Where would a 4K iMac leave Mac Pro users if no 4K TBD is announced?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Nemic, Oct 14, 2014.

  1. Nemic macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    #1
    I am sure (well actually not really!) that if Apple announce a Retina or 4K iMac then they will also announce a Retina Thunderbolt display. I think they have to really?

    If they don't then where does this leave the MacPro users?

    They would be left with the option of running a 3rd party 4K display? - if they want/need 4K.

    Whereas a 4K iMac would have (no doubt) a purpose built display that works in perfect harmony with the entire computer.
    No refresh issues, not font size issues, no scaling issues, just perfect harmony.

    I really really (really) want a 4K Apple display and as my current MacBook Pro Retina (15 inch Mid 2012) probably won't be able to run it, I am also considering buying a new MacPro.

    But if the 4K Thunderbolt Display does not appear, and the Retina or 4K iMac does, then I would likely buy the 4K iMac.

    If Apple had released a new Thunderbolt Display back when they released the new iMacs, with a similar form factor and USB 3.0, then I would have bought one for sure. But now with 4K in the picture (maybe) that's what I want.
     
  2. Dor Levy macrumors member

    Dor Levy

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Location:
    Israel
  3. NICKXXXXXX macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2014
    #3
    Why would your macbook pro retina not be able to run a 4k thunderbolt display? Macbook airs from 2011 run the current thunderbolt display with no problems. I don't think we will get 4k iMac. Broadwell ain't set to release til next year? I think Thunderbolt will get 4k and early next year an iMac with all the good stuff.
     
  4. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #4
    Only the 2013's and newer MBP's can support 4K. 2012's only did displayport 1.1 which can only do 1440P.

    ----------

    It can't...

    http://support.apple.com/kb/ht6008
     
  5. theluggage macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #5
    The rumour is that Apple are addressing the scaling/font size issues by using a "5k" 5120×2880 display in the iMac, which gives exactly double the (linear) pixels of the existing 2560x1440 display.

    Trouble is, 5120x2880 @ 24 bits @ 60 Hz is a helluva lot of bandwidth - and while inside an iMac they can use multiple internal connections, or pick a GPU that does DisplayPort 1.3 to get that, how do you package that in an external display?

    The other thing to remember is that, while some Mac Pro users may indeed buy Thunderbolt Displays, the product is primarily a "pro-sumer" MacBook peripheral, and its Unique Selling Point over third party displays is the docking functionality and built-in MagSafe PSU. A lot of Mac Pro customers are going to want "Pro" monitors with matte screens, built-in colour calibrators etc. or dedicated 4k displays for video previews.

    So there might not be much point for Apple producing a new 5k TBD that wouldn't work on many current MacBooks, because it needed a discrete GPU or 2 Thunderbolt ports.
     
  6. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #6
    I agree. If i was a current gen Mac Pro owner or when I upgrade to my new one I'd just grab one of the Dell monitors.

    it would suck to not have TBolt 2 ports and terminate one or two TBolt ports on the back, but there are 6 ports so I'd be okay for the most part.

    I'd still love to see at Apple 4k or UHD display though, maybe even one that's at least 32" in screen size.
     
  7. MacVidCards Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #7
    Pretty sure 2012 rMBP does 4K but at 30hz.

    (Unless I was hallucinating)
     
  8. MMcCraryNJ macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    #8
    A 2012 MBP (retina or non-retina) can drive a 3440x1440 21:9 monitor over TB/DP (not sure if a requirement is to have the discrete graphics, though). So it's not limited to 2560x1400. Pretty sure they can drive a 4K display as well.

    The Retina iMac will be 5K. I can see Apple releasing a 27" 4K TB monitor and keeping the 5K "Retina" option exclusive to the high-end iMac line. We'll find out Thursday, won't we?
     
  9. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #9
    There's a guy over in the iMac forum who claims to have supply chain insights into the new Macintosh that claims the new product will have a 21.5" 4K display... not a 5K display.

    I would tend to agree with him that 5K is simply pushing the envelope beyond what's technically reasonable at this time (even for Apple) and a 21" 4K retina is way more practical and cost effective. Such a display would actually be comparable in PPI to the existing MacBooks and a 27" 5K so maybe they will start with a 21" 4K retina and offer a 27" 5K later with DP 1.3 and TB3 are available.

    Either way, we all know that the Apple TB displays are primarily designed as docking station displays for MacBooks. This makes perfect business sense as the mobile market is vastly larger than the desktop market... so any new TB Display will have to work with shipping MacBooks or it's a non-starter. Which is perhaps another reason against a 27" 5K iMac screen and another reason for a 4K TB Display (although I'd personally prefer a 24" 4K HiDPI or 32" 4K native).

    I don't believe the Mac Pro user is a concern of Apple's at all when it comes to their display designs. It wasn't in the past, and I don't imagine much has changed. Of course, any new TB display designed for MacBooks, will also work on the Mac Pro and they may market it as a great compliment to the Mac Pro, but the Mac Pro market is not their primary target with a stand-alone TB display product.

    As for timing, there's no precedent to suggest that a new iMac display must be accompanied by a new TB Display. The stand-alone 27" display was first offered by Apple a full 8 months following the debut of the 27" iMac.

    We'll know soon enough.
     
  10. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #10
    It sounds perfectly reasonable for the 27" to have a 5k display then. Same density, bigger sheet. Easy for production.

    As far as TBD, we'll see. I'd like to think we'll see something.
     
  11. MMcCraryNJ macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    #11
    I read that thread. That guy is just blowing hot air.
     
  12. lostgear macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2010
    #12
    My guess is two displays, one being an updated TD with 2560x1440, USB3 and MagSafe 2. The other being a 4/5k without MagSafe for the MacPro.

    Also I could see them ditching the macmini and iMac lines and replacing them with a new Trashcan, with i5/i7 processors, PCIe storage, single discrete graphics or iris pro, TB2, all in the single unified heat core similar to the MacPro. Aka the iMacMiniPro#
     
  13. gugy macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    La Jolla, CA
    #13
    Honestly, if Apple does indeed announce a 4k iMac, TB displays will be update as well. There is no reason not to.
    I do hope they do. I love my 30" ACD but I would not mind buying a new display at that resolution. What will be very hard to lose is the matte screen that I love. My office is very bright and the glare on the current TB displays are just plain awful if you work on a bright environment. I look forward to see if they can find a solution for that issue.
     
  14. MacTCE macrumors 6502

    MacTCE

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    #14
    If a 4K/5K iMac is announced I'll be getting both an iMac and a new 4K/5K TBD for my nMP/rMBP.
     
  15. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #15
    The only reason I can think of them not updating is weirdness with how to actually hook the display up to the MP if it's 5k.
     
  16. edanuff macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #16
    It really comes down to what the MacBook Pro can support, not just the Mac Pro. If there's a way that you can use 2 thunderbolt cables to drive 5K in a way that works with both the existing MacBook Pro and Mac Pro, then there could be enough of a market for Apple to do it. It seems like a longshot, but one could imagine them announcing some sort of TB2 to DP 1.3 adapter for MacBook Pros and Mac Pros that drove this new 5K monitor. This would only likely happen if there was some sort of new Mac that natively supported DP 1.3 and a new 5K monitor that used it and then they'd also provide this hypothetical adapter for existing models. It seems much less work to just ship a 4K monitor. However, the least amount of work for the most impressive results (and most Apple-like thing to do) is still to just ship 5K for a flagship iMac where they can completely bypass the bandwidth constraints of TB2 altogether until TB3 is ready.
     
  17. nox-uk macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    #17
    Buy both and use the iMac as a screen for the Pro? :rolleyes:

    Nox
     
  18. xav8tor, Oct 16, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2014

    xav8tor macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    #18
    Did that for years with a 4.1/5.1 MP and '09 iMac. Works great. The iMac can still do work in the background while acting as a monitor for the MP. I understand that this rumored "5K" monitor is a doubling of the current monitors for ease of use with current apps, etc., but there really is no such thing as 5K per se. I'd rather see something that's true UHD at 3840x2160. Besides, 4K/UHD is taxing enough, but pushing all of those extra pixels at 5K is going to be a hit on the current GPU's and I can't believe there's a mobile GPU out there for the iMac that will do it with decent performance. Just give me a 4K/UHD SST at 60 Hz. monitor without that silly MST hack.
     
  19. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #19
    3440x1440 = 5mil pixels
    3840x1920 (UHD) = 8.3 mil
    4096x2160 = 8.8mil

    5 million pixels is quite a bit less than even UHD and even farther less than true 4k. Basically just cause it can do 3440 x 1440 it's a long way form 4K. Further, Apple states the only computers than can do 4K are 2013-2014 MBP's and 2013 Mac Pros (at 60hz that is).
     
  20. MacDarcy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    #20
    The current imac is thinner than the current apple Cinema Display. Which is already ridiculous. If they update the imac to 4K but not the Cinema Display. Why even bother to still offer it? I would bet good money that Apple will update the Cinema Display if the imac gets a retina display.
     
  21. fs454 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles / Boston
    #21
    So here we are, they just announced the 27 inch 5K iMac, and no Cinema Display.

    Welp.
     
  22. Gav Mack macrumors 68020

    Gav Mack

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Sagittarius A*
    #22
    I had a hard lockup on my 3,1 right at the moment they said about a high end display coming out which would cost more than one with an Intel CPU inside!

    My Mac Pro was obviously p1ssed :D
     
  23. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #23
    Yeah. :(

    I'm starting to suspect after all the custom hardware they talked about with the iMac, it's going to come down to Thunderbolt 2 issues. :(
     
  24. MMcCraryNJ macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    #24
    Whatever happened to the dude in the iMac section that claimed he had an inside source that said there would be a 4K 21" iMac instead? Like he made about 15 posts about how nobody should be expecting the 5K 27" iMac.

    Is he going to be banned or?
     
  25. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #25
    That was an insanely stupid prediction. If they can make a 4k 21", why would they have trouble making a 5k 27"?
     

Share This Page