Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Retina or 4K iMacs probable anytime soon?

yjchua95 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. so a "smaller" screen real-estate.
 
iMikeT said:
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?
Click to expand...

Plenty of software takes advantage of it, especially for content creation. It is really just videos and games that would not take advantage of the hardware.

MacsRgr8 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Apple has been pixel doubling to achieve retina. Either they go 5120x2880, or they go 4K and make 1080p the "Best for display" and allow plenty of "Scaled" options. Anything else would seem too much of a compromise.

Something not existing on the market has not stopped Apple before (retina phones, retina laptops, etc.). So the current lack of a 5120x2880 screen or GPU support is not a barrier.

Large, high-resolution screens are appearing in all sectors, so I think this is finally the year we will see a retina iMac. But they will probably be top end models, with the current versions remaining to fill out the more affordable slots, much like the MBP.
 
Hellhammer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Retina is technically Apple's very specific implementation of a high-res display.

Take for example their retina MacBooks. They sport a resolution of 2560x1600, yet still yield the same useable screen space as a typical 1280x800 macbook, just that everything appears clearer and brighter due to the display sporting more pixels.

Apple is able to do this because they write their own custom drivers and filters for their hardware to enable this retina display.

If you had a laptop using a normal 2560x1600 display, everything would just appear ridiculously small instead.

I recall reading somewhere that it may be possible to "fake" retina resolution on a 27" iMac by using a 4k resolution and using software drivers to do the rest. Can't recall the specifics though.
 
yjchua95 said:
I don't think so. My 15" rMBP at 2880x1800 displays things at exactly the same dimensions and size as the cMBP's 1440x900 display, just that it's way sharper.
Click to expand...

Considering 4K is 2160 lines or so, halving that with scaled resolutions would see a real estate reduction from 1440 to 1080, so a considerable reduction. To achieve the same doubling that the rMBPs and iOS devices have seen would require 2880 lines, far higher than 4K.

There are four options:

1. Scale a 4K monitor with two pixels into one, as done in the rMBP and iOS devices. This leaves an effective resolution of 1080, far lower than 1440

2. Scale a 4K monitor at an odd fraction, from 2160 to 1440 effective pixels. This can be less sharp than scaling by a factor of two. (personally, I can barely see any difference in sharpness between the various scaled resolutions of my rMBP)

3. Double the screen resolution to 2880 lines. Not practical in terms of current graphics card performance.

4. Something else Apple has up their sleeves.
 
Abazigal said:
Retina is technically Apple's very specific implementation of a high-res display.

Take for example their retina MacBooks. They sport a resolution of 2560x1600, yet still yield the same useable screen space as a typical 1280x800 macbook, just that everything appears clearer and brighter due to the display sporting more pixels.

Apple is able to do this because they write their own custom drivers and filters for their hardware to enable this retina display.

If you had a laptop using a normal 2560x1600 display, everything would just appear ridiculously small instead.

I recall reading somewhere that it may be possible to "fake" retina resolution on a 27" iMac by using a 4k resolution and using software drivers to do the rest. Can't recall the specifics though.
Click to expand...

1. I am pretty sure Hellhammer knows how Apple is "using" their retina displays 😉

2. if you had a "normal" notebook with high res display (2560x1600 as you say) the OS would handle the scaling (win 8.1 does 125, 150 and 200% scaling)

3. I think what you mean with 4k display and using software for the rest is basicly what OS X and Windows do when you use scaled optiones. Rendering at quadrupled pixelcount (2x every direction) and the downsample to the displays native resolution. that's the way the scaled (1680x1050 and 1920x1200) resolutions on the retina macbooks work
 
ohbrilliance said:
Considering 4K is 2160 lines or so, halving that with scaled resolutions would see a real estate reduction from 1440 to 1080, so a considerable reduction. To achieve the same doubling that the rMBPs and iOS devices have seen would require 2880 lines, far higher than 4K.

There are four options:

1. Scale a 4K monitor with two pixels into one, as done in the rMBP and iOS devices. This leaves an effective resolution of 1080, far lower than 1440

2. Scale a 4K monitor at an odd fraction, from 2160 to 1440 effective pixels. This can be less sharp than scaling by a factor of two. (personally, I can barely see any difference in sharpness between the various scaled resolutions of my rMBP)

3. Double the screen resolution to 2880 lines. Not practical in terms of current graphics card performance.

4. Something else Apple has up their sleeves.
Click to expand...

1920x1080, when doubled in each direction, gives 3840x2160. So it's a perfect match. This is for the 21.5"

Meanwhile for the 27", you're right. Apple has to push it to 5120x2880 to get the same effect like the rMBPs.

Maybe Apple should just stick back to the 'retina' name, because 3840x2160 is essentially doubled from 1920x1080 in each direction, just like how 2880x1880 is doubled from 1440x900 in the rMBPs. By now, I think it's safe to assume that Apple will just double the pixels in each direction.
 
yjchua95 said:
I don't think so. My 15" rMBP at 2880x1800 displays things at exactly the same dimensions and size as the cMBP's 1440x900 display, just that it's way sharper.
Click to expand...

I meant compared to the current 27": 2560 x 1440 rez.

A "retina'd" 1920 x 1080 has less screen real-estate than the current "native" 2560 x 1440.
 
ElectronGuru said:
This is not that complicated. iMac case generations run 2.5 years per:

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1758

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.
Click to expand...

Ehhh...while the Retina MBP's were technically a "new case" they were essentially the same design as the previous only thinner. Take the 13" rMBP. The Haswell model released this past fall is actually 0.04" thinner than the original from fall 2012. Even the iMac design now is the same as the previous only thinner. I could see them releasing a 4K iMac and keeping the same case design with a few potential minor tweaks. Wouldn't be that unprecedented.

I don't think they'd hold off on a 4K iMac if they thought it would make them good margins simply to stick to their traditional 2.5-3 year design cycle on the iMac's body. A pixel doubled 24" 4K iMac with retina display in the $1,799 price range would sell like absolute hot cakes.
 
yjchua95 said:
1920x1080, when doubled in each direction, gives 3840x2160. So it's a perfect match. This is for the 21.5"

Meanwhile for the 27", you're right. Apple has to push it to 5120x2880 to get the same effect like the rMBPs.

Maybe Apple should just stick back to the 'retina' name, because 3840x2160 is essentially doubled from 1920x1080 in each direction, just like how 2880x1880 is doubled from 1440x900 in the rMBPs. By now, I think it's safe to assume that Apple will just double the pixels in each direction.
Click to expand...

Is that quite the case? My 15" rMBP is scaled at 1920x1200.
 
ohbrilliance said:
Considering 4K is 2160 lines or so, halving that with scaled resolutions would see a real estate reduction from 1440 to 1080, so a considerable reduction. To achieve the same doubling that the rMBPs and iOS devices have seen would require 2880 lines, far higher than 4K.

There are four options:

1. Scale a 4K monitor with two pixels into one, as done in the rMBP and iOS devices. This leaves an effective resolution of 1080, far lower than 1440

2. Scale a 4K monitor at an odd fraction, from 2160 to 1440 effective pixels. This can be less sharp than scaling by a factor of two. (personally, I can barely see any difference in sharpness between the various scaled resolutions of my rMBP)

3. Double the screen resolution to 2880 lines. Not practical in terms of current graphics card performance.

4. Something else Apple has up their sleeves.
Click to expand...

I'd say #4. I think Apple would have to create a compromise 24" iMac to have the cleanest "iMac with Retina display". At 24", they could get away with pixel doubling 1920x1080 to achieve 4K resolution. At 24", you get a good compromise product between the current gen 21.5" and 27" that has a screen big enough for content creation and small enough where screen real estate of 1920x1080 still makes sense.

This would create a PPI of ~182. At 2.5 feet away, I think they would be willing to label that as a "Retina display".
 
I think they will go with a 4k display, not retina. However the GPU will be made custom, like they did in the nMP. The thermal requirements of one firepro in the nMP is almost the same as for the iMac and that can easily handle a 4k display at 60 hz. The 27" ACD will then also be updated with a 4k display.
 
Dreadnought said:
I think they will go with a 4k display, not retina.
Click to expand...

Retina is just a marketing name. It's a formula that combines pixel density of the display and distance to it. The 27" iMac would be (according to Apples definition) be Retina (according to Apple this is, when the human eye is no longer able to see individual pixels or something like this) at over 32 inches.


Imo I think they will either go 4K on both (21 and 27) model and offer different scaling options and maybe give the 27 a better display (higher gamut and stuff like that), thus making the 21 a pure consumer device and the 27 a device that could be used by professionals too.
The other option would be, that they wait another year for a possible 5120 x 2880 display
 
MacsRgr8 said:
A "retina'd" 1920 x 1080 has less screen real-estate than the current "native" 2560 x 1440.
Click to expand...

Please no 🙁

They either need to push it up so 2560x1440 is the "best for retina" at the very least or just wait until that's possible.

If they go with 1080p for "best for retina" and we have to scale up for more desktop space that wouldn't be good. Tried a 2012 and 2013 retina MBP and can't stand the performance issues in "scaled" mode, not to mention that the retina quality isn't as good in these resolutions either.
 
some guys getting crazy talking about a 4k imac and didnt think about the gpu power that is needed to drive this resolution properly.

especially when it comes to games. imagine a 28" 4K imac, playing games on 1080p cause the gpu cant handle the native 4k resolution. this will look really bad. even 4K gaming on a PC is just possible with a high specced gaming rig.

i dont think that there will be a sufficient (mobile) gpu that is powerful enough to provide a good overall experience. even if it does, then gaming might be a pain in the a**.

personally i think that the almost retina like 1440p resolution of the current imac is totally sufficient. 1880p will be ok too, but any more will be a lag of performance.

dont get me wrong... if there are non-mobile gpu iMac`s in future, then a 4k display iMac would be awesome!
 
Last edited:
Wuiffi said:
Retina is just a marketing name. It's a formula that combines pixel density of the display and distance to it. The 27" iMac would be (according to Apples definition) be Retina (according to Apple this is, when the human eye is no longer able to see individual pixels or something like this) at over 32 inches.


Imo I think they will either go 4K on both (21 and 27) model and offer different scaling options and maybe give the 27 a better display (higher gamut and stuff like that), thus making the 21 a pure consumer device and the 27 a device that could be used by professionals too.
The other option would be, that they wait another year for a possible 5120 x 2880 display
Click to expand...

I think 5120x2880 is more than a year away.

----------
pscl said:
some guys getting crazy talking about a 4k imac and didnt think about the gpu power that is needed to drive this resolution properly.

especially when it comes to games. imagine a 28" 4K imac, playing games on 1080p cause the gpu cant handle the native 4k resolution. this will look really bad. even 4K gaming on a PC is just possible with a high specced gaming rig.

i dont think that there will be a sufficient (mobile) gpu that is powerful enough to provide a good overall experience. even if it does, then gaming might be a pain in the a**.

personally i think that the almost retina like 1440p resolution of the current imac is totally sufficient. 1880p will be ok too, but any more will be a lag of performance.

dont get me wrong... if there are non-mobile gpu iMac`s in future, then a 4k display iMac would be awesome!
Click to expand...

Apple has never made Macs to be "gaming" computers. They are primary aimed at average consumers and creative pros. If 4K resolution benefits the masses (and they can make good margins), they'll do it regardless of whether you can play Call of Duty at full native res IMO.
 
PatriotInvasion said:
Apple has never made Macs to be "gaming" computers. They are primary aimed at average consumers and creative pros. If 4K resolution benefits the masses (and they can make good margins), they'll do it regardless of whether you can play Call of Duty at full native res IMO.
Click to expand...

same discussion, different thread.

in fact... a machine that cost beyond 2k$ should be able handling gfx intensive applications like games.

the imac is NOT aimed at creative pros. the mac pro is.

the imac transforms to an allround computer. infact... the current imac can handle gaming in high definition pretty well. just because apple dont call the imac a "gaming Computer" doesnt mean that its not intended to run games.
 
Last edited:
pscl said:
some guys getting crazy talking about a 4k imac and didnt think about the gpu power that is needed to drive this resolution properly.

especially when it comes to games. imagine a 28" 4K imac, playing games on 1080p cause the gpu cant handle the native 4k resolution. this will look really bad. even 4K gaming on a PC is just possible with a high specced gaming rig.
Click to expand...

actually I think that 1080p games on a 4k display would probably look awesome (best for retina)
 
Wuiffi said:
actually I think that 1080p games on a 4k display would probably look awesome (best for retina)
Click to expand...

I don't think this is accurate. "Best for Retina" would simply mean the screen real estate is set to 1920x1080 despite the number of pixels available being 4x that for better detail.

Unless the game was written specifically for the HiDPI modes on Macs, I think it would look kind of crappy full screen at 1920x1080 on a 4K display.
 
pscl said:
thats what i said, isn`t it?

----------



i still dont.

even on my imac 27" 1080p games look just blurry and ******... imagine this on a 4k screen... horrible.
Click to expand...

They look horrible because of the scaling. On a 4k screen, they would be pixel doubled, so they would actually look normal.
 
EpsilonExordium said:
They look horrible because of the scaling. On a 4k screen, they would be pixel doubled, so they would actually look normal.
Click to expand...

Yea, I mean PS3/4 games are played full screen on 4K displays without being 4K res. Before that, many PS3 games were 720p and looked fine on 1080p tv's. So something gamers will just have to live with I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back