Sure but just because you can doesn’t mean the majority of Mac users are buying eGPU’s on top of their expensive MacBooks just so they can play games. My whole point is buy n large the majority of Mac users have not had access to hardware that was capable of playing modern AAA games due to Intel’s integrated graphics. Whether they *could* via an eGPU is irrelevant to what people actually have done.
Oh, I dunno.
Well, maybe - if you want to put at least $1K into an EGPU and also have room on your desk for another monitor if you have an iMac or laptop.
That's a bizarre misread of my question. I never said that, nor do I think that. Equally bizarre was the multi-paragraph non-sequitur you provided in response. [And, with all due respect, it was a bit obnoxious on your part to presume I needed such a lecture on Apple's history.] If you want to see reasonable replies to my questions, look at what Leman wrote.
LOL, it doesn't work like that. It would take hours to research your many claims, and why would I waste hours checking the claims of some random guy on the internet? Particularly since you're obviously not an expert on this subject (that's an observation, not a criticism; most of us aren't experts). How do I know you're not an expert? It's obvious from the fluffy way you write about the subject that you're not a CPU designer/hardware engineer. Plus the fact that you so completely misread my question doesn't help your credibility.
forums.macrumors.com
Are you saying that RT on the M1 is done in software (slower) (Metal RT API) rather than hardware (faster) ?
I now recall your post from a year ago, in which you speculated that TBDR might offer a unique synergy with RT:
The M1 is already good enough for games. Plenty of processing power, and a gpu better than an 1050 Ti. Cyberpunk minimum specs only require a GTX 780. The issue for M1 is not hardware. M1X will be even more capable.
I quite honestly do think you needed a history lesson.That's a bizarre misread of my question. I never said that, nor do I think that. Equally bizarre was the multi-paragraph non-sequitur you provided in response. [And, with all due respect, it was a bit obnoxious on your part to presume I needed such a lecture on Apple's history.] If you want to see reasonable replies to my questions, look at what Leman wrote.
I think what happened here is you didn't understand my question, completely misinterpreted it to mean "Apple sucks" (the opposite of my view), and then, in place of the on-point technical reply I was hoping for, posted a fluffy, and competely unnecessary, diatribe defending AS's design history.
Maybe you were reacting to my use of the phrase "stitched-together". But that was just me responding to Leman's post, where he used that phrase; I used the same phrase so he'd know what I was referring to. Leman didn't mean that pejoratively, and neither did I; it was just being used as a way to refer to modularity. You would have known that if you'd bothered to read the post to which I was replying before posting your diatribe. Not doing so is always a bad idea, since that causes you to miss essential context.
LOL, it doesn't work like that. It would take hours to research your many claims, and why would I waste hours checking the claims of some random guy on the internet? Particularly since you're obviously not an expert on this subject (that's an observation, not a criticism; most of us aren't experts). How do I know you're not an expert? It's obvious from the fluffy way you write about the subject that you're not a CPU designer/hardware engineer. Plus the fact that you so completely misread my question doesn't help your credibility.
I don't always give references in my shorter posts, but if someone asks I'd never obnoxiously write "find your own references", since I understand both their value, and the reasonableness of the request—it's part of the scientific culture I'm part of. And generally if I post something longer, like what you did, I will do the work to provide the references, such as can be seen here:
What makes ARM superior?
"What makes ARM superior?" is begging the question. I.e., it's assuming something that hasn't been established. Indeed, to the extent papers have been presented in professional journals or conference proceedings on this subject, the overall conclusion has been that one ISA isn't inherently...
Are you required to provide references? Of course not. No one's paying us to post here! But don't be surprised if those of us who are technically serious don't take you seriously if you don't (or at least refuse to provide them upon request).
I’m with you in that I really just want one powerful laptop to do all my major things.
I'm with you.
Unfortunately, if M2x follows M1x core counts, the improvement (if year over year trends hold) will probably be something up to 20%.
PC gaming is quite cheap if you are happy with a good enough system. (Everyone who buys sub-$3000 Macs should be like that.) As long as developers still target previous-generation consoles, games will be designed for 1080p resolution. You don't need a fancy GPU or an expensive monitor, and you only get slightly better graphics if you have them.
Many hobbies aren't particularly economical. It depends on what you want. If you enjoy building gaming PCs and spending time deciding on upgrades etc, then economical really doesn't enter the equation. Does it really matter if your game runs at 150 fps or 220 fps? Maybe if you are a professional gamer and make money, for everyone else it is bragging rights.
PCMR e-peen depends on it.
It isn't just high framerates, it is also being able to turn on all effects and ultra details (after all the developers/artists spent time on those assets) and not turning the game into a stuttery mess.
