Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,126
38,888


The popular, previously PC-centric graphics benchmarking suite 3DMark has been launched natively on macOS, offering Mac users a dedicated tool to test their system's gaming performance.

3dmark-logo.jpg

The new macOS version includes four benchmark tests: Wild Life Extreme, Solar Bay, Steel Nomad Light, and the demanding Steel Nomad benchmark previously exclusive to Windows. All tests run natively using Apple's Metal API and produce results comparable across Windows, iOS, and Android platforms.

UL Solutions developed the macOS port after discovering that one-sixth of 3DMark Steel Nomad Light submissions came from Mac devices running the iOS version. The problem was that the iOS app's frame rate limitations, particularly on powerful Macs, could negatively impact benchmark scores.

Mac users who purchase the full version ($34.99) gain access to Explorer Mode for the Steel Nomad benchmarks, allowing free exploration of test scenes and hidden secrets. Additional features include result saving to 3DMark.com accounts, custom resolution settings, HDR support, and Steam achievements.

Existing 3DMark owners automatically can pick up the macOS version at no extra cost. Future purchases will include both Windows and macOS versions where supported, according to UL Solutions.

3DMark for macOS is available through Steam, where a free demo version can also be downloaded. UL Solutions sys a full version is coming soon to the Epic Games Store, and the app can be directly from 3DMark.com.

Article Link: 3DMark Benchmarking Tool Now Available on macOS
 
  • Like
Reactions: singhs.apps
As someone who's trying to figure out how the M4/M4 Pro compares to PC. I'm looking to get a Mac Mini, and picking the right configuration is important. I'm really happy to see this become available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu and zapmymac
As someone who's trying to figure out how the M4/M4 Pro compares to PC. I'm looking to get a Mac Mini, and picking the right configuration is important. I'm really happy to see this become available.
Yeah, interesting if this will be a good way to compare gaming performance (at least on paper) between Mac and PC/Windows etc.
 
Wow 1/6 of user benchmark mac.

It turns out most of mac gamers are benchmarkers we made along the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My M1 MBP, is getting a 905 in Steel Nomad, and searching 3dmark, it seems that the M4 Pro Mini is around 1531 when I searched for the results.
 
My M1 MBP, is getting a 905 in Steel Nomad, and searching 3dmark, it seems that the M4 Pro Mini is around 1531 when I searched for the results.
So you'd be going from 9 fps to 15 fps (the score is the framerate x 100). Is that enough of a jump for you?
 
Base model M4 Mini getting about 850 in my tests with Steel Nomad. It was about 7 - 8 fps.

That well outpaces the AMD Radeon 780M (540 or so), which is generally considered one of the best iGPUs that's available for laptops and general mini pcs. Although the base M4 Mini appears to be limited in performance, in real world gaming, it does just fine as long as you set expectations and graphics levels appropriately.

If you bump up to a higher spec iGPU, the AMD Radeon 8060S is getting about a 2000. That's ahead of the M4 Pro but considerably behind a base version M4 Max (2800+ range). Those iGPUs are found in AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 machines, which are easily $1500+. It looks like the base M4 Max scores similarly to a RTX 2070 Super. That's great performance for an integrated GPU that uses much less power than a 2070 Super.

The M3 Ultras (80 core) are in the 5400 range, which matches the RTX 4070 Super.
 
Last edited:
So you'd be going from 9 fps to 15 fps (the score is the framerate x 100). Is that enough of a jump for you?
This is a synthetic benchmark, I loaded fallout 76 on my M1 MBP, and it was playable on high detail, so I would expect M4 Pro Mini
 
I can confirm with my own testing that my Mac studio M4 Max rendering in Lightwave3D 2025 with octane is as fast as a current GEN i9 with a RTX 4090. Simply stunning when you consider the size, noise, and power (watts) factors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zapmymac
I can confirm with my own testing that my Mac studio M4 Max rendering in Lightwave3D 2025 with octane is as fast as a current GEN i9 with a RTX 4090. Simply stunning when you consider the size, noise, and power (watts) factors.
Didn't realise Lightwave was still a thing. I bought it for my Amiga 1200 for £500 in the mid-1990s and still have the 7 1.44MB floppy disks it came on. Those were the days, waiting 2-3 days for a single frame to render!
 
As someone who's trying to figure out how the M4/M4 Pro compares to PC. I'm looking to get a Mac Mini, and picking the right configuration is important.
The outfit we buy our 3D/video workstations just published an article with extensive benchmarks of their high end laptop against current Threadripper/Nvidia workstations, and they have an M3 Max MBP in the mix as well. Very interesting results. Net, the M4 Max is probably the fastest chip for Photoshop, but for 3D and some video applications Apple Silicon is still not quite ahead.

You should be able to extrapolate pretty easily from M3 Max MBP to an M4 desktop…



We have the laptop mentioned, by the way, and it seems pretty good, although laptops are much more of a compromise in PC land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maflynn
Didn't realise Lightwave was still a thing. I bought it for my Amiga 1200 for £500 in the mid-1990s and still have the 7 1.44MB floppy disks it came on. Those were the days, waiting 2-3 days for a single frame to render!
GOOD TIMES. Check out that Hold and Modify guy over the YT for some classic LW Amiga stuff! (and yes LW is still alive and well, just a small foot print nowadays) www.lightwave3d.com
 
Well, if this app has been really optimized the results for Apple Silicon are not so good... an M4 Max with 40 GPU cores scores like a base 3070. The 5700XT which was the last top videocard of the 2020 Intel iMacs scores not far from the M4 Max (but of course the graphic performance on those iMacs was constrained by the poor CPU).
 
Well, if this app has been really optimized the results for Apple Silicon are not so good... an M4 Max with 40 GPU cores scores like a base 3070. The 5700XT which was the last top videocard of the 2020 Intel iMacs scores not far from the M4 Max (but of course the graphic performance on those iMacs was constrained by the poor CPU).
If you trust the Steel Nomad light results (on iOS, iPad as well) then the normal results should also be trusted since it is just a resolution bump.
 
If you trust the Steel Nomad light results (on iOS, iPad as well) then the normal results should also be trusted since it is just a resolution bump.

And so, the M4 Max with the 40GPU cores benchmarks are good for compute but are still disappointing for gaming.
 
Weird I got 4048 for Steel Nomad on my stock M4 Mini(iPhone 15 scored 5k?), but my 7800x3d and 9070xt scored only 7600 something. Someone make these scores make sense.
 
Weird I got 4048 for Steel Nomad on my stock M4 Mini(iPhone 15 scored 5k?), but my 7800x3d and 9070xt scored only 7600 something. Someone make these scores make sense.

Perhaps you tested the Steel Nomad light for the M4 Mini? The 5700XT scores 10000 in that test.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.