We benchmarked Cyberpunk 2077 on Mac: here's how well it runs on Macs vs. Windows PCs
I know because here at Tom's Guide our crack team of testing experts has been hard at work in our lab this week benchmarking how well the game runs on a slew of modern Macs.
Now we have numbers for how well Cyberpunk 2077 runs on everything from a 2021 M1 Max MacBook Pro to a cutting-edge M4 Max Mac Studio, and the results should get you excited if you've been dreaming of playing CD Projekt Red's cyberpunk RPG.
Because our testing reveals that while even the latest Macs can't match the gaming prowess of the best gaming PCs, if you fine-tune the settings and enable MetalFX resolution scaling you can get some pretty good framerates playing Cyberpunk 2077 on your Mac.
Before we dig into the data, I wanted to quickly remind you that Cyberpunk 2077: Ultimate runs on most Macs with Apple silicon—but there are some key caveats you should know about.
Notably, to run it your Mac must be packing an M1 chip or newer and have at least 16GB of unified memory. So we couldn't test how well it runs on an entry-level MacBook Air M1 or MacBook Air M2, for example, because they only have 8GB of memory.
On top of that, only Macs with M3 or newer chips support the game's ray tracing features. So as you're looking through our test results, remember that only the M3 and M4 Macs can even run the game with ray tracing enabled.
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
Cyberpunk 2077: Ultimate launched on the Mac App Store Thursday (July 17), and our testing team immediately downloaded a few copies and started benchmarking it on every Mac we could lay our hands on.
So while we haven't yet had a chance to comprehensively benchmark it on every possible Mac configuration, we do have a nice spread of test results that gives you a good sense of how well the game runs on Apple silicon old and new.
The quick answer is: pretty well! However, you have to give yourself over to Apple's MetalFX resolution scaling and the nebulous "For Your Mac" graphical preset in order to get a decent framerate playing Cyberpunk 2077 on most Macs.
When we did our best to fine-tune the graphical settings to match what we use when running Cyberpunk 2077 benchmarks on Windows PCs, the framerate tanked. If you'd like to get a sense of how different these two configurations look, click to zoom in on the screenshots below.
To show you what I mean I'm going to list the specific settings we used for these benchmarks below. But if you're not interested, you can skip straight to the results!
Read our test settings ▼
We ran these benchmarks on every Mac we could find using two graphical settings configurations, the vague "For Your Mac" setting that Apple recommends and a slight modification of the "Ray Tracing: Ultra" preset that we use when benchmarking this game on gaming laptops and desktops. On the oldest Macs that did not support ray tracing, we used the "Ultra" preset instead.
For full transparency I'm going to share our exact Mac testing settings here so you can see for yourself how we came by these numbers, but if you're more interested in the results feel free to skip down to the next section!
Ray Tracing: Ultra
"For this Mac"
Resolution Scaling
Off
MetalFX
MetalFX Sharpness
N/A
0.5
Target FPS
N/A
60
Minimum resolution
N/A
50
Maximum resolution
N/A
80
Frame generation
Off
Off
Texture quality
High
High
Ray tracing (reflections/shadows on, lighting ultra, path tracing off)
On
Off
Crowd density
High
High
Field of view
80
80
Film grain
On
On
Chromatic aberration
On
On
Depth of field
On
On
Lens flare
On
On
Motion blur
High
High
Contact shadows
On
On
Improved facial lighting geometry
On
On
Anisotropy
16
16
Local shadow mesh quality
High
High
Local shadow quality
High
High
Cascaded shadows range
High
High
Cascaded shadows resolution
High
High
Distant shadows resolution
High
High
Volumetric fog resolution
Ultra
Ultra
Volumetric cloud quality
Ultra
Ultra
Max dynamic decals
Ultra
Ultra
Screen space reflections quality
Ultra
Ultra
Subsurface scattering quality
High
High
Ambient occlusion
High
High
Color precision
Medium
Medium
Mirror quality
High
High
Level of detail
High
High
Vsync
60
60
Windowed mode
Fullscreen
Fullscreen
Resolution
2560 x 1440
2560 x 1440
Before I start comparing Windows and Mac results side by side, let me run down how our many Macs performed in these tests.
As you can see from our testing, you basically cannot get a steady 30 frames per second or above at max settings on any Mac we have on hand. However, if you're willing to use the "For this Mac" preset and lower the resolution to 1200p you can get decent performance on even a 13-inch MacBook Air.
(Ray Tracing) Ultra
"For this Mac"
16" MacBook Pro M1 Max (1920x1200)
31.2
78.9
16" MacBook Pro M1 Max (3456x2160)
9.5
43.4
14" MacBook Pro M2 Pro (1920x1200)
36.1
41.4
14" MacBook Pro M2 Pro (3042x1890)
15.8
30.5
13" MacBook Air M3 (1920x1200)
4.3
34.7
13" MacBook Air M3 (2560x1600)
2.6
27.3
15" MacBook Air M4 (1920x1200)
6.1
34.4
15" MacBook Air M4 (2880x1800)
2.8
22.8
16" MacBook Pro M4 Pro (1920x1200)
14.1
65.8
16" MacBook Pro M4 Pro (3456x2160)
4.8
38.8
Mac Studio M4 Max (1920x1080)
29.5
108.8
Mac Studio M4 Max (3840x2160)
8.5
60.2
You might also notice that the older M1 Max MacBook Pro appears to run the game better than the new MacBook Pro M4 Pro, and the reason is simple: M1 and M2 Macs don't support ray tracing, and the game is a lot less demanding without it.
So if you have a newer M4 Mac, don't sweat it: disabling ray tracing should give you a nice framerate boost. However, I'd personally be bummed to lose that feature because I find it adds a nice patina of realism to the game.
Now let's compare those results to what we saw when we ran the game on some of the latest and best gaming laptops we've recently tested. Before you look at the numbers, keep in mind that this is a raw performance test so we do not enable any graphical upscaling tech like the MetalFX resolution scaling available on Mac. So that means none of these test results were generated using any Nvidia DLSS, AMD FSR or Intel XeSS upscaling.
Ray Tracing Ultra
Asus TUF Gaming A14 RTX 4060 (1920x1080)
29.6
Asus TUF Gaming A14 RTX 4060 (2560x1600)
15.3
Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 RTX 5080 (1920x1080)
49.6
Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 RTX 5080 (2880x1800)
24.3
Razer Blade 14 RTX 5070 (1920x1080)
39.6
Razer Blade 14 RTX 5070 (2800x1800)
9.1
HP Omen Max 16 RTX 5090 (1920x1080)
71.5
HP Omen Max 16 RTX 5090 (2560x1600)
46.8
As you can see, the numbers are generally better than anything you can get running the game on Mac with no upscaling enabled. One notable exception is the 2025 Razer Blade 14, which seems to struggle with this benchmark at its native 1800p resolution.
But of course, since we don't benchmark our review units with any kind of upscaling enabled you don't get the full picture of what's possible on a modern Windows gaming laptop with framerate enhancements like Nvidia's DLSS.
To show you what I mean, look how fast a modern gaming laptop (the Asus ProArt P16 with an Nvidia RTX 5070 GPU, AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 CPU and 32GB RAM) can run Cyberpunk 2077 with graphical settings cranked to max (Ray Tracing Overdrive) at its native (2560x1600) resolution with increasing levels of DLSS 4's Multi Frame Generation enabled.
Ray Tracing Overdrive
Multi Frame Gen x2
73.4
Multi Frame Gen x3
83.7
Multi Frame Gen x4
110.6
That's fairly typical of the performance increase I've seen on multiple gaming laptops and PCs after enabling DLSS and Multi Frame Gen while playing Cyberpunk 2077.
Admittedly, when Multi Frame Gen debuted with the first GeForce RTX 50-series graphics cards in January I didn't love how the higher levels (3x-4x) seemed to cause disorienting graphical glitches in some games, but nowadays CD Projekt Red and Nvidia seem to have fine-tuned it and even at Multi Frame Gen 4x I rarely see any issues in Cyberpunk.
While we haven't yet had a chance to test every config of Cyberpunk 2077 on every Mac, it's pretty safe to say that even the most tricked-out Mac Studio M3 Ultra probably won't run it as well as an equally expensive Windows gaming PC with the latest and greatest.
But let me tell you, I've been reviewing some very expensive gaming PCs recently (like this $7,399 Corsair Vengeance i8300) and despite sporting an Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 GPU and cutting-edge components that thing struggles to surpass a solid 80+ FPS with all graphical settings cranked to max—even with DLSS 4 and Multi Frame Gen 4x enabled.
That's in part because Cyberpunk 2077 is a very demanding game that employs some of the latest graphical tech you can get, so it's remarkable that our testing shows you can now play it on a MacBook from four years ago and expect a decent 30-60 FPS, especially if you enable MetalFX upscaling and trust in Apple's "For Your Mac" config.
There's no shame in relying on it either, since you also need to rely on DLSS or FSR to get great framerates in the game at peak settings when playing on Windows. So while Windows gaming machines still seem like the best place to play Cyberpunk 2077 if you care about graphical fidelity and performance, it's clear Apple and CD Projekt Red have done yeoman's work to bring one of the best PC games to Mac.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tom's Guide
40 minutes ago
- Tom's Guide
It's not surprising that the Online Safety Act doesn't cover personal data safety
On July 25, 2025, the Online Safety Act (OSA) went into effect in the UK, requiring sites hosting adult content and social media platforms to verify users' ages before allowing them to access adult content. With age verification techniques including supplying personal/sensitive information to these sites or platforms (e.g. photo ID, a face scan, credit card information, email address or phone number), many UK residents have turned to using the best VPNs to circumvent the ban. Concerns about the integrity of the third parties employed by sites or platforms have been raised, with many worried that their sensitive personal information will be stored, shared or even used to train AI models. However, many of these concerns have not been addressed by the UK government, with the focus being on the Online Safety Act's enforcement. NordVPN: our top-rated VPN overallFrom our testing, we consider NordVPN to be the best VPN for most people. This is down to its rock-solid security and privacy, excellent speeds and great unblocking performance. Prices start from £2.31 / $2.91 per month for a two-year subscription, which includes an exclusive four months free for Tom's Guide readers. Plus, you can get an Amazon gift card worth up to £50 / $50 if you sign up for NordVPN's Plus or Complete memberships. A 30-day money-back guarantee applies to all subscriptions. While this may be concerning to many UK citizens who do not want their personal information to be shared or stolen, and are worried about the potential ramifications of a data breach or leak of an age verification platform, it's not necessarily surprising that personal data safety hasn't been considered in the OSA. In May 2024, it was revealed that nearly 70% of UK MPs had had their personal information leaked on the dark web, including personal and login information. MP's email addresses were exposed 2,110 times, with some MPs targeted up to 30 times, and over 200 plain-text passwords were also leaked. The most common cause for these information leaks were hacks or breaches of companies that MPs had signed up for using their parliamentary email – including Adobe, Dropbox and LinkedIn. This is incredibly poor cybersecurity practice, as the leaks demonstrate – if the MPs had reused the same login information for any other account, it would be easily accessible. Even MPs who were on committees dedicated to looking after the cybersecurity of the UK had their personal data leaked, which is concerning considering the fact that you would expect them to have much more rigorous and robust data security practices. However, it does make it less surprising that the Online Safety Act does not include any requirements for businesses to ensure that users' personal data is kept secure. It appears as though this simply hasn't been considered. Additionally, with MPs like the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle making inflammatory statements regarding pushback to the act – he posted on X that those who oppose it are "on the side of predators" – it appears that the government is far more concerned with the enforcement of age verification than ensuring that the sensitive information used for this is kept safe. The Online Safety Act does lay out guidelines for the age verification checks themselves, namely that they must be "technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair," but this doesn't mention anything about them being secure. By not outlining any guidelines for these age verification checks, it means that sites and platforms do not have to use secure third parties. While many are choosing to – for example, Reddit has employed the use of Persona, which deletes all user information within 7 days, and Spotify has employed the use of Yoti, which deletes user data immediately – this offers little reassurance that this will be the case for most other sites. The only statement regarding personal data safety has been from OFCOM, who shortly addressed data security and privacy concerns in an article on the Online Safety Act and what users need to know about it. OFCOM stated: "Strong age checks can be done effectively, safely, and in a way that protects your privacy. As with everything you do online, you should exercise a degree of caution and judgement when giving over personal information. "Data protection in the UK is regulated and enforced by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). We work closely with the ICO and where we have concerns that a provider has not complied with data protection law, we may refer the matter to the ICO. "In the UK people are familiar with having to prove their age in the offline world to buy age-restricted goods like alcohol and tobacco. Age checks to access [mature content] are just the same. It will help stop children from encountering [mature content] online, in the same way that a child should not be able to simply walk into a shop and buy a [NSFW] DVD or magazine." In this statement, the onus is on the end user to make sure their personal data is kept safe, rather than having the Online Safety Act require that the age verification techniques must be secure in the first place. Additionally, providing an ID card to a shop assistant, bouncer or bartender is incredibly different to taking a picture of your ID or scanning your face, especially when there is no guarantee that this information will be deleted. After all, a shop assistant would not take a photocopy of your ID and then hang onto it for an unspecified amount of time afterwards. However, there is some comfort to come from the fact that third-party age verification services will have to follow UK-based data regulations. Under the General Data Protection Regulations in the UK, personal data can only be "kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed." Essentially, this means that data should not be retained when it is no longer needed. While this could technically mean that age verification companies delete user data once their age has been verified – for example, Spotify's age verification partner, Yoti, does this – this may not be the case for all age verification services. Additionally, the statement that OFCOM "may" refer companies to the ICO if they have sufficient concerns that an age verification company has not complied with GDPR does not quite feel good enough when people's faces and sensitive information are at risk. Overall, while many companies do appear to be putting secure age verification checks in place, the concerns about personal data raised by the OSA are not unfounded. Hopefully there will be more guidance released regarding the safety and security of UK citizens' personal data in the coming weeks. We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example: 1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service). 2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad. We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.
Digital Trends
2 hours ago
- Digital Trends
A brief history of folding phones and why the best is yet to come
If you're a fan of the best folding phones like me, you'll know it's been a breakout year for the category. The new Galaxy Z Fold 7 caps a year of multiple releases that have all vied to solve the common complaints with previous folding phones and prove that they can be just as comfortable as a regular phone. Several folding phone makers have released phones to compete in a key metric: thickness, or, namely, the lack of it. The ultra-thin folding phones sub-category has had three competitors this year that aimed to be the world's thinnest folding phone, but only one of them also delivers the smartphone-like experience we've been waiting for. Recommended Videos This is just the seventh year of folding phones, but we've already reached the point where they feel just like a regular smartphone in the pocket. Yet, Apple is still to release the rumored iPhone Fold, and every Android phone maker will also be looking to release its best foldable phone as well. Here's a look at the brief history of folding phones, and why the best is yet to come. 2018 — 2020: The Initial Foldable Era This may be surprising, but the world's first folding phone was by a company most won't have heard of. We need to rewind almost seven years to 2018 for the first commercial folding phone in the form of the Royole Flexpai, which launched in China in October that year. It started at ￥8,999 ($1,250), but as we learnt, it didn't deliver on the true promise of the folding phone. The following year, Samsung launched — and relaunched — the Galaxy Fold, and just four days after its announcement, Huawei took to the stage to unveil the Mate X. One key difference? Rather than two displays, the main display folds around the phone, forming part of its back. The smaller bezels of the Huawei Mate X also hinted at an inevitable trend. The folding phone market features more than just book-style folding phones, and that year also saw the revival of the Motorola Razr on November 13, 2019. Six years later, the Motorola Razr Ultra 2025 is the latest in a long line of Razr flip phones to dominate the flip phone market. A couple of months later, in February 2020, Samsung unveiled the Galaxy Z Flip, and the true flip phone competition began in the US. While book-style folding phones have had considerable competition, the flip phone market has featured several attempts by Android phone makers to launch a flip phone, but with limited success. Despite more than ten brands attempting different flip phones, the market remains an oligopoly dominated by Motorola and Samsung. The book-style market, however, is very different, and the launch of the Galaxy Z Fold 2 in September 2020 saw Samsung adopt a full-screen on the front, a design language that has continued through to the latest iteration. It also featured improved durability with new Ultra-Thin Glass, a larger battery, and triple cameras. Most importantly, it was also the launch vehicle for Samsung DeX, which remains a key part of Samsung's folding phone experience. 2021 — 2023: A Defining Era 2021 and 2022 saw the foldable market explode, as Samsung released the Galaxy Z Fold 3 and Galaxy Z Fold 4, the latter the best Samsung fold until the Galaxy Z Fold 7. Meanwhile, Huawei released the Mate X2 in February 2022 with an inward folding design, similar to other folding phones. Xiaomi launched its first and second-generation Mix Fold folding phones, and Oppo and Vivo launched their first folding phones. 2023 ushered in several changes in the folding phone market that are still prevalent today. Samsung continued its annual release with the Galaxy Z Fold 5 and Z Flip 5 in August, Google launched the first-generation Google Pixel Fold, and Honor began its current focus on thin and light design with the Honor Magic V2. However, all were dwarfed by the OnePlus Open — also known as the Oppo Find N3 — which launched in December to wide acclaim. It was a breakthrough folding phone for that era, bringing a thinner, lighter design and a focus on a great camera and excellent battery life. The OnePlus Open remains a strong folding phone in the US, despite being two years old. It wasn't just the book folding phone market that saw a major change, as the Flip phone market underwent a large shift to the current big-screen era that we're now accustomed to. Ushered in by the Razr 2023 series — which features large front screens and the innovative Razr approach to the front display — even Samsung has had to adopt this trend with the new Galaxy Z Flip 7. 2024 — 2025: The ultra-thin era Last year saw the start of the current ultra-thin era, in which Honor, Oppo, and now Samsung are all competing. A year ago, the Honor Magic V3 became the world's thinnest folding phone at 4.4mm thick when unfolded. It retained that title until the Oppo Find N5 surpassed it in February 2025, measuring 4.2mm thick when unfolded. However, this didn't last, as Honor then launched the Honor Magic V5 a few weeks ago on July 2, 2025, and it measures 4.1mm thick when unfolded. A week later, Samsung cemented its place atop many global smartphone wishlists with the Galaxy Z Fold 7, which doesn't set a record for thickness, but does so for weight at 215 grams, three grams lighter than the Magic V5. Despite not setting a record, a thickness of 4.2mm when unfolded and 8.9mm when folded means it's the first folding phone to be indistinguishable from a regular smartphone. As I covered in our Galaxy Z Fold 7 review, the design has set a new benchmark for how folding phones should feel. The Magic V5 boasts the largest battery in this category and one of the best camera systems. Meanwhile, Google is set to announce its new Pixel 10 Pro Fold later this month. 2026 onwards: the iPhone Fold era? Of course, there's one major smartphone player still to make its foldable phone entrance: Apple. The iPhone Fold is rumored to launch in September next year, potentially enabling folding phones to reach escape velocity. The iPhone, the iPad, and several products since have proved that Apple's participation in a category is necessary for that category to reach its total addressable market (TAM). Samsung has been key to the success of folding phones so far, and devices like the Galaxy Z Fold 7 and Galaxy Z Flip 7 show that the company is still able to innovate. With Apple set to launch, Samsung likely to respond, and most other phone makers are likely to launch new folding phones in the wake of Apple's entrance, it's safe to say that the best is yet to come. In case it wasn't obvious, I can't wait!
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Asked about concerns Switch 2 game-key cards could turn off players and third-party publishers, Nintendo president says the controversial cards were introduced since file sizes have gone up
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa has acknowledged the backlash towards the Nintendo Switch 2's game-key card system, saying it was introduced because game file sizes are larger. The Nintendo Switch 2 has had a fair amount of controversy surrounding it in the three months since it was properly revealed. While the pricing of games has been the big sticking point, Nintendo's game-key cards have been the subject to criticism, with many pointing out it's bad for game preservation. These cards are effectively a digital download on a card, meaning there is very little data on the cart and you'll need to fully download the game even after popping the cart in your console. Pretty much every third-party title on Switch 2 that has a physical release was through these game key cards (except Cyberpunk 2077, which also happens to be the best-selling third party game on the platform). This was brought up at a recent Nintendo shareholder meeting (via machine translation), as Furukawa was asked about the online reactions to game-key cards, with some finding that buying physical releases without the actual game data on the cartridge is unappealing. The same investor said they are worried that third parties will move away from the Switch 2 if key cards don't sell well due to these complaints. Furukawa responds by explaining the key card system, and says (via machine translation) that this is a new sales method that's been added since the "data capacity" of Switch 2 game software is larger than it was on the original Switch. Granted, there are multiple games currently on Switch 2 with file sizes that go over 59GB (which was the highest on Switch 1 thanks to NBA 2K24). Split Fiction comes in at 69GB, and the recently revealed WWE 2K25 is going to be 73GB on the system, so game-key cards make sense for the latter two considering the Switch 2 cards only go up to 64GB (although WWE is a code in a box anyway). However, 3.2GB Puyo Puyo Tetris 2S and 9.2GB Bravely Default don't exactly have the same excuse. As for the worry of third parties possibly abandoning Switch 2 if game-key cards aren't selling, Furukawa noted that there are various ways for Switch 2 games to be sold, and that the company wants to discuss "various points" with publishers, ultimately striving for them to support the Switch 2 platform. It's rumored (due to an apparent Arc System Works leak) that Nintendo is only offering expensive 64GB cards or game-key cards to developers, so hopefully that could change if publishers kick up a fuss. Nintendo Switch 2 could revolutionize Zelda technology: Tears of the Kingdom tinkerers confirm lasers are way deadlier now – "We always knew 60 fps would be insane, but I didn't expect it to be this insane."
