Is there actually any demand at all for such high resolutions? One article says AppleTV won't do 4K because there's little demand for it and now this article says there will be an 8K iMac. No demand for 4K but some demand for 8K. Providing this rumor is true it seems like Apple is trying to start a spec war making it harder for rivals to compete. I'm not wasting my time second-guessing Apple for whatever they decide to do. Apple must have its own reasons to believe consumers have some interest in such high-resolution displays. I personally don't need such high resolutions because my older eyes can't fully take advantage of them. To me, it would seem to be a huge waste of processing power trying to drive all those pixels when that power could be used for getting other work done slightly faster. Apple must know what's necessary to drive computer sales so I must be slipping out of the computer needs loop. I'm quite happy with regular HD but maybe that's not enough for most consumers. I still have an older 24" iMac and it's more than satisfactory for my use.
not gonna happen and companies don't announce what Apple's plans are.
Does sound like a lucrative business though. How about tiny drones that disguise as teacups? I'm sure you could fly one into Jony Ive's office around 5'o clock /s
As I understand it, even the Mac Pro cannot drive the screen resolution the 5K iMac can.
I'd be quite surprised if this was true. The amount of firepower offered by dual AMD FirePro D700, each with 6GB of GDDR5 VRAM, 2048 stream processors, 384-bit-wide memory bus, 264GB/s memory bandwidth, and 3.5 teraflops performance is unlikely to be beaten by an AMD Radeon R9 M290X with 2GB video memory, even by offering a slightly more modern motherboard.
More like 40" (if the idea is to keep the same PPI as the current 5k iMac), but that would be kinda nuts for an iMac.
Perhaps a 40" 8k monitor would make sense for a new Mac Pro that is capable of driving such a beast over a cable. Perhaps a new (late 2015) Mac Pro will be able to do that. That's pretty niche, though.
I just can't see Apple increasing the PPI very far beyond the current 5k iMac. Apple designs balanced products, they don't push one dimension of a product to a ridiculous extreme just because it's technically possible to do so.
I'd be quite surprised if this was true. The amount of firepower offered by dual AMD FirePro D700, each with 6GB of GDDR5 VRAM, 2048 stream processors, 384-bit-wide memory bus, 264GB/s memory bandwidth, and 3.5 teraflops performance is unlikely to be beaten by an AMD Radeon R9 M290X with 2GB video memory, even by offering a slightly more modern motherboard.
Then be surprised. Have you not read about the timing controller Apple custom built for the iMac5k? All the memory in the word isn't going to change the fact that the the thunderbolt 2 port can't handle the bandwidth for 5K. Supposedly the Dell 5K monitor can use two thunderbolt 2 ports and run 5K on a MacPro. I'm not sure what refresh rate the Dell will do and I have yet to see any comments from someone that has actually done it.
Then be surprised. Have you not read about the timing controller Apple custom built for the iMac5k? All the memory in the word isn't going to change the fact that the the thunderbolt 2 port can't handle the bandwidth for 5K. Supposedly the Dell 5K monitor can use two thunderbolt 2 ports and run 5K on a MacPro. I'm not sure what refresh rate the Dell will do and I have yet to see any comments from someone that has actually done it.
Ah, yes, that's what he meant. I'm stupid, my apologies ^^
Note that the 5K sizing is missing from the chart. Seems pretty obvious to me that this press release is really old (i.e., predates the release of the iMac 5k). I'd bet that Apple originally planned on doing an iMac8K and then switched to iMac5k. Most likely because 8k just increased the cost without any benefit. I have the iMac5k and don't see any need for an 8k monitor unless it is bigger.
Is there actually any demand at all for such high resolutions? One article says AppleTV won't do 4K because there's little demand for it and now this article says there will be an 8K iMac. No demand for 4K but some demand for 8K.
Completely different purposes.
An 8K retina display Mac is immediately useful, whereas it is doubtful 8K displays will ever be a consumer format before the end of the decade, let alone a realistic format for video capture any time soon.
Which means people would have to wait for Thunderbolt to catch up again in order to use 8K external monitors, if Apple is still using Thunderbolt by that time.
Comments
next gen apple monitor; doesn't have to be the iMac
could be a monitor for the Mac Pro indeed.
As I understand it, even the Mac Pro cannot drive the screen resolution the 5K iMac can.
Is there actually any demand at all for such high resolutions? One article says AppleTV won't do 4K because there's little demand for it and now this article says there will be an 8K iMac. No demand for 4K but some demand for 8K. Providing this rumor is true it seems like Apple is trying to start a spec war making it harder for rivals to compete. I'm not wasting my time second-guessing Apple for whatever they decide to do. Apple must have its own reasons to believe consumers have some interest in such high-resolution displays. I personally don't need such high resolutions because my older eyes can't fully take advantage of them. To me, it would seem to be a huge waste of processing power trying to drive all those pixels when that power could be used for getting other work done slightly faster. Apple must know what's necessary to drive computer sales so I must be slipping out of the computer needs loop. I'm quite happy with regular HD but maybe that's not enough for most consumers. I still have an older 24" iMac and it's more than satisfactory for my use.
not gonna happen and companies don't announce what Apple's plans are.
Does sound like a lucrative business though. How about tiny drones that disguise as teacups? I'm sure you could fly one into Jony Ive's office around 5'o clock
As I understand it, even the Mac Pro cannot drive the screen resolution the 5K iMac can.
I'd be quite surprised if this was true. The amount of firepower offered by dual AMD FirePro D700, each with 6GB of GDDR5 VRAM, 2048 stream processors, 384-bit-wide memory bus, 264GB/s memory bandwidth, and 3.5 teraflops performance is unlikely to be beaten by an AMD Radeon R9 M290X with 2GB video memory, even by offering a slightly more modern motherboard.
Gold!
30" iMac?
More like 40" (if the idea is to keep the same PPI as the current 5k iMac), but that would be kinda nuts for an iMac.
Perhaps a 40" 8k monitor would make sense for a new Mac Pro that is capable of driving such a beast over a cable. Perhaps a new (late 2015) Mac Pro will be able to do that. That's pretty niche, though.
I just can't see Apple increasing the PPI very far beyond the current 5k iMac. Apple designs balanced products, they don't push one dimension of a product to a ridiculous extreme just because it's technically possible to do so.
I'd be quite surprised if this was true. The amount of firepower offered by dual AMD FirePro D700, each with 6GB of GDDR5 VRAM, 2048 stream processors, 384-bit-wide memory bus, 264GB/s memory bandwidth, and 3.5 teraflops performance is unlikely to be beaten by an AMD Radeon R9 M290X with 2GB video memory, even by offering a slightly more modern motherboard.
Then be surprised. Have you not read about the timing controller Apple custom built for the iMac5k? All the memory in the word isn't going to change the fact that the the thunderbolt 2 port can't handle the bandwidth for 5K. Supposedly the Dell 5K monitor can use two thunderbolt 2 ports and run 5K on a MacPro. I'm not sure what refresh rate the Dell will do and I have yet to see any comments from someone that has actually done it.
Then be surprised. Have you not read about the timing controller Apple custom built for the iMac5k? All the memory in the word isn't going to change the fact that the the thunderbolt 2 port can't handle the bandwidth for 5K. Supposedly the Dell 5K monitor can use two thunderbolt 2 ports and run 5K on a MacPro. I'm not sure what refresh rate the Dell will do and I have yet to see any comments from someone that has actually done it.
Ah, yes, that's what he meant. I'm stupid, my apologies ^^
Note that the 5K sizing is missing from the chart. Seems pretty obvious to me that this press release is really old (i.e., predates the release of the iMac 5k). I'd bet that Apple originally planned on doing an iMac8K and then switched to iMac5k. Most likely because 8k just increased the cost without any benefit. I have the iMac5k and don't see any need for an 8k monitor unless it is bigger.
Completely different purposes.
An 8K retina display Mac is immediately useful, whereas it is doubtful 8K displays will ever be a consumer format before the end of the decade, let alone a realistic format for video capture any time soon.
Wonderful news - I was tired of reading irrelevant stuff about the fabled AWatch. Bring on the new Macs, Apple.
I have a 5k and it is more than enough.... It is stunning in fact. This sounds like noise.
Yes. 640KB of RAM is enough too
It looks like 8K will need Displayport 1.4:
Which means people would have to wait for Thunderbolt to catch up again in order to use 8K external monitors, if Apple is still using Thunderbolt by that time.
I bet it'll be a 10K iMac later this year, designed to create 8K output? Or would a 9K iMac suffice?
They could have just made a 4k iMac and no one would have been able to see a difference.
16K is just around the corner! /s