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

Waiting for Skylake MBP thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who believes the rMBP 15 will get a 4k screen in the next design?

PPI in Apple computers range from 210 to 226 for the complete line of Macbooks and iMacs excluding Macbook Airs. The rMBP 15 has 220 PPI and the rMB has 226 PPI (highest among Apple displays). With 10-12 inch distance from the screen, the number reach 300 PPI.

Is there a need for 4k laptop displays if you can't identify a single pixel with normal use?
 
intelligence said:
I figure one of the reasons we get leaks so long beforehand regarding iPhones is because it hits the factories a lot sooner as they have to manufacture so many of them before they'er available for sale. How about MBP? How many do they produce before they're announce you reckon? That would be useful to perhaps establish some sort of timeline on when we *should* start seeing part leaks etc, to be inline with a march release.

Do they need a month to produce proper bulk? With iPhones they need severals months..
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's just the lead time. I think it's also the number of suppliers on the iPhone is much higher. Harder to keep more mouths shut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ocgirl
doitdada said:
Is there a need for 4k laptop displays if you can't identify a single pixel with normal use?
Click to expand...

I think there is also the consideration for video editors who like 1:1 pixel mapping from source file to display. I'm not sure how big a priority it is to have this capability for a laptop, but it would probably be a nice feature.
 
Intel is not in a hurry to release a new revision, as 4K is a long way from being standard, both in web streaming and broadcasting. When 4K becomes a real need to provide, I believe chip makers will bring us the jump we saw with Sandy Bridge. The general public fell for HD and with the extra pixels, the demand for pushing them out became a real need for the masses and their manufacturers.

Until we see an outcry for more pixels in both computing and entertainment devices, we are going to be content with the performance we already have in the ageing Haswell platform. Personally I am on the fence regarding buying a 4K or 5K monitor. There are few forum posts about it as well. It seems the willingness to upgrade is in it's infancy according to the sparse support of games, movies and desktop experiences utilising the extra pixels.
 
Xteec said:
I think there is also the consideration for video editors who like 1:1 pixel mapping from source file to display. I'm not sure how big a priority it is to have this capability for a laptop, but it would probably be a nice feature.
Click to expand...
The resolution of the screen in the laptop is really not that important considering it's size. Few people would be able to properly discern the difference between the current retina screens and a 4K screen on a 15" laptop at normal viewing distances. What is important is the GPU grunt to be able to run external 4K monitors, preferably more than one.
 
Xteec said:
I think there is also the consideration for video editors who like 1:1 pixel mapping from source file to display. I'm not sure how big a priority it is to have this capability for a laptop, but it would probably be a nice feature.
Click to expand...

With the iPhone 6S capable of recording 4K footage, I would at least believe there would be a portable Pro computer offering 1:1 pixel ratio for something that looks like is starting to getting acceptance and following among technology enthusiasts.
 
doitdada said:
With the iPhone 6S capable of recording 4K footage, I would at least believe there would be a portable Pro computer offering 1:1 pixel ratio for something that looks like is starting to getting acceptance and following among technology enthusiasts.
Click to expand...
Unless you have incredible eyesite or intend to view footage sitting about 6 inches from the screen you will not be able to discern the difference.
 
n7g said:
Unless you have incredible eyesite or intend to view footage sitting about 6 inches from the screen you will not be able to discern the difference.
Click to expand...

Pixel peepers gonna pixel peep. Photography has this issue as well.

I personally found in either realm (video or film) it best to offload to a much bigger screen regardless. I'd say it be my over year old eyes but....I get young blood clients I support IT wise who thier large screens you basically have to pry from their cold dead hands to get them away from them.

They even dig into thier own budget to make sure they get what they want since they know us in the sometimes evil IT department will push generic cheapest monitor on them otherwise (dell shop....we tend to sit down with our contract rep and order in the hundreds....needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few a tradeoff often made here). So we can assume the better monitor will have the features they need. Hope so....they actually put their money to it in some way.
 
hiddenmarkov said:
Pixel peepers gonna pixel peep. Photography has this issue as well.

I personally found in either realm (video or film) it best to offload to a much bigger screen regardless. I'd say it be my over year old eyes but....I get young blood clients I support IT wise who thier large screens you basically have to pry from their cold dead hands to get them away from them.

They even dig into thier own budget to make sure they get what they want since they know us in the sometimes evil IT department will push generic cheapest monitor on them otherwise (dell shop....we tend to sit down with our contract rep and order in the hundreds....needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few a tradeoff often made here). So we can assume the better monitor will have the features they need. Hope so....they actually put their money to it in some way.
Click to expand...
If they make it, it will sell. People believe they need it. With really big external monitors it does make a difference. On a 15" Laptop it's utterly unnecessary.

Marketing has done a wonderful job of selling 4K to the masses. Most people sit in their living rooms blissfully unaware of the fact that they are so far away from the TV screen that it might as well be a normal HD picture. Even at 10 feet away you need an 80" screen to even start to see the difference between 4K and HD. To get the full benefit of 4K at a viewing distance of 10 feet you would need a screen of 150" or more. Forgetting about the cost (which is huge), most people don't have the room for a screen like that. So they are buying 40", 50" or 60" 4K screens which are essentially pointless.

Point being those smaller 4K TVs are pointless yet sell in huge numbers. No doubt if Apple make a 4K laptop, lots of people will buy it and happily pay a huge premium for something they can't actually see.
 
n7g said:
Point being those smaller 4K TVs are pointless yet sell in huge numbers.
Click to expand...

You may not be able to distinguish the pixels, but the overall perception is better as it creates a better 3D feel in the picture with the mass of pixels. For example isn't anti-aliasing needed in gaming with such a resolution. I welcome these types of monitor, but the hardware to push it isn't there yet, at least not in gaming.

If there is a difference, it will be spotted by a trained eye.
 
doitdada said:
You may not be able to distinguish the pixels, but the overall perception is better as it creates a better 3D feel in the picture with the mass of pixels.
Click to expand...
A large part of that is the quality of the source. A downscaled 4K picture can also appear to be better on a normal HD screen.

Ultimately it's down to perception, which is a completely individual thing. If you believe you can see a difference then it's worth it.
 
To those people who are concerned about graphics performance on a 4K rMBP: If you use your rMBP on any other setting than Best (Retina), the image will actually be rendered at a much higher resolution (3360 x 2100 or 3840 x 2400, respectively), so using the "more space" option on a 15'' rMBP means actually your screen is rendered in 4K. (See http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/6 after "Oh but there’s more.") Thus, you can go on and test the performance differences right now.
Most people I know don't use the "Best (Retina)" option on their rMBP, so I can see Apple increasing the display resolution. And if they do increase the resolution, I would think 4K to be the only plausible option. As Apple offers 4K right now via interpolation, they obviously don't think content will be too small.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doitdada
domsodidavid said:
I REALLY hope, this rattle issue will not affect the skylake rMBP...

instagram.com/pingponggate
Click to expand...
Never heard of this issue. And I can't find anything about it… Have people actually opened their rMBPs to check what part exactly has come loose?
 
I think there are more interesting things then 4k for a laptop screen. If they bring the new features of the iMac display e.g. extended color space and better accuracy to the rMBP I think it will be more interesting for photographers, video editors etc. than 4k.
 
satchmo said:
The current design is still nice, but starting to look a bit dated. Looks like Oct 2008 was when the uni-body design first appeared. We're 7 plus years in...it's long overdue for a redesign.
Click to expand...

The unibody MBP came out in 2008, but the retina generation came out in 2012. I'm not sure how you wouldn't consider that a redesign. It got thinner and lighter, added retina screens, changed ports (added HDMI and TB, lost ethernet and Firewire), lost the optical drive, changed HDD to SSD, etc. When the MBP is redesigned again, changes overall probably won't be as drastic as the ones that came with the retina redesign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vanilla35 and senthor
I have two questions, forgive me if they're silly. Why would Mac's be around two years away from 4k when certain laptops already offer 4k screens? If Apple switched to 14" and 16" designs could we see quad core in both models?
 
Alloy201 said:
I have two questions, forgive me if they're silly. Why would Mac's be around two years away from 4k when certain laptops already offer 4k screens? If Apple switched to 14" and 16" designs could we see quad core in both models?
Click to expand...

Because a 4k rMBP would be so overpriced that the amount of loans asked for by consumers could collapse the global economy.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Short answer: nobody knows.

It could be a new feature, but I really hope they wait at least two years until iGPU can handle that resolution.

About the 14-16 Razer has a 14-inch laptop, which is a body clone from the MBP 13 (a little bit bigger I think) and it has a quadcore and a GTX970 inside so it is possible to do, but if the plan is to keep the body size and make it thinner I doubt Apple would go that way. I would love a rMBP 14 quad core though.
 
AirdanMR said:
Because a 4k rMBP would be so overpriced that the amount of loans asked for by consumers could collapse the global economy.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Short answer: nobody knows.

It could be a new feature, but I really hope they wait at least two years until iGPU can handle that resolution.

About the 14-16 Razer has a 14-inch laptop, which is a body clone from the MBP 13 (a little bit bigger I think) and it has a quadcore and a GTX970 inside so it is possible to do, but if the plan is to keep the body size and make it thinner I doubt Apple would go that way. I would love a rMBP 14 quad core though.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I also would love
to own a 14" quad core. Like you said it seems unlikely due to the new obsession with being thin. Apple will either go real thin while compromising some things or they won't change much at all from a design point of view. In my opinion the laptop market has changed over the last few years. The average consumer now wants portability and a sleek design. Then you have the other group who don't want any ports, battery, or power messed with for the sake of portability. When the new rMBP is announced one group is going to be upset, unless Apple has come up with a perfect balance.
 
Alloy201 said:
Thanks for the reply. I also would love
to own a 14" quad core. Like you said it seems unlikely due to the new obsession with being thin. Apple will either go real thin while compromising some things or they won't change much at all from a design point of view. In my opinion the laptop market has changed over the last few years. The average consumer now wants portability and a sleek design. Then you have the other group who don't want any ports, battery, or power messed with for the sake of portability. When the new rMBP is announced one group is going to be upset, unless Apple has come up with a perfect balance.
Click to expand...

That's why I support the idea of 12/14 rMB and 14/16 rMBP. Skylake Core m7 geekbenchs the same performance for general use than the i5 on the 2015 MBA 11/13. Maybe this is the last MBA's generation.

https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=m3-6Y30
https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=m7+6Y75
https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=Intel+Core+i5-5250U

Maybe this could help for a 14-inch rMB with U-proccesors and a 14-inch rMBP with quad core... but again I doub it =(
 
doitdada said:
Intel is not in a hurry to release a new revision, as 4K is a long way from being standard, both in web streaming and broadcasting. When 4K becomes a real need to provide, I believe chip makers will bring us the jump we saw with Sandy Bridge. The general public fell for HD and with the extra pixels, the demand for pushing them out became a real need for the masses and their manufacturers.

Until we see an outcry for more pixels in both computing and entertainment devices, we are going to be content with the performance we already have in the ageing Haswell platform. Personally I am on the fence regarding buying a 4K or 5K monitor. There are few forum posts about it as well. It seems the willingness to upgrade is in it's infancy according to the sparse support of games, movies and desktop experiences utilising the extra pixels.
Click to expand...

4k is definitely *not* in its infancy. It's been around for several years, and I've owned a 4k monitor for nearly a year. You can buy 4k monitors at Costco for $350...and many (most?) people buying new televisions are opting for 4k, as the pricing is extremely mainstream...even for the Walmart crowd. Even the new iPhones can shoot/record at 4k...as can most new smartphones now.

YouTube videos are often available in 4k now, and BlueRay 4k videos are available. 4K is a 15 year-older in terms of adoption/maturity.

5k...8k...those resolutions might be infants or toddlers. Not 4k.
 
IceMacMac said:
5k...8k...those resolutions might be infants or toddlers. Not 4k.
Click to expand...

There are more obstacles than just buying a 4K supported device. Having the bandwidth for streaming it, waiting for your favourite movie or TV series to be released in 4K and it costs extra to view from Netflix. Few players (hardware, not software) support it.

I think 4K will go mainstream through smart TVs and their apps. Having a box under your TV set is simply an old idea we got from cable and VCR. Right now it is like the thing everybody knows about, but very few actually own or utilise.

Great article covering the quality of conversions from different mediums to 4K.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/netflix-4k-ultra-hd-review
 
Now that we talk about 4k... Lately I've been wondering if the next thunderbolt display would stay at 4k instead of going 5k so all the upcoming Skylake devices could use target display mode with thunderbolt 3. What do you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back