GBP costs about $1.34 so it's the same price, or actually more expensive, around $94.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Major gaming news at WWDC: Metal and New games
- Thread starter Homy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
GBP costs about $1.34 so it's the same price, or actually more expensive, around $94.
This is a major shift in policy and attitude. First it was Digital Foundry who complained a couple of weeks ago about not having new Macs to do in-depth reviews of HW and Mac games. They only had M1 Ultra and joked about loving Apple to send them new Macs. Apple now has done that so DF will do more reviews of Mac games and Mac HW in the future.
Now Andrew Tsai said in his live stream testing Cyberpunk that Apple is sending him a M4 Max Mac. This has never happened before to smaller Mac gaming channels as far as I know. I hope Mr MacRight gets the same treatment.
Now Andrew Tsai said in his live stream testing Cyberpunk that Apple is sending him a M4 Max Mac. This has never happened before to smaller Mac gaming channels as far as I know. I hope Mr MacRight gets the same treatment.
My immediate impression of CP2077 is pretty positive. Easy to get a locked 60fps. More testing later.
Also did Tahoe and used the fps meter, but 4K Ultra is more like 40-50fps on my M4 Max, playable but more would be nice. RT is still unplayable which is a bit of a disappointed but yeah although we hoped RT could be better than nVidia ofc it is not but they are going in a good direction as it is still a laptop GPU. Let's see what the Tahoe patch will bring.
Would love to see DS2 on Mac, that Decima engine is just stunning without RT CP2077 looks great without RT. RT is just for really high end or on low resolutions.
Would love to see DS2 on Mac, that Decima engine is just stunning without RT CP2077 looks great without RT. RT is just for really high end or on low resolutions.
Both and PT even more but for both especially PT we need to wait for Metal 4. Will wait until that before really playing it. Game did seem very stable so great job.
Also tried Sniper Elite 4 again, that game made some nice improvements, can remember after release it look terrible and now I can actually play it max 120FPS on 4K without the need of MetalFX and it is really sharp. Ofc this is a old game but nice improvements and runs way better than on the Xbox (ofc more expensive).
And connecting my Mac to the LG G5 went flawless and colours and HDR worked fine out of box as there still seems some issue with external displays and Mac.
Yep, it makes the game unplayable with the RT options turned on. I've longed question Ray Tracing, so having it off, is not a must have for me.
This Reddit user claims "Screen Space Reflections Quality presets are offset by one on Mac compared to PC. It means that on macOS, Ultra Settings put this value to Psycho instead of Ultra".
Looks like a certain (regular) someone is sceptical in that post
No idea who you mean. That thread is full of straight shooters with upper management written all over them.Looks like a certain (regular) someone is sceptical in that post
Last edited:
I can understand the confusion. It sounds like they were measuring performance differences to determine that the equivalent SSR Quality settings aren’t the same. Or maybe that the presets are broken and it isn’t setting all the settings to the same as the preset name.Looks like a certain (regular) someone is sceptical in that post
It is a moot point on most PCs as I am pretty sure RT is turned on by default if your system supports it (seems to be my experience).
I will say I am happy with the visual quality and performance on my M1 Max MacBook Pro.
Okay I looked at the two, it literally is just the preset name doesn't choose the highest setting on PC for SSR as it does on macOS. What is interesting is the RT Overdrive preset (turns on Path Tracing) doesn't choose Psycho RT Lighting either. I vaguely remember reading about folks expecting a Psycho preset because those two options had a Psycho setting, but clearly that didn't happen.
So yes when comparing PC to macOS you have to make sure the individual settings are the same.
So yes when comparing PC to macOS you have to make sure the individual settings are the same.
We benchmarked Cyberpunk 2077 on Mac M1 to M4 — the numbers don’t lie
Cyberpunk 2077 Mac vs. Windows
macOS Toe Ha! 😄
Last edited:
Just doing some googling it seems that the M3 and M4 is producing game performance akin to a RTX 4050, and the M1/M2 seem to align with the RTX 3050. That's the rub, the higher end Apple Silicon is only keeping up with the bottom tier RTX GPU from the prior generation - that's not even including ray tracing and/or frame generation.
Let also add that for my experience, My PC using a 7800 XT, I'm seeing 120 FPS w/o FSR/RT at 1080P using the built in benchmark on high and medium its 130 FPS.
The AMD GPU doesn't do terribly well on RT compared to nvidia but with FSR/RT enabled and the setting on high I'm seeing about 60 FPS running the cyberpunk benchmark. From what I gather my 7800 XT is akin to a Nvidia 4070 for rasterization performance.
The AMD GPU doesn't do terribly well on RT compared to nvidia but with FSR/RT enabled and the setting on high I'm seeing about 60 FPS running the cyberpunk benchmark. From what I gather my 7800 XT is akin to a Nvidia 4070 for rasterization performance.
They are mobile first, so it does make sense. Plus Apple has been focusing on CPU performance (which they crush). GPU's don't seem to be as important to them.
I have no idea why you would compare laptop gpus to a desktop one. The higher end M4 is comparable to a mobile 4070 from what I’ve seen. That’s before Metal 4.
I'm comparing my M4 Max Studio - a desktop to that of my PC desktop. I think its a fair comparison
The M5 is supposedly going to change that, but my point is if AAA games to succeed on apple silicon, performance needs to be good across the majority of apple SoCs. Apple's marketshare is small as it stands, if only a subset of Apple Silicon can run games at 60FPS, game publishers may not see the value in supporting that platform imo
Certainly the Studio is a (mini) desktop form factor. I’d question the assertion that the Max is a desktop soc by virtue of the fact that it runs in a 14” laptop.
Here's the rub, Apple markets the studio as a desktop computer, and people buy it for "desktop" performance. I don't think we can move the goalposts because its GPU performance is inferior to nvidia GPUs. Apple is rumored to be focusing their attention on the GPU side of things for the M5, but as it stands, I think its fair to compare my Mac desktop to my PC desktop
Don't get me wrong, I love my Studio, its by far the best Mac computer I've purchased. Apple got its mojo back with regards to producing high quality, fast computers that are generally affordable.
Good as defined by who? As soon as people mention good scores on even base Macs, people start nit picking about upscaling and frame gen. Success is not defined by high performance. One need only look at the Steam survey or the success of various consoles. During the 2010s pc gaming expanded a great deal, and a huge part of that was people gaming on terrible Intel igpus.
I think there is some confusion about what Apple is doing and what they need to do. They are not going after the “pc” market. They are just looking to increase the number of games available for people who have Macs. To do this they need more companies to release games. For that to happen, those companies need to be confident that they will make money. High end performance isn’t that important.