Gaming on a Mac, viable?

[Irishman]

Apple's lack of support for desktop gaming, imho, is not due to their strategic decision to only invest in future or because of their hesitation to invest on a dying market. A serious desktop gaming support would dictate upgrade-ability and Apple is obsessively against that, more and more with every new computer they launch. Macs have become "Amigas", but in an era where everything moves and evolves way faster. Besides, profit seems to take an ever-growing percent as a factor to Apple's decisions, especially during the last years. iOS and mobile computing/gaming is much more profitable and - still - forgives the closed, locked ecosystems. In Apple's eyes, this is heaven.

It hasn't been that long in real-world time (mid-2012) since Apple made and supported a tower case with expandability, and there is a thriving second-hand market around those units. There is no reason why they couldn't return to that form factor in the future, especially in a world where 2015 and Q1 2016 continue Apple's trend for increasing Mac unit sales. http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/appl...pads-watch-macs-sold-revenue-results-3581769/

If anything, PC gamers should be nervous about hobbyist hardcore/pro gaming drying up and dying on the vine, because the PC market as a whole continues to shrink. But, back to Apple - it's too easy to imagine that Apple has burned creative, design, and engineering bridges by shifting to Darth Vader's trash can, but is that really so? They've shown that they can shift gears quite dramatically and suddenly when it suits them. It's just stress-inducing for us as Mac users and fans to watch from the sidelines BECAUSE we're not in the know regarding their plans. PC makers for the most part do iterative changes and improvements. We can kind of predict where they're going to go, because it's the same path they've gone for decades - improved feeds and speeds.

Apple is immensely more difficult to figure out.

 

[Mackilroy]

The PC market may not be growing, but PC gaming is alive and thriving.

 

[Ursadorable]

The PC market may not be growing, but PC gaming is alive and thriving.

Yes, like Call of Duty 15, Far Cry 12, Assassins Creed 21, Fallout 7, Sim City 19, etc. Too bad there's very little original ideas in today's gaming marketplace.

 

[Exhale]

If anything, PC gamers should be nervous about hobbyist hardcore/pro gaming drying up and dying on the vine, because the PC market as a whole continues to shrink.

Not really - since a big chunk of the PC market isn't gaming oriented, and it especially isn't OEM PC oriented (which is what stats sites are tracking). Even then a lack of new PC purchases doesn't say much - when the PC gaming community has been in a well established 'Sandy Bridge is still good enough' mood for years. That processor is approaching 6 years of age. As it currently looks - by the time Gamers will start feeling that SB is no longer good enough, it'll have outlived the lifespan of the PS3/XB360. Its already outlived the lifespan of almost every other console generation.

 

[Irishman]

Not really - since a big chunk of the PC market isn't gaming oriented, and it especially isn't OEM PC oriented (which is what stats sites are tracking). Even then a lack of new PC purchases doesn't say much - when the PC gaming community has been in a well established 'Sandy Bridge is still good enough' mood for years. That processor is approaching 6 years of age. As it currently looks - by the time Gamers will start feeling that SB is no longer good enough, it'll have outlived the lifespan of the PS3/XB360. Its already outlived the lifespan of almost every other console generation.

I don't think the longevity of SB is something PC makers should trot out to prove the long-term robustness of their market.

 

[Exhale]

I don't think the longevity of SB is something PC makers should trot out to prove the long-term robustness of their market.

PC makers - no. But the statement was in regards to PC Gamers.

 

[Mackilroy]

Yes, like Call of Duty 15, Far Cry 12, Assassins Creed 21, Fallout 7, Sim City 19, etc. Too bad there's very little original ideas in today's gaming marketplace.

If that's all you see, you need to broaden your search. Look outside Ubisoft, EA,or Activision, and there's plenty of variety to be found.

 

[Irishman]

PC makers - no. But the statement was in regards to PC Gamers.

Even less so, then. Why should gamers care?

 

[Exhale]

Even less so, then. Why should gamers care?

What? Gamers have nothing to worry about in regards to the market drying up because they're not particularly affected by how well hardware sales go; and PC game profits aren't on a decline. Biggest block to super-high def games is that developing high resolution models and textures is expensive (it also complicates distribution).

 

[antonis]

I don't think that the PC global sales decline says much regarding high-end gaming. PCs (and Macs as well) serving as a general purpose computer are cannibalized by tablets. Tablets are cannibalized by phablets etc etc. All of them can play games, but none can reach the PC level, or the - so called - AAA gaming. Consoles can, but only for a while for each iteration (how many latest top titles can someone play on PS3 today and in what quality ? ). So, I don't see what the gaming PCs can be replaced with.

 

[Irishman]

What? Gamers have nothing to worry about in regards to the market drying up because they're not particularly affected by how well hardware sales go; and PC game profits aren't on a decline. Biggest block to super-high def games is that developing high resolution models and textures is expensive (it also complicates distribution).

How are PC gamers going to continue getting AAA releases once the PC market dries up???? The two are intimately connected. And you can swap out "gamer" for " businessman", "multimedia artist" or any other niche within the PC market, and the analogy holds up just as well.
[doublepost=1455286119][/doublepost]

I don't think that the PC global sales decline says much regarding high-end gaming. PCs (and Macs as well) serving as a general purpose computer are cannibalized by tablets. Tablets are cannibalized by phablets etc etc. All of them can play games, but none can reach the PC level, or the - so called - AAA gaming. Consoles can, but only for a while for each iteration (how many latest top titles can someone play on PS3 today and in what quality ? ). So, I don't see what the gaming PCs can be replaced with.

Well, just because the PC hardware capable of running modern AAA is "too crucial to fail" - not to mention that nothing stands ready to replace PC gaming hardware in the developmental pipeline - doesn't mean for a second that PC gaming can't fail.

Besides, I'm not arguing for the failure of the PC market. I simply used it as a reminder of how little respect the Mac market gets, even in the light of near-record growth in the Mac market. In the case of the PC market, success is assumed, whereas in the case of the Mac market, failure is assumed.

 

[h9826790]

Hi Guys
my grandson is a gamer and is considering the option of using Parallels on a Mac for gaming
is this a viable or would a windows machine be the better option
.......Gary

You can do that, but the performance will be much much worse than the machine can do in native Windows. (Assuming the Mac has a decent GPU)

If he really want a Mac, and that Mac is OK for gaming. It's much much better to install Windows (e.g. via bootcamp), and run the game in native Windows.

If all he want is just a gaming machine. IMO, the best choice is console. If for any reason, he prefer a computer, then a gaming PC is the way to go. For the same amount of money, gaming PC will give out much better performance.

Few specific Mac are OK for gaming, but for the same performance, will cost more than a gaming PC, and have much much less choice of hardware.

Since you say that your grandson is a gamer, I will assume what he need is an upgradable gaming PC for long term. And TBH, I don't think Parallel is a real option for him.

Also, even though he can get a Mac that is good for gaming at this moment. Since the hardware is not upgradable, that Mac will be quickly out of date for gaming. Unless he is OK to drop his demand from high setting to low setting etc.

The best gaming Mac for GPU demanding is the Mac Pro (2009 - 2012), this Mac can use Titan X internally, no other Mac has this ability. However, this old Mac Pro's CPU is limited to the 3.46GHz XEON CPU. So, for CPU limiting games, it won't give out good performance. For CPU demanding game, the current iMac is the best choice, it has a 4GHz CPU. However, GPU's performance is no where near the old Mac Pro can do. And you can see the problem is that there is no overall good gaming machine in the Mac world. Also, both option won't be cheaper than a gaming PC.

So, unless he want "one machine, two function" (gaming + able to run OSX). I won't recommend he to get a Mac. If this is really what he want. Ask himself what's the budget, which kind of game he use to play, and pick the "best" Mac for that within his budget.

 

[antonis]

Besides, I'm not arguing for the failure of the PC market. I simply used it as a reminder of how little respect the Mac market gets, even in the light of near-record growth in the Mac market. In the case of the PC market, success is assumed, whereas in the case of the Mac market, failure is assumed.

I wouldn't easily say that Mac gets no respect, when speaking on a generic context. Actually, Mac is considered a top-of-the-line computer in every other aspect, compared to PCs. Macs do not suffer from lack of quality software for any possible usage of a computer. I'm using a Mac laptop in my work for plenty of years now (IT industry) and I have nothing to desire regarding my PC-user colleagues. The opposite is quite often.

It is only the high-end gaming where Macs are just out of the picture. But this is not because of some lack of respect for the entire platform, per se. It's just not in Apple's intentions to compete in this category. I can't honestly blame the game publishers for that.

 

[saturnotaku]

For CPU demanding game, the current iMac is the best choice, it has a 4GHz CPU.

Actually it isn't because once the iMac's CPU thermal throttles quite easily. Games are still "playable" but for the money, the old Mac Pro remains the better option.

 

[h9826790]

Actually it isn't because once the iMac's CPU thermal throttles quite easily. Games are still "playable" but for the money, the old Mac Pro remains the better option.

I totally agree that the cMP is the best gaming machine in the Mac world. Especially the games now are more multi core orientated, and GPU is so important for good games. I personally use my dual HD7950 4,1 (as per my signature) as my gaming machine as well. It's connected to a 84" 4K TV, the picture is just stunning (compare to the XB1, PS4, etc).

However, if only consider CPU demanding game's performance. I am not 100% sure about this. If a game is very CPU single thread performance limiting. I quite doubt that the cMP can do better, even the 6700K thermal throttled down to 3GHz, it's single thread processing power should still higher than the X5690 run at full speed. The X5690 is quite old now, the 6700 has much better performance per Hz then the X5690. Of course, you may have to pay much more for that little extra performance (assuming thermal throttling do really happen), but the iMac may still a faster gaming machine for that particular game.

The cMP is quite all rounded, but it's CPU(s) is like a truck. Huge power available to handle heavy duty, but not necessary moving fast. If a game that only focus on top CPU speed, the iMac will win. Even a Ferrari can't travel at it's max speed, most likely it still can moving faster then the truck. Of course, the Ferrari is much more expensive, and it can't do other job better than the truck, but it is faster (in this particular single task).

 

[Exhale]

How are PC gamers going to continue getting AAA releases once the PC market dries up????

First, the companies making PCs are not the ones making PC games. PC gaming revenues aren't in a decline - and remains the #1 Revenue source by a very significant margin. On the hardware side, high-end hardware such as high-refresh monitors and more expensive peripherals like Mechanical keyboards have been going up dramatically year-over-year. Hell, AMD and NVIDIA are both back in the business of selling super-expensive gaming-oriented graphics cards again - because its become a viable market where it recently wasn't.

The only ones being hurt by a reduced computer refresh rates are computer OEMs. But again, the bulk of these machines are the types you find in offices - with a tiny overlap with the segment that plays games. EA doesn't really make more money because people refresh their computers more regularly. The share of Laptops playing games on the Windows side just isn't that high, and never has been. Heck, its actually become easier to play games on Laptops and low-end systems in recent years - only making the viable marketshare greater.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

Having read all posts since my last one I get the impression some of us are talking about the future and some of us are rooted more in what they see right now today. Those two things I don't think represent much source of difference in view among us actually. For example, there's no question that PC gaming is doing very well presently, I would think better than it ever has in its history by a significant margin. Everything I was thinking about in my last post was in relation to where I believe things are going and references to things happening now were made in places simply to support some of those ideas, such as how badly PC sales have been doing for years now. I just noticed a little back and forth above here where the idea of PC sales not doing well is being dismissed in light of PC games software doing very well. The problem there is again, looking ahead if the trend continues with PC sales and other devices increasingly replacing traditional PCs in consumer environments then it is not really that much of a stretch to see how over a period of time a scenario where increasingly the only real justification for having a PC in your home is to play games on the thing. Where that becomes a problem in terms of market share viability over again, a probably lengthy period of time is that many consumers will not be willing to spend that kind of money to play video games when other solutions cost far less and last a lot longer with no hardware maintenance or upgrading needed. In simplistic terms it is about gaming hardware truly becoming a consumer commodity item that has to be cheap to compete eventually while still delivering a good if not best experience.

Very often I see people make arguments using best case scenarios of high end gaming PCs for the virtues of gaming on the platform and some of that is valid in that the most powerful hardware is PC hardware but the problem is the real powerful hardware that really makes a substantial difference is not cheap nor is upgrading it. As such that is not really what the majority of PC gamers are playing games on. I'm talking now about top of the line video cards costing the same or more than a complete console does. The fact is already that most people will not spend for those versus less expensive options. That never has and never will happen. So those sorts of comparisons tend to be moot when evaluating the platforms. Much better comparisons involve taking a look at what average consumers in the significant majority are using and how that stacks up to alternatives. At that point the gap starts to close quite a bit although I would not argue about PCs still being ahead technically. I would argue though that over the expected life of any of the top consoles, you are going to spend substantially more money on a desktop computer and upgrades to it over that same period of time which again is increasingly going to factor into consumer choices about where their entertainment budget is spent.

In other words, it's an evolutionary thing that is slowly happening, not some revolutionary thing that is happening right now or will in the short term. In my opinion though all current signs point to a future that does not include home desktop PCs existing anymore as they do now because they really will not differentiate themselves enough to justify the greater expense of them and the fact that few would use them for anything else aside of gaming anymore.

 

[Ursadorable]

In my opinion though all current signs point to a future that does not include home desktop PCs existing anymore as they do now because they really will not differentiate themselves enough to justify the greater expense of them and the fact that few would use them for anything else aside of gaming anymore.

I have to concur with this.

Talking with parents around our office, their kids generation all have iPads and use it for everything.. from email, games, homework.. everything. With the odd laptop thrown in, these kids have no interest in desktop PCs. It doesn't have what they want, which for the most part involves portability and being able to do everything they want.

Most families I talked do have one household computer which is primarily used by the parents who haven't gotten used to the smaller form factor of a tablet device. But their kids shun the household desktop computer, and sometimes with a passion.

There's a trend going on, and it's starting with the younger generation.

Heck, even our mobile sales staff are shunning laptops and are asking for iPads to do all their work. Since the majority of our business is done via SaaS applications, there's no need for raw computing power.

I see the traditional desktop PC going the way of the dinosaur as applications move from desktop to the cloud, and with it desktop processing power.

 

[Mackilroy]

Having read all posts since my last one I get the impression some of us are talking about the future and some of us are rooted more in what they see right now today. Those two things I don't think represent much source of difference in view among us actually. For example, there's no question that PC gaming is doing very well presently, I would think better than it ever has in its history by a significant margin. Everything I was thinking about in my last post was in relation to where I believe things are going and references to things happening now were made in places simply to support some of those ideas, such as how badly PC sales have been doing for years now. I just noticed a little back and forth above here where the idea of PC sales not doing well is being dismissed in light of PC games software doing very well. The problem there is again, looking ahead if the trend continues with PC sales and other devices increasingly replacing traditional PCs in consumer environments then it is not really that much of a stretch to see how over a period of time a scenario where increasingly the only real justification for having a PC in your home is to play games on the thing. Where that becomes a problem in terms of market share viability over again, a probably lengthy period of time is that many consumers will not be willing to spend that kind of money to play video games when other solutions cost far less and last a lot longer with no hardware maintenance or upgrading needed. In simplistic terms it is about gaming hardware truly becoming a consumer commodity item that has to be cheap to compete eventually while still delivering a good if not best experience.

Very often I see people make arguments using best case scenarios of high end gaming PCs for the virtues of gaming on the platform and some of that is valid in that the most powerful hardware is PC hardware but the problem is the real powerful hardware that really makes a substantial difference is not cheap nor is upgrading it. As such that is not really what the majority of PC gamers are playing games on. I'm talking now about top of the line video cards costing the same or more than a complete console does. The fact is already that most people will not spend for those versus less expensive options. That never has and never will happen. So those sorts of comparisons tend to be moot when evaluating the platforms. Much better comparisons involve taking a look at what average consumers in the significant majority are using and how that stacks up to alternatives. At that point the gap starts to close quite a bit although I would not argue about PCs still being ahead technically. I would argue though that over the expected life of any of the top consoles, you are going to spend substantially more money on a desktop computer and upgrades to it over that same period of time which again is increasingly going to factor into consumer choices about where their entertainment budget is spent.

In other words, it's an evolutionary thing that is slowly happening, not some revolutionary thing that is happening right now or will in the short term. In my opinion though all current signs point to a future that does not include home desktop PCs existing anymore as they do now because they really will not differentiate themselves enough to justify the greater expense of them and the fact that few would use them for anything else aside of gaming anymore.

PC sales have been trending downward for years, and yet PC gaming continues to become more and more profitable. And if you look at Valve's hardware stats from Steam, the vast majority of their users have low- to middle-range hardware, not 6700Ks or 4790Ks with high-end GPUs and lots of memory.

The day will probably come when a tablet (or a smartphone) can replace a PC, but that is a long time coming. The average tablet doesn't run a desktop OS, doesn't have an easy-to-use keyboard, is thermally limited, is stuck with the hardware it ships with, and has a small screen (relatively speaking). A desktop has none of these constraints, and is more work-capable besides.

I have to concur with this.

Talking with parents around our office, their kids generation all have iPads and use it for everything.. from email, games, homework.. everything. With the odd laptop thrown in, these kids have no interest in desktop PCs. It doesn't have what they want, which for the most part involves portability and being able to do everything they want.

Most families I talked do have one household computer which is primarily used by the parents who haven't gotten used to the smaller form factor of a tablet device. But their kids shun the household desktop computer, and sometimes with a passion.

There's a trend going on, and it's starting with the younger generation.

Heck, even our mobile sales staff are shunning laptops and are asking for iPads to do all their work. Since the majority of our business is done via SaaS applications, there's no need for raw computing power.

I see the traditional desktop PC going the way of the dinosaur as applications move from desktop to the cloud, and with it desktop processing power.

The kids I know, as they've gotten older they've switched away from tablets to a desktop PC and a smartphone. They want more power and more portability, and they get that without using a tablet. And sure, the average family doesn't need four (or six) cores, but there are still many, many fields that do--engineering and scientific especially, and there will always be large numbers of hobbyists who need plenty of power.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

I think again, to look at both PC sales declining while PC gaming is doing well is looking at what is happening now in which this is not yet a problem whereas if one looks at the continuance of this trend over time it clearly does become an issue the more that times passes. I would also question any assumptions of great growth happening presently with PC gaming vs the the very real possibility it is approaching a peak or has already hit that plateau. I don't have the data on that but I bet nobody here does off the top of their head either when making assumptions about PC gaming doing great means declining PC sales are not a problem. When less and less PCs are in consumer homes how can it not increasingly become a problem over time?

Here is an interesting little look at how Microsoft is faring presently with declining PC sales:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/28/tec....html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iid=obnetwork

Above I note the emphasis on kids using tablets and the argument about their gaming capability, etc. but I consider that point to be pretty weak in light of the fact that so many millions of those kids (and adults) are not just playing iOS and Android games - they are also playing AAA on consoles and you can't just ignore that in a discussion like this.

It has reached a point where the best value tends to be in choosing devices best suited to various purposes in terms of value per unit of currency because when you total the expenditures you wind up with solutions that do exactly what you want for a lot less than one system trying to do it all which depending on your wants is many times not even possible as with the case of somebody wanting portability and high end gaming - this does not exist. Gaming laptops don't count. I am talking high end not mid range.

 

[Paulk]

The last 2 posts say it all.

 

[Mackilroy]

I think again, to look at both PC sales declining while PC gaming is doing well is looking at what is happening now in which this is not yet a problem whereas if one looks at the continuance of this trend over time it clearly does become an issue the more that times passes. I would also question any assumptions of great growth happening presently with PC gaming vs the the very real possibility it is approaching a peak or has already hit that plateau. I don't have the data on that but I bet nobody here does off the top of their head either when making assumptions about PC gaming doing great means declining PC sales are not a problem. When less and less PCs are in consumer homes how can it not increasingly become a problem over time?

Here is an interesting little look at how Microsoft is faring presently with declining PC sales:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/28/tec....html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iid=obnetwork

Above I note the emphasis on kids using tablets and the argument about their gaming capability, etc. but I consider that point to be pretty weak in light of the fact that so many millions of those kids (and adults) are not just playing iOS and Android games - they are also playing AAA on consoles and you can't just ignore that in a discussion like this.

It has reached a point where the best value tends to be in choosing devices best suited to various purposes in terms of value per unit of currency because when you total the expenditures you wind up with solutions that do exactly what you want for a lot less than one system trying to do it all which depending on your wants is many times not even possible as with the case of somebody wanting portability and high end gaming - this does not exist. Gaming laptops don't count. I am talking high end not mid range.

Is it less and less PCs are in homes, or people already have PCs of sufficient power that upgrading isn't necessary? Sandy Bridge is still fairly viable today, and Ivy Bridge even more so, and that's going back nearly five years. The install base isn't shrinking, people in general aren't needing to upgrade so frequently. As far as the expansion of PC gaming: look at Steam. In 2007, they had around thirteen million accounts. In 2015 they had nearly ten times that many: over 125 million. If that's a problem to you, then I have a bridge in Siberia that's begging to be bought.

Haha. Consoles. Consoles have two advantages, and they're both very nearly gone: the hardware is relatively cheap, and they're great for getting a bunch of people around the TV for some gaming. For the former, you can build a computer that has better hardware than the PS4 for roughly the same price. You also have a far greater selection of games, better prices, more variety, and with Steam In-Home Streaming, Steam Link, etc, it's getting easier and easier to get games off a computer and onto the TV, if one so prefers.

I will be very surprised if consoles continue two models after the current generation.

Portability and high-end gaming is quite easy to achieve if you skip the prebuilt boxes. If you're willing to be creative, or make some sacrifices, you can fit an i7, a high-end GPU, 16GB of RAM, and an SSD in a space about the size of a lunch box.

 

[austintg]

No need to get a PC, use BootCamp, not Parallels or Fusion, just boot in Windows 10 pro for gaming, then when he doesn't want the headache of the horrible Windows system he can boot in OS X. Games will tend to run better on Windows in BootCamp than Windows on a PC.

 

[Mackilroy]

No need to get a PC, use BootCamp, not Parallels or Fusion, just boot in Windows 10 pro for gaming, then when he doesn't want the headache of the horrible Windows system he can boot in OS X. Games will tend to run better on Windows in BootCamp than Windows on a PC.

Source for that? PCs have a much larger range of available hardware, it's not as if you can fit a 980 Ti or a Fury X into the nMP.

 

[Irishman]

Source for that? PCs have a much larger range of available hardware, it's not as if you can fit a 980 Ti or a Fury X into the nMP.

Hackintosh, bruh.