Well, for your tv you probably sit so far away 720p would be adequate. And like you said, 4k is limited. So isn't your tv an overkill? Yeah it looks good if you walk up to it, but is that really needed?
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.
Is there really a need for 5K?
- Thread starter zipur
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, for your tv you probably sit so far away 720p would be adequate. And like you said, 4k is limited. So isn't your tv an overkill? Yeah it looks good if you walk up to it, but is that really needed?
This. I went from a 30" 2560x1600 display to the 5k. I plugged in my old monitor as a second display. Within half an hour I unplugged it and it's been unused since. You can't go back. The 5k display makes non-retina displays virtually unusable.
The best settings fo retina iMac with M295X is all on ultra at 5K except shadows and water set to the minimum, if you only try to enable those 2 even at normal level you will have a drop of your FPS down to 15.
In the world and instance you will be in the 60 range at 90% of the time, battleground and raids just go in the "Battleground and Raid" tab and take the previous settings, cut down the "Effects" part from ultra to normal (or play down until, you get the FPS you want), you can lower down the viewing distance from ultra to high to gain some fps but personally I keep this on ultra,
Look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G99vF2GB1VE
I recorded this from WoW so put 10 fps more that was stealed by the recording process, to me it's a very well performing machine for WoW.
----------
I agree in part, the Blizzard games are optimized for Os X and 5K resolution so with a Blizzard title and the Retina iMac the best is Os X and 5K resolution
Last edited:
Oh. Well I'd still be interested in your opinion on why 2560x1440 is ideal?
--
It's quite interesting to see so many saying they can't go back to a non-retina iMac when there was a lot of talk about how close it was to retina already
If you need backgrounds for iMac Retina, look at:
https://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/downloads/date/wide_16:9/
or http://wallpaperswide.com/ (choose your resolution)
;JOOP!
https://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/downloads/date/wide_16:9/
or http://wallpaperswide.com/ (choose your resolution)
;JOOP!
Computers use to have resolutions beyond the video standard. If you have a 5K monitor you will be able to edit 4K videos full size and have room for the tools. You do not need 5K as you mention. It is an option for the people who needs it.
I am a video editor and I haven't touch anything related with 5K yet, HD still too demanding for the hardware and I know people do not want to go into 5K for the renders times, extra hard drive and there are not many clients for it, is not a trend still, lets wait 2 more years.
I can at least try to answer that
One thing about Apple is that they want the users to have consistent UI experience. That is, the UI should be of comparable size on any display. Thats why the PPI of the Apple computers have to be fairly close to each other. All modern Appel displays have PPI around 100-110 (with the most notable exception being MBA, which has a higher PPI and thus smaller UI). One can argue whether 100 PPI is a good value to go from the ergonomic perspective (e.g. for me, the Apple's 1440x900 is a bit too low for a 15" screen), but one thing is important here. If Apple is already using 100 PPI for the smaller iMac, they can't use a lower-density panel for the big one. The reduction in quality would be too obvious. So they need to use 100 PPI (or higher)for the 27", which is incidentally 2560x1440.I can at least try to answer that
Thanks for that.
I also feel the same about 1440x900 on the Macbook, I'd like the UI size to be around the 'looks like 1920x1200'; I'm currently using 2048x1280, which I'm more comfortable with.
Once I get a 5k iMac, I'd rather not switch from the default in case it compromises clarity.
I was curious because I fear that having all these things needed to be tied together might end up painting themselves in a corner if they ever decided to change screen sizes (e.g. a 32", which I'd really like)
I see that there is now a faster 5k option for the cMac Pro tower with the Gforce GTX 980 card. Of course you're looking at about $3000 for the card and a Dell 27" 5K display, so the Retina iMac makes more sence for most people unless you are already using a newer cMac Pro.
The nMac Pro is still stuck at 4k.
The nMac Pro is still stuck at 4k.
With these high-density screens, the logical resolution does not really affect the image quality. I run my 15" rMBP with 1680x1050, and sometimes even switch to 1920x1200, and I never seen any degradation of clarity compared to 1440x900 HiDPI mode. Some people claim that they perceive the scaler resolutions as blurry, but they must have really good eyes. So I am quite confident that you can run a 5K iMac on any of the supported resolution without noticing any problems with IQ.
Who was saying that? I remember the iphone 4 was impressive (but not a massive deal), the ipad3 was more significant and very pretty, and the rMBP was game-changing. From the moment I got my rMBP in the middle of 2012 I was waiting and waiting for a full-sized Retina display, having used a 30" non-retina for many years. The day the 5k imac came out I ordered one, bit irrelevant what the other features were really. The screen is the thing I interact with on a computer, and I've always believed in buying the best screen available.
----------
Correct. For me, 2560x1440 is nowhere near enough real estate to have on a screen. I run the 5k almost all the time at 3200x1800, and occasionally at native 5k. At 3200x1800 the clarity is superb. Try it in a store.
I can relate to that. From the moment I decided to get a desktop to replace a 15" mid 2012 rMBP I was using as one, I waited 5 months for the Retina iMac and ordered it on launch day. I got a 27" 2010 iMac in between, but the display was a significant downgrade from the rMBP, and having an HDD it was also very slow.
I and plenty of others prefer to run it at native resolution. There is plenty of screen room on a 27" 2560x1440 already, and the quality at pixel level degrades when choosing a scaled resolution.
I don't notice any blurring/softness, I do see some jaggedness on rounded corners in windows from all scaled resolutions; it's fine though, as long as the important things aren't affected too much. I just thought it might be more noticeable on a 27" screen with slightly lower PPI.
Probably between the time after the rMBP and before the 5k iMac were released, there was a lot of speculation in the forums on when retina would come to the iMac.
There were some who argued that pixels weren't discernible from a certain distance that was still in the range of normal viewing and that any resolution bump would only need be minimal, IIRC.
IMO, it's fair to say there weren't any other new features apart from the retina screen on the 5k iMac.
Leading up to release I was hoping for at least 4k and there was a lot of technical talk about how it was more likely. So I was pleasantly surprised when they were able to pull off 5k; I think it's a good forward push for desktop screens
Last edited:
I suspect you mean 2560x1440 when you say "native"; I meant full 5k native resolution, 5120x2880. I'm sure lots of people run it at standard out-of-box resolution, I said that's way too little space for me and a retrograde step. The poster was asking whether other resolutions were fine and I just said that 3200x1800 was indeed very clear and sharp. As is native, of course, but then there's no retina involved.
The reason the intermediate resolutions are better than might be expected (apart from the overall resolution of the screen) is that they're rendered double-sized (6400x3600) and then scaled down to 5k.
This is an important point. As you get higher PPI displays, the penalty for scaling goes down. You have more to work with, in essence. I don't find it very useful to go to a scaled resolution, as I have a second monitor, but it's true: it still looks better than my 2560x1440 second monitor.
Good point and as you said yes my TV is overkill, however I love every second I look and that crystal sharp screen. It's screen blows away my 1080p LG tv. So I've fully jumped on board after reading all the helpful comments.
The iMac is pretty much the same, not necessary but it looks gorgeous.
But I do get some use from it, as a student I can pretty much have the entire internet open on my screen while I type of my papers. Multitasking to a new level :].