The massive irony in this thread. If Apple did this, people would be trashing everyone one else. Ironically enough, Oculus is taking an Apple approach to everything. GPUs have never been Apple's strong point anyways. And this comes from a guy who has a GTX 770-equipped PC and a Macbook (gold).
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.
Oculus Rift Won't Support Mac Until Apple Releases a 'Good Computer'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
As an Apple fan but also someone who is into VR, I can tell you that this is spot on right. Mac graphics cards are just too darned slow - Apple's been using mobile graphics cards in the quest of thinner and thinner machines and the one upgradable computer they had has basically been made non-upgradeable. A used 2012 Mac Pro with a third party modern graphics chip will run circles around a brand new Mac Pro with the top end graphics.
Just to be clear right now, VR requires a huge amount of performance. If you take the latest publicly available development kit (DK2), it has a 1080p screen that runs at 75hz. The consumer rift (CV1) is going to be higher than that in both aspects. VR requires a solid framerate of 75 fps. If you drop much below that, you start to get motion sickness. This is minimum framerate, not average. This is a huge requirement. Not only that but the system has to render two separate views of everything and also a lot of the optimisations that can be used for a 2D non vr rendering have to be disabled for vr - performance tricks etc.
Oculus is setting a relatively high requirement for the Rift - basically a GeForce GTX 970. That is going to be the minimum requirement for the entire lifespan of the first consumer rift. If you want to have a game or experience on their store, it will need to cater for that. Even in a year's time when newer and faster graphics cards are available with the same performance for a lower cost.
It's quite embarrassing that Apple insist on putting slow graphics cards into even their high end machines. The best graphics card you can get in the top end iMac is the M395X. This is a mobile chip with performance somewhere between an 880M and a 970M (mobile chips). This puts it at about the equivalent to a desktop GeForce GTX 960 card (a $200 card) and this has about 50-66% the performance of the minimum specification for the Rift (GeForce GTX 970 - a $350 card).
With my own personal experience, I originally had a GeForce GTX 680 in my gaming PC (I long ago gave up on gaming or dual booting my macs). This could handle anything I threw at it and despite being released in 2012, had about the same performance as the chip currently in the top end iMacs. When I got my Oculus Rift DK2, it was quite simply not good enough for anything other than the most basic of demos. It stuttered, it gave me motion sickness etc. It just wasn't good enough. I ended up upgrading to a GeForce GTX 980 even though I'd originally planned on waiting for one more generation of cards.
Oculus know what they're doing here. The requirements they've set are quite low for gaming and vr enthusiasts but might be seen as a bit high for the masses. The masses will come later though. By the time the second generation rift comes out, we'll have seen some pretty impressive improvements in technology - both on the side of graphics chip design targeting VR and VR hardware that can optimise technology - e.g. potentially foveated rendering. This will bring the affordability of VR down to masses.
I'm a huge fan of Apple products and I don't see myself ever switching from my main computer, wife's computer, our laptops, phones, networking, streaming boxes ever not being made by Apple but when it comes to gaming and graphics, Apple's products are woefully underpowered for the money. All because they've got to be slim and non-user upgradeable.
There are rumours that Apple is looking at getting into the VR game so maybe there's hope, maybe they'll stop skimping on graphics chips somewhat - they used to be way better than most manufacturers - latest model graphics cards as standard, no Intel integrated crap etc. Hopefully they'll go back to that.
TL/DR: I'm an Oculus Rift user and an Apple lover. Palmer Luckey is spot on correct with this. Macs have woefully poor graphics performance for the money. If you want to try 'proper' VR with either the Rift or the Vive, you're going to want to build/buy a Windows gaming PC. VR is amazing and really fun so I highly recommend you give it a try!
Just to be clear right now, VR requires a huge amount of performance. If you take the latest publicly available development kit (DK2), it has a 1080p screen that runs at 75hz. The consumer rift (CV1) is going to be higher than that in both aspects. VR requires a solid framerate of 75 fps. If you drop much below that, you start to get motion sickness. This is minimum framerate, not average. This is a huge requirement. Not only that but the system has to render two separate views of everything and also a lot of the optimisations that can be used for a 2D non vr rendering have to be disabled for vr - performance tricks etc.
Oculus is setting a relatively high requirement for the Rift - basically a GeForce GTX 970. That is going to be the minimum requirement for the entire lifespan of the first consumer rift. If you want to have a game or experience on their store, it will need to cater for that. Even in a year's time when newer and faster graphics cards are available with the same performance for a lower cost.
It's quite embarrassing that Apple insist on putting slow graphics cards into even their high end machines. The best graphics card you can get in the top end iMac is the M395X. This is a mobile chip with performance somewhere between an 880M and a 970M (mobile chips). This puts it at about the equivalent to a desktop GeForce GTX 960 card (a $200 card) and this has about 50-66% the performance of the minimum specification for the Rift (GeForce GTX 970 - a $350 card).
With my own personal experience, I originally had a GeForce GTX 680 in my gaming PC (I long ago gave up on gaming or dual booting my macs). This could handle anything I threw at it and despite being released in 2012, had about the same performance as the chip currently in the top end iMacs. When I got my Oculus Rift DK2, it was quite simply not good enough for anything other than the most basic of demos. It stuttered, it gave me motion sickness etc. It just wasn't good enough. I ended up upgrading to a GeForce GTX 980 even though I'd originally planned on waiting for one more generation of cards.
Oculus know what they're doing here. The requirements they've set are quite low for gaming and vr enthusiasts but might be seen as a bit high for the masses. The masses will come later though. By the time the second generation rift comes out, we'll have seen some pretty impressive improvements in technology - both on the side of graphics chip design targeting VR and VR hardware that can optimise technology - e.g. potentially foveated rendering. This will bring the affordability of VR down to masses.
I'm a huge fan of Apple products and I don't see myself ever switching from my main computer, wife's computer, our laptops, phones, networking, streaming boxes ever not being made by Apple but when it comes to gaming and graphics, Apple's products are woefully underpowered for the money. All because they've got to be slim and non-user upgradeable.
There are rumours that Apple is looking at getting into the VR game so maybe there's hope, maybe they'll stop skimping on graphics chips somewhat - they used to be way better than most manufacturers - latest model graphics cards as standard, no Intel integrated crap etc. Hopefully they'll go back to that.
TL/DR: I'm an Oculus Rift user and an Apple lover. Palmer Luckey is spot on correct with this. Macs have woefully poor graphics performance for the money. If you want to try 'proper' VR with either the Rift or the Vive, you're going to want to build/buy a Windows gaming PC. VR is amazing and really fun so I highly recommend you give it a try!
none of this seems to be much more than tech-navel gazing. almost all fledgling products in a new industry start by only being available to a select few - those with the right hardware or those with enough money. i fail to see how oculus is any different.
5K iMacs all come with some flavor of Radeon R9 discrete graphics, either 380 / 390 / 395 / 395x
Dunno what anyone is debating ... Apple doesn't use high-end GPUs. It's a fact. Even after you spend nearly 3 grand on the highest end MacBook Pro you are still getting a mid-range card. It really is silly. And the only product they had in which you could upgrade the cards, the Mac Pro, you can't even upgrade those on the new ones anymore. Macs aren't for gaming because Apple chose for it to be that way. And it's probably never going to change.
No, it really is the lack of decent graphic cards in the Macs, so stop with the 'its the developers fault'. The CPUs are fine. Not even the Mac Pro comes with a decent graphics card, the iMacs could - but do not. As others have said, GPUs are mid range at best. Mid range are not good enough.
The frame rate has to maintain a high enough rate, otherwise any VR headset will just be a miserable experience.
Another problem is Games - some recent games cannot be ported to the Mac - the OpenGL version that is shipped with OSX is old and does not provide up date to renders.
Metal isn't up to the task yet - its early days... I'm sure Apple will improve on this given time. There's a reason why high profile software houses bailed on Metal... its doesn't provide enough functionality.
The differences are those are doing 360 video and other things that are limited in scope. For example, neither can do can't to tracked "room scale" VR. Rift/Vive are the only things than can and both require GTX970+ or R290+
If you can't push a solid 90fps to each eye with a refresh rate of 10ms or less then you run into nausea and discomfort.
You do
That seems short sited.
To be honest, the same exact argument could be used for the Tesla and the iPhone. This is game-changing (no pun intended) stuff right here. There's going to be that one killer app that is made that will make it the thing to own.
The market doesn't move until someone makes it move.
Average joe is not their target audience at all. They are targeting a niche. Always have been. They hope it will go mass market at some point but everyone knows that's not happening for a while.
No, you don't. I've run Oculus DK2 on a Macbook Air. People are quick to forget that the dev kits have been out for 3 years and ran fine on 3 year old hardware. Granted the new models push more pixels.
Oculus chose to set the "minimum requirements" at the current highest level hardware. We know it's not necessary, it's just what they personally want. And it just so happens (total coincidence!) that this benefits Microsoft and Facebook a great deal.
Oculus licenses their tech to Samsung for goodness sake! Google Cardboard runs on iPhone 5s!
If you have an early 2013 Mac Pro (non cylinder) then you can put a 970 or 980 in your Mac Pro and boot into Windows and you're there, your computer meets the minimum specifications. Unfortunately, there isn't a single Mac that officially meets the minimum requirements. If you have a mid/late 2013 Mac Pro (cylinder) then you're stuffed; the graphics card in your computer is really old and slow and was surpassed by stand alone cards not long after it was released. The rest of the computer is still hugely fast but the graphics is slow and old and effectively non-upgradeable.
It's a good dig at Apple. Doesn't matter though, unless Taylor says different, Apple will keep the course!
I think it is a good criticism
While obviously the Mac Pro can be configured to support Oculus, the problem it's a professional product and priced at a professional price point. You shouldn't have to buy a $12,000 Mac Pro in order to use Oculus, and you can find sub $2000 PC's that could support it.
There is no consumer level $2000 or less Mac good enough for Oculus. All iMac's are basically laptops with laptop based GPU's.
Apple needs a configurable consumer level Mac similar to the Mac Pro but with gaming/consumer level options that could be set up around $1500 - $2000 and I am sure that would be all Oculus needs, but Apple won't offer people that because it will kill their iMac and Mac Pro lines
While obviously the Mac Pro can be configured to support Oculus, the problem it's a professional product and priced at a professional price point. You shouldn't have to buy a $12,000 Mac Pro in order to use Oculus, and you can find sub $2000 PC's that could support it.
There is no consumer level $2000 or less Mac good enough for Oculus. All iMac's are basically laptops with laptop based GPU's.
Apple needs a configurable consumer level Mac similar to the Mac Pro but with gaming/consumer level options that could be set up around $1500 - $2000 and I am sure that would be all Oculus needs, but Apple won't offer people that because it will kill their iMac and Mac Pro lines
Hardly. Gaming software for Mac has always been an afterthought by developers and probably even so if Occulus Rift could even run on a Mac.
But Apple did the same exact thing in 2006. '' I'm a Mac''. Macs are at least twice as expensive as any Windows PC. Seems like someone is upset there's something that their Mac cannot run.
Oculus and Vive aren't waisting time with ******** consumers. At least not right now. They are marketing to people like me that 1. are gamers 2. have the money to get something like this. It's not for your average Xbox gamer.
They are catering to a market where people will get 'jealous' because they see someone else playing with this cool VR system and then want one....thus trickling down.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that Apple should offer better graphics cards in their Macs, I think Palmer Lucky is being insincere with his reasoning. From the initial Kickstarter campaign Oculus was promised to support Mac, only when a partnership was announced with Microsoft did Oculus reveal that they were dropping support for Mac!
Except for the "measure" of the context it was used in. Hardly "baitclicky".... its completely true and relevant.
1. Storage capacity (1x M.2 + 1x SATA Express "hard drive")
2. Security
3. RAM capacity
4. Number of CPU cores
5. Speed of CPU cores
6. Upgradeability
7. OpenCL
8. Vulkan
9. GPU
10. HSA
11. OpenGL
12. On-board 10GbE
13. Bug and usability fixing
14. 4 spaced USB ports
15. ExpressCard Strikes Back
16. DisplayPort 1.3
17. Proper BootCamp support
18. LTE
19. 17"
20. Removable battery
21. BDXL
22. Stereo camera
23. Good sounding speakers
24. 3D screen
25. Stereo microphones
26. Touchscreen
27. Convertible
28. Wireless HD
29. Memory card reader
30. Thin
31. All ports on one side
32. Few cables
33. Safari (gave up)
34. iTunes
35. Simplicity (complexity <> Windows chaos)
36. Metal API
37. Social media integration
38. iCloud
39. Cloud-based voice recognition
2. Security
3. RAM capacity
4. Number of CPU cores
5. Speed of CPU cores
6. Upgradeability
7. OpenCL
8. Vulkan
9. GPU
10. HSA
11. OpenGL
12. On-board 10GbE
13. Bug and usability fixing
14. 4 spaced USB ports
15. ExpressCard Strikes Back
16. DisplayPort 1.3
17. Proper BootCamp support
18. LTE
19. 17"
20. Removable battery
21. BDXL
22. Stereo camera
23. Good sounding speakers
24. 3D screen
25. Stereo microphones
26. Touchscreen
27. Convertible
28. Wireless HD
29. Memory card reader
30. Thin
31. All ports on one side
32. Few cables
33. Safari (gave up)
34. iTunes
35. Simplicity (complexity <> Windows chaos)
36. Metal API
37. Social media integration
38. iCloud
39. Cloud-based voice recognition
Last edited:
I don't know how anyone plays FPS games on a console. I recently bought a PS4 so I could game on my couch and learned quickly to buy all my FPS games on PC. The precision of a mouse for FPS is unparalleled in my opinion. That being said I definitely enjoy the PS4 for the more laidback couch gaming approach and the original titles.
Kill the Mac Mini...
...and use that SKU space for the "Mac Mini ITX" w/ some configurable options
...and use that SKU space for the "Mac Mini ITX" w/ some configurable options
- Status