The final blow for real gaming on the Mac, or the beginning of a new era?

[Erehy Dobon]

This either gets forgotten or goes unacknowledged in so, so many online discussions. People talk it's the norm to be running at least an RTX 2070 Super, but in reality is that on average, computers being used for gaming sit somewhere between the GTX 950 and 1060, with the low end dipping down as far as Intel HD 4000. Those with high end gaming rigs are just disproportionately vocal.

And yet another example why the introduction of Apple Silicon Macs won't have a substantial impact on Mac game development.

The day before the WWDC keynote, Mac game developers were writing software for a large base of installed computers, for example machines with Intel UHD Graphics 630 or 617. The day after the keynote, they were still writing for the same install base plus a handful of potential Apple Silicon Macs but it's not a major impact.

 

[cgsnipinva]

It's not discussed because there is a longstanding active game development environment for the iOS/iPadOS universe. Adding a few thousand Apple Silicon Macs to an existing user base of hundreds of thousands of iOS device owners is not really a promise of much profit.

This doesn't open up a wider audience for game developers. It mostly gives existing mobile game developers a chance to add a handful of Mac users. Apple is leveraging their mobile device hegemony back to the Mac, not the other way around.

Remember that Macs are less than 10% of the world's total deployed PC market. The first wave of Apple Silicon Macs won't even amount to 0.1% of the world's total PCs. If Apple maintains the same PC marketshare, it would still take roughly 10 years for Apple users to migrate from Intel Macs to Apple Silicon Macs. It's not going to instantly create a 10% Apple Silicon Mac marketshare.

I simply don't see many game developers who will be willing to spend the required long-term effort into Apple Silicon Mac game development when the likely profits will be meager at best.

I think you are making some assumptions here -- Apple still sells around 12-15 million Macs a year. That is not insiginifcant. If the power and capability of these chips are there --- developers will see this as a unified platform. Apple is now able to invest more into the Mac platform because that investment can be leveraged across their entire ecosystem.

We also will see what happens with planned updates to AppleTv. If they put the latest silicon in the units with more memory and storage - I would expect that to increase game development.

 

[iindigo]

We also will see what happens with planned updates to AppleTv. If they put the latest silicon in the units with more memory and storage - I would expect that to increase game development.

With all the attention game controllers have seen across iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/macOS this year I think it's a fair bet that they'll start shipping a proper controller with Apple TV too, which would also increase its appeal.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Here's the problem: why do you think Microsoft's approach is traditionally called "embrace, extend, extinguish"?
Apple won't take over x86 because it's not just a matter of performance, but also cost. And not just hardware cost, since they'll probably try to eat X86's market with their phones working as mini-consoles. Instead, the problem is software cost.

There are a bunch of games that will never, ever get ported to Apple hardware. And buying multiple consoles to play them costs a lot of money. For example, imagine that you like retro gaming and there are no console emulators to MacOS. X86 is not an option for you, an Apple loyalist, so will you buy 20-30 consoles just to play Retro games?

Even if X86 is an option, you would still need at least two computers instead of one to play your retro games, doubling your cost. Or do you think people will ditch their huge library of Steam games that will never get ported, but that also won't even be playable with Wine?

Yeah, I don't think so!

So, unless Apple is willing to absorb X86, either with a coprocessor or a very fast, innovative way to emulate X86 software, they will not be able to take away X86's market -- and especially so with gaming.

 

[iindigo]

For example, imagine that you like retro gaming and there are no console emulators to MacOS. X86 is not an option for you, an Apple loyalist, so will you buy 20-30 consoles just to play Retro games?

I know this is just an example for the sake of argument, but just in case it isn't clear to anybody reading, the particular scenario of there being no AS-compatible console emulators is highly unlikely, because practically all retro emulators have ARM builds already, because between rPi retro boxes, ARM-based DIY emulator box kits, cheap Chinese handhelds, and Android phones, ARM is the dominant architecture among retro gaming enthusiasts. Hell, even official products like the PlayStation Classic are just generic ARM boxes running open source emulators. This particular niche is basically already Apple Silicon native.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I know this is just an example for the sake of argument, but just in case it isn't clear to anybody reading, the particular scenario of there being no AS-compatible console emulators is highly unlikely, because practically all retro emulators have ARM builds already, because between rPi retro boxes, ARM-based DIY emulator box kits, cheap Chinese handhelds, and Android phones, ARM is the dominant architecture among retro gaming enthusiasts. Hell, even official products like the PlayStation Classic are just generic ARM boxes running open source emulators. This particular niche is basically already Apple Silicon native.

ARM emulators are usually more limited than their X86 counterparts. But even if you would argue they aren't, you would still need a X86 computer for those Steam games that are not being recompiled to ARM, and we will have MANY. Plus, X86 integrates emulation and Steam into a single computer.

 

[iindigo]

ARM emulators are usually more limited than their X86 counterparts.

That probably has more to do with a heavier focus on x86 from developers than any hardline shortcoming of ARM, especially in the case of older consoles (which have no need of excessive power or special CPU instructions).

But even if you would argue they aren't, you would still need a X86 computer for those Steam games that are not being recompiled to ARM, and we will have MANY.

That's taken care of for the first 5 years with Rosetta 2 and CPU power scaling to offset the performance hit, and 5+ years out by third party x86 emulation. By then, ARM CPU's (not just Apple's) will be strong enough to emulate titles from 2020 and before.

If the most high end games end up not running well on AS through Rosetta 2, oh well, it's not like they ran that well on Macs in the first place. Yeah there's boot camp, but the number of Mac users regularly utilizing it these days is tiny. In other words, at worst nothing really changes.

 

[Joe Dohn]

That's taken care of for the first 5 years with Rosetta 2 and CPU power scaling to offset the performance hit, and 5+ years out by third party x86 emulation. By then, ARM CPU's (not just Apple's) will be strong enough to emulate titles from 2020 and before.

Nope. Rosetta 2 will ONLY work with Mac binaries. They won't work with Windows binaries, and definitely Wine won't be compatible with Steam Mac. So no, no Steam compatibility for you.

Also, Rosetta 2 is supposed to be a transition phase. Those many games from Steam won't be all ported to ARM Mac.

That's taken care of for the first 5 years with Rosetta 2 and CPU power scaling to offset the performance hit, and 5+ years out by third party x86 emulation.

You still have to emulate X86 instructions, which means x86 virtualization will be very slow. Even in cases when it'll be acceptable, this will only applyto very old games. X86 won't sit still. For example Intel has already started to work on AI acceleration.

 

[iindigo]

Nope. Rosetta 2 will ONLY work with Mac binaries. They won't work with Windows binaries, and definitely Wine won't be compatible with Steam Mac. So no, no Steam compatibility for you.

Well, I guess I won't play those games unless they have a console version then. If game companies insist on milking unmaintained codebases for eternity, they're not entitled to my cash. I say this as a developer myself! Commercial software is a continued investment, not a one-and-done.

I mean a good number of the "32 bit only" Mac games on Steam actually work fine on 64-bit-only Catalina, but the companies responsible can't even be arsed to update the listing pages to reflect that. That's how little effort they're putting into this. They expect to be able to just chuck games over the wall and have them indefinitely act as a cash conduit.

You still have to emulate X86 instructions, which means x86 virtualization will be very slow. Even in cases when it'll be acceptable, this will only applyto very old games. X86 won't sit still. For example Intel has already started to work on AI acceleration.

Playability can be manageable even when emulating instructions. Look at the RPCS3 project, which emulates the infamously convoluted PowerPC/Cell-based PS3 games on x86 at playable framerates not only at original 720p/1080p, but at 4K as well. Or the Dolphin project, which does the same for the PPC-based Gamecube/Wii/Wii U.

 

[Erehy Dobon]

I think you are making some assumptions here -- Apple still sells around 12-15 million Macs a year. That is not insiginifcant. If the power and capability of these chips are there --- developers will see this as a unified platform. Apple is now able to invest more into the Mac platform because that investment can be leveraged across their entire ecosystem.

Of course I'm making assumptions here. We all are since no one has seen a shipping Mac powered by Apple Silicon.

That said Apple has not rolled out the red carpet for game developers. Hell, they deprecated OpenGL. How well do DirectX 12 and Vulkan 1.2 run natively on macOS?

I know you're looking at iOS+macOS/Apple Silicon as a unified platform. I just don't know which developers will make the effort. Maybe some of the big houses might.

While I am not a game developer Apple's attitude to me appears to be "Here's Metal. Take it or leave it."

I would love to be proven wrong but frankly I don't expect to be playing Crysis on an Apple Silicon Mac anytime soon.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Of course I'm making assumptions here. We all are since no one has seen a shipping Mac powered by Apple Silicon.

That said Apple has not rolled out the red carpet for game developers. Hell, they deprecated OpenGL. How well do DirectX 12 and Vulkan 1.2 run natively on macOS?

I know you're looking at iOS+macOS/Apple Silicon as a unified platform. I just don't know which developers will make the effort. Maybe some of the big houses might.

While I am not a game developer Apple's attitude to me appears to be "Here's Metal. Take it or leave it."

I would love to be proven wrong but frankly I don't expect to be playing Crysis on an Apple Silicon Mac anytime soon.

Equally fair points -- I interpret Apple's recent moves as those to make software development technically easier and more commercially viable for the Apple ecosystem and I do think it is to the benefit of the Mac as well as the mobile side.

 

[leman]

If anyone is confused how this rendering technique works, here's a Beyond 3D very detailed article from the Xbox 360 GPU:

Beyond3D - ATI Xenos: Xbox 360 Graphics Demystified

Beyond3D 3.0

www.beyond3d.com

This has nothing at all to do with how Apple GPU operate. If you want to know how a modern TBDR hardware works, you can read the excellent in-depth architecture blog series from a PowerVR engineer:

A look at the PowerVR graphics architecture: Tile-based rendering - Imagination

Rys looks at our PowerVR graphics architecture and describes how Tile-Based Rendering (TBR) works in practice.

www.imgtec.com

Apple GPUs are at least in part derivatives of PowerVR technology, so basic details should be similar. It is also a fascinating read if you are interested in these things.

 

[Tech198]

The argument that "i won't port x game to New Mac" is probable a small %. But I think its based on RISC, and if developers use simper coding. then hopefully it would run quicker.

 

[leman]

But I think its based on RISC, and if developers use simper coding. then hopefully it would run quicker.

It's really not how this works.

 

[diamond.g]

It's really not how this works.

As far as I know most games aren't really CPU limited. There are a few oddballs like AotS and Ghost Recon Breakpoint where more cores actually helps with stuttering.

I mean look at current generation game consoles. They have really crappy CPUs but the GPUs are where they tend to be limited.

 

[PortoMavericks]

As far as I know most games aren't really CPU limited. There are a few oddballs like AotS and Ghost Recon Breakpoint where more cores actually helps with stuttering.

I mean look at current generation game consoles. They have really crappy CPUs but the GPUs are where they tend to be limited.

It’s the other way around, current AMD Jaguar cores are really, really slow. That’s the reason why Xbox One X, despite having a very powerful GPU, can’t output 4K@60 games.

 

[diamond.g]

It’s the other way around, current AMD Jaguar cores are really, really slow. That’s the reason why Xbox One X, despite having a very powerful GPU, can’t output 4K@60 games.

I would argue that is due to insufficient GPU power. The RX480/580 (GCN 4) wasn't known for 4K gaming...

 

[Jyby]

Science Rules!

 

[1193001]

Screw the Triple A games. Bring on the Indies, just like the Nintendo Switch.

that won't work it would be easier for more indie users to get more sales on windows computers and even linux than mac users. most of the games coming out on apple arcade are more f2p meh type than actual games

 

[groove-agent]

I've come to the conclusion long ago that it's better to use a console or a PC for gaming - ARM Mac or not.

My Mac is for daily driving, productivity, creativity, and work-related things.

I'm ok with gaming not being a thing on macOS. For me a next gen console on my 55" OLED is going to be a great experience with proper HDR and proper cinema sound.

[automerge]1594356306[/automerge]
I'm no game developer, but what's interesting is when they develop a game, it will likely work on the iPad, the Mac, and maybe even the iPhone. That's a LOT of devices and marketshare. Maybe someone in the know could support or refute this.

Publishers will go where the money is. It doesn't matter what architecture is used in the device/computer, or what limitations comes with it. If they think taking the time to target the new Mac architecture is worth it, they'll do it. That said, Mac gaming was never really alive to being with and the only thing that will change with this transition is you'll be able to play iPhone/iPad games. When it comes to traditional console/PC games (e.g. AAA titles), publishers will stick to consoles and PCs. I mean, Macs in general only represent a small portion of the overall computer market and I don't see a lot of gamers moving from a console/PC to a Mac for gaming, regardless of how good Apple's next Macs are.

Plus, the new PS and Xbox consoles coming out this year will make it an even harder sell for publishers to bother with a Mac if they're as good as they claim to be and they can keep the price relatively close to current consoles.

 

[burgerrecords]

Then it's finally time to do something new. The brute-force approach of forward rendering is reaching it's limit. Smarter algorithms are the way to go.

did you see the unreal engine demo running on amd apu with production level ps5 hardware? Or other ps5 demos (ratchet and clank)

When Apple can demo something that looks like those I’ll agree that the current trajectory is the wrong one

(then scale that to high frame rate on a 3080ti this winter?)
[automerge]1594359071[/automerge]
If there were easy ways to do gaming on something other than x86, I don’t see why Sony wouldn’t embrace them for their upcoming consoles? (For example backward compatibility isn’t a priority/requirement) As long as your plugged in and can accommodate a fan there is plenty of life.

 

[groove-agent]

Speaking of gaming, I'm wondering if Apple is going to perpetuate eGPUs - even their own proprietary ones. I suspect not, but have always liked the idea in theory.

 

[PortoMavericks]

I would argue that is due to insufficient GPU power. The RX480/580 (GCN 4) wasn't known for 4K gaming...

That's a good reminder. It is indeed a GNC 4 GPU with 40 compute units (vs. 36 on the RX480/580). The difference I guess lies on the RAM bandwidth, MS used 384 bit while RX480 uses 256, clock at 1172 MHz to keep up with the faster RAM.

There are several DX12 optimization on the Box, like offloading draw calls and the huge advantage of having the CPU and GPU on the same chip instead of going PCIe.

It's a very smart design, it's speculation, but I'm pretty sure if it had Zen cores in it it'd get 4k@60 or something very close to that.

 

[diamond.g]

That's a good reminder. It is indeed a GNC 4 GPU with 40 compute units (vs. 36 on the RX480/580). The difference I guess lies on the RAM bandwidth, MS used 384 bit while RX480 uses 256, clock at 1172 MHz to keep up with the faster RAM.

There are several DX12 optimization on the Box, like offloading draw calls and the huge advantage of having the CPU and GPU on the same chip instead of going PCIe.

It's a very smart design, it's speculation, but I'm pretty sure if it had Zen cores in it it'd get 4k@60 or something very close to that.

yeah that is what the PS5 and XSX is using, RNDA “2” and Zen 2. So that should be a serious performance uplift. Interesting thing though, Sony still seems to be promoting 30fps instead of 60 or 120 in marketing material (per Digital Foundry). So they may be going for even more fidelity this generation instead of frame rate. But we will see.

 

[burgerrecords]

yeah that is what the PS5 and XSX is using, RNDA “2” and Zen 2. So that should be a serious performance uplift. Interesting thing though, Sony still seems to be promoting 30fps instead of 60 or 120 in marketing material (per Digital Foundry). So they may be going for even more fidelity this generation instead of frame rate. But we will see.

there aren’t really many true 120 hz tvs so it doesn’t make sense to focus efforts there.

But one other cool thing about the new unreal engine, as I understand it, is that the games ship today with the ability to scale to future hardware.

Games have been in the recent past/present developed for 1440p due to polygon budgets (and even then developers have had to spend effort economizing). True 4K is an order of magnitude more demanding on hardware already, but games can now be developed so that when the hardware is ready in the future the games look better just by virtue of the hardware alone