Pratical use, no, pixel peeking while getting your nose close to the monitor , sure, some might see a difference.
It's mostly bragging rights , though to push those extra pixels you need a better GPU, which is the main issue with the 5K iMac .
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple’s 5K Thunderbolt Display Could Include Its Own Graphics Card
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pratical use, no, pixel peeking while getting your nose close to the monitor , sure, some might see a difference.
It's mostly bragging rights , though to push those extra pixels you need a better GPU, which is the main issue with the 5K iMac .
I hope not, my Mac mini has TB1 which only gets used to output to my main monitor. If new, speculated monitor isn't backwards compatible, hopefully I'll pick up the original TB monitor for have the price.
Nice to dream, I know.
Ignoring the 4k and 5k moniker, can you notice the difference between a 1080p display and a QHD (2560x1440) display? it's that much more usable space on the display, great for designers, editors, anyone who needs as much desktop space as possible. while 4k and 5k monitors can have the same pixel density, the 5K/QHD can display more on the monitor (unless you turn on scaled resolution on a 4k to emulate a 5k screen which works for some people but can lead to inaccuracies for someone who needs to keep track of 1:1 pixel designs).
What if you could upgrade it? And you could use any full size card? Hey, a guy can dream, right?
4K at Retina resolution is the equivalent real estate of a 1920 x 1080 non-retina display.
5K at Retina resolution is the equivalent of a current Thunderbolt display at 2560 x 1440.
That is actually a huge difference in working space, at least in my opinion. At the former, I used to use multiple monitors. With the latter, I find one does the trick quite well.
That's why I haven't gone to 4K, but am anxious to switch to 5K.
the problem with this display is it will only appeal to dGPU less macs trying to drive a 5k display, a very very tiny market, when users with actual need for 5K will purchase a mac with dGPU which don't need this eGPU, so basically this solution is market dead on arrival.
That is how it works in the PC world. By a box and insert the card of choice. Checkout the Razor Blade or core boxes.
5K on 27" allows you to retain the 27" working space without resorting to interpolated resolutions.
[doublepost=1464828663][/doublepost]
TB3 needs to use MST to drive a 5K display. DP 1.3 can do so with SST. Generally, if the display and computer both come from Apple MST probably isn't a big deal. But driving third-party 5K displays via MST can be more messy.
This is stupid. It's also insane that Apple has waited so long to update the Thunderbolt Display. Why the hell is anyone waiting around for Intel? Nvidia makes parts more than adequate to drive a 5k display. Use discrete graphics for Pete's sake.
And what is wrong with making a super high quality 4k display? At least a 4k display would be compatible with far more machines. I don't know what the hell Apple has been doing lately, but it's disappointing as hell, and for the 1st time I've been eyeing machines from the likes of HP, who seemingly doesn't have its collective head(s) up its ass (anymore). Their latest stuff is damn impressive, and dare I say (gasp) better than Apple's.
And what is wrong with making a super high quality 4k display? At least a 4k display would be compatible with far more machines. I don't know what the hell Apple has been doing lately, but it's disappointing as hell, and for the 1st time I've been eyeing machines from the likes of HP, who seemingly doesn't have its collective head(s) up its ass (anymore). Their latest stuff is damn impressive, and dare I say (gasp) better than Apple's.
I think it'll just be MacOS when they change it, without a number since it's actually MacOS 1 (then later we'll get MacOS II)
Did anyone bother to think about this yet? If DP1.3 is not available in Skylake and Kabylake, then how can a MacBook/Pro drive this thing?
My guess is that the graphics card in the display will help with driving the 5K resolution since you need 2 DP1.2 to drive this thing. So the input from the MacBook will be one connection and the GPU inside will be the second. Therefore I think the GPU is going to be a low/mid-tier mobile GPU.
I'm probably wrong, as I'm not really a morning person. I just woke up and am still a bit woozy.
My guess is that the graphics card in the display will help with driving the 5K resolution since you need 2 DP1.2 to drive this thing. So the input from the MacBook will be one connection and the GPU inside will be the second. Therefore I think the GPU is going to be a low/mid-tier mobile GPU.
I'm probably wrong, as I'm not really a morning person. I just woke up and am still a bit woozy.
I hope there is a setting that disables the internal GPU of the screen when a more powerful computer is powering it like a iMac or Mac Pro.
Simple, they want you to buy the iMac.
If Apple really want to shift the 1440p with its 2011 tech, they'd halve the price and at least make it competitive with the hundreds of Asus, LG, Dell and other panels out there.
Either that, or they make enough money fleecing hipsters prepared to pay that prices to get the logo.
Their hardware/drivers don't currently support it. Otherwise they wouldn't add in such a thing. They supposedly used a custom solution for the current imac.
4K is what you get when you double the pixel count of 1920x1080 in each dimension, replacing each pixel with a total of 4 new pixels. Apple didn't use that resolution in the 27". They went with something that matched the resolution used by the 27" imac. You may have noticed but the 21.5" went to 4K (again doubled in each dimension).
If this news is True, this will be a Giant step that Apple would have taken for Gaming on Mac and Gamers. Hell I think I will use AppleTV with this 5K Display. Who needs a TV or monitor.
What, like the 13.3 inch models? They're sold as Pro machines.
Seriously, Pro has become a nothing more than a marketing weasel word to make consumers feel better and as justification to sell over priced, under performing hardware.
Apple is Prostituting themselves for their shareholders' benefit - not ours.
This (rumored) 5K Thunderbolt Display would not be compatible with MacBook Air's, older MacBook Pro's, or even the latest 12-inch MacBook. It'll require a Thunderbolt 3 equipped USB-C port that'll only be on the new MacBook Pro and other Mac models released later this year and beyond. Thunderbolt 3 is needed to utilize external GPU's and the bandwidth requirements to drive a 5120x2880 resolution over a single cable.
[doublepost=1464831339][/doublepost]
If this even works, it certainly wouldn't be able to drive a 5K resolution over Thunderbolt 1 or 2. It'll require the multiple lanes Thunderbolt 3 provides. Also, not sure why anyone would want to run a lower than native (and non-HiDPI) resolution on a 5K display (or any display for that matter)...it'll look terrible.
Last edited:
Enjoy using Windows. I hear McAfee Virus Scan has had some killer definitions updates lately. And nothing is more fun than sifting through bloatware and scraping off Intel Inside stickers on day one of using a new machine.
So true, shooting the messenger. Blame it on Apple's focus on their actual moneymaker, the iPhone.
That's the thing. There are no Macs that already have the capability to drive it. The eGPU is what would make it possible until DisplayPort 1.3 is supported by Intel and Thunderbolt 3/USB-C. I know it sounds complicated, and it is, but a lot of people on this thread are very uninformed about what the true limitations are on the hardware side when it comes to 5K. There are a lot of articles out there that explain this - here's a good start: https://www.macrumors.com/2016/01/15/apple-5k-thunderbolt-display/