a retina imac would be a higher resolution than 4k?
Yes why not? 4K is retina, retina just means screens that have a high enough pixel density that the human eye is unable to observe individual pixels at a typical viewing distance.
a retina imac would be a higher resolution than 4k?
Power usage matters. Especially on an iMac. iMacs are known to be one of the lowest power users in it's class. And it's a great feature of the computer. Having an iMac generate less $$ power cost than an equivalent specced Windows box is a great feeling. And every little $ saving helps.
You can be 100% certain Apple is fully aware of this and will take into consideration with the rumoured retina iMacs. And I am damn glad Apple is taking this into consideration.
Where do you get this idea? If any thing Apple is adding many features to Yosemite that effectively are power user tools.
I would slightly disagree and say that if you're into gaming don't do it in OS X. An iMac running Windows can give you a pretty nice experience if you want the iMac for something else as well. So, I agree that no one is buying a Mac primarily for gaming.
Having said that, I have an iMac (and love it) and yet I built a dedicated gaming PC because it didn't cost all that much and I can't be hassled with booting back and forth. Plus, I'm usually OK with a generation old video card so I can always buy someone's used card when mine starts to not be able to play new games at higher frame rates.
It won't matter as much as it does on a Macbook, that was my point. An iMac can draw much more power so the clocks can be higher to increase performance. You don't have to strike a balance between the integrated graphics performance on the CPU versus using the discreet GPU like you do on a portable machine. Either way, the demand on the GPU (discreet or integrated) will be very high if they go to a resolution like is rumored here.
If you think Apple does not take power draw equally as serious on desktops as they do on notebooks, you are sorely mistaken. I agree you with you, that you have more leeway on desktops for beefier computer specs.
The iMac already makes trade offs now. Apple take the most powerful GPU they can without creating too much heat and using up too much power. And I ma sure the same will be the case for the rumoured retina iMacs. I'll certainly want to see their power usage specs before I think about getting one. Just to see how high it is. I think you might be right saying it'll be rather high.
You kept going on about how power conservation only matters to notebooks and not iMacs. Maybe I should have said what I did in a different way. I do apologise for how I said what I said. But I what I said stands.I don't understand what your problem is, why are you continuing to say this when I've said nothing to the contrary? Do you feel better about yourself when you insinuate that someone else is stupid for not saying something you think they did?
how about jumping to 4k instead?
--edit
whoops
I run "6400 x 3600" or 3200 x 1800 in retina resolution today using 4K screen connected to my MacBook Pro retina (late 2013) using "Display Menu" in 10.9.3
This means virtual resolution of 6400 x 3600, for the HiDPI mode - not real resolution of the screen. So I can't see why people think it is about a 5K screen?
The spin has been that "retina" means the eye can't discern individual pixels. If that spin is true- as has soooo often been argued- than anything above current retina is not discernible. More simply, it's just a spec number. 2608 would look just the same as 1304 which would look just the same as 652 which would look just the same as 326.
I know some of the other guys has spun higher PPI specs in their products but this shouldn't be a spec contest unless the spin of "retina" was a lie or there are mutants among us with eyes sharper than typical humans.
It won't matter as much as it does on a Macbook, that was my point. An iMac can draw much more power so the clocks can be higher to increase performance. You don't have to strike a balance between the integrated graphics performance on the CPU versus using the discreet GPU like you do on a portable machine. Either way, the demand on the GPU (discreet or integrated) will be very high if they go to a resolution like is rumored here.
----------
The first thing that pops into my head is that the purge command in Terminal changed to sudo purge. Had I not gone to google and searched why the command no longer worked like it used to I would have sat there befuddled as to why my Mac was ignoring a command that I knew was correct. Little changes like that annoy the hell out of me. And don't get me started on the "simple" way that Mavericks decided to handle running apps in full screen. It's like absolutely no one Apple has ever used multiple screens when they updated the OS and they haven't seen how simple and effective handling multiple screens is in Windows. I, as a user who wants to set MY machine up how I like am not allowed to set how the monitors are handled with any real freedom. You either suffer through having an app black out one screen or hope to hell the app you're using has a developer nice enough to bypass the utterly stupid way Apple implements how the second screen is handled. Apple is getting way to far into doing it their way because they think it's best, or you simply put up with their idiotic ways of doing some things.
----------
If you are into gaming you should never buy a Mac. The performance is just piss poor compared to Windows at the same price point. For the cost of a decently loaded iMac I could have a gaming PC that could play every single AAA title on the market right now at 1440p maxed out and at a solid 60 fps. That's incluing the screen and all the peripherals. Mac gaming performance simply is not anywhere near as good, and especially at the rumored resolution that these screens would be at. You won't be able to play games at the same level of performance in OS X as you can running them in Windows via Bootcamp. I gave the example of Dota 2 performance. At native res with everything turned to low or off I barely break 30fps on my 2011 MBP. Running the same game, same resolution in Windows 7 I can have almost everything turned to max and get a solid 60fps. OS X simply does not work for gaming. I wasn't trying to insinuate that people buy Macs to play games on, I was just responding to all the comments that gaming on this thing would be great. It wouldn't, not by a long shot. Even someone who doesn't play games would immediately see the difference in performance even on the same machine in reference to what OS it's running in. Macs simply can't keep up.
I bought my MBP because it's by far the best laptop on the market for my needs and wants. I wouldn't however drop a couple grand or so on an iMac and plan to play games on it, no matter what resolution the screen has. It would be a complete waste of money because I could get a gaming PC and all the equivalent peripherals for cheaper and absolutely wax the floor with the iMac.
All that said, I REALLY want one of these machines with a resolution that's rumored. That would be an amazing casual use machine. All they need to do now is release the damn thing so I can upgrade from a three year old laptop...
I guess he's saying that if your primary reason for buying a Mac is to use it for gaming under Windows you could save yourself an awful lot of money by building your own gaming PC. I agree.So what's wrong with buying Macs for gaming? Since Macs run windows natively? I buy macs for gaming all the time, they are some of the best hardware in the pc industry.
And why do you keep comparing an iMac to a desktop PC mid tower.... That is simply an unfair comparison.
I guess he's saying that if your primary reason for buying a Mac is to use it for gaming under Windows you could save yourself an awful lot of money by building your own gaming PC. I agree.
HOWEVER, if you want a Mac, and you also want to use it from time-to-time for Windows gaming, iMacs (or Mac Pros) are well-suited for such a purpose. My six-core Mac Pro with dual D700s (essentially two slightly-underclocked HD 7970s) works fantastically well for gaming under Windows. I used to have a separate gaming PC and an iMac, but it turned out I never used the PC because I spent so much time on my iMac. Now that I have a new Mac Pro, it turns out that my Mac Pro is a better Mac than my iMac was AND it's great for Windows gaming. A Windows PC could be much cheaper and higher-performing for gaming, but I use my Mac Pro as Mac first and foremost, so it does splendidly for the amount of gaming I do. And I don't have to troubleshoot and maintain a separate Windows box!
So what's wrong with buying Macs for gaming? Since Macs run windows natively? I buy macs for gaming all the time, they are some of the best hardware in the pc industry.
And why do you keep comparing an iMac to a desktop PC mid tower.... That is simply an unfair comparison.
You kept going on about how power conservation only matters to notebooks and not iMacs.
But I what I said stands.
"You don't have to strike a balance between the integrated graphics performance on the CPU versus using the discreet GPU like you do on a portable machine."
You said this. And Apple does strike that balance on the desktops as well. That's why you don't see the post powerful GPUs on iMacs.
HOWEVER, if you want a Mac, and you also want to use it from time-to-time for Windows gaming, iMacs (or Mac Pros) are well-suited for such a purpose. My six-core Mac Pro with dual D700s (essentially two slightly-underclocked HD 7970s) works fantastically well for gaming under Windows. I used to have a separate gaming PC and an iMac, but it turned out I never used the PC because I spent so much time on my iMac. Now that I have a new Mac Pro, it turns out that my Mac Pro is a better Mac than my iMac was AND it's great for Windows gaming. A Windows PC could be much cheaper and higher-performing for gaming, but I use my Mac Pro as Mac first and foremost, so it does splendidly for the amount of gaming I do. And I don't have to troubleshoot and maintain a separate Windows box!
Because OS X is not a good gaming platform in the resolutions that people are saying would be awesome here. Even at 1440p gaming is OS X is laughably bad. I have a three year old Macbook Pro and the difference of running the same exact game in OS X and Windows 7 is easily 30-50% (obviously on the same hardware). OS X is a bad gaming platform, and if you want to play games at the resolution of these rumors are pointing at doings so on an iMac would be a waste of money and wouldn't be a good experience.
Why do I compare an iMac to a desktop PC mid tower? Because the prices are equivalent but the hardware is so much better on the PC tower it bears no real comparison. For a decently equipped iMac I could be a much more capable and higher performing PC for less money, including the 1440p monitor. Now, I'm not saying an iMac isn't worth the money they ask, I'd really like to upgrade to one from my MBP as a general use computer, but all the discussion I've been commenting on is related completely to gaming in OS X and the resolutions rumored here. When it comes down to it, if you want to game at these rumored resolutions, and even the current iMac resolutions, OS X gaming is a waste of time and money. They simply do not perform even half as well on the same hardware when running Windows, the cost of an iMac of that caliber would net you a gaming PC that would wipe the floor with an iMac. And the hardware in iMacs are nothing more than laptop parts put in an AIO chassis, they aren't anything special.
----------
----------
[/COLOR]