Apple Readying iMac Retina with 5K Display

[btarunr]

Apple's next iMac desktop could flaunt the company's "Retina Display" moniker, which stands for pixel density that matches that of your retina. Apple's idea of Retina display on a 20-something inch desktop is 5K, which is 5120 x 2880 pixels, or four times the resolution of WQHD (2560 x 1440), or sixteen times HD (1280 x 720). Early betas of Apple's OSX "Yosemite" feature references to display resolutions upwards of 5K, including 5760 x 3240, and 6400 x 3600.

At 27-inch, 5120 x 2880 would give the Mac a staggering 217 ppi of pixel density, which is not very far from the 263 ppi which 9.7-inch iPads offer, with their 2048 x 1536 resolutions. To put 217 ppi into perspective, a 28-inch Ultra HD display offers 157 ppi, and Apple's current 27-inch iMac with WQHD display offers just 108 ppi. A mainstream 24-inch full HD (1920 x 1080) display offers just 91 ppi. The GPUs that drive these next-gen iMacs are anyone's guess. Both current-generation AMD, and NVIDIA's new GTX 980 cap out at digital resolutions of 4096 x 2160.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[silapakorn]

Reading text on that screen will make my eyes bleed.

 

[eggimage]

Reading text on that screen will make my eyes bleed.

No. You have no idea how HiDPI works, do you...

 

[hellrazor]

It would be amazing.

 

[Frick]

This is why we need newer versions of Windows btw. Scaling works much better on 8 than 7. If only the makers of the software can make it work too...

 

[erixx]

^so true. Some of my work software is Java based, and it's icons and windows look and behave like 1995, or a Mac, not sure. The price of cross-OS compatibility I suppose.

 

[NC37]

Knowing Apple it'll either have a severely underpowered GPU or it'll run so hot they'll have a lifespan of a week at best. Or they could just go all out and make both a possibility which sadly wouldn't be a first for them.

 

[birdie]

Both current-generation AMD, and NVIDIA's new GTX 980 cap out at digital resolutions of 4096 x 2160.

This is true and not true simultaneously.

Both NVIDIA and AMD support MST for DP outputs which means you can have far wider resolutions.

 

[bogami]

I would be good for processing my photos with SAMSUNG K4. Of course, there would not cover 5184x3888 - 20M in foll scr.. And how much would it cost me? kidney or something more .

 

[RCoon]

I would be good for processing my photos with SAMSUNG K4. Of course, there would not cover 5184x3888 - 20M in foll scr.. And how much would it cost me? kidney or something more .

Kidney's wouldn't cover it, contrary to popular belief, they aren't worth that much on the black market these days maybe both eyes and a piece of liver.

 

[TheMailMan78]

lol I'm still making money with digital painting on a 1080p monitor. Maybe I should eventually upgrade.

 

[Crap Daddy]

Kidney's wouldn't cover it, contrary to popular belief, they aren't worth that much on the black market these days maybe both eyes and a piece of liver.

Plus your brain. Forever.

 

[2big2fail]

Recent rumors suggest AMD graphics, my money is on a Hawaii chip.

 

[arterius2]

Kidney's wouldn't cover it, contrary to popular belief, they aren't worth that much on the black market these days maybe both eyes and a piece of liver.

kidney's are worth upwards of 100k-200k USD when sold to a wealthy buyer(esp in parts of the worlds where there is a constant shortage of kidneys such as China), however I admit it doesn't always mean you as a solo seller can sell it for that price, though its common knowledge that it is generally worth more than other parts of the body.

 

[TheMailMan78]

kidney's are worth upwards of 100k-200k USD when sold to a wealthy buyer(esp in parts of the worlds where there is a constant shortage of kidneys such as China), however I admit it doesn't always mean you as a solo seller can sell it for that price, though its common knowledge that it is generally worth more than other parts of the body.

200K for a kidney? SIGN ME UP!

 

[64K]

200K for a kidney? SIGN ME UP!

Put it on Ebay. See what kind of response you get.

 

[arterius2]

200K for a kidney? SIGN ME UP!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tanyachen/this-is-how-much-your-body-parts-are-actually-worth#4d1u6b6

 

[TheMailMan78]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tanyachen/this-is-how-much-your-body-parts-are-actually-worth#4d1u6b6

Damn 300 bucks for a pint of clean blood? Man I've been giving mine away for free!

 

[Octavean]

Well the Dell 5K monitor we've seen demoed should be available around the holiday season (~$2500???) so its not surprising that Apple would or could be using some of the same or similar panels in their products as well. The problem for Apple on the iMac though would be how they would manage to attain the 5K resolution support internally on what is essentially laptop level video subsystems when Dell used a Quadro K5000 and dual Displayport 1.2 connections for their demo.

Naturally one would think that this is going to be an expensive option for the iMac so the 2560x1440 option will still be offered.

It doesn't make sense to skip 4K though because that could be managed a little easier and cost a little less while still being a healthy upgrade from their standard 2560x1440 models. So maybe three screen resolution options,....but then Apple isn't known for giving a lot of choice or options,....

 

[Rowsol]

91 ppi is good enough to me.

 

[LucidStrike]

There's more to perceived detail than just PPI. It matters how close you are to the display. The closer you are, the more pixel density required to outresolve your eyes. We typically aren't as close to desktop displays as we are to tablets and phones, so we don't need pixel density as high.

This article, and probably Apple's promotional campaign, makes it sound like 1080p on a 24" display is a pixelated mess, but 1080p is perfectly fine for most people's eyes up to around 25", from comfortable monitor viewing distances. You only need 300 PPI on a 24" if you're only like less than a foot from it, and viewing a 24" monitor from less than a foot away isn't a thing to do.

If your display is LARGER than 25", sure, make sure it's higher than 1080p. Otherwise, be wary of marketing manipulation. = /

 

[erixx]

Millions use screens for quite static imaging work not gaming... = less GPU intensive

(And anyway getting a Mac (or Mac screen) for games is retarded.)

 

[The Von Matrices]

Recent rumors suggest AMD graphics, my money is on a Hawaii chip.

The iMacs use mobile GPUs, which eliminates a Hawaii chip. The highest performance mobile graphics AMD currently offers is the R9 M290X, which is equivalent to a desktop HD 7870.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see a newer mobile GPU released at the event, perhaps the rumored R9 M295X, which uses a Tonga GPU.

 

[Rojan]

4K and 5K and 8K.......
DUMBERS are always ready to pay for the NUMBERS.
It is not matter to produce 5K or 8K or 100K resolution screens.
The main problem is that "Do you have any GPU to be able to run it smooth?".
And will this 5K screen rise the price 5X?
This is only a marketing hoax.
Apple will double the iMac prices thanks to this inefficient 5K screen.

A computer isn't just about video games, y'know.

 

[Froggy]

The other is that the basis of this rumor seems to be based on the fact that there is 5K resolution options in OSX Yosemite. What if those resolution options are for a external monitor connected to a compatible Mac via DP or TB and have nothing to do with the iMac. Also it could be the resolution of a new Apple Cinema Display. That would make more sense IMO.