Evidence of Upcoming Retina iMacs Showing Up in OS X Yosemite Beta

[dumastudetto]

I don't think it's in Apple's interest to make the iMac as unaffordable as the Mac Pro so I can see them trying to achieve a Retina iMac with a reasonable price tag.

Mac Pro is not unaffordable at all. It's insanely cheap when you consider the cost of the components on the inside and all the innovative technologies Apple has built into the product.

 

[chfilm]

Yes, you'd just need dual TB connections for one display.

hm that shouldnt be a problem

But you think the gpus could even output such a resolution? Any way to test this?

 

[Moonjumper]

And what do you think that internal connection between the LCD panel and the logic board is? Just because it's internal doesn't mean you can simply ignore specifications for your video bus.


(It's DisplayPort)

But because it is internal, they control what is each side of the connection, which means they are free to explore options not possible with an external connection standard. They could have one connection driving the left half of the screen, and another driving the right. Therefore bypassing the limits of a single connector.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If we're at the point where iMacs can have Retina Displays, I hope Apple will release a new iPhone with twice the PPI.

A 4.7" with 652 PPI would be incredible!

The spin has been that "retina" means the eye can't discern individual pixels. If that spin is true- as has soooo often been argued- than anything above current retina is not discernible. More simply, it's just a spec number. 2608 would look just the same as 1304 which would look just the same as 652 which would look just the same as 326.

I know some of the other guys has spun higher PPI specs in their products but this shouldn't be a spec contest unless the spin of "retina" was a lie… or there are mutants among us with eyes sharper than typical humans.

 

[NY Guitarist]

I'd love to see another 30" Cinema display. The extra screen real estate is useful.

Me too, it's a very nice size for a computer monitor as far as field of view, plus the extra vertical resolution of 2560x1600 (16:10) over the Thunderbolt Display 2560x1440 (16:9) make it feel roomier.

Now give me a backlit LCD Retina 30" Thunderbolt Display and I'll think about retiring the current 30" ACDs. Also I'm still confused by the current Thunderbolt Display being so much thicker than the iMac. It seems like a no-brainer to build them the same way.

 

[kazmac]

Glad to see a Mac rumor...

Any new mac cannot get here fast enough. I almost can't imagine a retina screen that big.

Looking forward to seeing what comes of this (and hopes it's not that much more expensive.)

 

[Bubba Satori]

Sounds good, but it's going to need a better than the usual iMac mid range mobile GPU.

 

[racer1441]

The air still has a glossy screen. It just doesn't have a glass plate in front of it like the other MacBooks do. Or so I thought.

It may, but it isn't glossy to my eye.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

I wouldn't get too excited all. There has been 5120x2880 wallpaper images in OS X in the past with nothing on the hardware side to show for it.

Either way, hope people interested have been saving because no chance a Retina iMac is released in 2014 for a penny less than $2,199 starting for the 27-inch. The 15" rMBP was released at a $400 premium and I'd have to guess the iMac will be that much if not more.

----------

4K monitor prices are not that bad now. I fully expect them to have a retina and non retina version - probably $2400?

Cheap TN panel 4K monitor prices aren't that bad. Quality 4K monitor prices are still crazy. Apple won't put a cheap panel in the iMac.

----------

All I can think about is how terrible the rev. A product is goving to be. All the issues the first Retina iMac will have. How fast it will become dated because of a GPU that can barely handle the pixels anno 2014. Let alone by 2016. By 2017 you'll probably be happy if can trigger Mission Control with three windows open without stuttering too much. Especially the 27-inch version. The price alone will make it DOA for most.

On a more practical level: Is there even a GPU suitable for all-in-ones that can handle a 27-inch Retina screen? Not to menton a second display.

At this point it's much more likely we'll see a 4K 27/28-inch iMac, rather than a true 5K Retina one. Color me skeptical about the latter for the reasons stated above.

This^^

 

[Macxpress]

Intel wants to introduce a $400 4K display by the end of the year

There's a difference between making a cheaper 4K display and a good 4K display. Granted, the ones that are expensive are the 50"+ TV's we're probably referring to.

I think they could make it happen, but only in the 27" model, and maybe only on the higher end. I'd say $2500 (USD).

 

[satchmo]

I would love to see Apple be a bit more aggressive with their pricing on this rumoured 4K iMac.

Often they'll add new features and simply keep the price the same.
$1999 for the 4K top of the line 27" iMac.

 

[syangtand]

ios7

According to a chart posted on Apple's developer website, iOS 7 is now installed on 74 percent of all active mobile devices manufactured by the ...

 

[e-coli]

Your avatar gives me anxiety.

...and Xanax for this guy!

 

[xmichaelp]

hm that shouldnt be a problem

But you think the gpus could even output such a resolution? Any way to test this?

Oh yes. Phil Schiller said the new Mac Pros can run 3 4k displays, and that's the base model. I'm sure that's a conservative estimate too. I wouldn't be surprised if the dual d500's could run 3 5k displays.

----------

I know the bigger the display typically the less noticeable retina has been, but just imagine retina on such big display. You could sit up close and scan the display from side to side and it will still have that 'painted on' effect. Gorgeous.

 

[pearvsapple]

It's practically useless. But that ain't gonna stop IT pretenders from hyping it up.

 

[Abazigal]

I still expect to get another good 2-3 years out of my 2011 iMac. Should be plenty of time for Apple to ramp up production and bring down prices.

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

yep it's 6K. On a 27 or a 28-inch iMac that would be awesome. The current resolution on the 27-inch iMac is just 2.5K.

I seriously doubt Apple is going to release a 6k display. It is much more likely these are just scaling modes for a 4k display.

 

[DempaX]

Screenshots

Thanks! I'll be looking forward to it. What's the screen size? 28 or so? Is text still decently readable? That seems like a godly amount of real estate.

Yes 28 inch screen. The retina resolution 3200x1800 60hz is really great after connecting via DP. 30hz via HDMI looked much worse. The monitor in itself I would actually not recommend for other than PC action games. And that of course, not on this rMBP due to performance issues. I am actually regretting getting this screen and hope for a better screen coming down in price. Hopefully from Apple. The pic reveals which Samsung model I use now. It's not even height adjustable and colours only ok. The worst for me, viewing angles. The only plus the 4k res.

To get back on the subject - of course the next iMac will have a higher res screen. But "6400x3600" in retina terms is still less than 4k, and 4k should not cost much more when bought in volume if possible, than the consumer panel in current iMacs.

I really look forward to the coming screens and iMac from Apple! Although the maxed out 2011 iMac I still have at home is still doing really well.

Attaching screenshots from System Information and avail resolutions in Display Menu.

 

[thenightwatcher]

iMac (and Mini) need more RAM before adding this kind of stuff

I hope Apple is ready to redesign the logic board to allow iMacs and Mac Minis to hold 64GBs of RAM. Granted not every market is the same, but in the music industry (at least my part of it), a 32GB Mac/PC is being pushed to it's limits 24/7. We all use 64GBs and 128GBs. And I hope Apple doesn't make me buy that screen just to get the 64GB iMac.

Well, obviously I'm a Mac Pro user, but I could REALLY make use of some cheaper iMacs or Minis for a host/slave setup, but they must have 64GBs or it's not worth the money to me.

My point is, don't make an incredible retina iMac and neuter it due to lack of RAM. The iMacs/Minis should both be at 32GBs and pushing 64GBs. They are behind in that respect, all others, amazing. I would have bought many Minis by now if only 32GB models were available.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

If OS X switches from OpenGL to "Metal", then this should be no problem with Iris Pro (the 2nd generation in Broadwell).

OS X will not switch from OpenGL to Metal.

Metal is analogous to Mantle by AMD which is specific to AMD only GPGPUs.

Metal is specific to A-series SoC by Apple using a specific subset of ImgTec GPGPU chipsets.

OpenGL is the defacto for the 3D Drawing, even on iOS.

 

[randian]

Sounds great. Also sounds hideously expensive if it's a good panel.

I'm still waiting for a new Cinema Display.

 

[kalsta]

Hopefully there's a matte screen option, though I'm not holding my breath.

Matte screen please!!!!!

I've been a longtime advocate of matte screens too, and stopped buying iMacs the day they put a shiny piece of untreated glass in front of the display. But have you guys actually compared those displays with the current iMacs? They still have the glass as you know, but it is now treated to reduce glare. Apple advertises a '75 percent reduction in reflectivity', and having compared them in-store, I believe them. It's still a little more reflective than your traditional matte display (like the Cinema Displays I still use), but the iMac displays are noticeably sharper, and obviously more durable, so I for one am happy, and have let up on the demands for those old-style matte displays. In any case, it's not going to happen.

I don't understand that. I don't like the Air because of the matte screen. It guess it's a personal preference, but I really hate matte screens.

As another commenter said, the MacBook Air doesn't have a matte screen. Never has.

 

[sshambles]

I want this, and have been anticipating this, but after literally paying off my Jan 2013 27" iMac, I am jealous of this.

I planned for my current machine to be a decade-long computer (a la my PowerBook G4 12").

Knowing that a Retina version is available, and that my eyes would be helped by having one, makes me a sad panda.

 

[the8thark]

Mavericks made improvements to the overall FPS, but even on the desktop there was a slight bit of stuttering. Since it won't impact battery life because it's an iMac they can afford to be more aggressive with the GPU, but it's going to take a considerate amount of GPU power to render a desktop that high.

Power usage matters. Especially on an iMac. iMacs are known to be one of the lowest power users in it's class. And it's a great feature of the computer. Having an iMac generate less $$ power cost than an equivalent specced Windows box is a great feeling. And every little $ saving helps.

You can be 100% certain Apple is fully aware of this and will take into consideration with the rumoured retina iMacs. And I am damn glad Apple is taking this into consideration.

 

[n-evo]

This^^

Glad you agree.