Gaming MacBook Rumored coming 2016

[antonis]

Each Xbox 360 game has to be specifically made compatible (probably a wrapper or something) - but it's also not a complete rewrite. You can't just stick in every 360 disc and play it.

The PS4 has no backward compatibility whatsoever. Allegedly, it's too complicated, and given the odd CPU the PS3 had, which is probably difficult to emulate, there's some credence to it. The PS3 originally had backwards compatibility to the PS2 with a dedicated chip, but they left it out in later versions for cost reasons.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Even with the need of this wrapping/re-packaging it is great that Xbox has this feature. At least for good titles that will not be ported to the newer console.

Indeed, I remember the PS3 compatibility case and the - justified - rage it brought when this compatibility was removed by Sony. Had no idea where the PS4 stands.

 

[Strider64]

I just installed Fallout 4 on the bootcamp side on my 27" iMac 5K and I'm pleasantly surprised so far the fan isn't noisy at all. The graphics are just beautiful on the 5k Retina Display and I had to laugh when it detected the hardware it said it couldn't determine the resolution so it set it on low resolution. I manually bumped it up to high and might just test it out on ultra high resolution for kicks. I'm a casual to medium gamer, but I have been gaming since the early 80s. I'm more interested in gameplay than graphics and back then the graphics very very basic. Granted it's nice to have eye candy, but to me if the gameplay isn't there then the game isn't worth it.

I personally don't think Apple would redesign any of their computers with gaming being the sole purpose.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

Actually, there are and will be compromises on the Xbox One, regarding resolution, framerate and general image quality. It's too early to say how the PC version of The Division will turn out, but RoTT already looks better on PC.
[doublepost=1454056420][/doublepost]
Each Xbox 360 game has to be specifically made compatible (probably a wrapper or something) - but it's also not a complete rewrite. You can't just stick in every 360 disc and play it.

The PS4 has no backward compatibility whatsoever. Allegedly, it's too complicated, and given the odd CPU the PS3 had, which is probably difficult to emulate, there's some credence to it. The PS3 originally had backwards compatibility to the PS2 with a dedicated chip, but they left it out in later versions for cost reasons.

In contrast to PC, it has long been true that with the passage of time that consoles fall behind in terms of visuals as the hardware platform stays the same while the PC continues to improve each year. So that's nothing new really. To me at least, the differences are marginal not major. Both consoles look quite good. I've seen both at my sister's home playing various new titles. They look great in fact. At least, to my eyes they sure do. So I don't consider such a marginal difference to be a significant compromise. Trying to play either of them on my present iMac would be however. Trying to play them on a newer iMac would be as well I think since even brand new the performance is midrange so that isn't going to compete with a gaming PC. All that said, I wouldn't argue with you about whether or not the PC is going to be capable at times now and more frequently going forward of being better. I just don't think it is by enough that I'd care about it at all or consider it any sort of compromise. In absolute terms I have to concede you are correct of course but I don't feel that makes any difference at all to me is what I mean.

One thing is certain, the games will run one heck of a lot better on the XBox for me than on the late-2013 27" iMac I do not intend to replace anytime soon which can run a lot of games I own very nicely but it's all over for new releases pretty much for this system. I found that out when I installed Alien Isolation and some other new Feral and Aspyr titles and had to turn down both resolution and eye candy significantly for them to run decently. They still look good but I'm sure they look better on an XBox One.

As for PS4 backward compatibility as I understand it they are soon going to have (if not already) backward compatibility with classic PS2 titles which will be available on their system's online store. The way they are doing things though, people will have to buy the games again unlike with the XBox One which will for compatible titles allow the user to insert their disk and it will copy the files to the system's hard disk although in those cases it will always require the disk be in the drive when that game is played. Otherwise though, any of the new 360 compatible releases can be had on their online store. XBox is ahead here in the sense of offering last gen compatibility but on the other hand the PS2 had an extensive library of really good titles so that's still a substantial plus also. I still have my PS2 with a library of some of the best games that released for it, for me anyway. To give you an idea of how I am not too fussy in the way of visuals, stuff like SSX 3 still looks cool to me even on the PS2. It's still a lot of fun to play.

I forgot to mention that XBox One compatibility with 360 titles is the result of them creating an emulator that runs on the system and was introduced with a recent system software update. I don't think anything about the games themselves needs to be changed, wrapped or whatever or else you could not stick a disk in the drive and play that game which it does allow for any compatible title. I think the thing there is more to do with what's been tested/certified to work well with their emulator and which titles are being approved by various Publishers for re-release on the XBox One store.

 

[antonis]

I forgot to mention that XBox One compatibility with 360 titles is the result of them creating an emulator that runs on the system and was introduced with a recent system software update. I don't think anything about the games themselves needs to be changed, wrapped or whatever or else you could not stick a disk in the drive and play that game which it does allow for any compatible title. I think the thing there is more to do with what's been tested/certified to work well with their emulator and which titles are being approved by various Publishers for re-release on the XBox One store.

Thanks, those were interesting info. That makes sense. So they actually did something like Apple did with rosetta when switched to intel. I guess since the h/w in the new console is much faster, it can do that without problems. That sounds much better than what Sony does with PS4 (and waaaay much better than what they did with PS3 ).

 

[Dirtyharry50]

Thanks, those were interesting info. That makes sense. So they actually did something like Apple did with rosetta when switched to intel. I guess since the h/w in the new console is much faster, it can do that without problems. That sounds much better than what Sony does with PS4 (and waaaay much better than what they did with PS3 ).

I imagine SONY must have cooked up an emulator too but yeah, it is limited to two generations ago. Personally, I think both systems are really nice but I can afford one both monetarily and time-wise so I went XBox One for a variety of reasons not the least of which was the complete Halo series can be played on it now. Plus my youngest nephew has one and wants me to play Call of Duty Zombies, etc. with him online which will be fun too.

 

[kaltsasa]

In contrast to PC, it has long been true that with the passage of time that consoles fall behind in terms of visuals as the hardware platform stays the same while the PC continues to improve each year. So that's nothing new really. To me at least, the differences are marginal not major. Both consoles look quite good. I've seen both at my sister's home playing various new titles. They look great in fact. At least, to my eyes they sure do. So I don't consider such a marginal difference to be a significant compromise. Trying to play either of them on my present iMac would be however. Trying to play them on a newer iMac would be as well I think since even brand new the performance is midrange so that isn't going to compete with a gaming PC. All that said, I wouldn't argue with you about whether or not the PC is going to be capable at times now and more frequently going forward of being better. I just don't think it is by enough that I'd care about it at all or consider it any sort of compromise. In absolute terms I have to concede you are correct of course but I don't feel that makes any difference at all to me is what I mean.

I'm with ya brother. I have a rather meaty PC built a few years ago and while there is no question it has BETTER graphics and more customizability than a console I find myself just chilaxxing in the recliner and playing on the Wii U or xBone. I just don't care that much anymore to deal with all the fiddly Windows bits. I have Elite Dangerous on both Mac/Win and xBone and I am more inclined to just melt into the recliner after the kids go to bed and fly around a bit than go settle into my computer desk. There's no question it's "better" over there, flight stick, GTX680, I just don't seem to care all that much anymore. They all "Look good enough" these days for my aging eyes. It's just easier for the kids to deal with the tv and console than a derputer right now anyway. And when one of them gets old enough to warrant a second console in their room or somewhere else in the house it's a good sight cheaper than building another PC. PC Master Racing 3 people in the house will get expensive.

On the computer side I find myself playing more and more classic games from GoG than the latest releases anyway, which routinely are packaged for OS X and run fine on my 2012 MBP or the ol 2008 Mac Pro.

Right now I've got the PC and MP hooked up to a 144hz ASUS monitor with some keyboard switching business. It's just a lot of wires and mess. I need to do some work in my kitchen, I am thinking of framing in this open area I have with a pass through breakfast bar and putting a wall hanging desk to the one side. I might then upgrade the Mac Pro to a newer iMac and put it there and just simplify my setup a lot. I'm old, and crotchety, and I just want to drink coffee, read the news, and play some games with a lot less wire mess than I have now. I'll leave the dickering to the youngins.

 

[kingtj]

Honestly, I think the requirements for a good "gaming" machine aren't all that different than what's needed for a good machine for creating animation or doing 3D design work. Most of the games people consider "cutting edge" today are essentially interactive movies. So the trick becomes having enough RAM, processing power AND video performance to push around as many pixels as possible, as quickly as possible, while still being able to do a lot of raw processing in the background (to calculate where each player is on a map in a multiplayer game, and who has what objects, who was struck by a moving object, etc. etc.).

Given that? I think it is pretty disappointing that Apple's Mac Pro workstation, at least, isn't such a good "gaming machine". Even if that's not Apple's target market for it, it stands to reason it should be very good at it. It isn't only because of limitations in OS X like no Crossfire video support and poorly optimized OpenGL. That and that fact that PC gamers tend to get pretty "extreme" in pushing everything to the limit of performance -- so using water cooling and overclocking, etc. Those are all things Apple has frowned on, if they EVER dabbled in them. (Water cooling was a thing only on one PowerMac tower from Apple, and turned out to be a failure because of one of the companies they sourced the water pumps from. They kept springing leaks and caused out of warranty replacements due to safety issues.)

IMO, Apple will never truly make an iMac into a great gaming machine - simply because it's based on a laptop main board and chipset. The soldered-on laptop type GPUs never perform as well as PC desktop video card counterparts because they assume less ability to ventilate excess heat. It's just part of the trade-off for offering a compact, all in one desktop.

 

[kaltsasa]

IMO, Apple will never truly make an iMac into a great gaming machine - simply because it's based on a laptop main board and chipset. The soldered-on laptop type GPUs never perform as well as PC desktop video card counterparts because they assume less ability to ventilate excess heat. It's just part of the trade-off for offering a compact, all in one desktop.

It doesn't need to be great but the Iris Pro 6200 can barely push the 4k iMac just showing the finder at native res, let alone doing tasks that require GPU compute performance. Any retina class iMac should have a discrete card standard (it's not even an option one the 21.5"!) I quote from Apple's iMac page.

"The best display, paired with high-performance processors, graphics, and storage — all within an incredibly thin, seamless enclosure. And that commitment continues with the all-new 21.5‑inch iMac with Retina 4K display."

The 21.5" iMac barely has passable graphics performance, let alone high performance. I'm an unabashed Apple fanboi from the old days but I've no qualms calling them out on a modern road apple.

 

[e93to]

I always wondered if desktop components can fit in iMac. Is it possible to fit desktop motherboard and GTX 980 in an iMac?

And is it feasible to have them in such tight assembly (cooling, etc)?

 

[kaltsasa]

I always wondered if desktop components can fit in iMac. Is it possible to fit desktop motherboard and GTX 980 in an iMac?

And is it feasible to have them in such tight assembly (cooling, etc)?

As is, no. There is little room for such components, you couldn't easily gut an iMac and stick desktop components in it. Could they make one. Sure. Look at the recent All In One units coming out of MSI and Origin. Pillars of design they are not but they look ok and are certainly powerful.

https://originpc.com/landing/2016/omni/

The thing is I don't need a Titan X anymore than I need Intel 6200 integrated graphics in an iMac. I need a 21.5" iMac to fit on my desk and I need it to have a discrete GPU that can drive the display they build it with. The current specs are fine sans the bloody GPU.

 

[El Hikaru]

Not possible to compete with $400 consoles. Enthusiastic gamers build their own desktop PC. Apple makes what consumers love not what I would love.

 

[dba415]

there is no such thing as a gaming macbook because most games run better on windows anyway. Dedicated people build a hackintosh and dual boot windows for gaming.

 

[CJM]

It would be a radical change of direction for Apple if they decided to work on OS X's graphics drivers and OpenGL support. That said, I would welcome it. Crappy GPUs and bad thermal design is what turned me away from Macs in the first place.

Yeah, I would definitely buy a gaming Macbook. I like having the hardware power available when I do need it.

 

[Noble Actual]

Apple does not care about gaming.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

Apple does not care about gaming.

Sure they do - iOS gaming that is!

 

[Noble Actual]

Sure they do - iOS gaming that is!

Only time they cared so much about iOS gaming was when they designed that awful green/brown velvet abomination and then touted as it being better than Xbox Live and PSN...because technically more people "had it".

I laughed when Forstall said it.

 

[saturnotaku]

It would be a radical change of direction for Apple if they decided to work on OS X's graphics drivers and OpenGL support. That said, I would welcome it. Crappy GPUs and bad thermal design is what turned me away from Macs in the first place.

Yeah, I would definitely buy a gaming Macbook. I like having the hardware power available when I do need it.

An easy solution would be to license the Blade from Razer (or the GS60 Ghost from MSI) and make OS X compatible with the hardware. It'll never happen, but the hardware is certainly capable of being put into a notebook without losing too much of the Apple aesthetic.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

Only time they cared so much about iOS gaming was when they designed that awful green/brown velvet abomination and then touted as it being better than Xbox Live and PSN...because technically more people "had it".

I laughed when Forstall said it.

Well, Game Center does what it needs to for iOS gaming and there's a lot to be said for a minimalist approach vs the feature bloat that has fattened steam to its present ugliness which would not be so bad if you could selectively completely hide whatever you wish but you can't.

In any event, there's no denying the huge revenue source that is all things iOS apps and gaming. It is very, very popular and very profitable.