Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Highly unlikely. Plus, why would anyone drop that kind of money on an iMac for gaming when you cannot upgrade the video card? Maybe I could see Apple making their own eGPU so that any of their machines could be capable of playing games. Also, which top tier gaming developer is going to trust that Apple will sell enough of these expensive machines to make developing for the Mac worthwhile anyway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
Disagree. The MBA is nothing more than a thin & light laptop. If the device doesn't have Pencil / stylus capability, it is not a tablet in my books. That's a key feature of a tablet.

I should’ve said a tablet like portability as opposed to form factor
[automerge]1577853911[/automerge]
It doesn't matter that they're able to get VISAS. That doesn't all of a sudden make video games "sports."

They're not sports. They're gamers. Professional gamers.

P-1 Visas were granted to some of these professional gamers. They are typically granted to athletes. I guess it depends on what your definition of an athlete is. If an athlete does not necessarily compete in a sporting competition, then that settles it for you.
 
Last edited:
Or you could read good literature and listen to good music and go out once in a while to the theatre or gallery. You know, all the things silly Fangirls don't do.
 
The problem is the Graph API. OpenGL on MacOS is so slow, comparing to Windows. Metal is a private API on a platform that is not so popular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
It will never be as powerful a MBP, or that class of laptop
I think it’s quite possible, not primarily because Apple has amazing chips, but because Intel and AMD have dropped the ball on mobile. It’s not impossible to believe that Apple’s next iPadOS ARM processor will put it’s performance in the neighborhood of Intel’s MBP class processor, specifically when running iPadOS and iPadOS apps.

I’d look at what Apple’s done with the Mac Pro when looking at gaming. They didn’t just release a generic system hoping there’s a market. They targeted a specific user need, and made sure they hit the goals for that group. A “professional gamer” has needs beyond just a powerful enough CPU, GPU, network card. They want to be able to stream, they also want to be able to capture what they’re playing in order to upload to YouTube later using specific gaming type overlays. And, since the game is a platform in and of itself, if the most popular games are released on a different OS that makes the content creation of gaming easier, you’d have some folks moving over. A nice little pie-in-the-sky speculation gives you a nimble ARM powered system that can be used to purchase from the Steam or Epic stores... designed to handle multiple 4k streams and screen records natively into a Final Cut Pro-ish format. If it’s trivially easy to upload higher quality content, then as a side effect, you’ve also created something lightweight and portable for streamers in general.
 
  • Like
Reactions: apolkowski
I have tower with a i7 3770 and RX5700 for gaming and use steamlink on my MBPro sometimes. The only way a Mac would be gaming is if it had full boot-camp support in Windows and was upgradable. The recent discontinue of 32-bit app support somewhat nuked the small library of Mac ports of games to begin with.

If they release a laptop that is bulky and has swappable components and call it gaming, I'm pretty sure most people would get it regardless if it's for that purpose. The new 16-inch isn't a slouch for gaming either, but it would be silly to get it for that sole purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
even more so when an $2500K pc will be faster then it.

And 100% totally modular. Gamers like to be able to upgrade their RAM, GPU, storage, CPU and PSU. Improving cooling with extra fans. Also adding lighting effects inside the case etc.

Can’t see all that happening inside an iMac.
 
With fast 5G and low latency below 10 ms I can see mac as a front end for games executed on huge servers where gamers can subscribe to cpu/gpu power and run whatever games they like. I can even see whole bunch of ipads and iPhones as side displays for game main screen. Only imagination limits this vision. You need less than 30 Mb/s for 4K.
 
Consider that the A12X in the iPad Pro 11" appears to have similar graphics performance to the Xbox One S, Apple could drop an A13X in the next 6 months for a 2019 iPad Pro refresh and - if they have a cooling solution sorted - could really shake things up if they could squeeze Xbox One X performance out of it.

I would wait for an A14X to drop in September/October 2020 for maximum effect though - to see how it compares to an Xbox Series X console and Playstation 5.

Let's not forget that a successful execution in the console games arena will also give consumers an idea of the power of the ARM CPUs making it less likely that they dismiss the prospect of an A-series powered Mac in the future (no matter how unlikely). It would also give considerable respect to iPad and iPhones too.
Yeah but Xbox One S is the slow Xbox One, it was slow and disappointing from the moment it was launched(I'm talking about both the Original Xbox One and One S). An old and slow, low end PC GPU like an Nvidia GTX 750Ti offers equal of better gaming performance and this is a GPU launched in 2014.
Xbox One X is like 4-6 times faster than the S and next Xbox will offer at least a 2X performance jump vs Xbox One X.

There's no way an Apple developed ARM based computer could compete in gaming with an optimized box like Xbox or PlayStation which are backed by the entire triple A gaming industry.
Even if the A14X doubles the performance of a theoretical A13X is would still be slower in games than an Xbox One X.

Also Xbox Series X and Playstation 5 will offer real time ray tracing hardware supported and they will be supported by the latest high tech game engines. How is Apple going to compete with that?
 
I think it’s quite possible, not primarily because Apple has amazing chips, but because Intel and AMD have dropped the ball on mobile. It’s not impossible to believe that Apple’s next iPadOS ARM processor will put it’s performance in the neighborhood of Intel’s MBP class processor, specifically when running iPadOS and iPadOS apps.

I’d look at what Apple’s done with the Mac Pro when looking at gaming. They didn’t just release a generic system hoping there’s a market. They targeted a specific user need, and made sure they hit the goals for that group. A “professional gamer” has needs beyond just a powerful enough CPU, GPU, network card. They want to be able to stream, they also want to be able to capture what they’re playing in order to upload to YouTube later using specific gaming type overlays. And, since the game is a platform in and of itself, if the most popular games are released on a different OS that makes the content creation of gaming easier, you’d have some folks moving over. A nice little pie-in-the-sky speculation gives you a nimble ARM powered system that can be used to purchase from the Steam or Epic stores... designed to handle multiple 4k streams and screen records natively into a Final Cut Pro-ish format. If it’s trivially easy to upload higher quality content, then as a side effect, you’ve also created something lightweight and portable for streamers in general.

Apple have too many issues with concepts that PC gamers are used to:

Upgradability is linked intrinsically with the limited amount of drivers they can write for expansion so I can easily see why Apple would not want to allow a 'traditional' big box approach to desktop PCs.

Forgetting the drivers, what about the APIs for gaming that are non existent, under-supported, and liable to be abandoned without warning on a minority platform from which hardware can't be purchased as cost effectively as a PC?

The fact that Apple will probably not be upgrading their desktop machines for 18-24 months after release also stands against them in a world where desktop users can upgrade their PC with the latest CPU after just a few months on the market.

There is one market that behaves similarly to Apple - a very lucrative one - games consoles.

1. The hardware stays constant for up to 5 years aside from storage bumps or price cuts over time to allow developers a static target to write towards.

2. Console makers typically sell their consoles at a loss to get the maximum number of people onto their platform.

3. Console hardware vendors make their money from taking distribution percentages of games sold.

4. Console makers now have premium membership schemes like xBox Live and Playstation Plus (and even Nintendo Switch Online)


And Apple's answer is this:

1. Apple release new and faster iOS hardware all the time and support it for years too. It's too early to say if A14X can put itself into the same ballpark as PS5 and Xbox Series X though.

2. Apple already have a huge number of users who will increase the games user base just by buying a new iPhone or iPad.

3. Apple's App Store already takes a cut of revenues.

4. Apple have started Apple Arcade and have millions of users who can access the App Store. While this, and AppleTV+, and Apple Music appear to be separate services they could optionally merge these subscription services into one monthly premium payment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stella
Is it that crazy to expect A14ish GPUs might be able to provide competitive performance compared to that of AMD or Nvidia?
Yeah it is. I don't think you understand how much faster Nvidia and AMD gaming GPUs are in comparison to mobile GPUs.
Show me an Apple developed chip that can run a resource intensive AAA game at 4K resolution at a playable frame rate which is +30fps at least. Because this is something already achievable by upper mid-range AMD and Nvidia GPUs. High end GPUs like the GTX 2080Ti can run games at 4K 60fps.
[automerge]1577918795[/automerge]
And Apple's answer is this:

1. Apple release new and faster iOS hardware all the time and support it for years too. It's too early to say if A14X can put itself into the same ballpark as PS5 and Xbox Series X though.

If the A14X is a mobile SOC it will be impossible to even come close to a next gen consoles. Xbox Series X is said to offer around 12 teraflops of GPU performance while the PS5 around 9.2 teraflops .
How will a mobile SOC be able to match that? That's high performance class hardware, Apple would need to develop from scratch a desktop class chip in order to compete with those numbers. And even so you have to take in consideration optimization and support from AAA game developers which Apple lacks.

2. Apple already have a huge number of users who will increase the games user base just by buying a new iPhone or iPad.

3. Apple's App Store already takes a cut of revenues.

4. Apple have started Apple Arcade and have millions of users who can access the App Store. While this, and AppleTV+, and Apple Music appear to be separate services they could optionally merge these subscription services into one monthly premium payment.

I don't see how any of this will help them compete with Sony and Microsoft in AAA gaming.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but Xbox One S is the slow Xbox One, it was slow and disappointing from the moment it was launched(I'm talking about both the Original Xbox One and One S). An old and slow, low end PC GPU like an Nvidia GTX 750Ti offers equal of better gaming performance and this is a GPU launched in 2014.
Xbox One X is like 4-6 times faster than the S and next Xbox will offer at least a 2X performance jump vs Xbox One X.

There's no way an Apple developed ARM based computer could compete in gaming with an optimized box like Xbox or PlayStation which are backed by the entire triple A gaming industry.
Even if the A14X doubles the performance of a theoretical A13X is would still be slower in games than an Xbox One X.

Also Xbox Series X and Playstation 5 will offer real time ray tracing hardware supported and they will be supported by the latest high tech game engines. How is Apple going to compete with that?

I'm not saying that they'll be able to compete toe to toe with PS5 and Xbox Series X using an (as yet unreleased) A14X in terms of technology but Apple have it in their hands to get into the same ballpark if we look at the A13.

It's certainly a more feasible route to success than trying to figure out how Apple will appeal to gamers with essentially a Mac mini Pro or iMac with un-Apple-like graphics upgrade. The hardware could be improved to match Windows PCs but the price would be out of control and the OS software isn't optimised for gaming.

How much of the performance differences between ARM and the AMD APU in consoles could be in part down to mobile devices wanting to be energy efficient and also be somewhat price sensitive by limiting the amount of RAM on the device?

We hear that Apple use up to 6Gb of RAM on their iPad Pro and lesser models have a lot less RAM. What if they allowed the same ballpark - say 16Gb of RAM? - as PS5/Xbox Series X? What if the ARM CPU was properly cooled rather than having to throttle in a portable device because of battery life and heat considerations?

I'm certainly not saying that will will suddenly make it an even contest though.

Apple don't have to do deals with AMD or Intel for their IP - they have ARM - remember that AMD are just offering a custom built APU which they could equally do for Apple if they wanted but macOS is years behind driver-wise. For the record I don't think they would.

What would be interesting is if Apple have been able to somehow marry up an AMD graphics GPU with the ARM CPU.

An Apple console doesn't have to be more powerful than anything either of the giants are coming up with, they just have to have software/games that are as compelling - look at Nintendo.

The solution for that is well within Apple's reach - start or acquire software houses who wouldn't ordinarily have bothered to write or port higher end games for iOS and watch them create games with more complexity than Candy Crush.
 
With fast 5G and low latency below 10 ms I can see mac as a front end for games executed on huge servers where gamers can subscribe to cpu/gpu power and run whatever games they like. I can even see whole bunch of ipads and iPhones as side displays for game main screen. Only imagination limits this vision. You need less than 30 Mb/s for 4K.
and only 1-2 hours to hit your cap!! or run up the bill at about 10 GB /HR with an rate of $10 per GB = $100/HR
 
  • Like
Reactions: jdawgnoonan
I'm not saying that they'll be able to compete toe to toe with PS5 and Xbox Series X using an (as yet unreleased) A14X in terms of technology but Apple have it in their hands to get into the same ballpark if we look at the A13.

It's certainly a more feasible route to success than trying to figure out how Apple will appeal to gamers with essentially a Mac mini Pro or iMac with un-Apple-like graphics upgrade. The hardware could be improved to match Windows PCs but the price would be out of control and the OS software isn't optimised for gaming.

Even if the A14x will triple or quadruple the performance of the A13 in games(which would be quite a feat even with higher power budget and 5nm) it will not be a match for the Xbox One X in gaming performance so forget any next gen console altogether.

How much of the performance differences between ARM and the AMD APU in consoles could be in part down to mobile devices wanting to be energy efficient and also be somewhat price sensitive by limiting the amount of RAM on the device?
We hear that Apple use up to 6Gb of RAM on their iPad Pro and lesser models have a lot less RAM. What if they allowed the same ballpark - say 16Gb of RAM? - as PS5/Xbox Series X? What if the ARM CPU was properly cooled rather than having to throttle in a portable device because of battery life and heat considerations?

I don't think you understand the differences in hardware architecture.
The APUs in next gen consoles were developed from scratch as high performance computer parts so not mobile oriented but more like server oriented architectures.
Apple's ARM SOC architecture is and always was mobile oriented.
OK let's say the CPU would somehow be fine(although against a Zen 2 or 3 CPU with 8 Cores and 16 thread I wouldn't hold my breath) the GPU would totally be outclassed and it won't be because of the RAM. Apple ca pair any SOC they have even with 32GB of RAM it still wouldn't matter in gaming performance, first because the LPDDR4x RAM which Apple currently uses is already noticeably slower than desktop class DDR4 RAM(2133MHz speed vs +3000MHz) second because the gaming performance of dedicated GPUs and the APUs in the next gen console is and will mainly be influenced buy the dedicated Graphics SDRAM they use which is GDDR6 and in this context. There's nothing Apple could do to match the performance and the bandwidth of a GPU that uses dedicated GDDR6 with low power RAM or even normal desktop DDR RAM.
The cooling won't matter because it would only allow a mobile SOC to not throttle under constant heavy load so it won't magically make it much faster and it's not like Apple's tablet SOCs have a throttling problem anyway. Even if you raise the TDP and the frequency because the active cooling allows it it will only gain a little additional performance, nothing spectacular.

I'm certainly not saying that will will suddenly make it an even contest though.
Apple don't have to do deals with AMD or Intel for their IP - they have ARM - remember that AMD are just offering a custom built APU which they could equally do for Apple if they wanted but macOS is years behind driver-wise. For the record I don't think they would.

Really? because you compared or mentioned multiple times a theoretical A14X with the next gen consoles.
And the fact that Apple has ARM isn't realistically an advantage vs X86.
X86 and AMD, Nvidia GPUs have decades of software support and optimizations on their side.
This is why Sony and Microsoft decided to use standard PC CPU and GPU architectures in their consoles in the first place.
Also we don't know how evolved and capable Apple's GPU architecture is to run modern AAA games with all the eye candy and different graphic features. I suspect that without a direct license from AMD or Nvidia such a GPU can't be developed.
Intel for example is developing dedicated PC GPUs and they do have a license deal with AMD to cover GPU IP.

What would be interesting is if Apple have been able to somehow marry up an AMD graphics GPU with the ARM CPU.
It would be a waste of time and resources. AMD's Zen architecture is already excellent and it's available now. It's not even something new, AMD had this idea a few years ago but gave up on it because it didn't make much sense.

An Apple console doesn't have to be more powerful than anything either of the giants are coming up with, they just have to have software/games that are as compelling - look at Nintendo.

Nintendo is a gaming industry veteran which owns some of the most popular game IPs in the industry. This is their secret.

The solution for that is well within Apple's reach - start or acquire software houses who wouldn't ordinarily have bothered to write or port higher end games for iOS and watch them create games with more complexity than Candy Crush.

Throwing money around doesn't guarantee success, gamers will still like Mario, Zelda or Pokemon more.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ipponrg
Because some of us would prefer to only have one computer at their desk instead of two.

I am one such person, but Apple releasing one computer with a decent graphics card isn’t going to change that. They’d have to show commitment to gaming for years and years for Mac to become a first class platform for developers and publishers, and even then the Windows-only back catalogue would be missing. To my mind it’s slightly promising news at best.

Oh, although I suppose you‘ll be able to dual boot. A good gaming Windows computer that’s also a Mac, that’d be good news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
I doubt this story, perhaps Apple's researching if Apple arcade only console is feasible or not?

However, I really hope Apple to bring out a consumer grade headless desktop
 
I share the pessimism of pretty much everyone else replying here. The problem is: Apple always has to do something unique and different in order to distinguish themselves and justify a premium. We’ve seen it with the MacBook Pros (Touch Bar, giant Force Touch trackpad, ridiculously good speakers, etc) and Mac Pro (cable-free design, MPX connector, etc) and pretty much everything else.

But I struggle to think of something really unique they can do that gamers will care about while also still competing in the price-sensitive market that is enthusiast gaming PCs.
 
Apple have too many issues with concepts that PC gamers are used to:
That’s why my speculation isn’t about “gamers”, it’s more about a subset, the streamers. These are people that, day in, day out, will not be tweaking and upgrading their system constantly. For them a rock solid stable system is more important because the more time they spend tweaking their system, the less time they spend online actually streaming (or just capturing their gameplay locally). So, my speculation is that IF a Gaming thingy is coming from Apple, understanding that they’re not likely to produce anything that comes close to what normal gamers expect, I’m thinking of what could someone hear about a “gaming” system from Apple that would actually solve a different problem than just gaming. It could instead be a content creation platform that focuses on use cases that would fit gamers well.

So, I totally understand what you’ve written, but someone who wants to spend their week recording and then editing gameplay video in order to upload to YouTube isn’t really wanting the fastest CPU or heftiest graphics card of the moment. They’re just looking for something they can use to capture the audio / video of their play in... 4k or 1080p, that rarely fails (because a lot of times you can’t re-play that section exactly the same way twice) and makes editing and posting that content a breeze. They’re a gamer, but don’t have exactly the same needs as someone who isn’t producing content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chewy14 and name99
Gamers want the most performance for their individual budget. Gamers want the ability to upgrade & change every single component. Gamers want a large selection of AAA titles to choose from. Gamers want the ability to buy NVIDIA GPU's. Therefore you'd have to be a complete moron to choose a Mac for gaming.
 
The GPU power real gamers need far exceeds the capabilities of the mini. As I said, the Mac mini has a 65W thermal budget for CPU + GPU. How is that going to be a viable gaming platform for PC games? esports pros use multiple GPUs, that’s a minimum of 500 Watts just for GPU. Add a CPU and that’s easily 10 times the amount of heat produced than the mini can handle.

Last time I did the calculation, roughly an A12X GPU is about 1/6th of an iMac Pro, and an A12X would probably be happy at 10W continuous? So we’re in the ballpark. (IF you consider aniMac Pro GPU good enough...)

But really, Mac mini is just to show what could be done at the low end.
At the higher end we can have iMac at, what, 120W budget? And iMac Pro at what, 200W?

Apple has way more thermal headroom for CPU, and also appears to have more thermal headroom than AMD and nV for GPU (in part I suspect because they’re willing to use more constrained and expensive packaging — on-interposer GPU chiplets and lots of HBM, rather than PCI cards and socketed VRAM).
[automerge]1577959568[/automerge]
Gamers want the most performance for their individual budget. Gamers want the ability to upgrade & change every single component. Gamers want a large selection of AAA titles to choose from. Gamers want the ability to buy NVIDIA GPU's. Therefore you'd have to be a complete moron to choose a Mac for gaming.

”Disruption“ happens by re-evaluating what appear like absolute, non-negotiable assumptions to every other actor in a space...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.