Should Apple Make Gaming Specific Systems? [Archive]

strider42

Mar 15, 2005, 01:55 AM

- What are your feelings on such a system?
- Do you think anyone would buy it?
- What should the system specs be?
- What would it look like? (maybe a revamped version of the Power Mac G4 Cube?)

I don't see the point. The vast majority of games don't run on Mac OS anyway, so why further fragment the market by making it clear that the mainstream machines won't adequately play the ones that do exist for it. Apple would be better served by making the consumer machines (that is, ostensibly the one's that would be bought by casual gameres) capable of better game play.

Veldek

Mar 15, 2005, 03:43 AM

They already do and call them PowerMacs.

I honestly don't think Apple could build a Mac just for gaming, because who would buy such a computer knowing that only a minority of games is available and these won't run as god as on a PC.

eXan

Mar 15, 2005, 04:31 AM

I agree with everything said above.

There will be no need for the Apple gaming machine.

Specs? Ok.

G5 or Dual G5
512+ RAM
80+ Hard drive
Best Graghics card (Radeon X800 XT/GeForce 6800)

Summing all these specs we get Power Mac G5. Simple

ddtlm

Mar 15, 2005, 04:35 AM

Seems like a PMac with the highest possible clocked single G5 would be the best bet. Load it with a good video card and 1G RAM standard, maybe a 10k RPM disk.

JzzTrump22

Mar 15, 2005, 07:50 AM

If apple made a mchine just for gaming, that would be the most pointless move they could ever make. There are only a small handfull of games for the mac compaired to pc. Most of the newer games require a lot of processing power, so you would wind up with a powermac just to play games.

Sol

Mar 15, 2005, 08:49 AM

If you are talking casual games, then Apple allready sells this Mac: the Mac Mini. It is powerful enough to run 3D games (except Doom 3) and cheap enough for anyone to afford.

ziwi

Mar 15, 2005, 11:19 AM

I think not - I think that games is a secondary thing for what you can do with a Mac. Although one thinks that the things that make Mac strong - Video, music and Photo would automatically spec a machine to play games well - perhaps it is just the availability of games and the way they are ported to the Mac - I think the gaming experience would be far better for a game created on the Mac versus ported to the Mac - time will tell as it should theoretically be easier and more efficient when all the consoles are on the IBM platform - perhaps Mac's will game better then.

bousozoku

Mar 15, 2005, 11:25 AM

I think that it would be a good idea to make one desktop and one laptop computer precisely for gaming. If Apple showed and kept a committment, perhaps there would be more drive for games on Mac OS X.

It would require that they actually set aside their usual "we can't do that because it steps on the other computer lines" attitude. Obviously, GameSprockets have survived somewhat but Apple is not in any hurry to avail themselves of game play.

~loserman~

Mar 15, 2005, 11:55 AM

I keep hearing this argument about Macs and gaming:

"Mac users don't buy games near as much as PC users b/c mac users are interested in getting real work done more that the average PC user."

That is a fan boy smokescreen

Gaming on a Mac works like this.

It's a numbers game based on market share and availability.

Macs traditionally haven't run games well therefore there are very few game titles. Market share is small which leads to not many game makers writing or porting to the Mac. Which leads to not many people running games on the Mac. Which leads to not many game titles. Which leads to Mac users not playing games on the Mac......... ad nauseam

See the vicious circle?

Will this change in the near future? Probably not.

One could also contend from the average PC user argument that since PCs are sold at about a 10 to 1 ratio(maybe even higher if you consider "home built systems") vs the Mac that the typical/average PC user in itself would be totally different than the typical/average Mac user.

Since the Average PC user has the option to run about 100 games to 1 on the Mac this naturally leads to the Average PC user running games more often. Whereas since the Average Mac user does not have this choice this naturally leads to him not running games.

So the original argument doesn't really work even though it may be technically seem "true".

It is easy to contend by the numbers game that just as many people use the PC to quote " Get real work done" as there are Mac users in the first place.

It is also easy to contend that their are as many PCs sold/built to do almost nothing but gaming as there are Macs being sold.

This little rant was not to say the PC is better than the Mac or vice versa, it was just to say that fan boy arguments don't hold water in the real world.

This also works for the Question asked originally in this thread. Would it make sense for Apple to build a "Gaming Mac"? I would say no. The titles don't exist so its appeal would be small.
Should Apple stop using such low powered GPUs like the 5200fx absolutely

Eric5h5

Mar 15, 2005, 01:54 PM

Since the Average PC user has the option to run about 100 games to 1 on the Mac this naturally leads to the Average PC user running games more often. Whereas since the Average Mac user does not have this choice this naturally leads to him not running games.

Really, 100 to 1? So the PC has, what, something like 500 games released per month? Nah, I don't think so. Is it even 10 to 1? Really, gaming on the Mac is not that bad for the most part, and those who whine the loudest are way too hung up on numbers.

I don't buy the above argument--there are more games released for the Mac then any person could hope to play, even if you have no life and spent all your time gaming, unless you have really narrow interests in the types of games you play. Certainly, with my game collection, at least 2/3 have gone mostly unplayed, and I'm having a hard time decreasing that number.

More choice is always better, but let's not pretend the situation is worse than it is. The moaning smells too much like "self-fulfilling prophecy" to me....

--Eric

iriejedi

Mar 15, 2005, 02:03 PM

I'd so buy one - even if just for the novelty value!

Gotta Support the Mother Ship!

- What are your feelings on such a system?
- Do you think anyone would buy it?
- What should the system specs be?
- What would it look like? (maybe a revamped version of the Power Mac G4 Cube?)

Jaffa Cake

Mar 15, 2005, 02:18 PM

Well, there was the Pippin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pippin)...

I doubt very much that we'll see Apple release a machine built from the ground up with gaming in mind. Mind you, a few years ago who would have thought they would release the iPod and corner the MP3 player market?

Drgnhntr

Mar 15, 2005, 02:20 PM

Instead of apple making a mac specifically for gaming, I think their money would be better spent making mac only games. I think that if someone where to take the time to make a game that took advantage of mac hardware it would look spectacular. Have a few great games that are mac only and create a demand for gaming on the mac.

What if apple introduced a new mac gaming tower to coincide with the release of Doom 4 or half-life 3 on the mac first. How many macs would they sell? Secondly, port the game to the PC and have the benchmarks show it runs better on a mac. How much is it worth to apple to have a headline saying macs don't actually suck at games?

parrothead

Mar 15, 2005, 02:42 PM

pgc6000

Mar 15, 2005, 02:44 PM

~loserman~

Mar 15, 2005, 02:59 PM

Really, 100 to 1? So the PC has, what, something like 500 games released per month? Nah, I don't think so. Is it even 10 to 1? Really, gaming on the Mac is not that bad for the most part, and those who whine the loudest are way too hung up on numbers.

I don't buy the above argument--there are more games released for the Mac then any person could hope to play, even if you have no life and spent all your time gaming, unless you have really narrow interests in the types of games you play. Certainly, with my game collection, at least 2/3 have gone mostly unplayed, and I'm having a hard time decreasing that number.

More choice is always better, but let's not pretend the situation is worse than it is. The moaning smells too much like "self-fulfilling prophecy" to me....

--Eric

Ok 100 to 1 was an exaggeration. I was going to put 10 to 1 but accidently typed the second zero. I saw it but just decided to leave it in since it is basically about as true as the the statement that "Mac users don't buy games because they want to get real work done"

I disagree with your assessment on the situation of Mac gaming though. I can think of hundreds of titles that don't run on the Mac.
Take a look at the local Best Buy, CompUSA, etc.
Then go take a look in an Apple Store or reseller. There really are very few Mac games.
I also disagree with the assessment that there are more Mac games than anyone can play. My kids are monsters at playing games.
They play to the end all the games they get. And they have an Xbox, Nes, Snes, N64, PS2, GameCube, GBs, GBA, NDS, 2 PCs and a Mac.
I have probably bought them close to a 1000 games in all over the last 10 plus years.
They never want a game on the Mac because it either runs slower or was out on some other platform first. All of their online play is on the PC.
In case you were wondering I buy a game a week for my 4 kids.

ddtlm

Mar 15, 2005, 03:00 PM

Drgnhntr:

Instead of apple making a mac specifically for gaming, I think their money would be better spent making mac only games. I think that if someone where to take the time to make a game that took advantage of mac hardware it would look spectacular.
Why do some many people think Macs have untapped reserves of power? About the only edge they have over PC's is AltiVec, and that can't do a whole lot for games. Games have too much "if/else" and not enough "add x to each of 100 y's".

~loserman~

Mar 15, 2005, 03:29 PM

Drgnhntr:

Why do some many people think Macs have untapped reserves of power? About the only edge they have over PC's is AltiVec, and that can't do a whole lot for games. Games have too much "if/else" and not enough "add x to each of 100 y's".

ROFLMAO....

That's an easy one. They are Macs. They have to be better than PCs in everything. They just have too. They are Macs :)

ddtlm

Mar 15, 2005, 03:54 PM

~loserman~

Mar 15, 2005, 04:09 PM

~loserman~:

Well who could argue with that? ;) Seriously though, what other reserves of power might a Mac have besides AltiVec?

Course even with such a dour outlook as I have, I think Apple should release a "gaming" PMac, which is to say a normal top-end PMac where they trade the 2nd CPU for better graphics and more RAM.

No doubt. If I was inclined to game on a Mac (which I'm not)I would rather have a single processor at the highest clock speed, best video card and a large chunk of ram. But hey thats just me.

Better sound support than what is currently in Macs wouldn't be bad either.

Kelvin

Mar 15, 2005, 04:16 PM

Drgnhntr:

Why do some many people think Macs have untapped reserves of power? About the only edge they have over PC's is AltiVec, and that can't do a whole lot for games. Games have too much "if/else" and not enough "add x to each of 100 y's".
As a developer I can tell you that modern processors are not nearly as simplistic as your logic.

Even for a very very very basic task Altivec does wonders for games.
Take for example a FPS: when you shoot someone in the head for your monster kill.
The game has to calculate at least two dot products and a cross product to shoot the ray through the scene to find out what you hit. With Altivec, you can do this with 1/4 of the instructions and 1/8th the time of doing it serially. This is way before you even get to "if ray intersected/else" This isn't even accounting for rendering, this is just geometry.

Now get to scene rendering. How many instructions do you think you save when you have to unproject the models for shadow volumes? With models now days reaching into the tens of thousands of polygons, this is a substantial performance gain. Sure a lot of this is moving to the GPU, but that just means the game devs are going to use the CPU power for things like physics and realism, which again both benefit from Altivec.

Anything 3D benefits a whole hell of a lot from Altivec. Anything.

Further I think you grossly underestimate the G5 in terms of performance. If anything, the reason some games perform better on x86 is simply because they were optimized for x86 (and directx) and then ported to PPC (opengl).

mac v pc (http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc.html)
Notice that Q3A the mac runs comparable performance. That's what concurrent development in a common API can get you. As for the other games, the porting process takes a heavy toll on the mac. You can probably bet that there's not much Altivec optimization going on in any of those games. Further, Carmack admitted that Doom 3 is really poor for multithreading. That second G5 cpu is sitting there doing nothing, when it could be handling all manner of things like physics, sound, etc. Fire up iTunes while playing games on your G5 dualie and you're likely to notice no frame rate hit whatsoever.

benpatient

Mar 15, 2005, 04:44 PM

If anything, the reason some games perform better on x86 is simply because they were optimized for x86 (and directx) and then ported to PPC (opengl).

What's the excuse with Doom 3, then? It's OpenGL all the way.

Anything 3D benefits a whole hell of a lot from Altivec. Anything. But only if it is written from the ground up to use it. You're talking theoretical, because there isn't a game out there that really, truly uses altivec to full advantage...why? Because it's so different from MMX/SSE, etc on the PC side of things, and dev. studios can't be asked to write two entirely different engines just because altivec would make the Mac port faster if it were thoroughly involved in the code. Glenda at Aspyr alluded to this...it's linked in another thread...she goes into some detail about why it isn't reasonable, practical, or possible to do all that work, because the costs far outweigh the benefits.

That second G5 cpu is sitting there doing nothing, when it could be handling all manner of things like physics, sound, etc.

games aren't multi-threaded for complexity issues. You are oversimplifying what would have to be done to make a game multi-threaded. You don't just "throw the physics, sound, etc" to the second processor...here's an excellent article discussing exactly this topic that was posted on AnandTech yesterday.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2377

Tim Sweeney is scared of multithreaded games. The complexity involved is beyond the engineering capabilities of most game studios. The Unreal 3 engine will be MP-aware, but the cost for making it that way is turning out to be huge, and the 2nd processor is going to be primarily responsible for things like physics. There will still be a heavy load on a single processor and a light load on the other(s). The primary benefit of multi-proc machines for gaming is that you can get the system overhead off of the active processor's back, freeing it up to deal with the game/program in question.

You can't reliably split the main "gameplay" thread...just like you can't reliably optimize the inherently serial function calls of your typical 3d game. Most of what altivec could help with would be physics and audio calculations.

and by the way...using quake 3 as a guide for what's good and bad about modern gaming is...not recommended. The difference between 350 fps and 370 fps isn't really indicative of anything except that the value of the benchmark has been eclipsed.

Try the same thing on something with pixel shaders or vertex shaders.

combatcolin

Mar 15, 2005, 04:45 PM

Apple could solve the "ethernal Mac games problem" overnight by becoming producers for mac versions of games.

Apple stump up the £££ to pay for the Mac version and in return get a % of the retail sales.

Of course raising the platform of Mac gaming would be far more inportant than the wodge Apple would get from such a sceme.

Games are profitable, Apple just don't seem to care.

MacsRgr8

Mar 15, 2005, 04:46 PM

Macs really aren't aimed at the gaming community. Besides nobody would buy it. PC users would laugh and if you really wanted to do big gaming on your mac then you'd get a PowerMac G5. If you wanted to build a gaming machine you may as well get a PC. It's cheaper and it gets more games. That's the only time it seems that Mac users get PCs, for hardcore gaming.

Exactly. That's what I did, and probably many others here too.

I used to have a Mac only (couple of Macs, actually). Always had one of the latest Macs, updated the grfx card, and RAM to let it be best suited for gaming as possible.
Then came along Doom 3 and Half Life 2. Doom 3 would come to the Mac someday, somehow, eventually.... but Half Life 2 wouldn't.... :(
I got frustrated and got myself a gaming PC. Once I got this I found out how many PC games there were.
I ab-sol-lu-te-ly hate Windows, but love playing Rally Racing games, Half LIfe 2, Far Cry, etc.
And I like having the feeling that if a cracking game comes along (Brothers in Arms for instance) I don't have to worry if it will ever come to the Mac. Now I just go get it once it's for sale...

I like the idea that someone had here: Mac OS X-only games. SMP supported, AltiVec enhanced etc. Have a couple of these games be ported to the PC, and show worse results on the PC. There are some Mac-only games like Nanosaur, Bugdom etc. bet these are not really the eyecatchers of today's hardcore gamer :rolleyes:

benpatient

Mar 15, 2005, 04:52 PM

Nanosaur 2 has done more for "switching" than OS X has.

*rolls eyes*

I'm sure Nanosaur 2 is fully altivec aware.

But it isn't multi-threaded...and if it were, it wouldn't be much better...

3x the development time for a 3-5% increase in performance...hardly worth even talking about it.

MacsRgr8

Mar 15, 2005, 04:59 PM

Yeah.

That's why IF Apple were ever to do such a "stunt" the game(s) really would have to be incredible. Kinda like the Unreal 3 engine demo movie of the "City".
I have no idea what such a development would cost, but it sure would be fun to see it.
Remember Doom 3's first public preview was done on a Mac... :rolleyes:

mrgreen4242

Mar 15, 2005, 05:17 PM

I'd just like to chime in with some ideas about what a gaming Mac should be. I propose a cross between an iMac and a Mac mini. The foot print would be much larger that a mini, in the 12"x12"x6" range. Use a "logic board" that is a derivative of the iMac G5 hardware with a few small changes. Off only one model with lots BTO options. Specs should be:

2.2ghz G5 with 750hmz FSB, non upgradable (for costs cutting reasons)
2 DIMM slots, single 512mb DIMM standard, BTO up to 2gbs
80gb SATA 7200rpm HD, 10k BTO option
Combo Drive standard, Super Drive BTO
Bay for a 3rd drive, either HD or optical
3 USB2 and 2 FW400 ports
PCI-X Slot or at least AGP 8x with the case designed in such a way that it is easy to access. Maybe a side opening slot and the official Apple cards would have some sort of easy grab handles that fit into the slot nicely. Varios GPUs would be available BTO and also seperately from the Apple Online and retail stores.

Pricing should be about $899 for the "base" model, with 512mb RAM, 80GB HD, Combo Drive, and a 9600XT w/ 128mb VRAM. Should be doable from a cost point of view, as an iMac G5 with a rather nice 17" LCD and superdrive runs in the $1500 range, and those are last years prices.

A machine like this would offer the gamer a nice value, but it's lack of support for more than 2gbs RAM, dual CPUs, and FW800 would probably disuade potential PowerMac users from getting one. You could also make the GPU slot some non standard pin configuration so that while the hardware itself was standard AGP or PCX fare, the interface meant that only Apple hardware would work, and so they could charge a nice premium for it, in order to keep profits up.

Just what I think should be done.

aloofman

Mar 15, 2005, 05:59 PM

GFLPraxis

Mar 15, 2005, 06:03 PM

I don't see any good reason why Apple would create a dedicated gaming machine. There's just not enough of a market there to justify the expense. It could package certain kinds of upgraded systems and market them to gamers, however. Maybe they could concentrate on features like video cards and RAM while skimping on other things.

It might be interesting if Apple made a CONSOLE though. Since all three (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) are using IBM processors, and Apple has a longstanding deal with IBM, they could get the processors pretty easily.

They'd certainly have reason to get more Apple hardware (maybe even a stripped down version of OS X with media center capability) into everyone's homes. Follow the same strategy as MS.

I feel that Apple should work with Nintendo. Since Nintendo is using PowerPC processors, and is rumored to have a hard drive in the next console, they could release a NintendOS X...

The PS3 doesn't use a normal PowerPC, and the XBox 2 is MS owned and has no HD by default, so they're out of the question.

benpatient

Mar 15, 2005, 06:04 PM

no offense, but that sounds like a disaster.

For everyone.

If it also included HDTV recording capabilities and a few other HTPC-like properties, then maybe it would work...but you just described a 600 dollar PC (at the most).

The only way it would work would be if apple supported PC-standard graphics cards out-of-the-box.

Why would they do that when they can charge 500 dollars for a 300 dollar part, though?

Apple doesn't care about gamers any more than the PR heads say they do. Which isn't much, obviously.

Eric5h5

Mar 15, 2005, 08:39 PM

I disagree with your assessment on the situation of Mac gaming though. I can think of hundreds of titles that don't run on the Mac.

Well, you're not disagreeing though, since obviously there are lots of games that aren't on the Mac and I didn't claim otherwise. I'm just saying it's not utterly hopeless and desolate, like some would have you believe. I'd even say it's actually sort of OK lately, for people who don't need ALL the latest games right now. Also I'm one of the majority of gamers who doesn't really do online play, so that might affect things too.

I also disagree with the assessment that there are more Mac games than anyone can play.

But it's true, me being living proof. But then I'm just one person, who has something that, in one's more generous moments, one might call a life. Also I'm more into computer games rather than console games, and computer games tend to have significantly more gameplay than 10-20 hours, making it physically impossible to play one through every week. But if you add just one console into that equation, well, the only reason to get a PC is to keep up with the Joneses, gaming-wise, or if there is a specific game or three that you really want that will never make it to the Mac. Which is fine.

--Eric

Macamus Prime

Mar 16, 2005, 02:06 AM

Ok, everyone brings up some good points. Basically, Apple should not build gaming Macs.

But, do you think they should focus more time and resources into making Macs "better" at running video games? Or, does that fall into the developer's responsibility? Does Apple need to make OS X more "developer friendly" in respect to creating games?

ddtlm

Mar 16, 2005, 04:11 AM

Kelvin:

Even for a very very very basic task Altivec does wonders for games.
I'd argue that its perhaps only the basic tasks where AltiVec does much good.

Take for example a FPS: when you shoot someone in the head for your monster kill. The game has to calculate at least two dot products and a cross product to shoot the ray through the scene to find out what you hit. With Altivec, you can do this with 1/4 of the instructions and 1/8th the time of doing it serially.
Well first of all, the competition is not doing it serially, they have vector instructions of their own. Second, I imagine that a major component of this is narrowing down the possible targets by some sort of search (but having never messed with any sort of 3D game engine I wouldn't know). It seems to me that games offer some opportunities for AltiVec but not enough to be a big deal overall.

Now get to scene rendering.
Graphics hardware.

That second G5 cpu is sitting there doing nothing, when it could be handling all manner of things like physics, sound, etc. Fire up iTunes while playing games on your G5 dualie and you're likely to notice no frame rate hit whatsoever.
And this isn't true for a dual Opteron or Xeon running Windows or Linux?

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 16, 2005, 08:02 AM

Apple has a huge problem in their line up and that is not allowing for a better GPU in iMac as a option for the gamers(consumers) and not selling a Powermac with 1 of its fastest CPU's. Consumers dont need 2 G5s :confused: Nor its costs but they would like to combine a great GPU with that single fastest CPU. So for the MacGamer there is no solution. Apples tier structure is horrible for Consumers who want to game. These 2 easy fixes dont fit into Apples structure of iMac vs Powermac. Instead of Apple trying to play these two systems against each other they should be doing what i said so each line up can compliment the other. What Apple has now runs off the consumer gamer so they buy a PC because both systems dont provide for what the consumer/gamer prosumer needs. I wonder how many folks are using PCs just because of this.