My Thoughts about the infamous 2012 iMac

[Doggman]

Exactly. If mobile GPUs are expected to continue this generation, I think this reason alone debunks any 2012 retina iMac.

I agree. Highly unlikely. I don't think Apple will be fattening up the iMac to fit in a desktop GPU. At least not yet. Not until they find a way to keep it in the same chassis. Not their style.

The retina Macbook Pro didn't get fatter. It got thinner. Same deal with the iPhone 4. It didn't get fatter. It got thinner. The new iPad only added millimeters to thickness, enough that it's transparent to the user. So we have to consider this design trend in conceptualizing a future retina iMac. I'm certainly no engineering expert, but it seems the most obvious and basic thing to do is to copy the design cues taken from the retina MBP: remove the ODD, solder on the RAM, use blade type SSDs and glassless displays. Not that it means much to Apple's business, but if you read around these forums, some of these design choices don't settle well with some users. But like I said, this small percentage of dissatisfied customers won't mean much in the end. It will sell, no matter how much fuss you see on these forums.

You make some excellent points and I agree with all of them. I could absolutely see a stripped down (compromised) iMac that has a retina screen, no odd, thin ssd's, soldered ram etcetera that gets released along side the spec bumps. Would be very similar to the rMBP again and would allow Apple to rake in the dough from all the tech fanatics that have to have the latest and greatest the day it comes out regardless of whether or not it's truly a good product. Then later down the road when hardware allows all macs will be retina.

Are we sure that the GTX680m could not power a 27" retina? The 650m is powering a screen with more pixels than the current 27" iMac, granted you can't play metro 2033 or something but what's new when it comes to macs? I'm fairly certain the GTX680m is a good deal more powerful than the 650m and just might be up to the task of powering a 4k res screen...

P.S. a dual gtx 680m option that had over mid-range desktop GPU performance would be epic and I'd be sold. However, for that non sense I would expect the price tag to be over $3,000... I also think dual mobile gpu's is highly unlikely

Edit: 42 says max res for 680m is like 3800 or something. I could see apple doing that and just calling it retina especially considering technically speaking it probably would be "retina" at 2-3 feet away. Would be fine with me...

As for price, well let's just say its gonna cost a pretty penny at the very least

 

[Razorhog]

My ideal redesign would be:

The obvious spec bumps (ivy bridge, 680m, etc)

Same 27" screen and resolution

remove the chin

adjustable stand - up/down and swivel

cheaper and bigger SSD - user accessible

anti-glare screen

lighted bluetooth keyboard

 

[mojothemonkey]

The only thing is that the iMacs use mobile GPUs. What GPU would drive a retina 27" iMac? As it is, the rMBP has some low FPS issues.

I keep bringing this up. even the crappy GPUs could run these resolutions.

For example, based on DRIVER compatibility, a sub $100 gpu (like the GT 640) can run multipe monitors at 3840x2160.

Even OLD low-medium range GPU's with much less horsepower can push these kinds of resolutions. It would not be a problem for the current crop of GPUs to run a retina display. The reason FPS suffers on the rMBP is the optimization, as it lazily tries to use the CPU to render the 2D animation effects.

If they went back and re-wrote the OSX code to take better advantage of the GPU, there would be zero slow down, even with a lower end GPU than currently used.

The problem with the rMBP is also that they dont WANT the gpu rendering the OS desktop all the time because that would use more power, which would be a no-no for battery life concerns. There is no reason this would be an issue for the iMac, other than them not wanting to write 2 separate version of the OS, mobile and desktop.

 

[Doggman]

I keep bringing this up. even the crappy GPUs could run these resolutions.

For example, based on DRIVER compatibility, a sub $100 gpu (like the GT 640) can run multipe monitors at 3840x2160.

Even OLD low-medium range GPU's with much less horsepower can push these kinds of resolutions. It would not be a problem for the current crop of GPUs to run a retina display. The reason FPS suffers on the rMBP is the optimization, as it lazily tries to use the CPU to render the 2D animation effects.

If they went back and re-wrote the OSX code to take better advantage of the GPU, there would be zero slow down, even with a lower end GPU than currently used.

If this is true, I move all my chips to a retina imac with gtx680m powering it. However, where does that leave the top spec iMac non retina? Does it ALSO have a gtx680m? That would be strange. But actually maybe not so much... The non retina MBP has the same GPU as the rMBP...

 

[HurryKayne]

New Imacs chances to have hdmi output on ?

 

[captjon]

If the OS code is restricting the use of a mobile GPU, perhaps the retina iMac will actually be an iMac-MacPro hybrid to replace the latter... i.e. something powerful and user-upgradable, but with a retina display run by a desktop gpu.

or maybe i'm just dreaming of what i want...

 

[Doggman]

If the OS code is restricting the use of a mobile GPU, perhaps the retina iMac will actually be an iMac-MacPro hybrid to replace the latter... i.e. something powerful and user-upgradable, but with a retina display run by a desktop gpu.

or maybe i'm just dreaming of what i want...

Haha keep dreaming. This would truly be the ultimate IMO but there's no way... A mid tower gaming solution that has a desktop GPU in it and a simulataneous release of a retina thunderbolt display? /me is drooling...

 

[Lancer]

I can only assume if/when we get a Retina iMac it will be a new model like they have done with the MacBook Pro.

Right now putting a Retina display in the 27" would be hugely expensive for them to be viable for most customers, it would be more likely for Apple to make a Retina display for the Mac Pro and that market.

Bring on the 2012 iMac next week!

ETA - I just don't get if Tim clarified what he said about the new Mac Pro in 2013 but has said nothing about the iMac, the computer that saved Apple all those years ago. At least throw us a bone, there are many long standing Apple customer who want/need a consumer desk to and some are willing to leave the Apple eco-system to get the computer they want.

 

[jacg]

It's been the pattern to double resolution so far, but you hold an iPhone up close, an iPad at arm's length and laptops, well, in your lap. At more like 2-3 feet away, the iMac screen resolution, which is already high, doesn't need to double to be considered "retina".

It wasn't so much the pixel density I was thinking about, it was more the fact that if all the user interface elements are doubled as in the HiDPI graphics on the rMBP, but the screen res is less than double, then surely you'll end up with a comically oversized UI and less real estate on the 'best for retina' setting.

 

[harcosparky]

If Apple did not release a new iMac until 2013, they would not be the first major manufacturer to skip an entire model year for a product.

Go find a 2011 Honda Gold Wing Motorcycle !



.

 

[Timhet]

Apple are smart enough not to delay an entire product, just because of a feature that only a small percentage of people will be able to afford and actually need.

To give you an example, the original iPad was released to market without a camera or a super hi-res screen and it didn't matter. By leaving out features that are 'nice to haves' they were able to get a one year head start on the competition.

For me personally, I want to buy an iMac. I don't want to pay an extra thousand dollars on a retina display. By making me wait for a feature that I don't need/can't afford, I'm more likely to buy a competitors product.

 

[jmhart]

No GPUs support that, at least not any that traditionally would fit in an iMac chassis. The max resolution of the 680M is 3840x2160.. which I guess sometimes gets classed as 4K. As a "Retina" display that would have an effective resolution 1920x1080, which is less "real estate" than on today's 27".

3840x2160 is considered 4K, though it's not a 'digital cinema' resolution as it's not wide enough (since cinema ARs are wider than PC/Mac/TV displays).

 

[CoreyLahey]

No GPUs support that, at least not any that traditionally would fit in an iMac chassis. The max resolution of the 680M is 3840x2160.. which I guess sometimes gets classed as 4K. As a "Retina" display that would have an effective resolution 1920x1080, which is less "real estate" than on today's 27".

I'm not an expert on the resolution issue, but I hear that point quite a lot - a 27 inch retina display doesn't even seem feasible or worthwhile with the current hardware options. What good is retina then, if it turns the computer into a slow shitmac and why are people even still talking about the topic? Serious inquiry, I'm not trying to criticize, but I shall criticize back if you choose to criticize me and so forth

 

[Razorhog]

I'm not an expert on the resolution issue, but I hear that point quite a lot - a 27 inch retina display doesn't even seem feasible or worthwhile with the current hardware options. What good is retina then, if it turns the computer into a slow shitmac and why are people even still talking about the topic? Serious inquiry, I'm not trying to criticize, but I shall criticize back if you choose to criticize me and so forth

I've been saying the same for a while. If the hardware isn't available, or cost prohibitive, it's just not going to happen. Especially if current technology doesn't have the power to push a display like that.

 

[Roller]

Haha keep dreaming. This would truly be the ultimate IMO but there's no way... A mid tower gaming solution that has a desktop GPU in it and a simulataneous release of a retina thunderbolt display? /me is drooling...

Another possibility: Could Apple be working with Nvidia on a custom card, compact enough to fit into the iMac's form factor, but powerful enough for a very hi-res display? Apple clearly has the clout and resources to pull off something like this. That could also explain the delay in releasing a new iMac.

A long shot, I'll admit, especially since there've been no leaks, but who knows?

 

[edry.hilario]

I've been saying the same for a while. If the hardware isn't available, or cost prohibitive, it's just not going to happen. Especially if current technology doesn't have the power to push a display like that.

so whats your stand then ?? you think is next week?

 

[Razorhog]

so whats your stand then ?? you think is next week?

I want it to be next week, but at this point a growing part of my mind is hoping for a redesign, which would explain all of the delay to a degree. Luckily this waiting game is not a big deal to me; I don't need it right now. Also, I'm new to this whole rumors and waiting game. I find it to be a pretty strange phenomenon - weird, yet strangely compelling.

 

[MNT]

If Apple dumps the optical drive and hard disk drive, there'd be a good amount of free space for extra graphics silicon. </justsayin>

 

[harcosparky]

Also, I'm new to this whole rumors and waiting game. I find it to be a pretty strange phenomenon - weird, yet strangely compelling.

Like driving past a car wreck .... You know it's not good, but you look anyway and get disgusted by the carnage! LOL

 

[forty2j]

I'm not an expert on the resolution issue, but I hear that point quite a lot - a 27 inch retina display doesn't even seem feasible or worthwhile with the current hardware options. What good is retina then, if it turns the computer into a slow shitmac and why are people even still talking about the topic? Serious inquiry, I'm not trying to criticize, but I shall criticize back if you choose to criticize me and so forth

I think there's no shortage of reasons why Retina looks impractical. GPU performance, effective resolution, display panel cost... it looks incredibly daunting.

I'm guessing we see new iMacs, without Retina, next week, or at least by the end of the month. If we don't, that tells me that Apple thinks they're close to cracking the Retina nut. There's no better company at delivering the seemingly impossible. The question will be what trade offs were made.. with a longer wait apparently being one of them.

 

[ivoruest]

OP: Not gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[xVeinx]

If there is already trouble in producing the current retina displays, I'd hate to see how much effort would go into the larger displays . We'll have people boasting about how they took their iMac in 72 times just to get the perfect display ...

 

[jacg]

If we follow the rMBP model, the new screen resolutions would need to be 3840 x 2160 and 5120 x 2800. This would allow HiDPI elements to present a user interface that is the same size as on current models but with retina sharpness.

So if these screen resolutions for the TB display and iMacs are not available or drivable yet we may have to wait. Unless Apple has another solution, for example, not quite such high resolution displays (as others have suggested) combined with a decent scaling solution. Maybe ML has the necessary code to make such displays work well? Or maybe they will simply reduce the effective real estate size?

I'm sure Apple has a solution - it would be unlike them not to have planned this whole direction many years in advance. Of course, many other companies would showcase the plan and explain any unexpected delays.

 

[Nightarchaon]

I think iMac refresh will be thinner, soldiered RAM, SSD only, much thinner now they don't need a HDD in it, i doubt they will go retina display unless Nvidia or ATI can produce a killer mobile GPU capable of running a super high res, given that the rMBP is apparently struggling under the load.

 

[mojothemonkey]

Another possibility: Could Apple be working with Nvidia on a custom card, compact enough to fit into the iMac's form factor, but powerful enough for a very hi-res display? Apple clearly has the clout and resources to pull off something like this. That could also explain the delay in releasing a new iMac.

A long shot, I'll admit, especially since there've been no leaks, but who knows?

Again, no. The cheapest discrete card you could get from nvidia or AMD/ATI right now could power whatever the "retina" display could conceivably be for desktop purposes. (gaming, on the other hand...).

It's all about the drivers. For example, you could get a standard PC notebook with, say, a 6770M GPU inside. The drivers from the PC manufacturer will show a maximum resolution of the screen size of the laptop (say, 1440x1050). But in another computer, that same 6770M GPU might have different drivers to show a max resolution of THAT screen (1920x1200). In either case, you could go download hacked OEM drivers that will show a max res display of 2600x1200 (even though it would look like crap on your system).

Is 1440x1050; 1920x1200; 2600x1200 the max res? even if they put that on the manufacturer's website? No. If someone made a screen with 2700x1300, they would just write the code into the driver and THAT would be the new advertised max resolution. (assuming it has dual link DVI for higher res, etc, but that's not a rarity anymore these days like it was 6-7 years ago).

So, please stop getting hung up on whether the card could push the specs. I mean think about it. Back in 2006, the old Nvidia GeForce 7300GT (the lowest end 7000 series ATI/AMD made for macs) base model card in the Mac Pro could drive the 30" Display at 2560x1600 at the same time as a second 1920x1200 display. And even then it was because only one of the DVI ports was constructed as a "Dual Link DVI" - not necessarily from the capability of the card.

Today's lowest end cards have many TIMES more processing power than the 7300. Lets put this in perspective. The PassMark 3D test score shows the 7300GT scoring 229. The new 7970M (arguably no going in the iMac, but the presumed 680M will score higher) scores 3,802.

Scoring 229 in 2006 and able to run a total of 6,400,000 pixels. [again, limited by configuration, not by power]. Current rMBP runs 5,184,000 pixels... and you're suggesting that 2012 cards pushing a score over 3,800 are going to have trouble?

ITS NOT THE GRAPHICS CARD and the delay is not about making one that can power the display - whatever resolution they decide is the appopriate retina display for the iMac.

Any delay by now is either about case remodeling and/or getting good pricing & consistency on a super high res display.