for gamers, or it isn't

This thread: In 3 years, 50% of all computers capable of playing AAA games will be Macs was started 5 years ago, with a lot of optimism. In subsequent years we have seen apple warm to the idea of gaming and updating metal, metalfx and tools to port games. Its been several years since those were introduced and we don't even have a 5 year old game yet (cyberpunk 2077), yet CDPR, made sure that cyberpunk was going to be available for the switch 2.

I think that largely accurately conveys what publishers and developers think. No matter how you slice it, the Mac platform isn't thought of for gaming, nor is there many AAA games available. That reputation has not change, in other words. The needle on Mac gaming has not changed sadly.

I'm incredibly impressed with how my M4 Max studio can play most games running crossover, yet that's a 2,000 dollar computer. The M4 Mac Mini and M4 Pro Mac Mini were incapable of playing the games such as fallout 4, fallout 76, and atomfall. I originally bought the M4 Pro Mini and was saddened by its gaming performance. II was still in my return window, so I exchanged it for the M4 Max studio.

I will say the Studio is by far not only the best Mac I've owned but best computer bar none. It does everything I want it too. I'd love to see more AAA games come to the Mac natively, but I don't think publishers see this platform where they'll make a profit - or least enough to cover the cost of porting and marketing.
 
Actually, that's not entirely correct. Steam has something called Steam Deck Verified and on steam it shows what games can run on steamos and/or Linux. Additionally developers are working towards ensuring their games are compatible for the steam deck.
View attachment 2525198
This doesn’t relate to my point at all. Doing the bare minimum to ensure Steam deck compatibility is not the same as a port. Which is what I said. I’m not sure why you think they are related.
No, there really isn't.
Yes there is. I’m not sure why you think you are the sole arbiter of success but I can assure you, you aren’t.
Either The Mac platform is getting more games,
It is
and is having a reputation of being good for gamers
Who cares? Which gamers? The ones who insist that a multi-kilowatt rig is “real gaming”. I don’t care about those people and neither should Apple. PS5 gamers, Switch gamer, mobile gamers. Perhaps they think different.
, or it isn't
Things aren’t as binary as you think I’m afraid.
This thread: In 3 years, 50% of all computers capable of playing AAA games will be Macs was started 5 years ago, with a lot of optimism. In subsequent years we have seen apple warm to the idea of gaming and updating metal, metalfx and tools to port games. Its been several years since those were introduced and we don't even have a 5 year old game yet (cyberpunk 2077), yet CDPR, made sure that cyberpunk was going to be available for the switch 2.
Yes. CDPR made sure CP2077 was available for the Switch 2 launch and will most likely be available for the launch of Tahoe, perhaps with the launch of M5 machines.
I think that largely accurately conveys what publishers and developers think.
No it conveys the thoughts of the same old pesssimists I was referring to earlier. I am afraid they are legion here. No matter what the topic, they come in and tell you things can’t happen and won’t happen. They create conditions for success so narrow, that success is impossible. All the while, things are slowly improving.
No matter how you slice it, the Mac platform isn't thought of for gaming, nor is there many AAA games available.
There are more than there was 5 years ago. And clearly the developers of those games thought of the Mac.
That reputation has not change, in other words. The needle on Mac gaming has not changed sadly.
An objectively wrong statement. There are more games now than before. That’s just counting.
 
This doesn’t relate to my point at all. Doing the bare minimum to ensure Steam deck compatibility is not the same as a port. Which is what I said. I’m not sure why you think they are related.

Yes there is. I’m not sure why you think you are the sole arbiter of success but I can assure you, you aren’t.

It is

Who cares? Which gamers? The ones who insist that a multi-kilowatt rig is “real gaming”. I don’t care about those people and neither should Apple. PS5 gamers, Switch gamer, mobile gamers. Perhaps they think different.

Things aren’t as binary as you think I’m afraid.

Yes. CDPR made sure CP2077 was available for the Switch 2 launch and will most likely be available for the launch of Tahoe, perhaps with the launch of M5 machines.

No it conveys the thoughts of the same old pesssimists I was referring to earlier. I am afraid they are legion here. No matter what the topic, they come in and tell you things can’t happen and won’t happen. They create conditions for success so narrow, that success is impossible. All the while, things are slowly improving.

There are more than there was 5 years ago. And clearly the developers of those games thought of the Mac.

An objectively wrong statement. There are more games now than before. That’s just counting.
As a PC (and Console) gamer that sometimes games on my Mac, I see attempts at making Mac gaming more a thing. Sadly I also see how wildly expensive it is to get good (my opinion) performance on a Mac (folks are upscaling to 1080p in games that don't even have ray tracing; not panel native rez upscaling).

We would have given CDPR a pass if they didn't announce last year that CP2077 would be out at the beginning of the year. How is it that the Switch 2 version got announced after the macOS version and came out before it did. If CDPR knew it needed MetalFX Interpolation and Denoising why lie and tell us it was coming out at the beginning of the year?
 
Yes there is. I’m not sure why you think you are the sole arbiter of success but I can assure you, you aren’t.
I'm not, but just relaying the reputation which is backed up by the fact that there's so few games available natively for the mac.
Who cares? Which gamers?
Gamers who want to play on their macs.

Its clear that you have an opinion that Macs are great for gaming - I respect that, and I'll just move on
 
I'm not, but just relaying the reputation which is backed up by the fact that there's so few games available natively for the mac.

Gamers who want to play on their macs.

Its clear that you have an opinion that Macs are great for gaming - I respect that, and I'll just move on
No. My point is that things have improved. Not that it’s great or that it doesn’t have a long way to go. I think it’s important to be accurate.

We shouldn’t say “ everything is great with Mac gaming” but we also shouldn’t say “things haven’t improved at all”.
 
As a PC (and Console) gamer that sometimes games on my Mac, I see attempts at making Mac gaming more a thing. Sadly I also see how wildly expensive it is to get good (my opinion) performance on a Mac (folks are upscaling to 1080p in games that don't even have ray tracing; not panel native rez upscaling).

We would have given CDPR a pass if they didn't announce last year that CP2077 would be out at the beginning of the year. How is it that the Switch 2 version got announced after the macOS version and came out before it did. If CDPR knew it needed MetalFX Interpolation and Denoising why lie and tell us it was coming out at the beginning of the year?
The entire timeline of CP2077 on macOS is very confusing and I won’t pretend to have an answer. I only assume that Apple told them some way into porting that Metal 4 was coming so it set them back in order to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazy dave
The entire timeline of CP2077 on macOS is very confusing and I won’t pretend to have an answer. I only assume that Apple told them some way into porting that Metal 4 was coming so it set them back in order to it.
It is weird, because CDPR has been known to use CP2077 as a tech showcase for Nvidia. There is 0 reason why they couldn't release the game now (well earlier this year) and add those things into the game when they become available, much like they have for all the new Nvidia tech that has come out in the past 5 years (lets ignore Reflex 2).
 
Hello everyone, I think the best solution for gaming on macOS is Nvidia GeForce Now.

It is cloud gaming, and runs all major Windows games very well.

Nvidia Geforce Now, works on macOS and Windows.

 
Last edited:
I posted this in the Apple's Upcoming Macs Listed in New Report news thread, but it belongs here.

You can draw your own conclusions. I think Marko's source is off on J704, which seems sure to be M5 MacBook Pro 14" if the patterns hold, which is his whole premise. As you can see, I believe it will be Mac17,2.

As you can see, my prediction for the fifth generation leaves open the possibility that the iMac and the base Mini won't get M5 (the tilde ~ in front means it's not on Marko's list), but if they do, then those are likely to be the Apple identifiers for them. I've also left J833ct off the list, since it could be anything.

Finally, take note -- the lede is buried here -- those Apple silicon "K" identifiers are the first of their kind. That's got to be something big, maybe the rumor about TSMC-SoIC is off by a generation, and it won't happen until M6 Pro/Max in 2026?

First generation

J290 = Pro Display XDR

J273 = A12Z Mac mini
J274 = M1 Mac mini

J293 = M1 MacBook Pro 13"
J313 = M1 MacBook Air

J314s = M1 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
J314c = M1 Max MacBook Pro 14"

J316s = M1 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
J316c = M1 Max MacBook Pro 16"

J456 = M1 iMac (Two ports)
J457 = M1 iMac (Four ports)

J375c = Mac13,1 :: M1 Max Mac Studio
J375d = Mac13,2 :: M1 Ultra Mac Studio

J327 = AppleDisplay2,1 :: Studio Display 27" (A13)

Second generation

J413 = Mac14,2 :: M2 MacBook Air 13"
J415 = Mac14,15 :: M2 MacBook Air 15"

J473 = Mac14,3 :: M2 Mac mini
J474s = Mac14,12 :: M2 Pro Mac mini

J414s = Mac14,5 :: M2 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
J414c = Mac14,9 :: M2 Max MacBook Pro 14"

J416s = Mac14,6 :: M2 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
J416c = Mac14,10 :: M2 Max MacBook Pro 16"

J493 = Mac14,7 :: M2 MacBook Pro 13"

J180d = Mac14,8 :: M2 Ultra Mac Pro

J475c = Mac14,13 :: M2 Max Mac Studio
J475d = Mac14,14 :: M2 Ultra Mac Studio

Third generation

J504 = Mac15,3 :: M3 MacBook Pro 14"

J433 = Mac15,4 :: iMac (Two ports)
J434 = Mac15,5 :: iMac (Four ports)

J514s = Mac15,6 :: M3 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
J514c = Mac15,8 :: M3 Max (14/30) MacBook Pro 14"
J514m = Mac15,10 :: M3 Max (16/40) MacBook Pro 14"

J516s = Mac15,7 :: M3 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
J516c = Mac15,9 :: M3 Max (14/30) MacBook Pro 16"
J516m = Mac15,11 :: M3 Max (16/40) MacBook Pro 16"

J613 = Mac15,12 :: M3 MacBook Air 13"
J615 = Mac15,13 :: M3 MacBook Air 15"

J575d = Mac15,14 :: M3 Ultra 819 (28/60, 32/80) Mac Studio

Fourth generation

J604 = Mac16,1 :: M4 MacBook Pro 14"

J623 = Mac16,2 :: M4 iMac (Two ports)
J624 = Mac16,3 :: M4 iMac (Four ports)

J614s = Mac16,8 :: M4 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
J614c = Mac16,6 :: M4 Max MacBook Pro 14"

J616s = Mac16,7 :: M4 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
J616c = Mac16,5 :: M4 Max MacBook Pro 16"

J575c = Mac16,9 :: M4 Max Mac Studio

J773g = Mac16,10 :: M4 Mac mini
J773s = Mac16,11 :: M4 Pro Mac mini

J713 = Mac16,12 :: M4 MacBook Air 13"
J715 = Mac16,13 :: M4 MacBook Air 15"

~J427 = AppleDisplay3,1 :: Studio Display HDR 27" (A16, 75Hz)

Fifth generation (projected)

J700 = Mac17,1 :: A18 Pro MacBook 12"
J704 = Mac 17,2 :: M5 MacBook Pro 14"

~J723 = Mac17,3 :: M5 iMac 24" (Two ports)
~J724 = Mac17,4 :: M5 iMac 24" (Four ports)

J714s = Mac17,5 :: M5 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
J714c = Mac17,7 :: M5 Max MacBook Pro 14"
J716s = Mac17,6 :: M5 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
J716c = Mac17,8 :: M5 Max MacBook Pro 16"

J775c = Mac17,9 :: M5 Max Mac Studio
J775d = Mac17,10 :: M5 Ultra Mac Studio

J813 = Mac17,11 :: M5 MacBook Air 13"
J815 = Mac17,12 :: M5 MacBook Air 15"

~J873g = Mac17,13 :: M5 Mac mini
J873s = Mac17,14 :: M5 Pro Mac mini

~J527 = AppleDisplay4,1 :: Pro Display XDR 27" (5K 120Hz)
~J532 = AppleDisplay4,2 :: Pro Display XDR 32" (6K 120Hz)

Sixth generation (projected)

J804 = Mac18,1 :: M6 MacBook Pro 14" (SoC)

K114s = Mac18,5 :: M6 Pro MacBook Pro 14" (SoIC)
K114c = Mac18,7 :: M6 Max MacBook Pro 14" (SoIC)
K116s = Mac18,6 :: M6 Pro MacBook Pro 16" (SoIC)
K116c = Mac18,8 :: M6 Max MacBook Pro 16" (SoIC)
 
Last edited:
..
Finally, take note -- the lede is buried here -- those Apple silicon "K" identifiers are the first of their kind. That's got to be something big, maybe the rumor about TSMC-SoIC is off by a generation, and it won't happen until M6 Pro/Max in 2026?
..

If Apple intends to offer 3rd party DataCentre AI services and become a direct competitor to AWS - it seems more likely than not that Apple will continue their accelerated push for creation of latest generation Data Centre AI + compute at scale.

If TSMC-SoIC offers substantially lower latencies and greater performance per watt - and N3 TSMC-SoIC's performance eclipses N2 3D-IC at similar or lower cost -> I guess that Apple will be using TSMC-SoIC on M5 derivative designs to bolster AI services in their data centre.

If Apple are hoping to reduce battery volume further in a future 'wafer thin extremities (iPhone Air) - TSMC-SoIC combined with 'AI' battery charging (where I am guessing the user specifies the number of HOURS they want the device charge to last rather than max % charge) - then they might need TSMC-SoIC to maximise performance per watt (and minimise energy lost in signal transmission within the SoC)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crazy dave
~
It occurs to me that the “K” could simply indicate a chassis redesign. It would be the first Apple-silicon-only chassis to get a redesign (the M4 Mini being a redesign of an older, pre-Apple-silicon chassis)…
That doesn't explain “J” in J804 (M6 14” MBP) which will probably be co-released along with the Pro and Max versions, and likely have the newer redesigned chassis
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazy dave
That doesn't explain “J” in J804 (M6 14” MBP) which will probably be co-released along with the Pro and Max versions, and likely have the newer redesigned chassis
Yep, it's not a perfect theory, but if the M6 is an SoC and doesn't need the same internals as a hypothetical SoIC M6 Pro/Max, I can't really see them doing another design just for M6 MBP 14". So the entry-level MBP might have to wait for the next generation to get the new design. That would be similar to the first two generations of the MBP 14"/16", which were Pro/Max-only, while the entry-level MBP 13" remained in the old chassis.
 
In the alphabet, K comes after J. They've almost used up all Js on M5 gen, being on 800s. Could just be they're moving onto the next letter.
 
This list is not exhaustive but it already shows some examples of J and K prefix interchanging when a form factor or major hardware component change:

MacBook Pro Unibody > Retina: K > D > J
Mac Pro Cheese Grater > Trashcan: K > J
iPad 2nd > 3rd (retina): K > J
Thanks for the link, didn't know iPad has J-identifier until now. Yep, I am pretty sure J700 refers to 13-inch iPad as explained here.

Let me ask you guys, how does Apple explain A18 Pro could run MacOS but M3-M4 iPad couldn't?

In case people want to bring up A12Z running Mac; they don't know A12Z is running 128-bit memory bus unlike A12. Considered it as M0 not A-series SoC. And here is Craig Federighi commented:

“Even that DTK hardware, which is running on an existing iPad chip that we don’t intend to put in a Mac in the future – it’s just there for the transition – the Mac runs awfully nice on that system. It’s not a basis on which to judge future Macs ... but it gives you a sense of what our silicon team can do when they’re not even trying – and they’re going to be trying.”
 
What explanation are you looking for that they haven’t made clear already? iPads run iPadOS and Macs run macOS. They reiterated that more strongly at WWDC this year so why are we still asking nonsense like this?
It really is a silly thing some people won't let go of. They wishcast that Apple would do it, then decide that since Apple isn't doing it, that must mean there's some arcane technical limitation Apple can't figure out.

The truth is that it's absolutely possible, on a technical level, but unlike this faction of iPad users, Apple doesn't want to put full macOS on an iPad. So they don't.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.