[Discussion] Will the Next Thunderbolt Display Be 4K?

[wbensky]

There has been a lot of speculation and rumors that the next TB displays are going to be released with/around the time of the new Mac Pro, which seems logical. Also, with the new 4k displays hitting the market, it would also seem logical that the new TBDs be 4k (or higher). However, with only the very-recent generation Macs supporting 4k, it would seem illogical at the same for Apple to release a new display that breaks compatibility with 95% of their already-sold, previous-generation computers. What do you guys think they will do?

EDIT: Oh, I didn't realize that HD 4000 supported 4k. But their still is the issue of their older macs. What do you guys think about the price?

 

[Jake0604]

The Thunderbolt Display already only works with thunderbolt capable Macs.

 

[wbensky]

The Thunderbolt Display already only works with thunderbolt capable Macs.

I understand that, I meant for example the 2012 MacBooks have at least one thunderbolt port, but there're Intel HD 4000 graphics don't support 4k displays.

Sorry if I didn't make the clear enough.

 

[Jake0604]

I understand that, I meant for example the 2012 MacBooks have at least one thunderbolt port, but their Intel HD 4000 graphics don't support 4k displays.

Sorry if I didn't make the clear enough.

Maybe apple will leave the current thunderbolt display for sale along with the new 4k display, like they did with the cinema display.

 

[mm201]

* It can work on existing Macs if they use two DP1.1 signals, one for each half of the screen. Other 4K screens use a similar approach.
* Since Apple controls the OS they can make it see it as one single screen.
* Any Mac that supports two 2560x1440 screens should support one 3840x2160 screen.
* Intel HD 4000 supports 4K.
* A 4K ATD would be 21.5".
* I still prefer 16x10.

 

[wbensky]

What do you guys think that Apple will do about the price? I think if they raise the price even higher than it is now, they will pretty much only be targeting their pro users.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

What do you guys think that Apple will do about the price? I think if they raise the price even higher than it is now, they will pretty much only be targeting their pro users.

That's possible, since the only announced product with 4K support is the Mac Pro. We just have to wait and see.

 

[Serban]

im sure if they release 4K Thunderbolt display, they have to update the imac displays aswell

 

[wbensky]

im sure if they release 4K Thunderbolt display, they have to update the imac displays aswell

Although it would make sense for the iMac and TBD to have to same screen, I wouldn't be completely sure about that. If they added a 4k display to iMac, (I'm guessing) the price to manufacture it would shoot straight up, thus raising the retail price. Although iMac may appeal to some pro customers, it's main audience is the casual user, which probably doesn't want to dish out a extra $1k (or whatever the cost would be to add a 4k panel) for a really nice display that they won't really need.

 

[Serban]

the macbook pro retina way.
they updated the display raise the price and for one year keep the old display as well

so imac as well should go for displays upgrade. imac display is prior to thunderbolt display

 

[wbensky]

Would connecting to a 4k display require a Thunderbolt 2 port? If so, then the only Mac that would support it would be the Mac Pro. Also, do you guys think that Apple will keep selling the Cinema Display?

 

[Julien]

Would connecting to a 4k display require a Thunderbolt 2 port? If so, then the only Mac that would support it would be the Mac Pro. Also, do you guys think that Apple will keep selling the Cinema Display?

Yes and yes. Why would Apple only sell a $2500 UHD display that is not compatible (also requires a UHD GPU) with any of it's Macs except the New Mac Pro?

2ed Yes. It will probably be an updated (new) QHD display.

I bet the Mac Pro UHD will be a 32" with 138PPI for about $2500.

 

[peskaa]

I can see Apple releasing a 4K display, but it'll be bonkers expensive (much like the 30"ers were when they were new) and aimed solely at Mac Pro owners. For everybody else, they'll continue with a thinner (like the iMacs) 27" display at the current 2560x1440 resolution.

4K doesn't make sense in the consumer space yet. GPUs will struggle to drive it on the desktop, let alone play games, particularly with Apple's use of mobile chipsets across the entire range of computers (bar the Mac Pro). Everybody's video content tops out at 1080p, so there may be complaints about things looking blurry or simply not good enough. We don't even have deployment of the needed DisplayPort standard for single port 4K yet.

It's going to take years (4?) before 4K lands in the consumer market for computers. By that point we'll have GPUs that can comfortably drive the resolution in laptops, and the displays themselves will be cheap enough to integrate in to the iMac without putting thousands on top of the cost. Until then you'll have to cope with the rMBP with its sub-4K resolution and 2560x1440 on the 27"ers. I can also see Apple finally hitting 1080p on the MacBook Air in the meantime.

 

[Hoko222]

4k

Here's the thing, I own a TBD and the resolution is very good, could it be better, of course, but I would rather seem them update the USB 2.0 to 3.0, put in a Mag safe 2 (even though its not that big a deal using the adapter), have more thunder bolt ports, perhaps 4 USB 3.0 and 4 TB ports would be awesome.
If they increase the resolution to 4k, which they will eventually do, weather its this year or 2-5 years away, we all know things are moving in that direction, the price of a 4K TBD would prob be closer to $3k, as time goes on 4k technology will become less and less expensive, just like 1080P did, you can but a 1080P 27" for like $250 at best buy. 5 years ago, you could not find a 27" 1080P for under $1k. Heck, you can get a Sharp 60" 1080P LED for under a $1000 as my father did. SO perhaps Apple may wait for the pries to stabilize and for 4K to be more main stream, so they can offer the 4k TBD at there price point, which is still high for a 27" monitor, of $1000. No one wants to pay over a $1000 for a monitor, alright, let me say that another way, the majority of people who want to buy the Apple monitor, dont want to pay thoundands of dollars for something that will be changed in 2 or 3 years.

 

[mm201]

I got a 1920x1200 24" in 2007 for $600. They charge a higher premium for size than for resolution.

Chances are the first sanely priced 4K screens won't come from Apple. It doesn't make sense in their product line right now to sell a small screen with more pixels than the big screen.

Mac users, you don't want a 32" 4K screen. Things will be too small at 1x but too big at 2x. A 4K screen needs to be either above 40 inches (crazy) or below 25 inches for OSX to support it correctly.

I could see Windows OEMs bumping their resolutions all around and selling 22" screens with 2560 res and 27" screens with 4K, taking advantage of Windows's 1.5x scaling mode.