No, US sucks just as bad. My second iMac is ghosting like crazy. I have videos and pictures of just how bad it is. Except, I don't need to run some special screen thing for hours to see it. Just open text editor and start a few paragraphs. Switch to another program, and whalla you can still read what you wrote in the editor
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.
Mac Pro/OS X 4K Display Compatibility 'Like the Wild West', Some 4K Monitors Unsupported
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, US sucks just as bad. My second iMac is ghosting like crazy. I have videos and pictures of just how bad it is. Except, I don't need to run some special screen thing for hours to see it. Just open text editor and start a few paragraphs. Switch to another program, and whalla you can still read what you wrote in the editor
Long story short, 4k isn't ready for primetime (pun intended) - and will likely require DP1.3 to truly work well (and therefore Thunderbolt 3) and/or HDMI 2.0. Until then it's a hack, but the industry has to start somewhere before HEVC and 4k content become common.
In the mean time, I would just like to buy a refreshed Thunderbolt display from Apple. The current TBD hasn't been updated in 2.5yrs - but it would be great if Apple would give us a TBD2 including MagSafe2, TB2, USB 3 ... and in the thinner form factor of the current iMacs. Maybe drop the price to $800 or so.
Then, in 2-3 years when 4k actually becomes plug-and-play at 5120x2880@60hz, I'll upgrade to the 30" TBD3...
In the mean time, I would just like to buy a refreshed Thunderbolt display from Apple. The current TBD hasn't been updated in 2.5yrs - but it would be great if Apple would give us a TBD2 including MagSafe2, TB2, USB 3 ... and in the thinner form factor of the current iMacs. Maybe drop the price to $800 or so.
Then, in 2-3 years when 4k actually becomes plug-and-play at 5120x2880@60hz, I'll upgrade to the 30" TBD3...
I'm running a 2009 Mac Pro with a 39" Seiki 4k tv and Mavericks.
Runs 100% all the time except when Mac wakes up, it takes a few seconds and a few keyboard bar clicks to handshake with the tv. Otherwise I'm very happy with it, I even sold my 30" Cinema Display to keep this one.
I just want to point out to MacRumors, and to the rest of the community, that MacVidCards pointed this out about a month ago. Unfortunately because he was snuffed out by the overly zealous moderators and silenced by the over-eager fan-boi's who can't see the forest for the trees, his hard work and worthwhile information has gone almost completely unnoticed.
The Mac Pro is a weak design. Pathetic PSU. Outdated GPU's that will only be upgradeable with future over-priced Apple offerings. No keyboard or mouse included for pete sake. No internal storage available with the only real option being over priced slow Thunderbolt peripherals. Current lack of real 4K support despite it being advertised (this will most likely be fixed in a software update, thankfully).
The Mac Pro is a weak design. Pathetic PSU. Outdated GPU's that will only be upgradeable with future over-priced Apple offerings. No keyboard or mouse included for pete sake. No internal storage available with the only real option being over priced slow Thunderbolt peripherals. Current lack of real 4K support despite it being advertised (this will most likely be fixed in a software update, thankfully).
Fanbois can silence people?
----------
I don't understand why we can't just enter the exact screen dimensions we want in System Preferences. Throw in a GUI scaling slider for "retina" support, and we're done.
By June 2014 Apple will have their new monitors, any bugs will have been worked out in the new Mac Pro, and all will be fine.
Hell, took me a year to get a 32' optical thunderbolt cable so I could run my noisy stuff to my machine room. (recording studio.)
4k will be awesome soon.
Hell, took me a year to get a 32' optical thunderbolt cable so I could run my noisy stuff to my machine room. (recording studio.)
4k will be awesome soon.
Wait a second. Thunderbolt storage is really fast, first of all, just expensive. And the Mac Pro can drive some 4K displays, just not all of them. As the big bold title of the article says, "Mac Pro/OS X 4K Display Compatibility 'Like the Wild West', Some 4K Monitors Unsupported." And since it's an OS X software problem, not the Mac Pro's fault. I don't know why you're complaining about the PSU. Does the machine just not work when it's running at full capacity? And you're seriously complaining about Apple giving us the option to not buy the keyboard and mouse if we don't want it
If you had one valid argument here, it was about the GPUs not being upgradeable. Except I'm not even sure if they're outdated.
Last edited:
Im sure someone already pointed this out.
I agreed with everything you said until the part I bolded. I hate to sound like a hater, I really don't want to, but truth is Tim Cook is dropping the ball in general.
I think there are lot of implicit assumptions that most people will call obvious. One is that any new version of data transfer protocol will be announced long before it will be available simply because it is something agreed by committee involving several companies that need time to implement it after it has been announced/agreed upon. Which means that since we haven't heard anything concrete about a TB 3, that TB 3 is still some way off and thus 8K displays on Macs are still some way off. It doesn't matter that there is already a DP 1.3 standard, without a TB 3 standard that is irrelevant for Macs.
----------
If it is a retina display, then operating it in HiDPI mode (ie, as 1920 x 1080 monitor), should be the default way of using it. But somehow people think a 32" monitor should display things (text, buttons, menu bars, UI chrome) smaller than that.
This is a display that is about half-way between a normal and a retina display simply because that display size to viewing distance ratio does not stay constant when going to larger displays. The viewing distance for a 30" display is not twice that for a 15" display. If it were constant, for a given eyesight acuity, getting a larger display would just mean a longer viewing distance but not being able to see more stuff.
----------
Apple's argument could be that those intermediate resolutions only look good enough if the physical display dpi is small enough to somewhat hide the interpolation smearing, something the 32" 4K display doesn't fulfil.
----------
Retina scaling can be enabled on this monitor (just in the 2x HiDPI mode only).
And can you see the icons in PS on this display when used on a Windows PC? Does Windows offer this 2x oversampling and then downsampling that is used on the rMBP for intermediate resolutions? Does PS have double resolution icons (which are needed for this kind of scaling)?
----------
No, retina scaling is the only way to get additional resolutions that look consistently good for all UI elements and all applications because a global preference for the size of fonts and UI elements will never be adhered to for all but a subset of all applications which means you end up in big mess.
It appears to be properly scaled for the hardware it supports.
They appear to be the latest spec for a FirePro GPU per the Annadtech review.
And while there is a newer generation of silicon available from AMD, are these workstation-level GPUs or consumer/gaming-level GPUs?
And if there are newer generation workstation-level GPUs out, when did they come out? It's clear Apple finalized this design back in mid-2013 when the announced it at WDCC, but they would have likely made the GPU decision even earlier. So if these FirePro GPUs were what was "state of the art" for workstation-level GPUs in early 2013...
But at least they will be upgradeable, unlike every other current Apple computing product.
If everyone used an Apple Bluetooth keyboard and Magic Mouse, then it would make sense to include them. But I would not be surprised if folks doing pro-level work might have personal choices for input devices, which would mean including them would add ~$200 to the price for something they would leave in the box.
I have found TB1 to be anything but "slow" for data throughput - especially compared to FW800 and USB2/3. *shrug*
Last edited:
DVI video and HDMI video are the same. They both suck because they use the scammy DRM known as HDCP
Yeah, well DVI on Macs never used HDCP.
----------
The iMac and the 27" standalone monitor from Apple use the same panels (just look it up on the sites that provide the information which precise panel is used in a given monitor model). That glass cover that can get dirty exists in Apple's 27" monitors as well. The only difference is that an iMac has a fan which the standalone display does not have (which likely makes that dirt problem worse).
----------
Tell me again why HDMI (a) replaced DVI or (b) on some PCs even skipped DVI, ie, they went from VGA to HDMI directly and (c) was used instead of DP?
HDMI was developed for the entertainment industry, not for computers, just look at the original consortium, all entertainment industry companies. Somehow PCs got pressured into using it instead of DVI because it made hooking up a PC with a TV easier and because it made the enforcement of DRM easier.
I don't see any reason to use HDMI over DP.
----------
In my version of PS that only affects the font size, not the icon size. And this is very much a kludge as this only solves the problem for one application, all other applications are still unusable or look horrible. And even if other applications had something similar, you would have to set it in each application separately, and the enlargement factor won't be coordinated between different applications.
----------
I think it is also fine a lot of content-centric retina-aware applications run in HiDPI mode. Yes, UI chrome (and text) will be a bit large but a lot of the screen will show content (images, video) which anyway can and is scaled separately by the user. Take Aperture in fullscreen mode, so yes, the HUD will be a bit large but otherwise you have 32" of sharp images.
----------
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they do, it will be 'just an Apple branded' display, if they don't, they 'don't properly support 4K'.
What about us film professionals?
And also rubbish... 4K is more about colour depth and than resolution.
4K footage down sampled still looks better than most 1080p, and you have crop room!
Sorry why are the GPU's outdated? They are 7,000 tf... not many cards can do that.
Mouse and Keyboards are never included with Workstations. They have always ben an add on. Even with Dell etc.
4K is a bit of pain a with any machine at the moment. The standards have not caught up yet.
The PSU is Enough!? What are you talking about - Half the point of this design is to cut power consumption. I have a PC that eats 1400 watts at full pelt... might not matter for one person.. but when you have 50 in a studio it will.
Thunderbolt slow... er...what?
Of course MacVidCards is going to moan - He makes a lot of money from Hacking PC cards and selling them on eBay. I have one. but if Apple are sticking this power for $1000 in then I am more than happy
Not quite. There's 6 TB ports that share 4 controllers. So if you are using 2 ports, they use 2 controllers. If you use 4 ports, they use 4 controllers. If you use 6 ports, they use 4 controllers, so things might slow down if you're using all 6 at max. But if you use 4 at max and 2 are idle, you'll never notice any slowdown.
Think of it like a highway. You have 4 lanes, and 6 on-ramps. If all 6 on-ramps are full, you'll have trouble. But if all 6 on-ramps are only at 2/3 capacity, there won't be a traffic jam.
The problem with these comparisons is that people always compare to cheaper PC offerings or default product offerings from other brands. What you suggest was not the case if you compared within a similar price range. Apple was not always the best value, and I'm familiar with all of their displays back to the late CRTs. In case you meant the imacs, those started with IPS during the G4 era, went to larger TNs with the G5s, then slowly migrated back to IPS starting with the 24" displays. These were still cheaper LG IPS panels, back when LG wasn't the only thing available, and they had other flaws. The ones I used (used not owned) always ended up with edge discoloration, and many of the pre-aluminum types had short lifespans.
Further in the article actually mentions some points which aren't standardized.
I usually compare against NEC due to much more overlapping price territory. NEC is typically more expensive on launch, then dips below the price of Apple after some time.
He meant macvidcards ended up in time-out. If he's not already back, he should be soon.
So, it's the wild wild west
It's usually like that when a new standard begins to take shape. There are far too many standards in everything, in retrospect, but only after the various companies of the world compete in the market does a standard emerge. When did the Mac start to make money? When they offered a cheap way to print with Postscript and lasers. Imaging. Quicktime.
They're holding back until they have their ideas together about 4K, and first, everybody else shows their cards. Then they synthesize and show you their idea. It's ridiculed and then becomes the standard.
It's not that Apple wants to dictate. But the best platforms happen after jostling with each other. Apple holds their play, and out comes their iPhone. Unless the "They can't do it without Steve Jobs" crowd, who were generally not his fans when he was living, are actually correct. But I don't think so.
It's usually like that when a new standard begins to take shape. There are far too many standards in everything, in retrospect, but only after the various companies of the world compete in the market does a standard emerge. When did the Mac start to make money? When they offered a cheap way to print with Postscript and lasers. Imaging. Quicktime.
They're holding back until they have their ideas together about 4K, and first, everybody else shows their cards. Then they synthesize and show you their idea. It's ridiculed and then becomes the standard.
It's not that Apple wants to dictate. But the best platforms happen after jostling with each other. Apple holds their play, and out comes their iPhone. Unless the "They can't do it without Steve Jobs" crowd, who were generally not his fans when he was living, are actually correct. But I don't think so.
This is just not true.
Right now in front of me are TB display (thick, circa 2011) and iMac 27" (thin, circa 2012) - panels are completely different. iMac has image ghosting and slightly warmer backlight color temp, TB display is just perfect.
Even more, even in same-generation iMacs and MacBooks Apple uses panels from different vendors.
Yes you will, because some idiot will try to merge from the far right lane to the far left at 10mph when everyone else is going 75mph.
Ironically, they are LG or Samsung panels (I think they might be using sharp as well). LG panels are awful and Samsung is wonderful (I know it's an opinion, but I believe most people will agree, at least based on these forums).
I just wish Samsung and Apple will stop fighting since I believe Apple will try to move away from Samsung panels to Sharp or LG (both of which so far are subpar quality. I have had issues with ghosting, horrible saturation even with color correction and flickering).
Wait a second. Thunderbolt storage is really fast, first of all, just expensive. And the Mac Pro can drive some 4K displays, just not all of them. As the big bold title of the article says, "Mac Pro/OS X 4K Display Compatibility 'Like the Wild West', Some 4K Monitors Unsupported." And since it's an OS X software problem, not the Mac Pro's fault. I don't know why you're complaining about the PSU. Does the machine just not work when it's running at full capacity? And you're seriously complaining about Apple giving us the option to not buy the keyboard and mouse if we don't want it
If you had one valid argument here, it was about the GPUs not being upgradeable. Except I'm not even sure if they're outdated.
All my arguments are valid. For the price the damn thing had better come with a mouse and keyboard, even the Apple crappy ones. Second, the PSU can't run the CPU's and the GPU's full blast at the same time, thus limiting the amount of work one can do at any one time. The previous Mac Pro's had 1000w PSU's, now it's 450. Also, because of the old Mac Pro design, it was extremely easy to either install a more powerful PSU internally, or run one outside the box with cords running in through the back of the machine. You can't do that anymore because the damn thing is shaped like a trash can.
And, yes, this article says that running 4K monitors on this thing currently is like the wild-west...but Apple sure as hell has not stated that. According to them this thing can run 4K no problem.
Um, you have to be fair, it's not Apple's fault at all. It's the problem with 4K being in its infancy and not having proper standards.
And Mac Pro will run 4K at 30Hz just fine on any display methinks.
But DP MST, which is required to get to 60Hz, is not standartized for this purpose (because this "60Hz support" is a hack) - so every display manufacturer may interpret left/right streams as it likes. Thus forcing Apple to hard-code display spec for each display model.
The PSU is important if you want to run things off of the computer rather than having external plug-ins with extension cords running all over the place, like you will need to have with the new Mac Pro. Before, everything was nicely concealed within and powered by the box. Now, no.
Thunderbolt is bleeding slow when compared to PCIe speeds. It's not that the new Mac Pro doesn't have PCIe, it's just that it is not accessible for the majority of peripherals. Everything needs to be run through Thunderbolt now, and it's about only PCIe 2 4x speed. No, thanks.
MacVidCards may be moaning because he had a business selling PC cards for the Mac, but that does not negate the fact that he still made some very valid points about the limitation of this new machine.