WoW Performance Guide For Macs - Patch 8.0

Before making a new thread I’d wait for 8.1 to hit – it’s going to change the performance equation a bit.

Yeah. That was my plan. I’ll do a sweep of the performance numbers again when 8.1 hits.

1 Like

Is there a way to achieve Ultra Setting (maxed out) with smooth graphics at 1080P and/or 4k currently - with eGPUs?

If so - which eGPU would accomplish this - looking for a future proof solution (only care about WOW)

New Mac mini w/ eGPU?
Can the Vega 20 MacBook Pro accomplish this on its own, without an eGPU?

Thanks!

What kind of frame rates can you get on a 2018 MBP with Radeon 560 under 8.0?

Not QUITE the same animal, but I’m playing right now on a 2018 MBP with the new Vega 20 GPU. I’m finding issues because of Blizz’s decision not only to remove EFS, but also to “scale” everything. These Retina-display MBPs are actually much higher resolution than they can be set to in the OS, and Blizz wants to use every last pixel instead of letting us fix a resolution. So 100% scaling is 3360x2100 window size, which gives me ~30-35 FPS in Boralus at recommended settings. 50% scaling is actually what the OS suggests the resolution is, and I get 70 FPS then – but nameplates and such are illegible. So it’s playable, but no desktop with a good NVidia card.

On the plus side, the sound is MUCH better than even my decent desktop speakers. Not sure why, but I can hear channels on the laptop that I can’t on the desktop even though the sound settings are identical.
[GryphonMD]

Thanks for this - could you expand a bit on this? What are WOW’s recommended settings? Can the Vega 20 play wow on Ultra?

By “Ultra” I assume you mean the highest preset of “10”.

The answer is: probably no (unless you want to run at a very low resolution), but 10 is not meant to be achievable to average hardware. The highest settings available in games is - by design - for future proofing the engine giving people in the future a way to scale setting even higher even if it is not commonly achievable in the present.

For me, WoW’s recommended settings were everything on medium to high. I bumped outline mode to highest. I also turned down the point lighting from high to medium because I don’t like the looks at high. Clutter and distance and the third slider were at 5; I bumped them to 8/7/6 without a lot of change in FPS. I haven’t tried getting into a raid group yet, or standing near the Tortollans in Stormsong when that goblin flamethrower thing (something- mark II) is active. Those two things KILL my FPS on desktop (6-core 3.4 GHz Xeon w/NVidia 1070) – we’re talking single-digit FPS sometimes.

I don’t actually know anyone who plays on all highest settings. Not saying there aren’t any, but my friends don’t, even those with better rigs.

[GryphonMD]

yes I meant 10 - thanks!

Obviously I am a little new to this and not so sharp on graphics cards, etc. Would you say that even a similarly priced Windows gaming rig could not run WOW on settings 10 unless at low resolution?

I guess I want my cake and I want to eat it too - if I was going to purchase the new Mac Mini with the best AMD GPU available for an eGPU or the new Vega 20 MacBook Pro, I want to know that I can play WOW at as high a setting as possible for as long as possible. I am playing on a 2013 MacBook Pro currently, and can comfortably play on “4”. I obviously want to comfortably play on as high a setting as I can on a new machine (max view distance, as detailed textures as possible, most ground and spell clutter) …the way the wow devs intend you to see the game in its current state…if that makes sense?

It would seem, if I am understanding you correctly - that even though there exists higher options: ‘7’ ‘8’ ‘9’ and ‘10’, that there really isn’t any difference currently in the highest settings, and that they are there just for the future when there actually will be more ground clutter, or more details in the textures, etc.

Outside of view distance, the visual differences between 7 through 10 are incredibly minimal. Shadows and Water, specifically, are incredibly demanding on the GPU for an absolutely minimal visual difference. The OP in this guide has a really good explanation of what each setting does and how much it impacts performance.

If you absolute benchmark for satisfaction is to play WoW on the absolute highest of everything, you probably shouldn’t be getting a Mac. A similarly priced Windows machine will run rings around it (but then you’ll be forced to suffer the indignity of using WIndows!)

The Vega 20 should be able to handle the highest view distance and object density, but absolutely not water and shadows.

Thank you for your reply!

My goal is to stay on MacOS and enjoy 100% of the game from a graphics perspective; for at least 5 years from now (to justify paying the Apple Tax). It sounds like I can do just that with the new MacBook Pro Vega 20, while only missing out on the highest water settings - leading me to believe a Mac mini with a Vega 64 eGPU can handle it all - it might be a cheaper route to boot

Thank you Gryphonmd for the info. I too am considering the new Vega 20 MBP so I really could use some quick input (sale price through tomorrow). Are you saying 50% scaling looks terrible? How about if you set WoW to run in “low resolution mode”? As I understand it this should be 1680x1050. Does that look and play well? And by well I mean 60fps locked outside of main cities with vsync on and medium/high settings

I don’t lock vsync; I just don’t like the fact that I get 30 or 60 FPS and usually just 30…

I’m not sure what “low resolution mode” is. I run Windowed Fullscreen at 100% scaling; any less than that, it becomes hard to read text. The OS is set to default, which is “looks like 1680x1050” and WoW doubles each dimension because, well, it doesn’t understand Retina.

If you ARE going to drop $3k on an MBP, not spending the extra $350 for the Vega 20 would be foolish.

That said, if all you want is to play WoW at decent settings on a Mac, I’d honestly avoid any of the new machines and buy a 6-core 2012 Mac Pro at 3 GHz or above and either a high-end Radeon or a 1080/1080ti and a terabyte SSD. You’ll spend less and have a better-performing system – but there are still a few tradeoffs that are details for another thread.

If you’re set on a laptop but have extra cash to burn, then an eGPU would still be better-performing – IF you run it with an external monitor. Apparently using an eGPU to display back to the built-in screen drops a lot of performance.

[GryphonMD]

Thank you again. I was referring to the low resolution option the OP recommends.

This is what I get for coming in halfway through a thread… I missed that at the very start.

Ok, went and played with low-res mode for a bit. I saw some difference in FPS in places like Drustvar (peaked at 108 standing by the flight point and looking out towards the valley) but Boralus was still low 40’s. Plus it was still hard to read nameplates unless you were right on top of them. I’m not sure yet which is easier to read, in-game scaling or running in low-res, but neither is as good as full-res. I will have to wait to test it in a raid setting; none of my addons are set up right.

I wonder how much too is CPU-limited rather than GPU-limited. I keep reading that WoW is only single-threaded, though I can see two threads running pretty near 100%.

[GryphonMD]

Ok thanks again. Until 8.1 releases WoW uses mainly two CPU cores so that makes sense. Sounds like even with Vega 20 it’s still not at GTX 1050 levels in Windows. Bummer for me. Really appreciate you testing and reporting back

Triple buffer Vsync doesn’t lock you to 30 fps if you can’t reach 60.

Also, WoW can use multiple threads, but the renderer can only ever use one. 8.1 adds multithreaded rendering.

Due to the forum migration, I no longer have the authority to edit my own guide for patch changes, so I have reposted the guide in a brand new thread found here:

This thread is now obsolete.