Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MrUNIMOG

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2014
650
418
Hamburg, Germany
Excited to see it ported this soon! ?
The lack of any mention of a Mac version until now had me a little worried.

However those system requirements are insane. Radeon Pro 580 with 8 GB VRAM? Heck, the Windows version is supposed to run on a 2 GB GTX 680 or an even older Radeon 7970... So the macOS port requires like double the graphics power and 4x the VRAM!? ? That seems a little off to me...

Best case would be they're just playing it safe, given the performance issues the game still seems to have even on Windows, perhaps the minimum requirements on the Windows side were a bit low to begin with.
Worst case would be they screwed up the port, which I fear doesn't seem all that unlikely if Gearbox decided to do it in-house instead of utilizing the macOS expertise of Feral or Aspyr.

So yeah I too am very interested to see how it runs. Any way though I don't have much hope for my 680MX late 2012 iMac, maybe it's time for me to look into eGPU possibilities..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: martyjmclean

largefarrva

macrumors 6502a
Jun 30, 2012
901
364
I’m not current on the different video card hierarchy....will my 27” imac with the 4gb m295x be able to play this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG

T'hain Esh Kelch

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2001
5,399
5,275
Denmark
Requirements are extreme, and first reviews I've seen points to the port being quite bad. It runs extremely bad, and is quite bug ridden.

I am glad my 2011 iMac can't run it, because otherwise I would be even more sad. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG

gkarris

macrumors G3
Dec 31, 2004
8,301
1,054
"No escape from Reality...”
However those system requirements are insane. Radeon Pro 580 with 8 GB VRAM? Heck, the Windows version is supposed to run on a 2 GB GTX 680 or an even older Radeon 7970... So the macOS port requires like double the graphics power and 4x the VRAM!? ? That seems a little off to me...

Remember that unless you’re running a larger chassis Mac Pro, the GPU’s in iMacs and Macbooks are under clocked mobile chips hence the need for a more powerful chip and more memory...
 

jeanlain

macrumors 68000
Mar 14, 2009
1,870
584
Remember that unless you’re running a larger chassis Mac Pro, the GPU’s in iMacs and Macbooks are under clocked mobile chips hence the need for a more powerful chip and more memory...
No. The radon 580 that is in my iMac is only sightly less powerful than the RX 580. It's rated at 5.5 GFlops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG

gkarris

macrumors G3
Dec 31, 2004
8,301
1,054
"No escape from Reality...”
No. The radon 580 that is in my iMac is only sightly less powerful than the RX 580. It's rated at 5.5 GFlops.

No. You're iMac's RADEON 580 is not running a the normal clock speed...



The PC one is clearly superior...
 
Last edited:

jeanlain

macrumors 68000
Mar 14, 2009
1,870
584
That's what I said. The Mac version it's about 10% slower than the PC version. Anyhow, it's not a mobile GPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG

wubsylol

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 6, 2014
378
387
It runs pretty badly on my Radeon Pro 580 iMac. Long load times, plenty of stutter, all-round not a great port.

I'd be interested to know who's behind it. I'd be surprised if Gearbox did it internally, but this kind of result is pretty poor from any major macOS porting house.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: MrUNIMOG

MrUNIMOG

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2014
650
418
Hamburg, Germany
No. You're iMac's RADEON 580 is not running a the normal clock speed...



The PC one is clearly superior...

"The PC one" is a funny way to call the standard desktop graphics card. It's not like that card didn't work perfectly fine with macOS.. ?
"Desktop version" might be a more accurate way to put it.
 

gkarris

macrumors G3
Dec 31, 2004
8,301
1,054
"No escape from Reality...”
"The PC one" is a funny way to call the standard desktop graphics card. It's not like that card didn't work perfectly fine with macOS.. ?
"Desktop version" might be a more accurate way to put it.

It's all gonna be moot anyways:

 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG

MrUNIMOG

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2014
650
418
Hamburg, Germany
Remember that unless you’re running a larger chassis Mac Pro, the GPU’s in iMacs and Macbooks are under clocked mobile chips hence the need for a more powerful chip and more memory...

More powerful chip sure, but why would they need more memory?
My iMac's GTX 680MX performs similar to a desktop GTX 660Ti. It's the full Kepler chip just like the desktop 680 (and unlike the standard 680M), but clocked lower.

However I don't see why you seem to think that would explain the ridiculous difference in official system requirements. Even the "mobile" Radeon Pro 580 is roughly double the performance of a desktop GTX 680 (and double the memory). Sure it might be an inefficient port, but not twice as inefficient..
[automerge]1572989535[/automerge]
It's all gonna be moot anyways:

I doubt they'll go all-ARM on the Mac in the next 5 years. Certainly some models will be ARM sooner rather than later, but I don't see them do a clean Intel-ARM cut like they did back with the PPC-Intel transition. Though probably all Macs retaining Intel-CPUs will be kind of hybrid with an ARM coprocessor, like already today with the T2.
 
Last edited:

MrUNIMOG

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2014
650
418
Hamburg, Germany
The reviews seem to show it doesn't run nearly as well under MacOS so I'll probably pass on this port.
From what I've heard performance is extremely inconsistent. There's probably still a lot of issues to fix.

I think I'm just going to wait until it's on steam and hope things will be ironed out by then.
Can't really afford to spend much time on gaming right now anyway..
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.