5 ms·

The problem with introducing a third console to the world has never been performance. No gamer cares about heat, PS4 was a jet engine yet it sold like hotcakes.

The problem with introducing a third console to the world has never been performance. No gamer cares about heat, PS4 was a jet engine yet it sold like hotcakes. The question is why would a gamer, a hardcore one, not the one that wants to play Candy Crush, spend multiple hundred of dollars and find space in his living room when he already has a PS5 and the new Xbox? What could possibly entice him? And which game studio would port their game to a console that uses their own API, own OS, and is basically incompatible to anything else? Yes, the PlayStation is its own thing as well, but it's the bloody PlayStation, not some big unknown. I spend a ton of money on what is basically my hobby, video games, and right now, nothing would make me buy an Apple console. Absolutely nothing. Who cares about performance, show me the game lineup first. EDIT: One quick word about the Switch: the reason it exists among giants like Sony and Microsoft is because it has Nintendo exclusives, and Nintendo is a common household name and has always been associated with "games for the whole family". Well, the form factor too. But again, the emphasis is on exclusives and game lineup.

Hamuko 6y ago
>PS4 was a jet engine yet it sold like hotcakes. I don't really even understand how the noise even is an issue. The only time I actually hear my PS4 being loud is when I stop playing my games and put the console to rest mode, since I won't have any game audio at that point and the fans are still spinning. I've never heard the PS4 over my game audio.
fastball 6y ago
Well presumably the apple machine would be much cheaper, given the price points people are talking about the M1 coming in at.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Unless it was sold at a loss, no. The GPUs in the consoles are much, much more powerful than in the M1, they have completely different memory configurations, and have much faster storage as well as hardware decompression systems. To get to this level, cost would significantly increase, add in expensive cooling and so on and you'll get to a price higher than the consoles. Indeed, the slower Mac Mini is more expensive. Also, even then the margins would be too low for Apple to be interested.
  - supermatt 6y ago
    The GPU in a ps5 is equivalent to an RTX 2060. The onboard graphics in the m1 is (almost) equivalent to a GTX1060. That is only one generation behind.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      No, it really isn't. It's equivalent to a 1060 running outdated graphics APIs on barely supported drivers. I assure you it's not comparable to a 1060, and when people start benchmarking them on Vulkan or DirectX instead of decade old OpenGL this is will be apparent.
      - supermatt 6y ago
        The benchmarks don't take advantage of Metal either! Obviously we will have to wait for more sophisticated benchmarks that can take advantage of otherwise unsupported features - but based on raw performance, they ARE comparable. That is not even up for debate. As should be clear - these aren't consoles. But apple certainly have the knowledge to create one. Markup on apple products is typically 50%. That gives a LOT of wiggle room for them to meet the pricing of your famed loss leaders (that are ALREADY a generation behind at release!).
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The benchmarks might not take advantage of Metal, but they take advantage of modern drivers. If you want to know just how much of a disaster NVidia GPUs are on Mac OS, you can test them on Windows vs Mac OS and you will notice a huge difference. It's so bad that people were working on OpenGL to Metal translation layers. The 1050Ti is indeed much more powerful than the GPU in the M1, as even on OpenGL, where it is generally 30% slower than the competition vs on DirectX, and even though it has to deal with horribly bad drivers, and even though it's extensions are not fully supported on Mac OS, it stays competitive. And Apple does not have the knowledge to be competitive with AMD in GPUs, not even remotely close. If you want to look at raw performance, we can. The M1 GPU does 2.6 teraflops. The GPU in the PS5 does 10.28 teraflops. The PS5 is, in raw performance, 4 times faster than the M1 chip.

Hamuko 6y ago

>PS4 was a jet engine yet it sold like hotcakes. I don't really even understand how the noise even is an issue. The only time I actually hear my PS4 being loud is when I stop playing my games and put the console to rest mode, since I won't have any game audio at that point and the fans are still spinning. I've never heard the PS4 over my game audio.

fastball 6y ago

Well presumably the apple machine would be much cheaper, given the price points people are talking about the M1 coming in at.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Unless it was sold at a loss, no. The GPUs in the consoles are much, much more powerful than in the M1, they have completely different memory configurations, and have much faster storage as well as hardware decompression systems. To get to this level, cost would significantly increase, add in expensive cooling and so on and you'll get to a price higher than the consoles. Indeed, the slower Mac Mini is more expensive. Also, even then the margins would be too low for Apple to be interested.
- supermatt 6y ago
  The GPU in a ps5 is equivalent to an RTX 2060. The onboard graphics in the m1 is (almost) equivalent to a GTX1060. That is only one generation behind.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    No, it really isn't. It's equivalent to a 1060 running outdated graphics APIs on barely supported drivers. I assure you it's not comparable to a 1060, and when people start benchmarking them on Vulkan or DirectX instead of decade old OpenGL this is will be apparent.
    - supermatt 6y ago
      The benchmarks don't take advantage of Metal either! Obviously we will have to wait for more sophisticated benchmarks that can take advantage of otherwise unsupported features - but based on raw performance, they ARE comparable. That is not even up for debate. As should be clear - these aren't consoles. But apple certainly have the knowledge to create one. Markup on apple products is typically 50%. That gives a LOT of wiggle room for them to meet the pricing of your famed loss leaders (that are ALREADY a generation behind at release!).
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The benchmarks might not take advantage of Metal, but they take advantage of modern drivers. If you want to know just how much of a disaster NVidia GPUs are on Mac OS, you can test them on Windows vs Mac OS and you will notice a huge difference. It's so bad that people were working on OpenGL to Metal translation layers. The 1050Ti is indeed much more powerful than the GPU in the M1, as even on OpenGL, where it is generally 30% slower than the competition vs on DirectX, and even though it has to deal with horribly bad drivers, and even though it's extensions are not fully supported on Mac OS, it stays competitive. And Apple does not have the knowledge to be competitive with AMD in GPUs, not even remotely close. If you want to look at raw performance, we can. The M1 GPU does 2.6 teraflops. The GPU in the PS5 does 10.28 teraflops. The PS5 is, in raw performance, 4 times faster than the M1 chip.