What do you think?
iMacs will be skipping the retina display and go to 4K. We will see the 4k display for the Mac Pro before the iMac gets it.
Retina isn't anything else but a very high definition display, it's not any specific resolution. The idea behind it is that at the average viewing distance, individual pixels cannot be seen, making the display about as accurate as the human retina.
As for 4K in iMac, it'll happen sooner or later. We probably won't see an update until H2'14 anyway (no new CPUs until then), so it's possible that we'll see iMac going 4K this year already.
What do you think?
I guess if you plan on gaming on an iMac, there is no rush for retina display, because there is gonna take a few years until a mobile graphic card can run most games natively at such a high definition.
If a GeForce GTX 780M can't do the best of jobs on a 1440p display, 880M won't as well, and that is why I don't care to wait another couple of years.
Early = fall 14
Probable = late 15
Delayed = summer 16
Completely agree with this as seems most likely for 2015.
If crappy Dell has affordable monitors NOW, that means Apple can't be far behind.
The screen might be 4K, but they won't run 4K natively. They will be retina'd
Touché... That's as simple as it gets.
Wouldn't doubt Apple in '14 debuts a new iMac surrounding newer display tech & will offer a 4K iMac, but will it really utilize what a 4K is meant to do... Nah, prob not.
How do you "retina" a 27"?
4K (3840 x 2160 pixels) on a 27" means really, really small icons and almost unreadable fonts and menus.
Would a retina iMac 27" mean 4K, but "showing as 1920 x 1080" and 4 times sharper?
Then the icons would become a bit big, and screen real-estate could be an issue.
Something in the middle?
I.e. 2560 x 1440 "4 x retina'd"? But that would require "real resolution" of 5120 x 2880. I don't think that grfx cards out there support that, and if they do, I wonder what the performance would be.
Is there another way?