WoW Performance on Apple M1 Mac Mini? 1080p? 1440p?

[anon5123]

Maybe its because you don't understand that people buy things that they like.

I mean, I "like" Mac OS just fine, but I don't like that Apple computers cost 50-75% more for the same power as an equivalent custom built PC.

[Vash The Stampede]

Maybe its because you don't understand that people buy things that they like. Not just because of performance or quality.

Then what metrics do you go by then?

It's also the same reason you gush about Linux. You like Linux more and thats fine.

I posted before saying that Linux sucks and you are saying that I gush about it? Just because I say bad things about something doesn't mean it should be treated as an attack on your belief. Use the information to improve your product. As a Linux user I constantly criticize it because things are still bad, but I expect someone to listen and fix it.

Thinking someone is an idiot for liking something is stupid though.

Like I said, don't expect to game on the Apple M1. If you bought it and expect to play games then yes, you're stupid. I'm the Linux guy, so I know what it takes to play x86 Windows games. On Mac you have Wine/CrossOver, Parallels, and Bootcamp. The reason Linux sucks is because Wine sucks, and Wine also sucks for Mac. Good for performance, but bad compatibility. Parallels doesn't have compatibility issues like Wine but much worse performance. Bootcamp is gone on the M1, and is a Mac users best solution to play games on the Mac. This is all assuming that anything works because you're now using Rosetta 2.

So yes, stupid for buying a M1 Mac to play a game and also being a beta tester, like any other early adopter.

[Thunderball]

Maybe its because you don't understand that people buy things that they like. Not just because of performance or quality.

Because of fanboyism or brand name? Yeah, I sure as hell dont understand.

[SigmaShift]

Then what metrics do you go by then?

I posted before saying that Linux sucks and you are saying that I gush about it? Just because I say bad things about something doesn't mean it should be treated as an attack on your belief. Use the information to improve your product. As a Linux user I constantly criticize it because things are still bad, but I expect someone to listen and fix it.

Like I said, don't expect to game on the Apple M1. If you bought it and expect to play games then yes, you're stupid. I'm the Linux guy, so I know what it takes to play x86 Windows games. On Mac you have Wine/CrossOver, Parallels, and Bootcamp. The reason Linux sucks is because Wine sucks, and Wine also sucks for Mac. Good for performance, but bad compatibility. Parallels doesn't have compatibility issues like Wine but much worse performance. Bootcamp is gone on the M1, and is a Mac users best solution to play games on the Mac. This is all assuming that anything works because you're now using Rosetta 2.

So yes, stupid for buying a M1 Mac to play a game and also being a beta tester, like any other early adopter.

The difference is, unlike Linux distros, which are scattered, Apple can and will compel the market to build native software. Apple will become a gaming leader with their next few chip generations.

[MatthewOU2015]

OP you know people on this forum are anti-apple. You asked a genuine question and got a bunch of hateful trolls

[Vash The Stampede]

The difference is, unlike Linux distros, which are scattered, Apple can and will compel the market to build native software. Apple will become a gaming leader with their next few chip generations.

Apple certainly has done more than Microsoft to build apps for ARM, but I doubt it's more than Linux. At least for now anyway. I don't see Apple being a gaming leader as I see them regressing in that area. Apple is trying to pull a Sony PS3 in trying to get developers to develop software for their ecosystem. There's no reason for Metal to exist when you have Vulkan, and some developers have turned to MoltenVK as a work around. Their OpenGL is lagging behind because obviously Apple doesn't want developers to use it when there's Metal. What developers are going to make games for a platform that requires them to do more work for less payout? Not many. Then there's Apple's GPU which I doubt could ever rival AMD and Nvidia. They basically took Imaginations PowerVR tech and claimed it as their own, and then needed them to help them continue to develop it. PowerVR tried to get into the PC gaming market 20 years ago but failed when up against ATI and Nvidia. They went into the mobile market to avoid competing against the giants. So far Apple has taken some very smart shortcuts to develop a CPU+GPU, but that won't be as profitable for long. Apple is not developing hardware for other bigger markets, just their market. That's like if AMD only made GPU's for HP and nobody else. It wouldn't be very profitable and they wouldn't have the R&D to compete against Nvidia. Ever wonder why ARM went broke and was bought by Nvidia, a company that Apple isn't in good terms with? Even Imagination left in bad terms because Apple poached some of their developers. If anything I see Apple using AMD's GPU's for high end products in the future, because their silicon won't be able to compete.

[Kagthul]

I mean, I "like" Mac OS just fine, but I don't like that Apple computers cost 50-75% more for the same power as an equivalent custom built PC.

Ive debunked that a dozen times now.

[lloose]

I think Apple knows they can't compete in the gaming market and I don't think they want to. Making their computers gaming capable would mean they would have to compromise on the fit and finish of their products. They ran into the same issue with thermal throttling on the i9 and i7 Macbooks where they wouldn't make changes to their hardware to accommodate for the heat that those chips put out under load. They shifted their focus to something that they had some ground to stand on - casual gaming. Apple Arcade is great for people who are into casual games. Its not my thing personally, but I can see the draw for the right kind of person. In terms of real gaming, I don't really know anyone who buys mac with intentions of it being a gaming computer.

I'd love to have an M1 Macbook Pro or Macbook Air. I really like that Wow runs great natively on it, but that's a nice bonus, not a selling point for me. Battery life, fit/finish, hardware quality, integration with my iPhone and watch, the ability to run ios apps, and it being a good platform for development are the selling points. If I am doing anything resource intensive like gaming, I'd rather do it on my desktop than use any laptop. Thats the draw of Macbooks for me. They are the best laptop for what I use laptops for (for me). I know a lot of people who buy Macs are happy with them because they do a great job at what they use their computer for.

- - - Updated - - -

Ive debunked that a dozen times now.

Apple actually took a giant dump on the argument that Apple Computers cost 50-75% more with the M1. There are no tiers of Apple silicone. There is no i3, i5, i7, and i9. If you want the fastest Apple silicon, it won't cost you a penny more than the slowest.. because its the same chip. If I were to buy Apples flaghsip i9 macbook from 2019, it would start at $2700. If I wanted to buy the 2020 Apple flagship Macbook, it would start at $1299.

[Kagthul]

I think Apple knows they can't compete in the gaming market and I don't think they want to. Making their computers gaming capable would mean they would have to compromise on the fit and finish of their products. They ran into the same issue with thermal throttling on the i9 and i7 Macbooks where they wouldn't make changes to their hardware to accommodate for the heat that those chips put out under load. They shifted their focus to something that they had some ground to stand on - casual gaming. Apple Arcade is great for people who are into casual games. Its not my thing personally, but I can see the draw for the right kind of person. In terms of real gaming, I don't really know anyone who buys mac with intentions of it being a gaming computer.

I know a few that really want to game on their computer and just refuse to build a PC. But as a % its not even statistically relevant.

I'd love to have an M1 Macbook Pro or Macbook Air. I really like that Wow runs great natively on it, but that's a nice bonus, not a selling point for me. Battery life, fit/finish, hardware quality, integration with my iPhone and watch, the ability to run ios apps, and it being a good platform for development are the selling points. If I am doing anything resource intensive like gaming, I'd rather do it on my desktop than use any laptop. Thats the draw of Macbooks for me. They are the best laptop for what I use laptops for (for me). I know a lot of people who buy Macs are happy with them because they do a great job at what they use their computer for.

Which is what 90% of the people in this forum miss entirely. Simply by whit of posting in this forum, you're not the average user of any segment. Vash wants to make love to Linux and cant seem to get his head around the fact that 95% of users would never be able to make use of Linux. No business user is going to put up with the eccentricities of Linux.

Most people need a computer that does a few very specific things and the few that need a computer that does heavy lifting on the go are a tiny, tiny percentage.

Honestly, with a little bit of adjustment (and maybe a tiny bit more development in the departments of photo and video editing that average consumers do), almost everyone could likely accomplish all of their daily driving on a Chromebook. Hell, a HUGE portion of people (even in the US) do almost ALL of their computing ONLY on their phone. I know a rather large number of people who dont even own a real computer or the one they have they never use and its years old and is sitting collecting dust.

Apple actually took a giant dump on the argument that Apple Computers cost 50-75% more with the M1. There are no tiers of Apple silicone. There is no i3, i5, i7, and i9. If you want the fastest Apple silicon, it won't cost you a penny more than the slowest.. because its the same chip. If I were to buy Apples flaghsip i9 macbook from 2019, it would start at $2700. If I wanted to buy the 2020 Apple flagship Macbook, it would start at $1299.

Im even speaking Intel Macs.

You cant build a Mini, much less one of the same specs as the Intel Mini, for less than a Mini costs (and you cant get it in that form factor at all. Not even Intel's NUCs are that small).

You cant build an iMac (at all, really, but lets assume "small PC + that 5K display" as an equivalent) for what Apple charges. The display alone is 1500$. (Though i suppose now you could use the XDR display at "only" 1000.... if you have a Mac).

You can barely build a comparable workstation (actually comparable, another thing the Forumdwellers here love to do is focus on just a few raw specs (CPU + GPU) and ignore everything else that makes the computer what it is, like constantly comparing 8lb slabs of plastic Desktop Replacement "laptops" to 3.5-4lb ultrapportables) for the same cost as a Mac Pro and it doesn't have the bespoke case, storage, cooling, etc.

Even the Intel laptops werent a lot more expensive (at base specs - when you start paying Apples prices to upgrade RAM and Storage, then that gripe is true) than PC equivalents (ACTUAL equivalent ultraportables). And for that you generally get, as you pointed out, much higher quality components, fit and finish, and a better overall user experience.

And the M1 proposal (currently) makes that even funnier as you said - they are all the same chip.

But ill addend a "for now" to that one.

There will be multiple tiers of AS later on, you can be assured.

[lloose]

There will be multiple tiers of AS later on, you can be assured.

Im interested in this. I kind of think they wont. If you look at the iphone, even their SE model has their top end soc. From a production standpoint, it costs quite a bit more to develop different tiers of cpu. Its more cost effective to just have 1 and offer it in all of your models. I am not big on binning. Taking an i9 that doesn't meet rated specs, cutting a couple cores, downclocking it, and slapping "i5" on it always bugged me.

[SigmaShift]

Apple certainly has done more than Microsoft to build apps for ARM, but I doubt it's more than Linux. At least for now anyway. I don't see Apple being a gaming leader as I see them regressing in that area. Apple is trying to pull a Sony PS3 in trying to get developers to develop software for their ecosystem. There's no reason for Metal to exist when you have Vulkan, and some developers have turned to MoltenVK as a work around. Their OpenGL is lagging behind because obviously Apple doesn't want developers to use it when there's Metal. What developers are going to make games for a platform that requires them to do more work for less payout? Not many. Then there's Apple's GPU which I doubt could ever rival AMD and Nvidia. They basically took Imaginations PowerVR tech and claimed it as their own, and then needed them to help them continue to develop it. PowerVR tried to get into the PC gaming market 20 years ago but failed when up against ATI and Nvidia. They went into the mobile market to avoid competing against the giants. So far Apple has taken some very smart shortcuts to develop a CPU+GPU, but that won't be as profitable for long. Apple is not developing hardware for other bigger markets, just their market. That's like if AMD only made GPU's for HP and nobody else. It wouldn't be very profitable and they wouldn't have the R&D to compete against Nvidia. Ever wonder why ARM went broke and was bought by Nvidia, a company that Apple isn't in good terms with? Even Imagination left in bad terms because Apple poached some of their developers. If anything I see Apple using AMD's GPU's for high end products in the future, because their silicon won't be able to compete.

I think you severely misunderstand Apple's ability to create markets, as well as their revenue generation. Gaming is a profitable platform for them, they have stated this is a new segment they want to dominate in early last year. The A14X is capable of AAA gaming on it's own. If the rumors of the M1X, and M2 are true, you're going to see 32+ cores with Nvidia 3080+ performance. How is that not competitive again?

Linux never got wide spread adoption because it's more complicated than the average user wants to learn. Apple on the other hand is way easier to adopt. Developers will jump when Apple says to.

- - - Updated - - -

I know a few that really want to game on their computer and just refuse to build a PC. But as a % its not even statistically relevant.



Which is what 90% of the people in this forum miss entirely. Simply by whit of posting in this forum, you're not the average user of any segment. Vash wants to make love to Linux and cant seem to get his head around the fact that 95% of users would never be able to make use of Linux. No business user is going to put up with the eccentricities of Linux.

Most people need a computer that does a few very specific things and the few that need a computer that does heavy lifting on the go are a tiny, tiny percentage.

Honestly, with a little bit of adjustment (and maybe a tiny bit more development in the departments of photo and video editing that average consumers do), almost everyone could likely accomplish all of their daily driving on a Chromebook. Hell, a HUGE portion of people (even in the US) do almost ALL of their computing ONLY on their phone. I know a rather large number of people who dont even own a real computer or the one they have they never use and its years old and is sitting collecting dust.



Im even speaking Intel Macs.

You cant build a Mini, much less one of the same specs as the Intel Mini, for less than a Mini costs (and you cant get it in that form factor at all. Not even Intel's NUCs are that small).

You cant build an iMac (at all, really, but lets assume "small PC + that 5K display" as an equivalent) for what Apple charges. The display alone is 1500$. (Though i suppose now you could use the XDR display at "only" 1000.... if you have a Mac).

You can barely build a comparable workstation (actually comparable, another thing the Forumdwellers here love to do is focus on just a few raw specs (CPU + GPU) and ignore everything else that makes the computer what it is, like constantly comparing 8lb slabs of plastic Desktop Replacement "laptops" to 3.5-4lb ultrapportables) for the same cost as a Mac Pro and it doesn't have the bespoke case, storage, cooling, etc.

Even the Intel laptops werent a lot more expensive (at base specs - when you start paying Apples prices to upgrade RAM and Storage, then that gripe is true) than PC equivalents (ACTUAL equivalent ultraportables). And for that you generally get, as you pointed out, much higher quality components, fit and finish, and a better overall user experience.

And the M1 proposal (currently) makes that even funnier as you said - they are all the same chip.

But ill addend a "for now" to that one.

There will be multiple tiers of AS later on, you can be assured.

I actually think with today's GPU market, its also not possible to build a cheaper gaming machine than an Apple M1 Mini at $699 (I paid $649 for mine).

Btw everyone, I bought one for the fun of it, and installed WoW. Ended up seeing an average of 45-50, with peaks up over 100 fps at 1080p on settings 7 in raid last night.

[Yayeet]

Don't buy an Apple M1 based machine. Can't stress this enough. Not only it's ARM which means x86 apps will run 50%-75% of it's original performance but not many developers will port their games to it for a while. Blizzard did port it but as you said it's playable on medium settings. Don't be the beta tester for Apple. Wait for the M2 or whatever is the second generation.

Already proven literally in 20k app benchmarks that rosetta emulation is nearly the same as non emulated apps.

[Kagthul]

Already proven literally in 20k app benchmarks that rosetta emulation is nearly the same as non emulated apps.

Thats mostly because the previous Apple machines were hugely thermaly constrained.

So, yes (and i already stated that above), Rosetta is providing the same performance as the Intel MBA and MBP.. because those machines were largely thermally crippled.

It wouldn't provide the same performance vs a machine with the same CPU that wasn't thermally crippled..

But its plenty good. Its as good as you would have gotten on an Intel Mac, anyway, so.... distinction without much meaning.

- - - Updated - - -

The A14X is capable of AAA gaming on it's own. .

No it is not.

As i said in numerous posts above, the M1 and Apple Silicon in general are good.

But the A14X/M1 are not capable of AAA gaming.

Unless you're using "cinematic" 30fps framerates and medium details.. I.E. "Console AAA gaming".

If they were paired with a real GPU, then sure. Purely as CPUs, they are plenty powerful enough to drive a AAA game if they were paired with a good GPU.

But with their integrated GPUs? No way.

[jellmoo]

I think there's a world of difference between:

"I'm gonna gey myself an M1 Mac to do tasks X, Y, and Z and maybe do some gaming"

and

"I'm gonna get myself an M1 Mac for gaming"

The first one makes sense. Lots of people get a Mac in order to do a variety of productivity tasks, some of which are some combination of better/easier/standardized on a Mac. And while the M1 isn't a gaming rig, it is capable of doing some gaming. Cream of the crop, AAA gaming at high resolution and high framerate? Nah. But it can absolutely do some gaming.

Getting an M1 Mac for gaming is a weird choice and far from ideal. Better options obviously exist that will give you more bang for your buck.

[Vash The Stampede]

The A14X is capable of AAA gaming on it's own.

The A14X is not coupled with enough storage for AAA gaming.

If the rumors of the M1X, and M2 are true, you're going to see 32+ cores with Nvidia 3080+ performance. How is that not competitive again?

Just like that, Apple is at Nvidia 3080+ performance? Okey dokey smokey.

Linux never got wide spread adoption because it's more complicated than the average user wants to learn. Apple on the other hand is way easier to adopt. Developers will jump when Apple says to.

I'm not mentioning Linux, just others here who want to use it against me.

I actually think with today's GPU market, its also not possible to build a cheaper gaming machine than an Apple M1 Mini at $699 (I paid $649 for mine).

So how's Cyberpunk 2077 running on the Apple M1?

Ive debunked that a dozen times now.

Most debunkers are using Apples to Apples hardware. You can't do that now with Apple's M1, so we are free to use anything to compare to Apple, including AMD's Ryzen.

Vash wants to make love to Linux and cant seem to get his head around the fact that 95% of users would never be able to make use of Linux. No business user is going to put up with the eccentricities of Linux.

This is how I know you don't read my posts. Nothing I've suggested in this thread says that I think Linux is better for most people. I've even posted a link to Phoronix.com where I've posted an angry rant about the current state of Linux and how it's gone backwards lately.

Already proven literally in 20k app benchmarks that rosetta emulation is nearly the same as non emulated apps.

Doesn't look it here. It loses 50% to 75% performance compared to native.

[Kagthul]

I think there's a world of difference between:

"I'm gonna gey myself an M1 Mac to do tasks X, Y, and Z and maybe do some gaming"

and

"I'm gonna get myself an M1 Mac for gaming"

The first one makes sense. Lots of people get a Mac in order to do a variety of productivity tasks, some of which are some combination of better/easier/standardized on a Mac. And while the M1 isn't a gaming rig, it is capable of doing some gaming. Cream of the crop, AAA gaming at high resolution and high framerate? Nah. But it can absolutely do some gaming.

Getting an M1 Mac for gaming is a weird choice and far from ideal. Better options obviously exist that will give you more bang for your buck.

What he said. Particularly the part i underlined.

[lloose]

Linux never got wide spread adoption because it's more complicated than the average user wants to learn.

This is the core of why Linux is still about 1% marketshare. It's complicated. People compare Mac OS and Linux all the time, but they fail to understand that Linux was meant to work on everything (and does an ok job at it), and Mac OS was made to work on very specific hardware. Hardware that is now designed completely by Apple (and it does an exceptional job at it).

- - - Updated - - -

I think there's a world of difference between:

"I'm gonna gey myself an M1 Mac to do tasks X, Y, and Z and maybe do some gaming"

and

"I'm gonna get myself an M1 Mac for gaming"

The first one makes sense. Lots of people get a Mac in order to do a variety of productivity tasks, some of which are some combination of better/easier/standardized on a Mac. And while the M1 isn't a gaming rig, it is capable of doing some gaming. Cream of the crop, AAA gaming at high resolution and high framerate? Nah. But it can absolutely do some gaming.

Getting an M1 Mac for gaming is a weird choice and far from ideal. Better options obviously exist that will give you more bang for your buck.

YES YES YES. Best thing said in this thread so far.

[Kagthul]

This is the core of why Linux is still about 1% marketshare. It's complicated. People compare Mac OS and Linux all the time, but they fail to understand that Linux was meant to work on everything (and does an ok job at it), and Mac OS was made to work on very specific hardware. Hardware that is now designed completely by Apple (and it does an exceptional job at it)..

Errr.... sorta. Its just FreeBSD. At this point, its heavily modified, but its Unix. And they go through a great deal of effort to keep MacOS UnixO3 certified.

Thats why getting Hackintoshes going wasnt that hard.

But Apples big thing is putting a slick easy to use interface over the complexities of UNIX, which Linux just does not have (though some Distros are decent if you just need a daily driver. Im fairly confident that i could teach my 93 year old Grandpa to use Ubuntu instead of MacOS, but Linux purists will shit on Ubuntu precisely BECAUSE its usable by the mainstream).

[jellmoo]

This is the core of why Linux is still about 1% marketshare. It's complicated. People compare Mac OS and Linux all the time, but they fail to understand that Linux was meant to work on everything (and does an ok job at it), and Mac OS was made to work on very specific hardware. Hardware that is now designed completely by Apple (and it does an exceptional job at it).

I don't know if I'd agree that Linux is complicated. It absolutely can be more complicated than Windows or Mac, but that is largely a user choice. For the average user that is going to do things like browse the web, write emails, use social media, use office software, use creative software and do light gaming, it really isn't. If you have a computer setup for a non-tech savvy user, there is little difference to them between a Windows, Linux or Mac machine. They'll click an icon to launch a program, do what they need to do, and little will really be apparent to them as to what the OS is. Linux only becomes really complex when you step past that level of use. It's largely people that want to know more but don't just yet that hit the Linux wall.

The biggest difference is likely the ecosystem, and there it's really only the Mac that has that nailed down. If you buy into the ecosystem, it is much more seamless than both Windows and Linux. Not everyone wants or values it, but for those that do, there isn't really anything comparable right now.

[Vash The Stampede]

This is the core of why Linux is still about 1% marketshare. It's complicated. People compare Mac OS and Linux all the time, but they fail to understand that Linux was meant to work on everything (and does an ok job at it), and Mac OS was made to work on very specific hardware. Hardware that is now designed completely by Apple (and it does an exceptional job at it).

Nope, not even close. I must have spent a week setting Linux Mint 20 on a laptop I'm giving my nephew, and it shouldn't need a week. The problem is Windows software doesn't play nice in Linux, which is the same problem a Mac OSX users would run into. For each Windows game I've installed, it took me a few days to get it working properly. Minecraft thankfully just works, because the website does have a simple installer. Roblox tough.. still doesn't work and my nephew is addicted to that game. I also spent a good deal of time making Linux Mint 20 look like Windows 10. I have to give myself a lot of credit because you'll have a hard time determining if this isn't Windows. The start button looks like Windows, the sounds the system makes are from Windows, and even the boot and shutdown animation is that of Windows. Want him to feel like he's using Windows.

If I were installing Windows I would have been done in a few hours. No problems installing games and Roblox would actually work. Why would anyone go through the trouble of installing Linux just to have less compatibility with applications and jump through hoops? These are problems that I hope can be fixed eventually.

Incidentally I'm also fixing up a Macbook Air 2011 model that someone didn't want to pay for the screen to get fixed. Its been sitting around for a year without a word from the owner, so I fixed it up and plan to give it to my niece as a gift. I had to erase the installation and tried Big Sur and nope it won't install. Apparently only High Sierra will install on this old Mac. Wish I knew that before downloading 10 gigs of a dmg file. So far so good, until I tried to get Windows apps running on Mac. Turns out that's just as hard as Linux, if not worse. This is an old Mac so I don't have many options to maximize performance and compatibility. At least Minecraft and Roblox work on it, so she should be happy. She also doesn't play as many games as her brother, so this should be fine.