If Oculus requires such high power graphics in the computer - they are positioning the devices to be so much of a niche product that they will likely position themselves out of the market -- at least for many years to come. Therefore their support at this time is not very important in the overall scheme of things. Not many Windows machines will have that type of graphics power - only really the serious gamers....
Don't forget that initially the iPhone crippled cell networks when people discovered how easy and enjoyable mobile browsing could be. It placed demands on the networks which couldn't be handled. A performance issue. I would look at these computing requirements as a factor that will push computing packaging forward. That is, the possibilities driving the hardware, no the other way around.
People don't buy Macs for gaming. Apple aren't going to create a super Mac especially just to run an inefficient piece of hardware that isn't even available.
Apple started the iPod bussines because nobody wanted make drivers for Mac,
they thinked it was a resource wasted to invest in Mac, how wrong they were.
Maybe if Apple develops an VR glasses, maybeOculus will regreet
Precisely. It seems Oculus are getting the cheap shots in early You can bet ya life that the main obstacle for Oculus technologies going mainstream in the future will be a device from Apple.
To make a statement that Apple, who builds the best computers money can buy, is somehow not providing "good" computers is simply a ploy to attack Apple.
And to say they don't add high end video cards is a play on the TYPE of video card.
Apple uses video cards in the Mac Pro that are meant for WORK and not GAMES.
So they could have stated the truth and still had the intended effect of both providing an excuse for not developing for Mac as well as compelling anyone who cared at Apple to take another look at the video cards they put in their systems.
While they are "good" cards generally, you'd think that what you pay for a Mac would score you a high end consumer level chip CAPABLE of high end gaming at the very least.
Still doesn't excuse irresponsible and factually incorrect statements like that. Oculus is treating their potential fanbase as idiots who don't know the real situation.
EA did that in the past. It hasn't done much for their reputation (though they keep making money).
To make a statement that Apple, who builds the best computers money can buy, is somehow not providing "good" computers is simply a ploy to attack Apple.
And to say they don't add high end video cards is a play on the TYPE of video card.
Apple uses video cards in the Mac Pro that are meant for WORK and not GAMES.
So they could have stated the truth and still had the intended effect of both providing an excuse for not developing for Mac as well as compelling anyone who cared at Apple to take another look at the video cards they put in their systems.
While they are "good" cards generally, you'd think that what you pay for a Mac would score you a high end consumer level chip CAPABLE of high end gaming at the very least.
Still doesn't excuse irresponsible and factually incorrect statements like that. Oculus is treating their potential fanbase as idiots who don't know the real situation.
EA did that in the past. It hasn't done much for their reputation (though they keep making money).
What did he say that was factually incorrect?
I am having a real laugh reading all these bruised ego comments criticising him for being blunt and insensitive. I'm trying to remember the last time Steve Job's ever made a diplomatically negative comment about someone else's tech ...... no, can't recall him ever doing that.
I am having a real laugh reading all these bruised ego comments criticising him for being blunt and insensitive. I'm trying to remember the last time Steve Job's ever made a diplomatically negative comment about someone else's tech ...... no, can't recall him ever doing that.
Flash.
That was a negative comment recited in a very diplomatic language for such a crap...
No sense in being indignant when a manufacturer of high performance gaming hardware doesn't like the Mac. Macs are not good computers if your criteria is high performance gaming. No controversy there. If Apple wanted to make one I'm sure they could, but they don't seem to want to. People who wants those sort of games should look elsewhere.
No sense in being indignant when a manufacturer of high performance gaming hardware doesn't like the Mac. Macs are not good computers if your criteria is high performance gaming. No controversy there. If Apple wanted to make one I'm sure they could, but they don't seem to want to. People who wants those sort of games should look elsewhere.
No controversy in that you can never fully satisfy a high performance, water cooled gaming rig addict, that's just a different marginal culture not related to mainstream computing or gaming. Otherwise the iMac 27 inch is a killer game machine, with or without Boot Camp. Game studios only port their best-selling titles to Mac, because Mac users are more demanding and they don't buy such a sales policy in which they sell a crappy game incrementally as DLCs.
Apple uses video cards in the Mac Pro that are meant for WORK and not GAMES.
So they could have stated the truth and still had the intended effect of both providing an excuse for not developing for Mac as well as compelling anyone who cared at Apple to take another look at the video cards they put in their systems.
While they are "good" cards generally, you'd think that what you pay for a Mac would score you a high end consumer level chip CAPABLE of high end gaming at the very least.
The highest iMac GPU is about 60% of a GTX 980 in something that looks like this:
rather than something that looks like this:
It's a pretty good compromise. If it was 1/5th the performance then it would be a valid consideration but more than half means it's little more than a year or two behind the high-end. That model of iMac is priced at $2549. If you customize the PC here:
Without display and with a GTX 980, it's about $1400 for the box. A decent 27" display is about $400. Self-builds and picking lower options would get the price down further.
PC gamers have always preferred the giant ugly boxes so that they can use the higher GPUs as well as upgrade them when new ones come out and get them cheaper from retailers that are happy to take under 5% margins on them.
Apple could put together a 6-core i7 in the Mac Pro enclosure with a dual 980ti that would satisfy this audience performance-wise. $1200 GPUs, $400 CPU, say $500 for the rest of the components and enclosure = $2100 in parts, add a 30% margin = $3k. This is pretty much what the entry Mac Pro is except that it's 2 years old just now.
These kind of discussions usually crop up just before the next generation of hardware is due. Apple can't do anything about it until Intel/AMD/NVidia start shipping the new parts. Even when they do though, Apple will maintain their margins so gamers will then say you can get something 'just as good or better' for half the price. Like Apple really cares. They know these PC companies supplying parts are a dime a dozen and earning that in net profits and they know that the hardware catches up in a short timeframe, which makes the talking point irrelevant.
VR is more than just gaming too, VR film doesn't need anywhere near the processing requirements of games. The following NSFW videos show some reactions to VR film:
There'll be some embarrassing scenarios with relatives walking in. The people who tried it all generally seem to think it's a viable way for people to watch digital content. It makes sense as it's true 3D and immersive, which is how we interact with the real world. It could use some additional features like a front camera to superimpose your arms into the scene and depth tracking so your arms don't just overlay everything.
According to the following page, there is some degree of Mac support with Oculus already:
People can develop the games under OS X and there's a runtime available. The VR SDK works under Windows on a Mac. Given the expense in the Mac hardware to run it properly on top of the VR equipment expense, there's not going to be a huge audience just now (<50,000) compared to PC gamers (few million).
There's a VR product that I thought was quite neatly integrated with headphones:
That design isn't far from the Beats headphones. You'd just pull the headband down onto your nose when you want to watch video and put it back when listening to music. That would be good on a plane to be able to be able to watch a large format movie or just work on something in private. If it had a front camera, it could project a virtual keyboard onto the tray in front of you and show a Mac or iOS screen and you can work away while the Mac, iPad or iPhone is sitting somewhere nearby.
Let me chime in here on calling BS on Palmer's part: whenever new (software) technology is invented, it starts out being very inefficient, requiring loads of CPU/GPU power. As software advances, it not only becomes more stable, but also more efficient. Remember the first OS X? It was p a i n f u l l y slow, compared to OS 9 run on the same hardware. Right now you need high-end graphics cards to use a Rift. I'm assuming this will change quickly and it will run on consumer grade cards. Down the road even mobile GPUs. If not, they really don't know what they are doing....
6 years ago I used a crappy Windows notebook that's half the price of my MBA now. The experience was so painful I coughed up the dough and converted to Mac and never looks back. 4 years on and my Macbook Air's still running great. My productivity is going through the roof. The consumer savvy will always prefer Mac. They will becomes a brand loyalists. It's the same thing actually.
6 years ago I owned a dumpy used regular cab that cost a quarter as much as my current vehicle. Comparing the two is just as pointless as you trying to compare that notebook to a Macbook Air that retailed for twice as much, so what were you trying to say, exactly? As for you productivity increasing, I'm not sure exactly what programs you are using because I can kick out an Excel spreadsheet just as fast on my 5 year old Dell at work as I can on my top of the line 27" iMac at home. Granted the pleasure in doing so is much greater on my iMac, but my speed is not a factor of pleasure, but operator prowess.
And yet, the MBA I used, which was half the price of the Surface Pro I am currently using, is miles ahead in terms of User Experience. Speed is factored into it, given that the Surface Pro keyboard isn't as easy to type on as the MBAs.
A lot of productivity is lost or gained based on how easy it is to navigate the OS and how responsive it is. And from personal experience, I can say that, nothing like using OS X for a few years and then going back to Windows 10 to see what a pain Windows actually is.
There'll be some embarrassing scenarios with relatives walking in. The people who tried it all generally seem to think it's a viable way for people to watch digital content. It makes sense as it's true 3D and immersive, which is how we interact with the real world. It could use some additional features like a front camera to superimpose your arms into the scene and depth tracking so your arms don't just overlay everything.
What they say is rather "porn addicts may watch it", not "this is a viable way to watch digital content".
"how we interact with the real world" is the key point of all that VR issue, because without interaction with that VR environment VR and 3D in general are totally useless. 3D TV mounted on your head...
If a high-end consumer computer is not good enough to run your product, then you are doing it wrong.
What a load of rubbish. There are plenty of high consumer pcs out there that are fast enough. They're just not macs.
Excuse me? "They're just not macs" ...
If you want to include 'high consumer pcs' then you have to include high end Macs too. My new Mac Pro 6 Core boots into Windows and runs GTA V (Grand Theft Auto V for non gamers) with AMD Crossfire running parallel GPUs at well ver 90 f.p.s.. I use a 2560 x 1440 Apple Thunderbolt LCD monitor. I'd suggest that is not too shabby and yes, it's a Mac. It has been shown multiple times you can't build a DIY computer (which your "high consumer pcs" often are) equivalent to the Mac Pro with the same power, i.e. hardware specifications, for the same price. So no need to harp on about the cost of a Mac Pro.
The only reason I boot into Windows (10 or 8.1) for this, is that there is no way to drive the GPUs in parallel in OSX as Apple chose to make the Mac Pro a work station using one GPU for computation, hence I can edit multiple 4K video streams in real time. For many games however, (not all, it depends how they are coded), and trivial by comparison to editing 4K video, the Crossfire set up works, i.e. driving both GPUs in parallel, very well. If Apple and AMD would cooperate and create a driver installation for this allowing the Catalyst control panel in OS X it would be of great help for gaming. I had to make a DIY hybrid installation out of a mix of the AMD and Bootcamp drivers to achieve this under Windows.
It is interesting to note that even though my 'Mac gaming rig' out performs most PCs, when I ran the Steam VR test utility that plays two streams of video together to estimate the computer's ability to run VR it failed. Yet some pathetic underpowered (by comparison) PC Laptops pass. Now this test uses two small videos running side by side and it claims my Mac Pro failed. The same Mac that can run multiple 4K video in OS X and the same Mac that can run GTA V at 90 f.p.s. (if V-Sync is off) on a 25460 x 1440 screen. I'd suggest the VR test is not too intelligent! It's also worth pointing out Crossfire only works at full screen, not in windowed mode (on any computer not just mine) and the VR test on Steam uses two small windows.
p.s. Any Mac Pro users out there interested in such a set up, feel free to IM me for details of the Crossfire Driver set up.
Need we reference Apple's dominance in nearly every consumer satisfaction metric for well over a decade? Or the fact that Macs actually outpace the PC market in growth regularly (even during economic downturns)? Or that Apple actually makes a healthy profit from their Mac business? Or that nothing in the space compares to the build quality and fit and finish of Macs? Or that OS X is an OS that is actually done right, designed with the USER in mind?
Truth.
Well. No actually. We don't. Because it's nothing to do with topic.
It most certainly does. It addresses the implication re: "If they ever release a good computer, we will do it,"
It also dispels the notion that "good" = high-end video card, when Apple is already, plainly and by every objective standard established as the maker of the best computers in the business in terms of overall value and user experience.
Apple builds their computers to serve a particular purpose. Most people don't need all of that power, and the few that do, Apple isn't going to waste money on.
Most people don't need a 4096x2304 display, Thunderbolt 2, or a mouse with its own touch surface, either. But those are standard on the low-end iMac.
I always thought it was odd that Macs are so high-end in most regards, but have such unimpressive video cards. Even the top-of-the-line iMac only comes with a Radeon R9 M395, which is a laptop card, with only 2GB memory. No option to upgrade to a desktop card or to 4GB memory.
4GB makes difference only if used in pairs, a single 4GB card is not more powerful than a 2GB. What you call "desktop card" is a whole machine with its own motor, driving fan blades, looking like a miniature office cooler. Obviously such a monster cannot find any use in a sleek and razor-sharp iMac design.
Apple uses video cards in the Mac Pro that are meant for WORK and not GAMES.
So they could have stated the truth and still had the intended effect of both providing an excuse for not developing for Mac as well as compelling anyone who cared at Apple to take another look at the video cards they put in their systems.
While they are "good" cards generally, you'd think that what you pay for a Mac would score you a high end consumer level chip CAPABLE of high end gaming at the very least.
The highest iMac GPU is about 60% of a GTX 980 in something that looks like this:
rather than something that looks like this:
It's a pretty good compromise. If it was 1/5th the performance then it would be a valid consideration but more than half means it's little more than a year or two behind the high-end. That model of iMac is priced at $2549.
Marvin , there are laptops that use high-end cards like nVidia's GTX 980. A huge monster system isn't needed.
Apple could put together a 6-core i7 in the Mac Pro enclosure with a dual 980ti that would satisfy this audience performance-wise. $1200 GPUs, $400 CPU, say $500 for the rest of the components and enclosure = $2100 in parts, add a 30% margin = $3k. This is pretty much what the entry Mac Pro is except that it's 2 years old just now.
But then it's going to eliminate what the Mac Pro is good at, and make it a computer with a workstation (6-core, so you're still in the Xeon range) CPU and a gaming GPU. That's a stupid build. Apple could release a new Mac Pro with a single Skylate i7 6700 or so and a pair of 980Tis, they'd probably charge the $2.5 to $3k range for it, and it'd be one hell of a gaming beast that'd run the Oculus (and any game) nicely, but it changes what the machine does. A 980 won't beat a D700 at rendering stuff in Premier, using photoshop or any kind of workhorse stuff, and a D700 won't beat the 980 in framerates for games. Different cards, different purposes.
I have a system that can easily support the Rift. My issue with this company is that they have produced a system to sell high end video cards versus building the system efficiently. You should not need the type of processing power for what they are doing. This is pure marketing BS to support higher end hardware. In my opinion this will hurt them in the long run. I think Apple could do it right by making this possible within the headset itself. Or with an iPhone or iPad. That would be for the masses. I did order a Rift as I love this stuff but I do not agree with the approach. As for the comments on "Build a good computer"??? Not sure that was a good choice of words. "Once they build a computer with proper specifications" would have been a more profession versus self serving statement.
Apple could put together a 6-core i7 in the Mac Pro enclosure with a dual 980ti that would satisfy this audience performance-wise. $1200 GPUs, $400 CPU, say $500 for the rest of the components and enclosure = $2100 in parts, add a 30% margin = $3k. This is pretty much what the entry Mac Pro is except that it's 2 years old just now.
But then it's going to eliminate what the Mac Pro is good at, and make it a computer with a workstation (6-core, so you're still in the Xeon range) CPU and a gaming GPU. That's a stupid build. Apple could release a new Mac Pro with a single Skylate i7 6700 or so and a pair of 980Tis, they'd probably charge the $2.5 to $3k range for it, and it'd be one hell of a gaming beast that'd run the Oculus (and any game) nicely, but it changes what the machine does. A 980 won't beat a D700 at rendering stuff in Premier, using photoshop or any kind of workhorse stuff, and a D700 won't beat the 980 in framerates for games. Different cards, different purposes.
The 980m runs anywhere between 50% and 70% of the 980 depending on what game/benchmark you're running.
I agree with you, it surely wouldn't take much for Apple to have at least a BTO option for an excellent gaming Mac. As I mentioned a few posts above, if Bootcamp drivers had up to date AMD driver support for the option of running Crossfire too for dual GPU Macs, in both OS X and Windows, they would be pretty cool Macs (well hot actually lol). I managed to hack a pretty good system but I am unable to get Crimson / DirectX 12 working so still stuck on DirectX 11 for Windows 10. I'd love to see Crosfire running in OS X for games. Of course Catalyst control panel allows it to automatically toggle off for apps that don't want parallel GPUs so the likes of FCPro X would not be affected. The very fact Rockstar and others do not care about OS X is precisely because Apple simply don't seem to want to participate. My point is if it were a BTO to upgrade for a Mac to a Games level machine in lower end Macs and if Crossfire were supported in the high end Macs these gaming and VR companies might start taking notice of Apple.
Marvin , there are laptops that use high-end cards like nVidia's GTX 980. A huge monster system isn't needed.
The 980 laptops are still pretty monstrous IMO, one uses a dual 980:
The second image shows a watercooler to get the best performance out of the GPU. You can't go by the model number alone when it comes to laptops because they throttle down. There was talk about Microsoft using a 960M in one of their laptops and it turned out to perform like a 940M.
There's no magic here, Apple has access to the same GPUs. The laptop version of the 980 (not 980M) only came out in September, Apple updated the iMac sometime in October. The notebook 980 may have been a better choice than AMD if it outperformed it with air cooling. Apple seem to be using AMD quite a lot these days. They'll sort out any performance differences with the next update but Apple won't and shouldn't compromise their designs to satisfy some short-term spec-whoring. PC manufacturers are more than willing to do this and constantly do this but it doesn't change anything. They obviously get some nerdgasms from out-speccing Apple every year. Every year, Microsoft says they are cheaper and/or faster than Apple, companies like Boxx, HP, Dell say they are faster, more customizable than Apple. The mobile device companies do this too. They do it every year and every year, Apple still makes their products the same way they always do so they're clearly missing the point.
This year, AMD and NVidia are planning to improve performance by double so the GPU that will be due to go in the 2016 iMac will outperform the 980, it will probably match the 980ti, which tops the VR test and PC manufacturers can only use the same GPUs on offer.
Comments
Don't forget that initially the iPhone crippled cell networks when people discovered how easy and enjoyable mobile browsing could be. It placed demands on the networks which couldn't be handled. A performance issue. I would look at these computing requirements as a factor that will push computing packaging forward. That is, the possibilities driving the hardware, no the other way around.
People don't buy Macs for gaming.
Apple aren't going to create a super Mac especially just to run an inefficient piece of hardware that isn't even available.
My estimation of Oculus folks has gone down.
To make a statement that Apple, who builds the best computers money can buy, is somehow not providing "good" computers is simply a ploy to attack Apple.
And to say they don't add high end video cards is a play on the TYPE of video card.
Apple uses video cards in the Mac Pro that are meant for WORK and not GAMES.
So they could have stated the truth and still had the intended effect of both providing an excuse for not developing for Mac as well as compelling anyone who cared at Apple to take another look at the video cards they put in their systems.
While they are "good" cards generally, you'd think that what you pay for a Mac would score you a high end consumer level chip CAPABLE of high end gaming at the very least.
Still doesn't excuse irresponsible and factually incorrect statements like that. Oculus is treating their potential fanbase as idiots who don't know the real situation.
EA did that in the past. It hasn't done much for their reputation (though they keep making money).
I am having a real laugh reading all these bruised ego comments criticising him for being blunt and insensitive. I'm trying to remember the last time Steve Job's ever made a diplomatically negative comment about someone else's tech ...... no, can't recall him ever doing that.
That was a negative comment recited in a very diplomatic language for such a crap...
rather than something that looks like this:
It's a pretty good compromise. If it was 1/5th the performance then it would be a valid consideration but more than half means it's little more than a year or two behind the high-end. That model of iMac is priced at $2549. If you customize the PC here:
https://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/CyberPower_X99_Configurator
Without display and with a GTX 980, it's about $1400 for the box. A decent 27" display is about $400. Self-builds and picking lower options would get the price down further.
PC gamers have always preferred the giant ugly boxes so that they can use the higher GPUs as well as upgrade them when new ones come out and get them cheaper from retailers that are happy to take under 5% margins on them.
Apple could put together a 6-core i7 in the Mac Pro enclosure with a dual 980ti that would satisfy this audience performance-wise. $1200 GPUs, $400 CPU, say $500 for the rest of the components and enclosure = $2100 in parts, add a 30% margin = $3k. This is pretty much what the entry Mac Pro is except that it's 2 years old just now.
These kind of discussions usually crop up just before the next generation of hardware is due. Apple can't do anything about it until Intel/AMD/NVidia start shipping the new parts. Even when they do though, Apple will maintain their margins so gamers will then say you can get something 'just as good or better' for half the price. Like Apple really cares. They know these PC companies supplying parts are a dime a dozen and earning that in net profits and they know that the hardware catches up in a short timeframe, which makes the talking point irrelevant.
VR is more than just gaming too, VR film doesn't need anywhere near the processing requirements of games. The following NSFW videos show some reactions to VR film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVatvg_UyEA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVjFOwyy06g
The following part of the second video shows the difference in how people react to these things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVjFOwyy06g&t=77
There'll be some embarrassing scenarios with relatives walking in. The people who tried it all generally seem to think it's a viable way for people to watch digital content. It makes sense as it's true 3D and immersive, which is how we interact with the real world. It could use some additional features like a front camera to superimpose your arms into the scene and depth tracking so your arms don't just overlay everything.
According to the following page, there is some degree of Mac support with Oculus already:
https://forums.oculus.com/viewtopic.php?t=26879
People can develop the games under OS X and there's a runtime available. The VR SDK works under Windows on a Mac. Given the expense in the Mac hardware to run it properly on top of the VR equipment expense, there's not going to be a huge audience just now (<50,000) compared to PC gamers (few million).
There's a VR product that I thought was quite neatly integrated with headphones:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/4/7491191/vr-company-avegant-shows-off-headphone-inspired-glyph-headset-ces-2015
That design isn't far from the Beats headphones. You'd just pull the headband down onto your nose when you want to watch video and put it back when listening to music. That would be good on a plane to be able to be able to watch a large format movie or just work on something in private. If it had a front camera, it could project a virtual keyboard onto the tray in front of you and show a Mac or iOS screen and you can work away while the Mac, iPad or iPhone is sitting somewhere nearby.
And yet, the MBA I used, which was half the price of the Surface Pro I am currently using, is miles ahead in terms of User Experience. Speed is factored into it, given that the Surface Pro keyboard isn't as easy to type on as the MBAs.
A lot of productivity is lost or gained based on how easy it is to navigate the OS and how responsive it is. And from personal experience, I can say that, nothing like using OS X for a few years and then going back to Windows 10 to see what a pain Windows actually is.
"how we interact with the real world" is the key point of all that VR issue, because without interaction with that VR environment VR and 3D in general are totally useless. 3D TV mounted on your head...
If you want to include 'high consumer pcs' then you have to include high end Macs too. My new Mac Pro 6 Core boots into Windows and runs GTA V (Grand Theft Auto V for non gamers) with AMD Crossfire running parallel GPUs at well ver 90 f.p.s.. I use a 2560 x 1440 Apple Thunderbolt LCD monitor. I'd suggest that is not too shabby and yes, it's a Mac. It has been shown multiple times you can't build a DIY computer (which your "high consumer pcs" often are) equivalent to the Mac Pro with the same power, i.e. hardware specifications, for the same price. So no need to harp on about the cost of a Mac Pro.
The only reason I boot into Windows (10 or 8.1) for this, is that there is no way to drive the GPUs in parallel in OSX as Apple chose to make the Mac Pro a work station using one GPU for computation, hence I can edit multiple 4K video streams in real time. For many games however, (not all, it depends how they are coded), and trivial by comparison to editing 4K video, the Crossfire set up works, i.e. driving both GPUs in parallel, very well. If Apple and AMD would cooperate and create a driver installation for this allowing the Catalyst control panel in OS X it would be of great help for gaming. I had to make a DIY hybrid installation out of a mix of the AMD and Bootcamp drivers to achieve this under Windows.
It is interesting to note that even though my 'Mac gaming rig' out performs most PCs, when I ran the Steam VR test utility that plays two streams of video together to estimate the computer's ability to run VR it failed. Yet some pathetic underpowered (by comparison) PC Laptops pass. Now this test uses two small videos running side by side and it claims my Mac Pro failed. The same Mac that can run multiple 4K video in OS X and the same Mac that can run GTA V at 90 f.p.s. (if V-Sync is off) on a 25460 x 1440 screen. I'd suggest the VR test is not too intelligent! It's also worth pointing out Crossfire only works at full screen, not in windowed mode (on any computer not just mine) and the VR test on Steam uses two small windows.
p.s. Any Mac Pro users out there interested in such a set up, feel free to IM me for details of the Crossfire Driver set up.
It most certainly does. It addresses the implication re: "If they ever release a good computer, we will do it,"
It also dispels the notion that "good" = high-end video card, when Apple is already, plainly and by every objective standard established as the maker of the best computers in the business in terms of overall value and user experience.
But then it's going to eliminate what the Mac Pro is good at, and make it a computer with a workstation (6-core, so you're still in the Xeon range) CPU and a gaming GPU. That's a stupid build. Apple could release a new Mac Pro with a single Skylate i7 6700 or so and a pair of 980Tis, they'd probably charge the $2.5 to $3k range for it, and it'd be one hell of a gaming beast that'd run the Oculus (and any game) nicely, but it changes what the machine does. A 980 won't beat a D700 at rendering stuff in Premier, using photoshop or any kind of workhorse stuff, and a D700 won't beat the 980 in framerates for games. Different cards, different purposes.
The 980m runs anywhere between 50% and 70% of the 980 depending on what game/benchmark you're running.
The second image shows a watercooler to get the best performance out of the GPU. You can't go by the model number alone when it comes to laptops because they throttle down. There was talk about Microsoft using a 960M in one of their laptops and it turned out to perform like a 940M.
There's no magic here, Apple has access to the same GPUs. The laptop version of the 980 (not 980M) only came out in September, Apple updated the iMac sometime in October. The notebook 980 may have been a better choice than AMD if it outperformed it with air cooling. Apple seem to be using AMD quite a lot these days. They'll sort out any performance differences with the next update but Apple won't and shouldn't compromise their designs to satisfy some short-term spec-whoring. PC manufacturers are more than willing to do this and constantly do this but it doesn't change anything. They obviously get some nerdgasms from out-speccing Apple every year. Every year, Microsoft says they are cheaper and/or faster than Apple, companies like Boxx, HP, Dell say they are faster, more customizable than Apple. The mobile device companies do this too. They do it every year and every year, Apple still makes their products the same way they always do so they're clearly missing the point.
This year, AMD and NVidia are planning to improve performance by double so the GPU that will be due to go in the 2016 iMac will outperform the 980, it will probably match the 980ti, which tops the VR test and PC manufacturers can only use the same GPUs on offer.