Apple Thunderbolt Display Supplies Again Running Low at Third-Party Resellers

[Woodcrest64]

My concern with the current iMacs, MacBook Airs and Retina Macbbok Pros is will they be able to drive such a display assuming its 4K.

The 4k resolution at 60hz is just over 11Gbps. Thunderbolt is 10Gbps. If you google Asus' 4K monitor it lags on the current retina MacBook pro.

 

[macs4nw]

.....redesigned Thunderbolt displays are expected at some point, perhaps alongside the new Mac Pro which is expected later this year. Potential features for a revamp include Retina capabilities, support for Thunderbolt 2, USB 3.0, and the MagSafe 2 connector that was introduced last year. The display may also be redesigned with the thinner profile and new display assembly process that Apple introduced with the new iMac late last year.

Article Link: Apple Thunderbolt Display Supplies Again Running Low at Third-Party Resellers

Hopefully something along these lines: http://www.asus.com/News/L9xTPmmMwTlPMq5l

At any rate, please let it be height adjustable, and not just swivel/tilt.

 

[wiz329]

Not at a decent refresh rate, no. Only with Thunderbolt 2 (not released yet) we'll be able to achieve real 4K at 60Hz.

Perhaps Thunderbolt 2 is the reason why the rMBPs haven't been refreshed yet.

I'm hoping for a 2880p Retina Thunderbolt display though, even if it's not released this year. 4K at 27" would imply a reduction in real estate once you turn HiDPI on. It'd be perfect for a 21.5" Retina iMac though.

EDIT: Just to clarify, 60Hz 4K is possible without Thunderbolt 2 if you have DisplayPort 1.2, which Thunderbolt 1 doesn't have and Thunderbolt 2 will have. In other words, it would be possible to have 60Hz 4K right now if Macs used a regular mini DiplayPort without Thunderbolt, but obviously Apple won't drop Thunderbolt just to have 4K support just a little earlier.

Makes sense. But I also have to wonder whether Apple won't have 2 lines of displays. The 15" rMBP has to work pretty hard to push all those pixels as it is. I really have my doubts whether it can drive that AND a 4K display. Perhaps its possible if you don't touch anything 3D, and have that dGPU fired up the whole time, but even with Iris, there's no way the iGPU of the 13" rMBP will drive both panels.

Also, I highly doubt you'll see a reduction in real estate. Apple will allow you to scale the screen to a different (non optimal) resolution. You'll take a bit of a performance hit, but if you're on a MacPro with dedicated graphics, you won't notice it a bit.

 

[ChrisA]

OK so we know for sure the new Mac Pro can support no less than three 4K monitors. I don't have to think to hard to guess that maybe Apple will sell a 4K monitor. Maybe nt right now but it will come out with the new MP.

I'm also guessing maybe the "Apple TV" that might be sold some time in the future will be 4K also.

 

[koppie644]

will my 2011 sandy macbook pro be able to display 4k?

Edit: 15 inch with amd graphics

no

 

[darcyjames]

Just bought a refurb TBD for 799 to use with my mini. It's unopened as of right now; should I return it?

I had read the January articles about shortages, but decided it could be a year before I can get refurb deal on a (yet to be announced) new model...

 

[koppie644]

the second point is because thunderbolt display is a generation behind iMac

OK.
I HOPE this means, that they intend to "broaden" the lineup.
1# I really wish for a 23-24" model in the FullHD+ resolution range, I'd even be okay if they'd package the 21,5" iMac Display in a TBD enclosure
2# The current 27" is okay, but I find it ridiculous, that its enclosure has a greater "volume" (cm3) than the 27" iMac
3# i Expect apple will introduce a 4K display at some point, but this may be too early...

RGDS,

P.S. Please, keep the FW800 port alive.

----------

If thee price for a new 4K display is below $1399, it would be awesome
But I doubt you Mac Mini won't support that resolution

Just bought a refurb TBD for 799 to use with my mini. It's unopened as of right now; should I return it?

I had read the January articles about shortages, but decided it could be a year before I can get refurb deal on a (yet to be announced) new model...

----------

OK so we know for sure the new Mac Pro can support no less than three 4K monitors. I don't have to think to hard to guess that maybe Apple will sell a 4K monitor. Maybe nt right now but it will come out with the new MP.

I'm also guessing maybe the "Apple TV" that might be sold some time in the future will be 4K also.

PowerVR just announced there 4K H.265 decoder! Is it going to be in the Ax chips? Let's see

----------

Makes sense. But I also have to wonder whether Apple won't have 2 lines of displays. The 15" rMBP has to work pretty hard to push all those pixels as it is. I really have my doubts whether it can drive that AND a 4K display. Perhaps its possible if you don't touch anything 3D, and have that dGPU fired up the whole time, but even with Iris, there's no way the iGPU of the 13" rMBP will drive both panels.

Also, I highly doubt you'll see a reduction in real estate. Apple will allow you to scale the screen to a different (non optimal) resolution. You'll take a bit of a performance hit, but if you're on a MacPro with dedicated graphics, you won't notice it a bit.

Current discrete graphics cards support a maximum of six screeens, each at 2560*1600! Even Intel can support 3 monitors

 

[3282868]

Great, and I just got 2 27" displays a few weeks ago. Sigh.

 

[koppie644]

What are the capabilities of the current rMBP on the 4k front? I feel like that will determine whether apple is planning on launching a 4k screen (not 5120×2880 yet). If it couldn't handle it, they probably will release 2 models, a 4k one with the new Mac Pro and a standard update for the rMBP.

the next rMBP WILL support 4k. It doesn't make any sense if it doesn't. I do believe a 2560*1440 display like the new iMac is coming too

 

[Woodcrest64]

The other option which I doubt will happen is for the Macbook Pros with the Retina display is to use both their thunderbolt ports to drive a single 4k monitor. However there is still the issue of the GT650m GPU being able to handle that and the Macbook Retina display.

 

[koppie644]

Not long ago I got a 24" Full HD BenQ and it worked great on my G5, before I got my new 27" iMac. The BenQ is now hard at work on a PC.

Love the Apple displays but unless I was buying a new Mac Pro I would not be getting one. I really wish they would release a low cost one for Mac Mini users as right now it costs all most as much to buy the Mini and Apple Display as it does to get a 27" iMac, wish has better performance.

Maybe they should make a non 4k/Retina 24" LED for around $500?

I remember when Jobs announced Mini, he was talking about someone who has a display but just want a Mac.

Considering that iMAC can be used as an external play, it's always better to buy it rather than mini + TBdisplay

 

[animatedude]

Kill the flat "regular" display.
Keep the Thunderbolt display $999

New Retina 27'' with the new slim design $1499
4K with black aluminum design to match the new Mac Pro $2499

 

[Woodcrest64]

the next rMBP WILL support 4k. It doesn't make any sense if it doesn't. I do believe a 2560*1440 display like the new iMac is coming too

The question is whether the GPU can drive both the Macbook's Retina display and a 4K Thunderbolt 2 display at the same time. I might be wrong but I don't believe the GT 750m is that much of an improvement over the GT 650m assuming that is what Apple ends up putting in the next Retina Macbook Pro.

 

[rebby]

The question is whether the GPU can drive both the Macbook's Retina display and a 4K Thunderbolt 2 display at the same time. I might be wrong but I don't believe the GT 750m is that much of an improvement over the GT 650m assuming that is what Apple ends up putting in the next Retina Macbook Pro.

Doesn't matter. These are THUNDERBOLT displays that we're discussing here. Put a capable graphics card IN the monitor, problem solved (for not only rMBP's but the even the least capable Thunderbolt equipped devices).

 

[ctdonath]

Retina has always meant doubling the resolution in each axis in the past.

No, Retina has always meant the pixels were physiologically too small to see at normal viewing distances. This was easily achieved by pixel doubling for the devices upgraded so far. For large displays, 1.5x is enough to get the same result (indistinguishable pixels) and the GPUs are now strong enough to handle the slightly more complex scaling. For the displays in question, 1.5x matches 4K dimensions, making it a no-brainer.

----------

How much external display can the new MBA drive?

 

[rebby]

How much external display can the new MBA drive?

See my above post. It no longer matters what the internal graphics card is capable of with Thunderbolt.

 

[macduke]

Not sure why these were not refreshed at the same time the iMacs were. There should be no reason these, essentially gutless iMacs can't have the same thin profile the iMacs currently do.

Thunderbolt displays are for professionals. Most consumers aren't buying $1000 studio monitors. iMacs are more geared towards consumers. Generally consumers care more about looks and how thin something is than professionals do. That being said, I'm a professional with the new 27" iMac at work. But that's more a decision of my boss. We could get a new high-end iMac for cheaper than a slower Mac Pro. The iMac display is good enough for app design, web design, and the type of photo editing that I do.

For my freelance work the Retina MacBook Pro works great, but I wish I had a bigger Hi-DPI display when working at home. My eyes aren't what they used to be and I also do fine art photo editing from time to time. I'll be following these developments closely!

 

[scoobydoo99]

Patiently waiting.

My 24" ACD is great. Can't wait to get a 27" but I refuse to buy until they update with Thunderbolt 2, etc. If it's iMac-thin, 4K or anything else, that's just a bonus.

 

[charlituna]

so that means new TB displays are coming, right?

I think it's a given that the displays will be refreshed. The real question is how. Are we talking just a thinner body, HDMI inputs, 4k support, TV quality, 3d support, larger screen signs, built in airplay receiver, built in Apple TV hardware, all of the above.

----------

No one wants a 4K display more than me, but for price reasons I'm not sure I see Apple bringing that to the market this year. I personally would prefer them not update the display until it is ready for 4K, so that they can roll out 4K as soon as possible.

With the Mac Pro supporting 4k it is logical that so will Final Cut and they would want a display to fit with that system. If they can price it at the same $999 as the current display companies will go for it.

 

[sparkie7]

30" or larger, Matte screen please!!

 

[charlituna]

It depends how far you are sitting away from the monitor. As "Retina" is simply marketing speak based on a bit of proven science.

One could guess that the definition would be the same as an iMac as they would likely be at the same distance. Several folks have done the math that Apple uses to define the term and computed the needed resolution for a 27 inch iMac as under the resolution for 4k.

Now a physically larger display might fall under the needed resolution for it to be retina but Pros are going to be more concerned with support for the resolution they are working with which is 1080p, 4k, 8k etc

 

[Woodcrest64]

Doesn't matter. These are THUNDERBOLT displays that we're discussing here. Put a capable graphics card IN the monitor, problem solved (for not only rMBP's but the even the least capable Thunderbolt equipped devices).

Cool idea! Has that been done before?

 

[charlituna]

Regardless of the visual acuity thing, Retina has always meant doubling the resolution in each axis in the past.

No, it has never meant that. Not as the actual math. Which Apple has published. Just happens that in many cases that math came out to the same or just under doubling what was in the current displays. Coincidence, not definition.

----------

Not sure why these were not refreshed at the same time the iMacs were. There should be no reason these, essentially gutless iMacs can't have the same thin profile the iMacs currently do.

No reason to update just to thin the physical form and doing anything else might have tipped off details about the not yet announced Mac Pro, Mavericks etc

 

[3282868]

With the Mac Pro supporting 4k it is logical that so will Final Cut and they would want a display to fit with that system. If they can price it at the same $999 as the current display companies will go for it.

If this happens, I'm selling my brand new 27" Cinema Displays w/ AppleCare. $999 for a retina Thunderbolt display? That would be incredible.

 

[cmanderson]

One could guess that the definition would be the same as an iMac as they would likely be at the same distance. Several folks have done the math that Apple uses to define the term and computed the needed resolution for a 27 inch iMac as under the resolution for 4k.

Now a physically larger display might fall under the needed resolution for it to be retina but Pros are going to be more concerned with support for the resolution they are working with which is 1080p, 4k, 8k etc

Yes, 3840x2160 is 133% of the requirement for "Retina" at a "typical" viewing distance.

A "Best for Retina" resolution would result in an effective 1920x1080 workspace.

This is just one example.