5K iMac vs ... non-5K iMac impressions (image)

Discussion in 'iMac' started by WilliamG, Oct 22, 2014.

  1. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #1
    Was just at the Apple Store, and they had a bunch of base 5K iMacs in (no high-end. Why, Apple, why?!).

    Anyway, snapped this picture with my iPhone 6 Plus on both the 2013 non-5K iMac and the 5K iMac, both from the New York Times website.

    Obviously not scientific, and I was up pretty close to the display, but you get the idea...

    The highest scaled mode you can use is 3200x1800, fyi, and it looks absolutely gorgeous, with no lag, even browsing image-heavy sites like The Verge.

    It's stunning. Just. Yeah.

    Pictures are 2560x1440 on both systems (obviously Retina 1440p on the 5K iMac). If you can't tell the difference, I have no words... :)
     

    Attached Files:

  2. bryan85 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
  3. Icculus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Location:
    Frisco, TX
    #4
    THANKS! Makes me mega excited about getting mine!
     
  4. Georgio macrumors 6502

    Georgio

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Location:
    Essex, UK
    #5
    Amazing, just shows the real world difference between old and new :D
     
  5. senseless macrumors 68000

    senseless

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    #6
    The retina looks great on my non-retina iMac?
     
  6. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
  7. leenak macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #8
    The one on the left!! ;)
     
  8. xmichaelp macrumors 68000

    xmichaelp

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #9
    OMG

    And just a few months ago people were saying retina isn't needed on the desktop and it would be way too pricy for the next few years.

    I need one.

    It's not that far off in PPI from the iPad Air and the screen is like six times the size. :eek:
     
  9. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #10
    Obviously! :cool:
     
  10. fathergll macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2014
    #11
    Impressive. I'll have to inspect it live. Problem is I have an extremely hard time justifying the cost because I already have a decent 27" monitor which I wouldn't be able to sell for squat.
     
  11. WilliamG thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #12
    And you sit much, much further away than when you use an iPad. Believe me, the screen is so, so much more impressive than an iPad's.
     
  12. macaximx macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    #13
    I was thinking of holding out. Thanks for the post!
     
  13. curtoise macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    #14
    I just want to see the difference or a review between the 5k iMac and a 4k monitor hooked to a rMBP (is what I have), I'm debating if I'll notice anything at all as the 4k monitor is already displaying "Retina" resolution HiDPI
     
  14. AppleFan360 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    #15
    I was in the Apple store today and looked at the 5K iMac along side the "regular" 27" iMac. The pictures the OP provided tell the story. You can't see any pixels at all. The images look like they are painted on.

    With that said however, I stood back at regular viewing distance and the difference between the two became not so great. Yes, the retina iMac does have a definite advantage but it's not as great as you think when viewing the screen from say arms length.

    Let us not forget that the screen on last year's iMac already looks pretty darn good. I really do want the 5K iMac but at present can't justify the cost unless I can sell my 2013 iMac for top dollar.

    I will say this though, if you are in the market for a new 27" iMac and currently have much older machine, I would look seriously at the 5K version. It's definitely worth it especially if you have the funds to handle the extra cost.
     
  15. senseless macrumors 68000

    senseless

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    #16
    I was wondering this myself. I usually lean back nearly 3 feet from my 27" screen and don't think it's going to be that much of a difference to me. Not enough to buy a new computer for this reason alone.
     
  16. curtoise macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    #17
    The opposite happened to me, I had a 27 Thunderbolt display that was a very good screen and I've used the monitor for a couple of years but after I've bought a 15' rMBP I could not look a that monitor again and it went straight to eBay, now I have a 4k monitor that looks very good and also I'm debating on getting the 5k iMac.
     
  17. singhjeet29 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #18
    While we all tend to associate 'retina' with just the higher PPI/pixel doubling, it tends to also mean the screens are factory calibrated for colour accuracy, amongst other shared attributes.

    So really it depends on the quality of the 4K monitor you already have. But what you have sounds pretty fantastic to me already. Can't see the 5K iMac being THAT much better. But really you'd have to check them out.

    Personally I was planning to do something similar to what you already have. I had decided that I would wait for the Broadwell rMBP when they announced the rMBP line, but the MBP I have now is still trucking along so well. So I may wait til the SkyLake rMBP to upgrade. Hopefully by that point we'll have the third iteration of the RiMac, and hopefully that one will allow us to use it as a monitor.
     
  18. WilliamG thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #19
    Oh boy I couldn't disagree more. I know what you're saying about sitting further back, but even now - sitting at home typing on my soon-to-be-replaced 2012 27" iMac, I can see how jagged and... unfinished the text is. With the 5K iMac that can't possibly be the case. Everything will appear so, so much more smooth.

    I can't wait. :)
     
  19. fisha macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    #20
    Thanks for the images. Certainly by those pictures there appears to be a marked and noticeable difference.

    As for the existing 27" jaggedness. I think for me, when sitting at a reasonable distance, whilst I can't discern individual pixels by themselves, I can discern that there is a jaggedness to the edges of text, and that its not quite smooth. Almost a bit saying if you look at sandpaper, whilst you can't necessarily see the grains on the paper, you can tell by looking at it there is a roughness to it.

    I'm not needing to change the iMac (even an older 2011 one at that) just yet, booths pictures are certainly compelling.
     
  20. hyune83 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    #21
    Did you notice the responsiveness between the 5k iMac and the regular one by chance?

    ----------

    Wondering as I would think it would different to drive all those pixels with a video card that's not much more powerful than the current one.
     
  21. AppleFan360 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    #22
    There is not doubt you will see a difference. All I was saying is that it may not be enough for some people to spend the money to upgrade. Don't worry, you will love it. The screen is amazing.
     
  22. AppleFan360 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    #23
    Agree. I'm quite happy with my 2013 iMac display. After looking at both side-by-side, it really is a stretch to upgrade on just 5K alone (unless of course you want upgraded internal components as well).

    This kind of reminds be when I went from a 65" 1080p display in my living room to a 4K display. While the resolution is definitely better, from a distance, its not a huge difference HOWEVER, the color saturation is amazing on 4K TV's. That was enough for me. The picture really does look very good.

    Now back to the Apple 5K display. While in the store yesterday, I was comparing the color quality between the two displays. While very good, still not a HUGE difference. That part turned me off a bit. I was expecting at least a reasonable jump in color quality like I did with my 65" 4K display. A bit disappointed in that part. Just goes to show how great the pre-5K displays are on the iMacs.
     
  23. Seramir macrumors member

    Seramir

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    #24
    The photos definitely shows a much more staggering difference compared to the naked eye. Plus, who is going to be staring that close at a display to see actual pixels?

    When I demoed the Retina and non-Retina side by side; color, brightness and contrast are almost identical. The Retina even has the subtle yellow tinge towards the bottom. The only pro the Retina has is being more sharp, particularly text. And I agree with the poster that said from a distance, they are kind of hard to tell apart.

    Also, better stock up on 5K wallpapers (unless you want to stick with the boring built-in ones for eternity). I tried a 2560 x 1440 wallpaper on the 5K display and it was all blown up, blurry and ugly.
     
  24. nrubenstein macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #25
    It depends on your vision. For me, the difference is brutally apparent. I can easily see the pixel steps in each letter from my normal viewing distance. It's very annoying, especially compared to the iPad and iPhone, which are also in front of me. I've been ready to order a Retina iMac for years. (My Late 2009 27" is otherwise perfectly fine to use with an SSD installed.)

    I will grant, however, that the difference is less extreme for many other people.
     

Share This Page