13" vs 15" 4k support

[Driz]

I was going to go for the 15" but the 13" seems to have drawn the longer straw this time round.

after education discount the 258/8 13" is 418 euros cheaper.

And i lose quad core, better graphics and smaller display in exchange for better portability and slightly better looking machine (imho)


So my question which could push me over the edge:

when 4k displays get cheaper, will the 13" with iris 5100 perform as well as the 15 with iris pro 5200?

 

[koppie644]

I was going to go for the 15" but the 13" seems to have drawn the longer straw this time round.

after education discount the 258/8 13" is 418 euros cheaper.

And i lose quad core, better graphics and smaller display in exchange for better portability and slightly better looking machine (imho)


So my question which could push me over the edge:

when 4k displays get cheaper, will the 13" with iris 5100 perform as well as the 15 with iris pro 5200?

It supports 4K only through HDMI, at 30Hz or 24Hz
Apple hasn't said anything about what you can do with Thunderbolt 2 yet
Right now it's saying 2560 * 1600

 

[mv71]

That's an interesting question which I would ask, too.

 

[Dangerdog3000]

It supports 4K only through HDMI, at 30Hz or 24Hz
Apple hasn't said anything about what you can do with Thunderbolt 2 yet
Right now it's saying 2560 * 1600

Completely different computer, but the Mac Pro can support 3 4K monitors via thunderbolt, so why wouldn't the Macbook Pro? Just a theory.

EDIT: Not saying the MbP can support 3... just that it should be able to support at least 1 via thunderbolt.