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.
OS X Metal for OS X?
- Thread starter Surfheart
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple does not care about games, they never did. They do care about it on iOS because its a major money maker, but that is not the case on OS X. OS X gets games released 5-7 years later, like command and conquer generals which was released 12 years ago.
Yes, apple does have big delays implementing the latest and greatest OpenGL. But saying that "OS X gets games released 5-7 years later" is very unfair. The biggest part of the responsibility for this belongs to the game creators, rather than OS X itself.
There are some games (actually AAA titles) than get released at the same time, so if a game creator chooses to do so, it is possible.
*facepalm* The recently release of C&C Generals is a re-release. The game was originally ported to Mac in 2005.
Doesn't matter, when you open the App Store and find the top list has games like Sims 2, C&C: Generals, Call of Duty 4, and Bioshock you get the same effect.No one will take any platform seriously with games this old on the top list
The game creator does release games late into the lifetime of the game, but there is a reason they all do it. I bought a macbook in 2008 for $1,600 . It has difficulties running Left4Dead, same year release game.
Apple doesn't care about gaming, they care about using less ports, lighter weights, thinner design, and fanless systems.
I wouldn't want to call you out, but if you simply look on the Apple site you can get a 21" iMac with an NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M with 1GB video memory, or a 27" with GeForce GTX 775M with 2GB. Then there's the retina iMac of course. So even a fool like me can easily see that there is sufficient hardware to run the latest games in the latest Macs.
I personally have a 2011 iMac 27" which has an AMD Radeon HD 6770M 512 MB GPU and although I'm not a _big_ gamer, I can run Assassin's Creed 4 in Parallels (no boot camp for me, thanks), Republique Reloaded which has just come out... take home message: Macs ARE good for gaming.
How is it possible that people have total misconception about Games on Mac?
OSX is a nieche gaming platform. Getting bigger and bigger but still a nieche.
There is no FINANCIAL reason why to bring OSX version of the game client to OSX if not enough people will buy it. It consumes money, not brings profit. That is the reason why Games on OSX come way later than on Windows. They have to make enough profit on one platform to be logical to put them on OSX. Blaming Apple for it is at least laughable.
API, like Vulkan, that is multiplatform, and once applied to game engine brings programming easy and affordable to bring them onto OSX at the same time as other platforms. And will bring pressure for developers to optimize their games to specific hardware, which is a great deal if you have closed ecosystem of Hardware like Apple's.
Im saying this where my main gaming platform is OSX. Even Windows versions of my Games(Test Drive: Unlimited, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and 3, Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3) I was running on OSX with Parallels.
P.S. One More Thing: https://www.khronos.org/assets/uplo...y/2015-gdc/Valve-Vulkan-Session-GDC_Mar15.pdf
Check 5th slide. There is Apple as a founder of Vulkan. Between Epic, EA - two companies with OSX versions of their Engine's been ready for Mac(Epic is really advanced in the work on this, EA is silent still about port of Frostbite 3 for OSX), and Valve and Blizzard - two companies that already have their games on OSX at the same time as other platforms.
Gaming on Apple computers is coming to light. Finally.
http://www.amazon.com/MSI-GS70-STEA...&qid=1426376872&sr=8-1&keywords=msi+gs70+970m
also this one
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NVV2B98/ref=psdc_565108_t2_B00O65HR6A
these laptops > their imac or macbook retina pro
also costs a lot less.
i'm done with apple myself, i own the msi laptop but an earlier version with 870m i bought in july 2014, i used to buy macbooks but got sick of it.
i have an iphone 5 32gb, but i'm going to upgrade to samsung galaxy s6 once its out... completely done with apple, no more thank you.
also this one
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NVV2B98/ref=psdc_565108_t2_B00O65HR6A
these laptops > their imac or macbook retina pro
also costs a lot less.
i'm done with apple myself, i own the msi laptop but an earlier version with 870m i bought in july 2014, i used to buy macbooks but got sick of it.
i have an iphone 5 32gb, but i'm going to upgrade to samsung galaxy s6 once its out... completely done with apple, no more thank you.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
A 1920*1080 17 inch screen... umm.
Anyway. Chances are we are going to see either Metal OR Vulcan in the next OS X release. We will find out soon enough.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
1080p is all you need for gaming.
you don't need quad hd display for gaming since video cards usually have low fps with that much resolution.
you don't need quad hd display for gaming since video cards usually have low fps with that much resolution.
But the frames per second a game can deliver is not related to the price of a computer. Mainly it's related to the kind GPU you are using. In a 2008 MacBook it is most likely something like an integrated graphics chipset from the Geforce 9400M or Intel X3100 lines.
Anyway it's not the kind of GPU anyone would like to use if you're into gaming. Which basically eliminates most mobile Macs as gaming machines and makes the few remaining machines with dedicated GPUs quite expensive choices for gaming.
And no amount of Apple brainwashing and arguments from Apple disciples will change the fact that integrated GPUs are a bad choice for gaming. (Unless you consider candy crush gaming.
)That's true. And why shouldn't they? There are enough options out there if you are into "serious" gaming. There are consoles, PCs, Steam-Boxes, all those mobile platforms, there's even gaming streaming to your TV from various platforms.
I wouldn't want to call you out, but if you simply look on the Apple site you can get a 21" iMac with an NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M with 1GB video memory, or a 27" with GeForce GTX 775M with 2GB. Then there's the retina iMac of course. So even a fool like me can easily see that there is sufficient hardware to run the latest games in the latest Macs.
I personally have a 2011 iMac 27" which has an AMD Radeon HD 6770M 512 MB GPU and although I'm not a _big_ gamer, I can run Assassin's Creed 4 in Parallels (no boot camp for me, thanks), Republique Reloaded which has just come out... take home message: Macs ARE good for gaming.
You are the first person on cyberspace to believe Apple computers are equally good for gaming
because when you buy a $1,500 computer it should do gaming. It should at least run games released a year into the future at high settings. I shouldn't pay $1500 to Apple and then buy another PC computer for gaming. Its double the expense and a lot less convenient.
Apple decides to make their computer this way at this price and its a free market, if you don't like it buy from the competition. This is why I say they don't care. I am pretty sure Apple can release macbook with decent GPU's for the same price but they decided against it.
I don't know about the future, but I am judging whats available now
But the frames per second a game can deliver is not related to the price of a computer. Mainly it's related to the kind GPU you are using. In a 2008 MacBook it is most likely something like an integrated graphics chipset from the Geforce 9400M or Intel X3100 lines.
Anyway it's not the kind of GPU anyone would like to use if you're into gaming. Which basically eliminates most mobile Macs as gaming machines and makes the few remaining machines with dedicated GPUs quite expensive choices for gaming.
And no amount of Apple brainwashing and arguments from Apple disciples will change the fact that integrated GPUs are a bad choice for gaming. (Unless you consider candy crush gaming.
That's true. And why shouldn't they? There are enough options out there if you are into "serious" gaming. There are consoles, PCs, Steam-Boxes, all those mobile platforms, there's even gaming streaming to your TV from various platforms.
Over 80% of ENTIRE gaming market are GPUs that are low-end to mid-end(up to 199$ of cost, or integrated GPUs from Intel). Enthusiast gaming is a nieche gaming.
Besides. For 1080p you dont need anything more powerful than R9 270X.
P.S. Don't judge Apple computer by price and gaming power. Gaming capability is an add-on to whole idea of computer.
I don't. That's why I have a Geforce GTX 680 in my 2010 Mac Pro. And that's why I think that my Mac is a decent - albeit a little pricy - gaming machine. And at the same time a very decent machine to run several VMs at once. And a good machine to do the usual web surfing and messaging. And to write Common Lisp code.
The only problem I have is when people think only because something is expensive or has an Apple logo on it, it has to excel at every fancy they have. Simply accept the fact that there are better solutions out there for specific tasks. Some of us like these better solutions. While others like their solutions as Apple sees them fit. Me personally, I like to enhance Apple's solution wherever I see the need.
Oh mate, 1080p is just the basic resolution these days. On my iMac 5K, I've played Mass Effect in 4K with upgraded textures and wow, the experience blew me away! In a couple of years when 4K gaming is much more affordable then I'll surely hop on board. VR would be exciting also!
Back to the OP, if OS X 10.11 implements Metal and Vulcan and gets developers on board that would be awesome, probably would significantly increase UNIX games available. Steam OS should get a several developers to release games for all OSes.
One of best things that would bring Vulkan to any OS is that Gaming would be totally independent of performance of drivers.
It would bring optimization of gaming performance on hardware on the heads of developers, but that should give that games would be easy and not expensive to port to each platform, and perform within max 10% on each platform.
How is it unfair? Most often, it is true. Regardless of who is to blame, the statement is very fair considering there is still a large portion of games for Windows/PS/XB that never even make it to OS X.
So much negativity...
I look at the steady stream of titles releasing faster than I can keep up with and don't understand it. There are over 1500 titles on Steam for OS X with more releasing on a regular basis. There are exclusives like the classic EA titles Aspyr has been bringing us lately, Blizzard complete and more.
There are tons of games to choose from and they are not all old by any stretch of the imagination. Those who think so need only do some searching on Steam. Both Feral and Aspyr have been doing some timely releases of recent games, sometimes same day. However, where Mac is a smaller market of course some will be delayed and some won't come to the platform at all. Why do people even talk about this obvious fact?
You can get Mac hardware that is perfectly capable for gaming but if you want a higher end gaming rig, you won't find it coming from Apple. This isn't news either. Why does it come up over and over and over? I don't get it. The point above is well taken that most gamers in the PC world are not using these high end systems people love to compare Apple computers to. Don't believe me? Have a look for yourself at the Steam hardware survey results.
If you want the Windows platform, that's fine. Get it. Play games on it and enjoy yourself but it would be awesome if you could leave the negativity at the door around here. I love gaming on my iMac and I come from many years in the custom built gaming machine Windows world, going all the way back to a PC-XT. I've built plenty of gaming PC's. I understand clearly the difference between my iMac and a Falcon Northwest box or something in between that I could get the parts for cheap on Newegg and build myself. The thing is, I don't want to. I love OS X, I love the apps, the Apple ecosystem and that gaming is plenty good enough for me personally. Rather than use a Windows box for additional games not available on OS X, I would much rather game on the couch with a Playstation so selection of stuff is even less of an issue. That works for me.
For a lot of us, gaming on a Mac is just fine. Why else would there be enough demand for the market to grow the way it has, for Steam to create a Mac client, for GOG to be creating one for Mac along with Windows, for Origin to have made one as well. Why else would everything from Blizzard release day 1 for Macs? How do Feral, Aspyr, Virtual Programming and Transgaming stay in business? None of these are charity organizations. They are all making money in sufficient quantity to consider the endeavor worthwhile. There is no question that Mac gaming has been growing substantially. There's nothing to debate there. It works for plenty of people. Now, if it doesn't work for you again, that's fine. Do your own thing then but please don't tell us how awful Mac gaming is because that is only your opinion, not everyone's. A lot of people are buying, playing and enjoying Mac games or they would not be available. It's as simple as that. The demand is there and these companies are meeting it even if that does not apply to you personally.
I look at the steady stream of titles releasing faster than I can keep up with and don't understand it. There are over 1500 titles on Steam for OS X with more releasing on a regular basis. There are exclusives like the classic EA titles Aspyr has been bringing us lately, Blizzard complete and more.
There are tons of games to choose from and they are not all old by any stretch of the imagination. Those who think so need only do some searching on Steam. Both Feral and Aspyr have been doing some timely releases of recent games, sometimes same day. However, where Mac is a smaller market of course some will be delayed and some won't come to the platform at all. Why do people even talk about this obvious fact?
You can get Mac hardware that is perfectly capable for gaming but if you want a higher end gaming rig, you won't find it coming from Apple. This isn't news either. Why does it come up over and over and over? I don't get it. The point above is well taken that most gamers in the PC world are not using these high end systems people love to compare Apple computers to. Don't believe me? Have a look for yourself at the Steam hardware survey results.
If you want the Windows platform, that's fine. Get it. Play games on it and enjoy yourself but it would be awesome if you could leave the negativity at the door around here. I love gaming on my iMac and I come from many years in the custom built gaming machine Windows world, going all the way back to a PC-XT. I've built plenty of gaming PC's. I understand clearly the difference between my iMac and a Falcon Northwest box or something in between that I could get the parts for cheap on Newegg and build myself. The thing is, I don't want to. I love OS X, I love the apps, the Apple ecosystem and that gaming is plenty good enough for me personally. Rather than use a Windows box for additional games not available on OS X, I would much rather game on the couch with a Playstation so selection of stuff is even less of an issue. That works for me.
For a lot of us, gaming on a Mac is just fine. Why else would there be enough demand for the market to grow the way it has, for Steam to create a Mac client, for GOG to be creating one for Mac along with Windows, for Origin to have made one as well. Why else would everything from Blizzard release day 1 for Macs? How do Feral, Aspyr, Virtual Programming and Transgaming stay in business? None of these are charity organizations. They are all making money in sufficient quantity to consider the endeavor worthwhile. There is no question that Mac gaming has been growing substantially. There's nothing to debate there. It works for plenty of people. Now, if it doesn't work for you again, that's fine. Do your own thing then but please don't tell us how awful Mac gaming is because that is only your opinion, not everyone's. A lot of people are buying, playing and enjoying Mac games or they would not be available. It's as simple as that. The demand is there and these companies are meeting it even if that does not apply to you personally.
Last edited:
Well, there's a big number of games never released to OS X, but that's not something Apple should do about it (e.g. the small market share that Apple was always comfortable with, is not very appealing to game makers).
There's a small number of games that get released a few years later but - again - the reason mostly lies to the game makers.
There's also AAA titles that get released at the same time between windows and OS X, proving that it is possible for anyone that wants to do it.
Now, that doesn't mean of course that OS X is equal to Windows in terms of gaming - it is not, by far. But things are not that black.
I believe Vulkan will bring many more games to the Mac and much faster. As others have mentioned on the thread, not only the performance will be very close on different OS running on the same hardware, but the drivers are very simple to implement. Pay very close attention to what this guy says on the official Vulkan presentation (he works for Imagination Technologies that makes the PowerVR IPs used on our iDevices). https://youtu.be/qKbtrVEhaw8?t=57m19s
So, Apple would just have to create these simple drivers and done. We won't need any further support from them.
Plus, Steam has lots of AAA games being released simultaneously to Windows. Check Batman Arkham Knight, for instance.
So, Apple would just have to create these simple drivers and done. We won't need any further support from them.
Plus, Steam has lots of AAA games being released simultaneously to Windows. Check Batman Arkham Knight, for instance.
Not only. There is a possibility, that Mantle/Vulkan gives the application ability to see two seperate GPUs in one computer as a one big GPU.
It is very important for configs like AMD APU+dGPU, Intel Integrated + AMD dGPU or...
Dual GPUs from Mac Pro.
That is phenomenal.
So much negativity...
Do your own thing then but please don't tell us how awful Mac gaming is because that is only your opinion, not everyone's. A lot of people are buying, playing and enjoying Mac games or they would not be available. It's as simple as that. The demand is there and these companies are meeting it even if that does not apply to you personally.
my point is that Apple hardware is expensive yet extremely under-delivers. While I underdtand its not built for gaming, but it should at least run contemporary games. As I mentioned earlier, my 2008 macbook was going crazy running a same year game release with fans working to the maximum and CPU heat reaching 85-92C and that was on low settings IIRC .
this shouldn't be the case for a $1500 brand new machine.
That Macbook (Early/Mid 2008) contained an integrated graphics card. It was not designed for gaming or 3D at all. It was designed to be a portable low power laptop in a (for it's time) small size.
If you wanted gaming you should have bought the MacBookPro with the Nvidia 8600M that card played games pretty well.
The machine you bought was perhaps the worst Intel Mac in terms of 3D (apart from the Mac Mini with the GMA950) for gaming. The Intel integrated X3100 wasn't designed for gaming and it was the first generation of Intel trying to get graphics to work on the CPU.
Also if you care about gaming I would always check what specification you are buying, as with all companies different machines cater for different people. The MacBook range has always been for none 3D intensive applications as it always uses an integrated (none gaming) card. It has great battery life and a small form factor but that comes with caveats like integrated graphics.
My computer has Geforce 9400M . Not sure if this is integrated or worse than the 8600M. Its the late 2008 unibody model