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

Waiting for iMac with Retina Display !

ka-spot said:
It is! I like it too... BUT the 21.5 is with 70% LESS pixel density and it really looks like a crap after owning a retina display Macbook...
Click to expand...

The iMac's display is beautiful, but lacks HiDPI. Apple has spoiled us with Retina Macbook Pro's and iPhones/iPads.
It is certainly a big difference having a Retina screen, but to be honest with you, if you sit 50-60 cm away from a 27" iMac, then the text sharpness is good.
I think we are at least two years away from a Retina iMac. We are talking double the resolution, so the OS has to be optimized for that and the graphics card also...I think the graphics card might be the biggest issue here...
 
petvas said:
The iMac's display is beautiful, but lacks HiDPI. Apple has spoiled us with Retina Macbook Pro's and iPhones/iPads.
It is certainly a big difference having a Retina screen, but to be honest with you, if you sit 50-60 cm away from a 27" iMac, then the text sharpness is good.
I think we are at least two years away from a Retina iMac. We are talking double the resolution, so the OS has to be optimized for that and the graphics card also...I think the graphics card might be the biggest issue here...
Click to expand...
I think next year. I don't believe that either of those things that you mention are issues as OS X has already been optimised for Retina, and the graphics featured in the MBPR are similar to that of the 21.5 inch iMac.

I believe the issue is whether or not they're able to produce a 21.5 inch 3840x2160 display with high enough yields in a thin enough form factor. On top of that, another potential issue is that Apple may wait to be able to produce 5120x2880 27 inch displays which could be difficult.
 
MythicFrost said:
I think next year. I don't believe that either of those things that you mention are issues as OS X has already been optimised for Retina, and the graphics featured in the MBPR are similar to that of the 21.5 inch iMac.

I believe the issue is whether or not they're able to produce a 21.5 inch 3840x2160 display with high enough yields in a thin enough form factor. On top of that, another potential issue is that Apple may wait to be able to produce 5120x2880 27 inch displays which could be difficult.
Click to expand...

I was actually more referring to the 27" display. The sheer number of pixels is much bigger than on any other retina display, so I think performance would still be an issue here.
 
petvas said:
I was actually more referring to the 27" display. The sheer number of pixels is much bigger than on any other retina display, so I think performance would still be an issue here.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that. The rMBP has a 3840x2400 resolution, which equates to 9 million pixels. The 5120x2880 resolution of the iMac equates to 14 million.

I think if the GT 650M/750M can handle that performance wise, then the 780M (yet alone 880M) should be able to easily handle 14 million.

I think the issue will be getting high enough yields of 27 inch displays with a 5120x2880 resolution. It's got to be pretty pricey to throw away a 27 inch display because of dead pixels, and at 5120x2880 there's four times as many and they're four times as small. And then after that, getting a more powerful backlight in the same form factor.
 
it all depends on the GPU. the IGPU from the upcoming AMD are twice as fast than iris pro..so i guess in late 2014 they will have a decent gpu to have enough power to drive 4K resolution
 
If a 27" iMac retina were to come out next year the price will be phenomenal. Apple is struggling to sell there new iMacs with the famous kgi analyst predicting a cheaper iMacs next year. It is hard to believe that apple will go this way when: the Mac Pro has yet to get a retina Thunderbolt Display, there is no ultra hd content on the iTunes Store and many apps and websites have yet to be optimised for retina displays. Moreover with little to no rumours of a retina iMac, this argument does not hold water.
 
Last edited:
mrmarts said:
If a 27" iMac retina were to come out next year the price will be phenomenal. Apple is struggling to sell there new iMacs with the famous kgi analyst predicting a cheaper iMacs next year. It is hard to believe that apple will go this way when: the Mac Pro has yet to get a retina Thunderbolt Display, there is no ultra hd content on the iTunes Store and many apps and websites have yet to be optimised for retina displays. Moreover with little to no rumours of a retina iMac, this argument does not hold water.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the price being "phenomenal." No more than it was with the rMBP, at least.

It would certainly make a big impact if they released it next year. I also think the riMac and rTBD will be released in a similar time frame.

Also it's pretty early for rumours to be cropping up about the iMac, seeing as it was only refreshed a little while go.
 
mrmarts said:
If a 27" iMac retina were to come out next year the price will be phenomenal. Apple is struggling to sell there new iMacs with the famous kgi analyst predicting a cheaper iMacs next year. It is hard to believe that apple will go this way when: the Mac Pro has yet to get a retina Thunderbolt Display, there is no ultra hd content on the iTunes Store and many apps and websites have yet to be optimised for retina displays. Moreover with little to no rumours of a retina iMac, this argument does not hold water.
Click to expand...

If you compare 4K TVs with the equivalent 1080p model (i.e. the top end model that has a good quality screen and similar features), the price difference has closed up an awful lot. Maybe the iMac is a little highly priced at the moment so that it remains consistent when retina is introduced, rather than dip then go back up.

The iMac is primarily a creation rather than consumption machine for many, so UHD content is not that important a factor. Adobe Creative Suite having gone retina is important.
 
I couldnt imagine what a 27" Retina iMac would cost. And touch screen on a desktop is retarded.
 
IA64 said:
Honestly, I'd kill anyone who dares touching my 27" screen. Fingerprints are annoying as hell on such a beautiful display.
Click to expand...

Good point. Never thought about fingerprints. I was thinking about how I use my iMac. I run Pro Tools on it to produce music and it would be great to be able to pull up the sliders and turn knobs on a touchscreen instead of a mouse pointer.
 
jita1 said:
Good point. Never thought about fingerprints. I was thinking about how I use my iMac. I run Pro Tools on it to produce music and it would be great to be able to pull up the sliders and turn knobs on a touchscreen instead of a mouse pointer.
Click to expand...

That's what a controller is for.
 
i just bought a 15" retina mbp... so happy.

at the same time i decided to replace my good old 27" iMac (mind 2011) only if there is a retina model. no step back to "normal" screens...

retina imac 27" 2014? count me in!
 
pscl said:
i just bought a 15" retina mbp... so happy.

at the same time i decided to replace my good old 27" iMac (mind 2011) only if there is a retina model. no step back to "normal" screens...

retina imac 27" 2014? count me in!
Click to expand...

As if you can tell the difference between a retina and non retina 27" screen from 50cm.
 
MythicFrost said:
Where did he say anything about 50cm? And that's 1.6 feet, which is very close. It'd be incredibly noticeable.
Click to expand...

50 cm is the average sitting distance.

Would you be kind enough to tell what kind of difference you'd be seeing ?

The iMac is already at 108.79 PPI and the retina MBP @ ~ 220PPI

Even a 3840x2160 QFHD, 4K, UltraHD 27" won't give you more than 163 PPI.
 
IA64 said:
50 cm is the average sitting distance.

Would you be kind enough to tell what kind of difference you'd be seeing ?

The iMac is already at 108.79 PPI and the retina MBP @ ~ 220PPI

Even a 3840x2160 QFHD, 4K, UltraHD 27" won't give you more than 163 PPI.
Click to expand...
I don't believe there's really any accurate way to know that. The distance a person views a screen depends on its size and their preference which varies from person to person. On top of that, people have varying degrees of vision as well which factors into the equation also. But that distance is actually quite close, so people are even more likely to notice the difference from that distance.

The 21.5 inch iMac would be the one with the 3840x2160 resolution, which is about 205 PPI. The 27 inch model would have a 5120x2880 resolution, which is about 210 PPI.

If you have 20/10 (great) vision then you'll be able to sit as far back as 2.75 feet from the display, but at half the pixel density you'd have to sit back 5.5 feet to see the same quality. If you have 20/20 (okay) vision then you'll be able to sit 1.3 feet from the display, but at half the pixel density you'd have to sit back 2.7 feet from the display.

Even with 20/20 vision (which isn't particularly good vision) people will notice a huge difference, yet alone the rest of us!
 
Yeah, right...

IA64 said:
As if you can tell the difference between a retina and non retina 27" screen from 50cm.
Click to expand...

You (I mean I) can see the difference from a meter and even more..

I'm using 22" ISP LG TV/Monitor from a ~100cm (from time to time) and the pixels are more then obvious (especially when you reading)!

I'm retina user from a ~month and I still smile each time I sit in front of my retina 13" MBP :D It's just AWESOME.
 
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