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.
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.
Evidence of Upcoming Retina iMacs Showing Up in OS X Yosemite Beta
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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...
About time!
I've been using rMBP and never looked back. It's so weird using non-retina iMac at work... even if it's 27".
I've been using rMBP and never looked back. It's so weird using non-retina iMac at work... even if it's 27".
You asked for it,,but still not happy (and that's even Retina iMac's not even out yet)
You guys already want 4k.... How fast do you people jog ?
I can't keep up..
*brain shuts down*
Retina iMac's is pretty good though, now we will soon be "all Retina Mac products" (with the exception the Air's and 13'inch 2.5Ghz)
You guys already want 4k.... How fast do you people jog ?
I can't keep up..
*brain shuts down*
Retina iMac's is pretty good though, now we will soon be "all Retina Mac products" (with the exception the Air's and 13'inch 2.5Ghz)
How do shipping times slip to 3-5 days just before wwdc, then go back to normal with no updates? I hope this happens sooner than the Fall, but I think that's wishful thinking.
My guess is that OS X Yosemite will, in the same vein as iOS 7 and iOS 8 look amazing on retina Macs and so-so on non-retina Macs, so it would make sense for Apple to complete its transition to retina displays on Macs. Then again, it would also behoove the advancement of the screen technology for it to be in as many computer displays as possible. The fact that it has only been in MacBook Pros (and half of them for half of the time that they've been out so far) doesn't lend itself well to Apple furthering this for the masses.
So yeah, bring on the retina iMacs, because I want as much software and content compatible with and optimized for this new technology as possible so that I don't make the inevitable switch to a retina Mac and find that a lot of my CURRENT apps are not optimized for it. This was my recent experience on retina MacBook Pros and I think it is a downplayed issue.
So yeah, bring on the retina iMacs, because I want as much software and content compatible with and optimized for this new technology as possible so that I don't make the inevitable switch to a retina Mac and find that a lot of my CURRENT apps are not optimized for it. This was my recent experience on retina MacBook Pros and I think it is a downplayed issue.
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.
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?
Edge to Edge?
Any thoughts on the new models going with an edge-to-edge glass situation? Feel like those thick black borders are starting to look a bit dated...
Any thoughts on the new models going with an edge-to-edge glass situation? Feel like those thick black borders are starting to look a bit dated...
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.
"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.
Actually, you'd have more screen real estate in certain cases (working with photo and video) as the images are represented pixel-by-pixel. So a 4k image would be 2/3 of the screen or something (I'm not doing the math for it) with the rest for your timelines and toolbars and such. Great for content creators/editors as you get to look at the native res of the sources without fullscreening and losing the rest of the functionality on screen.
Yep, but if I look closely at my phone screen I see pixels. Imagin them being so small you needed a magnifying glass to see them.
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!
I also agree with you. I currently own a few Custom PC Desktops.
The point I was trying to make against him, is that, I cannot build a Gaming PC into an iMac like form factor for a better price.... and neither can PC OEMs
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.
----------
I said no such thing. I said they wouldn't have to be as conservative with the iMac GPU clocks as they would with the GPU clocks in a Macbook. That's a fact. I never said they don't conserve power in an iMac, not once.
No it does not because you are arguing against something I never said.
Where in there do I say they don't do it at all? You need to learn reading comprehension. I said they don't have to strike a balance like they do in a Macbook. That means they don't have to be as aggressive, not that they don't do it at all. They can get away with higher clocks and voltage in an iMac because they've got more cooling capacity. I know they use nothing more than laptop parts in an iMac, the hardware is exactly the same, but having more cooling capacity means that they aren't as conservative with clocks and voltage like they are in the Macbook line.
----------
You are now comparing desktop class parts to an iMac which has laptop class parts. That is not an equal comparison and is irrelevant since at no point was the Mac Pro ever brought up. Pound for pound an iMac is not as powerful as a Windows machine of the same price because the hardware is inferior. That is fact. The Mac Pro has desktop class parts and was never a point of discussion here.
Huh?? You seemed to have missed both my points again....
I never said anything about OS X, or did I say that it is a decent gaming platform. I totally agree with you windows is a at superior gaming platform. Which is why I use it everyday.
I was saying that Macs run windows natively, so the fact that they are a Mac shouldn't have anything to do with their gaming capabilities.
And now you explain that a desktop PC and an iMac are equal in price. And I am saying you cannot compare the two since they have different form factors. that is like comparing a desktop to a laptop. If you find me a PC with an iMac like form factor and has better gaming performance at the same price ... Let me know.
64GBs RAM and 6-core?
This all sounds great. Now, if Apple would build a logic board capable of holding 64GBs of RAM and, heat and other considerations allowing, have a 6-core i7 BTO, this would be a perfect iMac. Doubt Apple would ever do a 6-core anytime soon.
Still, having a beautiful retina iMac (6-core/64GBs RAM), with a 2nd TB retina display as my host machine, with a 12-core MacPro as my slave PC, there is no app that I currently own that would make that system sweat. That's what I need. That's what I want.
This all sounds great. Now, if Apple would build a logic board capable of holding 64GBs of RAM and, heat and other considerations allowing, have a 6-core i7 BTO, this would be a perfect iMac. Doubt Apple would ever do a 6-core anytime soon.
Still, having a beautiful retina iMac (6-core/64GBs RAM), with a 2nd TB retina display as my host machine, with a 12-core MacPro as my slave PC, there is no app that I currently own that would make that system sweat. That's what I need. That's what I want.