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.
New 27-Inch 5K Display From Dell Rekindles Thoughts of Retina iMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Current GPU's are more than capable to drive that resolution unless you are thinking about gaming in that resolution.
What we'd need is bandwidth.
Thank god you are not working on Apple's R&D. Everything where you display resolution is below eye's capabilities, is so 00's.
No you don't. Intel Integrated are enough for desktop and video use, driving the bits to the screen. It's just memory and bandwidth.
I have a 4 year old 27" iMac and I'm waiting for a retina model to upgrade to. Problem is my external 27" Cinema display is going to look like crap hooked up to such a machine. I'm gonna have to replace both....
Why is everybody assuming that the resolutions used for making movies are the ones that make sense for desktop computer displays?
8k or more will be terrific for shooting movies for cinema release, or if you want to build a *real* home cinema with a massive screen and (for the foreseeable future) buy all your content on disc. For home use, the issue is going to be content distribution rather than screen technology: 4k-capable broadband internet, or over-the-air transmission, isn't going to bem widespread anytime soon.
Beyond that, however, the question is how big a screen do you want/need? Once you get to (I'd say) 1080p in the living room, or 4k on the desktop, you're hitting the 'retina' limit and any further increase in resolution only makes sense if you're going to go for a significantly bigger display.
1080p is plenty for a living-room TV up to ~40" that you plan on viewing from ~10' away. To do justice to 4k unless you're going to need a 60-100" screen - and while your full HD Blu-rays will probably look decent upsampled to that size, your collection of TV DVD box sets are going to start looking blocky* and anything that comes in over broadband or broadcast is going to be compressed to smithereens.
On a computer, you're sitting closer, and "real estate" is an issue as well as resolution. 1080p doesn't really cut the mustard on anything bigger than a laptop - if you're serious you're already using 1920x1200, 2560x1440 or 2560x1600. Also, the 16:9 ratio is a pain on anything smaller than 27" (at which point the screen is tall enough to get an A4/Letter page actual size and still leave space for toolbars etc.).
"4k" UHD gets you "retina" for displays up to about 30" (at 2' viewing distance) as far as sharpness is concerned, but under OS X its not ideal as a replacement for the 27" display - leaving you the choice of rather chunky "1080p-style" font and icon sizes or the GPU overhead & possible quality issues of "scaled mode".
5k has two advantages - first, it allows OS X to use pixel-doubling and keep the physical font & icon sizes the same as on the existing 27" display. Second, it means that anybody working on 4k video can play it 1:1 in a window with space for controls, palettes etc. (Or, if working in 8k, they can display it at exactly half-size).
Beyond 5k, though, there's little point cramming more pixels into the same space - you're just not going to see the difference. So it is a question of how large a display do you actually want on your desk - given that you can always have multiple displays. Or it might be more sense to go for ultra-wide-screen displays like LG's rather than making screens "taller": I must admit its the LG ultra-wide thunderbolt display that's tempting me more than UHD at the moment.
(* Anybody seen that night-time cityscape demo that LG are showing on their 4k TVs in the shops? Anybody else think that it looks like complete crap? Pin-sharp 4k crap, maybe, but totally unrealistic and synthetic-looking - I'm guessing its some sort of CGI upscaling/sharpening, or pure CGI. File under 'why does high-frame-rate video make everything look like a cheap daytime soap-opera'?)
Hopefully. I like the look of the glass but the reflections are so annoying. I have two mattes ACDs and tons of windows in my office and not a single problem. meanwhile the glass ACDs make you mad!
What Apple tax? Look at an iMac for an example. Don't forget that Dell sells 12 monitors like these per decade, while Apple can move 1 million of them in 1 quarter after release (iMac + Thunderbolt display 2).
They will bring price down.
A 5K monitor matters for content producers, of you edit a 4K video on a window, with an 5K monitor your video don't need to be scaled down to fit in the desktop.
This is why the previous 3K monitor on te iMac 27 was a hit with content editors. Given such things low price faster than another electronics it's easy to estimate when it could replace the current Thunderbolt Display and the iMac 27, leading to an true retina iMac, and sure the iMac 21 will be promoted to the 3K resolution, not later than 2Q'15.
This is why the previous 3K monitor on te iMac 27 was a hit with content editors. Given such things low price faster than another electronics it's easy to estimate when it could replace the current Thunderbolt Display and the iMac 27, leading to an true retina iMac, and sure the iMac 21 will be promoted to the 3K resolution, not later than 2Q'15.
Correction
The article talks about stitching together two 2560x2880 streams. This should be 2560x1440.
I highly doubt this will be in the next iMac, or even the iMac after that. Perhaps three iMacs from now. You'd need at the very very least the 880MX (that we don't even know will ever exist) to run that at anywhere near satisfying frame rates. We're talking about more than 14 million pixels here. Put in perspective, the retina MacBook Pro is only a little more than 3 million pixels, and the current 27 inch iMac is ≈ 3.6 million. You all know how even high end GPUs sort of struggle with 4k. Well, 4k is only just around 8 million pixels. Imagine pushing over 14.
I do see a 5k thunderbolt display coming for the Mac Pro though. Probably with a 4k and perhaps also an improved 2560x1440 model alongside it. Having multiple models would make sure that MacBook Air customers could also buy an Apple display (it would never (never as in any time soon) be able to run a 5k screen.)
----------
You're so right! And having 2880x1800 pixels on a 15" laptop is stupid, right? You need a bigger laptop to display more stuff at once, oh, wait? Retina displays are awesome.
There's more than one reason for increasing pixel count. Screen real estate is just one. Clarity is the one that's important in this instance.
The article talks about stitching together two 2560x2880 streams. This should be 2560x1440.
I highly doubt this will be in the next iMac, or even the iMac after that. Perhaps three iMacs from now. You'd need at the very very least the 880MX (that we don't even know will ever exist) to run that at anywhere near satisfying frame rates. We're talking about more than 14 million pixels here. Put in perspective, the retina MacBook Pro is only a little more than 3 million pixels, and the current 27 inch iMac is ≈ 3.6 million. You all know how even high end GPUs sort of struggle with 4k. Well, 4k is only just around 8 million pixels. Imagine pushing over 14.
I do see a 5k thunderbolt display coming for the Mac Pro though. Probably with a 4k and perhaps also an improved 2560x1440 model alongside it. Having multiple models would make sure that MacBook Air customers could also buy an Apple display (it would never (never as in any time soon) be able to run a 5k screen.)
----------
You're so right! And having 2880x1800 pixels on a 15" laptop is stupid, right? You need a bigger laptop to display more stuff at once, oh, wait? Retina displays are awesome.
There's more than one reason for increasing pixel count. Screen real estate is just one. Clarity is the one that's important in this instance.
I love my Apple stuff but I also realize I'm paying a small premium for them. It's worth it to me but I realize others don't feel the same way.
touché good sir. I'll take that!
$2500 isn't a lot of money for those who have cash to burn and love the highest tech. If I knew the Mac Pros could power one of these fluidly, I'd buy one.
Agreed, and we are struggling with the hardware to drive 3K, let alone 4K, 5K or 8K. Try spending a day doing photo editing on a Retina MBP and you will be disappointed with the graphics performance. Do simple things like switch between virtual desktops with full-screen apps running in them and you will see the limitations very easily. The GPU in the iMac isn't that much better than that in the rMBP so with a retina screen you will see similar performance. It's barely good enough to drive games at native resolution with the current panel.
I'm waiting to see what Apple release before getting a new monitor - I need to replace the Dell U2711 on my nMP as the anti-glare coating is too strong for photos that have noise. I won't however be going beyond 4K as there are some issues with display port and actually driving monitors with such high resolutions.
Ultra high resolution monitors are still in their infancy and even if the monitors come down in price the GPU's required to drive them are either non-existent or very expensive.
Is this an Ultrasharp model or a different model? I know the Dell Ultrasharp is an industry standard, but even those things are way outside most people's budgets.
A Desktop Is Not A Laptop - And 1280*1024 Is Clear Enough At 27"
We're talking about a desktop display here, not a laptop. Try to keep up.
Screen real estate is the only compelling reason for increasing the resolution beyond 1280*1024 at 27" for the vast majority of users, outside of the 1 in a thousand who are doing some kind of 4K video or design work. Moving to 32" - with a proportional resolution bump - would give users a display around 800 square centimeters larger than a 27" display - that's not far from the size of an entire old 19" 4x3 display. For folks running dual displays, it would come close to adding a third 27" display to your setup. Many users would find that extremely valuable.
We're talking about a desktop display here, not a laptop. Try to keep up.
Screen real estate is the only compelling reason for increasing the resolution beyond 1280*1024 at 27" for the vast majority of users, outside of the 1 in a thousand who are doing some kind of 4K video or design work. Moving to 32" - with a proportional resolution bump - would give users a display around 800 square centimeters larger than a 27" display - that's not far from the size of an entire old 19" 4x3 display. For folks running dual displays, it would come close to adding a third 27" display to your setup. Many users would find that extremely valuable.
$25000 5120x28880 @ 218 ppi..
That will break the bank for me immediately ..
Only the rich and famous can afford this. Scott Wilkinson of AVSForums comes to mind.
As with 4K, any its gonna be limited by content. So while great, for those that like showing off new gadgets, what can u do with it currently, if you don't have the bandwidth ? u won't be using it most of the time for 5K, even when made available.
* Bring on Retina iMacs
Its like 4K televisions, great currently to look at, but I'd rather a Mac that not only can i afford, but i can actually do something with and not constant stare it it.
I'm happy with my 2010 Cinema display. Now that I'm using a MacBook that has thunderbolt, I wish I had the thunderbolt one. USB3.0 and a headphone jack on the actual display would be great as well. I only use the 2048x1152 setting on my display, so Screen res. isn't high on my list. Might have to re asess down the road on the display situation, depending on what is released tho.
You're saying Apple always pioneers screen resolution... in a thread about a 5K Dell monitor, the first of its kind? Do you not see the problem with your point of view?
The monitor failing to turn on is an issue with Macs, not Dell monitors. They work perfectly fine with other computers. This issue is fairly common on many non-Apple monitors when used with Apple products.
I've had a ton of monitors, and in my experience, Dell's "Ultrasharp" monitors are a top choice for quality and ergonomics (it's always bothered me that Apple monitors and iMacs aren't height adjustable or articulate). I think they also have the best warranty and service, even better than Apple. I bought a used 3007 once, and it had one dead pixel, so I called Dell and they sent out a next-day replacement without even putting a hold on my card.
I will admit that the Apple ones look nicer. I like glass (many don't though) and the fact that they have a webcam/mic/speakers/Macbook charger built in.
The monitor failing to turn on is an issue with Macs, not Dell monitors. They work perfectly fine with other computers. This issue is fairly common on many non-Apple monitors when used with Apple products.
I've had a ton of monitors, and in my experience, Dell's "Ultrasharp" monitors are a top choice for quality and ergonomics (it's always bothered me that Apple monitors and iMacs aren't height adjustable or articulate). I think they also have the best warranty and service, even better than Apple. I bought a used 3007 once, and it had one dead pixel, so I called Dell and they sent out a next-day replacement without even putting a hold on my card.
I will admit that the Apple ones look nicer. I like glass (many don't though) and the fact that they have a webcam/mic/speakers/Macbook charger built in.
Walk away from these Dells and don't look back: I had high hopes, but the product quality is just not good.
I have their 24" 4k "retina" display (the only sane size for 4k high-DPI in my view), and the panel at least is TERRIFIC. I hope Apple uses it for a display of their own (they often use the same panels Dell does). I'd love a comparable 5k panel too! A little glow on pure black or dark video, but gorgeous the rest of the time.
But my Dell UP2414Q (styled exactly like this 5k) often fails to turn on when connected to a Mac, and that seems to be a common complaint that warranty swaps don't fix. And the whole thing is chintzy, squeaky plastic. You plug in a USB device and the whole thing flexes. You try to use the menu buttons and some need a harder touch than others. The sensor that lights up the buttons for use goes nuts and starts pulsing a light in your face when you're nowhere near the buttons. The "real aluminum" that reviewers seem to love is actually a BIT of aluminum coupled with a lot of not-quite-matching silver-painted plastic. It's just way below Apple ruggedness and design.
And it generates a ton of heat, has no speakers, no webcam, no mic, no hub beyond USB, and no glass to protect your investment and easily clean.
I wish Apple made a 4k or retina Thunderbolt 2 Display with this same LCD panel. But they don't
I've always recommended Dell displays to others, and their laptops to low-end buyers with a dire budget. I can't recommend either anymore. Just not well-made products.
The UP2414Q has a nice long warranty, though, is priced well under $1000, and when it DOES power on, the picture is spectacular! And has several nice scaling modes--just like a retina MacBook pro made bigger. (Windows-based reviews don't like it because Windows doesn't support high-DPI nicely--and I can say that's very true since I use Boot Camp. Mac OS does it well, though.)
I disagree.
I just completely disagree. Going from a retina MacBook Pro to an iMac, you can feel that the DPI is lower.
I would way the **** rather have a hi-DPI 27 inch than a 4k 32-inch without pixel doubling. Or any other combo. 32 inches is too big for my taste anyway.
Actually, I would rather lose a bit of space and gain clarity than vice versa.
I just completely disagree. Going from a retina MacBook Pro to an iMac, you can feel that the DPI is lower.
I would way the **** rather have a hi-DPI 27 inch than a 4k 32-inch without pixel doubling. Or any other combo. 32 inches is too big for my taste anyway.
Actually, I would rather lose a bit of space and gain clarity than vice versa.