No Retina Display in Next-Generation iMac?

[theSeb]

So you don't think that a 5120 x 2880 display in 2012 would be both costly and overkill?

There is really no point in upgrading the display this year, when you can't discern the pixels on the current 27" iMac when viewing from an appropriate distance.

There is never such a thing as overkill. Sure, it will be costly, but if any one has the buying power to get such panels mass-produced and lower the costs right now, it's Apple. Back in the early 90s I thought 640x480 VGA was amazing. 800x600 super VGA was mind-blowing. It does not mean that it was enough.

Being able to see more usually equals higher productivity. It certainly does for me.

----------

The "classic" MBP is egregiously overpriced.

Find another argument.

Your counter argument is horrendously flawed. We're discussing Apple computers here and therefore we have to use the closest to the rMBP as a comparison point, which happens to be the nrMBP. Whether they are both overpriced is not the point. The point is to make a comparison between a computer with a non-retina screen and one with a retina screen that are as close as possible in all other aspects to draw conclusions on how much Apple is charging for the new display technology. Then we can extrapolate that result and apply it to another product, such as the iMac.

----------

I think the barrier to larger Retina Class Displays at this time is adoption of Thunderbolt. I predict that it will require a Thunderbolt connection to use them. So, waiting on peripheral adapter manufacturers to ramp up and get costs down.

Look for a Retina Air next. The Apple Tv could presumably be a 4k model, which would put off introduction for a year and a half or more. Though a 2nd generation introducing Cinema class resolution won't work as a sale's plan due to the lower turnover for Television purchases.

IF Apple can develop a seamless iPhone/iPad/iOS/iTV transition. With the roundabout effect and future integration of iOS interfacing the desktop/laptop cycle should refresh in 3.25 years, just in time for the "Next Big Thing".

Connecting an internal screen to a GPU in a computer such as an iMac or a laptop has nothing to do with Thunderbolt. Nothing whatsoever.

 

[Randomoneh]

I'm not sure what this person is smoking. Each iteration of the retina display has been a less dense pixel count due to the distance at which the device is used. Such a high pixel density for an iMac that you sit at least a foot and a half from, if not 2-3 feet away, really is unnecessary. Basically a bump to a 2160p resolution would be more than adequate for a 27" screen. Heck, I'm excited about even larger HDTV screens (of 40" plus) getting to the 2160p mark for the prospect of being able to work in the living room.

What, you can't read? I'm surprised. You can write but it seems like you can't read.

There is never such a thing as overkill. Sure, it will be costly, but if any one has the buying power to get such panels mass-produced and lower the costs right now, it's Apple. Back in the early 90s I thought 640x480 VGA was amazing. 800x600 super VGA was mind-blowing. It does not mean that it was enough.

I've read something similar to what you are saying in a research paper by Air Force Research Laboratory on displays of future.

Minimum perceptible acuity is ability to perceive a single dot or line. It interesting to note it's not limited by size of object, but only by contrast.

However, the way you perceive small dots is limited by size of your cones on retina, which means that if an object you're looking at gets smaller than xyz, you won't perceive it as being smaller, just as less black (if object is black) or less white (if object is white).

So, technically, it is not really clear if you're right or wrong. I tend to believe there is a limit.

 

[69650]

You can say it's expensive. Just remember that expensive is not equal to overpriced. Have you seen Sony's Vaio? They are priced the same as MBP. VAIO Z £2,593.99

Just out of interest I checked on the UK Apple Store what the cost of the MBP Retina would be with upgraded Processor, Memory and Storage plus AppleCare. It comes to £3456.

I never said the MBP was over priced like the Sony machines are, which is probably why nobody in the know buys Sony laptops. I just said the MBP Retina was expensive at £2300 IMO. I will very interested to see how many they sell. Hopefully next year they will axe the non Retina MBPs and bring the price down of the Retina models to the same as the non-Retina models at £1500 and £1800.

----------

Then you're completely besides the point and yes, derailing the conversation. We're discussing the Retina display's cost in the overall scheme of Apple's offerings, you're bringing in the marginal high cost of Apple's general line-up. Another topic for another thread.

As it stands, the Retina display is a cost free option on MacBook Pros by virtue of comparable specifications between Retina and non-Retina models.

Let me see what the title of this thread is: "No Retina Display in Next Generation iMac"

Don't see any relation to "discussing the retina display's costs in the overall scheme of Apple's offerings".

Why not try posting your own views for a change rather than simply criticising others.

 

[chipped]

How can some people think the current 27" iMac doesn't need a retina???

You can't see the pixels easily, but you definitely get the "screen door effect". It's not ultra sharp like a Retina MBPr/iPad/4/4S.

 

[Confuzzzed]

Your sample size is incredibly small.

Be that as it may. It's not to MORI standards but stillwell over 200 people voting. It's as big a sample size as I have seen on polls on this site.

 

[KnightWRX]

Let me see what the title of this thread is: "No Retina Display in Next Generation iMac"

Don't see any relation to "discussing the retina display's costs in the overall scheme of Apple's offerings".

Then you missed all the posts who said "a Retina iMac would be way too expensive!". That is what spawned the whole sub-thread you are now participating in and derailing completely.

I was discussing with other posters who claim a Retina iMac would be more expensive than a normal iMac that Apple's pricing on the MBP doesn't reflect that.

Like I said, you're completely besides the point and moving goalposts/derailing the conversation by interjecting in this sub-thread and replying to me. Now do you want to discuss the actual sub thread topic with me ? I presented an argument that the MBP have essentially a cost free Retina display, Apple would probably do the same for the iMac. Do you have something to add in this context ?

If not, let's move on, since obviously you have no interest in discussing the pricing of Retina vs non-Retina solutions.

Why not try posting your own views for a change rather than simply criticising others.

I did post my own views about the subthread you interjected in : I do not feel Apple will charge more for a Retina iMac vs a non-Retina iMac. I'm not criticizing you for your opinion, but rather your derailement and goal post moving in the sub thread.

I don't feel this is a thread where discussing the general "overpriced" nature of Apple products is on topic or even desirable, nor do I feel the need to do so (having had to do it in the past, and knowing full well how those goalposts move as soon as you show Apple is on target for pricing).

 

[Lagmonster]

It has been demonstrated that the GPU and CPU in the Retina MBP are capable of pushing the pixels needed for a 27" Retina display. I'm not quite sure why having three times the area and six times the volume available would make cooling the iMac harder than cooling the Retina MBP.

And seriously, "no chance within the next 24 months"???

.

Time will tell but I don't see it. Not with the tech, not with the panel yields. From Anandtech:

"To be quite honest, the hardware in the rMBP isn’t enough to deliver a consistently smooth experience across all applications. At 2880 x 1800 most interactions are smooth but things like zooming windows or scrolling on certain web pages is clearly sub-30fps. At the higher scaled resolutions, since the GPU has to render as much as 9.2MP, even UI performance can be sluggish. There’s simply nothing that can be done at this point - Apple is pushing the limits of the hardware we have available today, far beyond what any other OEM has done."

 

[KnightWRX]

Time will tell but I don't see it. Not with the tech, not with the panel yields. From Anandtech:

"To be quite honest, the hardware in the rMBP isn’t enough to deliver a consistently smooth experience across all applications. At 2880 x 1800 most interactions are smooth but things like zooming windows or scrolling on certain web pages is clearly sub-30fps. At the higher scaled resolutions, since the GPU has to render as much as 9.2MP, even UI performance can be sluggish. There’s simply nothing that can be done at this point - Apple is pushing the limits of the hardware we have available today, far beyond what any other OEM has done."

I have a hard time swallowing this. The 3Dfx Voodoo 2 had an effective, full featured fill rate of 90 mpixels/sec. At 9.2 MP per frame, that's 10 fps on a 2880x1800 display doing frame buffer work. Remember, these are full featured pixels, textures, anti-aliased, bi-linear filtered, etc.. etc..

You're saying that over 14 years later, GPU tech can't push 6 times the pixels that the old Voodoo 2 could ? Was 3Dfx that good ?

Seriously doubt it.

Ok, let's look up the fill rate for the 650M GT then. This says it is 11.8 gpixels/sec for the 1 GB model.

Means it could achieve somewhere around 1200 FPS rendering the 2880x1800 frame buffer...

 

[xgman]

Hardmac comments:

"Indeed, the price for the 15" Retina Display is so high, that even after removing optical drive, etc. from the standard MBP, this model remains more expensive, due to its display. S, imagine that a 30" REtina Display would require a surface to be manufactured, four time larger than the 15" display. So, we can expect that the price would then be at least 4 times higher, making simply not affordable/compatible to be installed in an iMac. Based, on current rumors, Apple pays 150 USD per Retina Display, so for a 30" Retina Display, it would be around 600-700 USD, if you add all other components, it would simply become impossible to have iMAc for less than 1800 USD.

Last but not least, to manage and offer graphical performance level for such 30" Retina Display, you would need an amazing GPU to only provide 2D rendering, and if you still want to have enough GPU power for 3D, then you might need dual or even more GPU. So, the bill would keep increasing."

 

[theSeb]

I have a hard time swallowing this. The 3Dfx Voodoo 2 had an effective, full featured fill rate of 90 mpixels/sec. At 9.2 MP per frame, that's 10 fps on a 2880x1800 display doing frame buffer work. Remember, these are full featured pixels, textures, anti-aliased, bi-linear filtered, etc.. etc..

You're saying that over 14 years later, GPU tech can't push 6 times the pixels that the old Voodoo 2 could ? Was 3Dfx that good ?

Seriously doubt it.

Ok, let's look up the fill rate for the 650M GT then. This says it is 11.8 gpixels/sec for the 1 GB model.

Means it could achieve somewhere around 1200 FPS rendering the 2880x1800 frame buffer...

That was a great card. I remember the first time I saw GLQuake on a Voodoo 2 with the transparent water. It was mind blowing in comparison to the 2D version.

 

[Rend It]

I have a hard time swallowing this. The 3Dfx Voodoo 2 had an effective, full featured fill rate of 90 mpixels/sec. At 9.2 MP per frame, that's 10 fps on a 2880x1800 display doing frame buffer work. Remember, these are full featured pixels, textures, anti-aliased, bi-linear filtered, etc.. etc..

You're saying that over 14 years later, GPU tech can't push 6 times the pixels that the old Voodoo 2 could ? Was 3Dfx that good ?

Seriously doubt it.

Ok, let's look up the fill rate for the 650M GT then. This says it is 11.8 gpixels/sec for the 1 GB model.

Means it could achieve somewhere around 1200 FPS rendering the 2880x1800 frame buffer...

Right, because you clearly have a better understanding of computer hardware than Anand Lai Shimpi. Read his full review of the rMBP. He explicitly tests what that poster describes.

 

[xgman]

i'd prefer an imac without retina before the fall.

+1

 

[foley7]

I need blu ray and others.

I think i am the only person in this forum holding out for a blu ray burner and native playback on the iMac. Its wonderful for apple to add all the horse power in their new line of computers to handle all the HD video editing but i need a way to publish the videos. these files are getting large and standard DVD doesnt cut it anymore. I would also like a video input so that i can hook up my 360 and use the nice monitor. Wouldnt hurt to add gigabit ethernet as well (the gigabit ethernet thunderbolt dongle is retarded).

 

[KnightWRX]

Right, because you clearly have a better understanding of computer hardware than Anand Lai Shimpi. Read his full review of the rMBP. He explicitly tests what that poster describes.

Yes. In fact I probably do. Anand Lai Shimpi is simply a guy who runs benchmarks and gets freebie hardware from vendors. I was already 10 years into computers when the guy started his site to compete with Tom's hardware back in the very late 90s.

Anand isn't anything special. He's no developer, no engineer or anything. You could probably do the same thing he does. He's an advertiser if you need to qualify him of anything.

 

[coolspot18]

The iMac really need more ports, ideally on the front-bottom where it is easier to reach. Blu-Ray. Also a better graphics card.

Would a retina display really help on an iMac? Average user sits about 3 - 4 feet away, will they notice the extra pixels?

 

[qpixo]

All I care it's anti-glare and retina screen should be in iMac 21'' If not I will switch back to PC and I don't care who says good or bad things about it.

 

[iBug2]

Time will tell but I don't see it. Not with the tech, not with the panel yields. From Anandtech:

"To be quite honest, the hardware in the rMBP isn’t enough to deliver a consistently smooth experience across all applications. At 2880 x 1800 most interactions are smooth but things like zooming windows or scrolling on certain web pages is clearly sub-30fps. At the higher scaled resolutions, since the GPU has to render as much as 9.2MP, even UI performance can be sluggish. There’s simply nothing that can be done at this point - Apple is pushing the limits of the hardware we have available today, far beyond what any other OEM has done."

Or maybe he "forgot" that GT650 doesn't get activated unless one is doing 3D heavy work. I used the retina MBP in the Apple store and unless you are utilising the discrete GPU, framerates aren't too high due to Intel HD4000. But once the GT650 was activated by opening up some 3D app on the background, framerates were really fluid on everything. And it has to be. 650M is a quite powerful hardware, which is capable of driving so much more than the resolution of the rMBP display with high framerates.

 

[Randomoneh]

Or maybe he "forgot" that GT650 doesn't get activated unless one is doing 3D heavy work. I used the retina MBP in the Apple store and unless you are utilising the discrete GPU, framerates aren't too high due to Intel HD4000. But once the GT650 was activated by opening up some 3D app on the background, framerates were really fluid on everything. And it has to be. 650M is a quite powerful hardware, which is capable of driving so much more than the resolution of the rMBP display with high framerates.

Interesting.
But that is really inefficient since you're running this battery eater to render UI, isn't it?

 

[iBug2]

Interesting.
But that is really inefficient since you're running this battery eater to render UI, isn't it?

Of course, but I wonder if that was the case. On my 2009 MBP, if the 9400M is being used, fps is terrible, but it's very smooth with 9600GT. But even if I utilize 9600GT (by relogging), it downclocks the card immediately and fps is again terrible. But if I go ahead and run a game on the background, or do stuff like use expose 10 times in a row with holding down shift, then it reclocks the 9600GT and fps is very smooth. So I'm guessing that the low fps is due to some powersaving stuff Apple put it.

Edit: Now that I look further into the review, it seems like it's not really about the GPU but bad usage of the CPU for UI framerate. I think this might be fixed with further software updates on ML. It's basically the CPU doing too much work to render a simple UI element due to the new scaling issues.

 

[spartig]

Except for the Macintosh you mean?

Yeah! The Apple II lasted longer as well. From 1977 to 1993.

Edit:

Ok ok, I should have said the longest-running Apple *model*. It sold as "ImageWriter II" for eleven years with very little physical changes, whereas there have been many Macintoshes...

Ah! That makes more sense.

 

[HelveticaRoman]

I'm waiting for the pars flaccida speakers, arf, arf ;-)

 

[KnightWRX]

Interesting.
But that is really inefficient since you're running this battery eater to render UI, isn't it?

It's less interesting when you consider the Intel HD 4000 probably also has a fill rate in the gigapixels per second. Considering it's better than the nVidia 320M that was in the 2010 Macs, which itself has a fill rate of about 3.2 GP/s...

Yeah...

No, seriously, if the MBPR is stuttering during certain animations, it's not due to the GPU lacking power. We've had the power to push these high pixel counts for ages now. Multi-pass rendering was the norm back in the late 90s, where fill rate was put to use in rendering a frame twice or thrice before sending it off to the screen (first pass for texturing and objects, second pass for filtering, 3rd pass for lighting...).

What is taxing on GPUs is not actual pixel pushing power, it's vertex/triangle positioning and transformations.

 

[xgman]

I'm surprised people still use anything DVD or BlueRay in this age of streaming and digital formats and flash drives etc.

 

[spartig]

The cost of the larger retina screen would simply make the iMac way to expensive for it's target market. Maybe next year when prices some down.

Had my first chance to play with the new MBP Retina in my local Apple Store today. Honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. I didn't notice much of a difference from the previous MBP and despite what they said at the launch the glare is still very noticeable compared the old MBP with an anti-glare screen. It was also a lot heavier than I thought it would be. And it's seriously expensive at £1800 or £2300. They axed the 17" MBP coz it only represented 2% of sales - I can't see the MBP Retina doing much better at those prices.

My current 17" MBP has just died so I've decided to the buy the new MBA now and the new iMac when it comes out - which will cost me about the same as getting the mid range MBP Retina (£2300). For that I get a powerful desktop machine and a very light laptop without the annoying glossy screen.

Hmmm. There are several things wrong with what you just said.
For the first paragraph I'll quote gnasher729 and say that the cost for a larger panel probably goes up the bigger you make it, however Apple seems to have kept the cost down for the Retina MacBook.

Before you do that kind of speculation about the price of a Retina iMac, go to the Apple store, then compare the price of the Retina MBP and a 15" MBP with the same 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB SSD: The Retina MBP isn't more expensive. It is actually cheaper: £1799 vs. £1979. £180 cheaper.

For the second paragraph how does seeing it in person alter your expectations of it? For the glare issue you are comparing a piece of glass to an option for no piece of glass. Try comparing it to the other model with glass and see the reduction in glare. That being said, it would have been nice to have an anti-glare option. But seeing it in person shouldn't have changed your expectations of it having less glare to or it being comparable to the anti-glare option. To think otherwise is just silly!

For the weight issue you say it's a lot heavier than you thought it would be. So what you're saying is that it's not what it's cracked up to be when Apple said it's 4.46 lbs? Exactly how much lighter did you expect 4.46 lbs to be?

Oh and what all the fuss is about is the resolution of the screen! Did you even try comparing that?

The rest of your post seems to make sense.

 

[xrgamer1]

Just came back from Apple store..:-(

My 14 y/o daughter (the Final Cut Express editor) and I just came back from our university Apple store and was advised to wait on the new iMac coming out "any day now"...man, I hope they don't wait for the retina display--I would rather pay for faster CPU, more RAM, and more videocard RAM than an expensive display!

Please apple, I'm ready to buy and she has her first wedding gig to shoot and edit in August...she doesn't want to edit it on our current duocore iMac! LOL!

Ernie