That's pretty nice, but damn, that price! Not going to be any cheaper with the Apple tax either.
For a few hundred more, you could get a Mac Pro. Who in their right mind is going to pay this for a freaking monitor?
For a few hundred more, you could get a Mac Pro. Who in their right mind is going to pay this for a freaking monitor?
4 or 5k iMacs displays powered by a mobile GPU... nice, I can't wait for the lag, and subsequent chip meltdown in one of those tight cases with poor ventilation.
Why? 5K has been coined "Retina". We now need not to evolve display technology because no one will see the difference and everything above 5K is ridiculous and is for 'bragging rights'.
4 or 5k iMacs displays powered by a mobile GPU... nice, I can't wait for the lag, and subsequent chip meltdown in one of those tight cases with poor ventilation.
This is a good step. So now we DO know that the display for a 27" retina iMac display is possible. I'm sure a prototype iMac already exists(In fact, I would say probably for at least a year or two now), but there is no way that this iMac would cost any less than $3000 for base config.
Also giving how apple focuses on having Macs have environmentally friendly certifications, they are also probably having a hard time with power consumption and heat. The backlight alone must be ridiculous at max brightness. Couple that with an i7 and 880M, and Apple has some work to do.
Nice work, Dell.
Just curious, for those waiting for Apple to come out with its own standalone retina/4k display, what would its advantages be over this one? Just Thunderbolt pass through?
Updating the interface is trivial-- better to get to market first.Amazing that they have already exceeded the bandwidth of one displayport 1.2 port. With displayport 1.3 almost finalized, they really should have waited to release this with support for that new standard.
I don't know. Sometimes Apple surprises us. Also when something is truly cutting edge Apple's prices are often competitive. It is just that they NEVER go down.
The cinema displays were on par with semi-pro displays when first released. They just quickly became overpriced relative to the competition. I could see Apple releasing this at a comparable price or even as an option for a high-end $2999 iMac—the original 27" iMac had a similar value proposition.
For a few hundred more, you could get a Mac Pro. Who in their right mind is going to pay this for a freaking monitor?
So once mine dies (again), I'm somewhat stuck; Mac mini (underpowered) or Mac Pro (overpowered/overpriced for me).