Mac Pro for 5K Future

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by enroh, Nov 10, 2014.

  1. enroh macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    #1
    I was thinking about getting a base late-2013 Mac Pro and run it with my Asus PB278Q monitor @2560x1440. Looks like for that I will need a mDP to DP adapter but no big deal.
    Down the road though I would love to go to a 5K screen. (The retina iMac was glorious but mine was defective out of the box - see iMac HAHA Dual Screens thread).
    I wanted to know from some Pros of the Mac Pro line if they feel that dual 300 cards would be enough to drive Dell's new 5K screen (which will require 2 x DP)

    Thanks :) :cool:
     
  2. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #2
    It's not a question of whether the GPU is up to the task. The D300 in the nMP can drive three 4K displays without issue which is a total of 25MP of screen (vs 14.7MP for the 5K display).

    I think the question is, will Apple support it? Apple will need to write some kind of driver to enable the Dell 5K to work. It's possible they will, however, it's also possibly they might not. And even if they do, there might be all kinds of issues with it if past MST-based 4K displays are any measure.

    If you really want a 5K display (and a base Mac Pro), get the Retina iMac now. The value is outstanding given Dell's panel alone will probably be close to $2K at launch and a maxed out iMac will likely outperform the base Mac Pro.

    However, if you want massive screen real-estate or pixel density, there are plenty of ways to get that without needing a 5K display. Dell is poised to launch a new affordable IPS 24" 4K display (P2415Q) that will offer similar pixel density to the retina iMac. The best part is, it may be priced around $700-$800 USD... and for that price you will probably be able to buy three for about the same money as the Dell 5K display. They also have a 27" 4K display coming out as well with an IPS panel at around $900-$1K USD. There are also a number of 4K panels to choose from in the 27-32" category as well.

    For my work, I'd much rather have two 4K monitors, than a single 5K panel. But everyone's needs will be different.

    At any rate, I wouldn't hold my breath for the Dell 5K to work seamlessly with any computer, especially a 2013 Mac Pro.
     
  3. Nosferax macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    #3
    Personaly I don't get the 5k resolution...

    Why not go with 4k instead since this is where we are at presently and work on new tech to bring 8k as soon as possible.

    5K is such an odd resolution... I understand the "retina" process and it's positive impact on text and gui ressources rendering. But for a pure and straight workflow I just don't get it. Especially on an iMac which is more a consumer, hobbyist computer.
     
  4. handsome pete macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    #4
    Because computer monitors aren't primarily used for viewing video content. 4K is a film/television standard. Those don't apply to computer monitors where you are dealing with many different windows of different sizes and aspect ratios.
     
  5. mmcxiiad macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #5
    One of the advantages of 5k is you can edit full resolution 4k video in final cut and the extra space gives you enough room for the app's interface.
     
  6. Korican100 macrumors 6502a

    Korican100

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #6
    or just have a separate 1080 monitor for controls, and your viewing window in the 4k/5k/8k monitor
     
  7. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #7
    You're right, it's a bit of an odd resolution, but it makes perfect sense for the iMac... the previous high-end iMac had a 27" 2560x1440 display. To make that "Retina" required exactly 4x the resolution or a 5120x2880 display.
     
  8. beaker7 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #8
    This one goes to 5k. It's one more k.
     
  9. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #9
    The 5K resolution allows for a "retina display" with an effective resolution of 2560x1440. It makes perfect sense.
     
  10. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #10
    "Resolution" is usually expressed in linear units - so the latest Imac has 2x the resolution (and 4x the pixels) of the one that many say is now obsolete.


    It only makes "perfect sense" if your OS is incapable of resolution independence, and is limited to a 1980's model of only supporting doubles of linear resolution.
     
  11. TruckdriverSean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Location:
    Texas, US
    #11
    I like having a single big monitor. I'm not a professional anything (well, professional truck driver I guess) so my little office desk gets used for lots of things besides bashing away at a computer. So having two or more 24" monitors is just something I don't want. At 27" and above (I'm rocking an older 30" ACD) you need higher resolution than standard HD. Go to 1600p, 1440p, whatever. So if you are moving to even higher resolution with the same BIG monitor approach then you get 5K. Maybe 4K would work, IDK. I'm skeptical it would be worth it at 27" or more. Of coarse, I still like 16:10 but I'm probably an odd one. (5.5K? :cool: )

    Getting back to the OP's question, it's like the wild west right now, similar to the transition to HD monitors from years ago. Lots of differing ideas on how to connect and drive it, some looking forward, some hacking together todays technology to get it to work. (mostly)

    I'm personally going to hold off going to UHD4K or higher until I see how it's going to shake out. What will be the connection standard? What graphics cards will support 5K? What will OS X support?

    My position as a non-professional is pretty simple. I'm not buying anything 4K or above until this all shakes out, probably sometime late in 2015.

    Just my $0.02
     
  12. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #12
    Simple for video editors, 5K allows native 4K in the viewer with NLE UI elements displayed alongside it.
     
  13. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #13
    Fair enough


    What are you trying to say? From everything I've read OS X is much better than Windows. I see nothing but complaints from Windows users about the OS and lack of third party support for high pixel density displays.
     
  14. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #14
  15. Pending macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2014
    #15
    Lol.
    I was about to say something similar until reading your post here,
    Spinal Tap revival.

    Why go to from 4k to 5k? Cos you can.
     
  16. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #16
  17. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #17
    If the display is MST Apple doesn't have to write a driver.

    Barring any issues with Apple's MST functionality itself, of course.

    ----------

    It's a crapshoot.

    The window server has been technically superior to OS X's since Vista. This includes scaling support.

    In practice? Many Windows apps are on legacy source bases that don't work right with any of the new stuff.

    ----------

    OS X supports non-doubling scaling. It's there under the hood, and IIRC, you can still deploy graphics meant for those non-doubled resolutions.

    If you go into Quartz Debug I think you can still access it directly. Last I checked there was a slider which lets you access all the weird scales like 1.5 and 3. I still have projects that use vector graphics to support those resolutions when it looked like they might be publicly accessible.

    Where Windows since Vista has an advantage is it's fully GPU accelerated. OS X is still only partially GPU accelerated. (It's also why Vista was so slow at launch. A lot of people had crappy GPUs which made the transition to a fully GPU accelerated window server painful.)
     
  18. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #18
    lol. Seriously. lol
     
  19. calaverasgrande macrumors 65816

    calaverasgrande

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York.
    #19
    which leaves you just a fraction of the screen for your timeline and everything else.
    No offense but this is a non-starter.
    Where I work we do HD broadcast video in about 20 suites simultaneously. The consistent workflow in AE, FCP and Avid is to have a two or three monitor setup. With one being full screen output. The other will have timeline, thumbnails, browser, etc.
    Even when we work on a single display machine in HD, its not a preview in HD. More like a downsampled version of the HD output at about one quarter the size.
    Ditto for guys I know at Fox Sports, CBS, Criterion etc.
    This idea of working with one huge preview and a sliver of controls is more appropriate to Photoshop and other such still image apps.


    (not trying to pick on you, I just see this stated a lot, and it makes zero sense to me)
     
  20. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #20

    Agreed.

    Even in photography, most images are around 20+MP these days which means neither 5K or 4K can display images 1:1 so the benefits of 5K are very marginal compared to 4K when you consider that 4K is becoming mainstream to the point where dual 4K monitors will soon be the norm and offer a lot more desktop than a single 5K.

    Plus 4K being 16:9 compared to photos typical 4:3 aspect ratio means 4K or 5K both offer plenty of real-estate on the side for tools and filmstrip viewers. I was glad to see Apples new Photos App for the Mac will exploit this with a vertical film strip to make the most of 4:3 on a 16:9 display.
     
  21. handsome pete macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    #21
    Agreed. 5k is a great resolution for overall usage, but the whole "you can edit full res 4k and still have room for controls" is pure ********.
     
  22. makdeniss macrumors member

    makdeniss

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Location:
    European Union
    #22
    I am at a serious debate myself. Whether to buy an retina iMac or get a Mac Pro and then buy new displays. I mostly do programming (java/web), some photoshop and music in ableton.

    Have to options:

    iMac 5k with Core i7, 295 AMD and 512 gb flash

    or

    base Mac Pro.

    I am in doubts.
     
  23. EdDuPlessis macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2014
    #23
    5K is just a gimmick to get people to buy the iMac over a 4K competitor. 8K is supposed to be the proper jump from 4K as both of these standards were carried over from the digital process in the film industry (35mm = 4K, 70mm = 8K).

    One could argue that computing doesn't need to give a damn about video or film resolutions and has its own standards for defining retina resolutions, but the point is it helps to know 8K is in development.

    None of the current high end graphics cards at the moment could drive an 8K monitor at decent refresh rates or gaming frame rates btw
     
  24. Pending macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2014
    #24
    5k a gimmick? Not really.
    Working on 4k footage natively makes the extra room 5k offers very welcome.
    As for 8k, well lets get 4k properly sorted en masse first!
     
  25. EdDuPlessis macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2014
    #25
    For "Pro Pro PROOO" use you really need to be using a dedicated previewing monitor that supports the correct color gamuts anyway. If you're just making corporate/wedding/Internet videos then blast away, the iMac retina does the job.
     

Share This Page