Retina Displays Also Coming to Next-Generation iMac?

[Fynd]

I think you don't actually understand how this works.

How so?

 

[theSeb]

Not quite true. Fill rates and overdraw are massive drains on a GPU's performance, it doesn't matter if it's 2D or 3D. The desktop is still Quartz, which is OpenGL, which means lots of paged textures and LOTS of memory. It's not just games, it's every windowed application too, be it Mail or Final Cut X.

Apple haven't been too canny when it comes to video cards, if anything they're a bit predictably "safe". So I'm more curious to see what they've done to get around this if the new hardware really does support higher resolutions. Gone for top-end cards to match the old-world speeds? Because that really would attract gamers running at half-res, but with all that extra power. Not that I think that's going to happen though; it's far too unconservative.

Sure, but in comparison to games, it's easy going.

 

[Freida]

Isn't that still going to be expensive and not usable?

the amount of intelligence and awareness on this thread is mind-blowing...

couple of hints:

sharp produces high resolution igzo displays that will be used in imac in a couple of weeks (cost-effective)

retina isnt necessary quadrupling resolution, just bumping it

you dont have to game at full resolution


its funny, couple of sentences and a link address 99% posts on this thread. and then we go again...

 

[andretheguy]

Mac anyone?

Man just finished getting a new 27" iMac, But that huge resolution sure does look tempting!

 

[Rocketman]

As part of ABC News' roundup of the latest MacBook Pro rumors, Joanna Stern claims

It appears ABC News has identified the MacRumors meme as a means to attract viewers and advertisers. I wonder if they have any original sources?

but I actually prefer my old 94ppi 24-inch Cinema Display to any of Apple's higher PPI displays. I like that the system default 12pt text is larger. The sacrifice is in the usable workspace, and that’s a matter of taste.

I would hope and expect users to post methods after release of the new hardware and OS to discuss preferred means of settings changes to bring UI elements to more comfort for some users who need/like larger text with differing preferences on other UI elements.

I hope a thread starts then, and MR posts summaries of the "Top 5" best suggestions to a Page 2 article.

Rocketman

 

[spcdust]

Isn't that still going to be expensive and not usable?

To achieve a Retina resolution (whatever the definition may be) on a desktop display at this time would be, I imagine, still too expensive. By next year the technology will be more developed and and the cost will likely have come down considerably making the prospect more achievable

In my humble opinion (and that's all it is) we may see some sort of retina display on the laptops this refresh (due to their smaller screen/panel sizes) but for the iMac and Cinema displays it will be 2013. I still reckon the iMac refresh will be the usual predictable bump, including USB3, this time and no major design change. Come 2013 new design on iMac and Cinema display screen with 1st generation retina display included.

 

[Ryth]

guys, isn't retina on displays still too expensive?

Depends. You know Apple and their ability to get costs down due to supply/demand.

They said the same thing about the iPad's screen and being too expensive and it would cost more. So much for that.

 

[tigres]

One thing is to be certain.

Whatever update iMac receives, it will be followed by numerous complaints on both side of the camps. For and against.

 

[jobesucks]

Having a retina display while actually losing screen real estate seems a bit counterintuitive...

This, if they however just double the res then fine

 

[dokujaryu]

Maybe Apple will institute some kind of scaling option to allow users to choose their workspace size / UI size they want that transcends merely changing the screen resolution. Things could get so small at high DPI you can't easily click UI elements like the minimize button, or even find your mouse pointer.

I'm also a little concerned about the performance impact of doubling the screen resolution on a 2d/3d accelerated UI.

In any case, when it comes to high DPI, the retina iMac is interesting, the retina 15" MBP seems pretty cool, but I think the 11" MacBook Air is where I want to see 200+ ppi.

 

[iSRS]

Ironically...

I didn't see the real "need" for this until today. Doing a comparison of Messages, and have a screen shot from my iPhone 4, my new iPad, and Messages.app on my iMac. Putting them into one image file, you see how small everything is in comparison.

 

[BK.]

Man, I am so sick of hearing this. Ever since the Intel era of Mac's, most of the macbook pro's, and now even the iMacs have better video cards than 98% of the PC's out there.

They are great for mid to upper mid level 3D gaming. Resident Evil 5, which came out in 2009, runs as smooth as butter on my iMac with the 6750m video card ... at full resolution with full details, btw.

It was one of the many considerations I took into account when buying that mac. I get the mac os, a great quality build, and then can run windows on bootcamp and get great gaming too.

What exactly is so 'dumb' about that?

The fact you're spending so much more on a gaming rig when you could get it for so much less?

I use Macs because I love OS X. If I liked [insert something Windows here] then I'd buy a Windows PC and save the money.

But maybe that's just me. Apparently 99% of people here are rich "professionals" who "need" $3000 laptops...

 

[Flunkyturtle]

Having done a benchmark test on my iMac last night, theres nothing really listed for the new iMac that would want me to sell up and buy the new one. Except maybe if they made it easy to upgrade the HDD to an SSD

 

[iSayuSay]

Dont get your hopes up high though. Retina display might still be affordable for 13" display. It's highly likely they can make it to MBP or MBA. But 27" iMac? We're talking about 5K display here. Anything 3d will lag big times. But the main problem is price point!!

I dont think Apple can make 27" iMac with 5120x2880 display and sell it for the same price as today.

 

[beosound3200]

Isn't that still going to be expensive and not usable?

jesus, sharp is mass producing them for about a month now, who do you think is buying them? hp?

usable?

 

[Flunkyturtle]

jesus, sharp is mass producing them for about a month now, who do you think is buying them? hp?

usable?

source?

 

[AAPLaday]

The most interesting iMac upgrade since 2009. 2 wishes.

1) Matte version

2) Remove the disc drive. (allowing more cooling for better graphics card)

These are decent gaming machines as long as your not a bleeding edge performance nut. Mobile graphics have come a long way now and the majority of games out don't push the cards as much as they used to. I expect this to change once the next gen home consoles come out though.

 

[7enderbender]

Having a retina display while actually losing screen real estate seems a bit counterintuitive...

I agree. That would be silly. I've been holding back with upgrades because I was hoping for Macs with more real estate than the current hi res 15" and 17". And certainly on the iMacs. If they just double everything without giving users the option to go with small fonts and screen elements then I guess its going to PCs yet again. That would really be a missed opportunity to attract a lot of people who are turned off by the current coarse and shiny screens.

 

[leman]

Not quite true. Fill rates and overdraw are massive drains on a GPU's performance, it doesn't matter if it's 2D or 3D. The desktop is still Quartz, which is OpenGL, which means lots of paged textures and LOTS of memory. It's not just games, it's every windowed application too, be it Mail or Final Cut X.

Apple haven't been too canny when it comes to video cards, if anything they're a bit predictably "safe". So I'm more curious to see what they've done to get around this if the new hardware really does support higher resolutions. Gone for top-end cards to match the old-world speeds? Because that really would attract gamers running at half-res, but with all that extra power. Not that I think that's going to happen though; it's far too unconservative.

There is not much overdraw in compositing a 2D desktop. Anyway, even the venerable GMA 3000 offers a 1.6 gigapixels fill rate. Even with a quadrupled 27" iMac's resolution it would be enough fill rate to redraw the whole screen 100 times per second. And with desktop compositing you usually only update small parts of the image. Given that faster cards have much, much higher fill rates, I don't think that 2D GUI compositing will be bottlenecked by the GPU fill rate. Games are a different thing because you will have much more overdraw and use more textures.


P.S. This is only a technical post. I still think that retina display on an iMac is a totally pointless thing. Current resolution works great for the display size.
Video RAM might be a more serious issue, but this can be again offset by storing the images in the system RAM and streaming them to the GPU. You don't need that much performance for desktop compositing.

 

[knightlie]

it might just be me, but i don't see the point of having a retina display monitor. is apple trying to force the entire internet to double their graphics just to accommodate macs?

You really need to do some research before posting because you're very, very wrong.

 

[Hexiii]

'iMac' and 'Retina' look fantastic in the same sentence.

"We are terribly sorry, but there is no way we will make iMac with Retina display ever."

 

[spcdust]

jesus, sharp is mass producing them for about a month now, who do you think is buying them? hp?

usable?

What panel size are Sharp producing? Are you saying Sharp are producing 21", 27" and maybe 24" panels which are "Retina" resolution? I guess you're not referring to the 9.7" iPad panels?

 

[Bubba Satori]

love Mac rumors, after months of iStories

Indeed. Gives me hope that there is going to be a renewed emphasis
on computers in the future. Excellent news if it proves to be true.
Thank you Tim Cook.

 

[shurcooL]

I liked this post, everything except this bit:

given that most Macs already approach Retina resolution at typical viewing distances.

No, that's wrong! There is no way that sitting 28" away from a 24" or 27" iMac is typical. Those viewing distances are highly exaggerated.

It's like saying my iPhone 3GS has a Retina display when viewing it from a "typical" distance of 22". My arm doesn't even stretch out that long.

 

[teme]

Also, to the people talking about gaming and how it won't be possible on these resolutions blahblahblah.

You're. Buying. A. Mac.

They're not the gamers choice. Sure, you might be able to game on some of them reasonably well, but if your main consideration is gaming and you're considering a Mac then you're dumb.

The high-end models at the moment can cope decently well with gaming but this is the one thing that a Windows PC will do better 98% of the time.

You can't buy a Mac and then complain about it not gaming well. It'd be like installing Linux and crying because you can't get Microsoft Word to work properly on it.

¨

Yeah, I have recently found Kickstarter, but I'm so annoyed that the few Linux people are so loud "Will there be Linux version? Why not? There must be Linux version! Why don't you support Linux?" etc. over and over and over again. If you want to play games on your computer, buy Windows. Period. Simple as that. If you want to use a Mac or Linux, use your gaming console to play games and shut up.