Screen sizes of an iMac with 4K Resolution

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Hexley, Feb 28, 2013.

  1. Hexley macrumors 6502a

    Jun 10, 2009
    Assuming Apple will consider 4K resolution (3840x2160) displays as "Retina Display" on the iMac here are the possible screen sizes based on predefined Pixels per Degree (PPD) and Typical Viewing Distance (in/cm).

    The predefined PPD and viewing distance are taken from past/current Apple products.

    13.49" for a 4K display if you base it on the iPhone 4/4S and iPod Touch (4th generation)
    16.72" for a 4K display if you base it on the iPad (3rd/4th generation)
    19.97" for a 4K display if you base it on the MacBook Pro with Retina Display 15"
    19.47" for a 4K display if you base it on the MacBook Pro with Retina Display 13"

    Sharp began selling the 32" PN-321 4K display this month for $5,500. I hope Apple can sort it out so it can offer an iMac with this high a resolution for a smaller premium. Like say $500 or so?
  2. minus182 macrumors newbie

    Aug 11, 2012

    Already having issues viewing small text on a large screen.

    I'll pass on this.
  3. Tri-stan macrumors 6502

    Oct 27, 2012
    Retina screens are scaled resolutions so you can pick the size of your text that you are most comfortable with. After looking at the rMBP's screen it has made me think twice about buying an iMac, it just blows it's screen away.
  4. Hexley thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jun 10, 2009
    I hope the next iMac has 4K at 27" or larger. Paying a $500 to me is worth it.
  5. virginblue4 macrumors 68000


    Apr 15, 2012
    United Kingdom
    Sitting a a normal viewing distance, you cannot distinguish the pixels on your iMac. Why would you want a higher resolution display?
  6. NMF macrumors 6502a


    Oct 27, 2011
    Screw a retina display. All I want is HiDPI scaling on the current 27" 2560x1440 display. A "Looks like 1080p" setting would be absolutely perfect, and all it would require is some code. No new hardware needed.

    Please, Apple...
  7. mrmarts macrumors 65816

    Feb 6, 2009
    Melbourne Australia
    You know i saw the LG 4k TV set today at my local retailer. I was not that blown away, maybe its because of where I was standing the only thing that caught my eye was the size.
  8. Zwhaler macrumors 604


    Jun 10, 2006
    Not for awhile no way. You want a $500 premium for something 11x more expensive... not gonna happen. In addition, the GPU would struggle hard to push that display. You would need a HD 5870 or higher to get decent performance out of it, and that card is like 4x thicker than the iMac
  9. Hexley thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jun 10, 2009
    It is possible within 24-36-48 months.

    2012's Ivy Bridge can already support 4K resolution. The 680MX that comes with the BTO iMac can also handle 4K.

    Sure it would not be able to sustain 60fps with all settings to High Quality for games like Call To Duty but GPUs by then will be able to. :D

    Whoever thought of 2K resolution on a tablet?
  10. Outrigger macrumors 68000


    Dec 22, 2008
    $500? I'm not sure if you're trying to convince yourself or you really think its possible within the next couple of years. And even lets it is, if you honestly think that Apple will put just a $500 premium, then you obviously don't know Apple pricing very well.
  11. Ryan.Tanner macrumors regular

    Jan 31, 2008
    McKinney, TX
    If those displays were just released and cost $5500, you won't be seeing that resolution screen in a iMac for at least 2-3 years... at a minimum.
  12. Gym Hellwig macrumors regular

    Feb 21, 2013
    You can easily make out the pixels on a 21.5" imac.
  13. SR20DETDOG, Mar 2, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013

    SR20DETDOG macrumors regular

    Jan 25, 2011
    Queensland Australia
    Ignoring when and how much for a moment (surely a 4K iMac is inevitable) I've got to say I would love to get my hands on one.

    I view my 27" iMac from about 75-80cm (or ~2.5ft) I don't know if that's typical or not but from that distance I can still make out the individual pixels, I'm sure being young with good eyes helps though! However that's not to say it's not a beautiful display, I'm certainly not in any rush for 4K.

    A 32" 4K iMac (with HiDPI scaling) would be near perfect if you ask me.
    Especially if it had a non-slim design like the 2011 models, that would be quite a bit of internal volume to cram hardware into, one can dream. :D
  14. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Mar 29, 2008
    That's not true for many of us (myself included). While sitting here in front of 2012 27", I can definitely tell it's not as sharp as the rMBP. No question. Is it as bad as the absolutely atrocious 13" MBP display with 1280x800 resolution? No, of course not. But is it as good as the rMBP 13/15? - No chance.

    Now, we certainly don't need to 4x the res of the iMac to achieve retina status, but a small bump wouldn't go amiss, assuming the graphics card could keep up, of course.
  15. Hexley thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jun 10, 2009
    I hope 4K on the iMac means Apple will finally use desktop-class GPUs. As much as I appreciate the compactness and power efficiency of mobile-class GPUs they lack the $/performance of desktop parts.
  16. macman34 macrumors regular

    Apr 13, 2013
    Do you see this happening what with the slimmer factor now on the imac? I don't to be honest. I am no gfx expert but I can't see how they can fit the sizes and thermals of desktop cards in the imac. Btw, where did you get that the top of the line nvidia in the new imac can support 4k? I too think it can, but I am finding hard to find any info on it. And officially apple claims up to to 2560 by 1600 pixels on an external display.
  17. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Mar 29, 2008
    This will have ZERO negative effect on the iMac's readability. A "retina" resolution will succeed in making the existing text sharper and EASIER to read. Remember when the iPhone went to a 3.5" retina display? 480x320 moved up to 960x640. Did you notice any difference in readability? Yes, - it became EASIER because the same SIZE text had more pixels making up that size.
  18. macman34 macrumors regular

    Apr 13, 2013
    I on the other hand didn't have the same experience comparing the 27" imac with the rmbp in store. While the latter was of course considerably better in terms of text clarity I didn't find it blew the imacs screen away. 109 p on a desktop is not that bad. But it did blow the 101ppi 21.5" imacs screen away, that's for sure.

    I also noticed that the modes other than the best for retina didn't have as clear font as I 'd imagined they have due to the scaling.

    My current plan is to get a 27" imac and custom hidpi it to 1080p which I expect to give me just about the screen real estate / text size I want. I just hope the switchresx hack tapping on apple's own resolution independence scaling hack which calls for 4k resolutions doesn't impact os fluidity that badly and that the top end nvidia and the quad core cpu will be able to handle it.

    Of course if I set it up this way I forgo any chance of attaching another monitor to it, since it certainly won't be able to handle both with one rendered at 4k.

    It can be done, no thanks to apple though. Check the tutorial via switchresx that another forum poster has in the os x forums. I hope you have the top of the line gfx option though so you 'll have more of chance of not running into stuttering/lag/fluidity problems.
  19. iSayuSay macrumors 68040


    Feb 6, 2011
    Wut ... $500 extra for 4K display, from Apple .. You're so naive.

    If anything it would be $2000 extra on top of $2000 iMac. Not to mention the graphic card could not handle the extra pixels for gaming.
    Sure you could jerking around Safari just fine, but would you pay $5000+ machine only for Facebook?
  20. macman34 macrumors regular

    Apr 13, 2013
    They might come up with a rip off of the sharp 30" model with the new thunderbolt display and present it alongside the new mac pro which would be the only thing that could drive it properly including allowing one to game on it. I think there's a slimy, sleaze plan of product differentiation and obsoleting uses from other devices (typical apple these days) with their taking away the discrete graphics from the mac mini and slimming the imac to the point of having no chance in hell for a desktop class gpu. They are gearing the mac pro as the only machine able to run sharp's, I mean apple's, new thunderbolt display. Why allow any other device in your line up to run your new thunderbolt display seamlessly when you can have people paying uber high premiums for a "new" product in the new mac pro to run it instead. That's how it's going to play for a while, until in a year and a half or two when they introduce an overpriced imac around the $3500 mark or even more with the sharp panel in there. As an interesting tidbit, foxconn has put money to bail out sharp, but apple's arch nemesis samsung has also put their cash there and it's not going to be so easy getting exclusivity for these panels. Apple's 150 billion are of course sitting comfortably and smugly in the bank working towards fa.
  21. thekev macrumors 604


    Aug 5, 2010
    While I realize this is a slightly old post, Apple doesn't drift very far from their established price points, so it's unlikely that you would see such a thing. It also would not be worth it for most individuals. 3840 x 2160 compared to 2560x1600. I don't know if there's an established 4k standard spec for 16:10, so I went with the 16:9. Anyway they're more likely to wait until it can be done without a huge impact on price, but desktop displays have been lagging behind notebooks and mobile devices for years when it comes to resolution updates.
  22. loybond macrumors 6502

    Aug 1, 2010
    The True North, Strong and Free
    It doesn't have to be super expensive. There's a Seiki 50" 4k TV for around $1300 right now. As far as production goes, they already make 14" and 15" 1080p laptop displays, so cutting a screen exactly 4x those panels shouldn't be that pricey.
  23. eattherich macrumors 6502a


    Jul 8, 2011
    I was thinking twice about getting an iMac, especially as I just got my girlfriend a 13" retina MacBook Pro. That said, I ended up getting a late 2012 27" iMac and I'm 100% happy with it. I don't sit with my face stuffed up against it so the pixel density isn't really an issue. Sure, it doesn't pop quite as much as it does when you stare at a retina screen but with a decent sized and deep enough desk I'm still super impressed with the quality of this screen as it's far better than any desktop I've ever used.

Share This Page