Updated iMac

Discussion in 'iMac' started by dvoros, Sep 24, 2013.

  1. dvoros macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #1
    I heard they just released new iMacs but no retina display and no new design. How far has Apple fallen.
     
  2. madridboy86 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    #2
    it was just a spec upgrades that's all, but I so want that new GPU :mad:
     
  3. elithrar macrumors 6502

    elithrar

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #3
    Here we go again.

    1. The design is one year old.

    2. No normal desktop card can support a 4K display for anything but 2D applications. There's a lovely Anandtech article on the SLI Titans you need to keep 30-40 FPS at 4K.

    3. 4K displays are *expensive*. Very few will buy a $4,000 iMac.

    But hey, troll away!
     
  4. thekingofnerds macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    #4
    Who mentioned 4k? They are talking about retina. Retina is already on the macbook pros, so obviously it would be possible on a desktop.
     
  5. elithrar macrumors 6502

    elithrar

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #5
    A "Retina" desktop display would have to be 4K by necessity of pixel density.

    What resolution do you propose would be both "Retina" and NOT 4K? 3840x2160 (4K 16:9) has a pixel density of 163 PPI on a 27" display.
     
  6. jbg232 macrumors 65816

    jbg232

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    #6
    The only way to get a retina display on a 27" display is to make it 4K which is very expensive (ie add $3000 to the price at this point).
     
  7. Onimusha370 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    #7
    This post made me sad inside
     
  8. thekingofnerds macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    #8
    Oh bravo macrumors mods. You deleted my post where I stated, using facts, that retina is a marketing term. Retina does not equal any specific DPI. At all.

    Lets see if this gets deleted too.

    ----------

    Retina has no official pixel density definition. It is different on iphones and the macbook pros.

    Retina is a marketing term. 163 could be retina. 100 could be retina. It's all marketing fluff.

    That is my point. They could release an imac with 1 extra pixel and call it retina.
     
  9. elithrar macrumors 6502

    elithrar

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #9
    For the curious:

    The 15" Retina MBP is 221 PPI (2880x1800 @ 15.4" diag).

    For a 27" iMac to get even close (let's assume a slightly greater viewing distance) would need to be somewhere in the realm of 4800 x 2700 (201 PPI @ 27" diag).

    This is 56% more pixels than 4K. Good luck!
     
  10. jmhart macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    #10
    That's inaccurate. You have to take into account the typical viewing distance in your calculations.
     
  11. elithrar macrumors 6502

    elithrar

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #11
    Feel free to provide details then, rather than just saying it's "inaccurate". As I said in my post, I've assumed only a slightly greater viewing distance over the Retina MBP, to make things easy.

    4K on 27" would arguably make pixels indiscernible anyway.
     

Share This Page