Retina iMac how soon likely?

washburn

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 8, 2010
445
4
Can someone explain what kind of performance is needed and is it nearly there yet?

Is a faster CPU needed as well as a GPU, is something in the pipeline from Intel and Nvidia that will take care of it soon?

Anything else that could hold it up?

Approximately another 2 year wait at least?

Cheers
 

Lancer

macrumors 68020
Jul 22, 2002
2,123
82
Australia
I'd say there is next to no chance of a retina iMac in 2013, more likely next year or 2015, just depending on price and when Apple next does an exterior design refresh.
 

mrmarts

macrumors 65816
Feb 6, 2009
1,051
0
Melbourne Australia
It is hard to say but there is a chance we might see a 27" retina thunderbolt 2 display to compliment the new mac pro 4k graphic capabilities later this year. If this happens we might see a retina iMac as early as 2014. But with the costs of 4k displays Apple might leave 4k to the Mac pro following the logic of the ultra-books with the Macbook Pros receiving the retina displays last year and the cheaper consumer targeted macbook air still deprived of a retina display.

Hence Apple might be targeting specific media driven consumers who want the power and graphics whilst not compromising on screen estate. Therefore following this logic the Pro models will get the retina capabilities ahead of the lower end machines like the iMac, Mac Mini and Macbook Air, this could push the date of retina iMac even further back until the panels become more affordable till about 2016 when 4k displays become mainstream.
 
Last edited:

MacReloaded

macrumors 6502
Oct 31, 2007
407
0
Canada
Do we have enough power to drive 5120x2880 on the main 27" display and still be able to drive external displays?
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,716
1,782
Do we have enough power to drive 5120x2880 on the main 27" display and still be able to drive external displays?
The current drivers say they support 4K. It's not just how fast the card. It is a matter of whether the drivers support such a resolution and if other engineering issues can be overcome in constructing a display of that size and resolution. Heat is an enormous factor when it comes to tight pixel density and large displays.

As for predictions on when, this is an obvious dartboard thread, but current gpus should be sufficient assuming adequate driver support. Right now it's a given that 4k would be supported. I'm not sure about proposed 5k spec.
 

ntrigue

macrumors 68040
Jul 30, 2007
3,805
1
Curious that the Mavericks wallpaper is on Apple servers at 5120x2880...
 

inscrewtable

macrumors 68000
Oct 9, 2010
1,610
380
Realistically you would need to be sitting 12" from the screen for it to be worthwhile being a retina screen. And that is way too close for a 27"

If it was a retina screen and you were sitting at a normal distance then it would be no different to how it is now.

It would be feasible for a 21" if you were prepared to sit at laptop distances. Would be a pretty good immersive cinema experience.

Retina screen on iMac does not make any sense.
 

T'hain Esh Kelch

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2001
5,085
4,412
Denmark
Realistically you would need to be sitting 12" from the screen for it to be worthwhile being a retina screen. And that is way too close for a 27"
Exactly. I don't get why people are so hyped for a retina iMac.. I sit 80cm from mine, and I can't see single pixels at the current resolution.
 

washburn

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 8, 2010
445
4
Realistically you would need to be sitting 12" from the screen for it to be worthwhile being a retina screen. And that is way too close for a 27"

If it was a retina screen and you were sitting at a normal distance then it would be no different to how it is now.

It would be feasible for a 21" if you were prepared to sit at laptop distances. Would be a pretty good immersive cinema experience.

Retina screen on iMac does not make any sense.
Well why do they make high def TVs? And thoes are watched from a distance and show amazing sharpness.

It would work great on an iMac, videos, text, photos etc
 

inscrewtable

macrumors 68000
Oct 9, 2010
1,610
380
Well why do they make high def TVs? And thoes are watched from a distance and show amazing sharpness.

It would work great on an iMac, videos, text, photos etc

Watching my iPod Touch from a distance of 10" is identical to watching my current 27" iMac from 11 feet. But my iMac is a 'retina' display from a distance of 2 feet, at which distance the screen is much bigger than the Touch.

Now on to TV's, to get Retina on a 60" HD TV you need to watch from a distance of 8 feet. More than 8 feet and you don't get any extra benefit. So to get the biggest image filling your field of vision, you want to know what is the closest you can view a screen while still maintaining it's retina qualities.

Viewing a 60" HD TV from a distance of 11 feet is identical to viewing my 27" imac from a distance of 2 feet with regards to image size.

So the answer to your question is that many more people can watch the screen from 11 feet than can watch my iMac from 2 feet.

If you move 3 feet closer to the 60" HD TV to it's retina limit, then you'll get a bigger image than on the iMac, but not much bigger.
 

washburn

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 8, 2010
445
4
So the answer to your question is that many more people can watch the screen from 11 feet than can watch my iMac from 2 feet.

If you move 3 feet closer to the 60" HD TV to it's retina limit, then you'll get a bigger image than on the iMac, but not much bigger.
I dunno I have seen comparisons from all kinds of distances of blu-ray vs DVD, and it had a massive difference in sharpness, the same thing can be going on the iMac.