Borderlands 3 is probably the worst optimized game for the Mac. Like any computer, high frame rate and resolution/detail/effects are a trade off. The games can be enjoyed regardless.
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
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhh not if it's under 60 FPS. When you're so used to 60 and above going back to 30 it is very noticable and nauseating. Not to mention the game plays better at higher framerate as it means more responsive controls.
There's no reason to have 30 FPS for a game at all anymore, especially now that the PlayStation 5 made 60 FPS the standard.
Reduce resolution or quality if high frame rates are important. As you would on pc.
Power limiting both should help with the heat and you likely won't lose much if any performance.
I agree about 30fps. I’m frustrated consoles are pushing 4K but 30fps. I would rather have 1080p at 120fps. I find 60fps low sometimes.
Interesting, what is your PL set to? Ironically the 4090 runs cooler and uses less power than the 7900XTX (well ignore the 2 8-pin models).
No matter what Apple does there’s always something to complain about, especially regarding Mac gaming. When Apple didn’t have HW RT people loved to make fun of that. Now that we have it’s still not interesting because they’re ”late to the party” as if everybody uses RT in games while most gamers don’t. Even when A17 Pro now has superior RT performance people start to complain about Apple Silicon’s lack of power efficiency, the same people who’ve been mocking the performance of Apple Silicon for years by comparing it to power-hungry monster CPUs and GPUs from Intel and Nvidia.
Currently set to 70%. But that is part of the problem. Why do I essentially leave performance on the table with a 4090 instead of hoping they improve in the future with their heat and power requirements? It's not cool to get a 4090, then set it to 70% power limit.
That is precisely part of the issue with gaming these days on PC. I just want to turn on a game after a long day of work, not tinker with voltage or power limits or things. My PS5 running a game is still cooler than my PC even at idle (referring to the impact it has to my room temperature). Same with my M2 Ultra Mac Studios, they barely impact my room temperature even working at 100%.
Now you’re speaking in absolute terms using 60 fps as an unconditional rule. I know it’s a norm used in many PC gaming discussions but it’s really a subjective experience. You’re saying anything under 60 fps is not enjoyable and even ”nauseating” and ”there’s no reason to have 30 fps for a game at all anymore”. Then let’s take a look at your own favorite game Starfield. It’s only fair since you took Borderlands 3 on Mac as an example, a game highly known for its lazy port and bad performance especially on Macs.
Starfield is locked to 30 fps on Xbox. On PC you can’t reach 60 fps at 1080p high on a desktop 3080. You can’t even have consistently 60 fps on a desktop 4070 or 3080 Ti. At 1080p medium you can’t reach 60 on desktop 3070Ti/4060 Ti or 6700 XT according to Techspot.
If we look at gaming laptops not even Asus ROG Strix Scar 17 G733ZX with 3080 Ti costing $3500 can make 60 fps at 1080p high. At 1080p medium not even XMG Pro 15 E23 with 4060 costing over $2000 can make 60 fps according to Notebookcheck.
According to your standards all Xbox consoles and these expensive PC GPUs and laptops neither offer an enjoyable experience nor can be considered as serious gaming HW.
You’re also a fan of Steam Deck. Borderlands 3 is playable on that and Steam says ”This game’s default graphics configuration performs well on Steam Deck”. I don’t know what that means in terms of settings but the recommended settings by Steam Deck HQ for reaching 40 fps are mostly medium, low and off. It can reach only 29 fps at 1080p medium or 43 fps at 800p, much lower than 60 according to PCMAG.
So 29 fps at 1080p medium is considered ”performing well” but 37,5 fps on a Mac Mini with similar price is bad? That’s not the only game though running far from 60 fps so again according to your standards your favorite Steam Deck neither offers an enjoyable experience nor can be considered as serious gaming HW. These are some examples of facts people seem to forget about when they complain about Mac gaming and compare it to other platforms.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
You're comparing a handheld with a battery you're holding in your hands versus a desktop running out of a wall outlet, a desktop that also costs more than the handheld, and that can't run nearly the amount of games the handheld can
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I think we’re just losing sight of the fact that we just want to play our favorite games on our platform of choice in the argument.
Holy moly! This can’t be a serious post? Are you aware of what you are writing?
If you can’t tell the difference, does it matter? Ultimately everything is a rendering trick to improve performance.
Scary fast M3 Macs with HW RT next week?
www.macrumors.com
Steam reviews for Cities 2 are also out and mostly negatives.
Apple Announces October Event for Macs: 'Scary Fast'
Apple today announced its second fall event of 2023, with the online event set to be held on Monday, October 30 at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time....
www.macrumors.com
Steam reviews for Cities 2 are also out and mostly negatives.
Sorry but none of that is relevant to your ”rule of 60 fps”. That rule applies to all types of devices. 60 fps is an absolute value that doesn’t change one’s subpar experience on different devices. As you noticed Steam Deck isn’t the only device I compared. You get the same unsatisfying experience with PC gaming laptops costing $3500 using power adapters. If you think gaming below 60 fps is bad on Macs you can’t suddenly change your mind when it comes to Steam Deck or PCs and if Starfield wasn’t bad enough we now have Alan Wake 2 and Cities: Skylines 2 offering even worse experience.
This is gonna be one of those things that probably comes back to bite me, but given the new M3 Pro and Max coming next week, I’m gonna bet and say the updated Witcher 1 and 2 are not coincidental, and that other titles from CD Projekt are coming also, to be announced at the event.
Bring on the hate!
Bring on the hate!
It does because it’s sad it requires a 3070 GPU to achieve something so poor.
Last edited:
Medium quality at the lowest res (1080p) with upscaling on Performnace (not even quality) to achieve 60 fps on RTX 3070 is sick. Can't even be played on 5700 XT/1080 Ti due to lack of support for Mesh Shaders.
Alan Wake II assumes everyone will use upscaling, even at 1080p
Remedy has unveiled an exhaustive system requirements sheet for "Alan Wake II," which will surely intimidate many. The sheet completely omits GPUs predating Turing and RDNA 2,...
www.techspot.com
Last edited:
Don't think we'll see M3 Pro and Max. They always release base M1, M2 in MacBook and Mac Mini first. Pro and Max comes about 6 months later. This time I think we'll see M3 in iMac, MB Air and 13" MBP which haven't been updated since April 2021 and June 2022 and in March we'll see M3 Pro/Max in MB Pro 14"-16" and next summer (June) Max/Ultra in Mac Studio.
Last edited:
I didn't play Starfield on my Steam Deck I played it on my main machine because I need at minimum 60FPS, and I had no issues there. Hell most Deck users don't even recommend playing Starfield on Deck since the game is CPU heavy.