Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iMac' started by Noctilux.95, Jan 4, 2014.
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.
I know what retina is. Thank you.
I think no on both counts, remember this is a rumors forums so all you get are wild guesses because Apple normally does not release information about new products.
The iMac pro aka mini trashcan has a bto for 4k. Apparently (Macformat) showed a video where it had a refresh rate of 30.3 fps. Which is kinda bad for games. So, let's sort that and the price out and suddenly yes, it makes sense.
I do think Apple should come out with dual sli mobile cards for the iMac if they do 4k. Enable crossfire for games so devs take advantage of its capabilities. That would be killa
My guess is that you won't see a Retina or 4K iMac until 2015 so there is enough supply, they can run at 60hz and are affordable for the iMac line.
The screen might be 4K, but they won't run 4K natively. They will be retina'd
I think it doesn't depend if there is a display that can handle it, because they're coming in the next couple of months, but it's more if there is a capable mobile videocard that doesn't generate too much heat and consumes too much power and gives plenty of framerates. That will be the bottleneck for a 4K iMac.
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.
We all know that 4K gaming is far off. But that isn't the only reason for a 4K display. It would be amazing to watch your photos, videos and even surfing the web in 4K. And you don't need THAT much GPU power for that, at least not compared to 4K gaming.
Given some of the 4K displays being shown at CES, it'll be at least feasible for Apple to put 4K screens in their iMac line. I could see them doing the same thing as with the Macbook Pro line where they keep a version with the current screen resolutions, plus a "pro" version that has a 4K screen. But while possible, my gut tells me we won't see 4K screens until next year, when the iMac is possibly slated for a redesign.
Also, I expect we'll see a new Thunderbolt 4K display before the iMac receives it.
Early = fall 14
Probable = late 15
Delayed = summer 16
The development of computer monitors is going really slooooow. Don't 4K displays presently run at 30hz? That's not ideal. We should be above 60hz now, at least at 85hz, preferably higher.
We might get a 21'' or 24'' retina display by the end of the year, or most likely sometime next year, but I'm pretty certain retina 27'' is still a long way off.
There is a rumour on an iMac Pro, 4K Display and black unibody, plus gpu/cpu updates and no spinner HDD, only SSD.
TBA at WWDC along the new 4K Thunderbolt display, both 27"
I doubt will see any new Imacs until fall. The rep I spoke to said something about the new Intel chips having production issues doubt they would even make a fall release.
I am putting money on a new pro model costing more then a current maxed out imac and new gpu and speed bump on all models.
6 months or even longer is a long time to wait I went ahead and ordered my maxed out Imac
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.
Ugh, I know it's a fanboy mentality, but how the mighty have fallen when this sentence is accurate...
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.
This is not that complicated. iMac case generations run 2.5 years per:
The second year of the current gen just started, leaving 2015 before the next case is due. Unless apple radically changes screens without changing the case (unprecedented) or makes a new case in 1.5 years (unprecedented), we won't see a retina imac this year.
At 4K, even Anand found that the scaling became unuseable. 4K and higher resolutions make sense only if the screen itself gets bigger, hence images are bigger.
However, same screen real estate and more pixels? Much easier to hit the Retina home front as every aspect of the computer will look much more like, well, printer paper.
I consider the 2560x1440 resolution that 27" iMacs and Apple Thunderbolt Displays currently ship to be "Retina" under normal viewing distances of at least 2.5ft away. In fact, 2560x1440 is beyond 1920x1080 HD resolution and is in 2K territory. The next logical step would for Apple to take is to bump displays up to 4K.
Of course, the only problem that 4K as well as 2K has been encountering is the lack of content. We have had the 2560x1440 resolution since 2009 when Apple debuted it in the iMac yet mainstream video content maxes out at 1080p. Applications and websites aren't resolution independent or take full advantage of 2560x1440 either.
With that said, what's the point of having all this great hardware when nothing takes advantage of it?
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?
Basically the elements will be scaled up to HiDPI, just like the retina MacBook Pros. It'll have an effective resolution of 3840x2160, but the UI and elements will be scaled to as if it's 1920x1080.