Apparently you haven't been on B3D long enough.
I'll respond literally: Been here for over a decade. Historically, these forums have seldom hosted knuckle-dragger levels of discussion about different hardware vendors.
Relax.
Apple has never, ever prioritized gaming performance on their platforms.
Which is what I said before -- i.e., they don't even support Vulkan on macOS.
They do care about gaming on iOS, however, which generates an absurd amount of money.
They have always aimed towards the people who want to spend a lot more money for the spit-shine and polish of their ecosystem, which are the well-to-do "creative types" who can be funded by rich parents, companies who want to cater to their whims, educational subsidy (Apple did really well planting their seeds so to speak in the 80's and 90's) and "creative shops"
There's some truth to this.
A lot of professionals, certainly in my industry, just prefer them for the Terminal, better OS stability, and other features (better screen, battery, keyboard and so on).
Apple is not in the gaming space by any meaningful measure; their relationship to console gaming is limited to basically the fact that they're both digital devices. It has no bearing at all on why ports from consoles to PC (which share the same foundational CPU, GPU, memory, storage and network instruction sets and architectures) perform so very differently.
I'm not arguing that there is a causal relationship between Consoles-PCs and PCs-Macs. Put very simply: I am saying that the reasoning you give for why games on the PC lose so much performance for a given set of hardware, going from console -> PC:
Truth is, despite Digi's snark on the matter, the devs likely "don't care" enough to hand-tailor a game meant for console limitations into the PC world. Despite having near-identical archiectural foundations, consoles and PCs still have interesting differences in the OS and related abstraction layers. It's akin to looking at workload performance on the same application when backended by either an Oracle, Microsoft SQL, or IBM DB2 relational databse platform. All three, at the end of the day, are modern relational databases which are based on the same foundational technologies. However, they perform very differently with different workloads and simply "porting" code to target one platform (Oracle) to another (IBM DB2) can result in very significant performance changes.
Usually those can be tuned out, with a lot of care and time and attention -- but often simply throwing more hardware at it (ie a "lazy" PC port) is just easier.
is akin to the reason why performance tanks on Apple's Mac platform -- even when AMD and Nvidia GPUs were in Macs.
There are various software impediments, some more fundamental than others (i.e., lack of common API, emulation, translation layers etc), and there is a general lack of optimisation by the developer when porting stuff over from the PC to the Mac.
Be ware also that comparison to 3080m is often not specific, the 3080m can be tuned by OEMs to have a wide range of operating power limits, which can range from 80w up to 200w. with wildly different performance profiles as a result. This is a crucial information when doing comparisons between GPUs.
Absolutely agree.
