5K Imac retina

U

uhoh7

Veteran
Local time
12:13 PM
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
2,798
I could not find a thread on this...did I miss one?

This is pretty big deal for those of us who really don't print much. :)

Thoughts?
 
And it's going for a really decent price. A 5K monitor alone would usually cost $2500. It seems pretty underpowered for such a display, and won't likely be useful for anything high-res beyond photo editing. I'm curious if anyone knows the providence of the panel being used, and what kind of quality we should expect.
 
Samouraï said:
And it's going for a really decent price. A 5K monitor alone would usually cost $2500. It seems pretty underpowered for such a display, and won't likely be useful for anything high-res beyond photo editing. I'm curious if anyone knows the providence of the panel being used, and what kind of quality we should expect.
Click to expand...


Hi Samouraï

Could you explain what you mean by underpowered?

I'm not in the market at the moment having just re-upped my iMac this past spring.
I am hoping rather, Apple will introduce a stand alone "Cinema display" with the same screen spec and monitor only price.
It's a curious offering though... I'm quite curious how it is received.
Thanks for the reply.
 
Samouraï said:
And it's going for a really decent price. A 5K monitor alone would usually cost $2500. It seems pretty underpowered for such a display, and won't likely be useful for anything high-res beyond photo editing. I'm curious if anyone knows the providence of the panel being used, and what kind of quality we should expect.
Click to expand...

As far as I know there is only one 5k panel of this size in existence, the Dell one used in the (exactly) $2500 monitor coming to markets in Q4 2014.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8496/dell-previews-27inch-5k-ultrasharp-monitor-5120x2880

Either Apple is using this panel, or they've made their own (which IMO is extremely unlikely). The issue with iMacs are the graphics card doesn't support 10bit, and the color space on iMacs are usually nowhere near truly professional monitors at a similar price. They are factory calibrated, so maybe some will prefer the free of hassle.

And it is underpowered. My work laptop has a better CPU (the 4960XM i7) and more ram than the base model. It also has RAID 0 in SSDs, which should more or less keep up with Apple's PCI Express option. It struggles to push four 1080p displays while doing intense photo editing and some side stuff. The new iMac is using less hardware to push seven 1080p displays. I can't see the user experience being too good.
 
f16sunshine said:
Hi Samouraï

Could you explain what you mean by underpowered?

I'm not in the market at the moment having just re-upped my iMac this past spring.
I am hoping rather, Apple will introduce a stand alone "Cinema display" with the same screen spec and monitor only price.
It's a curious offering though... I'm quite curious how it is received.
Thanks for the reply.
Click to expand...

The current cinema display could definitely use a refresh...but why go Apple? There are beautiful, full Argb 4k displays out there for half the price, and those will also take both PC and Mac input.

Underpowered as in it's using the same level of hardware as a top-tier workstation laptop to drive an insane amount of pixels. 5k is 7 times the resolution by pixel count of 1920*1080. I use a 4 display setup at home (three monitors + laptop display) with fairly powerful hardware and using it to do anything graphically intensive is impossible. Unless Apple somehow works magic I can't see the setup delivering good experience when editing 4k video or even multitasking in CC or illustrator.
 
YYV_146 said:
The current cinema display could definitely use a refresh...but why go Apple? There are beautiful, full Argb 4k displays out there for half the price, and those will also take both PC and Mac input.

Underpowered as in it's using the same level of hardware as a top-tier workstation laptop to drive an insane amount of pixels. 5k is 7 times the resolution by pixel count of 1920*1080. I use a 4 display setup at home (three monitors + laptop display) with fairly powerful hardware and using it to do anything graphically intensive is impossible. Unless Apple somehow works magic I can't see the setup delivering good experience when editing 4k video or even multitasking in CC or illustrator.
Click to expand...

Reports in person state over and over: "best PC display I've ever seen" and "machine seems to run fine", from those in the industry, who have seen other 4k screens.

No doubt there are faster machines, I just want one that's fast enough.

Nothing is for everyone, but this thing looks like it was made for me ;)

I've dumped windows over the last several years, and have a new 6 plus coming. She needs a friend to sync with LOL.
 
uhoh7 said:
Reports in person state over and over: "best PC display I've ever seen" and "machine seems to run fine", from those in the industry, who have seen other 4k screens.

No doubt there are faster machines, I just want one that's fast enough.

Nothing is for everyone, but this thing looks like it was made for me ;)

I've dumped windows over the last several years, and have a new 6 plus coming. She needs a friend to sync with LOL.
Click to expand...

I love how the devices are integrated.
 
Too high expectations. If you wanna do all this with an iMac (or a laptop...!) then what's the point of a power mac.
edit: or mac pro or whatever it's called nowadays :)
 
Pherdinand said:
Too high expectations. If you wanna do all this with an iMac (or a laptop...!) then what's the point of a power mac.
Click to expand...

Depends on your workload. The iMac is the best choice for single-threaded (or "lightly threaded") applications, whereas the Mac Pro is better for multi-threaded applications (being it has up to 12 cores). The iMac actually beats the Mac Pro on the former (due to a higher clock speed). Unless you're doing heavy audio or video work, 3D, etc. the Mac Pro is decidedly overkill. Not to mention cost; it starts at $3k and you still need a monitor, if not storage as well.
 
i know, but i mean from Apple's perspective. Exactly as you say, for heavier work they wanna sell the mac pro not the iMacs.
iMacs are perfectly fine for photographers (well disregarding the need for professional, calibratable (?) etc screens, which is also exaggerated by the way) and of course the 5k pixels will be very nice for 1:1-1:2 viewing of images out of your latest digital, but for amateur use my 2500-something pixels are wide enough...
 
Pherdinand said:
i know, but i mean from Apple's perspective. Exactly as you say, for heavier work they wanna sell the mac pro not the iMacs.
iMacs are perfectly fine for photographers (well disregarding the need for professional, calibratable (?) etc screens, which is also exaggerated by the way) and of course the 5k pixels will be very nice for 1:1-1:2 viewing of images out of your latest digital, but for amateur use my 2500-something pixels are wide enough...
Click to expand...

Oh, for sure. My work computer is a Late-2012 iMac 27" and that screen is already great real estate wise, at 2560x1440. The computer I'm upgrading from though, is still at 1920x1200 (24") and getting quite long in the tooth overall. So, it's time... Might as well go whole-hog. You can do a lot with a 14.7MP display. :p
 
uhoh7 said:
LOL If you would have told me a week ago I would order an iMac.......

I would have scoffed, sir! Scoffed!!

but now i have ;)
Click to expand...

Get the apple care with it Mate!

The machine I'm using now (27 iMac full spec February 2014)was a direct replacement for one I bought in July 2011 (17" MBP).
The monitor on my MBP had an issue with dimming. After 2 attempts to replace it Apple decided I had been through enough and gave me the choice of the Machines in they offered.
Un-believable service with Apple care. It may add $170 but it's well worth it with this company.

Cheers and Enjoy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom