A used retina iMac probably is worth more if used as a computer as if a lower resolution display, ie, it would be cheaper to sell a used 5K iMac and buy an external monitor than using the 5K iMac as a lower resolution monitor.Not less expensive when you already have an iMac.
Also, they could have allowed the 5k Retina iMac to run as external monitor at non-Retina resolution? (Basically x0.5)
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.
Retina 5K iMac Will Not Act as External Display, Standalone Apple 5K Display Unlikely Soon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
4K is exactly double the resolution of the current 21.5 iMac. Don't you see that (a) it looks bad if your smaller iMac goes retina but not the large one and (b) that the cost of a retina display is much more palatable for 27" iMac buyers because it is already more expensive?
----------
So you would prefer to not have a retina iMac to what we have now? Sometimes things don't work out as nicely as one would like and one has to accept compromises.
Yes, via Target Display Mode.
But a Thunderbolt Display is less expensive.
----------
If that was true, they would not have bothered releasing the new design and just kept shilling the old CheeseGrater with CPU/GPU updates.
Cool. Thanks. Yeah I know a Cinema Display is cheaper than an imac. Lol. I actually do need a puter for home. Want an Imac. Figured after it becomes obsolete for running the latest software, that I could use it as a monitor for future MacBooks.
What I don't understand is why Apple doesn't build an external Thunderbolt display with the graphics card built into the display. By placing the graphics card in the display instead the computer the issue of not enough bandwidth in thunderbolt disappears as well as the issue of an underpowered graphics in the Mac Mini and MacBook Air. Seems like the perfect solutionfor a second third or even fourth display since you would not be using display port technology but rather native thunderbolt data transfers. Anyway just my two cents worth
People have actually tried this, putting a graphic card into a PCI expansion box connected via TB. This works ok, up to a point when the bandwidth limits of TB2 start to bite you.
----------
Not quite, one TB 2 bus (and port) can support one 4K display. Three TB 2 busses can support three 4K displays.
I like to keep my tech, it's just how I do it.
I also still have my first iMac, my first iPhone and even my first computer that's an IBM 33MHz (in Turbo mode) powered laptop, etc...
I specifically meant that Target Display Mode could use the Retina display that is obviously a scaled equivalent to the old resolution to work as an external display for that resolution without Retina mode.
Much like how you can run a 4K display at a quarter of its resolution.
You would end up with the old level of DPI, but at least you could use it as such, hence giving it feature-parity to established standards.
Glassed Silver:mac
Can you tell me the last time Apple lowered the price of anything without announcing a successor? (I can only think of one case.)
----------
Think this one through as in release the 5K iMac in a year from now?
----------
Even if the bandwidth issue wouldn't exist this would imply a standalone 5K display not before July 2015.
This puts the current Mac Pro in a strange position. It can support 4k displays, but apple doesn't make them. Apple will eventually make 5k displays that will require a new Mac Pro to be able to run (due to needing new thunderbolt tech). It's a strange place that will make this badass pro computer ultimately crippled in the long run.
For the love of god Apple... just update the current Thunderbolt Display with the iMac style low-reflection laminated glass and USB 3. I would buy that in a second. The Thunderbolt monitor was due for an update years ago and it still hasn't changed. I don't care about 4K or 5K. It would be nice... but in the meantime give us a small update to the dinosaur that is your current Thunderbolt monitor.
Because they just spent a load of time bragging how 4k is old hat and 5k is the best thing since sliced bread.
Why? Because one instance in which a 27" iMac LED LCD panel was placed into a display took a few months? Remember this was the first 27" iMac, Apple did not have a 27" display yet, only 24". They have the body, it shouldn't take much to throw the thin panel into the current 27" display body's (perhaps tweaked a bit).
Recall a time in 2004, not long ago, when Apple made not 1, not 2, but 3 display sizes: 20", 23", 30". CCFL LCD's that many professionals praised for their quality and color matching with OS X (and many Windows users had em too, I had 2 23" CCFL LCD's for my Windows system and 2 more for my PowerMac at home).
Apple has billions in cash. Why produce a system with 4K support and not release a 4K display? Why release a 5K display for an all-in-one with mobile parts and claim it better, leaving those who dished out $5-10k on their hyped up Pro machine in the dust?
Thanks Apple.
Interesting new article just posted here:
Seems it wouldn't be difficult for Apple to slap a new panel into an existing 27" display, since, well, not much has changed.
that's the thing, I think a 5k monitor can last longer than 5 years. I've had the same IPS 1080p monitor for 3-4 years and that was after 1080p became a standard. 4k-5k is still taking off now.
I would think that most applications wouldn't have a bandwith limitation issue.
To be honest, I hadn't thought about using a PCI expansion box to give it a try.
I did a quick search to find some experiences with TB2 and came up empty.
If you have any "non-sales related" (since he can't believe people are trying to sell you something) reviews i'm curious to see what others have discovered
GPU is lacking. Additionally, a single thunderbolt 2 can't handle the bandwidth required. That means technically, the current Mac Pros can't have a 5k display either.
If so much of the computing power is just to drive the pixels, what's left? I have a 2012 rMBP 15" and I could never go back to non-retina. But 27" @ 5k, no thanks. I may seriously look at the 21" when it goes retina. If I can get at least 220 ppi on a 21" iMac, I may jump. I've had a 24" iMac (first 24" version), I've had the 24" Cinema Display as well, plus a 20" Cinema. For me, I would never go above 24". Don't need the space. Hell, I use a 15" as my primary display, so 21" would take some time. I've used a friend's 27" display, and it's way too big, and I used it after I got my retina display. I could never go back to non-retina. Not ever.
What I don't understand is why Apple doesn't build an external Thunderbolt display with the graphics card built into the display. By placing the graphics card in the display instead the computer the issue of not enough bandwidth in thunderbolt disappears as well as the issue of an underpowered graphics in the Mac Mini and MacBook Air. Seems like the perfect solutionfor a second third or even fourth display since you would not be using display port technology but rather native thunderbolt data transfers. Anyway just my two cents worth
First of all, they did, it is called an iMac. That is a computer with a graphic card on the back of a display and you can use it in the Target Display mode to make it an external display for other Macs.
Secondly, the graphic card isn't the problem in the first place. Putting it on the back of the display changes nothing because you still have to pipe it in into the rest of the computer. How are you proposing them to do this when the standard for this is still DP 1.2, that will not handle the 40Gbps worth of traffic?
Third of all, thunderbolt is a transport protocol that intermixes DP and PCIe data streams into one pipe. There is no thunderbolt without DP.
Perhaps because existing third-party 24" 4K displays adequately cover the market?
Apple certainly is not claiming a Retina iMac is a better machine than a Mac Pro - at least in terms of overall performance.
I imagine those who own and use Mac Pros for 4K video work use multiple 4K monitors - one for the video stream and one for all the tools.
Where I see the Retina iMac fitting in the 4K video world is for the "prosumer" who is putting their toe into the water for 4K. They can fit the stream in one corner and all the tools around it.
I could also see it for outfits like South Park Studios, who apparently do all their production video work on iMacs, using this should they decide to go 4K for whatever reason.
Last edited:
Nothing in my post implied how easy or difficult things would be for Apple. I've just observed past behaviour of Apple as a means to predict future behaviour. And the first part of that prediction (that Apple would release an iMac with a new display without simultaneously releasing a standalone display with the same panel) has already been born out.
----------
Well, Apple hasn't made a 20" or 21" or 22" or 23" or 24" display for, I think, at least four years, meaning everybody wanting a display with that size had to get a non-Apple display. And surprisingly enough the world has not gone under.
Yes, a lot, maybe me included, would like to have an Apple display. But Apple isn't doomed if people use non-Apple displays.