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 iMacs and Apple Displays Within Reach as New DisplayPort 1.3 Spec Finalized
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not just two TB ports, it is two TB busses (as two ports share the same bus). The Mac Pro has six TB ports but only three TB buses, which matches up with being able to drive three 4K monitors.
Yes, let's blame Apple for trying to adopt new technology as soon as it's available :roll eyes:
This is still a ways out people. Don't fret over your mac pro's ability to drive a display that isn't even available yet, nor likely affordable by those concerned with upgrading their chipsets.
5K displays will be affordable in a year or two, and not everyone who uses a Mac Pro is as rich as you suggest. Many studios would rather replace video cards than computers, and plenty of home hobbyists lack the funds for a new MP every year.
Aside from affordability, it's nice to be able to upgrade to new video card tech on one's own terms instead of waiting for Apple to add the tech to a new MP model.
For updates on THE nvidia 980m chipset to support all these pixels check out THE Posts here.
Nvidia mobile chipset 980m;
http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...-yourself-new-maxwell-cards-incoming-221.html
Lets hope we finally get dual gpu (sli) on our iMacs like the nMP.
Nvidia mobile chipset 980m;
http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...-yourself-new-maxwell-cards-incoming-221.html
Lets hope we finally get dual gpu (sli) on our iMacs like the nMP.
GAH! I've been waiting for new iMacs to come out to switch from being a long time PC user to Mac but sounds like these babies are gonna be $$$$$.
I just can't do it then!
Either the new retina models will be close to the same price or the new retina models will be more and non retina models will remain in the line up. See the MacBooks when the retina versions debuted. Shouldn't be more than 1k more in either case.
Why would it? It still does everything you bought it for.
If money is an issue, people don't jump to new displays as soon as they can afford them, either. In fact, people probably replace their computer more frequently than their screens.
oooo loorrdd please make it a displayport only monitor with a usb "3" cable like the old 24-27 cinema display.
Not cool...
Definitely not cool that Apple would make such a big deal about the nMP's 4K capabilities, launch the machine with a third-party display and then when they finally do roll out a new ACD, they skip 4K altogether and release a 5K display that's not capable of begin driven by the 2013 nMP.
Besides, I want an ACD that's 16:10 and in matte!
Definitely not cool that Apple would make such a big deal about the nMP's 4K capabilities, launch the machine with a third-party display and then when they finally do roll out a new ACD, they skip 4K altogether and release a 5K display that's not capable of begin driven by the 2013 nMP.
Besides, I want an ACD that's 16:10 and in matte!
I would also love 16:10. 5120x3200 (2560x1600 retina) 30" screen, essentially a retina version of the old 30" Apple displays?
It is doubtful Apple would return to matte, but even better than that is non-reflective. There were rumours about this a while back, but Philips are the only company I know to have released anything with their moth-eye TV's.
5K? But what about me watching my 4K TV show, which we do not have content yet, on my 4K TV which I have not purchased yet.
Man this totally sucks!
On a serious note.. while having a 4K monitor is great an all for the higher resolution.. I hope they make a thunderbolt replacement first before iMac. I think price point wise that makes sense unless they branch out the iMac line to a more professional offering with obviously a much higher price point.
Man this totally sucks!
On a serious note.. while having a 4K monitor is great an all for the higher resolution.. I hope they make a thunderbolt replacement first before iMac. I think price point wise that makes sense unless they branch out the iMac line to a more professional offering with obviously a much higher price point.
For gaming maybe. Resolution alone really isn't that big of a deal. We have 1440p displays running smoothly in smartphones now.
----------
What exactly do you mean by that? Curious.
ive worked in enterprise for 15 years, and ive never, ever, seen a company upgrade users video cards. they just get you a new machine after a couple years.
sure home users replace vid cards all the time, but its mostly an enthusiasts game. not business.
Waaaa..!! I want 8K !!
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...s-a-beautiful-glimpse-of-gaming-in-the-future
The Mac Pro only exposes PCIe lanes to user-changeable devices (like graphic cards) via TB 2. And one TB 2 port is limited to about 5x PCIe 2.0. Since 5x PCIe 2.0 is not sufficient for 5K at 60 Hz, there you go. But it wouldn't be rocket science to treat a 5K display as two separate monitors which each would fit into the TB 2 data envelope, it just has to be supported on the OS and display side.
TB 2 is the bottleneck compared to what the processor offers in terms of connectivity via PCIe lanes. See http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/8 for more details. The Xeon processor used has two 16x PCIe 3.0 outputs which are used for the two internal graphic cards, another 8x PCIe 3.0 connection of the Xeon is used to provide the bandwidth of the three '5x PCIe 2.0 busses' that are fed into the three TB busses. There are additional PCIe 2.0 lanes used for the internal SSDs (4x PCIe 2.), the two GbitEthernet ports (one 1x PCIe 2.0 lane each), and the USB 3 ports (1x PCIe 2.0).
So, the maximum bandwidth a TB 2 port one the Mac Pro can provide is a sixth of what each graphic card gets. That shows that TB 2 cannot provide nearly as much bandwidth as internal expansion. Apple is using the internal bandwidth wisely on graphic cards and SSD storage but if you want to use it on something else, you are out of luck. TB 2 is providing enough external bandwidth for any possible storage option but for display video output, TB 2 just about matched existing display technology (though the aggregation of two TB busses for display use should be relatively easily possible).
Entirely depends on what you're running. Gaming with high quality graphics settings? No way. You'll have to run those at a lower resolution, which is no big deal.
2015 is gonna be an interesting year for Apple.
They clearly need to update their displays. There is simply too much demand for them to ignore it.
Also will Apple 4k+ displays really need to be sold separately or is Apple working on iMac only 4k+ displays? It wouldn't seem right having a 2560 x 1440 iMac for another year when the industry has clearly moved on and demand something better.
They clearly need to update their displays. There is simply too much demand for them to ignore it.
Also will Apple 4k+ displays really need to be sold separately or is Apple working on iMac only 4k+ displays? It wouldn't seem right having a 2560 x 1440 iMac for another year when the industry has clearly moved on and demand something better.
i can only imagine what the price tag will be for the iMac Retina, holy hell. and the graphics to power a Retina screen of that size
i am looking to buy an iMac right now actually:
21.5"
i5 2.7Ghz
8GB memory
1TB drive
it's currently on sale at Best Buy for $1179. minus the $100 .edu discount it becomes $1,079. minus the 10% mover's coupon it becomes $927. i can get it tax free if i drive 35 mins to the Delaware Best Buy.
is the above build for $927 worth it?
i am looking to buy an iMac right now actually:
21.5"
i5 2.7Ghz
8GB memory
1TB drive
it's currently on sale at Best Buy for $1179. minus the $100 .edu discount it becomes $1,079. minus the 10% mover's coupon it becomes $927. i can get it tax free if i drive 35 mins to the Delaware Best Buy.
is the above build for $927 worth it?