Good point on 802 forgot about that. I think there is a good chance for this year, not sure where you get next year from.
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.
Will there be a Retina iMac in 2013?
- Thread starter ragz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good point on 802 forgot about that. I think there is a good chance for this year, not sure where you get next year from.
Don't think we will see a Retina iMac this year. Perhaps the 21 but no way the 27.
As other posters said, the new wifi and haswell plus slight processor bumps will be more likely this time round.
As other posters said, the new wifi and haswell plus slight processor bumps will be more likely this time round.
How much I'am tempted to upgrade my 2010 imac for the extra storage, memory, graphics etc, I find myself always wanting a retina display especially given every apple device including my macbook uses retina. So if i have to wait for 2014 i don't mind given i get to keep my 3 year old iMac for another year.
Does the Late 2012 iMac need retina? I think it's good enough atm.
Retina will be deployed in 2014/2015
Retina will be deployed in 2014/2015
Haswell 5-9 % faster but 10% more energy.
Intel have no clue anymore.
----------
Retina is the biggest advance in computing since 3D late 1999is. I love my rMBP/rIpad/rIphone. Bought a 2580x1600 in 2004. Its amazing that computer displays have not been advanced since then.
Retina iMac?
We are starting to see 4K TVs and there are some 4K computer screens. But these are extremely expensive.
Maybe people are prepared to pay 3500 dollar+ for a Retina iMac, but even with that price it would be much cheaper then other displays.
Uninformed users still don't have a clue.
Intel moved some of the Power management voltage regulation to the chip package. So a Haswell CPU package has more functionality that has been pulled inside from elsewhere on the motherboard. The overall net system power is down. the board doesn't need as much voltage regulation (no reduction but position on motherboard just shuffled under a larger thermal management solution; likley a heatpipe/radiator ) and the support IOHUB chip's power is down. This minor 10% increase is offset with larger decreases elsewhere on the motherboard.
What? Displays don't paticularly 'compute' anything. Lack of computations would make it hard to be the "biggest".
$5-10K for a screen. Not many are going to go for that.
I think the retina jump for desktops won't come this soon. Maybe 2014. The main reason is cost vs. need/value. I'd rather see a dramatically faster iMac rather than a retina iMac; in fact, I'd rather see almost any other spec improvement over the retina. It isn't that retina is bad or unwanted, it's just so unnecessary on a desktop.
My buddy brought over his retina macbook and set it side by side next to my late 12 27inch iMac and there isn't really much difference. Definitely not enough to justify how much more a retina 27 inch display would cost.
Take one look at the new 4k displays and TVs hitting the market. CES this year, 4k was the big 'deal' as it seems the manufacturers have realized most of us could care less about 3d. 4k TV displays from LG were shown at CES @ 55 and 65". No prices given but assumed at around $10k or just under. Their 84" went on sale last year for $20k. Sony's new 84" XBR is $23.5-$25,000. Panasonic is also offering an 80+" TV @ right a out $30,000. Big screens. Big. HUGE pricing right now. When they start cutting smaller panels and content starts to trickle in (a 4k movie can be 150-200GB!), I think we'll maybe see some of the bigger AIO and separate displays of larger (+15") varieties start to pop up. Those of us with rMBPs know the software and sites still set up for lower resolution. They're making progress but the 15" rMBP is still only half of the resolution of 4k, and what would be viable in the 27" iMac.
IN other words, I think the poster you quoted about a thousand or two 4k tax is very low...at this time, with today's technology, it could be significantly more!
Exactly. It's not going to happen until its affordable for the masses. Eizo, NEC and other display makers for the professional broadcast market will be the first to see 4k, consumers will see the technology trickle down, hopefully sooner than later...but bandwidth and storage mediums are another big factor. Content needs to be shot in 4k (RED, Alexa and Sony all have cameras)...and the computational power to crunch 4k footage is significant. RED Raw footage takes up massive amounts of SSD space when shooting. Think 16 minutes per 64gb SSD cartridge...and that's using their proprietary compression technology. We are a ways out
J
Still disagree. Note I said "IF" and "WHEN" it comes out. At THAT point, 4K will be as commonplace as 1080p is nowadays, and will be considerably cheaper.
It's all speculation, of course, but I personally doubt it. I think inevitably we'll see retina displays/4K resolution iMacs, but it won't be for several years. Maybe the next "redesign" of the iMac in 3-5 years. Same reason why 4K TVs have yet to really become available in the marketplace: cost.
cant see why
I now have the new iMac, amazing machine, I can't understand why to put retina in such a huge display ? you already sit very far from the screen, and can't see any pixel, so why retina???
I also don't get the obsession with the retina screen, in most cases bigger screen than the ipad you can't see any noticeable difference.
I now have the new iMac, amazing machine, I can't understand why to put retina in such a huge display ? you already sit very far from the screen, and can't see any pixel, so why retina???
I also don't get the obsession with the retina screen, in most cases bigger screen than the ipad you can't see any noticeable difference.
There will be no retina display for iMacs this year, but next years lineup will highly adopt retina displays maybe in the bigger screens first. Besides this most have said here, that this is the year of the Mac Pro with the 2013 iMac getting superfiscal changes like CPU bumps, and the possiblity of better integrated WI Fi.
I disagree. I think it's a possibility.
The year of the Mac Pro. No. Mac Pro hasn't changed in design for years, that's the one to always get the bumps.
The mac pro is old desktop. The new iMacs are new desktops.
Everything keeps shrinking down and becoming more powerful. Eventually tomorrow's high end desktops will be available in smaller form factors.
My HTC One has 2gb of Ram in it. I think it should have 4gb, but I guess that will be next year. Compare today's latest phones to 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012.
Technology and how we use it are changing. Most people don't need a desktop. I see various industries needing it, but most companies could get away with iMacs now. They are powerful enough, better than the low end mac pro.
The year of the Mac Pro. No. Mac Pro hasn't changed in design for years, that's the one to always get the bumps.
The mac pro is old desktop. The new iMacs are new desktops.
Everything keeps shrinking down and becoming more powerful. Eventually tomorrow's high end desktops will be available in smaller form factors.
My HTC One has 2gb of Ram in it. I think it should have 4gb, but I guess that will be next year. Compare today's latest phones to 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012.
Technology and how we use it are changing. Most people don't need a desktop. I see various industries needing it, but most companies could get away with iMacs now. They are powerful enough, better than the low end mac pro.
I don't think there will be ANY new iMacs this year, retina or not. There's simply no point since Haswell brings very little to the table.
If we get retina imacs, the first question is - what graphics card would be capable of powering such a display? Does such a display even exist?
yes you right if there will be a retina for
iMac i think it will need gtx780MX or something newer and powerfull since I own a DTR laptop that have GTX680M with SLI config with FullHD res (1920x1080) I doubt will be suffice to power an iMac with retina (assuming 2x 2560x1440 res)
Same here. I think it's far too expensive right now for the consumer to purchase an iMac at the predicted price of a retina display.
It will cost $1000 - $2000 more. And guess what? It's not because of the retina display. The scheme would be like retina MBP, it is a "forced" upgrade.
Apple could just make 13" rMBP with standard HDD so it costs $1199 as usual. But they don't want to.
The same for retina iMac, you will have to buy the one that comes with super expensive SSD, super expensive and soldered RAM. Oh and it will be super thin too.
The retina display itself won't cost a damn thing, but Apple will rip extra $1000 from another side, you must go with the high end or you won't get nothing. You should understand already how Apple sells their products.
I completely agree. Amazing machine, it had all I hoped for from current tech. I don't understand the obsession of retina either. In fact I was glad there were no retina this time around because all the extra pixels would require too much from the machine which I want to use on other stuff. Also it's still not perfect on the rMBP and I would rather use the extra gpu on split screen and cintiq tablet. The current iMac is perfect for me. If anything new comes to the table this year/next year I want it to be revolutionary wifi speed and even faster gpu and CPU.
----------
The same for retina iMac, you will have to buy the one that comes with super expensive SSD, super expensive and soldered RAM. Oh and it will be super thin too.
Well you can't buy the 21.5" with the super expensive ssd (which makes sense) and the 27" don't have soldered ram. The way I see it 21.5" = consumer- genes the limitations. 27"= "pro" Henderson the expensive upgrades and replaceable ram. People seem to nicer about this over and over without checking the facts. I bought the 768ssd and placed 32gb ram in myself. It's an awesome pro machine for a ok price
You never know, man. This time Apple let consumers go with RAM access on 27" iMac. Question is, does it technically impossible to give the same access for 21"? Surely not. But Apple would rather you buy (super expensive) RAM from them.
15" rMBP is also a supposedly portable "pro" machine. See how completely Air-esque and disposable it is? I wouldn't surprise if they decide to do the same once retina iMac ready. Either you buy those CTO options or you're gonna end up with $2000 paperweight since the standard machine not fast enough.
The same for retina iMac, you will have to buy the one that comes with super expensive SSD, super expensive and soldered RAM. Oh and it will be super thin too.
Well you can't buy the 21.5" with the super expensive ssd (which makes sense) and the 27" don't have soldered ram. The way I see it 21.5" = consumer- genes the limitations. 27"= "pro" Henderson the expensive upgrades and replaceable ram. People seem to nicer about this over and over without checking the facts. I bought the 768ssd and placed 32gb ram in myself. It's an awesome pro machine for a ok price
They already removed the DVD drive, thinking nobody use them anymore, so there will not be BR on iMacs, unless the Superdrive gets upgraded to a Blu-Ray drive. I hope there will be soon some kind of "flashcard" that replaces the CD,DVD and Blu-Ray.
The 21.5" doesn't have soldered RAM! It's just that Apple didn't pay 1 cent to make a cut-off of the door, knowing that everyone will go to the Apple Store and pay them to upgrade RAM!
Lower power-consumption is always a good thing, even if it's a desktop computer and no worries about battery-time.
Also, GTX 700-series comes this June so there's always that..
Doubt it. Retina display will most certainly cost extra for Apple to create and produce. Perhaps they will raise the price of the iMac more than the Retina display is worth - but that's besides the point.