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.
iMac and TBD 4K
- Thread starter Serban
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
16:9 4K (which is what this thread is talking about) is 3840 × 2160, which is not pixel doubled from 1440p. You'll get quite a bit of "fuzziness"; similar to running 1080p on a 1440p display. CRTs didn't suffer this as much due to their design, but it was still apparent and it's not a valid solution.
50" TV's have a resolution of 1080p, too.
Try getting that mobile GPU to drive any modern PC game and see where that gets you
you're missing my point. people complain about gaming in hi-res, i'm just saying thats always been sort of a problem in gaming. i played a lot of games in lower res so they would have higher FPS.
is it fuzzy? yes, but definitely playable. the reason why i mention 50 inch TVs (and i know they have 1080p) is because it seems people have no problem playing on them. its basically blown up 23" 1080p - a standard display for midlevel gaming. now you the double the size with same res - it's a bit "fuzzy" as well - interesting no one complains about that, they just sort of accepted it and live with it.
maybe i'm the only one but i never really minded having lower res for gaming, you guys are just too spoilt (and i guess im old fart at 27)
lets not forget only apple apps was taking advantage of the 15" rMBP display..but in time (short time) every one updated things because they know that will be the future. So Apple is kind of the only brand that put things we can't fully take advantage of from the start.
So yes iMAC 4K will be a start, safari will be up to date, so browsing the web will take full adv of that 4K. The rest of apple productive apps also..so only 3rd party apps will must update their things but i think in 4-6 months are ready to go, the only thing that will go slowly is gaming on native resolution, probably 2 years (keep in mind 1 year from 1800p still no real gaming for gamers on 15" retina MBP)
So yes iMAC 4K will be a start, safari will be up to date, so browsing the web will take full adv of that 4K. The rest of apple productive apps also..so only 3rd party apps will must update their things but i think in 4-6 months are ready to go, the only thing that will go slowly is gaming on native resolution, probably 2 years (keep in mind 1 year from 1800p still no real gaming for gamers on 15" retina MBP)
you're missing my point. people complain about gaming in hi-res, i'm just saying thats always been sort of a problem in gaming. i played a lot of games in lower res so they would have higher FPS.
is it fuzzy? yes, but definitely playable. the reason why i mention 50 inch TVs (and i know they have 1080p) is because it seems people have no problem playing on them. its basically blown up 23" 1080p - a standard display for midlevel gaming. now you the double the size with same res - it's a bit "fuzzy" as well - interesting no one complains about that, they just sort of accepted it and live with it.
maybe i'm the only one but i never really minded having lower res for gaming, you guys are just too spoilt (and i guess im old fart at 27)
That's a different scenario. A full blown 1080p on 50" is supposed to be viewed from 6 or 8 feet away, while a 1080p 23" monitor is designed to be enjoyed from an armlength. So while the pixels on 50" is like 4 times bigger than a 23incher, it's not as noticeable from a normal viewing distance.
What matters most is 1080p content on 1080p display. Native resolution would look the sharpest either way. Now try playing a 720p content on your 1080p monitor, the pixelation is quickly noticeable be it on a 23", 50" or even 100" from each of its normal viewing distance, respectively.
Also it's all about perspective. PS3 or Xbox 360 used to look good (most of its games are upscaled to 1080p) but when I finally enjoy what a modern gaming PC could do .. 1080p gaming on 1080p (or more) display with buttery smooth 60+ FPS , oh fark .. I'd throw my PS3 away.
Now try playing 720p on a 4K display. That would be ape$***.
yeah yeah I hear you. i get all what youre saying and i agree except that i personally think that gaming in 1080p natively even on 50 inched seems fuzzy/pixelated to me. its not that great really, surely it depends on how far are you but still its being accepted as a norm (today).
in that regard, i dont see anything bad in downscaling to lower resolution even on retina, just to keep FPS and details nice, in the end its sort of the same as big ass HDTV.
im not saying retina/4K isnt the future. i just think theres a long way ahead of us, its similar when HD came or when SSD started to show up 5-6 years ago. they were slow,expensive and failed often. now weve gotten to the stage where common folks are considering 512gig drives for their computers.
it will be similar with 4K. there will be first 3-4 years when you wont be simply able to game in native so going down in lower res will be only viable option. since we've been doing this before it doesnt seem as big deal as to others.
then 4-6 years from now, GPUs will probably become computers within themselves being able to deliver huge power to render detailed scenes in 2160p.
its the same reason why i dont think PS4 or Xbox One are nextgen. PS3 and X360 were nextgen in 2005-07 era, we got HD accelerated graphics with many imporvements (anyone remember how 3D games used to look on PS2?).
these new consoles seem evolutionary at best, they won't be able to deliver 4K res games, new games seem better at graphics but not as much as they were with last gen.
No, they won't.
I can tell you right now if Apple released a 4k TBD and I was in the market for a new iMac, I would buy the iMac.
I do not need or want a 4k display. I do want (and in fact, have) a 27" iMac. I can only hope that the screen resolution is the same when I come to replace it down the line.
Good luck with that theory, considering most high end 4K displays cost nearly $1,500-$3,500 right now (don't send me links to 30Hz crappy 4K displays under $1,000...Apple will not build a crappy display to reach a low price point).
So you think people will forgo a 27" iMac at $1,799 and spend close to $3,000 or more in total for a computer set up just for 4K? No way.
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
well you can get a reasonable deal on a dell UHD:
DellTM 28 Ultra HD Monitor - P2815Q for $699.99
However, major caveats are:
(1) this is not an IPS screen (it's twisted-nematic: TN) so not an option for me.
(2) with HDMI 1.4a, display at 3840x2160 is capped at 30Hz. Althought the monitor has DP 1.2 thus potentially hit 60hz
Overall, quite happy with my Dell ultrasharp 1440p connected to my MBP
Last edited:
As you stated. TN panel at 30Hz. That is a sucker's purchase that Dell is using as a quick money grab during this initial onset of 4K fever. The monitor is poop.
If Apple did release a 4k TBD in the mid to near-term, could they sell an external high-end TB video card to make it useable with the iMac, Mac Mini, MBA and MBP?
Without a major redesign to use desktop parts or a major leap forward in mobile GPU design, making 4k viable on any of these platforms doesn't seem feasible for another couple of years.
Without a major redesign to use desktop parts or a major leap forward in mobile GPU design, making 4k viable on any of these platforms doesn't seem feasible for another couple of years.
It wouldn't be like Apple to wait long on 4k. They're the one's who pushed retina screens and forced others to follow. The 21.5" iMac could be 4k with a 205ppi and the 27" much less. That's not even retina ppi. Sure it would cost more for 4k screens but in production costs not that much more. There's just an incredible mark up on 4K screens right now which will come down soon like HD screens have.
I wouldn't be surprised if 2014 iMacs have 4k screens, at least as an option. Especially because we're still 6 months away from an update, maybe more, and a lot changes in 6 months.
I wouldn't be surprised if 2014 iMacs have 4k screens, at least as an option. Especially because we're still 6 months away from an update, maybe more, and a lot changes in 6 months.
I'd love to get a new imac with 4K display! After getting myself a retina Macbook, my 27" iMac's display suddenly feels so old . First world problems for sure, but it always seemed a bit weird to give a Macbook the best display Apple could offer.
Bringing 4K to iMac and Thunderbolt Display would make the Retinavolution of Apple complete Apple loved to talk about their new Mac Pro last year as 4K-capable (even up to 3 4K-displays a they say) and then... silence. Nothing. Not a hinch of anything 4k-related anymore. Promoting the 4K-Mac Pro while not releasing a 4K Thunderbolt Display is literally telling people to buy from other companies!
I've read some skepticism here, but I certainly do not agree. 4K must come and must come this year I say!
. First world problems for sure, but it always seemed a bit weird to give a Macbook the best display Apple could offer. Bringing 4K to iMac and Thunderbolt Display would make the Retinavolution of Apple complete
Apple loved to talk about their new Mac Pro last year as 4K-capable (even up to 3 4K-displays a they say) and then... silence. Nothing. Not a hinch of anything 4k-related anymore. Promoting the 4K-Mac Pro while not releasing a 4K Thunderbolt Display is literally telling people to buy from other companies!I've read some skepticism here, but I certainly do not agree. 4K must come and must come this year I say!
- "too demanding for the GPU": Apple's Retina MBP is driven by a Intel IGP... Do I need to say more? It is true however that it'll be impossible to play games at decent fps on the iMac at 4K, but who is saying you need to play games at the native resolution? 1080p looks like native on a 4K display since the pixels match! That means 1080p will look even sharper on a 4K iMac/TBD then on the current iMac/TBD!
- "still 30hz": Samsung is releasing a 28" 4K@60hz Display next month at 699 dollars: http://pcmonitors.info/samsung/samsung-u28d590d-28-inch-uhd-4k-monitor
- "too expensive": Are you calling 1000 dollar for the current Thunderbolt Display cheap then? It was 1000 dollar when Apple released it as the Cinema Display in 2010, a time when 27" LED IPS displays were very expensive. Why is it nowadays different with 4K displays? As I noted before: Samsung is releasing a 28" 4K@60hz Display next month at 699 dollars.
I'd love to get a new imac with 4K display! After getting myself a retina Macbook, my 27" iMac's display suddenly feels so old
Bringing 4K to iMac and Thunderbolt Display would make the Retinavolution of Apple complete
I've read some skepticism here, but I certainly do not agree. 4K must come and must come this year I say!
- "too demanding for the GPU": Apple's Retina MBP is driven by a Intel IGP... Do I need to say more? It is true however that it'll be impossible to play games at decent fps on the iMac at 4K, but who is saying you need to play games at the native resolution? 1080p looks like native on a 4K display since the pixels match! That means 1080p will look even sharper on a 4K iMac/TBD then on the current iMac/TBD!
- "still 30hz": Samsung is releasing a 28" 4K@60hz Display next month at 699 dollars: http://pcmonitors.info/samsung/samsung-u28d590d-28-inch-uhd-4k-monitor
- "too expensive": Are you calling 1000 dollar for the current Thunderbolt Display cheap then? It was 1000 dollar when Apple released it as the Cinema Display in 2010, a time when 27" LED IPS displays were very expensive. Why is it nowadays different with 4K displays? As I noted before: Samsung is releasing a 28" 4K@60hz Display next month at 699 dollars.
That Samsung display may be capable of 60Hz, but it's still a cheap TN panel. That's why it's priced the way it is. If you want 4K at 60Hz with IPS right now you're talking anywhere from $1,400-$3,500 for the display. Apple will only release a high end panel...not a TN panel. Fact. Plus it will have built-in speakers, Thunderbolt dock, HD webcam, and Magsafe. Now you're talking at least $2,000 or more for the display alone. Toss an iMac computer behind the display and you're at $2,799-$3,000+. That's why they haven't released one yet.
Last edited:
Reducing size will increase cost at this point because a reduced size means increased pixel density. It will be a while before 4K manufacturing hits the inflection point where physical size has a bigger price impact than pixel density.
iMac 27" screen is 2.5k ....... Much larger than 1080p
While not 4k, you can work really well in 2.5k.
95% of the time all 5k footage gets downgraded to 1080p anyways...... If you want 4k you will need to buy an external monitor, an iMac with 4k screen will cost a lot of more money and not even sure they have a graphics card to make that happen currently.
Should I even bother with this ridiculous a$$ comment?
Apple's retina craze has really all of sudden turned allot of people into pixel freaks.
I just simply don't think GPU power has caught up enough for everything to start running all these high resolution displays. It makes things look pretty at the cost of performance. Things like 4K isn't going to be common place until the average joe can get it in $7000 television or laptop.
This forum says things like "don't buy anything non-retina" when retina displays are only in the top 10% of machines, probably even less than that
Yet another TN 4K panel barely capable of 60Hz released below $1,000 (Samsung U28D590D) and I'm sure there will be buzz on this thread and others about Apple and 4K displays/iMacs. As I've previously stated, don't you guys who squawk about how Apple needs to release a 4K display for some outrageously low price point find it a bit strange that Sharp, Dell, and Asus all sell 4K displays that cost well over $2,000 and $3,000 a pop yet there are Dell and Samsung 4K displays for $700? Aren't you baffled by that price discrepancy?
Well, the reason is quality. Apple will not release a cheap TN panel at low margin to compete with these cheap displays. Same reason they won't release a cheap MacBook with a Celeron processor for $499. They don't make cheap, low quality products. When Apple is ready, they will release a 4K display but it will be IPS and high quality...and high margin.
Well, the reason is quality. Apple will not release a cheap TN panel at low margin to compete with these cheap displays. Same reason they won't release a cheap MacBook with a Celeron processor for $499. They don't make cheap, low quality products. When Apple is ready, they will release a 4K display but it will be IPS and high quality...and high margin.
Last edited:
At this point I'm just hoping for a 27" Cinema Display refresh to the new thinner iMac design that can be used with the "Late 2013" 27" iMac.
It seems kind of silly to have to buy a Late 2012 27" iMac and run it in Target Display Mode to get a matching external display.
It seems kind of silly to have to buy a Late 2012 27" iMac and run it in Target Display Mode to get a matching external display.