Hmmm... my comparison is fair, because I'm comparing the Mac with the PC, not the iPad with the PC (which is what you seem to imply). It's Apple who decided that the Mac doesn't need a proper GPU. Even the "heaviest" desktop Macs have been using AMD-only GPUs these years, since Apple decided not only to ship AMD chips only, but even make it impossible for Nvidia to release drivers. Ah... but AR is "more profound"...
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.
PCs Offer 'Better Gaming Experience Than 100% of Mac Laptops,' Intel Claims in Ongoing Anti-Apple Campaign
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple made a claim that the A series was “desktop class”, but for the M1, I believe they were comparing against other Apple computers. I don’t even think Apple ever said “THESE ARE INTEL” they just said that these were their old systems, and this is what their new systems would be able to do.
And they never referenced anything about single core performance. Apple doesn’t do that.
This chart is the one that scares Epic. Today, for decent performance, you need something more than all the mobile gaming systems can provide. But, time marches on, greater and greater performance is arriving on lower and lower priced devices. There WILL come a time when the performance delta between Mobile and Console/PC won’t be worth it for those that are happily playing Grand Theft Auto at 1080p today. And, the Mobile system making the most money nowadays is Apple with their AppStore.
Like Valve, Tile, and Apple, Epic sees their future in services and they can’t offer their store service if the device providing users willing to spend significant amounts of money, doesn’t allow their service-on-top-of-a-service.
LOL, yes, I agree that you would have to lose your mind to buy a mac INSTANTLY based on how it competes with gaming devices on performance RATHER than, you know, any additional games appearing on the Mac. It’s like I posted earlier, Apple could release a system that performs faster than any system ever created (complete with Rayular Tracing, Hyposporcaphilic Audio, Reality Synthimization, etc.). However, that does NOT guarantee you’ll actually see PUBG, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto or any other of top played games appearing on it.
The Intel Xeon in that machine has an MSRP of $2000 on its own. Different specs for a different purpose. If you have a need for an enterprise workstation class machine then you go buy that.
Because when the iPhone came out it was a new way of interacting with your phone and it defined the category. It has market appeal in a way a computer doesn’t really have. The learning curve is smaller and there wasn’t a legacy knowledge or apps problem. To an extent conceptually we buy computers outright where as phones are often bundled with plans which makes it easier to pick up new device because if you don’t like it then you get another one in two years.
An iPhone serves as a broader societal status symbol in a way a computer of any brand doesn’t.
The PC gaming community is filled with some great people, but is more often filled with incredibly juvenile and toxic personalities who spend time insulting each other over meaningless crap. Whether it’s NVIDIA vs AMD, Intel vs AMD, PCIe v3.0 vs v4.0 or insulting each other’s mothers, I don’t spend any more time in the forums than I have to with these people, but time and again I see it degenerate down to middle school level d**k-swinging contests and idiotic memes. Why would Apple waste time on users who are never going to be satisfied with anything they release? There is ZERO upside for ANY PC OEM catering to the PC Gamer market, much less Apple. PC Gamers want to buy it cheapest, build it themselves and brag about it in their forums of choice. Fine, let them! Apple can soak up the casual gaming market and the less hardcore people with iOS and Apple Arcade.
Has it ever occurred to anyone here that Apple did the math and figured out really quickly that hardcore gamers are a net negative on their balance sheet? They are small niche of overall users in the computer market with big downsides and a fickle as hell upside.
Intel can keep churning out these meaningless, idiotic ads, but they’re simply preaching to the converted. It’s smoke and mirrors until they pull their own ass out of the fire or buy their way out of it. I’m betting on the latter.
NVIDIA is dead to Apple and has been since 2014. AMD is now dead to them as well as we won’t be seeing discrete GPUs coming to M-based Macs ever again. Lot of people are going to disagree and lose their minds over this, but it’s over. It’s all Metal SoC GPUs from now on.Try here.
This is part of what Nvidia was trying to pull in addition to some other things. As far as Apple’s concerned, I don’t even think there’s a hatchet to bury, Nvidia just doesn’t make a thing that Apple wants to buy.
Why exactly does Apple use AMD graphic cards instead of NVIDIA?
Answer (1 of 10): Wrote a new answer, currently the old answer is below this. I plan to go through and clarify/condense/shorten things. As I tend to be overly wordy, and write things in confusing manners. This should happen in the next 48 hours or so. Writing a whole new answer (Original Answer ...www.quora.com
While I personally enjoy the occasional trip into semantics - ”gaming industry” does not only refer to “playing”. Similar “car industry” is not only driving. And if you bake elaborated cakes you are not a baker but a confectioner.
iOS just called and said that you should stop insulting it’s parents. 🤓
For what’s worth:
AMD has already dethroned Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU on the desktop. Next dethroning is Nvidia on laptop with RX6000M and Qualcomm and Apple on mobile with Exynos 2200 with RDNA2 graphics.
https://www.amd.com/en/press-releas...eading-innovation-across-the-high-performance
https://www.amd.com/en/press-releas...eading-innovation-across-the-high-performance
Do they? Because when I look at this… well, it looks like something is shifting (can’t believe I post this two times in the same thread 😂🤣):
Isn’t it? Hm, while that’s exactly what’s left for Intel and what they try to communicate with their ad campaign… we can agree that it is a sensible view to use the right tool for a specific purpose?
So now tell me please, did you have a Mac? Which? And especially why did you decide to buy it?
And I would love to have the dolphins simply swimming into my living room. I really do. But reality makes makes me go to the beach for that. 😎
Sorry. My mistake. Had taken you seriously.
Apparently you didn’t learn from your experience then.
In two words: “Commodore Amiga” 😎
Why not? If you own a Patisserie you have absolutely no problem directing your clients to a bakery so they can buy bread…why would you?
Are you saying Apple shouldn’t pursue Sony to get Uncharted 4 and Days Gone on MacOS and iOS?
This is why when Apple (likely) unveils the M1X SoC at WWDC 2021, they will have a major game company show off a true "AAA" game running on a M1X-powered Mac mini with 32 GB of RAM and 16 GPU cores. If it works well as advertised, it's all over for Intel, because suddenly AAA games will run well on hardware that doesn't require hardware with insane amounts of chip cooling.
they are probably quite present… on the other side so 🤓 (really? 3 times in one thread?!?!! 🤪😎)
The developer/porting house has already said that if enough folks don't buy the game they wont be able to port future Larian games to iPadOS (read Baldurs Gate 3).
I’m a longtime Mac devotee, but I can’t deny that Intel does have a bit of a valid point here. Macs are my platform of choice as they run the creative software that I rely on professionally (plus, I just prefer the MacOS user experience), however I do wish the platform were better for gaming. My desire for hardcore gaming has not yet driven me to purchase an additional Windows laptop solely for that purpose; instead my gaming has been relegated to consoles. That said, I would be delighted if the MacOS were to become competitive with Windows in the gaming arena. (Not holding my breath for that day, though.)
But the title “cuts it” to quote the post I was replying to, right?
Otherwise: on whatever grounds the dev bases their business decisions - that’s for sure no valid sustainable motivation to convince customers… off topic: I think this is particularly interesting and closely watched by the industr, because it tries to move the threshold for “what is an adequate price for a game/app”.
As an addendum: I am old enough to remember the early days of the Mac, when it was actually one of the BEST gaming platforms around. Back in the day I was absolutely obsessed with Dark Castle. But there were many others (Myst, Deja Vu, A Mind Forever Voyaging, The Fool’s Errand, etc.) I was truly sad to see developers jump ship for the far larger and thus more lucrative Windows market.
I used to play PUBG via Stadia and it was decent. But they dropped it from Stadia last year.
(At least, they killed the mouse & keyboard version, which makes it totally useless in my view)
I cancelled my Stadia Pro subscription because of this.
It is not clear why you keep posting this irrelevant chart. Does it disprove Intel's claim that PCs are superior in gaming?
So they think they will convince Microsoft, Nvidia, AMD, and the rest not to switch to ARM by making fun of M1 chips? Thats not very bright...
If Sony has no incentive on itself to do so - and if you look on them or e.g. Nintendo in the past, they overwhelmingly haven’t- why would they? Why should Apple change that?
Sony seems happy with what they have. It might be difficult to accept on a personal basis, but I think the gain for Apple in its areas of interest IF these two are available on its platforms is minimal. At best.