27 inch retina thunderbolt display?
- Thread starter Baytriple
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
basesloaded190
macrumors 68030
It's going to be a while until we see something like that.
paulrbeers
macrumors 68040
That's a lot of pixels. Seriously, doing the math on that:
2560 x 1440 = 3686400 x 4 = 14,745,600
Good lord, sure for 2D stuff modern video cards could probably handle it, but you wouldn't be able to run more than one!
2560 x 1440 = 3686400 x 4 = 14,745,600
Good lord, sure for 2D stuff modern video cards could probably handle it, but you wouldn't be able to run more than one!
Rizzm
macrumors 6502a
Current high-res displays are nearly, if not already, "Retina." Can you see the pixels at your viewing distance?
Maybe you're just asking for higher resolution displays, which would be slightly different.
tersono
macrumors 68000
Honestly, I don't see the need. I'm sitting in front of the current thunderbolt display right now and it's so damned sharp at a normal viewing distance, I'm not sure that doubling the resolution would actually make that much difference - I speak as someone prone to eyestrain, but I've never experienced it with this display.
Thanks peeps for the info. My monitor is 1900x1200 and I have just seen the thunderbolt ones are 2500x1250.
Sorry these numbers are approximations as I don't have real figures in front of me.
Oh exciting. Think I'll ave to get one of these with the new retina I have just purchased.
Honestly I see no need at all. That would be so many pixels that it would be completely unnecessary. The current TB-display already have an incredibly high resolution. Having a 27" retina would be disgustingly expensive(at least right now, in the future it will drop obviously) and shockingly demanding. You'd need a really good GPU-card to go with it.
And even then you wouldn't really be able to do anything demanding like video-editing(which is kinda the reason in the first place you would want a higher resolution display; if you're into video/image -editing).
And even then you wouldn't really be able to do anything demanding like video-editing(which is kinda the reason in the first place you would want a higher resolution display; if you're into video/image -editing).
I've just read this post in the voice of sheldon from the big bang theory. Thanks you made me smile.
I just ordered the 27 inch thunderbolt display.
My next task would be to get a thunderbolt SSD external drive but I just can't justify what these guys are asking for at the moment.
It might make sense to hold off until they update it to USB 3.0 and MagSafe 2. I bet they do that concurrently with the new iMac release (which might be late July). I think we need another 2-3 years until we see retina iMacs and thunderbolt displays.
Glad I made you smile! Reading this made me smile
Prices of TB-accessories will drop once more accessories become available and as more companies jump on the train - hold on for a little while longer and by the end of the year the prices will hopefully have dropped enough to justify buying!
Speculation for 2013 but there are a lot of factors
The answer to this question depends when will Apple think that there's a ripe technology for providing a good retina experience on a 27" display.
The resolution of the display will be derived from what Apple think is the retina resolution for it. Apple have been diligently quadrupling resolutions these past 2 years, but there remains a simple fact that for over a decade graphic buffers have not been designed to handle more than 3840 x 2560 (yes a 4:3 resolution), and in recent years even less (2560 x 1600 even for the top of the line Radeon and GeForce). I assume there's a good chance we won't see a quadrupling of resolution for the retina 27", simply because it will not be necessary to achieve a retina feel. It might require just a 4k (4096 x 2304) resolution for that, which is a very achievable goal for modern graphics accelerators to push.
Resolutions per screens aside, it seems that modern graphics cards have to ability to push this many pixels but to more than one display. A rMBP was shown to run with 3 external displays, pushing a total of 14,860,800 pixels(!) (2560*1440 * 2 + 1920 * 1200 + 2880*1800). The total resolution for a real quadrupling of the current 27" Thunderbolt Display has slightly less pixels (5120 x 2880 = 14,745,600). But bare in mind that Apple would also not compromise on multiple displays, so you have to multiply this number by 2-4.
So I think that we might see a retina (4k) iMac by the end of this year, if they'll be able to push a top of the line graphics accelerator into it, that might be able to support up to one more retina display (or more, if they'll push more than one GPU inside it). This speculations stems from the fact that the iMacs are overdue for a refurbishment and Apple is still taking its time. Even if there will be such a device it might be sold along a refurbishment of the old iMacs. Similar to the rMBP and the new MBPs with the old design.
But I think there's also a very good chance that it will come by 2013, since Tim Cook was quoted to have something "very special" for professionals in 2013 when he was asked why the upgrade to the Mac Pro line was so modest.
I also think that Apple intends to retina all of its products, and they want to finish that move as soon as possible since, it's a lot of work, for seemingly small end-value (but a lot of glory), and they want to move to other features as well.
The answer to this question depends when will Apple think that there's a ripe technology for providing a good retina experience on a 27" display.
The resolution of the display will be derived from what Apple think is the retina resolution for it. Apple have been diligently quadrupling resolutions these past 2 years, but there remains a simple fact that for over a decade graphic buffers have not been designed to handle more than 3840 x 2560 (yes a 4:3 resolution), and in recent years even less (2560 x 1600 even for the top of the line Radeon and GeForce). I assume there's a good chance we won't see a quadrupling of resolution for the retina 27", simply because it will not be necessary to achieve a retina feel. It might require just a 4k (4096 x 2304) resolution for that, which is a very achievable goal for modern graphics accelerators to push.
Resolutions per screens aside, it seems that modern graphics cards have to ability to push this many pixels but to more than one display. A rMBP was shown to run with 3 external displays, pushing a total of 14,860,800 pixels(!) (2560*1440 * 2 + 1920 * 1200 + 2880*1800). The total resolution for a real quadrupling of the current 27" Thunderbolt Display has slightly less pixels (5120 x 2880 = 14,745,600). But bare in mind that Apple would also not compromise on multiple displays, so you have to multiply this number by 2-4.
So I think that we might see a retina (4k) iMac by the end of this year, if they'll be able to push a top of the line graphics accelerator into it, that might be able to support up to one more retina display (or more, if they'll push more than one GPU inside it). This speculations stems from the fact that the iMacs are overdue for a refurbishment and Apple is still taking its time. Even if there will be such a device it might be sold along a refurbishment of the old iMacs. Similar to the rMBP and the new MBPs with the old design.
But I think there's also a very good chance that it will come by 2013, since Tim Cook was quoted to have something "very special" for professionals in 2013 when he was asked why the upgrade to the Mac Pro line was so modest.
I also think that Apple intends to retina all of its products, and they want to finish that move as soon as possible since, it's a lot of work, for seemingly small end-value (but a lot of glory), and they want to move to other features as well.
Last edited:
cypherpunks01
macrumors newbie
I think we can see a 27" imac or thunderdisplay with increased pixel density this year. But it won't be 4x as in iPhone / iPad / MacBook.
Let's do some math:
Currently display have 2560 * 1600, that's 108.79 PPI.
NVidia Kepler (retina GPU) supported graphic modes: http://www.nvidia.in/object/geforce-gt-650m-in.html#pdpContent=2. We see "Max DVI resolution 3840x2160". I've also saw some info it actually supports 2400 pixels in horizontal.
Thunderbolt cable can handle 20Gbps currently. 20 / 32 bits per pixel / 60Hz = 10Mpx. Which is 3840 * 2400 at 16:10.
So basically we have two options:
3840 * 2400 @ 27 = 167.72 PPI
3360 * 2100 @ 27 = 146.75 PPI
Intel has this "resolution roadmap":
I'd say first option have about 60% chance to appear and the second 40%.
160 pixels per inch sounds like a real retina display implying increased view distance for monitor. Also, this resolution is 4K, which will be very good marketing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution.
Let's do some math:
Currently display have 2560 * 1600, that's 108.79 PPI.
NVidia Kepler (retina GPU) supported graphic modes: http://www.nvidia.in/object/geforce-gt-650m-in.html#pdpContent=2. We see "Max DVI resolution 3840x2160". I've also saw some info it actually supports 2400 pixels in horizontal.
Thunderbolt cable can handle 20Gbps currently. 20 / 32 bits per pixel / 60Hz = 10Mpx. Which is 3840 * 2400 at 16:10.
So basically we have two options:
3840 * 2400 @ 27 = 167.72 PPI
3360 * 2100 @ 27 = 146.75 PPI
Intel has this "resolution roadmap":
I'd say first option have about 60% chance to appear and the second 40%.
160 pixels per inch sounds like a real retina display implying increased view distance for monitor. Also, this resolution is 4K, which will be very good marketing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution.
Last edited:
cypherpunks01
macrumors newbie
bump. we have wallpapers in Mavericks indicating there will definitely be retina iMac / thunderbolt display soon.
GeForce 7 still support 4K max, so no 5120x2880 for us.
http://www.nvidia.in/object/geforce-gtx-700m-graphics-cards-in.html#pdpContent=2
GeForce 7 still support 4K max, so no 5120x2880 for us.
http://www.nvidia.in/object/geforce-gtx-700m-graphics-cards-in.html#pdpContent=2
I doubt we will go 5120x2880. The reason is that there is nothing out there to drive such a resolution. Industry is still moving slowly to 4k and even the nVidia Titan could possibly have problem to render modern 3D engines at 4k smoothly. Not to mention neither thunderbolt nor DisplayPort's latest revision has such resolution in their spec.
And such resolution is not on any panel makers' roadmap.
The only solution that I can think of, should Apple actually find a manufacturer to make 5120x2880 panels, would be putting a good hardware-based scaler that scales 2560x1440 signals into 5120x2880. Thus achieving retina and yet not requiring major hardware overhaul.
And such resolution is not on any panel makers' roadmap.
The only solution that I can think of, should Apple actually find a manufacturer to make 5120x2880 panels, would be putting a good hardware-based scaler that scales 2560x1440 signals into 5120x2880. Thus achieving retina and yet not requiring major hardware overhaul.
remember that thanks to apple now others have high def on laptops...everybody has to come out to sustain that 2880x1800 on 15" retina macbook. So i think nvidia is in talks to apple already (amd is for mac pro already done) to release this year or begin of next year 27" retina along with 21.5". Remember Tim cooks already said that amazing products are coming this late year and beginning 2014...beside mac pro what else? mini ipad retina?? already we know that and no big deal...same thing with iphone 5s and retina macbook pro haswell. So must to be the thing that retina is going UP
cypherpunks01
macrumors newbie
Thunderbolt 2 which will be in new Mac Pro supports 4K. New Mac pro also supports 3 4K displays
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7049/intel-thunderbolt-2-everything-you-need-to-know
There were retina wallpapers for Mountain Lion - no retina iMac though. The retina wallpapers for Mavericks are most likely for the rMBPs.
That's why I said 5120 is unlikely as there is 0 hardware/software support out there.
If there's a 27" retina, I'm gonna bet that it's 4k display rather than anything else.
I have a different theory about the retina "wallpaper" for Mavericks.
First off, it was part of their website advertisement, and they always provide @2x images at precisely twice their conventional resolution. Secondly, for reasons of layout, the image was sized at 2560x1440, so that it would fill the entire width of the screen on almost any normal setup.
Putting the two together, they end up including a 5120x2880 image even if they don't plan on introducing any screens of this res any time soon.
A 27" ATD with 4K res seems unlikely to me since Apple would need to introduce 1.5x DPI scale to OSX to support it. (Or scaled modes.) 21.5" 4K is more likely.
First off, it was part of their website advertisement, and they always provide @2x images at precisely twice their conventional resolution. Secondly, for reasons of layout, the image was sized at 2560x1440, so that it would fill the entire width of the screen on almost any normal setup.
Putting the two together, they end up including a 5120x2880 image even if they don't plan on introducing any screens of this res any time soon.
A 27" ATD with 4K res seems unlikely to me since Apple would need to introduce 1.5x DPI scale to OSX to support it. (Or scaled modes.) 21.5" 4K is more likely.