It looks like the local-LLM enthusiasts will want to use Apple computers. This is funny to me for some reason, like if the most cost-effective work boot of 2025 is produced by Gucci.
What Apple has done with the M-series silicon is really impressive, but it’s not as fast as big, dedicated GPU silicon.
> like if the most cost-effective work boot of 2025 is produced by Gucci.
Apple M-silicon laptops are high quality, but they’re not the same as overpriced luxury goods. The price of entry level M1/M2 Macs is extremely reasonable, IMO.
For processing speed, Ms are fast but I agree not anywhere near a top Nvdia chip.
For memory size, the memory on an M chip can be used as graphics memory, so a person could get an M2 today with 128GB of graphics memory for ~ $5k. Not bad considering an Nvidia chip approaching that memory size is several times that much.
It's not yet. Apples combined memory architecture enables them to significantly cut the cost of bundling more memory for various GPU, Neural or other domain specific cores. I believe they will catch up or even overtake Nvidia as the leading AI platform.
Desktop AI class GPUs are hell expensive. If Apple can get something 50% as performant, but in an iPhone Pro or MacBook Air, thats going to change so very much.
It'd be pretty silly for Apple to cram in big, dedicated GPU when 99.9% of their customers don't care and don't want to pay for it, especially considering that anyone that does want big, dedicated GPU can outboard as much GPU as they want.[1] And many seem to think that the onboard GPU along with Neural Engine should be adequate for local LLM.
Apple Silicon doesn't currently have any provision for external graphics cards.
1) Apple Silicon won't support PCIe.
2) Apple doesn't want it to.
Not really. When you hook up an external PCI chassis with a graphics card inserted, it sees the PCI expansion slot and the GPU just fine, it just doesn't have a driver for the GPU.
Thunderbolt supports PCIe, and for most devices Apple Silicon does also, but GPU is different enough from audio interfaces and NVMe that it isn't just a "load the driver and plug it in" situation. GPU is vastly more complex than other PCIe devices. Apple Silicon and x86 architectures are not compatible, so GPU for x86 is not going to work with Apple Silicon with merely a software driver.
It's going to take hw translation and other technology that is not yet available for Apple Silicon, thus Apple's recent patent applications,[1] showing that Apple is either exploring supporting outboard GPU or locking anyone else out from their method of doing so, but either way is no guarantee they'll complete development or release, because it seems just as if not more likely the roadmap for Apple Silicon GPU performance will outpace nVidia and AMD GPUs.
But, again, claiming, "it just doesn't have a driver for the GPU" is a staggering oversimplification.
[1] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...
It could be that Apple does away with it entirely and the Mac Studio is the new Pro.
Or they might make a machine with PCIe support, but make it so expensive that only people with a serious need get access to it.
Or something else.
Or the Mac Pro will be released without PCIe GPU support, and Apple will be able to leverage increases in Apple Silicon GPU performance to eliminate any need or desire for PCIe GPU, drawing away high end GPU customers from nVidia and AMD and locking them into Apple Silicon and the Apple ecosystem.
Maybe. But graphics cards aren't the only thing people put into PCIe slots.
Right, so there will be PCIe slots for expansion, they just won't support PCIe GPU, just like Thunderbolt PCIe expansion chassis for Thunderbolt now. It isn't the PCIe slots that break compatibility, its the difference in architecture between x86 and Apple Silicon that makes them incompatible.
There is no cheaper way to have 50gb of memory allocated to your GPU compute pipeline (buy a 64gb macbook pro or studio). So yes big, only the fast aspect remains a reason to buy expensive dedicated gpu's
Caveats: In the US, with low ram and low storage.
Without these caveats you look at about 2000€ or so (m2 macbook air with 16gb of ram and non-halved storage performance in Germany). That can still be a decent deal for what you get, but "extremely reasonable" -- not quite.
The reality is likely just market share, hardware and the makeup of that market share.
Macs used to actually be a big gaming platform once upon a time. Myst was a Mac exclusive (built with HyperCard) and Bungie used to make games for macs first before getting bought by Microsoft.
But windows got the upper edge:
1. Much larger slice of the market
2. More of the market is made up of gaming enthusiasts than Macs which are usually either targeting light use, education or professional.
3. You can make affordable gaming PCs with windows. You can’t really do it with any kind of Mac because there’s no product for that market between the Mac Mini and iMac (which were targeted at more casual users) up to the Mac Pro and iMac Pro (which were targeted at professional users)
It’s easier to target the biggest piece of the pie and the one that will buy your products.
That’s why the “API” reason never makes sense, because iOS is THE dominant gaming platform despite having the same APIs as a mac. Game engines often need to support multiple graphics APIs anyway.
So Mac gaming did take off, but it fumbled and never recovered. Part of that is that Apple themselves fumbled as a company, on the verge of bankruptcy before the return of Jobs. What made them successful post his return is also what killed gaming on their platforms: they targeted a different audience.
The problem with OpenGL ES AIUI (especially in the early days) is that it exposes lots of hardware specific weirdness. The reason this works for iOS is the same reason it works for Nintendo etc. Millions of devices with identical hardware.
Before Metal, macOS used to ship with old OpenGL versions. I remember around the Tiger days (10.4) OpenGL was 4-5 years old compared to the version shipped in Windows. And with DirectX, Windows had a better API about two decades before Metal for macOS was released.
I do agree with your other points. Macs are expensive so they are always going to be a niche market. And in most countries, Apple products are luxury products.
Another point is really that Windows GPUs have always been more powerful. If you wanted to play the latest AAA games at good quality and fps you had to be on Windows.
And there's also an ouroboros vicious circle. Devs don't put effort into the Mac because there aren't many gamers on it, and there aren't many gamers on it because dev don't put too much effort. And it doesn't help the decisions that Apple has taken to further ostracize themselves form the desktop gaming market.
> iOS is THE dominant gaming platform
In the US. Worldwide iOS has like 28% market share I believe.
Nevertheless, Apple could really become a gaming powerhouse outside of mobile. If they released an AppleTV with a gamepad and an M3 chip, they bought or partnered with a couple of good console/desktop game studios (not mobile game studios).
The AppleTV already has games but there's not a lot of good content and Apple doesn't even provide an official gamepad. It's clear Apple doesn't care much about gaming outside of iOS.
Most games are using off the shelf engines that support Metal anyway, so I think api would only matter for the small subset of games using custom engines.
Regarding your point of the US, I should clarify that I didn’t mean by market share, though I suppose that’s also true in the US. I meant by profit.
According to the WSJ , Apple makes more from gaming than Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft and Activision combined worldwide.
Linux is just non existent from a mainstream audience perspective, let alone the gaming market.
>Most games are using off the shelf engines that support Metal anyway, so I think api would only matter for the small subset of games using custom engines.
Today yes, it's easy to make a Mac game wit UE or Unity. But back 15-20 years ago?
BTW I'm not arguing API is the main reason Mac failed as a gaming platform. Just that it cannot be ignored.
>According to the WSJ , Apple makes more from gaming than Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft and Activision combined worldwide.
Don't me wrong, Apple is huge, but that's incorrect. Sony still makes more money than Apple.
https://www.gizmochina.com/2022/06/01/apple-rank-3rd-gaming-...
Maybe the figure you're thinking about is that iOS enabled the most consumer spending? (not the actual money Apple mades from gaming)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-doesnt-make-videogames-bu...
(Non paywalled summary)
https://www.nme.com/en_au/news/gaming-news/apple-profited-mo...
Of course the WSJ may be wrong, but it’s based off of profit whereas your link seems to be revenue. Which would enable both to be true I think.
Regarding the other point of 15-20 years ago, OpenGL only started stagnating on the Mac with 4.1 in 2010. Prior to that gaming was still really missing on a Mac.
I’m also in agreement that it can’t be ignored. I just think it’s overstated.
But in general I think we’re saying the same things, and debating the nuances.
Seriously though, one hiccup for gaming in macs is the screen resolution: it’s not until recently you could get good performance at such high dpis in games, especially on a laptop. Now that gpus can push those pixels better than before, it will start being more viable to make games for macs
Also, macs are all about being premium while enabling ecosystem lock in. When they have to compete with diy desktops with hot swappable, upgradeable hardware, how can apple possibly charge such a premium for their gaming machines? How can they differentiate via software when gamers don’t care about their os — they want their os to get out of the way so they can game? Apple can’t. So they don’t even try. It would hurt their brand to be seen struggling like that
They won’t compete until they see a way to use their playbooks to gain a platform advantage. Eg, ar/vr with m3 chips
Windows supports both DirectX and Vulkan.
So someone either rewrites DXVK to support Metal (fool's errand) or we add Yet Another Translation Layer to the mix. Something tells me the industry and users would be better off if Apple supported both Metal and Vulkan at a hardware level. Seems plausible for a company of their size.
But yes, the comparison would be apt. I think people want to solve a problem with dependence on third party services...
No, I expect GPUs with insane amount of memory surfacing and that isn't really a field for Apple yet.
[1] https://www.infoq.com/news/2023/05/mlc-llm-mobile-laptops/