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.
OS X Mavericks 10.9.3 Beta Contains Native 'Retina' Resolution Option for 4K Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a torchere lamp at one end of the room (in front of me) that bounces light off the ceiling, lighting from bookcase lights (behind me) and a series of three daylight windows (7 feet wide by 5 feet tall) that are at an oblique angle to my monitor. A matte screen provides the best view without any apparent reflection.
During the migration process from my oMP to my nMP I bought an Apple 27" TB display and placed it on my desk in nearly the same location as my matte 30" ACD and there was very clearly reflections that were distracting. Furthermore, I found the 27" TB Display not any clearer or the flip side, I didn't find my existing ACD any blurrier or washed out.
Dude. Those Dell panels, especially the sub $1,000 one are no where close to what Apple would consider for a Thunderbolt Display. They are TN, barebones panels at 30Hz refresh rate. Basically junk just to say they have a 4K display.
Not all 4K monitors are equal. Apple's version will be an IPS 60hz panel of high quality that will include Thunderbolt 2 ports, USB 3, a MagSafe, speakers, HD webcam, aluminum and glass enclosure, and an Apple logo that we'll all be willing to pay extra for. Plus, Apple is a profit margin focused company and won't be giving these away if they aren't making a good margin on each sale. Expect north of $2,000 for sure to appeal to Mac Pro owners with big wallets. By late next year, prices should trickle down to make a 4K iMac or TB Display relatively affordable for the masses.
Got my boss to approve getting the Seiki SE39UY04 from Amazon when they had it listed at $399 a couple of weeks back. I still havent made room at my desk yet, but I finally connected my 15-inch rMBP to it today to see what it looked like. I fell in love. The picture doesnt do it justice, honestly
![]()
You could have put that in a way that did not make you look like a troll.
I used to wonder myself why premium prices existed for premium products. Then a friend in business explained, "I do $800,000 of business in a year of which my margin is $50,000. If I can buy a machine, even for $2000 that improves my business by 1%, I will increase profits by 12%."
So yes, although I am not a "pro" user myself, I can see how a better monitor even for $3000 that allowed somebody to work 1% faster or take less time away from the screen to rest their eyes would be valuable to a real professional.
I wish my employer understood this...
They also have far superior colour than the current iMac, as far as I know. Especially for video/fast moving content.
How can I tell my max resolution?
I have a 2011 mac mini with the HD 6630M and i7. Will this drive 4k? Or will I still be limited to 2560-by-1600 via thunderbolt?
I have a 2011 mac mini with the HD 6630M and i7. Will this drive 4k? Or will I still be limited to 2560-by-1600 via thunderbolt?
The Retina 27" iMac would actually be 5K
I'm crossing my fingers for a 5K 27" iMac.
I know this article is discussing 4K monitors. However, if a Retina 27" iMac comes out, it would be 5K, double the linear resolution of the current 2.5K iMac.
2.5*1024= 2560 = 2.5K
5 * 1024 = 5120 = 5K
The next 27" iMac should have a resolution of 5120x2880, 5K.
The next 21" iMac should have a resolution of 3840x2160, 4K.
This would keep in line exactly with Apple's trend of doubling the linear resolution for Retina Displays.
The only problem is, there is no current technology for connecting a 5K monitor on a single cable, at least not at 60 Hz. I doubt Apple will use two cables, Apple will have to release Thunderbolt 3, or other solution. So if Apple did release a Retina 27" iMac, they wouldn't be able to release a Retina 27" ThunderBolt Display this year.
There is no issue with using a higher bandwidth connection internally for the 5K 27" iMac. It seems that Apple has always released a display equal to the iMac's size and resolution in the past, Apple would have to temporarily break from that pattern with a 27" Retina iMac (5K).
----------
Wow, I almost didn't notice the menu bar in the 4K monitor in the above image!
I remember when the monitors kept getting bigger through the 1990's and 2000's and seeing the menu bar getting longer and apparently thinner, I thought it was great. But this is ridiculous! I can use my entire 2560 pixel wide iMac menu bar (with Menu Meters, etc.), but filling a 3840 pixel bar may not be possible?
I'm crossing my fingers for a 5K 27" iMac.
I know this article is discussing 4K monitors. However, if a Retina 27" iMac comes out, it would be 5K, double the linear resolution of the current 2.5K iMac.
2.5*1024= 2560 = 2.5K
5 * 1024 = 5120 = 5K
The next 27" iMac should have a resolution of 5120x2880, 5K.
The next 21" iMac should have a resolution of 3840x2160, 4K.
This would keep in line exactly with Apple's trend of doubling the linear resolution for Retina Displays.
The only problem is, there is no current technology for connecting a 5K monitor on a single cable, at least not at 60 Hz. I doubt Apple will use two cables, Apple will have to release Thunderbolt 3, or other solution. So if Apple did release a Retina 27" iMac, they wouldn't be able to release a Retina 27" ThunderBolt Display this year.
There is no issue with using a higher bandwidth connection internally for the 5K 27" iMac. It seems that Apple has always released a display equal to the iMac's size and resolution in the past, Apple would have to temporarily break from that pattern with a 27" Retina iMac (5K).
----------
Wow, I almost didn't notice the menu bar in the 4K monitor in the above image!
I remember when the monitors kept getting bigger through the 1990's and 2000's and seeing the menu bar getting longer and apparently thinner, I thought it was great. But this is ridiculous! I can use my entire 2560 pixel wide iMac menu bar (with Menu Meters, etc.), but filling a 3840 pixel bar may not be possible?
And the best thing is, you have a lot of laptops there that are extremely expensive and have really crappy internals, like an HP laptop for 3839USD with a 500GB regular spinning harddrive!!!!
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/15-6-elitebook-notebook-32-gb-memory-500-gb-hard-drive/1309359400.p;jsessionid=7278B2398EFE2CB9BFFC8F333CAD56A3.bbolsp-app04-183?id=mp1309359400&skuId=1309359400&st=categoryid$abcat0502000&cp=1&lp=4#tab=specifications
4K retina would require 20" or more to show things at the right size. The 21.5" iMac would work well with 4K resolution. The 27" iMac would need to go to 5K to look right in retina mode.
The 32" 4K displays are just at the wrong pixel density to work right in native resolutions. As a retina display objects look too big while as a normal display things become too small.
My guess is that Apple will come out with a 27" 5K Cinema display and the iMacs will follow the retina path later.
There's also less and less reason to stay on a multiple of 720p anymore and just standardize on 4K as the screen resolution, though.
I can't wait for this update. It apparently fixes Modo's lagging viewport issue in Mavericks which means I can finally migrate to Mavericks where I can use Mari and Marmoset.
The LG panels that Apple "picks" are not that great if you ask me. They suffer from image retention, backlight bleeding and other typical LG LCD stuff. Apple may use better firmware for their displays resulting in better image processing, but the panels are not really better than the panels used in other high-end displays.
But some proof of that so-called better quality would be nice...? Considering the fact that for the price of an Apple display, you can buy some really high-end professional stuff.
However, I do understand why someone would buy an Apple display. Great design, great connectivity and a great all-round display.
Maybe in the US, but here in Europe Dell's service regarding monitors is outstanding. Same goes for Apple's so-called quality. Look at the Retina MacBook displays where its pretty much a lottery these days (image rentention). The same was true back in the days with the 27" iMac. If these panels are picked by Apple, well the normal panels must be REALLY bad...
Last edited:
Wouldn't be surprised - if Apple came out with a top of the line 'Retina' 4K display with a price tag that a pro is willing to pay they'll make a killing in the marketplace. I've had a look out in the marketplace and it is pretty slim pickings particularly the pro-area. Reminds me of the router market - there are many cheap routers but it ends up coming back to bite you in the backside later on.
What are you talking about? Try reading the specs on the Dell UP2414Q. It's a 24-inch, 60 Hz, 99% Adobe RGB, IPS display with all the bells and whistles for $1149.99 ($994.49 if you use the coupon codes found here.)
With some trickery, you can drive a 4K display using either the HDMI or Thunderbolt port on your 2011 mini, however, you will be limited to 30 Hz or thereabouts. There's a few threads in the MacRumors forums about how to do this.
You should also be able to drive a 4K display at 60 Hz if it supports dual-inputs.
Thunderbolt isn't really the issue here, it's just a meta-protocol which can transport DisplayPort packets. That being said, 5120 x 2880, 60 Hz, 24 bpp does require at least 22.52 Gbit/s of bandwidth, which is beyond the single-link limits of both DisplayPort 1.2 and Thunderbolt 2.
There are no GPUs with DisplayPort 1.3 output capabilities or any available DP 1.3 sink devices, which means it will be some time before such a panel could be driven by a single link. Furthermore, despite the fact that DP 1.2 was released in December of 2009, there is not a single 4-lane DP 1.2 HBR2 TCON on the market more than 4 years later. So far, all of the single input 4K displays we have seen use DP 1.2 MST to drive multiple tiles. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is holding out for a DP 1.2 TCON for their 4K offering.
With currently existing silicon, a 5K display would require 4 tiles / inputs. Although this could be implemented relatively easily in an iMac with an AMD GPU (since they offer 6 digital display outputs), a standalone 5K display would require dual Thunderbolt 2 cables / controllers and could only be driven by the Mac Pro (Late 2013).
The posts about the included features in an expensive Apple display are interesting.
I think everyone here probably has some other Apple product i.e iPhone. I have used the FaceTime camera on my display maybe twice. I just use my iPad/iPhone since I can take them into bed or any place comfortable. I think most people here stream their music to AirPlay or use small desktop speakers. Another charger on a display maybe welcome but not needed.
Personally I'd much rather have a simple 4K TB display without all those features and save say $900?? Or the current 27 display for say $650??
I think everyone here probably has some other Apple product i.e iPhone. I have used the FaceTime camera on my display maybe twice. I just use my iPad/iPhone since I can take them into bed or any place comfortable. I think most people here stream their music to AirPlay or use small desktop speakers. Another charger on a display maybe welcome but not needed.
Personally I'd much rather have a simple 4K TB display without all those features and save say $900?? Or the current 27 display for say $650??
Fair enough on that model, but explain why the 32" Dell is $3,500? Are they really charging $2,351 for 8" of screen size? Seems bizarre. There's also zero other 4K IPS 60Hz displays anywhere near Dell's 24" price point so they're skimping on something. Apple will likely be selling a display more in line with the Dell, ASUS, and Sharp displays that retail for $2,500-$3,500 currently.
Not to mention all of those Dell's are hunks of creaky cheap black plastic like their computers.
on it.Clearly it comes down to the cost of the panels.
The UP3214Q is the flagship model and priced accordingly. It is also likely to be a lower volume product due to its positioning. Although it is "only" 8 inches larger when measured on the diagonal compared to the UP2414Q, that represents a screen that is over 75% larger in terms of viewable area. The UP3214Q uses a Sharp IGZO panel while the UP2414Q is based on an LG IPS model. Volume and yield play a huge role in the pricing of LCD displays, and it's much less expensive to make smaller panels. If you look at the pricing of 1080p displays, the relationship between diagonal measurement and price is decidedly non-linear.
4K is clearly an emerging technology, and you can expect prices to fall quickly, especially as OEMs like Dell and Apple start to make serious volume commitments. Dell didn't skimp on the UP2414Q; the pricing is simply the result of their component selection. LG was simply able to undercut Sharp substantially in this instance. Once other 24-inch 4K displays based on the LG panel become available, I'm sure the Dell will not be the cheapest option out there.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple go with the soon to be released AU Optronics M270QAN01.0 27-inch panel and come in at around $1299.
And for the record, Dell's UltraSharp monitors may be clad in black plastic, but they tend to be quite well made and offer very good value.
Good analysis. Should be an interesting year. Have a Haswell 27" iMac on the way so hoping I get a good 2 years out of 2560x1440 before a 4K iMac is released at realistic pricing for the masses. Considering the iMac has a high powered computer built into the display, I still think we'll be waiting awhile before they can price that below $2,000