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.
Report Claims Apple Launching New 27-Inch 5K Display Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Certainly wasn't paid near that in 1998
And I didn't earn anywhere near that over the years it was usable. I had a single well paid job that paid for it in 5 days. Doesn't mean I get that sort of money every job. I had to buy a faster machine to complete the job.
Also to be fair I am not talking profit... just saying that it was covered
6 core - D700 - 64gb Ram - 1tb drive by the way.
The point is that it's a workhorse and a tool. People get so upset about the cost of workstations... and say they could build one for cheaper etc... but no one suggest that a Van driver is an idiot for paying 25K+ for his work van or say 'well i could build a kit one for cheaper'
Exactly. Please start all Digitimes articles with "Digitimes is ********ting today that...."
Well I have a retina - so I know they are fantastic... what I am saying is that at normal sitting distance it's overkill for a 27" - This is retina at 41cm distance.
if it was 32" screen it's retina at 48cm ... which is closer to seated distance.
Bigger please!
http://isthisretina.com
PLEASE PLEASE let this be true and let them find a way to connect it to the nMP.
It's the one thing that my machine is currently lacking. My two thunderbolt displays with the same 27" screen estate but @retina resolution. PLEASE APPLE GOD make it happen!
It's the one thing that my machine is currently lacking. My two thunderbolt displays with the same 27" screen estate but @retina resolution. PLEASE APPLE GOD make it happen!
I think what they mean is: since Apple (unlike Dell) is under no obligation to make the display support anything other than a Mac with Thunderbolt 2, they could potentially use the full bandwidth of TB2 to get the data from the Mac to the display, without being constrained by Thunderbolt's DisplayPort implementation.
I say potentially - no idea whether it could be done easily with current GPUs.
However, if screens *are* going to get this large, there's probably an opportunity for Apple to do some outside-of-the-box thinking, like compressing the video signal, adaptive frame rates, moving some of the GPU functions to the monitor (e.g. the standard video codecs) etc.
My money is still on a smaller iMac/TBD using a 4k UHD screen to pixel-double the current 21" iMac.
If it's glossy I'd buy the new Dell 5K 27" display. Can't take the gloss on such a big display. Not sure how people can tolerate iMacs. Personal preference I guess.
Don't care about 5k at all. Just make the current display thinner and add some USB 3.0 since it's almost 2015. And maybe charge $750.
Or, you know, exactly 4x the resolution.
Well, not so much designated as simply limited by the available bandwidth of the interface used.
There isn't really a set maximum resolution for DisplayPort, just limits to the maximum available bandwidth. If you drop the color depth and refresh rate down, you can go way higher than 4096 x 2160. Even if you're talking about 24 bpp, 60 Hz, DP 1.2 can still do 4096 x 2560. And seriously, what does that last bit even mean!!!
Most people power monitors with electricity...
Although Ian over at Anandtech revised his speculation at least once due to a math derp, I'm pretty sure he never implied that two panels would be used, merely that the panel would be driven as multiple tiles in the same way that pretty much all current 4K displays are. And despite mentions of MST in the comments section, the article clearly states that two DP 1.2 connections were most likely. MST or no, a single DP 1.2 / Thunderbolt 2 port cannot drive a 5120 x 2880 display at 24 bpp, 60 Hz. DP 1.2 only goes up to 17.28 Gbit/s and HDMI 2.0 up to 14.4 Gbit/s, whereas a single 2560 x 2880, 24 bpp, 60 Hz tile would require just over 11.6 Gbit/s. This display would need two cables to support 60 Hz operation.
Good thing the new $1099 21.5-inch iMac is the only iMac to ever use a mobile CPU, and the 27-inch is available with up to a Core i7-4771 and GTX 780M (mobile GPU yes, but certainly no slouch).
Well, see that's exactly why you do want a 5120 x 2880 resolution, so you can game at 2560 x 1440 which the GPU can handle and then scale effortlessly to the display's native resolution. 2D stuff is not an issue at these resolutions, so you can enjoy super sharp text and UI elements with no aliasing at any scaling factor when you're not gaming.
Last edited:
Thunderbolt 2 can only transport a single DisplayPort 1.2 HBR2 main link (17.28 Gbit/s of DisplayPort packets), and 5120 x 2880 @ 24 bpp, 60 Hz requires more than 22.52 Gbit/s anyway.
Apple or other OEMs could use this panel in an all-in-one design, such as a Retina iMac, without much of a problem by simply using multiple eDP outputs from the GPU though.
...5 k?
I can see 4k displays on a 27 inch iMac being possible but any more would be a waste unless you are dipping into 3d technologies. The eyes just can't distinguish the difference. Hell my current iMac screen is still amazing. I just dont see the point on a 27 inch display.
I can see 4k displays on a 27 inch iMac being possible but any more would be a waste unless you are dipping into 3d technologies. The eyes just can't distinguish the difference. Hell my current iMac screen is still amazing. I just dont see the point on a 27 inch display.
...only if you insist on using the DisplayPort channel of Thunderbolt 2. Now, there's good reasons for doing that (e.g. so you can support any graphics card with a DP output, any display with a DP input and so downstream TB peripherals can drive legacy displays) but with Apple making the equipment at both ends, that isn't essential.
Otherwise, TB2 can transfer 20 Gbits/s of data in PCIe mode, in whatever format your heart desires, unfettered by DisplayPort standards. That could include whatever compression (lossy or lossless, adaptive frame rates, whatever) you need to get the frame rate and resolution you need to fit in 20 Gbits/s.
As I said, I don;t know enough to claim that this is technically practical, but the principle is the same as DisplayLink (sends compressed display data over USB), AirPlay mirroring, Screen Sharing or ScreenRecycler (send compressed display data over ethernet/WiFi) - except, in those cases, the bandwidth of the connection is so much less than DisplayPort/HDMI that they are often compressed to smithereens.
...I agree that an iMac using dual DisplayPorts internally would be easier though.
This is the same screen size as the iMac and Thunderbolt display, but with double the number of pixels in each direction. That is how Apple have implemented retina on all their devices so far. I expect that to continue.
I needed to replace my iMac last year. I wanted another iMac, but I know how much retina reduces eyestrain for me, so I got a 15" rMBP instead, which isn't ideal. The 5K screen in an iMac would be brilliant for me. As a standalone display, I would still love it. It might mean using both Thunderbolt ports, but I'd happily do that.
27" is too large for me, and not worth the cost. I had the 24" Apple Display and loved it. If they can give me 24" retina, I'll take it. Don't care about the 4k/5k moniker. Just have it look as good as my rMBP and I'll be all set.
----------
LOL. I think it means it will stabilize your toolbar icons when you're working in Mail or Safari.
----------
LOL. I think it means it will stabilize your toolbar icons when you're working in Mail or Safari.