Gonna need a lot better video cards than crappy laptop grade GPUs in desktop iMacs. Lion already lags, slap that 'retina' marketing term with the higher resolution technology behind it and youre bound to have a slower system.
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 Displays Also Coming to Next-Generation iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wasn't the last Mac event called Back to the Mac? & even that was software focused. WWDC2012 is going to be AWESOME. My dosh will be saved by then, and I'll be poised to order my first ever Mac. A one-way switch. Goodbye, Microsoft.
Apple might be able to do it - a big push to get manufacturers to make bigger better screens now would really set them up towards a 4k iTV in the next year or so.
LOLWUT?
People, stop talking about "too low performance" for retina displays. In 1996, GPUs could push out desktops at 1600x1200 without sweating. And right now it's 2012, you know, hardware is slightly more performant.
It's a simple 2D picture rendering, after all, not gaming.
The video cards can drive those displays without breaking a sweat. 2008 MBP's have video cards that can drive two 1900*1200 displays without lagging.
Yep, and I'm sure that if we do get retina-class MBAs/MBPs/iMacs then the experience will be the same - everything is the same size, just a whole lot sharper.
You cannot render games at those resolutions even with the best of the best video cards. You do realize that you don't need to render games at the monitors highest resolution right?
I'm sure he knows that, but he's probably like me, and feels that by far the best way to run games is at the native resolution of your monitor. Anything less looks far far worse, IMO.
I always look for a Mac that has a video card strong enough to run my games of choice at FULL resolution without a problem.
For the steam games I play (in bootcamp for best performance) that are a few years old, the current iMacs and macbook pros with dedicated GPU's do that just fine.
The Retina display of the iPad 3 renders nearly 66% of the Adobe RGB1998 color gamut, so it still sucks for professional use. A high resolution doesn't mean it is a good screen, just like digital cameras...
A lot of people would like an iMac with anti-reflective glass and 98@ AdobeRGB 1998.
A lot of people would like an iMac with anti-reflective glass and 98@ AdobeRGB 1998.
My understanding of that roadmap is that Intel would be supporting retina display with their integrated graphics.
Retina display is most valuable for text, which looks incredibly good. It is second most valuable for static graphics, like the UI of applications, and photo editing. In a fast moving video game, or in an action movie, you won't notice it at all. So you are absolutely right; all the use cases where high resolution benefits most are not time critical.
But if you have one X display, and one 2X display, you can get slightly better graphics at sightly higher speed on the 2X display by not using anti-aliasing on the 2X display. (Anti-aliasing on an X display does all the calculations at 2X resolution, then combines four pixels at 2X resolution into one pixel at X resolution. On a 2X display you could do the same and get an identical image. Or you could drop the pointless step of combining pixels and get a slightly better image).
Using half the resolution of a 2X display looks identical because one pixel at the lower resolution maps exactly to 2x2 pixels of the higher resolution. That's why the iPhone and iPad doubled the resolution: Because old graphics looks identical as before, not worse, and new graphics looks better.
Last edited:
Yes grasshopper, but what happens when you do try to game? My iMac sucks at gaming and most certainly pushing such a high resolution helps attribute to that. So for it to push an even higher resolution? Eeks.
Plus, there's a lot more to computing than just staring at your desktop or gaming. Plenty of other activities tax the GPU and a substantial increase in resolution can undoubtedly hamper its performance. I notice lag all the time with my 27in iMac extended with a 1920x1080 monitor...
An increase in resolution of the iMac screen won't mean a drop in gamut. iPad 2 had an ever worse gamut yet iPad 3 got 4x the resolution and better gamut.
THIS.
I own a mid 2011 MacBook Pro, fully loaded with a 2.3ghz Quad Core i7 with a matte screen. As nice and bright the screen is, I never use it at home, I've got my MacBook Pro in clamshell mode connected to a Dell U2410 IPS monitor as a PROPER display. Color rendition on this thing is amazing. Coupled with my Canon 50D dSLR, it is a professional grade solution both for my photography and graphic design.
You'll continue to render games at their current resolution. No GPU can drive a modern game at 3k vertical res yet. If Apple decides to ship an iMac with a retina screen, they'll make sure that nothing lags on the main monitor. You can always lag a bit when you start adding extra monitors. It's normal.
This link might interest you: http://www.fxphd.com/blog/just-how-good-is-the-ipads-color/
Of course, that was a single iPad and we know colour can shift slightly from device to device, however the results were impressive.
What? Its the first article today
macrumours works while you sleep too, think time zones.
You know that you cannot (except a few with 20/8 vision) see the difference between 720 and 1080 resolutions? (when viewing from the normal distance of 4 to 5 times the screen-diagonal)
4K (2160p) is nice for a screen the size of a house with people as close as twenty feet (front row in cinema) but for the average american livingroom it would be massive overkill.
I don't mean to be a downer, but there's no way apple or anyone can have a 27" retina display with the specs described.
The number of pixels would make it prohibitively expensive.
If the technology really is in the pipes and apple delivers a 27" retina iMac... May god have mercy on my wallet.
The number of pixels would make it prohibitively expensive.
If the technology really is in the pipes and apple delivers a 27" retina iMac... May god have mercy on my wallet.
You and the rest of the internet can go on a regular pc with regular resolution monitor. Apple is not pushing down Retina down your throat.
i think given apples push to retina on iOS, and maybe the macbook lines.
its kind of a given it will happen to the iMac,
but i hope apple will do the right thing, and not force it onto the macs with any major trade offs.
i also think apple won't give people a choice, that they will have to take retina.
its kind of a given it will happen to the iMac,
but i hope apple will do the right thing, and not force it onto the macs with any major trade offs.
i also think apple won't give people a choice, that they will have to take retina.