I heard they just released new iMacs but no retina display and no new design. How far has Apple fallen.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Updated iMac
- Thread starter dvoros
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
elithrar
macrumors 6502
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!
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!
Who mentioned 4k? They are talking about retina. Retina is already on the macbook pros, so obviously it would be possible on a desktop.
elithrar
macrumors 6502
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.
jbg232
macrumors 65816
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).
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.
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.
elithrar
macrumors 6502
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!
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!
That's inaccurate. You have to take into account the typical viewing distance in your calculations.
elithrar
macrumors 6502
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.