Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Some explain to me what is so great about a 5K display versus a 4 K display. Can you see the difference?

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 .
 
Old Thunderbolt 1 and 2 will be dead?

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.
 
Some explain to me what is so great about a 5K display versus a 4 K display. Can you see the difference?

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).
 
Some explain to me what is so great about a 5K display versus a 4 K display. Can you see the difference?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: manu chao
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.
 
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 .
5K on 27" allows you to retain the 27" working space without resorting to interpolated resolutions.
[doublepost=1464828663][/doublepost]
So let me get this straight: thunderbolt 3 can drive a 5k display at 60hz but DisplayPort 1.2 can't. Why does it matter that DisplayPort 1.3 isn't coming until next year if thunderbolt 3 can drive the display?
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.
 
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.
 
So why does Apple charge the exact same for the baseline iMac as they do for their current 27" 1440 resolution display?

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.
 
While I like the concept, the display is already expansive enough, a built in GPU will naturally be underpowered compared to the industry and the price will go up.

I'd settle for a good quality 5K display.

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.

Some explain to me what is so great about a 5K display versus a 4 K display. Can you see the difference?

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).
 
I really don't see Apple ever removing the dGPU from the MacBook Pro ever

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.
 
That's kind of neat idea, but I'd rather they just release a box/peripheral with a GPU in it that I could put between my Mac and any display I choose. (Looks like that kind of thing might finally be coming from 3rd parties.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwdsail
I think it would be an excellent upgrade for Mac mini and MacBook/Macbook Air users who want upgraded graphics. I'm looking forward to seeing if Apple can pull this off.

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]
BTW, for anyone wondering why Apple doesn't switch to plain USB-C instead of Thunderbolt 3:

1. A TB1/2->TB3 adapter will let every Mac released in the last few years (except for the 12" Macbook) work with this 5K monitor.

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:
  • Like
Reactions: navier and Icaras
Maybe there will be two versions. One with the internal GPU (more expensive) and one without (less pricey). The one without being for Macs that already have the capability to drive it and the one with to work with all other Macs.
 
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navier
The GTX 1080 could push that many pixels. Hell, it's capable of 8k. Dropping the Quadro equivalent into it would actually be doable.

But, knowing Apple, it'd likely be a mobile GPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Synchro3
Maybe there will be two versions. One with the internal GPU (more expensive) and one without (less pricey). The one without being for Macs that already have the capability to drive it and the one with to work with all other Macs.

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/
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.