4 ms·

This looks like a marketing piece. The M1 doesn't replace dedicated graphics power nor is the apple platform going to jump to 100W+ extra power usage to embed a

This looks like a marketing piece. The M1 doesn't replace dedicated graphics power nor is the apple platform going to jump to 100W+ extra power usage to embed a proper nvidia chip. Unless a game performs at 60fps at the displays standard resolution without having to rip it's quality apart it is not an enjoyable experience. No doubt basic games like terraria or vanilla minecraft will work, same as intel HD.

jrek 6y ago
As someone with a 2020 intel macbook air (i5) that uses it occasionally for gaming here and there, I can tell you that the reported performance in this database, if accurate, is a substantial improvement.
gravelc 6y ago
Playing Batman Arkham City, which is a pretty 3rd person action RPG, at 1080p and 60fps on my base model Air. To me, that's astonishing.
Toutouxc 6y ago
> 60fps at the displays standard resolution This has been kind of problematic for MacBooks since the first retina model. They ship with HiDPI displays that are beautiful for text and video, but people don't seem to realize the resolution is just way too high for gaming on an ultrabook. I used to game in 900p comfortably on my Intel integrated 2013 MBP. In native 1600p the same titles would be a slideshow.
- sjwright 6y ago
  I don't understand the logic behind this complaint. What is so different about playing a game rendered at 900p on a 900p display and the same game rendered at 900p on a 1600p display?
  - Toutouxc 6y ago
    Except a minor loss of sharpness, no difference. I was pointing out the fact that expecting native-resolution gaming from a machine, whose display is totally overkill for its size (for gaming, that is), may not be the smart thing to do. And it was even more absurd in 2012 when people built gaming rigs with 1080p screens and suddenly there was an ultraportable with a 2560x1600 screen (that was so-so usable for 720p or 900p light gaming).
  - neogodless 6y ago
    Imagine you have 16 bright circle lights in a straight line, but you want to fill the full string of lights edge to edge with 9 perfectly uniform and spaced circles the same size as the lights? You can't. You can turn the lights on in a very non-uniform manner. Extrapolating that to all the pixels on a screen, and you can't get quite the image fidelity because some pixels need to be partially activated for ideal images. Best case scenario you do exactly half (one fourth the total pixels) for images that align with your pixels, but at dramatically decreased image quality.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      What has any of that got to do with gaming in any practical sense? With the barest minimum of smooth scaling, fidelity wouldn’t be any worse on the monitor with higher pixel pitch. Now you might have a point if talking about pixel art games, but none of those will tax the GPU to any extreme level—in which case you could render at a native 1600p or a perfect pixel doubled 800p.
- pdpi 6y ago
  Blizzard games deal well with this — on my iMac 5k, the UI is rendered at full 5k resolution, while the game world is rendered at 1440p. 1440p on a 27” display is perfectly fine (it’s what I play on on my PC now) but the UI at 5k does make a significant difference in text legibility.
  - Toutouxc 6y ago
    Not only Blizzard games, I've seen this in ArmA, Euro Truck Simulator 2, Simple Rockets 2 and others. Consoles do this pretty often, with a FullHD/4K GUI and lower (or even dynamic) resolution for the 3D. Very comfortable.
simonh 6y ago
High end display resolution has pretty much always outstripped gaming performance. Plenty of PC gamers play modern games on 4K monitors at reduced resolution even with high end graphics cards, so this is a completely bogus expectation.
tosh 6y ago
it might not replace a dedicated GPU but people play games on integrated GPU and the M1 makes games playable that weren't playable on previous Macs w/ integrated GPU e.g. take a look at Metro Exodus on a MacBook Air M1 (30 FPS+ @ 1080p): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUG8SbrFj-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUG8SbrFj-A That's exactly why I started the spreadsheet. All the early review benchmarks about the M1s were interesting but what is even more interesting to me is whether a specific game runs and how well and on which system under which conditions and settings. e.g. if you are out and about, don't have access to a power plug (need to run on battery) it is interesting to know what the MacBook Air M1 can do (compared to previous Macs).
- jasonmp85 6y ago
  I’m sorry but anyone using 30fps as “playable” shouldn’t be making these judgment calls. I’ve got a 2060 in a machine I built for under $2k, connected to a high-refresh rate 1440p screen. I expect 144–165Hz, which is easily achievable even at highway settings in many games. For non-gaming, I’ve been a dedicated and exclusive Mac user going back to the early 90s. But gaming on them makes no sense.
  - tosh 6y ago
    Are you saying the bar for "playable" (for Metro Exodus in this case) is 144-165 FPS @ 1440p or what's the pre-condition you would define for the label? Perhaps multiple labels other than just "playable" make sense (runs, playable, enjoyable, excellent, …)? Appreciate any input to make the info on the site relatable for people who care about gaming on Macs.

jrek 6y ago

As someone with a 2020 intel macbook air (i5) that uses it occasionally for gaming here and there, I can tell you that the reported performance in this database, if accurate, is a substantial improvement.

gravelc 6y ago

Playing Batman Arkham City, which is a pretty 3rd person action RPG, at 1080p and 60fps on my base model Air. To me, that's astonishing.

Toutouxc 6y ago

> 60fps at the displays standard resolution This has been kind of problematic for MacBooks since the first retina model. They ship with HiDPI displays that are beautiful for text and video, but people don't seem to realize the resolution is just way too high for gaming on an ultrabook. I used to game in 900p comfortably on my Intel integrated 2013 MBP. In native 1600p the same titles would be a slideshow.

sjwright 6y ago
I don't understand the logic behind this complaint. What is so different about playing a game rendered at 900p on a 900p display and the same game rendered at 900p on a 1600p display?
- Toutouxc 6y ago
  Except a minor loss of sharpness, no difference. I was pointing out the fact that expecting native-resolution gaming from a machine, whose display is totally overkill for its size (for gaming, that is), may not be the smart thing to do. And it was even more absurd in 2012 when people built gaming rigs with 1080p screens and suddenly there was an ultraportable with a 2560x1600 screen (that was so-so usable for 720p or 900p light gaming).
- neogodless 6y ago
  Imagine you have 16 bright circle lights in a straight line, but you want to fill the full string of lights edge to edge with 9 perfectly uniform and spaced circles the same size as the lights? You can't. You can turn the lights on in a very non-uniform manner. Extrapolating that to all the pixels on a screen, and you can't get quite the image fidelity because some pixels need to be partially activated for ideal images. Best case scenario you do exactly half (one fourth the total pixels) for images that align with your pixels, but at dramatically decreased image quality.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    What has any of that got to do with gaming in any practical sense? With the barest minimum of smooth scaling, fidelity wouldn’t be any worse on the monitor with higher pixel pitch. Now you might have a point if talking about pixel art games, but none of those will tax the GPU to any extreme level—in which case you could render at a native 1600p or a perfect pixel doubled 800p.
pdpi 6y ago
Blizzard games deal well with this — on my iMac 5k, the UI is rendered at full 5k resolution, while the game world is rendered at 1440p. 1440p on a 27” display is perfectly fine (it’s what I play on on my PC now) but the UI at 5k does make a significant difference in text legibility.
- Toutouxc 6y ago
  Not only Blizzard games, I've seen this in ArmA, Euro Truck Simulator 2, Simple Rockets 2 and others. Consoles do this pretty often, with a FullHD/4K GUI and lower (or even dynamic) resolution for the 3D. Very comfortable.

simonh 6y ago

High end display resolution has pretty much always outstripped gaming performance. Plenty of PC gamers play modern games on 4K monitors at reduced resolution even with high end graphics cards, so this is a completely bogus expectation.

tosh 6y ago

it might not replace a dedicated GPU but people play games on integrated GPU and the M1 makes games playable that weren't playable on previous Macs w/ integrated GPU e.g. take a look at Metro Exodus on a MacBook Air M1 (30 FPS+ @ 1080p): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUG8SbrFj-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUG8SbrFj-A That's exactly why I started the spreadsheet. All the early review benchmarks about the M1s were interesting but what is even more interesting to me is whether a specific game runs and how well and on which system under which conditions and settings. e.g. if you are out and about, don't have access to a power plug (need to run on battery) it is interesting to know what the MacBook Air M1 can do (compared to previous Macs).

jasonmp85 6y ago
I’m sorry but anyone using 30fps as “playable” shouldn’t be making these judgment calls. I’ve got a 2060 in a machine I built for under $2k, connected to a high-refresh rate 1440p screen. I expect 144–165Hz, which is easily achievable even at highway settings in many games. For non-gaming, I’ve been a dedicated and exclusive Mac user going back to the early 90s. But gaming on them makes no sense.
- tosh 6y ago
  Are you saying the bar for "playable" (for Metro Exodus in this case) is 144-165 FPS @ 1440p or what's the pre-condition you would define for the label? Perhaps multiple labels other than just "playable" make sense (runs, playable, enjoyable, excellent, …)? Appreciate any input to make the info on the site relatable for people who care about gaming on Macs.