I really would like an actual answer here... maybe there is some kind of way to run a graphically advanced/demanding game on Mac?
https://www.macworld.com/article/2852664/cyberpunk-2077-ultimate-edition-review.html
The game includes presets that adjust graphics settings for different Mac models, and there are some useful support pages for the Mac version at support.cdprojektred.com, which will help you to get the best performance from the game. I got a steady 40fps when running the game at 1,920 x1,200 resolution on my MacBook Pro with an M2 Pro chip, so you don’t need the latest, fastest Mac models to get good performance.
Apparently Mac Gamers do not have the highest graphical standards, if... 40 fps at basically 1080p x 1.1 counts as 'good performance'.
Hrm.
Ok.
So as I said, we would seem to agree that Mac Gamers do not have very high graphical standards, compared to PC/Linux/Console gamers.
Like uh, let me put it this way: Calling 40 FPS in Cyberpunk 77 'good' at 1080p is an actual joke to me.
I can do better than that on my Steam Deck at its native resolution, and .... thats a portable device.
'Good' to me would be over 60 fps at 2K / 1440p, like an average around 75 fps.
I'm not trying to say that games must have absurdly good graphics to be a good game, hell no, far from it.
But... when you're actually just talking specifically about advanced graphics ... it seems that you, a Mac Gamer, just don't consider them much.
So your standards there are lower, because you just don't value them as much.
Like how you could compare two cars for practical usefulness, and conclude car A is an overall better choice, but if you're specifically talking about which car can go from 0-60 faster, well now car B is a the clear winner there.
... I don't have BG3, and I tried to look up comparative numbers for BG3 on a Steam Deck, turns out Larian just actually released a Linux native version that's significantly better than the Proton/Windows version, for Steam Deck users.
https://sportsrant.indiatimes.com/gaming/baldurs-gate-3-steam-deck-performance-guide-september-2025-update/articleshow/126670240.html
So if I had the game, what I would do, on a Deck, is up a few more of those settings from low to medium, get to a generally stable FPS just above 45, instead of aiming for 60, and then the Deck OLED at least will let you lock the frame rate at 45, but the refresh rate at 90, so in most games that are not quite fast paced, that'll basically just 'feel' like 90 fps most of the time.
So you end up with a $550 portable machine that can, at least at its native settings, outperform your admittedly signifcantly older, but $1100 2017 iMac, by way of running basically mostly medium settings with a few at low.
Adjust for inflation thats like uh, Steam Deck for about $585, iMac for about $1450. And you put aftermarket (Or is it more like Bonus with Macs?) ram in it as well.
I dunno, I'm not trying to sound like an ass, I'm trying to do actual comparisons of some kind, but you don't know the FPS, didn't indicate a resolution...
Which again, makes sense in as much as: You don't care that much about those things.
But its hard to do graphics comparison without such info.