It is a game of compromises. It is also made harder because no one buys a Mac to play games, so the price to get good performance and good visuals is skewed on Mac hardware.
Lol. I’m not moving goalposts. If an anything you are doing that by comparing a mobile soc with a desktop gpu.
Only if you ignore your first point.
The general consensus that sub 60FPS is considered poor. I have yet to see a game review where 30 FPS is not considered bad, even with game consoles there's been recent games where the publisher had to defend the fact that the game plays at 30FPS on the Xbox/PS5 (I forget which one specially
I completely disagree, people come out of the wood work, if frame rates are not good, people don't want to spend $60, 70, 80 dollars a game and only see 30 FPS. Yes, there's a lot more to a game then straight FPS, story, player engagement, plot, etc, but and its big but, if the game feels slow on a 4090 then people are going to be coming out of the wood work.
But you are, even Apple compared its Socs to nvidia in their various unveiling through the years. They didn't put an asterick saying "Mobile vs. Desktop
It is only a fair comparison when you are looking at software where Apple excels (so Blender, or Logic, or Final Cut, or really large language models), when you look at things they don't do well in (basically gaming) then you have to remember that the hardware is designed for mobile systems and shouldn't be compared with 3000 watt PCs....
You are cherry picking one aspect of a compact desktop and then comparing to a large tower with a power hungry gpu while ignoring the other aspects where the compact one beats your tower.
The above is just fundamentally wrong once you include consoles. Xbox, PS5, Switch do not run all titles above or even at 60fps, and they are sucessful. Once again, you cannot seem to understand that PC gaming is not the only way.
As I with you.
You are missing the point again. We should compare all aspects. You are comparing just one.
I didn’t say “you” are misleading, but your statement is. There is subtle difference that seems to elude you. Feel free to call me out if you think I am doing that. I don’t see much other than straw man allegations currently.
Yeah it is weird. He says that MetalFX is a little better than FSR, but not as good as DLSS. Whereas Digital Foundry said MetalFX was as good as DLSS. Is MetalFX visual quality dependent on implementation (like FSR)?
I forget what he said for the RT test. I got the impression he was surprised it did so well, except for the path tracing part. The screen space reflections setting is ignored when you have RT turned on (best I can tell).
The last time they talked about MetalFX was with Resident Evil 8 (I think). No one has compared the latest MetalFX models to DLSS4 Transformer model explicitly.
It would be good to see benchmarks with the Ultra settings corrected.
Website shows Windows & Mac at least for me, just says "Mac" instead of Apple logo.
I just tried on my M4 Pro Mini.
Yeah I felt like he pointed out the glitches more than anything, lol, or at least that is what stands out in my memory about the game review.
Hmm. I guess the "Ultimate Edition" doesn't show it on the Epic store. Although I'd be very surprised if it actually wasn't included. GOG does show it.
