Close or far away, the difference can't be missed. It is not a subtle thing! A perceptual thing, rather than vision itself? It is hard to understand unless these people are making some sort of statement.
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 iMac make sure you view it in person before buying!
- Thread starter qunit
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok, iMac was delivered today, screen is superb, I have an Asus 4k 28' on Hidpi connected to a rMBP in "retina like" mode, it is going back tomorrow.
the quality of the screen, colors, pixel count and accuracy is jaw dropping on the iMac, I'm $3000 poor but happy as hell.
the quality of the screen, colors, pixel count and accuracy is jaw dropping on the iMac, I'm $3000 poor but happy as hell.
Well I'm on my new maxed out 5k rent Imac.
I was worried that I wasted a bunch of money compared to my maxed out late 2012.
WORTH EVERY PENNY. This screen is crazy. I have it side by side with my late 2012 and the different is dramatic!!!!
I even went to the store a few days ago to compare and I didn't think it was a huge difference.
But now that I'm at home and 24" away....... It's a HUGE difference!
I was worried that I wasted a bunch of money compared to my maxed out late 2012.
WORTH EVERY PENNY. This screen is crazy. I have it side by side with my late 2012 and the different is dramatic!!!!
I even went to the store a few days ago to compare and I didn't think it was a huge difference.
But now that I'm at home and 24" away....... It's a HUGE difference!
That's what they said back in summer 2012 when the first rMBP was released. Couldn't be further from the truth. Even then when no optimised sites existed (except for Apple's), they all looked infinitely better on a Retina display: sharp text, controls, SVGs, non-image DOM elements. "Optimised" only means images have a @2x alternative, the rest doesn't need optimisation. When images are not optimised, they do look ugly as one would expect, because of missing details from upscaling and jagged edges. The key difference is that on a regular-resolution display, those are mushed together into a blurred mess. It may be down to taste, but I think the result still looks better on a Retina display: those pixelated edges look crisp and low pixel density is evident. As a result, my eyes don't need to adjust at all.
Last edited:
Actually the reason you gave for the monitor is exactly why you want a 4K screen and you want it even larger than your existing HD TV.
With the 4K screens you can sit closer and not see the pixels, hence if you have a 50in screen go to a 60 or 70 4k and sit just as close.
Can you please explain why this would be the case? Assuming you game on both a riMac and non-riMac at 2560*1440 then shouldn't the display sharpness be identical? The riMac has a native resolution of 5120*2880 which is exactly double 1440p in both axis, ultimately giving the same visual scale. If I'm correct it comes down to which GPU can push those pixels faster, and it looks like the 2014 riMac GPU is faster than the 2013 iMac.
Representation of each panel to illustrate my thinking. Standard iMac first, riMac second.
I'm no display or tech guru, so I won't be able to debate against your statement. Honestly, I have no idea why the Retina iMac produces a less stellar picture at non-HiDPI 1440p than a non-Retina one. I'm simply basing the claim with my very own eyes.
It's easy to see for yourself if you have access to a 5k iMac. Install SetResX and set the resolution to 1440p. You can already see the picture is not very good. Then compare it to a non-Retina 27" iMac 1440p. The difference is very clear that the Retina produces a more blurry and pixelated image.
And it's not just me that's saying this BTW, another poster has already experienced the same thing and he additionally owns a 2012 27" iMac, so the comparison for him was easy.
Again, bad example because that's terribly too close. Nobody is going to view any display at that distance. Try doing it farther away for a better representation, like normal sitting distance.
There is no point on keep arguing about this, the screen is superior, technology is superior, more pixels sitting 1'' or 100'' are going to look better than less pixels. I have both in front of me and I was very hesitant on purchasing (look my other posts), now that the iMac arrived there is nothing compared to the screen in quality and color accuracy, absolutely fantastic.
Please everybody that keeps posting about this and that, do me a favor, get yourself a 5k retina iMac and try it in your house for a couple of days.
Don't worry, I will. If not 1st gen Retina, then 2nd gen almost with 100% certainty. I'm just waiting to see if any major issues arises a few months down the road first.
The big reason to buy the late 2013 iMac is still price.
You can buy one at BHphoto i73.5, 3TB fd, GTX 780M 4g, 8g ram for $2499 and no tax or shipping. The similarly equipped although faster version of the new 5K iMac will cost you 3432 from the Apple store . That's over $900 difference. You cannot get away from tax at the Apple store.
For me, for the specs I wanted, the price difference was $300 but it varies.
This reminds me of when the rMBP came out, people wanted to save hundreds of $ going the classic route looking at the specs/$ ratio. I wonder if they regretted their choice months or years later.
I was using a 2010 iMac before my riMac arrived and here are my thoughts as someone with 20/20 vision:
1. If you sit more than 3.5 iPads away from the monitor, you can hardly tell the difference between 5k and 2k.
2. If you sit around 2 to 2.5 iPads away from the monitor (which most people seem to do) then it looks exactly like the rMBP and you can certainly tell that it's retina.
Is it worth the extra money? That's a subjective question. If you want a high DPI monitor then the answer's probably yes. If you don't care or generally sit far away from your screen anyway, then probably no.
1. If you sit more than 3.5 iPads away from the monitor, you can hardly tell the difference between 5k and 2k.
2. If you sit around 2 to 2.5 iPads away from the monitor (which most people seem to do) then it looks exactly like the rMBP and you can certainly tell that it's retina.
Is it worth the extra money? That's a subjective question. If you want a high DPI monitor then the answer's probably yes. If you don't care or generally sit far away from your screen anyway, then probably no.
totally agree with the viewing distance caveat.
After almost a week with the 5k iMac, I've found that it's also more than just aesthetics. Because you can reduce the font size or magnification on things, and have them remain totally attractive and legible, you effectively have more screen space. I'd say at least 25% more.
Even for things besides text. It's really convenient to play an HD youtube video, in-place, and not have to take over a larger part of the screen just to see the details.
After almost a week with the 5k iMac, I've found that it's also more than just aesthetics. Because you can reduce the font size or magnification on things, and have them remain totally attractive and legible, you effectively have more screen space. I'd say at least 25% more.
Even for things besides text. It's really convenient to play an HD youtube video, in-place, and not have to take over a larger part of the screen just to see the details.
Not even for a second. I bought the same spec MBP with antiglare screen when the rMBP came out and what a great laptop it has been. The coolest part is I have 1.5 TB of SSD storage. Not possible with the rMBP. Not knocking new by any means but there certainly are a few advantages to the late 2013 iMac.
Affinity Designer on 2014 iMac Retina 5K https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hpg5q6LDQs&list=UUAYTwFk4xCES4-AaYus9yZA
I think when the rMBP came out, the difference was that the regular MBP was updated at the same time. At the time, I bought a rMBP for myself and a regular MBP for my cousin who had just started college. I wanted the rMBP but didn't seem like there was a disadvantage to buying the regular MBP (I offered my cousin her choice which she wanted)
Agreed, I will probably end up returning my RiMac since the deciding factor was really just the screen. Its not a $2600 difference for me personally to keep it.
To each their own. For folks with old iMacs I think it's a great upgrade, but if you have a 2012 or 2013 iMac I can see the argument going either way, it depends on how much you want retina really
