Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nice, already using it!

ScreenShot2013-06-10at54857PM_zpsd2ecd99b.png
 
Why do you doubt it? You can already run two 2560x1600 displays as well as the internal display at an effective 3840x2400, which is a shedload more pixels than this...

I read on these forums a few times that required bandwidth for such a display would need to be double that of the current thunderbolt standard. That I don't know for sure just going by what I have read here a few times. I really hope that isn't the case though and you're right :)
 
Dang, I was thinking about getting a new iMac or Thunderbolt display. Now I'll have to wait for the Retina version (assuming there'll be one) as the MacBook Retina screen is drop-dead gorgeous.

I hadn't expected today's announcements to derail my upgrade plans, but all credit to them, they've managed it. There's a nice Mac-R2D2-Pro space available on my desk already...
 
huh? its 3.3MB!

Edit: I'm guessing that was sarcasm.

Actually, it wasn't really sarcasm. That image is almost 3x the size of the 2560x1440 picture, so it will take 3x to download. Then, I'm talking about all of the websites that you go to start programming for retina displays and putting up content like that, and all of the sudden you will find that your cache is 3 times what it is today, and it takes longer to surf - Safari won't seem quite as "snappy" anymore, and it's because its dealing with a ton more data.

I wasn't talking just about one picture, but the notion that once this happens to all of the pictures on all of the sites that folks visit with retina machines, then things get out of hand.
 
I read on these forums a few times that required bandwidth for such a display would need to be double that of the current thunderbolt standard. That I don't know for sure just going by what I have read here a few times. I really hope that isn't the case though and you're right :)

Lucky for thunderbolt 2 then :p
 
Yes.. Intel, not Apple

Yes. USB 3 is not good for real time editing..... But Thunderbolt is...... So, bring Thunderbolt to PC's then they'll be happy......

They don't need thunderbolt, but they need USB 3 ? err... how does that work ? People want performance ..... WHy wouldn't they want real time ?

I bet everyone would be happy with TB on PC's.... You can do everything with Thunderbolt, you can do with USB 3, and more.. So why wouldn't you want more of this TB performance,? I would..

And just like USB 3, if people don't care about performance much, then they don't use the speeds

People won't put up with the high incur costs of using TB versus the much much cheaper USB 3.0 cables and devices. They want the best performance for cheap, that's only possible through USB.

For hard drives and such, USB 3 is fine for most folks, they're not doing anything that requires ultra-low latency and can put up with the CPU spikes, they usually have good enough CPU to handle such a demand.

Nobody wants to pay 20-30$ a cable in addition to 50-100$ higher price just to use TB on a hard drive. You can get 2TB USB 3.0 device for 100-120$ on a good deal and use any USB 3.0 cable for less than 5$. Good luck trying to find 2TB Thunderbolt one for less than 200$ and a good quality cable for less than 20$.

That doesn't explain how an external display can be driven at 5120x2880 over a single cable using any currently existing or proposed interface. I did read that, btw, you'll note my nickname in the comments there as well.

What are you talking about? What display is there that uses 5120x2880?

Remember two display that uses 5120x2880 are not the same as a single display using 5120x2800. Those two displays are going into two separate ports that can handle the bandwidth where the a single port can't.
 
update: I was wrong. In data rates 1 gb/s = 1,000,000,000 byte/s
thunderbolt 2 = 20 gigabits
5120 * 2880 * 60 * (24 bits) = 19.7753906 gigabits
5120 * 2880 * 60 * (24 bits) = 21.23 gigabits

and there's probably some other overhead...

1gb = 1024*1024*1024 = 1073741824
20gb = 1024*1024*1024 * 20 = 21474836480
 
I doubt we'll see a 4k iMac this year, most likely just a CPU and WiFi upgrades next month but looks for a new design iMac in 2014 I say with 4k 27" (or bigger) LED.
 
Just switched my desktop to this new one, but wondering if anyone has or has seen the image instead from the banner where you can see the top of the wave? Even for my iPhone or iPad, I'd like to have the other one that doesn't look so zoomed in.
 
How many PC's have thunderbolt in the world, and how many add-on cards can you get to ad Thunderbolt to a PC's ? Not many....
How do PCs connect to devices like the Pegasus R6 (which exceeds the bandwidth of USB 3)? Six eSATA cables?
 
Actually, it wasn't really sarcasm. That image is almost 3x the size of the 2560x1440 picture, so it will take 3x to download. Then, I'm talking about all of the websites that you go to start programming for retina displays and putting up content like that, and all of the sudden you will find that your cache is 3 times what it is today, and it takes longer to surf - Safari won't seem quite as "snappy" anymore, and it's because its dealing with a ton more data.

I wasn't talking just about one picture, but the notion that once this happens to all of the pictures on all of the sites that folks visit with retina machines, then things get out of hand.

Its less of a concern than you make it out to be.
 
This does not mean a new Retina display is coming... There are plenty of screens that already have a 5120 x 2880 resolution already.

There are PC or Television focused screens that are 5120x2880 for sale... At least outside of specialty commercial signage..
 
My prediction is that later this year we'll see a retina iMac with 4k display and a simultaneous release of a standalone 4K ACD. Shortly thereafter the new MP will become available.

My only wish is that Apple will offer us Pros a 4K ACD (in either 27" or 30") that is either anti-glare or with an anti-glare option.
 
Mavericks? Not sure about that. I had to look it up. What's next? I only know a few famous places in California. OS X Disneyland should be fun.
 
What are you talking about? What display is there that uses 5120x2880?

Remember two display that uses 5120x2880 are not the same as a single display using 5120x2800. Those two displays are going into two separate ports that can handle the bandwidth where the a single port can't.

That's what this whole discussion is about. Apple has created background art that measures 5120x2880, which is presumably the resolution of the next generation iMacs and Apple Thunderbolt Displays. How do you drive an ATD at that resolution with a single cable? If you're paying attention, that is not twice the pixels of the current 2560x1440 panels, but 4x.

1gb = 1024*1024*1024 = 1073741824
20gb = 1024*1024*1024 * 20 = 21474836480

Nope. 1 Gbit = 1,000,000,000 bits. There are no base 2 antics involved here. 20 Gbit = 20,000,000,000 bits.

And when you're calculating the bandwidth requirements of a display, you need to account for various types of overhead. More "pixels" are required than are actually displayed. For VESA CVT (Coordinated Video Timings), there are blanking intervals, front porch, sync, and back porch in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. 5120x2880 at 60 Hz with reduced blanking ends up being 5280x2962. So 5280 * 2962 * 24 * 60 = 22,520,678,400 bit/s, which is pretty darn close to 22.52 Gbit/s. Thunderbolt 2 provides exactly 20 Gbit/s per link to the upper layers, and DisplayPort 1.2 with HBR2 offers 17.28 Gbit/s over a 4-lane main link.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.