OS X Mac vs Windows Performance Benchmark Video

[steve62388]

I like my Macs, and they enable me to be very productive at work. But to try to call them adequate for anything but low-end gaming is fairly silly IMO.

Your definition of low-end gaming must be pretty broad. I can run Elite Dangerous at 1440p, all settings set to max (no AA) at v-sync locked 60fps on a M295X. I would say that's pretty good for a brand new game.

 

[marksatt]

Slightly confused by the last couple of posts.
PTS isn't optimised for anything and the configurations are clear, public and available for you to use yourself. Compiler versions (funny how neither of you mentioned llvm?) are both completely irrelevant and exactly the point in testing like this (I'll let you figure that one out...). Well done for spotting the .1 though, I must have missed the '100's of % generic application performance increase' changelog in 2007

This test is the epitome of 'equal footing' for the entire graphics stack, and cpu/disk throughput. If we're doing the weird justification stuff that some people love to do, just concentrate on the fact it's a benchmark.

Phoronix is a Linux oriented site, they have a vested interested in showing Linux to be superior to 'inferior' closed operating systems like OS X and Windows. Taking their articles at face value without acknowledging this will mislead.

OS X OpenGL is a number of versions behind now, with 4.2 & 4.3 in particular adding a lot of new options for optimising performance. If the Linux version of an OpenGL app uses the newer extensions that OS X lacks then you aren't really comparing the two OpenGL stacks so much as the performance advantage of the newer OpenGL *features*. Were Apple to update their OpenGL you'd expect to see similar performance benefit.

That said, it isn't news that Apple's OpenGL is slower, especially in synthetic benchmarks. Real, shipping games are an entirely different beast because they can & are optimised for the particular extensions sets of each platform. Certainly I've been doing that to Mac UE4, just as I did for the Mac ports I worked on at Feral. This can make a big difference to performance if applicable to the project in hand & can overcome the possible deficiencies a given platform may have. The problem comes when you hit the limit of what a platform supports.

When we compare Mac UE4 to Windows UE4 using OpenGL 3.3 on both platforms we see broadly similar performance. The advantage for Windows is only really apparent when we compare Mac UE4 OpenGL to Windows UE4 using D3D11/Shader Model 5 which has so many more features & opportunities for optimisation than Apple's present version of OpenGL.

If you care only about raw performance, or pitching one platform against another, you aren't Apple's target customer. They have always put user-experience above technical or performance considerations. Hence why they have embraced ever thinner designs & come to rely on comparatively weaker integrated GPUs. They've even managed to build a big customer base following that path which is remarkable given where they were in 1996-7.

All that said I'll always ask Apple for more performance, features & development - and this highlights some areas where there are wins to be had. I doubt any of it is news to Apple though.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

The frustration with the hardware has more to do with the lack of upgradeable options and the lack of a gamer-centric option. As TheBunny said, even if Apple uses a higher-end GPU in a system there's a chance that the clock rate will be underclocked compared to generic parts because Apple desires thin, quiet computers, and a hot graphics chip isn't conducive to that goal. External GPU options would be a nice compromise, but it strikes me as being more complex than Apple would want.

Otherwise, OS X is viewed as a poor gaming platform because of the software side. I don't know much about the graphics driver optimizations, but I do know that most gaming companies aren't targeting OS X for development. I think everyone would agree that performance-wise, a native application will always be preferable to a port. This is only furthered by the fact that not all games are fortunate enough to have Aspyr or Feral handling the ports, and we've seen some truly awful efforts. In those cases, running the game in Bootcamp results in massive performance improvements, even though it's all on the same hardware.

I game on my Mac, using Parallels where I have to (because I don't care to set up Bootcamp). I'm content, but I'm also not trying to play anything very intensive. For me, it's not about benchmarks or raw FPS numbers. I want the game to look good, and I want it to run smoothly. It would be a major disappointment if I had to turn the graphics settings all the way down, knowing that there was no upgrade (aside from buying a new Mac) that would allow me to bump up the settings.

I understand and appreciate other people's feelings on the subject until they state them as objective fact in cases where it's a subjective thing. I get that some things aren't debatable in terms of what is available and what is not for hardware or performance tradeoffs that are made, etc. However, I would disagree with blanket statements such as "OS X is a poor gaming platform."

Many people do enjoy gaming in OS X including myself. I can't be alone when I see Steam, Origin, Blizzard, GOG, MGS, Amazon and of course the Mac App Store all selling games to Mac users. Steam has over 1,500 titles for Mac. If everybody or even a majority of Mac gamers dismissed the platform and only chose other avenues to play games none of the aforementioned options would even exist. There would be no market to support them.

By the way, a port to OS X is a native application most of the time I believe. There's exceptions of course such as Cider but there are not many of those.

 

[Ledgem]

However, I would disagree with blanket statements such as "OS X is a poor gaming platform."

Many people do enjoy gaming in OS X including myself. I can't be alone when I see Steam, Origin, Blizzard, GOG, MGS, Amazon and of course the Mac App Store all selling games to Mac users.

I am the same as you: I enjoy gaming on OS X, and I don't think I've come across a game that I couldn't play (excluding The Witcher, which had a horrible WINE-based port and was very unstable). At the same time, I recognize that I'm being somewhat selective about what games I'm even trying to play.

Macs and OS X can be used for gaming, but anyone who wants to primarily game with their computer is doing themselves a disservice by getting a Mac. Software-wise, nearly all games are released to Windows first, if not exclusively, and hardware-wise most PCs have the upgradeability so that you can keep up with the graphics update cycles to play the latest, most demanding games and get the most out of them. The way I interpret it when people say "OS X is a poor gaming platform" is that it's a relative comparison, rather than an absolute - that OS X can be used for gaming, but at this point in time it's not the optimal solution to go with.

That's fine for older guys like us, who are probably using their Macs for gaming only a minority of the time they're on the computer. I don't think it's satisfactory or a good use of money for someone who wants a machine primarily for gaming, though. After all, a tractor trailer can serve the role of a commuter vehicle, but that doesn't make it a good choice for the purpose; rather, I'd think it a poor choice. Similarly, I'd say that Macs and OS X are a poor choice for someone looking primarily to game, at least at this point in time.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

I am the same as you: I enjoy gaming on OS X, and I don't think I've come across a game that I couldn't play (excluding The Witcher, which had a horrible WINE-based port and was very unstable). At the same time, I recognize that I'm being somewhat selective about what games I'm even trying to play.

Macs and OS X can be used for gaming, but anyone who wants to primarily game with their computer is doing themselves a disservice by getting a Mac. Software-wise, nearly all games are released to Windows first, if not exclusively, and hardware-wise most PCs have the upgradeability so that you can keep up with the graphics update cycles to play the latest, most demanding games and get the most out of them. The way I interpret it when people say "OS X is a poor gaming platform" is that it's a relative comparison, rather than an absolute - that OS X can be used for gaming, but at this point in time it's not the optimal solution to go with.

That's fine for older guys like us, who are probably using their Macs for gaming only a minority of the time they're on the computer. I don't think it's satisfactory or a good use of money for someone who wants a machine primarily for gaming, though. After all, a tractor trailer can serve the role of a commuter vehicle, but that doesn't make it a good choice for the purpose; rather, I'd think it a poor choice. Similarly, I'd say that Macs and OS X are a poor choice for someone looking primarily to game, at least at this point in time.

There I would not differ with you. For a computer gamer who's primary use of a computer at home is gaming, a Windows PC is the obvious choice.

For me owning Apple products that work beautifully together in concert providing a great deal of functionality that extends beyond gaming is important. So too are the broad array of specialized apps available. It is easy for me to put together a suite of apps that perfectly suit my own personal needs on the Mac and I love that. I love the elegant user interface of OS X. I also love the elegant space saving design of the iMac and how it is whisper quiet most of the time.

There were two things that kept me in the PC world for a very long time. First and foremost was my work and secondarily computer gaming was a plus so I bought hardware and built my own systems accordingly. I needed to run Windows and Linux at home so there was nothing to think about. Later when that was no longer true, gaming both in terms of hardware and software was the issue holding me back from switching to Mac for a long time.

By 2012 though things had improved so dramatically on the gaming front that I finally took the plunge and got a mid-2011 iMac while everyone was waiting on a refresh that didn't wind up coming until the end of the year with some orders not being fulfilled until early 2013. Wouldn't you know it, I had to pick a bad year for iMacs where some of the 27" models had serious heat issues. It was a very good thing I went with Applecare since I had reservations about a system I could not easily service myself. The thing wound up running so hot while gaming it literally and I am not making this up, melted the display including the glass cover. I am lucky it did not spontaneously combust. The GPU failed of course with this abuse as well. Finally the hard drive started to go. After three in home service visits replacing displays and various other components that also included the DVD drive and one other thing I am forgetting now I suggested that it was time to replace this lemon.

I was very pleased that Apple immediately agreed with my assessment that the situation was hopeless and shipped me a brand new late-2013 27" iMac complete with an external Superdrive so I would have no loss of functionality and a GPU upgrade for free as well. Downtime was about one day as they shipped overnight immediately once they had confirmation of pickup of the old system here which they send a prepaid overnight label for as well. The whole process was painless and cost me nothing. The best part is they refunded the balance on my outstanding Applecare time and offered me several alternative warranty options for the replacement system. I took the option of a free year standard warranty with option to add Applecare at any time during that year. I am approaching the time I need to buy Applecare again now and I will although this time around has been completely trouble free. I want to know for another two years that I am golden if any issues arise.

I got into all of that because that kind of warranty service and support has real value to me. I do not want to diagnose and fix computers anymore just as I don't want to climb around under my car fixing it anymore either. Those days are over. I had my fun and then some.

So for me an Apple computer means a whole lot more than simply gaming. I consider the software such as Time Machine and other included apps to be a significant value as well. Time Machine made the transition from my old iMac to the new one completely painless. I could not believe how well it actually worked. I was up and running with exactly the same environment I had on the previous system in a matter of hours. It was a beautiful thing.

I think my point of view is often lost in these sorts of discussions where the focus is squarely on one facet of Mac use. Some folks don't want to hear it but an appropriate choice of Mac with a decent mobile GPU does play many games well enough for a lot of us and the options of Parallels or Bootcamp are there to access Windows games as well if desired. There's no problem getting solid midrange performance with appropriate hardware choices.

All that said, once again I truly do understand and agree that if the focus is purely gaming, midrange performance in the PC world can be had for far less money or for the same money high performance can be had particularly when you build yourself. I want a lot more out of a computer than this though and for me Apple delivers the goods like nobody else. That to me is worth paying a premium for despite being constrained to midrange gaming performance. It's not like I ever spent on the PC side for better performance than that anyway. I didn't think the difference was great enough to justify it.

I hope gaming performance gets even better but I will never expect nor need my Mac to be on par with a Windows gaming rig. I think anyone wishing for this is just banging their head on the wall. Apple doesn't make gaming rigs.

 

[Renzatic]

The way I see it, a good computer does everything I need it to do without any hiccups, and damn the benchmarks.

This is especially true for GPUs. I don't care that a graphics card that costs $600 more can run the same games at 180 FPS, while I'm just getting a "piddly" 70 on the same settings with my little $250 GPU. There is no discernible difference for framerate increases above 60 FPS, so the only thing those big numbers do are show that you're slightly future proofed. But even then, by the time that super expensive ninja GPU starts showing its age, you could upgrade to another GPU for about $250 that can match it. I might not be able to brag about it on the internet, but my experience is roughly the same as those who spend beaucoup bucks on their gaming machines.

This is why Macs can be good for games (though not necessarily a good buy solely for games). No, they'll never match a Windows PC on pure performance, but as long as all the latest and greatest games run smoothly, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

The way I see it, a good computer does everything I need it to do without any hiccups, and damn the benchmarks.

This is especially true for GPUs. I don't care that a graphics card that costs $600 more can run the same games at 180 FPS, while I'm just getting a "piddly" 70 on the same settings with my little $250 GPU. There is no discernible difference for framerate increases above 60 FPS, so the only thing those big numbers do are show that you're slightly future proofed. But even then, by the time that super expensive ninja GPU starts showing its age, you could upgrade to another GPU for about $250 that can match it. I might not be able to brag about it on the internet, but my experience is roughly the same as those who spend beaucoup bucks on their gaming machines.

This is why Macs can be good for games (though not necessarily a good buy solely for games). No, they'll never match a Windows PC on pure performance, but as long as all the latest and greatest games run smoothly, it doesn't really matter.

Amen.

 

[AndreGB]

The way I see it, a good computer does everything I need it to do without any hiccups, and damn the benchmarks.

This is especially true for GPUs. I don't care that a graphics card that costs $600 more can run the same games at 180 FPS, while I'm just getting a "piddly" 70 on the same settings with my little $250 GPU. There is no discernible difference for framerate increases above 60 FPS, so the only thing those big numbers do are show that you're slightly future proofed. But even then, by the time that super expensive ninja GPU starts showing its age, you could upgrade to another GPU for about $250 that can match it. I might not be able to brag about it on the internet, but my experience is roughly the same as those who spend beaucoup bucks on their gaming machines.

This is why Macs can be good for games (though not necessarily a good buy solely for games). No, they'll never match a Windows PC on pure performance, but as long as all the latest and greatest games run smoothly, it doesn't really matter.

Exactly!

 

[VoR]

This is especially true for GPUs. I don't care that a graphics card that costs $600 more can run the same games at 180 FPS, while I'm just getting a "piddly" 70 on the same settings with my little $250 GPU. There is no discernible difference for framerate increases above 60 FPS, so the only thing those big numbers do are show that you're slightly future proofed.

Assuming it's as excellent as it looks/sounds and not a bust like it's been in the past, we'll need a bit more come November when VR starts shipping - We'll probably need the 2 1080p screens at 100hz.

The general consensus of the last block of posts seems to be that things are good enough. This may be true, but it's a real shame that Apple hardware gets such a boost when you switch OS (and not just to Windows/DirectX), I don't think we should be content.

 

[Huntn]

The way I see it, a good computer does everything I need it to do without any hiccups, and damn the benchmarks.

This is especially true for GPUs. I don't care that a graphics card that costs $600 more can run the same games at 180 FPS, while I'm just getting a "piddly" 70 on the same settings with my little $250 GPU. There is no discernible difference for framerate increases above 60 FPS, so the only thing those big numbers do are show that you're slightly future proofed. But even then, by the time that super expensive ninja GPU starts showing its age, you could upgrade to another GPU for about $250 that can match it. I might not be able to brag about it on the internet, but my experience is roughly the same as those who spend beaucoup bucks on their gaming machines.

This is why Macs can be good for games (though not necessarily a good buy solely for games). No, they'll never match a Windows PC on pure performance, but as long as all the latest and greatest games run smoothly, it doesn't really matter.

I'm a dedicated Mac person. However, my 2011 MBP plays most games surprisingly well using Windows 7. If I want the best performance for games I choose Windows especially if it's a demanding game. Years ago I had both a $2000 Mac G5 tower and a $600 tower PC, both with the same graphic card. Playing Unreal Tournament, I used to get about 40fps on the Mac (OS X) and 80 on the PC.Today my impression is about the same, however my MBP gets about 50-60fps playing World of Tanks (Windows7) and my 1 year old i5 PC gets about 140fps. I can only assume if the game was available for OSX, my best performance would be on Windows. For the MBP, I consider 60fps to be very respectible for a 4 year old laptop. The big kicker here is that for gaming you can get great performance out of a $1200 box versus paying $1800-2600 for either an iMac or the top of the line MBP. I'm retired now and don't travel as much, so when my MBP dies, I'll have to decide whether to get another MBP or forgo serious gaming while traveling, and revert to a MBA.