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
I am looking forward to 30" UHD monitors myself.
I have grown very attached to that screen size.
I have grown very attached to that screen size.
This is the same reason I don't get one. It's hard on the graphic's card and the credit card.
That's a tricky question; there's a lot of subjective aspects that come into play when selecting a display. Apple does use high quality IPS panels in the ATD, and they pay a fair amount of attention to factory calibration. You could do a lot worse. Objectively, the high end professional displays from companies like NEC and EIZO offer somewhat better picture quality, but their pricing also generally makes the ATD look like a relative bargain, and their industrial design tends to be a bit more... well, industrial.
The ATD is definitely becoming a bit dated, and isn't as competitive price wise compared to some of the other offerings. It does not use bonded cover glass the way the new iMacs do, so it tends to cause more reflections / refracted light. If you can control the lighting in the room where you intend to use the display, this isn't necessarily a problem, but if you have windows that let in a lot of sunlight at various times of day, it can get annoying. Some people vehemently detest Apple's use of polished cover glass and insist on matte or anti-glare coatings. I can go either way; lousy anti-glare coatings that cause blurriness are just as bad, if not worse, in my book. The other strikes against the ATD are the lack of USB 3.0 support, and the fact that it can only be used with a Thunderbolt equipped Mac (or PC, but Windows support is less than stellar).
If you ever want to daisy-chain multiple displays from a single port on your MacBook Pro, or you have enough other Thunderbolt devices that you'd prefer not to have your display necessarily end a Thunderbolt daisy-chain, then the ATD is the way to go. If that's not a factor, you can pick up a Dell UltraSharp U2713H, which is fairly similar to the ATD except for the Thunderbolt part, for $791.99 from B&H. Which would still leave you with just enough left over to buy a Belkin Thunderbolt Express Dock if you were also looking forward to the GbE and FireWire ports of the ATD. Unfortunately, the Thunderbolt cable will tip the price advantage back towards the ATD since it's not included with the dock. Or you could go for a 30-inch, 2560 x 1600, Dell UltraSharp U3014 for $1049, also from B&H.
If accurate color reproduction is a must, you may want to take some time to check out some of the more objective display reviews out there from sites such as Anandtech.
Repoman27,
Thanks very much for taking the time to answer my question! This is some good information.
My Macbook Pro Retina will output a maximum of 2560x1440 to an external display. I see guys buying external monitors with higher resolutions, but having trouble getting them to work properly with the current Macbooks. Lots of people trying this and that. Kinda makes me think that even as dated as the Thunderbolt is, it still might be the best overall monitor for the current Macbook line.
The Dell UltraSharp that you mentioned seems very popular with many users. I was looking at other monitors, but decided I would stay with Apple. Your points about Apple's quality control and factory calibration have enough value for me.
The guys at the Apple Store say just buy the current model, since the next one will probably cost a lot more and may require me to upgrade to hardware with stronger graphics.
Buying a new $1,000 Thunderbolt today and then seeing a much better version come out in say November would be a drag.
But maybe the next version will not be a big improvement in picture quality considering that I will be working with 2560x1440?
It's a tough call.
Thanks very much for taking the time to answer my question! This is some good information.
My Macbook Pro Retina will output a maximum of 2560x1440 to an external display. I see guys buying external monitors with higher resolutions, but having trouble getting them to work properly with the current Macbooks. Lots of people trying this and that. Kinda makes me think that even as dated as the Thunderbolt is, it still might be the best overall monitor for the current Macbook line.
The Dell UltraSharp that you mentioned seems very popular with many users. I was looking at other monitors, but decided I would stay with Apple. Your points about Apple's quality control and factory calibration have enough value for me.
The guys at the Apple Store say just buy the current model, since the next one will probably cost a lot more and may require me to upgrade to hardware with stronger graphics.
Buying a new $1,000 Thunderbolt today and then seeing a much better version come out in say November would be a drag.
But maybe the next version will not be a big improvement in picture quality considering that I will be working with 2560x1440?
It's a tough call.
You say that... but we now have 1080p on a 5.5" phone screen.
You could try turning the lights behind you off to get rid of the glare. Just a thought...
I just used that and put in my rMBP's specs, and apparently it's retina at 41 cm, but from 60 cm away, I can see pixelation at the top of letters like "o" and such. Maybe I have above average eyesight, maybe the calculation is wrong, either way, that "Retina" definition isn't perfect.
Also as a web developer, it'd be very useful for me to have Retina monitors. I often need to know if content is Retina or not, even if it means I have to bring my face up a bit closer briefly. I'd rather not have to drag everything over to my rMBP screen.
Lastly, I really like the trend towards higher DPI - though I don't have evidence on hand, I think higher DPIs are better for long-term eyesight health.
I am happy my 30 inch apple cinema display is still working well. 27 inch is a bit small now for CAD work. I would certainly welcome a new apple 30 inch thunderbolt monitor, not necessarily a 4K, assuming it is well priced, for daisy chaining to expand screen working area with connecting simplicity. (compliant with current MBPs). Apple seems to have lost interest in the professional computing market long ago, so when my current unit craps, it will most likely be a third party device.
Yeah, and it's really outdated. I believe they have had the current revision since maybe 2009 or so. It's annoying that they are still selling an outdated piece of equipment for the same price. However, it's not like their display is something that they would pay super close attention to, but come on... I miss the Cinema displays---We used to have a 30-inch one and I once played full-screen Minecraft on it. xD
And you could put black cloth all over your workplace and kill every light source. Or you could just buy a matte screen. Choise is yours and so is Apple's. You know Jobs is dead, he doesn't need to use double-glassy screens as mirrors any more...You could try turning the lights behind you off to get rid of the glare. Just a thought...
You say that... but we now have 1080p on a 5.5" phone screen.
Sure but you have that a lot closer to your face.
----------
Sure I am saying that I'd prefer a slightly bigger than 27" screen... and it would still be retina. I am fairly sure you are seeing the aliasing rather than the actual pixels...that or you are part eagle
You could be right about the eye strain... but the biggest issue for me with the apple monitors is the Incredible reflection. I worked at a place recently with 2 apple monitors and literally had to wear sunglasses because of the glare from overhead lighting / skylight. They are fantastic in darkened conditions though.
Depends on the use: H.264 would be fine for playing H.264 video if you streamed it straight to the display, as well as any other "visually rich" moving images that needed high FPS (like video games/3D animations). Other applications that need the spatial detail (displaying documents, photo editing) don't need the FPS.
Yes - that's exactly what is needed, except that if Apple were making an Apple display for Apple computers then they don't need to wait for DisplayPort 1.3 to do it.
...not along the actual Thunderbolt connection, but the controllers at either end have DisplayPort protocols baked in.
2:1 is chicken feed in video compression terms.
The trouble is, your high-end graphics freak wouldn't get out of bed for a GPU that didn't use at least 16 PCIe lanes, so you're straight back to the bandwidth problem.
What we're really talking about here is how you split the functionality of the GPU between computer and display so as to minimise the bandwidth needed between the two, rather than the current pessimal approach of sending the entire frame over the display cable 60 times a second.
NB: To re-iterate, I'm not trying to suggest any of this is probable, just a possibility. I don't see anybody sinking big bucks into improving external displays when laptops and mobile are the hot tickets. OTOH, Apple are about the only people who could get away with a proprietary display connection.
...and I'd still consider buying a 1440p display if Apple would simply update the flipping thing with USB3
A few slight clarifications:
Although Thunderbolt uses Mini DisplayPort plugs and sockets, Thunderbolt cables are quite different than standard DisplayPort cables. While you can use a Thunderbolt cable as a DP cable, the reverse is not possible.
Thunderbolt ports can operate in several different signaling modes, which basically map different signals to the various pins in the socket, but they can only operate in one mode at a time. If you plug in a Thunderbolt device, Thunderbolt signaling is negotiated, connect a DisplayPort monitor, DisplayPort signaling is used, and if you insert a passive MiniDP to HDMI or DVI adapter, the appropriate TMDS and clock signals are output.
When operating in Thunderbolt mode, Thunderbolt ports transport all data, regardless of whether it's DisplayPort or PCIe, over two 10 Gbit/s channels (which can be bonded into a single 20 Gbit/s link if both host and device are using Thunderbolt 2 controllers). The protocol adapters and their associated back end connections, which serve as the on and off ramps to the high-speed data dual-carriageway that is Thunderbolt, ultimately determine the capabilities of a Thunderbolt controller. To date, all of Intel's 4-channel (2-port) Thunderbolt controllers have provided 2 DisplayPort Sink protocol adapters (DP inputs), but only a single DisplayPort Source protocol adapter (DP output). This is why the Apple Thunderbolt Display cannot drive a directly attached DisplayPort monitor; it's already using its DP Source protocol adapter to drive the built-in panel. It can, however, forward a second DP stream via Thunderbolt to another device further down the chain that does have an available DP Source protocol adapter, which can then be used to output the signal to a display. If Intel had produced a Thunderbolt controller with more than one DP Source protocol adapter, or the ATD was equipped with a Thunderbolt 2 controller and a DisplayPort 1.2 MST hub, it would be able to drive a second directly attached DisplayPort monitor.
In the end, although Thunderbolt 2 controllers have 2 DP inputs and can leverage DP 1.2 Multi-Stream Transport, a single Thunderbolt link / cable can only carry up to 2x DP 1.1a HBR main links, or a single DP 1.2 HBR2 main link. Either way, that's only 17.28 Gbit/s of DisplayPort packets, which is less than the 22.52 Gbit/s you need for 5120 x 2880, 24 bpp, 60 Hz. And no matter how you slice it, neither Thunderbolt nor Thunderbolt 2 can exceed 20 Gbit/s per link. There is not a separate DisplayPort signal available while a port is operating in Thunderbolt mode.
Now with the watch. Apple will neglect pro users even more. No new displays until 2015. Just watch.
Absolutely!! 100% agree. A part me almost thinks that the iMac will be upgraded to 4k, but there will be no 4k displays. IMO
The only reason to make the iMac 4K would be if they could not source a screen that pixel doubled the current iMac screen to allow a direct retina replacement, but Dell has shown a monitor that has that direct replacement specification. So 5K looks likely when it happens, hopefully soon.
With the iMac and Air having rumours about retina updates, that would leave the Mini as the only Mac range that isn't retina capable (note: I said range, they will probably keep low-cost non-retina models within ranges around for a while). I suspect that will be replaced as soon as Broadwell chips are available for them, or it will die. With all Macs retina capable, it is doubtful they would only have a non-retina monitor option.
Here we go with this TB roulette again. If Apple would release any display anymore, it would use the same 5k panel that Dell is using. BUT since it would need to have dp1.3 to use it elegantly, Apple can't release it. Dp1.3 would mean TB3 and Apple can't upgrade TB every year. Too few devices and macs would support it and too small quantities would make it too expensive. Not to mention all MP owners, who would find out that their expensive machine would have turned obsolete in less than a year.
Btw, there will be low latency compression in dp1.3, with ratio of about 2:1. Long-GOP compression is out of question, because it would cause a lag of hundreds of milliseconds to over a second.
Btw, there will be low latency compression in dp1.3, with ratio of about 2:1. Long-GOP compression is out of question, because it would cause a lag of hundreds of milliseconds to over a second.
Who are the 8 people that up voted you? Why would you even use 4K and gaming in the same sentence?