OS X New Mac Pro undermines the Mac gaming upsurge?

[rampancy]

But I think many of you are missing my point. Apple will no longer sell a computer that has a powerful gaming card as standard equipment. I don't think most card manufacturers will bother to make a card for people who want to use a Thunderbolt enclosure. That market is just too small.

First, ever since Apple saw fit to putting stuff like Xeon processors and FB-DIMMs inside the Mac Pro, it was patently obvious that Apple saw the Mac Pro not as a machine for enthusiasts and power users the way the old Power Macs were, but as workstations for their "pro" customers. Apple has never seriously marketed their pro desktop line as gaming machines. Whenever it's tried, they either served as fancy benchmarking tools, or as incidental marketing.

Why should Apple cater to the vanishingly small minority who demand that the Mac Pro should compete with gaming rigs from Alienware/Falcon Northwest/etc., or chase after the PC gaming market? Most people in the PC gaming are wedded to Windows and wouldn't switch to a Mac for the world. So who would it benefit? I don't see pro users chasing after the latest and greatest gaming hardware. The notion that Apple needs to cater to the fickle and capricious whims of gamers in order to succeed is a meme which really needs to die out.

I'm not surprised the Steam stats show a heavy emphasis on the Macbooks and their mobile graphics cards; we all know that's the lion's share of Mac sales and I don't debate that. I'd guess that most of them aren't playing very demanding 3D games, either.

...I think not having top-tier graphics cards available will be a slow-acting poison to Mac gaming. I don't know if not having machines that can run their graphics-intensive games at the highest settings will be a deterrent for game companies looking to port to OS X, but it certainly won't help Mac gamers.

Suffice to say, there's more to Mac gaming than "graphics-intensive games". A lot more. And lack of readily available powerful graphics hardware hasn’t stopped companies from porting AAA titles before; we got tons of ports back in the 2000s, and that was when Mac gaming was hamstrung by the conversion of x86 to PPC code, not to mention the lacklustre scaling of the G4 and G5.

And it's pretty patronizing to disparage gaming on a MacBook (unless you want to start wading into the elitism surrounding who is/isn't a "true gamer"). The Retina MacBook Pros have pretty good graphics, last I checked.

 

[phrehdd]

Just a short toss of peanuts from the gallery here -

There was discussion that the video is either in the machine in daughterboard fashion or that daughterboards may be added. I hope it is the former.

Apple seems to want to tell us how we want to enjoy life and fit into their marketing plan. This is woeful to me and others.

There really was no reason that OSX could not have supported HD audio streams in media files natively but they CHOSE not to do so (akin to any files in VC-1 format or MKV not being able to be played on a PS3 because Sony elective to not support them intentionally). With the Mac Pro, there are several potential markets to be tapped but most likely Apple wants "gamers" to play on iMacs, laptops and the like. This is very sad. The Mac Pro is that "above the rest" opportunity for those who want more out of their machines whether they be professionals, prosumers, gamers and more.

As for people not going out and spending 2-3 grand for a machine, think again as many people want a "Swiss Army Knife" computer that can handle anything they throw at it from development, programming, gaming, video and image editing along with audio work and then some. While Gamers are a group unto themselves, lets not forget that on the PC side of things, they drove the industry for the better video, faster CPU and more. Apple needs to figure how to tap into that market and more.

The new Mac Pro to me is a machine turned inside out where all the connectivity is on the outside for any device and communications. It is a doable item and while I don't find it to be anything more than a Mac Mini Pro, many will find it a very useful machine for a couple of years before they end up buying an entirely new system because Apple insists on making hardware that becomes dated within 2-3 years. I'll possibly get this Mac Pro for work and leisure purposes but also go back and start looking at building another Linux box that too will serve my purposes as Apple goes on its merry way dictating to us what we want.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

I am very happy to see Apple introduce the amazing new Mac Pro to address the needs of the professional and business users who have been wanting this for a long time now.

I don't think the Mac Pro has ever had any significance to Mac gaming and I don't think it does now. Is there a small set of users who have and do game on them? Sure. Is that group minuscule and insignificant to Mac gaming as a whole? Yes, I am sorry but versus the entire Mac installed base and all those Mac users playing games, it is. Therefore, it is no wonder gaming capability was not an important consideration when designing the new Mac Pro.

I know that hurts if you are among those who'd blow that kind of money for the ultimate Mac gaming system but that's just the way it is. I think what you guys really want is a high end gaming PC running OS X with bootcamp/Windows available. Apple does not make those.

Fortunately, they do put decent GPUs for most mere mortals in their systems and you have good options to choose from depending on your needs. But if your needs are for a high end gaming PC running Windows, you need to build or buy one of those.

 

[Solomani]

Why should Apple cater to the vanishingly small minority who demand that the Mac Pro should compete with gaming rigs from Alienware/Falcon Northwest/etc., or chase after the PC gaming market? Most people in the PC gaming are wedded to Windows and wouldn't switch to a Mac for the world. So who would it benefit? I don't see pro users chasing after the latest and greatest gaming hardware. The notion that Apple needs to cater to the fickle and capricious whims of gamers in order to succeed is a meme which really needs to die out.

Not to mention.... that hardcore PC gamers are some of the most rabid Apple-haters on the planet. Their irrational disdain and loathing for anything having to do with Apple is legendary.

Apple trying to court the "serious gamer" market is kinda like the ultra-conservative Republicans trying to court the LGBT vote... and thinking they have a chance of succeeding.

 

[ElderBrE]

I'm not saying that the throughput for TB is the same as PCIe. But to say that TB can't be used for gaming GPUs is an assertion without evidence, because of course it can be, just with an accompanying performance hit.

Without evidence?

There is plenty of evidence and tests done, browse sometime Tom's Hardware or Anandtech...

Performance hit in current gen GPUs is as high as 60%, and this issue isn't for today, but two or three years down the line when you want to update graphics and the performance hit will be even greater.

Of course it could be "done" (if Apple decides to give drivers to let that happen, which they haven't so far, it's only doable in Windows), but what's the point of buying a Nvidia Titan if you're going to get GT 630M performance?

----------

Not to mention.... that hardcore PC gamers are some of the most rabid Apple-haters on the planet. Their irrational disdain and loathing for anything having to do with Apple is legendary.

Apple trying to court the "serious gamer" market is kinda like the ultra-conservative Republicans trying to court the LGBT vote... and thinking they have a chance of succeeding.

I'm a hardcore gamer and rabid Apple-lover... I just won't use a fork to have a soup. Each tool is meant for a task.

----------

I am very happy to see Apple introduce the amazing new Mac Pro to address the needs of the professional and business users who have been wanting this for a long time now.

I don't think the Mac Pro has ever had any significance to Mac gaming and I don't think it does now. Is there a small set of users who have and do game on them? Sure. Is that group minuscule and insignificant to Mac gaming as a whole? Yes, I am sorry but versus the entire Mac installed base and all those Mac users playing games, it is. Therefore, it is no wonder gaming capability was not an important consideration when designing the new Mac Pro.

I know that hurts if you are among those who'd blow that kind of money for the ultimate Mac gaming system but that's just the way it is. I think what you guys really want is a high end gaming PC running OS X with bootcamp/Windows available. Apple does not make those.

Fortunately, they do put decent GPUs for most mere mortals in their systems and you have good options to choose from depending on your needs. But if your needs are for a high end gaming PC running Windows, you need to build or buy one of those.

You hit the nail, or at least, I completely agree. I have a Mac Pro and can game with it, but it wasn't why I bought it, it was just an extra.

same with the new MP, if I buy one, which I probably will, it won't be for gaming. Gaming could be an extra on that computer, but it's a workstation.

 

[thekev]

I'm not saying that the throughput for TB is the same as PCIe. But to say that TB can't be used for gaming GPUs is an assertion without evidence, because of course it can be, just with an accompanying performance hit.

Tests are all over the place, but in general they're not a great solution. PCI cards typically don't expect you to unplug them during use. That's one of the reasons for the lack of certified solutions. It also costs quite a bit. As for the mac pro, it wasn't a very good value as a gaming machine. I suspect that most of the people who used one owned their mac pro primarily for other reasons.

 

[edddeduck]

1. iMac 27" resolution is too high for long-term gaming. GPU struggles after 3 years with current modern games, in that resolution. Reducing the resolution is not visually acceptable.

You should say not acceptable "to me" the majority of Mac gamers don't have to play on native resolution. However your point is a good one Apple should really include more VRAM by default on their graphics cards. The 15" rMPB should really have a 2GB card not a 1GB card.

I agree, I've always used my Pro as primarily a work machine, but also for games (have a 5770 in there right now). But I used to do the same thing for the Windows boxes I built.

Things are not that bad, for example the AMD 5770 you mention is out performed by most of the the current and previous generation iMac models, plus a few of the previous generation to that

I'm not surprised the Steam stats show a heavy emphasis on the Macbooks and their mobile graphics cards; we all know that's the lion's share of Mac sales and I don't debate that. I'd guess that most of them aren't playing very demanding 3D games, either.

You would be surprised, games like Empire, BioShock 2, XCOM are all amazingly popular on MacBookAir's !

On the other hand our stats on MacPro's points to about ~1% of gamers using the MacPro to play Feral titles.

But I think many of you are missing my point. Apple will no longer sell a computer that has a powerful gaming card as standard equipment.

The MacPro has not shipped with the most powerful (Mac) GPU for many years now. The latest iMac with the Nvidia 680 runs rings around most MacPro cards. The best gaming card is the aforementioned NV 680 which even on the PC was seen as a card bought by gamers.

Yes it's not upgradeable but it is a gaming card. Even the standard 675 model is great for gaming. The 660 in the lower end model also gives good performance in all modern games.

I don't think most card manufacturers will bother to make a card for people who want to use a Thunderbolt enclosure. That market is just too small.

To be honest the market was already too small for custom Mac cards, in fact the best selling cards for the Pro were ones designed for CAD etc like the Quadro (or the Fire). That said many PC cards work in the MacPro and they will also likely work in the thunderbolt enclosures just as well so I don't think too much has changed.

I think not having top-tier graphics cards available will be a slow-acting poison to Mac gaming.

Speaking as a games developer I don't think so, most of the serious Mac gamers usually have the 27" iMac with the BTO gamers card installed not a Pro in my experience. These BTO cards have been more powerful than any MacPro card you could buy for quite a while now.

I don't know if not having machines that can run their graphics-intensive games at the highest settings will be a deterrent for game companies looking to port to OS X, but it certainly won't help Mac gamers.

It's not a deterrent at all as that problem does not exist , the iMac has already been able to run higher settings than the Pro for a while now and the Pro has such a small user base I don't think it will have a huge impact.

As for not being able to run max settings there are many Mac's that can. XCOM runs at native Retina resolution on the rMBP 15" with all the settings turned up with only a slightest of lag when you get a huge explosion etc. And the rMBP only has the 650 not the 680 graphics card.

Not having an option to install a custom card inside the Pro does mean slightly less flexibility but I don't think it will have any impact on Mac gaming. The new Pro will help Mac Gaming in another way though. With the huge performance boosts the Pro will deliver it will really help speed up compilation of the larger games which will help reduce port times

Edwin

 

[antonis]

You should say not acceptable "to me" the majority of Mac gamers don't have to play on native resolution. However your point is a good one Apple should really include more VRAM by default on their graphics cards. The 15" rMPB should really have a 2GB card not a 1GB card.



Things are not that bad, for example the AMD 5770 you mention is out performed by most of the the current and previous generation iMac models, plus a few of the previous generation to that



You would be surprised, games like Empire, BioShock 2, XCOM are all amazingly popular on MacBookAir's !

On the other hand our stats on MacPro's points to about ~1% of gamers using the MacPro to play Feral titles.



The MacPro has not shipped with the most powerful (Mac) GPU for many years now. The latest iMac with the Nvidia 680 runs rings around most MacPro cards. The best gaming card is the aforementioned NV 680 which even on the PC was seen as a card bought by gamers.

Yes it's not upgradeable but it is a gaming card. Even the standard 675 model is great for gaming. The 660 in the lower end model also gives good performance in all modern games.



To be honest the market was already too small for custom Mac cards, in fact the best selling cards for the Pro were ones designed for CAD etc like the Quadro (or the Fire). That said many PC cards work in the MacPro and they will also likely work in the thunderbolt enclosures just as well so I don't think too much has changed.



Speaking as a games developer I don't think so, most of the serious Mac gamers usually have the 27" iMac with the BTO gamers card installed not a Pro in my experience. These BTO cards have been more powerful than any MacPro card you could buy for quite a while now.



It's not a deterrent at all as that problem does not exist , the iMac has already been able to run higher settings than the Pro for a while now and the Pro has such a small user base I don't think it will have a huge impact.

As for not being able to run max settings there are many Mac's that can. XCOM runs at native Retina resolution on the rMBP 15" with all the settings turned up with only a slightest of lag when you get a huge explosion etc. And the rMBP only has the 650 not the 680 graphics card.

Not having an option to install a custom card inside the Pro does mean slightly less flexibility but I don't think it will have any impact on Mac gaming. The new Pro will help Mac Gaming in another way though. With the huge performance boosts the Pro will deliver it will really help speed up compilation of the larger games which will help reduce port times

Edwin

Truth is that reducing the native resolution on an LCD screen degrades the visuals in a non-subjective manner (blurring & pixelization even if the main aspect ration is maintained). At least in many cases, if not all (e.g. there is no resolution in Diablo 3 other than the native, that looks even slightly ok in iMac 27") . So, I'd say that Mac users "can't play" in native resolutions, rather than "they don't have to", at least when we're talking about 27" iMacs.

As for the serious Mac gamers, it is totally true that the vast majority is using iMacs rather than Mac Pros. But that's just normal as the iMac is the only Mac that is somewhere near the term "desktop computer".

Still, don't forget that GPUs in the iMac are mobile class while PCs (and Mac Pro) are using the desktop class versions, and there is a huge difference between those two. So the mobile version of the nv 680 is nowhere near the desktop chip with the same name.

 

[Huntn]

Lately I have spent so much time booted into Windows (Bootcamp) to play World of Tanks, I'm starting to wonder if my next Mac should be a MacBook while purchasing dedicated PC gaming box for my gaming needs...

Even so, my current MBP represents 1 portable computer that can handle both my Mac needs and PC gaming needs and ultimately costs less than if I was to purchase both a MacBook and a gaming PC. Yeah, I'll probably get another MBP. So far the 1GB VRAM I have seems up to the challenge of what I'm playing.

 

[whooleytoo]

I wonder if Apple hiring the AMD engineers for the Orlando GPU team takes on any greater significance after the Mac-Pro announcement. Some speculated the team is for SoC development, but perhaps it's for in-house mobile/desktop GPUs. Given that there's no future market for Mac PCI cards, and that Apple is now very much focused on integrated system engineering and power draws, doing GPU development in-house might start to make sense.

 

[edddeduck]

Truth is that reducing the native resolution on an LCD screen degrades the visuals in a non-subjective manner (blurring & pixelization even if the main aspect ration is maintained).

It's noticeable without doubt but based on the settings I have seen on 27" machines it is definitely subjective if you think it's unplayable or not at anything but native resolution.

At least in many cases, if not all (e.g. there is no resolution in Diablo 3 other than the native, that looks even slightly ok in iMac 27") . So, I'd say that Mac users "can't play" in native resolutions, rather than "they don't have to", at least when we're talking about 27" iMacs.

It depends a resolution of exactly half the native resolution should look OK if available. It also depends on the game and how close you look at the screen. After all 1080p looks horrible on most TV's if you sit as close as you do to an iMac screen.

As for the serious Mac gamers, it is totally true that the vast majority is using iMacs rather than Mac Pros. But that's just normal as the iMac is the only Mac that is somewhere near the term "desktop computer".

Still, don't forget that GPUs in the iMac are mobile class while PCs (and Mac Pro) are using the desktop class versions, and there is a huge difference between those two. So the mobile version of the nv 680 is nowhere near the desktop chip with the same name.

I know that but the GTX680MX beats most "gaming cards" and is essentially a clocked down desktop GTX 680. It's performance figures put it firmly in the PC gaming category. It's not upgradeable etc etc but the latest range of iMac's have the most competitive Mac vs PC graphics since G4 Dual CPU machines and the ATI Radeon 9700 which was demoed on the Mac before the PC.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1475551/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1474578/

I am not saying things could not be better but when you look at the last decade of gaming on the mac the hardware we have now is pretty decent and Apple have decent gaming BTO graphics options if a little pricy at times.

 

[cluthz]

The 680MX is decent, don't get me wrong. But it is performing somewhere between GTX660TI and GTX660. I'm using a GTX660 (Asus DCII OC) and there are quite a few games that can't run 1920x1080 at 60 FPS without turning down graphics a bit. This is in windows.
So the top end iMac today measures up to a $200 PC equivalent card.

Mac Pros with 5870 was quite a bit more competitive than the 680MX, same goes for the GTX285 (although this was a 3rd party option, but sold by apple nonetheless) and now the GTX680 and Radeon 7950 for Mac Pros.

 

[Bradamante]

Correct, the new Mac Pro with its Pro video card is not made for gaming.

But we're not really losing anything here. The Mac Pro owners of the past were not really the "power Mac gamers" in the eyes of publishers making decisions. In fact, people with Hackintoshes should be a bigger target audience right now than traditional Mac Pro owners.

The Mac gaming target audience that you can sell games to are iMac owners and people with mobile Macs with Core iX CPUs (because of integrated Intel HD graphics).

The new Mac Pro is not a gaming device for reason of price alone. Apple will charge 4000€ for that thing, that's the price for two Xeon E5s and two ATI FireGLs.

Now that there will no longer be a Mac which accepts standard PCIe graphics cards (albeit "Made for OS X" versions), will we see ports of graphically-demanding PC games diminish in quantity? The FirePros in the new Mac Pro, AFAIK, are not really geared for games, and the remaining Macs have integrated graphics which can't really keep up with the demands of high-end PC gaming engines.

Unless Apple surprises us with the mythical midsize-tower Mac, why would PC gaming companies bother or even be able to port their graphics-intensive titles to OS X?

 

[edddeduck]

Correct, the new Mac Pro with its Pro video card is not made for gaming.

But we're not really losing anything here. The Mac Pro owners of the past were not really the "power Mac gamers" in the eyes of publishers making decisions. In fact, people with Hackintoshes should be a bigger target audience right now than traditional Mac Pro owners.

Hackintoshes are a very low % around the same as the MacPro in terms of install base on Feral games last time I looked. As the hardware is always unknown and the kernel is modified I doubt any software company will officially support Hackintosh machines as it is impossible to properly test all combinations especially if you make 3D games!

For that reason Feral don't support Hackintoshes, in most cases it will work fine (and we dot block anyone from playing on them) but if you have a Hackintosh specific bug then it's unlikely to be fixed unless it also effects genuine Macs as well.

Edwin

 

[whooleytoo]

I don't think the Mac Pro is a huge factor in Mac gaming (though there did seem to be an upsurge in the gaming GPU cards becoming available), but there were hopes the new Mac Pro might be.

It's not that you need a pro workstation for gaming; but lots of people want a Mac with replaceable GPU. Firstly, so they can select whatever GPU they want and not what Apple chooses to bundle in. ("You want the low-end model with the high-end GPU? Sorry, you need to get the high-end with the high-end CPU, storage, RAM.... and the price premium"). Secondly, so they can upgrade the components as they become obsolete, rather than having to replace the entire computer. And finally, you can easily replace faulty components without having to send the machine back - having had faulty gaming cards in the past, this would be important to me.

So, instead of a tower/MacPro that's better suited to gaming, the new one is arguably even less suited. I'm sure it offers screaming gaming performance, but some of us just wanted a cheap-ish Mac with upgradable GPU.

 

[edddeduck]

some of us just wanted a cheap-ish Mac with upgradable GPU.

Would be nice but I think the market is just too niche for Apple to want to deal with the work to make and support a new Mac model.

 

[whooleytoo]

Would be nice but I think the market is just too niche for Apple to want to deal with the work to make and support a new Mac model.

True, but isn't that kind-of circular logic?

Apple doesn't focus on gaming because the market is too small. The market is small, because Apple doesn't focus on gaming.

It's pretty clear from the iOS market that the interest in gaming (in its widest sense) is huge. There's no reason why Mac users should be inherently any less interested in gaming than PC users - it's just the PC offers better choices right now. Just because that's the way things are now/have been, doesn't mean that's how it always must be.

It seems to me Apple is very lukewarm in its views towards gaming, and is using the results of that indifference to justify continuing it. Hopefully, there are a few signs of Apple becoming more open to the gaming market (at least on iOS, hopefully on OSX too going forward).

 

[edddeduck]

True, but isn't that kind-of circular logic?

Apple doesn't focus on gaming because the market is too small. The market is small, because Apple doesn't focus on gaming.

It's pretty clear from the iOS market that the interest in gaming (in its widest sense) is huge. There's no reason why Mac users should be inherently any less interested in gaming than PC users - it's just the PC offers better choices right now. Just because that's the way things are now/have been, doesn't mean that's how it always must be.

It seems to me Apple is very lukewarm in its views towards gaming, and is using the results of that indifference to justify continuing it. Hopefully, there are a few signs of Apple becoming more open to the gaming market (at least on iOS, hopefully on OSX too going forward).

I think we are talking about two different things:

1. Mac users who would like to game.
2. Low cost tower that you can install custom graphics cards.

Apple are paying more and more attention to 1 but even among Mac gamers the number of gamers who want 2 is quite small.

Apple have recently started offering more BTO gaming graphics cards in their hardware, they have added Game Centre support to the OS, they have jumped from early OpenGL 3.x to full OpenGL 4.1 support and they have recently released an API for people to use when designing hardware bluetooth gamepads.

Sure they could do more but even on the PC a high quality gaming PC is a niche market as it is not profitable as a mass market device, as Mac's are already a small market compared to the PC making a niche device for a market that is already fairly niche is not something that will make a major difference.

Things that do make a difference are:

Offering more gaming quality graphics cards (they are doing that),
Making OpenGL faster and supporting more features for newer games (they are doing that)
Starting to provide platform wide social gaming features (they are doing that)
Providing a market place so companies can easily sell to their customers. (they are doing that)
Promote games through their marketing activities on their market places. (they are doing that)
Encourage more games and companies on the Mac (they did that i.e. Valve, EA etc)

Gaming on the Mac is growing a decent pace right now and Apple have had a lot to do with it. However I don't think they need to make a low cost tower to show they are becoming more serious about games.

They can (and I am sure will) do more but I think to many people miss the things Apple are doing. If you look back even 5 years you can see a massive change in how Apple look at games and things needed to support gaming.

Edwin

 

[JustinGN]

The problem with the new Mac Pro is not the performance when it is just released. But that 2 years down the road it may not be upgradable. You can certainly game on a FirePro. The gaming performance is typically equivalent to a bit less than the consumer version. You don't see workstation cards being tested for gaming because it just doesn't make sense from a cost perspective.

Toms Hardware did a preliminary benchmark of the new FirePro cards against their consumer variants. Drivers aside, performance of the Fire Pros surpassed the consumer 78xx cards be a few percentage points, with the main difference between the two being the insanely high memory clocks. It's not like the old days where workstation cards were entirely different beasts than gaming cards; now that they all use processing units across the board, its the on-card memory/memory clocks and driver support that make the difference.

Personally, after doing my research, I'm actually considering a Mac Pro to replace my old Core 2 Quad gaming rig. It has a sleek design, plenty of I/O, and the GPUs/CPUs inside are absolutely insane. My only concern is the registered memory, but it doesn't seem to be quite the performance hit it used to be. Plus, those two monster GPUs will help a lot with the (rumored) 4K Cinema Display upon its release. When I'm not gaming, I can revert to using it as a VMWare/HyperV test bed under BootCamp, hopefully, which will help with work.

Don't write off the Mac Pro just yet. It's NOT a gaming computer in the traditional sense, but I'm eager to see its performance once the usual rags get ahold of it.

A note on price: because Apple is clearly buying the cards/GPUs en masse from AMD and building them out themselves, don't expect the same $5k/per card price tag that you see on NewEgg. A large part of that is OEMs buying them, clocking them, building the card in various configurations, then retailing them for another profit margin beyond AMD's. Apple doesn't have to do that, since their value will be in the kit itself, not per component. Same reasoning for the Intel CPUs. If Apple doesn't debut the new Mac Pro at $2500, I'll be surprised.

 

[Radiating]

Now that there will no longer be a Mac which accepts standard PCIe graphics cards (albeit "Made for OS X" versions), will we see ports of graphically-demanding PC games diminish in quantity? The FirePros in the new Mac Pro, AFAIK, are not really geared for games, and the remaining Macs have integrated graphics which can't really keep up with the demands of high-end PC gaming engines.

Unless Apple surprises us with the mythical midsize-tower Mac, why would PC gaming companies bother or even be able to port their graphics-intensive titles to OS X?

You have it backwards. First off macs are great for gaming. The 21.5" imac, and 15" MacBook Pro both have video cards that score 1900 on passmark slightly overclocked. Those can play most games on high settings and are considered high end video cards (only half as fast as the fastest non-exotic desktop video cards). You can easily play Crysis 3 and any other game on them on high.

The 27 iMac is a beast and can score 5000 on passmark with a light overclock. That beats out every stock graphics card under $1000. You can play Crysis 3 literally on max settings with everything maxed out at 1080p. Same for Bioshock Infinite except you can do 1440p.

On top of that all macs can run thunderbolt now which means an external gpu is available. For example using a thunderbolt to PCI express adapter like the upcoming TH06 or the old $140 TH05, you can put any desktop video card into a laptop. I set up a MacBook Pro 15" with a GeForce Titan, which is the fastest single core video card they make using a thunderbolt pcie enclosure and a visiontek 450w power supply, which runs $50. The card was $1000, the passmark score was 9000.

This is a card that will play any game, at any setting at any resolution, period. Now I did run into a lot of problems, namely software, and it was a huge pain to get working, but those will be fixed in the near future and once everything is setup it runs great.

The Mac Pro is a huge step forward in gaming on mac hardware too. When people say that games are not optimized for firepro cards. They do not mean that games barley work on fire pro cards. Fire pro graphics are literally identical chips to the gaming cards, that have slightly different software. Namely they tend to be run for stability as opposed to performance. This usually results in running them at settings that are 10% slower. So not optimized doesn't mean a 99.9% reduction in performance it means a 10% reduction in performance. And you can bet that the MacPro will use the best FirePros, two of them which means that it will have a passmark score of well over 10,000.

You'll notice that this "not optimized" card setup is faster than the fastest video card in the world. So yeah I think the Mac Pro is pretty good for gaming, being that it will play any game on any setting at any resolution, and it will be the only computer you can buy from a major manufacturer with that speed, the next nearest competitor will be half as fast.

Thunderbolt on the MacPro will only make eGPU's more accessible and less of a PITA to use, which means eGPU's for everyone.

So really your entire conclusion is the exact opposite of what is going on. Macs are literally some of the best gaming computers that you can buy, and the new Mac Pro is the ultimate heavy hitter when it comes to gaming delivering completely mind blowing eye popping performance.

 

[Acronyc]

Deleted; replied to wrong thread.

 

[edddeduck]

Thunderbolt on the MacPro will only make eGPU's more accessible and less of a PITA to use, which means eGPU's for everyone.

So really your entire conclusion is the exact opposite of what is going on. Macs are literally some of the best gaming computers that you can buy, and the new Mac Pro is the ultimate heavy hitter when it comes to gaming delivering completely mind blowing eye popping performance.

I little strong but exactly what I have been saying the curve I believe is heading in a positive not negative direction.

Edwin

 

[whooleytoo]

I think we are talking about two different things:

1. Mac users who would like to game.
2. Low cost tower that you can install custom graphics cards.

Apple are paying more and more attention to 1 but even among Mac gamers the number of gamers who want 2 is quite small.

Just wondering - how do you know 2? The only existing Mac with upgradable graphics cards is a big, quite expensive tower with a dated design and - until recently - little support or push from Apple for gaming. I don't know if we necessarily can infer that since gamers didn't flock to the low-end Mac Pro for gaming, they wouldn't buy a smaller, lower-cost, new design Mac tower either.

Things that do make a difference are:

Offering more gaming quality graphics cards (they are doing that),
Making OpenGL faster and supporting more features for newer games (they are doing that)
Starting to provide platform wide social gaming features (they are doing that)
Providing a market place so companies can easily sell to their customers. (they are doing that)
Promote games through their marketing activities on their market places. (they are doing that)
Encourage more games and companies on the Mac (they did that i.e. Valve, EA etc)

Gaming on the Mac is growing a decent pace right now and Apple have had a lot to do with it. However I don't think they need to make a low cost tower to show they are becoming more serious about games.

They can (and I am sure will) do more but I think to many people miss the things Apple are doing. If you look back even 5 years you can see a massive change in how Apple look at games and things needed to support gaming.

Edwin

The first point is a bit moot, given they're killing the graphics card market. But yeah, I am encouraged at the recent moves. OpenGL 4 support might have been expected, but the controller API was exactly the kind of thing I wouldn't have expected from them. Plus, the Mac App Store & Steam are fantastic for the platform. I remember being over the moon finding out that Lemmings and Prince of Persia were being ported to the Mac, nowadays you can find dozens/hundreds of games on those stores for a fraction of the price.

But as much as I love the Mac and love gaming, the integrated designs just annoy me: "you want the high-end graphics card? You'll have to get the top-end model with the high-end CPU, and lots of storage, and 27" screen. And if that GPU gets dated, you need to buy a new machine. And if the GPU fails - not surprising, with heat issues - you can't just slot in a replacement" etc.. I doubt that I'm alone there either.

 

[edddeduck]

Just wondering - how do you know 2?

You can't know for sure (I am not an oracle and freely admit I could be wrong). My views are based off the last 10 years of making Mac games (dealing with support, reading forums etc) after that amount of time you build up quite a knowledge of your avarge Mac gamer, hardware etc

Most gamers on the Mac are not your "hardcore" variety you will find the vast majority buy a Mac as a computer but would like to play a few games, the custom graphics card camp outside the shop on launch day gamers usually want a nice custom PC or own a console.

Granted this being the Mac Rumors gaming forum you will get a much larger amount of people saying they would like a custom Mac with a lower price point than the current Pro. However I have also learnt although the "Mac gamer" in forums like this will shout long and hard they are only a very small (but vocal) minority of the Mac buying/gaming public.

I would likely buy this "consumer pro" machine if it existed but equally I know I am far from the average user so it's unlikely that what I would like in a Mac matches your average Mac user.

The only existing Mac with upgradable graphics cards is a big, quite expensive tower with a dated design and - until recently - little support or push from Apple for gaming. I don't know if we necessarily can infer that since gamers didn't flock to the low-end Mac Pro for gaming, they wouldn't buy a smaller, lower-cost, new design Mac tower either.

When you say "until recently" that covers at least 3 years (Steam is over 3 years old now on the Mac for example). That's a fairly long time period really, recently makes me think "last few months" not last 3 years.

Based on what users play what games with what hardware I cannot see any evidence to prove that no low cost tower is damaging Mac gaming. I do however think that making sure the popular macs like the MacBookAir and iMacs have decent enough cards to play current games has a massive impact.

For example when the GMA950M and GMA X3100 were replaced with the HD3000 (granted not great but much better) you could notice the number of people buying Mac games increased.

When the new AMD 7000 MacPro card was released for example we did not notice a thing. In fact I think we have only seen 3 or 4 reports from a 7000 Pro card and one of those was from our friends at AMD

The first point is a bit moot, given they're killing the graphics card market.

Hardly as nothing has really changed in that regard. The custom Mac card business was tiny anyway and with the thunderbolt external bays coming down the line you could suggest that that Apple will be offering more not less support if all machines need to use these bays for third party cards

But yeah, I am encouraged at the recent moves. OpenGL 4 support might have been expected, but the controller API was exactly the kind of thing I wouldn't have expected from them. Plus, the Mac App Store & Steam are fantastic for the platform. I remember being over the moon finding out that Lemmings and Prince of Persia were being ported to the Mac, nowadays you can find dozens/hundreds of games on those stores for a fraction of the price.

Yep they have done quite a bit in recent years.

But as much as I love the Mac and love gaming, the integrated designs just annoy me: "you want the high-end graphics card? You'll have to get the top-end model with the high-end CPU, and lots of storage, and 27" screen. And if that GPU gets dated, you need to buy a new machine. And if the GPU fails - not surprising, with heat issues - you can't just slot in a replacement" etc.. I doubt that I'm alone there either.

Don't really agree with your comment on "And if the GPU fails - not surprising, with heat issues" we run many Mac's here for testing and development with all types of cards and for development CPU upgrades. We have pretty much one of every iMac range since Intel in the QA and Dev pool apart from the NV8600M laptop which we had failures (known issue with made manufacturing from Nvidia) we have not had any graphics card failures (touch wood).

We test games 9 to 6 everyday sometimes at weekends as well not to mention "soak testing" where the machine might be running a game a max settings for a week without quitting. Sure you might get unlucky and get a failure but based off the amount of extremely heavy running we do in the test labs Mac's are pretty reliable.

They might get to hot to touch at times but that does not necessarily mean you are damaging your Mac or leading it fail really quickly. If the Mac does get too hot and potentially be damaged it would shutdown automatically but I have yet to see that happen in the lab.

Anyway this discussion is a little moot as neither side can ever prove 100% their case as to do that we would need to speak to every Mac user (and potential Mac gamer) to get their views

All the best!

Edwin

 

[jamesbarns]

I figured out the solution to our problem. Don't switch to PC, but get a PC. Yeah I know I'm supporting PC's on a Mac forum, but honestly both of them are good in different ways. If I were you I would go ahead and build a $1000 gaming PC capable of running anything on high, and keep your Mac for things besides gaming. Best of luck!