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.
Estimated Price Of the New 27" Retina iMac?
- Thread starter kathyricks
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know they want to get all their products retina, but I don't see why they would even bother if it's going to be Mac Pro type prices. Why not just do a retina Thunderbolt Display and wait? The first retina MBP was just over $2K to start I think. I would guess that's what these will be. If not....looks like I won't be buying one for now.
Another thought, Apple might be capable of driving down the cost of these displays more than Dell. If you are a supplier, knowing how many panels Apple will buy if you only charge--I don't know--60 cents on the dollar vs 90 cents on the dollar might be a huge incentive to lower your asking price.
Another thought, Apple might be capable of driving down the cost of these displays more than Dell. If you are a supplier, knowing how many panels Apple will buy if you only charge--I don't know--60 cents on the dollar vs 90 cents on the dollar might be a huge incentive to lower your asking price.
My first ever Apple computer was an early white 24" iMac (the biggest iMac had been 20" until then). It cost £1440 for the top spec, including RAM and GPU upgrades. It was difficult to get a similar spec screen under £1000. I am hopeful that it the price will not be too far off the current top model.
OK, got it. If a high end panel does appear, I doubt it would come in any low end config. I bought the late 09, and the LG panel was being compared to things in the 800-1000 range. If memory serves, one of the Dell's was the exact same panel. The low end 27 was basically a macbook attached to a great panel. The part cost was high, at or above 6-700 to a dealer.
It's possible Apple could swing some magic wand over an inexpensive panel and make it happen across the line, but I don't see how.
I too bought the original 27" iMac in 2009.
At the time everyone was astounded at how cheap it was (relatively speaking) since there were very few 1440p monitors and for a 27" IPS one it was around $1000 from Dell. When they did the first teardown + parts cost estimate, I think I recall them estimating $800 just for the panel!
Given that the equivalent 4K monitor is around $1000 now, I would hope that Apple would do the same thing with the 4K iMac, and it costs around the same as today's prices.
If they would do that, I would hope the 5K iMac line to be +$1000.
That's what I would hope. At the time Apple accepted lower margins on the 1440p 27" iMac, knowing that the cost of the screen would come down relatively quickly, and as you know they are still using the same panel today, so their margins today are significantly higher. I really hope they do the same thing with the 4K monitors (because my iMac is getting a little long in the tooth, but the current models really aren't much upgraded, but I'm not willing to pay >$3000 for an iMac!) Who knows.
Is today's Apple greedier and less willing to sacrifice short-term margins for long-term gain? I don't think so. So I think we'll see a $2000 4K iMac.
At the time everyone was astounded at how cheap it was (relatively speaking) since there were very few 1440p monitors and for a 27" IPS one it was around $1000 from Dell. When they did the first teardown + parts cost estimate, I think I recall them estimating $800 just for the panel!
Given that the equivalent 4K monitor is around $1000 now, I would hope that Apple would do the same thing with the 4K iMac, and it costs around the same as today's prices.
If they would do that, I would hope the 5K iMac line to be +$1000.
That's what I would hope. At the time Apple accepted lower margins on the 1440p 27" iMac, knowing that the cost of the screen would come down relatively quickly, and as you know they are still using the same panel today, so their margins today are significantly higher. I really hope they do the same thing with the 4K monitors (because my iMac is getting a little long in the tooth, but the current models really aren't much upgraded, but I'm not willing to pay >$3000 for an iMac!) Who knows.
Is today's Apple greedier and less willing to sacrifice short-term margins for long-term gain? I don't think so. So I think we'll see a $2000 4K iMac.
A 5K iMac would require dual GPU and Haswell-E cpu, both to drive an 5k panel properly, add this about 2k for an 5k panel (volume cost), this retina iMac would cost from 3000$ and up.
Also an retina 5K Thunderbolt port will require Thunderbolt 3 - DisplayPort 3 capable to drive that amount of pixels (double than 4k).
Notwithstanding I believe the next retina iMac will go only upto 4K for 27" model (at current price scheme) and the new iMac 21 moving to 3K resolution (same as current 27" iMac).
Only 27" model will have upgradable ram, all models with soldered cpu and gpu.
Add this an 5K iMac will require an deep redesign just to handle the 3x heat from the cpu gpu, while an 4K model with latest nVidia gpu and Haswell-update cpu could do on the same chasis without big modification.
----------
Retina resolution doesn't means twice pixels, just enough small to not be noted, so an 4k panel at 27" could be considered retina display.
You really think it's going to be a minimum $2k+ premium over the current high end (base) 27" for the retina screen? If that is JUST for a 5k screen (same BTO options and base configs) that's ridiculous.
I would think upgrading to the retina edition comes with some kind of component upgrade, but I'm not sure what they could offer graphics-wise with the 680 and 780 gtx cards already among the best. More ram/HD of course, but maybe dual mobile gpu's? That could be pretty cool. Maybe that's why AMD graphics, they went dual AMD in the Mac Pro and stuck with them for the iMac.
Exactly. And why UHD display so expensive today? Simply because of the low yield. Once Apple order so huge an amount of 5K panels that no one else can do, the LCD manufacturers will figure out how to improve the yield soon, and then everyone can have cheaper 4k or 5k monitors. That will be pretty much the same as what happened in 2009.
Last edited:
Not true at all. Yes, it needs a beefy video card and don't expect to be playing games at high quality at high resolutions, but even my 2013 MBPr can drive almost the same amount of pixels of the 5K monitor by hooking up a UHD 3840x2160 LCD to it. Refresh rates are not at 60hz, but shows it can be done with the slow nVidia GPUs in the 2013 MBPr's.
Current AMD and nVidia GPUs don't have this resolution listed yet, but it doesn't mean they cannot support it (cabling is another issue though). There are GPUs that can handle dual UHD or dual 4K monitors which is more than a single 5K monitor in pixels. The current Mac Pro can handle 3 4K monitors, probably could drive more, but is limited by TB2 channels and HDMI cabling.
No need for Hex or Octo core Haswel-E as well.
That being said, one can always dream that Apple would provide an option dual GPU's SLI 980m or crossfire r290(5)x's in there but that would drive up the cost even further.
The price of panels will not go down itself. It always goes down as the amount produced goes up, and the yield improves. Every new generation of LCD will go through the similar process. At the beginning Apple may even lose money for each retina iMac sold, but in the long term, the panel price will drop and Apple will make profits. I don't see why there will be magic involved
The point is that due it's cost an 5K iMac only would be budgeted by Pro users (the same Mac Pro users), and either if implemented on current available gpu (I agree, not being listed the resolution doesn't means an gpu can't handle it) the latency would make people laugh (and give an good point to Mac haters).
So with current technology an property implemented iMac 5K would at least require dual GPU (also consider the iMac always allow another external monitor) period, so if such things exists it's aimed at Pros and have some redesign just to handle the heat.
Why a 6 core i7 (or an 6c Xeon) it's necessary when working at 5K: despite if games and video rendering is resolved at the GPU, the system still needs to move 2x the data from ram to gpu, doing that with quad core cpu implies you'll feel as editing 4K video on an dual core i5, despite having the best video card, am good gpu needs it's counter part (the cpu) on par just to have am optimal performance, so I doubt an quad core i7-4771R the best counterpart on an dual nVidia 980 gpu setup (currently pc builders plan to pair it on Haswell-E setups).
Ok but still possible an 5K iMac, but I consider an smarter move to go to 3K/4K (21/27") retina now (while keeping current prices), and jump to 4K/5K on 2016 when 5k display where less exotic and tb3 widely available as well 10nm process gpu with 4x the performance from current models.
Hey, iMac never aims at Pros. The 5k display is for people to enjoy sharper text for their emails and webpages
Funny, you forgot they also read the horoscope (have you seen Pisces predictions at 5K, that's not an predictions are an statement).Hey, iMac never aims at Pros. The 5k display is for people to enjoy sharper text for their emails and webpages
I am not kidding. Actually the majority of retina MBP (there is even a "Pro" in the name) buyers is that kind of light users. Remember how Phil Schiller introduced the rMBP?
As an iMac user who intends to purchase a replacement in the next year or so, I hope that any 4K/5K screen will only be an option rather than migrate to all iMacs.
Cost issues aside, I would not be happy with increasing the power consumption and heat load in all iMacs just to increase the the screen resolution for the subset of users who would benefit. I do not do photography, video production, graphic design or gaming on my iMac, and the current resolution is more than adequate for my purposes. The things I like most about the iMac are the low power consumption, the acoustically quiet operation and the reliability. All of these would be negatively impacted with the addition of more powerful GPU(s) and the cooling system to support them.
Cost issues aside, I would not be happy with increasing the power consumption and heat load in all iMacs just to increase the the screen resolution for the subset of users who would benefit. I do not do photography, video production, graphic design or gaming on my iMac, and the current resolution is more than adequate for my purposes. The things I like most about the iMac are the low power consumption, the acoustically quiet operation and the reliability. All of these would be negatively impacted with the addition of more powerful GPU(s) and the cooling system to support them.
I don't see why there will be magic involved
I was referring to Apple's penchant to market with terms like "Fusion" or "Dual-Domain Pixels"
True, but pixel doubling is a lot simpler, and is the way Apple has implemented Retina every time. The recent appearance of a screen that matches a pixel doubling of the current 27" iMac means they have the opportunity to continue with the same implementation path.
Not true, the iPhone 6+ it's proof of that, plus OSX it's by nature resolution independent since apps natively can adapt to any dpi, this capability have been increased from Mavericks.
Besides that, consider how impractical it's to implement 5K now, you'll need at least dual GPU and Haswell-E 6 core at least to have an descent performance (or just equivalent to current generation) plus this 5K iMac still can't drive another external 5K (unless those gpu are the same AMD on the new mac pro 2014) and there are only one 5K panel available now, this means high cost despite Apple volume purchase, add this the increases huge thermal requirements on this 5k iMac the redesign required is huge and results on an very expensive Mac (3 or 4k usd and up).
On the other hand quality 4k panel are available now at same cost as current Thunderbolt Display, and Haswell-update i7-4771 plus nVidia 980m are capable enough to handle 2 4k display (you can connect another 4k thru tb2), it's an non hassle implementation, consider that currently the 3k panel on the 27" it's close to retina, and that this 4k iMac could be sell at same price point as the current generation, it's obvious the math, the next retina iMac will be an 4k for 27" and 3k for 21".
The 5K iMac it's more feasible for 2016 when 10nm process deliver 4x the power at same TDP.
OK, iPhone 6 is a bit different, but the resolution is higher than @2x, not lower.
A 4K screen on the iMac would be less than @2x, so to get the same work area as the current iMac it would have to work like one of the scaled resolutions on Retina MBP. Which are not as sharp, and has the warning "Using a scaled resolution may affect performance.". It would have to render at 5K, then scale to 4K. That is more work than just rendering at 5K.
The other option with 4K would be to have a 1080p work area on a 27" screen, which is a backward step.
And where do you get the need for dual GPU? My 2013 15" rMBP with a 2.0Ghz mobile processor and integrated GPU can drive over 5 million pixels. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a 2014 3.4GHz (or more) desktop processor and a good dedicated GPU to drive less than 15 million pixels. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a 4K limit for an external display (if they allow one at all for the first generation).
Again, you need to check Yosemite about, no performance impact on dpi independent desktop since the new renderer is optimal work to render at 216,300,400 dpi don't need to upscale then downscale.
About you and your retina mbp it's true, it can drive 5 million pixels, but the iMac it's supposed to be capable to drive 2 screens, at 4k are 16m pixels at 5k are 30+m pixels simple no single gpu setup it's capable to do that yet. Add this fact usually iMac 27 users do something more stressful than read email, surf the Web and watch p0rn...