Retina iMacs and Apple Displays Within Reach as New DisplayPort 1.3 Spec Finalized

[Tech198]

Apple has that shiny Cinerama display, but wouldn't it be good if "the iMac had 4K built in" ?

ok, a new spec can push this much... wouldn't u be better just replacing with a 4K display?

 

[Moonjumper]

Good thing a 27" iMac isn't a traditional 1080p monitor then, eh?

The 27" iMac is 2560x1440, and is retina at about 32" viewing distance.

ie, at 32" away from the screen it is physically impossible for the human eye (with 20/20 vision) to distinguish individual pixels due to the laws of physics.

As it happens, most people's viewing distance is slightly closer than that, thus making the display *almost* retina already, but not quite.

I have measured before and I sit about 26-27" away from my screen, so under the line. Even so, the difference is not "night and day" as some people claim between my 27" iMac and my 13" rMBP.

At typical viewing distances from each screen, they look the same to me - i.e., text looks sharp and crisp, figures look well defined, UI elements look sharp.

If anything, the retina screen looks worse for certain applications because they are not high-DPI aware - like ChemDraw, which is still not retina-aware in 2014, meaning the UI and the images and graphics in it look blurry on the 13" rMBP, but not on the 27" iMac. This is a specific problem relating to the software, however, and not the hardware.

I believe the 1080p reference was about a smaller screen as they talked about stretching to 27". Therefore it seems they were talking about similar pixel density.

Some people would notice a 5K retina screen on the iMac much more than others. You say it is physically impossible for the human eye to distinguish more, but then mention 20/20. My corrected vision is better than 20/20, as it is for many (corrected by spectacles or not). I could not see pixelation on my first retina iPhone (iPhone 4), but now I am used to it, I do in places (on my iPhone 5 and iPad 4).

I did look at all the screens when I got a new Mac last year. I could see pixellation on the 27" iMac, so went with a 15" rMBP. I would rather have gone for an iMac if it was retina, so I am looking forward to it happening a some point.

 

[joe-h2o]

I believe the 1080p reference was about a smaller screen as they talked about stretching to 27". Therefore it seems they were talking about similar pixel density.

Some people would notice a 5K retina screen on the iMac much more than others. You say it is physically impossible for the human eye to distinguish more, but then mention 20/20. My corrected vision is better than 20/20, as it is for many (corrected by spectacles or not). I could not see pixelation on my first retina iPhone (iPhone 4), but now I am used to it, I do in places (on my iPhone 5 and iPad 4).

I did look at all the screens when I got a new Mac last year. I could see pixellation on the 27" iMac, so went with a 15" rMBP. I would rather have gone for an iMac if it was retina, so I am looking forward to it happening a some point.

By 20/20 I meant "perfect human vision" - I know that it is possible to have above this, but I'm talking "the best possible eyes" here. At beyond 32", it doesn't matter how good your eyes are.

Any closer and it will be possible to distinguish pixels if you have good eyes.

 

[Ted13]

All they have to do is use 2 ports. Hardly a big deal.

Assuming that gets supported in OS X and supported by a future 5K Apple Cinema Display. My guess? No.

 

[the8thark]

Now all we need is Apple someone to invent a GPU that is power efficient and cool enough to work in the iMac setting that can run a 5k monitor.

My point? Without a suitable GPU, there will be no retina iMac no matter how good the display port is.

 

[AsprineTm]

Now all we need is Apple someone to invent a GPU that is power efficient and cool enough to work in the iMac setting that can run a 5k monitor.

My point? Without a suitable GPU, there will be no retina iMac no matter how good the display port is.

The 980M comes out 50% faster then the 980M in the leaked syntactic benchmarks.
Release is on friday, Then we will know it it is powerful enough for a 5K screen.
It will at least support 5k since it supports HDMI 2.0 and DP 1.3.

Btw. it will be in the shops mid october, so right on time for the new iMac. Lets hope Apple skips the 880M series.

 

[skellener]

I'm perfectly happy with my nMP. I'm not driving any 4k monitors. I'm sure at some point Apple will release it's own 4k or 5k iMac and new Apple monitor. We don't know when. We don't know how much they will cost. I'm not sweating it.

 

[kenroberts83]

Good thing a 27" iMac isn't a traditional 1080p monitor then, eh?

The 27" iMac is 2560x1440, and is retina at about 32" viewing distance.

ie, at 32" away from the screen it is physically impossible for the human eye (with 20/20 vision) to distinguish individual pixels due to the laws of physics.

As it happens, most people's viewing distance is slightly closer than that, thus making the display *almost* retina already, but not quite.

I have measured before and I sit about 26-27" away from my screen, so under the line. Even so, the difference is not "night and day" as some people claim between my 27" iMac and my 13" rMBP.

At typical viewing distances from each screen, they look the same to me - i.e., text looks sharp and crisp, figures look well defined, UI elements look sharp.

If anything, the retina screen looks worse for certain applications because they are not high-DPI aware - like ChemDraw, which is still not retina-aware in 2014, meaning the UI and the images and graphics in it look blurry on the 13" rMBP, but not on the 27" iMac. This is a specific problem relating to the software, however, and not the hardware.

If you have poor eyesight, or you simply don't want your graphics card producing that many pixels, you can downscale the resolution on your monitor. The rest of us will notice the difference. I have heard the arguments before that the human eye cannot tell the difference between resolution X and Y, but it's all just conjecture, entirely dependent on content and viewing distances. Having used retina displays on my iPad, iPhone, and rMBP, I can say without a doubt that each instance has made the content appear far better than normal. You may not be able to notice the difference between 4k and 2k while watching a movie, but text is absolutely more crisp. It looks more like reading a book than staring at a screen. 2560x1440 is not that great of a resolution on a 27" computer screen.

Given that 15" rMBP's look fantastic with retina displays, I don't find it at all unreasonable to have a 5k display on a 27" screen. Are you really viewing your desktop monitor all that further back than your laptop monitor? If so, perhaps move it a little closer. Or if not, you'll at least have the option to manually move your face closer to the screen to see additional detail. There is really no downside, besides perhaps when playing games, which generally downscale your resolution automatically anyway. I'm sure Apple will continue to offer non-retina options until they roughly reach cost parity anyway, so it's no skin off your nose. Personally, I can't wait for 4k computer monitors to become affordable.

 

[rGiskard]

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).

Way to miss the point. On the Mac Pro Tower, all it would take is a new video card to run a 5K display. In fact I'll be able to run 5K display on my 2009 Mac Pro, while the 2013 Mac Pro cannot.

----------

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.

I'm talking small studios, not "enterprise".

 

[Moonjumper]

By 20/20 I meant "perfect human vision" - I know that it is possible to have above this, but I'm talking "the best possible eyes" here. At beyond 32", it doesn't matter how good your eyes are.

Any closer and it will be possible to distinguish pixels if you have good eyes.

But 20/20 isn't perfect vision, it is normal vision, a very different thing. There is a reason eye charts go to 20/10.

 

[manu chao]

Way to miss the point. On the Mac Pro Tower, all it would take is a new video card to run a 5K display. In fact I'll be able to run 5K display on my 2009 Mac Pro, while the 2013 Mac Pro cannot.

I am not missing the point. I am merely explaining the technical reasons behind your point, why the late 2013 Mac Pro cannot drive a 5K display (without resorting to using two cables). I am explaining why you cannot add a new video card (that can deliver 5K output) to a 2013 Mac Pro.

 

[toke lahti]

All they have to do is use 2 ports. Hardly a big deal.

Might be a pretty big for many mac users.
It will be fun to watch how Apple wiggles out of this dead end, though.

#1 If they will go with 2xTB2 route, it will use both ports on future mbp's which will not be very handy when every other computer on the industry uses one dp1.3 port. Also AppleDisplay can be only used with some macs and no other manufacturer's dp1.3 displays can be used with macs. (Without once again expensive active dongles.)

#2 If they go with TB3 route macs will be without dp1.3 compatibility for a year of two (dp1.2 was specced in 2009 and came to TB2 in 2013). Macs will be without 5k or other dp1.3 displays quite some time when other computers can use them.

#3 Apple will release macs with dedicated dp1.3 port in addition to TB ports. Could be said that they should have done this from the beginning, but since they didn't, this will look like loss for TB as architecture and interface.

 

[kushibo]

I've been waiting for this. Quite some time.

Sorry, Apple, but your iPhone 4 spoiled me for life. I didn't replace my Macbook until you had an affordable retina display, and I've been waiting, waiting, waiting for a retina iMac.

I purchased my iMac in 2008, and still use it as a secondary computer. But I saw no point in getting a new iMac until the retina displays came out. So now, hopefully, we can finally get one soon and I'll have my wife completely turned over to the dark side.

 

[rGiskard]

I am not missing the point. I am merely explaining the technical reasons behind your point, why the late 2013 Mac Pro cannot drive a 5K display (without resorting to using two cables). I am explaining why you cannot add a new video card (that can deliver 5K output) to a 2013 Mac Pro.

I know why a 2013 Mac Pro cannot be upgraded - that's why I made the comment.

A 2013 Mac Pro cannot be upgraded to run a 5K display, yet a 2009 Mac Pro can be upgraded to a 5K video card. Apple took one of the best tower computer designs in history in totally effed it up because they insist on function following form.

 

[rGiskard]

Might be a pretty big for many mac users.
It will be fun to watch how Apple wiggles out of this dead end, though.

#1 If they will go with 2xTB2 route, it will use both ports on future mbp's which will not be very handy when every other computer on the industry uses one dp1.3 port. Also AppleDisplay can be only used with some macs and no other manufacturer's dp1.3 displays can be used with macs. (Without once again expensive active dongles.)

#2 If they go with TB3 route macs will be without dp1.3 compatibility for a year of two (dp1.2 was specced in 2009 and came to TB2 in 2013). Macs will be without 5k or other dp1.3 displays quite some time when other computers can use them.

#3 Apple will release macs with dedicated dp1.3 port in addition to TB ports. Could be said that they should have done this from the beginning, but since they didn't, this will look like loss for TB as architecture and interface.

Definitely option 2. 3 requires an extra port, so Ive vetoes it. 1 requires two cables, which clashes with Apple's hatred of extra cables.

Option 2 dovetails with Apple's habit of waiting for new tech prices to drop so they can maintain margins, and it forces old mac users to buy new hardware if they want to upgrade their display. A quintessential Apple move.

 

[brooksdbr]

Just a thought

If standard Thunderbolt is 2.5x PCIe and Thunderbolt2 is 5x PCI (read somewhere in this thread) how about if Apple just included a suitable graphics card in the actual monitor? Then it wouldn't matter if we were on Intel 4000, 5000 or dedicated graphics. All thats needed is Thunderbolt and the monitor internally could use DisplayPort 1.3 or whatever it needs.

 

[toke lahti]

If standard Thunderbolt is 2.5x PCIe and Thunderbolt2 is 5x PCI (read somewhere in this thread) how about if Apple just included a suitable graphics card in the actual monitor? Then it wouldn't matter if we were on Intel 4000, 5000 or dedicated graphics. All thats needed is Thunderbolt and the monitor internally could use DisplayPort 1.3 or whatever it needs.

This will happen with TB4 maybe in 2017 or 2018.
Maybe we have to wait new appleDisplay even longer than MP, apXpress or even mini with dGPU...

 

[Gudi]

My goodness, for the first time in history a monitor able to show all the megapixels made by those ridiculous Android phone cameras. Apple is so far behind in the spec wars at only 8 mpx.

 

[Sphincty]

Finally... what's been going on guys?

Rumor has it that Jony was dissatisfied with the way his Hentai porn looked on the prototypes.

 

[AsprineTm]

Here is the 4k support:
Nvidia maxwell 970M / 980M

HDMI 2:0 4K 60HZ + displayport 1.3
NEW AA method that is better and use less power*
much better bandwidth management (192bit maxwell is about identical to 256bit kepler now)
New enhanced Supersampling method with extra filters and all that work with all games (4k to 1080p)
Some stuff about being optimized for Directx12
Enhanced for VR if its your thing (less latency)
Direct3D 11.3
HEVC (H.265) hardware encoding

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/761767-gtx-980m-970m-maxwell-officially-announced.html