2013 iMac buyers to fear the retina display?

[ApfelKuchen]

Why would Apple's first 21"/27" Retina display be packaged in an iMac? iMac is a consumer product. Most consumers flat out don't need it. Some want it for the same reason they want more pixels in their camera sensors (more is better, right?). Yet many of those pixel-hungry photographers publish their finished work as JPGs at web-friendly resolutions, tossing away millions of pixels in the process. A price tag $1,000 higher than those great-looking regular iMacs will be enough to sober and deter most (though not all) pixel- and status-hungry consumers.

The right target market for Apple's first large-format Retina display is the buyers of Mac Pros (whether they're pros or deep-pockets consumers). Those new Mac Pros with dual GPUs (and no display). People working closer to the cutting edge of media production (4K). People who have a business justification (and budget) to pay for the stuff. The number of units required to serve that market is much small than the quantity that would be required for iMac production, which means the display manufacturers don't have to ramp-up to high-yield quantities overnight.

Repeat after me... Apple Retina Thunderbolt Display (or Apple Retina Cinema Display).

I'm with the predictions of 2015 for a Retina iMac (at the earliest). If the predictions of 55" and 65" 4K Apple TVs for fall of 2014 are on target, then Retina Thunderbolt Display by then, too. iMac a year or two later.

 

[jayselle]

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.

This++. For those still thinking the iMac needs a Retina, read this again. Probably 2015 before it's an option.

A 4K Thunderbolt Display that the Mac Pro could be a possibility in 2014.

 

[mrmarts]

This++. For those still thinking the iMac needs a Retina, read this again. Probably 2015 before it's an option.

A 4K Thunderbolt Display that the Mac Pro could be a possibility in 2014.

Thunderbolt 2 will become standard in late 2014 IMacs, however Apple is slow at adopting new technology, so i would say we will get a retina beyond 2015 maybe late 2016.

 

[ioannis2005gr]

Thunderbolt 2 will become standard in late 2014 IMacs, however Apple is slow at adopting new technology, so i would say we will get a retina beyond 2015 maybe late 2016.

I agree!

However, don't forget, USB 3.1 (2014 standard spec) will double the existing USB 3.0 speed...TB 2.0 will do the same...there will be a "high" competition and APPLE has to adopt both new standards in 2014 Mac series update.

 

[kis]

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?

I wouldn't worry about it - Retina displays are NOWHERE in sight for panels that large. The current 4K displays have a pixel density of around 145 ppi (nowhere near retina) - these suckers cost 3000$ upwards, just for the display. In a year, they'll probably be around 1500 bucks, still too expensive to be used in an iMac, unless Apple releases a 4000$ machine. Also, current graphics boards wouldn't be able to even drive a retina 27" screen - the next Mac Pro is able to do 4K and that's it.

I'm guessing they'll announce a 4K ACD together with the Mac Pro. It'll be another 1.5 years until that panel shows up in an iMac. First, they need to be able to produce them in ample quantities.

 

[Moonjumper]

My corrected vision is better than 20/20. I can really notice the pixels on my iMac, especially after looking at my retina iPad.

Retina screens won't benefit gaming, but they will those doing graphical work will. Reduced eyestrain from clearer text is reason enough for me to want it. Being able to display a retina iPad at native resolution for app development is another reason for me.

4K TVs have dropped to about 50% more expensive than their equivalent 1080p model (I'm comparing to the top model of the same size from the same manufacturer because they are feature comparable). Retina is now common at up to 10" screens, and getting there up to 15". There is a gap between 15" and 50" where there are only niche products, so their low volumes means the price isn't a good indicator of what is possible.

The HD4000 that has been in macs for a year is 4K capable, and that is only an integrated GPU. There is the performance available for a retina iMac.

 

[Takuro]

With the old Mac Pro and iMac, pro functionality and performance eventually trickled down between the two products lines to the point where some newer iMacs outperform 2-3 year old Mac Pros. I expect this trend is going to follow.

The new Mac Pro represents a huge step forward in terms of Thunderbolt 2.0 and PCIe flash. The iMac already as the latter. TB 2.0 is an inevitability.

I'm going to personally wait to see if a TB 2.0 4k display is announced this upcoming month. Seems extremely unlikely, but if it is, a retina iMac isn't more than a year or so off. I don't mind waiting a couple weeks just to validate this. Afterward, I'll buy an iMac rather than hold off any longer.

 

[aggri1]

Those saying that games would suffer, or that they'd be unplayable at native resolution, on a hypotheical 'retina' 27" screen: simply running such a hypothetical 'retina' screen at exactly half its native resolution would allow games to look and play exactly as they do now on the non-retina screen (neglecting the obvious fact that you'd have a better GPU by then...).

 

[kis]

Seems extremely unlikely, but if it is, a retina iMac isn't more than a year or so off.

Note sure how you come to that conclusion - 4K is nowhere near Retina resolution

 

[mrmarts]

I agree!

However, don't forget, USB 3.1 (2014 standard spec) will double the existing USB 3.0 speed...TB 2.0 will do the same...there will be a "high" competition and APPLE has to adopt both new standards in 2014 Mac series update.

It is well observant of you to bring up that important point. The reason why I focused on thunderbolt 2.0 is because it adopts 4k compatible and is more relevant to the thread.

I believe like most that the thunderbolt port is heading for a slow death much like its predecessor Firewire. One factor that hinders its widespread adoption is the timing of its launch with the majority of Macs missing out on the port this year (excluding the Mac Pro) Its mainstream launch will therefore coincide with the USB 3.1 revision, whilst its up for some stiff competition.

I also have mentioned this in my previous posts its come to a stage that potential buyers are not getting mac products (desktops iMac/Mini, tablets Mini etc) because it does not have a retina display. I nearly became a part of this cult. Consequently they are undermining recent developments like the fusion drive, and the recent update to the iMac's display.

Thus for those that are bitchin or griping because the iMac does not have a retina display yet, ask yourself this question: How long can I live without a computer? With no determined dates and rumours that are possibly pointing to a updated retina thunderbolt display (wallpaper leaks and the introduction thunderbolt 2.0 on the Mac Pro first), you are going to be in for a long and agonising wait.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Why would we "fear" it? Our screens are perfectly fine. If we think a "Retina" iMac is worth the upgrade later, we can sell our current model and upgrade. No biggie.

 

[Takuro]

Note sure how you come to that conclusion - 4K is nowhere near Retina resolution

Saying it's *nowhere near* is a gross exaggeration. We're talking 4,000 pixels horizontal (4k) versus about 5,000 pixels horizontal (true retina.) It's pretty darned close and would be a decent improvement over the current 2560 horizontal resolution. For all we know, the displays Apple will inevitably launch with the Mac Pro could actually exceed 4k, giving video professionals some extra desk real-estate for the GUI of the video editor itself. Makes sense?

Anyway, whether it's true retina or not isn't the point I'm trying to make here. If Apple announces a revamped Cinema Display with the debut of the Mac Pro, I'm holding off before buying an iMac. It will eventually get the same display panel. Eventually.

Believe me, if the displays are anywhere near ready in terms of development, panel vendor selection, and assembly, they will move heaven and earth to get them to ship near the same time as the Mac Pro to avoid people seeking alternate vendors in the interim. There's a giant market of video professionals who are upset over lack of updates to the Mac Pro for years, so the revenue generated by selling displays along with the new model would be massive. If they miss this critical target, it's a sign that they really aren't anywhere ready to roll out new display tech, so it's a safer bet to buy an iMac now. I think that's sound logic.

I'll venture a guess, but I predict the following:

1) When the new cinema display launches, it will cost north of $1.5k
2) When the iMac eventually gets the display tech, it will be offered as a premium option probably for $500 at absolute minimum, and it may very well only be available on the 21 inch model at start. Like with the MacBook, there's going to be an option for the old non retina (or non 4k) screen.

 

[Djtrackie]

Saying it's *nowhere near* is a gross exaggeration. We're talking 4,000 pixels horizontal (4k) versus about 5,000 pixels horizontal (true retina.) It's pretty darned close and would be a decent improvement over the current 2560 horizontal resolution. For all we know, the displays Apple will inevitably launch with the Mac Pro could actually exceed 4k, giving video professionals some extra desk real-estate for the GUI of the video editor itself. Makes sense?

Anyway, whether it's true retina or not isn't the point I'm trying to make here. If Apple announces a revamped Cinema Display with the debut of the Mac Pro, I'm holding off before buying an iMac. It will eventually get the same display panel. Eventually.

Believe me, if the displays are anywhere near ready in terms of development, panel vendor selection, and assembly, they will move heaven and earth to get them to ship near the same time as the Mac Pro to avoid people seeking alternate vendors in the interim. There's a giant market of video professionals who are upset over lack of updates to the Mac Pro for years, so the revenue generated by selling displays along with the new model would be massive. If they miss this critical target, it's a sign that they really aren't anywhere ready to roll out new display tech, so it's a safer bet to buy an iMac now. I think that's sound logic.

I'll venture a guess, but I predict the following:

1) When the new cinema display launches, it will cost north of $1.5k
2) When the iMac eventually gets the display tech, it will be offered as a premium option probably for $500 at absolute minimum, and it may very well only be available on the 21 inch model at start. Like with the MacBook, there's going to be an option for the old non retina (or non 4k) screen.

seems like a good, reasonable analysis. Thumbs up.

 

[mrmarts]

Anyway, whether it's true retina or not isn't the point I'm trying to make here. If Apple announces a revamped Cinema Display with the debut of the Mac Pro, I'm holding off before buying an iMac. It will eventually get the same display panel. Eventually.


it is illogical and silly just to wait for retina display. Remember when a Retina iMac hits the store shelves there will hardly any games or software that would take advantage of that resolution (there many games that have yet to take advantage of the 15" Macbook Retina resolution ).

Not to also forget the number of websites which are not optimised for that resolution. Did i forgot to mention that there is no Ultra HD content on iTunes. Hence chances of seeing a Retina Imac next year is 1 to a 100. However a Retina Cinema Display may trail the Mac Pro launch next year (whether early or late is still debatable).

 

[kis]

Saying it's *nowhere near* is a gross exaggeration. We're talking 4,000 pixels horizontal (4k) versus about 5,000 pixels horizontal (true retina.)

The currently available 4K displays feature a resolution of 3840x2160 - at around 30" (smaller ones aren't even available yet). One of the smallest ones is the Asus PQ321QE. That one clocks in at 31.5" - that translates into a PPI of 139.87 - and yes, that's nowhere near Retina (which, for a larger screen, would be somewhere around 190 ppi). Let's stay factual here. Would a 4K iMac be a great improvement? Heck yeah. Will it be available within the next 1.5 years? Highly unlikely, considering that 4K panels aren't available in massive quantities and that they cost around 3000$ at the moment.

 

[djrod]

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!

A 27 retina iMac would be 5120x2880

 

[R.dub]

Good discussion here, but personally I have no fear of this. I think the 2013 iMac will really have 2-3 years of good life in it, in my opinion. The 2012 is pretty strong for that matter.

When the MacBook Pro w/Retina arrived, with the Nvidia 650, I looked at Retina and non-Retina side-by-side. It appeared to me that there was not enough video card performance to handle Retina as smoothly as non-R, I thought it was a little choppy. Obviously that depends what you are using it for... That's as far as I looked into it, and I bought a non-Retina. Also I obtained a TB display for use at home, so I don't think I missed out on a "Retina experience" since that computer is mostly used at home with the TB display. I am curious, I thought I saw something where the MacBook throttled performance within electrical power availability, i.e. powering the internal screen uses power, so by-design the machine wouldn't perform at it's best with the internal screen, etc. Before I moved on to the iMac, I actually ran this MacBook with a 24" Cinema instead of a 27" TB display in order to keep the pixel count down so it would perform faster. I'll need to search for that again someday...

A few months ago I obtained a 2012 iMac with a 680 Nvidia card. Ran decent, but in a few things I found the limits of its video performance. Upgraded to a 2013 with a 780 Nvidia, and it runs perfectly for me. The 780 card and the 4GB video RAM were just what it needed to power the 27" screen in native res for what I do. The 2013 iMac has a nice balance of performance across all of its parts, the CPU/SSD/video card and screen resolution are all up to par. Again, depending on what you use a computer for YMMV.

With both the TB display and the iMac, I can see individual pixels when I look for them, but when I'm just using the computer I do not notice individual pixels... it just works. With the above in mind, I don't think the iMac needs Retina. More importantly, I don't think a jump to a Retina screen would be matched by the right internal hardware upgrades--yet, or in the near term--to make a Retina iMac a great experience in 2014.

Unfortunately, I think today's Apple team might be willing to release a Retina iMac "early" onto the market, before the whole package was perfect--I'd be skeptical of the first year or so, doubtful that the first edition would good enough...

Imagining what it would take to perform well within today's hardware: Nvidia SLI, and maybe a more robust CPU/MB/RAM set up to keep up, like maybe a Xeon hex-core/multi-CPU. So near-term, a Mac Pro, or a Hackintosh (with SLI support in OSX)? At that point, you've gone pretty far past the iMac form factor, and power requirements, etc. Plus I'm not sure what we'd see in terms of software really using that capacity. I could be wrong, maybe there are some new things coming out...but I haven't seen any roadmaps that make me think so.

So again, no fear here, at the moment.

PS - I am not against Retina. Love it in my iPhone, I look forward to it in a future notebook, and am really hoping to see it in the iPad Mini for my spouse soon.

 

[X-Ravin]

A 27 retina iMac would be 5120x2880

Well it will be whatever Apple deems it to be won't it?

 

[scottsjack]

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?

I am anticipating replacing my aging EyeTV/DVR mini with a 21.5" iMac. An HD resolution screen is exactly what I want. The OK-quality GPU available in the smaller iMac should be great for HD TV and Blu-ray.

Since a lot of US HD TV is still in 720p I am totally confident that my new iMac will give four to five years of service. Both the late 2009 mini and the late 2008 MBP that I am writing this on are still going very strong. Strong that is in a really weak C2D fashion.

 

[theluggage]

A 27 retina iMac would be 5120x2880

Depends on how you define "retina".

There's a fairly balanced discussion here: http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

TLDNR: Because of the larger viewing distance, 4192×2358 should be enough to take the angular resolution of a 27" display to the limit of human vision - but in "best for retina" mode that would result in standard icons and other 'screen furniture' being physically larger than on the current 27" 1440p display - hence some people see the need for exactly doubling the res to 5120x2880.

OTOH, although theoretically inferior, the "scaled" modes on rMBPs look pretty darned good - so I suspect that 5120x2880 scaled down to 4192x2359 or even UHD 3840x2160 would look pretty good.

My guess, though, is that a UHD version of the 21.5" iMac - which would be 2x linear resolution c.f. the current 1920x1080 is a more likely product.