It would depend on what Apple plans were with the acquisition. If they didn't intend to sell processors and cards they would create a monopoly. Then there is the X64 license to deal with it's not as simple as they can so they should.
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.
Poll: Would You Appeal an Gamer Mac based on nMP?
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- poll mac
- Sort by reaction score
It would depend on what Apple plans were with the acquisition. If they didn't intend to sell processors and cards they would create a monopoly. Then there is the X64 license to deal with it's not as simple as they can so they should.
If Apple were the buyer I don't think that'd matter much.
The whole idea is nonsense anyway though. Legal ramifications aside there is very little to be gained by purchasing AMD.
This is true, but the 5K iMac has 3 weak points:
1. 5K screen likely impedes frame rate in games
2. CPU and GPU cannot be upgraded or replaced in the event of failure/overheating; the problem with mobile CPUs and GPUs is that they can’t be replaced or upgraded
3. PCIe expansion cards can’t be added without an external Thunderbolt enclosure like the Akitio Thunder2
[doublepost=1453569921][/doublepost]
I disagree.
1. Workstation CPUs and GPUs just aren’t good for gaming. For one thing, most games can only use 2 CPU cores, not 12. Second, workstation GPUs are good for design, not gaming.
2.While eGPUs are nice, they require compression because there will never be an external interface which will be fast enough to not require compression. Compression is an issue because it requires more processor power. I have an eGPU. It’s great and it keeps my MacBook Pro’s CPU 10 degrees cooler, but it requires extra processing power for compressing data so it can fit across the Thunderbolt cable, and that’s processing power which could have been used for actually playing the game instead of compressing data had the GPU-Mac interface been fast enough to transfer all of the data without compression.
I am sorry to ask you but, have you been asleep for last 12 months or so?
VR, games that use Low-Level APIs that came from Mantle, all of this will require lots of amounts of compute capable hardware with working context switching and hardware scheduling that is done on hardware level, not software level.
Multicore CPU support is also key idea for Mantle-ish APIs: DirectX12, Vulkan, Metal.
P.S. Is Xeon E3 not a workstation part?
Koyoot, please don't demean other forum members. Its actions like this among various forum members that results in discussions that get out of hand and eventually closed.
jblagden makes some valid points.
While it is true that it requires a much more powerful GPU to run a game at 5k from what I have read running a game at half resolution (2560x1440) does not significantly decrease the picture quality over a screen that actually has that resolution.
From a gaming stand point it is a problem that the graphics cards can't be updated. However, one of Apple's strengths is building computers in non-traditional form factors. I don't see Apple building another machine that has a slot for a standard graphics card.
Apple does not build a machine with a graphics card that consumes > 150 W. Basically, as power goes up graphics horsepower goes up. The top graphics cards on the market are the AMD Fury X and the Nvidia GTX 980 Ti which both consume > 250 W. If Apple were to decide to built a gaming oriented machine, a reasonable compromise would be to include a more powerful GPU that consumes > 200 W in a custom form factor. This would extend the life of the machine without needing to support upgradeable parts.
External GPUs are going to see a change with thunderbolt 3 coming to the PC masses. Various external GPU enclosures have already been announced and once macs get thunderbolt 3 gets it external GPUs should work, at least in windows.
I think this is a common misconception. Professional graphics cards can be good for gaming but are often not a good value for gaming. Professional graphics cards are based on the same GPUs as the gaming oriented cards. However, professional GPUs are sometimes lower clocked, somewhat reducing the performance and the often include lots of VRAM.
When it comes to the graphics cards in the mac pro they more closely resemble a consumer graphics cards rather than a professional one. They lack ECC memory. Apple also doesn't pay for access to professional windows drivers.
Unfortunately, I don't see Apple taking games seriously. They haven't in a very long time especially on OS X. API support has been lacking. Metal is a step in the right direction, but failure to support new versions of openGL and vulkan signal that Apple is not serious about it. Maybe if VR takes off and Apple sees creative potential in it, Apple would announce a gaming oriented mac with better API support. Until then I think macs will continue on their current trajectory of being a poor value as a dedicated game machine.
It was not to be mean. All that question was like the OP was not knowing where the world goes with Low-Level APIs, and multithreading in applications. If my reaction sounded like I was mean, I apologize
.It was not to be mean. All that question was like the OP was not knowing where the world goes with Low-Level APIs, and multithreading in applications. If my reaction sounded like I was mean, I apologize
Its important to provide context for your comments. This is a mac forum, not a hardcore hardware forum. Not everyone is as informed as you on the latest trends in computer hardware.
There won't be a gaming Mac for a very simple reason: gaming hardware is a niche market, and, the Mac Pro aside, Apple doesn't do niche markets. If you add total 2014 profits from both Asus and MSI you get what apple made in 6 days, and that's assuming that 100% of their profits came from gaming hardware, which is, obviously, wrong. I'm pretty sure if you added together all of the gaming profits from every gaming hardware company, and included all the CPUs and GPUs bought by gamers, you'd get, maybe, a month of Apple's profits.
The old Apple almost died more than once because it was a niche company, and those of us who remember the bad days when Jobs was at NeXT know that Apple survived by the skin of its teeth and the dedication of its users. I don't think we will ever see Apple's management put it into such a position ever again. We may all have out problems with the way Apple is doing business now, but you can't argue with the financial health of the company.
That aside, gaming on the Mac also gives a real chicken or egg scenario. Let's say Apple introduces the gMac tomorrow: i7, 970/R290, good cooling and no thermal throttling. What would you play on it? Of all the games I play, only X-Plane is cross platform. There's no Project Cars, no Fallout 4, and no GTAV. Apple would need to convince the publishers there are enough gMacs out there for their ports to. But, for people to buy them, they'd need a large library of games, which takes us back to convincing the publishers to buy them, and on and on.
Oh, and the iMac is terrible bang for buck. It thermal throttles almost immediately.
[doublepost=1453581385][/doublepost]
No they won't: no one builds a gaming machine with workstation parts. The current sweet spot for 1080 gaming is an i5 and a 970/R290. For 1440 you just need a better GPU. 4K is still a bit of a stretch without going SLI 990s. You don't need to pay out for workstation parts, and I doubt you ever will. And you only need an i7 if you're running one of the few games which really benefits from HT.
The old Apple almost died more than once because it was a niche company, and those of us who remember the bad days when Jobs was at NeXT know that Apple survived by the skin of its teeth and the dedication of its users. I don't think we will ever see Apple's management put it into such a position ever again. We may all have out problems with the way Apple is doing business now, but you can't argue with the financial health of the company.
That aside, gaming on the Mac also gives a real chicken or egg scenario. Let's say Apple introduces the gMac tomorrow: i7, 970/R290, good cooling and no thermal throttling. What would you play on it? Of all the games I play, only X-Plane is cross platform. There's no Project Cars, no Fallout 4, and no GTAV. Apple would need to convince the publishers there are enough gMacs out there for their ports to. But, for people to buy them, they'd need a large library of games, which takes us back to convincing the publishers to buy them, and on and on.
Oh, and the iMac is terrible bang for buck. It thermal throttles almost immediately.
[doublepost=1453581385][/doublepost]
No they won't: no one builds a gaming machine with workstation parts. The current sweet spot for 1080 gaming is an i5 and a 970/R290. For 1440 you just need a better GPU. 4K is still a bit of a stretch without going SLI 990s. You don't need to pay out for workstation parts, and I doubt you ever will. And you only need an i7 if you're running one of the few games which really benefits from HT.
The reasons for workstation parts are:
Declining PC desktop market. PC parts are selling with every quarter worse and worse. OEMs have two choices: Raise the prices, or sell more parts. What do you think will they do?
Top of the line Intel CPU Broadwell E is rumored to cost 1599$. Top of the line Haswell-E CPU cost 1099$. And it is not a joke.
Secondly: more and more PC's will be NUC type or All-in-Ones. Thats the goal what OEMs, especially Intel, have. Why? Because buing whole computer each and every new generation will bring more revenue than single parts.
Third. Lifespan of desktop PC is much wider than it was few years ago, and nothing shows that this trend will change. Tahiti chip is decent for gaming even today, and it was 2012 GPU.
Only way you will be able to make custom PC, like today you can will be Workstation parts. Because that will not change for a long time. Why? They will have much higher price margin than "normal" parts. And this part is most important here. Unless for gaming you will want to have a NUC or All-in-One you will only be able to make custom PC from workstation parts. And the reason for it is... declining desktop market and declining revenue for OEMs.
And no one buys those for gaming machines. You can get an i5-4690K for ~US$200, and build an entire machine for ~US$1,000. It's more than enough for gaming.
Gamers build their machines.
Tahiti is borderline for serious gaming. It will run GTAV or Fallout 4 if you turn down the rendering settings and game in 1080. It's pretty much unusable for 1440.
Needless to say, I disagree with you.
It was not meant to tell what will be used for gaming, but how prices will go up in CPU department in future in desktop.
Yes, they do. For how much longer will they be able to buy custom Core i5, i& CPUs not in BGA form?
That is correct, but 80% of market is still on 1080p.
Fair enough
.
Last edited:
Even if prices do go up, you don't need more than 4 cores + HT for gaming. There's no need to spend US$1,000 on a gaming CPU.
For the foreseeable future. In all of the gaming forums I read, almost no one used a pre-built machine. Putting together a machine has gotten so easy that almost anyone can do it. I can swap CPUs in about five minutes.
According to the latest Steam survey, only about 35% of people are at 1080. What surprised me the most was the large number of people running ultrawide/multiple monitor setups: 29%. There are a lot more people running ultrawide than 4K.
You will need more than 4 cores sooner than you think. When true DX12 lifts off the development of games - it will be no brainer. Thankfully with Cannonlake you will have mainstream 4,6 and 8 core configs. The question is: what prices will they have . Don't expect that they will change the price tags too much, and you will be able to buy 4 core for less than 100$.
Only time will tell.
. Don't expect that they will change the price tags too much, and you will be able to buy 4 core for less than 100$.Only time will tell
.You will need more than 4 cores sooner than you think. When true DX12 lifts off the development of games - it will be no brainer. Thankfully with Cannonlake you will have mainstream 4,6 and 8 core configs. The question is: what prices will they have
Only time will tell
I'm taking a wait and see attitude about Vulkan/DX12, just because I do that with all new tech. But, yes, you are right: we will all find out what happens together.
I think the multi monitor data in the steam survey only counts people who have multi monitor displays. So basically the most popular resolution for a single display is 1080p. Of people who have multiple displays, the most popular configuration is 2 1080p monitors. Both ultra wide and 4k monitors are still a very small piece of steam gamers since they are so new and expensive.
You will need more than 4 cores sooner than you think. When true DX12 lifts off the development of games - it will be no brainer. Thankfully with Cannonlake you will have mainstream 4,6 and 8 core configs. The question is: what prices will they have
Only time will tell
I don't really believe this. Yes, DX12 may better utilize multi-core processors to feed the graphics card but most games now only use 1 or 2 threads. For the foreseeable future it will be much more beneficial for gaming to have 4 faster cores than 6, 8 or 10 slower cores.
I don't think there is a ton of demand for more cores. Just look at the move from many slower cores in the Playstation 3 to fewer faster ones in the Playstation 4.
Agreed.
The Apple Watch is a niche product. The iPad Pro is also a niche product (and in a market that's declining). I am willing to bet that there would be a worthy amount of demand for a more robust consumer machine than the iMac. A lot of people build their own PC's because PC manufacturers are garbage.
Also, comparing the profits of PC manufacturers and saying it's not a worthwhile endeavor for Apple makes no sense. The entire reason Apple's profits are so high is because they charge their products at a premium, why would a gaming machine be any different?
The only reason Apple will not be building a gaming machine is because Apple doesn't, and has never had, a culture that values the needs of games. The PC gaming market is still growing. Esports is an exploding industry and it's happening almost entirely on the PC.
Apple sold more watches in one year than all the other smartwatch makers combined. It's an industry with a massive potential upside.
And no one would buy it, me included, if it cost 1.5x or 2.0x what you could build on your own.
Part of the gaming market are growing. But gaming hardware is declining with the rest of the PC industry, Apple excluded.
PC gaming is itself a niche when you consider mobile and console games. Many more people own a console or smartphone than those that have built a $1000 gaming PC.
A big problem is that games are mostly for windows. Who would buy a gaming mac that cost twice as much as a PC and then you had to pay for windows and install it. Why would Apple make that machine? If Apple wanted to take games seriously, it would start by adding more support for games on its existing hardware and then maybe branch out into dedicated hardware.
A big problem is that games are mostly for windows. Who would buy a gaming mac that cost twice as much as a PC and then you had to pay for windows and install it. Why would Apple make that machine? If Apple wanted to take games seriously, it would start by adding more support for games on its existing hardware and then maybe branch out into dedicated hardware.
PC gaming numbers and revenue are larger than console sales. And, while mobile gaming is growing, it hasn't hit PC levels yet.
[/quote]Many more people own a console or smartphone than those that have built a $1000 gaming PC.[/quote]
This is questionable. The best selling console of all time, the PS2, only sold about 155 million globally. The PS4 has only sold about 36 million. If you add together those sales, plus sales of the XBox 360 and XboxOne, you get the low end of estimated PC gaming installed base. The high end is closer to 900 million.
Pretty much agree.
People already buy Macs and iPhones at much higher markups than the competition. Even with PC gaming culture being as entrenched as it is that's a pretty myopic point of view.
Okay? As you already pointed out, Apple excluded. If anything entering a segment of a market you're already in would be a good way to keep revenue up long term.
Me!
The whole point is to have a legit Mac that can also be great at gaming.
Both worlds - One machine.
[doublepost=1453591965][/doublepost]
Huh?
Take a maxed out iMac's internals (or even lower and go i5 for a gaming machine), pair it with a desktop GPU (vs Mobile) and remove it from a required screen enclosure.
Done.
Which doesn't solve the problem of getting people to buy it. As mentioned, most popular games aren't ported to OS X. To convince the publishers to do this, you'd have to show them a large enough installed base, which you won't have without games to buy.
And, as I mentioned, from Apple's perspective, why invest all that money for, maybe, a month of iPhone revenue? All of the revenue, on the gaming side, is in the software, especially as more publishers more to paid DLC and/or microstransactions. Both the PS4 and XBone sell at a loss and make what little money they do make, relative to Apple, in software exclusive licensing. There's almost no financial upside for Apple to do this.
All that aside, I'd love for Apple to make a machine which would allow me to upgrade CPU and GPU, but I know it ain't gonna happen.
I thought the whole point of low-level APIs was so you didn’t need powerful multi-core CPUs.
[doublepost=1453595888][/doublepost]
Exactly! The people who would be interesting in a gaming desktop are Mac users who want a Mac which is a proper gaming computer. This would be people who bought a maxed-out Mac Mini or iMac for gaming and or occasional light video editing.
The opposite: they can actually use multiple cores more efficiently. All current GPU drivers are essentially single-threaded because of the limitations of OpenGL/DX11. If you look at something which really abuses the render queue, like X-Plane, you will see the all the rendering is done in a single thread because the overhead in syncing multiple render threads from multiple cores gets very messy very quickly. Additionally, Vulkan/Metal/DX12 allows you to do things like bake in GPU state changes so the CPU has to do zero work creating the next render state which will safe an enormous amount of overhead.
And play what exactly? Like I said, almost none of the big titles are on OS X. The ones I play the most—Project Cars, Mass Effect, Fallout 4 and GTA V—are all Windows-only.