With the new WWDC coming out, Apple boasts about its performance using applications like video editing, encoding, etc. However, I keep hearing that despite the “power” it has, macs are not good for gaming (I know the Apple silicon processors aren’t just a CPU but my point still stands).
Why is this the case? Even with CPUs, I see that some are marketed as doing different things, like the AMD Ryzen X3D line for gaming, versus others that are better for productivity tasks. Shouldn’t a good CPU be able to do both things? What makes them different?
In: 100
Workstations, and the professional software that they use, can use as much “power” as you put into them. So, if you put in a CPU with 32 cores, they all run at lower speeds, but it has more cores in total available for rendering video than a consumer/gaming CPU.
Video rendering also works with GPUs (Graphics Cards) nowadays. Because GPUs follow the principle of quantity. GPUs have 1000s of smaller “shader cores”.
Games on the other hand dont profit as much from this CPU architecture. They can only use 1 to 8 cores at best most times. This is a restriction due to how games work currently.
So ELI5, a game runs better on HIGH frequency cores, like the 5800X. Less cores, more hertz. Thats gaming CPUs. The more powerful a single core on the CPU is, the better it is for gaming.
Video editing uses most of the hardware you put into it. Like 24-48 cores, 2 GPUs, 128-256 GB of RAM (“slow” ram, high capacity) ecetera.
edit: this approach btw makes sense, because these professional CPUs produce alot of heat and sip immense amounts of power. Useless for casual consumers.
Latest Answers