Report Claims Apple Launching New 27-Inch 5K Display Later This Year

[gugy]

That will be freaking amazing and about freaking time Apple!
matte screen or some sort of not glare surface. The current TB displays are awful on that department.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Dell's new 5K display is confirmed to use multi transport - it basically claims to be two monitors, each of which can work fine over a single DisplayPort link. I think Dell even specifies that you have to use two DisplayPort cables to run it at full resolution. Apple could easily do that.

Or, what I would think would be interesting: Use Thunderbolt's PCI Express connection, and put a GPU in the display. Then you only need the single Thunderbolt cable. If the GPU in the display is better than what's in your computer (MacBook Air, for example,) then it uses the display GPU to render. If the GPU is worse (Mac Pro, for example,) then it just transfers the framebuffer compressed, doing the rendering on the system GPU. (Or, for the Mac Pro, give you the option of using the display GPU for display rendering, allowing BOTH system GPUs to do GPU compute!)

 

[koban4max]

wait a min...if this gonna be 5k...is that mean there might be a new mac pro that would support 5k?

 

[MacsRgr8]

Meh... Let me say it again.. Meh... I've really no interest in getting a 4k or 5k screen that is so hard on the graphic's card that it can hardly play any games.

I'm getting my LG 34UM94 (not the 95, thats old, had issues, only 1 year warranty) - It's an awesome UltraWide 34" 3440 x 1440p screen with 3 year warranty. As a bonus it has two Thunderbolt 2 ports, 2 HDMI, 1 Display port, three USB3 and is only 30% harder to run than a standard 27" 1440p screen.

This should last me years to come....

The games don't have to be played at "retina-resolution".
Just play them at the "usual-resolution" of 2560 x 1440. There will be no difference to you compared to the older iMacs!

And the grfx card will probably have enough horsepower to play those games excellently @ the "usual-resolution".

But, all the other apps will absolutely shine on the Retina iMac!

I probably will wait for the 2nd release, i.e. somewhere late 2015 or early 2016 as my late 2013 iMac 27" now is still utterly brilliant.

 

[iBug2]

What would be really interesting is if Apple finally shipped their implementation of crossfire and powered each half of this using one of the GPU's in Mac Pro

 

[mgipe]

Or, what I would think would be interesting: Use Thunderbolt's PCI Express connection, and put a GPU in the display. Then you only need the single Thunderbolt cable. If the GPU in the display is better than what's in your computer (MacBook Air, for example,) then it uses the display GPU to render. If the GPU is worse (Mac Pro, for example,) then it just transfers the framebuffer compressed, doing the rendering on the system GPU. (Or, for the Mac Pro, give you the option of using the display GPU for display rendering, allowing BOTH system GPUs to do GPU compute!)

This makes sense, and would be a great product. An ultraportable MBA or MBP becomes a visual powerhouse when docked to this display.

 

[edgonzalez32]

Meh... Let me say it again.. Meh... I've really no interest in getting a 4k or 5k screen that is so hard on the graphic's card that it can hardly play any games.

I'm getting my LG 34UM94 (not the 95, thats old, had issues, only 1 year warranty) - It's an awesome UltraWide 34" 3440 x 1440p screen with 3 year warranty. As a bonus it has two Thunderbolt 2 ports, 2 HDMI, 1 Display port, three USB3 and is only 30% harder to run than a standard 27" 1440p screen.

This should last me years to come....

Yea you're not the intended audience bro.

 

[macduke]

Meh... Let me say it again.. Meh... I've really no interest in getting a 4k or 5k screen that is so hard on the graphic's card that it can hardly play any games.

I'm getting my LG 34UM94 (not the 95, thats old, had issues, only 1 year warranty) - It's an awesome UltraWide 34" 3440 x 1440p screen with 3 year warranty. As a bonus it has two Thunderbolt 2 ports, 2 HDMI, 1 Display port, three USB3 and is only 30% harder to run than a standard 27" 1440p screen.

This should last me years to come....

Can't believe this is the top comment. Most Apple users aren't Apple users for gaming, and most Thunderbolt Display (and Cinema before them) purchasers are graphic designers, video editors, photographers, etc. We buy quality monitors not for the fast refresh rate or anything else but for the quality of the image on screen. With us designers having to make higher and higher pixel density graphics assets for all of these retina devices, the extra pixels are definitely worth the money to professionals.

Anyway, the main reason I'm holding out on upgrading my Mac is that I'm waiting to see how this whole situation shakes out. I don't want to buy something that won't be able to run these next-generation displays. I can't wait to get them, but I just hope they don't cost a whole lot more than the current one does. Ideally a new Mac Pro and TB2 Display will be out by this time next year and I can upgrade then. Could one of the things delaying this launch be requiring Thunderbolt 3? The current Thunderbolt displays also run USB, ethernet and other stuff you can plug into the back. Can Thunderbolt 2 handle an upgrade to 5K (cinema 4K or whatever) and several USB 3.0 ports? We might need to upgrade to that 50Gb/s or 100Gb/s fiber optic Thunderbolt stuff Intel has been working on for a while now. But that's just speculation on my part.

 

[macs4nw]

I imagine the display will make it into the iMacs before the cinema display.

Not likely, at least until the price of those panels comes down significantly.

A new Cinema display however is in a different price category, and is needed right now for all those MacPro owners, who currently have to shop elsewhere for proper monitors that can do justice to those Dual AMD FirePro cards.

 

[Kobayagi]

Please add a never, cheaper Thunderbolt display which also has a HDMI port.

Not having a HDMI port is just like those Philips headphones that appeared a day or two ago on the frontpage of MR. They were headphones that had a lightning port cable, meaning you can only use them with Apple products. Same with the Thunderbolt display, you can't use it on a console, or windows PC...
I'm saying this because I might get a new PC for gaming, or a console, but I don't want to buy another monitor just for that.

 

[aloshka]

Not enough for 5K at 60Hz.

Maybe MST through dual TB's?

I think if they don't allow daisy chaining of the TB2 for the monitor it should work as TB carries two video signals, does it not?

----------

Can the GForce 750M drive such a display?

I was actually hoping for a 24" 4K display...

Kind of hoping for 24" 4k as well. But 27" will be nice too, assuming they can drive it @ 60fps

 

[MacLC]

You only say that because the image looks sharp enough and you have no comparison. Put it beside a MacBook Pro retina. Hell, load up steam run steam in home streaming, and run the same game on the retina and the 30"s, you'll notice the pixels then. I definitely do on 27" monitors with better ppi....

You have a good point which leads to the question, why does Apple try to make a Jack of All Trades monitor?

Content consumers, especially gamers, want faster refresh rates (60-120hz) and less pixellation.

Content creators, especially artists, want more real estate and more color accuracy.

Apple serves both markets but tries to pretend that the content consumer market would never buy a Mac Pro and gaming monitor. Apple thinks that that market should be happy with an iMac. The mistake being made is not being made by anybody on these boards but by Apple.

 

[aloshka]

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.

If you use scaled resolutions, it DOES make a diff. Also, people say the same that at more than 10 feet the 27" vs 24" retina you shouldn't be able to tell a diff. Complete crap, I can REALLY tell a diff.

 

[danckwerts]

I hope they keep the current 27-inch around but cut the price in half. It is over priced right now.

I'm not sure it is THAT overpriced, but it would be good to see a cut in price.

 

[H2SO4]

What would be really interesting is if Apple finally shipped their implementation of crossfire and powered each half of this using one of the GPU's in Mac Pro

Oh god yes, but here’s betting they won’t.

----------

Can't believe this is the top comment. Most Apple users aren't Apple users for gaming, and most Thunderbolt Display (and Cinema before them) purchasers are graphic designers, video editors, photographers, etc.

What’s to say I/they don’t do it in their spare time and don’t want to shell out twice?

 

[aloshka]

That will be freaking amazing and about freaking time Apple!
matte screen or some sort of not glare surface. The current TB displays are awful on that department.

I'd be happy if it was fused like the rMBP or current iMacs. Glare is really better. The current TB displays give me a headache, but I don't have much of a choice.

 

[Michael73]

Seriously, I'm not *that* concerned with the thickness...I only look at the front of the screen all day

I love the 16:10 aspect ratio and matte screen of my 30" ACD. Aside from upping the resolution to 4K, just give me modern ports that have some darn power associated with them!!! I think it's ridiculous that I can't have a USB cord plugged into one of the ports on the back of my ACD and charge my iPad Further, my wired apple keyboard doest have enough power coming through to use either one of the USB ports on the keyboard itself for a flash drive - what's up with that!

 

[aloshka]

If they did say a 24" 4k, would they still have issues with bandwidth? What about daisy chaining other devices from it?

 

[Anonymous Freak]

If they did say a 24" 4k, would they still have issues with bandwidth? What about daisy chaining other devices from it?

No, works just fine over a single DisplayPort link. The PCIe lanes of Thunderbolt wouldn't be affected at all. Daisychaining might be difficult - I don't believe you can daisychain two 4K displays over a single DisplayPort, since it requires the full bandwidth of a single DisplayPort to run.

 

[Gpro]

Does anyone know if i run a 4K monitor on the late 2013 macbook pro will it run normal or will it started heating up like when you play a game? i am waiting till october hopefully apple release a new thunderbolt monitor but would like to know if their will be any issues running one

 

[repoman27]

...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.

Lossy compression schemes such as H.264 / H.265 or even chroma subsampling aren't going to fly with the intended audience for a display like this and Apple knows it. Lossless, or even "visually lossless" techniques such as the one to be implemented in the DisplayPort 1.3 standard would be required.

Thunderbolt ports can support two 10 Gbit/s channels, which can be bonded if you have Thunderbolt 2 controllers at each end of the link, but there isn't necessarily a specific DisplayPort channel per se. Thunderbolt controllers are limited by the protocol adapters they include and their back-end connections to the host / device. So far, that means the maximum DisplayPort throughput per device using Thunderbolt 2 is 17.28 Gbit/s, and the maximum PCIe throughput is 16 Gbit/s (PCIe 2.0 x4). If you use PCIe, you also have to contend with protocol overhead, and real world throughput over Thunderbolt 2 seems to hit a wall at around 11.08 Gbit/s.

If you were just doing a simple framebuffer copy via PCIe, you're still talking over 21.23 Gbit/s, so you'd need to achieve a sustained compression rate close to 2:1. While I suppose that may be doable, Apple would still have to implement hardware in the display to receive and decompress the PCIe data and generate the signals required by the TCON that drives the panel. I can't imagine they would go the custom silicon route when the functional blocks they require are already available in an off-the-shelf part, i.e. a GPU. By far the most efficient way to use PCIe to communicate with a Thunderbolt display would be to include a GPU in the display itself. This also has the added advantage of allowing even 1st generation Thunderbolt equipped Macs to drive a 5120 x 2880 display (albeit with ~28% lower PCIe throughput between the host and GPU).

 

[aloshka]

No, works just fine over a single DisplayPort link. The PCIe lanes of Thunderbolt wouldn't be affected at all. Daisychaining might be difficult - I don't believe you can daisychain two 4K displays over a single DisplayPort, since it requires the full bandwidth of a single DisplayPort to run.

Wait so if dp is different than TB but using the same cable, why is having a 27" 5k a problem? From what I understand a single TB cable carries 2 separate video streams. One through the embedded DP and the other through the TB lanes. This is why you can't daisy chain a TB display and a regular because the TB display takes the DP signal and terminates. But if you do TB => other TB device => non-TB display it works. Because the first TB monitor takes the DP signal and pushes the rest down the TB chain. The second TB device splits the encoded TB signal and converts it into DP signal and sends the rest down the line. Since the 2nd TB device decoded the DP the next on the chain can be a regular DP monitor and it works.

I remember that being a huge issue when the TB displays were announced and people were pissed because they couldn't chain non-TB displays from the TB display unless they had a middle device that separated the second DP from the TB stream.

If anyone is interested, I can search for the link that explains this including intels' schematics on the issue.

So keeping all the above in mind, the first signal is DP (won't affect TB channels), the second can be embedded in the TB channel. That's 2 streams to allow the retina 27 to be split into 2 separate monitors.

Obviously, the monitor will not have any other TB ports to daisy chain anything else out of them, but I don't really see that happening anyway, even with a 4k.

All this, of course, assuming that the DP signal is separate from TB bandwidth (the second DP signal is in the TB bandwidth, however).

 

[One2Manycats]

Wait or Buy Now?

Hi Repoman27,

Sounds like you have a solid understanding of these Mac display specs.

I was going to buy the current Apple Thunderbolt display tonight, but after reading the MacRumors story I am not too sure anymore.

Hope this question is okay for the current thread.

Question: Currently I use a Macbook Pro Retina mid 2012, will probably upgrade in a couple of years. Does the current Thunderbolt display offer MacBook Pro users the best possible option in terms of picture quality? I really cannot afford to purchase a new Mac just to use a new version of the Thunderbolt display.

Many thanks!

 

[brentsg]

Lol this screen isn't for gaming haha

It doesn't have to be for games. What happened to computers being flexible devices that could fulfill multiple purposes?

 

[OSXMavericks]

The 4k monitor market is still too expensive. If Apple do get involved, I fully expect them to release a higher end monitor but charge extra for it. It it will be a professional product aimed at Mac Pro users.

Then after a year, perhaps introduce 4k monitors into the iMac line up when the technology catches up and becomes cheaper and better refined for 4k.