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 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.
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!
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.
Unless they are releasing new macs that have Displayport 1.3 which supports 8k and are capable of handling that res...
Even the mac pro Can only do 4k... ok - 3 of them. but still.
The main issue is the size... 27 is pointless at 4k!
I have a couple of 2008 dell 30" monitors at 2560x1600 and they are still fantastic at the distance you sit from them
Would need to be 32 really.
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.
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
I hope they keep the current 27-inch around but cut the price in half. It is over priced right now.
It doesn't have to be for games. What happened to computers being flexible devices that could fulfill multiple purposes?
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.![]()
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.
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.
...not along the actual Thunderbolt connection, but the controllers at either end have DisplayPort protocols baked in.but there isn't necessarily a specific DisplayPort channel per se.
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,
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.
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).
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
Hopefully with matte display, as well as standalone display (24-inch) with USB 3, Thunderbolt 2 and SDXC ports.
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....