2013 iMac buyers to fear the retina display?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by ventuss, Oct 4, 2013.

  1. ventuss macrumors 6502

    Oct 9, 2011
    Do you believe in an iMac with a retina display as soon as 2014? I know many of you customized the iMac and are paying premium price, it is expected that you'd want to keep it for at least two or three years.

    How many years do you usually keep an iMac before upgrading?
    Who'd go for the it? Who'd wait a couple of years?

    Why are you buying an iMac now, and not waiting for the 2014.. 2015 iMac?
  2. quintilian macrumors newbie

    Sep 27, 2013
    I think the 1440-display is really good as it is, and doesn't "fear" a retina upgrade at all... Even if it came out Q1 2014 I wouldn't really care... The current monitor is more than good enough...

    Me and my GF is also pretty hardcore gamers (even if we go for Macs!), and a retina resolution would mean that we couldn't play games on the native resolution any more... (too graphic intensive).... So 1440 suits us perfectly :)
  3. wim.v macrumors member


    Jul 13, 2011
    Because I need one now…

    I already needed one in June but I have patiently waited for the next update. I've maxed out the iMac and I expect to use it for the next 5 years to come. (or even longer)
    If the next iMac will get a retina display…. So be it. I don't have problems having not the latest and the greatest.
  4. hiutin macrumors newbie

    Mar 23, 2012
    If you want it now, buy it, who know what going on tomorrow.

    Let say, 2014 have retina iMac but without thunderbolt 2.0, will you be fear 2015 model have it?

    You can never catch up the tech update speed, so buy if you really need it, if your mind wonder about 2014 model , that's mean you are not really need it now.

    My personal guess, 2014 4k tv price will still high , which mean it hard for apple to put a 27' retina display on a iMac ( retina iMac have more pixel than 4K).

    But apple might release a 4K display for MacPro in 2014 and price around 2.5-3k
  5. ventuss thread starter macrumors 6502

    Oct 9, 2011
    I've been waiting for a retina display for the 2012 iMac, and when the 2013 iMac was out and no retina display, that was it, I can't wait any longer, and I don't see it coming until 2015.

    I believe it will be like the MacBook Pro, where Apple launches a super expensive 21.5" iMac with retina display, while still selling the normal iMacs. And yes, my fear is that also being a gamer, would't want to buy the first generation of iMac with Retina display.

    The first generation of MacBook Pro with retina display have a GeForce 650M, one of the most powerful GPU to fit into a super slim laptop, still, it gets underpowered by that amazing screen, so I don't plan on buying the first generation iMac with retina display, be it 2014, 2015 or later.
  6. Serban Suspended

    Jan 8, 2013
    the LG panels from 27" imac still have issues and you want to go for retina display?? oh my god :))
  7. mrmarts, Oct 4, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2013

    mrmarts macrumors 65816

    Feb 6, 2009
    Melbourne Australia
    I want a retina display too, but i need a Imac and cannot be bothered to wait until 2015 or even 2016 without a IMac. The reason why i threw 2016 in, is because no one knows when a retina display is coming for all we next years imac will more than likely get the thunderbolt 2.0 update but will less than likely get a retina display.

    That said have you read todays rumor http://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/03/new-report-summarizes-display-rumors-for-future-apple-devices/ if not there is no mention of a retina iMac and I believe that you might be gravely dispointed come 2014 and maybe 2015 heres why:

    a) Apple is slow at adopting new technology look at the blu ray controversy awhile back you might be waiting until Ultra HD goes mainstream if you can stomach that.

    b) The Retina display in Apple's philosophy seems to always fall on higher models, for argument sake lets put it this way:

    Phones: Iphone 5s Retina vs Iphone 5c Non Retina.
    Tablets: ipad 4 Retina vs Ipad Mini Non Retina.
    Laptops Macbook Pro Retina vs Mac Air Non Retina
    Desktop Macbook Pro 4K support vs Imac vs Mini Non Retina

    c) There is still little software or games that even support retina displays

    d) It would sound logical for Apple to double its resolution when it introduces Ultra HD content on its itunes store, or when video cards can handle it.

    e) The Imac has just received a huge redesign there might be a possibility that a retina may come in the next redesign but can you wait.

    f) To reiterate others comments the price of 27" retina panels are costly and impractical for Apple to mass produce.
  8. dpace32 macrumors regular

    Aug 24, 2008
    iPhone 5C does have retina :) but I agree with the rest of your logic!
  9. mrmarts macrumors 65816

    Feb 6, 2009
    Melbourne Australia
    Does it, ah well there goes that logic that high end models only get retina.
  10. smiddlehurst macrumors 65816

    Jun 5, 2007
    Not a chance IMO. Sorry but I don't believe you're going to see a Retina-equipped iMac for some time. Two reasons:

    1) Cost. 4k panels (which I'm assuming is what you're talking about here) are still incredibly expensive. A very quick look has the ASUS 4k display coming in over £3,000 in the UK! While Apple would have huge volume compared to the current offerings I just don't believe it's going to come down enough to be viable in 2014.

    2) GPU power. And here we hit the real problem. Right now even a herd of Nvidia Titan's has difficulty driving 4k displays at native res for gaming purposes. Sure you can compromise and get away with a lower spec GPU but then you're looking at 30fps or lower and with a lot of the bells and whistles turned firmly off. Trying to run it on a mobile chip is likely to be less than fun.

    And when you get right down to it what benefits does it bring? Laptops equipped with Retina displays make sense as you tend to work quite close but a 27" iMac is that bit further away and, while there's certainly scope for improving clarity, it's nowhere near the same improvement.

    Fundamentally I just don't see the technology being available at a price point Apple would need and with the necessary power/performance compromises for a few years yet. And even if it does it's not a major problem. The 2013 iMac is a beautiful bit of kit that's going to be more than fast enough to keep users happy for a long time. When it's time to upgrade you'd get all the benefits of a retina display but with even more improvements under the hood.
  11. Bear macrumors G3

    Jul 23, 2002
    Sol III - Terra
    I tend to keep Macs 3 to 5 years. My current one is looking like a 4 year one and will probably be replacing it as soon as the model I want hits the refurbished section.

    Do I fear the retina display? Yes I do but not in the way you mean. I don't think we'll have GPUs in the iMac that are capable of driving it properly for a couple or years at least. So If I get a new Mac this year, then I'd be looking at 2018 before I'd be replacing it most likely.
  12. KaraH macrumors 6502

    Nov 12, 2012
    Considering my current one is 2007 and 6 years was on the low side of when I order a new machine ...

    I am in no hurry for retina. Many applications (including ones I use) do not play nice with it.
  13. X-Ravin macrumors regular

    Nov 30, 2008
    A 27" Retina display would be a beautiful piece of engineering for sure, but having dealt with my MBPr I'd probably prefer to just have 1440p. I do a lot of stuff in Bootcamp with gaming, and bootcamp is a royal pain with a retina screen. Everything either looks terrible, or is way too small.

    The other issue, as has been mentioned, is the GPU power required to run at native resolution. Some rough numbers show that to achieve the same PPI as the MBPr, the 27" iMac would have a resolution in the neighborhood of 5300x3000. That's nearly 16 million pixels!
  14. inhalexhale1 macrumors 6502a

    Jul 17, 2011
    Ridgewood, NJ
    What mobile graphics card would be able to run a display at that resolution? I just don't see it happening. Now, maybe a retina TB Display could happen.
  15. EntropyQ3 macrumors member

    Mar 20, 2009
    Basically all mobile graphics cards, including the Iris graphics built into the Haswell generation of Intel processors support 3960x2160 graphics.

    If you want to run the latest games at native resolution (why?) and can't be arsed to adjust the graphics settings to something that gives good playability (again, why?), then you will probably have frame rate issues. And that won't change over time either, as the "latest games" are a moving target.

    Why that should be a reason for the rest of us not to have access to higher resolution displays is a bit opaque to me.
  16. Tjosansa macrumors regular


    Jul 27, 2013
    I dont see the use of a Retina display on a 27" Display just yet..
    How laggy wouldnt that be when playing a game at native resolution ;D
  17. joe-h2o macrumors 6502a

    Jun 24, 2012
    If you want retina on the iMac, just sit further away (32 inches away, to be exact).

    All the noise about how the iMac "needs" retina simply doesn't take into account that the screen on the 27" is almost retina already by the strict definition of the term ( a = 2 tan^-1 (h/2d) ) where d is the distance from the screen, h is the distance between pixels and a is the angle subtended by that spacing. For the average human with "perfect" vision, the distance you need to sit from the iMac 27" screen is 32 inches for it to be considered retina.

    I just measured how far I sit from my iMac 27" and it's 28 inches, which is just where I feel comfortable (your mileage may vary), so I need to back up by about 4 inches...

    ...or I wait an indefinite number of years for Apple to put a $4000 4k panel into the iMac.

    I know which I prefer, especially since I also use this machine to game driving the panel at native resolution.

    The reason there's no 'retina' iMac is that's it's simply not feasible to put a panel like that in one right now (affordably, and GPU-wise), and the current one is 90% of the way there anyway.
  18. elithrar macrumors 6502


    May 31, 2007
    It's more than just 'adjusting the settings'. Most games will just be unplayable. You're pushing over double the pixels.

    Note that it's not just games, though: many (and more every year) applications rely on GPU acceleration. They'll also have to push more pixels: a lot more. You can't just "adjust the settings" there either.

    Going from 1440x900 to 2800x1800 is one thing, but going from 2560x1440 to >= 3840x2160 is a bigger jump still.

    And has been covered in many other threads before, "4K" may not be enough to provide Retina level pixel density, even when you account for the viewing distance on a 27" desktop vs. a laptop.

    4K/5K desktops will come. But don't be disappointed if it's not next year.
  19. mrmarts macrumors 65816

    Feb 6, 2009
    Melbourne Australia
    I just wanted to add this to the thread started are you seriously willing to sacrifice years without a computer until a retina display emerges. Have you heard about the revisions to thunderbolt 2.0 this should promise 4k output next year. Otherwise why don't you buy now the Imacs screen has been vastly improved compared to its predecessors and the 780m will make you forget about waiting for something which is light years away.
  20. inhalexhale1 macrumors 6502a

    Jul 17, 2011
    Ridgewood, NJ
    I mentioned games or people shouldn't have this display?

    But since you brought it up, the sarcastic "why's" show you could care less about gaming. Great. But if you did, you'd know playing at reduced resolution also reduces the quality of the image. Also, at 3960x2160 it would have to be a giant step down.
  21. activate macrumors regular

    Dec 24, 2011
    I have read tonnes of analysts views and predictions re this topic, including explanations why the resolution that a 27" retina displays may well be irrelevant because of viewing distance, somewhat similar to the theories behind 720p and 1080 tvs dependent on viewing distance.

    Anyway, from seeing how Apple seems to manipulate its markets, I also think it will follow the Mac Pro marketing strategy.
  22. KaraH macrumors 6502

    Nov 12, 2012
    Exactly. While games are a way to goof off it is telling what people report breaks in them when they run them on a retina screen: custom UI elements (ie, not mac standard windows) are smaller compared to everything else when they adjust sizes. I am going to hazard a guess that any productivity application that uses the same technique will have the same problem.

    I find it useful to keep a weather eye on specs and issues related to games. Typically they push the envelope in multiple areas: networking, graphics, cpu, memory. Needs and problems pertaining to them will affect everyone else at some point.
  23. Erphern macrumors 6502

    Mar 6, 2013
    Would I even notice the difference with a retina iMac from normal viewing distances? My new 2013 iMac has a better display than anything I've ever used before - it's amazing!
  24. Acorn macrumors 68020


    Jan 2, 2009
    I dont care about retina display. I think my imac screen is quite nice. most of the stuff I would like to have is already in the recent imac update. honestly I dont care if retina ever comes. even if I was ready for an upgrade I wouldnt care.
  25. joe-h2o macrumors 6502a

    Jun 24, 2012
    If you sit more than 32" from the screen and have 20/20 eyesight, no - you are already getting retina based on the DPI of the current screen.

    If you sit closer (I sit 28" from mine) then you might benefit, but you'll be paying a huge cost in computer power and financially to get "retina" in the way that everyone in this thread is yelling for.

Share This Page