Estimated Price Of the New 27" Retina iMac?

[wmy5]

There is only a single source of the 5K iMac rumour, when the Sapphire screen was multiple sourced.

I don't want an 5K iMac as slow and useless as the rMBP 13, to drive properly an 5k panel you need 2 gpu, this double thermals, also there are the manufacturing issue, apple igzo panels are build integral with the external glass panel (not easy) , Dell 5k panel it's classic design, so an 5K iMac Will look thick as the previous generation.

Not everyone need as powerful a GPU as you may do. For me, a decent GPU which can let me surf the web, use iWork, etc. in 5k is more than enough. I never play video game so I am happy with the 13 rMBP. People have different opinions about what is " drive properly"

 

[Mago]

Not everyone need as powerful a GPU as you may do. For me, a decent GPU which can let me surf the web, use iWork, etc. in 5k is more than enough. I never play video game so I am happy with the 13 rMBP. People have different opinions about what is " drive properly"

Ok, so Apple will release an crappy performer and über-expensive iMac useful only to read email, just because few fanboy believe as religion 5K it's the right resolution for retina.

FYI actually currently qHD iMac it's retina display at 32“ (at 20" for 4K) of what's considered retina display, 4K iMac fulfil enough the definition of retina display, it's much more convenient an 4K iMac 27 capable of decent 3D and video performance notwithstanding restricted to HD scaled retina mode (FYI I use this mode on my Mac Pro as person preference and I love it). Check http://isthisretina.com

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

There is only a single source of the 5K iMac rumour, when the Sapphire screen was multiple sourced.

I don't want an 5K iMac as slow and useless as the rMBP 13, to drive properly an 5k panel you need 2 gpu, this double thermals, also there are the manufacturing issue, apple igzo panels are build integral with the external glass panel (not easy) , Dell 5k panel it's classic design, so an 5K iMac Will look thick as the previous generation.

There are multiple sources, all with a good track record, saying that the 5k iMac will be coming in October. All are saying 5k. Not a single one is saying 4k. WitsView, Jack March, Mark Gurman, and John Paczkowski: All are known to have reliable sources. All are saying 5k.

If this October 16 event is going to happen, invitations should be going out today or tomorrow. If the invitations do go out, then it is pretty much guaranteed that it will be a 5k iMac because the 5k iMac rumor and the October 16 event rumors are from the same sources.

 

[Mago]

WitsView, Jack March, Mark Gurman, and John Paczkowski: All are known to have reliable sources.

Only source it's WitsView all other *sources* just repeat they...

Mashable only reported a 4K iMac.

Give me an yep or nope from Jim Dalrymple and I shut up my mouth.

 

[wmy5]

Ok, so Apple will release an crappy performer and über-expensive iMac useful only to read email, just because few fanboy believe as religion 5K it's the right resolution for retina.

FYI actually currently qHD iMac it's retina display at 32“ (at 20" for 4K) of what's considered retina display, 4K iMac fulfil enough the definition of retina display, it's much more convenient an 4K iMac 27 capable of decent 3D and video performance notwithstanding restricted to HD scaled retina mode (FYI I use this mode on my Mac Pro as person preference and I love it). Check http://isthisretina.com

You may think it will be 4k, but for Apple, 5k or nothing, period.

 

[Mago]

For all these 5K widows here, read tom's hardware guide about 5K iMac..

WitsView's report really doesn't say anything about Apple providing a similar display save for the Ultra HD 5K iMac.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-monitor-ultra-hd-5k-dell,27666.html

I really think Apple is getting ready to offer an 5K display... But one sourced from Sharp and only Mac Pro (or that hypothetic xMac) compatible ....

BTW the iMac will arrive this Xmas season with qHD(21") and 4K(27") displays replacing previous iMac by same price with nVidia 970/980m gpu and Haswell update cpus...

Sorry b1tches

 

[Mago]

Realize, at 3000$ the display only, there are little market for an 5k monitor, last year Apple sold an 4K monitor from Sharp for the nMac Pro, it's natural Apple to sell this year follow on from Sharp an 5K Display for Pro market, an the only descent hardware on Apple stable to drive proper this behemoth is the Mac Pro, an actually Mac Pro owners have pockets deep enough to spend on this novelty.

On the other hand, the typical iMac user will be more than satisfied with the step update, no need to give big changes to the iMac unibody for the new panel and the updated engine.

So, just analyze the 5K iMac was an misunderstood, what really comes its an steep update to the iMac line but one conservative, and aligned with other products (as an updated mini only can drive upto 4K on an display port only 4K cinema display - no Thunderbolt -

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

I certainly hope it isn't a 4k iMac at 27 inches because that would be a horrible experience. It would be slightly fuzzy to keep the 2560x1440 workspace, and you'd have to run games at 1080p because at 1440p it would be fuzzy. At least on a 5k display you could still play games at 1440p and it look good.

I just can't see Apple releasing something that would actually degrade the user experience. I can see them releasing a 21.5-inch or 24-inch 4k iMac, but not a 27-inch. We'll know in a week, but if it is 4k and 27-inch, I'll just keep my PC.

 

[xgman]

Look, I think whatever they release will be plenty lust worthy. Wait and see. Don't assume trouble.

 

[Moonjumper]

https://developer.apple.com/librar...CocoaDrawingGuide/Transforms/Transforms.html read at "resolution independent user interface".

This link explain it am bit better https://developer.apple.com/library...d.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012302-CH4-SW3

Both pages linked were last updated in 2012, so are unlikely to point to any possible change in Apple's use of Retina.

The 1st link you posted refers to OS X v10.4 where "In OS X v10.4, the first steps at decoupling the point-pixel relationship took place". Tiger is an old version of OS X.

And the second link expands on the pixel / point decoupling, mentioning "backing scale factor is not global—it is a property of the object (layer, view, window) and is influenced by the display on which it is placed. In all cases, this value will be either 1.0 or 2.0". Sounds exactly like the standard and HiDPI states used now.

 

[Georgio]

For all these 5K widows here, read tom's hardware guide about 5K iMac..




http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-monitor-ultra-hd-5k-dell,27666.html

I really think Apple is getting ready to offer an 5K display... But one sourced from Sharp and only Mac Pro (or that hypothetic xMac) compatible ....

BTW the iMac will arrive this Xmas season with qHD(21") and 4K(27") displays replacing previous iMac by same price with nVidia 970/980m gpu and Haswell update cpus...

Sorry b1tches

I hope you're right 4K with 970/980m makes the most sense a the moment. Both of these are pretty good upgrades to the iMac and they wouldn't want to overstretch the technology.

I just hope the GPU's aren't throttled like the 780m has been...

 

[johnnyturbouk]

For all these 5K widows here, read tom's hardware guide about 5K iMac..

Sorry b1tches

Lol - the cruel truth!

I certainly hope it isn't a 4k iMac at 27 inches because that would be a horrible experience. It would be slightly fuzzy to keep the 2560x1440 workspace, and you'd have to run games at 1080p because at 1440p it would be fuzzy. At least on a 5k display you could still play games at 1440p and it look good.

I just can't see Apple releasing something that would actually degrade the user experience. I can see them releasing a 21.5-inch or 24-inch 4k iMac, but not a 27-inch. We'll know in a week, but if it is 4k and 27-inch, I'll just keep my PC.

I don not understand why a 4K would be fuzzy if the screen is scaled appropriately. Could you elaborate?
In fact i think the 4K 27" would allow the best compromise on price/performance. I am sure the pixel pushing fanboi here can explain why a 4k screen can/cannot work in a 27" imac

I hope you're right 4K with 970/980m makes the most sense a the moment. Both of these are pretty good upgrades to the iMac and they wouldn't want to overstretch the technology.

I just hope the GPU's aren't throttled like the 780m has been...

makes sense - i will then wait for the broadwell iteration next year. Although i am very impressed by the 980m intel GPUs.

 

[wmy5]

I don not understand why a 4K would be fuzzy if the screen is scaled appropriately. Could you elaborate?

According to current Apple retina implementation, the "Best for retina" is 2x integer scaling. For example, if you have a 15" rMBP, with 2880x1800 native resolution, the "Best for retina" setting will give you a workspace equivalent to 1440x900 non-retina display. If you have a rMBP, you can check that in your display settings.

If Apple go for a 4k on 27", then it will have a workspace only equals to 1920x1080, which means less room, bigger font, etc, than current 2560x1440 iMac.

Actually there is no sign of change of retina implementation at least in Yosemite GM. If you plug in a 4k display, then the retina (HiDPI) mode still use the 2x scaling.

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Lol - the cruel truth!



I don not understand why a 4K would be fuzzy if the screen is scaled appropriately. Could you elaborate?
In fact i think the 4K 27" would allow the best compromise on price/performance. I am sure the pixel pushing fanboi here can explain why a 4k screen can/cannot work in a 27" imac




makes sense - i will then wait for the broadwell iteration next year. Although i am very impressed by the 980m intel GPUs.

As wmy5 explained, it's just the way Retina Macs work. Maybe fuzzy isn't the right word. The sharpness of text and images on the screen is soft on the rMBP when using anything other than Retina (Best). It might not be as big of a deal for a 4k display that you sit further away from, but the fact remains that the screen just won't be as sharp at 4k as it would be at 5k when using a 1440p equivalent workspace.

 

[shokunin]

I don not understand why a 4K would be fuzzy if the screen is scaled appropriately. Could you elaborate?
In fact i think the 4K 27" would allow the best compromise on price/performance. I am sure the pixel pushing fanboi here can explain why a 4k screen can/cannot work in a 27" imac

It's the disconnect between the "target" screen resolution and native LCD resolution. I think many have seen how bad or fuzzy LCD screens look when not using native 1:1 pixels. Displaying a zoomed 1024x768 on a 1080p LCD is a bit fuzzy.

The target resolution on Retina screens has been with 2x scaling. so 1920x1080 scales nicely on a native 3840x2160 screen, simple linear scaling. Instead of 1:1 pixel mapping its an even 4:1 pixel mapping on Retina.

However current resolution on the 27" imac is 2560x1440. 2560x1440 on a 3840x2160 needs interpolation to do the scaling. It's no longer 1:1 pixel mapping, hence some fuzziness to the image.

In order to display 2560x1440 on a 3840x2160, Apple will pixel double 2560x1440 to 5120x2880 (5k) and then down res to 3840x2160 in order to reduce the artifacts and jaggies due to non 1:1 pixel matching. It'll still look good, just not as sharp as the "best" setting on a Retina mac.

 

[c.s.]

In order to display 2560x1440 on a 3840x2160, Apple will pixel double 2560x1440 to 5120x2880 (5k) and then down res to 3840x2160 in order to reduce the artifacts and jaggies due to non 1:1 pixel matching. It'll still look good, just not as sharp as the "best" setting on a Retina mac.

Exactly. So the "best" setting on a 27" Retina iMac (4k) would be a practical workspace of 1920x1080. Granted, this is less work area than the current 2560x1440, but it will look amazing. And you can always bump up to 2560x1440 or even 3840x2160, just like you can increase the work area on the rMBP. I jump between the different options all the time on the rMBP and they all look great. It seems like the best solution and the most cost-effective one (vs. going 5k).

Remember this is exactly what Apple did with the rMBP. The regular MBP had a workspace of 1680 x 1050, but the "best for Retina" setting on the new rMBP was actually a downsize of 1440 x 900.

Apple may very well be testing a 5k iMac, but for next week I'd put my money on a 4k iMac in the $2500-$3000 range.

 

[Mago]

Exactly. So the "best" setting on a 27" Retina iMac (4k) would be a practical workspace of 1920x1080. Granted, this is less work area than the current 2560x1440, but it will look amazing. And you can always bump up to 2560x1440 or even 3840x2160, just like you can increase the work area on the rMBP. I jump between the different options all the time on the rMBP and they all look great. It seems like the best solution and the most cost-effective one (vs. going 5k).

Remember this is exactly what Apple did with the rMBP. The regular MBP had a workspace of 1680 x 1050, but the "best for Retina" setting on the new rMBP was actually a downsize of 1440 x 900.

Apple may very well be testing a 5k iMac, but for next week I'd put my money on a 4k iMac in the $2500-$3000 range.

I'm tired explain that pixel doubling it's just an lazy retina implementation, as long the scree it's retina OS programmers can write guí elements targeting an iMac 27 qhd workplace on an 4K canvas (the way *retina* it's implemented on Linux and Wincrap) image quality dependents on this more than on pixel doubling *technique* (useful for legacy applications).

In a way or other I think the next iMac 27 to go upto 4K, a 5K display still likely but as an Mac store exclusive from 3rd party brand (as sharp) and only nMac Pro compatible thru dual display port MST.

In this regard we will see:

4K iMac 27 *retina* same form factor as current, with Haswell update and nVidia 970/980

4K cinema display, w/o Thundebolt (unless TB3 it's the Cuppertino' rabbit) maybe having an separate TB2 Port for peripheral support (usb3,lan, daisy chain tb2), compatible with 2014 iMac, 2014mini, rMBP15 and 2013 Mac Pro) .

5K display from 3rd party as Apple's exclusive and Mac Pro only compatible thru dual display port or single Hdmi 2.0 @ 30hz (HDMI 2.0 will be one of the updates for the L2014 nMac Pro, so if this monitor it's HDMI2 only gone hell Apple the nMP L2013 will become obsolete) .

The updated nMacPro will include from 6c Xeon and DDR4 plus ATI D310,510,520, HDMI 2.0, and maybe 10gb nic (following workstations trends).

The mini still a mistery if will be updated or replaced by another product(s) (name it Mac Nano and or Mac w/o monikers), this new product would include from Haswell i5/i7 and integrated gpu to Haswell-E with dual GPU (this it's only speculation).

Another *maybe* it's the iMac 21.5 if updated to retina adopting qHD or stay at hd until replaced by an 4K iMac 21 on 2016.

 

[wmy5]

Exactly. So the "best" setting on a 27" Retina iMac (4k) would be a practical workspace of 1920x1080. Granted, this is less work area than the current 2560x1440, but it will look amazing. And you can always bump up to 2560x1440 or even 3840x2160, just like you can increase the work area on the rMBP. I jump between the different options all the time on the rMBP and they all look great. It seems like the best solution and the most cost-effective one (vs. going 5k).

Remember this is exactly what Apple did with the rMBP. The regular MBP had a workspace of 1680 x 1050, but the "best for Retina" setting on the new rMBP was actually a downsize of 1440 x 900.

Apple may very well be testing a 5k iMac, but for next week I'd put my money on a 4k iMac in the $2500-$3000 range.

The regular non-retina MBP 15" was 1440x900, 1680x1050 was optional BTO.

 

[shokunin]

I'm tired explain that pixel doubling it's just an lazy retina implementation, as long the scree it's retina OS programmers can write guí elements targeting an iMac 27 qhd workplace on an 4K canvas (the way *retina* it's implemented on Linux and Wincrap) image quality dependents on this more than on pixel doubling *technique* (useful for legacy applications).

Agreed, though I may not call it lazy, rather the current pixel doubling is the least offensive and most compatible. Without it, web sites would look broken since all the bitmap elements JPEGS, GIFs would be super small or look really bad when poorly scaled and text not lining up with button images.

HiDPI is just starting, apps are still lagging on being multi-threaded even though we've had multi-core processors for years.

 

[Kurrgo]

Once these versions become available, what happens to pricing on previous models? Do they move to clearance in the website?

 

[WilliamG]

I'm starting to dribble a lot at the thought of 218 PPI on a 27" iMac. That will really look amazing compared to the paltry 109 PPI we have now.

Also, if it's a 5120x2880 display (as it should be), it'll be a no-compromise experience (unlike the 15" MacBook Pro with Retina display which went with the lower-res 1440x900 as its starting point rather than the 1680x1050 higher res model).

Next week might be very expensive... iPad, Mac mini, iMac... *cries*

To be fair, I don't *need* a new Mac mini as my 2012 mini does server duty very well, but... if it looks like the new Mac Pro but shrunk down to bagel shape...

----------

Exactly. So the "best" setting on a 27" Retina iMac (4k) would be a practical workspace of 1920x1080. Granted, this is less work area than the current 2560x1440, but it will look amazing. And you can always bump up to 2560x1440 or even 3840x2160, just like you can increase the work area on the rMBP. I jump between the different options all the time on the rMBP and they all look great. It seems like the best solution and the most cost-effective one (vs. going 5k).

Remember this is exactly what Apple did with the rMBP. The regular MBP had a workspace of 1680 x 1050, but the "best for Retina" setting on the new rMBP was actually a downsize of 1440 x 900.

Apple may very well be testing a 5k iMac, but for next week I'd put my money on a 4k iMac in the $2500-$3000 range.

That would not be the best thing at all. I don't want to compromise my 1440p workspace at all. I REALLY hope Apple goes the whole hog to 5k, so 27" iMac users don't lose any real estate in native res.

As was pointed out, Apple did not do this with the regular MBP, really. The "regular " 15" MBP had a 1440x900 panel. Only the upgraded BTO models (which were not so common) had the 1680x1050. That was not a standard res, though. I wish it had been...

 

[johnnyturbouk]

According to current Apple retina implementation, the "Best for retina" is 2x integer scaling. For example, if you have a 15" rMBP, with 2880x1800 native resolution, the "Best for retina" setting will give you a workspace equivalent to 1440x900 non-retina display. If you have a rMBP, you can check that in your display settings.

If Apple go for a 4k on 27", then it will have a workspace only equals to 1920x1080, which means less room, bigger font, etc, than current 2560x1440 iMac.

Actually there is no sign of change of retina implementation at least in Yosemite GM. If you plug in a 4k display, then the retina (HiDPI) mode still use the 2x scaling.

As wmy5 explained, it's just the way Retina Macs work. Maybe fuzzy isn't the right word. The sharpness of text and images on the screen is soft on the rMBP when using anything other than Retina (Best). It might not be as big of a deal for a 4k display that you sit further away from, but the fact remains that the screen just won't be as sharp at 4k as it would be at 5k when using a 1440p equivalent workspace.

It's the disconnect between the "target" screen resolution and native LCD resolution. I think many have seen how bad or fuzzy LCD screens look when not using native 1:1 pixels. Displaying a zoomed 1024x768 on a 1080p LCD is a bit fuzzy.

The target resolution on Retina screens has been with 2x scaling. so 1920x1080 scales nicely on a native 3840x2160 screen, simple linear scaling. Instead of 1:1 pixel mapping its an even 4:1 pixel mapping on Retina.

However current resolution on the 27" imac is 2560x1440. 2560x1440 on a 3840x2160 needs interpolation to do the scaling. It's no longer 1:1 pixel mapping, hence some fuzziness to the image.

In order to display 2560x1440 on a 3840x2160, Apple will pixel double 2560x1440 to 5120x2880 (5k) and then down res to 3840x2160 in order to reduce the artifacts and jaggies due to non 1:1 pixel matching. It'll still look good, just not as sharp as the "best" setting on a Retina mac.

Thanks for the explantation chaps (or ladies) makes a lot more sense now.

 

[xmichaelp]

If it's 4k, I'd guess it starts at $2999. If it's 5k, $3999.

Because of the cost of 5k, I'm guessing it's really going to be a 27" 4k panel scaled instead of a 27" 5k with pixel doubling. I doubt we'll be able to see the difference on a 27" display.

Apple isn't going to put a 4k on the 27, 1080p of effective resolution at 27 inches is horrible.

I think the price will be lower than people think. 1440p panels are much cheaper now and Apple kept the same price, they can afford to take a smaller margin for a year or two. This will be the first 5k product shipping any sort of volume. It won't be over 3k I bet.

 

[xmichaelp]

the starting price for an 27" retina iMac will be $2499 for 16 gb Ram, 970M and 1 T Fusion Drive

That would be amazing.

Apple needs to make flash storage standard on all computers. 16GB RAM would be nice too considering the 1999 rMBP has it.

----------

+$500 to current iMac pricing. Anything over $2,500 for 27" base retina is suicide.

I too think it will be lower than expected. If Apple wanted to make a ridiculous 4-5 thousand dollar machine they would've done it years ago. Them waiting two years after the MBP tells me they can now make them relatively cheap.

----------

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.

All the rumors say 5k. It's happening. Accept it. Apple would never increase the resolution two years in a row. When they introduce a new iMac resolution it stays for years. The only question is what is the price?

 

[xmichaelp]

just because few fanboy believe as religion 5K it's the right resolution for retina.

That's pretty funny. We're just going off the rumors, aka what is going to happen. You're pulling 3k and 4k out of nowhere. Honestly it just sounds like you're upset the new iMac will be higher res than your 4k displays.

The iMac isn't their pro machine, it isn't supposed to have amazing graphic performance and drive a bunch of displays. That's what the Mac Pro is for. The iMac will be adequate to do regular non graphic intensive tasks. If you need to edit 4k video then Apple wants you to buy a Mac Pro

----------

For all these 5K widows here, read tom's hardware guide about 5K iMac..




http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-monitor-ultra-hd-5k-dell,27666.html

I really think Apple is getting ready to offer an 5K display... But one sourced from Sharp and only Mac Pro (or that hypothetic xMac) compatible ....

BTW the iMac will arrive this Xmas season with qHD(21") and 4K(27") displays replacing previous iMac by same price with nVidia 970/980m gpu and Haswell update cpus...

Sorry b1tches

You're just pulling this out of your ass. We'll see during the event.

----------

Lol - the cruel truth!

The "truth" that he just made up.

----------

Remember this is exactly what Apple did with the rMBP. The regular MBP had a workspace of 1680 x 1050, but the "best for Retina" setting on the new rMBP was actually a downsize of 1440 x 900.

No. That was the hi res version. They pixel doubled the 900p resolution that was in the regular MBP.