or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's OS X 10.10 Yosemite beta hints at Retina display iMacs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's OS X 10.10 Yosemite beta hints at Retina display iMacs - Page 2

post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.

Well we have neither.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #42 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.

 

Of course they "can" make a retina 17" laptop. The question is should they, and will they? The answers are no and no, as they should be. That product does not deserve to exist. The addressable market is tiny. I don't know who the hell the 17" would be for. It's barely portable. If you really need more screen than the 15" retina, then just get an iMac. a 17" is the worst of both worlds. Which is why you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, and barely see anyone making them. 

post #43 of 78

Could someone detail the value of an iMac pushing 6400 pixels over the standard 4K rez?

 

Because aside from inflating the cost of the GPU needed, I'm not sure I see the point.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundaboutNow View Post
 

 

I could not put up with the niggles you described, but very nice of you to post the results of your experiment. Thanks! :) 

Yeah, it's really the same kind of niggles you'd get on any multi-monitor Mac setup. 

 

I remember when Mavericks came out they were crowing about all the improvements they'd made to multi-monitor support. But the first time I go to use it, they haven't even implemented the naive/obvious multi-monitor mode, which is to just ignore all boundaries and treat all monitors as one big canvas. That is, with a menu bar across the top of the whole canvas, and a Dock centred on the whole canvas, and full screen apps that fill the whole canvas.  That kind of mode would be perfect for this application. I think Ubuntu can do that.

post #45 of 78

I've tried a 4K monitor in retina mode and it's not a good experience. The effective resolution is only 1920x1080. 4K video looks great but it's a step down in terms of usable desktop space.

 

6.5K will be much better. :)

post #46 of 78

I don't see the interest in such an iMac model. It will be very expensive, well into the Mac Pro territory, and then what? You will have to throw away after 3-5 years maximum the machine together with a perfect 4K (or more) display? Or try to sell it? It will still be expensive because of the display while the rest of the computer will be obsolete. No matter how you look at it, it does not make sense today for an all-in-one computer.

post #47 of 78
That may mean a redesign too. I don't like the look of current iMacs. I don't like that round back and false thinness. I want to buy one new one in 2015 so hopefully !
post #48 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

That may mean a redesign too.

 

I am afraid that it is way too early for this kind of change. Let's not forget that the current iMac design is not even two years old and for many months Apple had trouble to get out enough machines to meet demand.

post #49 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post
 

 

I am afraid that it is way too early for this kind of change. Let's not forget that the current iMac design is not even two years old and for many months Apple had trouble to get out enough machines to meet demand.

And also with a resolution that high you would want the GPU to have lots of cooling headroom, so the round back will probably remain. Though, there is often clever unexpected ways to do cooling. And if it loses the hard-drive and goes pure SSD, well maybe they could make it even thinner?

post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post
 

 

I am afraid that it is way too early for this kind of change. Let's not forget that the current iMac design is not even two years old and for many months Apple had trouble to get out enough machines to meet demand.


Yes, but the 2007 iMac I own had a design used for one year only if I'm not mistaken (maybe 2 maximum) and then they went edge-to-edge glass.

I actually prefer squared iMacs. So something thinner but not rounded on the back. I doubt they'll do it however knowing that they can't do thinner than currently while making is squared. I would love a less rounded back though.

post #51 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



Well no one knows yet, but this is Apple we're talking about.

 



Actually we DO know.
The original link says that the file specifically mentions iMacs.
post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 

And also with a resolution that high you would want the GPU to have lots of cooling headroom, so the round back will probably remain. Though, there is often clever unexpected ways to do cooling. And if it loses the hard-drive and goes pure SSD, well maybe they could make it even thinner?


Yes, there is indeed this issue. Not sure what kind of GPU would be needed to push so many pixels at acceptable frame rates. The iMac has mobile GPU, which would be perhaps sufficient for general use, but what about games? Apple, and any other company for that matter,  likes to show increased performance when updating a computer system.

 

On the other hand, many photo/video professionals use iMacs when they cannot afford or justify the expense for a Mac Pro. So, would not it be more reasonable to expect an iMac model with a 10-bit color display and unchanged resolution instead of a 4K one? For example I saw recently that LG has a very nice pivoting monitor of this kind at about 650 euros (retail price, 27" model). The standalone Apple display is much more expensive (1000 euros), more heavy and it has 8-bit color.

post #53 of 78
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
Could someone detail the value of an iMac pushing 6400 pixels over the standard 4K rez?

 

Because aside from inflating the cost of the GPU needed, I'm not sure I see the point.


Retina display. Better UX.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #54 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Could someone detail the value of an iMac pushing 6400 pixels over the standard 4K rez?

Because aside from inflating the cost of the GPU needed, I'm not sure I see the point.

Note that every single display that has gone Retina has doubled the resolution/quadrupled the number of pixels. For the 27" iMac to go 4K UHD that would be exactly 1.5x, not 2x. That means they would have to incorporate some other sort of scaling. Perhaps they want to keep the UI elements the same relative pixel height without using a default mode that negatively affects performance, as noted by using the non-Best options.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #55 of 78
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Note that every single display that has gone Retina has doubled the resolution/quadrupled the number of pixels.

 

Of course, 6400x3600 is completely wrong, too.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #56 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Of course, 6400x3600 is completely wrong, too.

Unless we're talking about a larger display. If we cut the resolution in half we get 3200×1800.

Now if we take the 27" iMac is 2560×1440 we get a 108.79 PPI. To equal that PPI with a 3200×1800 resolution it would be a 33.75" display, but that has some leeway while still offering text that is in the same ballpark as the current iMac and ATD displays.

So is this a sign that Apple will be increasing the size?
Edited by SolipsismX - 6/5/14 at 10:32am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #57 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So is this a sign that Apple will be increasing the size?

 

If Apple is really going to increase the resolution, then I believe that a larger display (> 30") for the iMac is quite probable.

post #58 of 78
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
If we cut the resolution in half we get 3200×1800.

 

Which is still wrong, though. 2560x1440 doubled is 5120x2880. 1920x1080 doubled is 3840x2160.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #59 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Which is still wrong, though. 2560x1440 doubled is 5120x2880. 1920x1080 doubled is 3840x2160.

I made no mistake in my calculations. The reason why Apple doubles the resolution for Retina is so objects can sharper without altering their size. My calculations show that to keep everything at the exact same size the display would be 33.75" for the stated resolution. IOW, the Menu Bar between a 27" iMac and a 33.75" Retina iMac would be exactly the same height.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #60 of 78
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
The reason why Apple doubles the resolution for Retina is so objects can sharper without altering their size. My calculations show that to keep everything at the exact same size the display would be 33.75" for the stated resolution.

 

Seems strange that every time they’ve 2x’d resolution so far the physical display size remains the same, but here it doesn’t…

 

Okay, Yosemite is BLURRING text when it changes, and my Menu Bar is constantly blurry. This is seriously hurting my eyes…

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #61 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Seems strange that every time they’ve 2x’d resolution so far the physical display size remains the same, but here it doesn’t…

Okay, Yosemite is BLURRING text when it changes, and my Menu Bar is constantly blurry. This is seriously hurting my eyes…

But every time they've doubled the resolution and the evidence here they are going above it. My calculations are showing what the the display would be for objects to be the same size on both systems.

So we either have the 27" iMac going from about 109 PPI to a relative 135.98 PPI, which I think is a big difference, or we have Apple going with a larger display. I think the latter is more likely.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
 

Of course they "can" make a retina 17" laptop. The question is should they, and will they? The answers are no and no, as they should be. That product does not deserve to exist. The addressable market is tiny. I don't know who the hell the 17" would be for. It's barely portable. If you really need more screen than the 15" retina, then just get an iMac. a 17" is the worst of both worlds. Which is why you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, and barely see anyone making them. 

 

I don't want to get it yet ANOTHER debate over whether or not there's any benefit to the 17", but the fact that the larger screen is not useful to your activities is not a reason to disparage those of us who prefer it. Perhaps if you spent a day doing what I do you would see why there's benefit for ME, even if there may not be for you.

 

I'm not even going to get into the issue of whether or not Apple should make one. I'm simply pointing out that one extreme is no more absurd than the other. There's no way in hell I could be sufficiently productive with an 11" Air, but you don't see me insulting those whose needs it satisfies.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #63 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Of course, 6400x3600 is completely wrong, too.

 

Help me out here... is the article suggesting that the SCREEN resolution will 6400x3600, or that UI elements will be produced in that size and scaled 50% for display on a screen resolution of 3200x1800? I thought the latter.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #64 of 78
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

Help me out here... is the article suggesting that the SCREEN resolution will 6400x3600, or that UI elements will be produced in that size and scaled 50% for display on a screen resolution of 3200x1800? I thought the latter.

 

6400x3600 proper pixels, rendered as 3200x1800, like other retina panels are.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #65 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

I don't want to get it yet ANOTHER debate over whether or not there's any benefit to the 17", but the fact that the larger screen is not useful to your activities is not a reason to disparage those of us who prefer it. Perhaps if you spent a day doing what I do you would see why there's benefit for ME, even if there may not be for you.

I'm not even going to get into the issue of whether or not Apple should make one. I'm simply pointing out that one extreme is no more absurd than the other. There's no way in hell I could be sufficiently productive with an 11" Air, but you don't see me insulting those whose needs it satisfies.

I agree with @Slurpy's first sentence, but not the rest. They should make the 17" MBP again if they want to and we don't know if they will. My suspicion is they won't but I have to think they probably sell the various desktop Macs in the same ballpark of the 17" MBP, but even if they didn't the question is still "would they sell enough to warrant the effort and cost in producing one?" I don't anyone thinks it would be as profitable as their other Mac notebooks but I think they would probably sell enough to be net gain.

Personally, I hope it returns as I see way it would negatively affect my goals with Apple but the 17" users need to consider why Apple would get rid of that size if it was such an important product to have.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #66 of 78

One thing though, this pretty well confirms that we won't see new iMacs until Yosemite releases in the Fall.

 

Fall begins on Sept 23, so we're probably looking at a post-iPhone 6 October event.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #67 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

If they can make a retina iMac, then they can make a retina 17" laptop.

 

Of course they "can" make a retina 17" laptop. The question is should they, and will they? The answers are no and no, as they should be. That product does not deserve to exist. The addressable market is tiny. I don't know who the hell the 17" would be for. It's barely portable. If you really need more screen than the 15" retina, then just get an iMac. a 17" is the worst of both worlds. Which is why you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, and barely see anyone making them. 

 

 

That's a truly blinkered post. 

 

Many pros would find a 17" retina laptop invaluable. Apple could easily produce one now that is substantially lighter than their last 17" laptop. Suggesting a desktop as a substitute for a laptop is an incredibly crass thing to do. If you barely see anyone with a 17" laptop, that might just be because Apple doesn't make them and hasn't for some while.

 

Your posts are usually spot on, of course, but we can all write duds from time to time. I forgive you for it.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #68 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Which is still wrong, though. 2560x1440 doubled is 5120x2880. 1920x1080 doubled is 3840x2160.

I made no mistake in my calculations. The reason why Apple doubles the resolution for Retina is so objects can sharper without altering their size. My calculations show that to keep everything at the exact same size the display would be 33.75" for the stated resolution. IOW, the Menu Bar between a 27" iMac and a 33.75" Retina iMac would be exactly the same height.

 

 

Quite. Which is why I suggested a 34" display in my earlier posts on another thread.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

I don't want to get it yet ANOTHER debate over whether or not there's any benefit to the 17", but the fact that the larger screen is not useful to your activities is not a reason to disparage those of us who prefer it. Perhaps if you spent a day doing what I do you would see why there's benefit for ME, even if there may not be for you.

I'm not even going to get into the issue of whether or not Apple should make one. I'm simply pointing out that one extreme is no more absurd than the other. There's no way in hell I could be sufficiently productive with an 11" Air, but you don't see me insulting those whose needs it satisfies.

I agree with @Slurpy's first sentence, but not the rest. They should make the 17" MBP again if they want to and we don't know if they will. My suspicion is they won't but I have to think they probably sell the various desktop Macs in the same ballpark of the 17" MBP, but even if they didn't the question is still "would they sell enough to warrant the effort and cost in producing one?" I don't anyone thinks it would be as profitable as their other Mac notebooks but I think they would probably sell enough to be net gain.

Personally, I hope it returns as I see way it would negatively affect my goals with Apple but the 17" users need to consider why Apple would get rid of that size if it was such an important product to have.

 

 

I suspect it was just too heavy in its previous incarnation. Apple should get it much lighter now.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Yeah, it's really the same kind of niggles you'd get on any multi-monitor Mac setup. 

I remember when Mavericks came out they were crowing about all the improvements they'd made to multi-monitor support. But the first time I go to use it, they haven't even implemented the naive/obvious multi-monitor mode, which is to just ignore all boundaries and treat all monitors as one big canvas. That is, with a menu bar across the top of the whole canvas, and a Dock centred on the whole canvas, and full screen apps that fill the whole canvas.  That kind of mode would be perfect for this application. I think Ubuntu can do that.

You really want a big blank bar across the middle of your screen content, both vertically and horizontally, where there's display bezel and no pixels?

I don't.
post #71 of 78

Bringing back the 17" in slimmer form would be trés cool for DTPers, movie-editors and photographers.

 

But Apple's probably going to say that TB docking the 15" to a 27" display eliminates the need.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

Help me out here... is the article suggesting that the SCREEN resolution will 6400x3600, or that UI elements will be produced in that size and scaled 50% for display on a screen resolution of 3200x1800? I thought the latter.

 

6400x3600 proper pixels, rendered as 3200x1800, like other retina panels are.

 

I apparently don't understand how Retina works (which as you know, isn't AT ALL surprising! :lol:)

 

So the number of actual, physical pixels on the screen is 3200x1800, or does the physical screen actually have 6400x3600 pixels?

 

If the former, what is the load on a graphics chip? Is it pushing 6400x3600 pixels or 3200x1800?


Edited by Lorin Schultz - 6/5/14 at 4:55pm

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
17" users need to consider why Apple would get rid of that size if it was such an important product to have.

 

I promised myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further...

 

I completely understand your point. What I wonder is if Apple's choice to axe the 17" was similar to GM closing plants the 90's. Certain GM plants, while profitable, were not profitable ENOUGH so they closed them. I don't have sufficient understanding of how a business of that scale works to get my head around the perceived "upside" to such a decision. I don't see how building a 17" computer would interfere with also building more profitable products like iPhones etc.

 

The only benefit to Apple that I can come up with is making the bottom line look better to shareholders by getting rid of things that drag down the aggregate score. Maybe that's a good enough reason on its own.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #74 of 78
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

So the number of actual, physical pixels on the screen is 3200x1800, or does the physical screen actually have 6400x3600 pixels?

 

64 physical pixels, displaying on the screen as though it's 32.

 

For example, the MacBook Pro is 2880x1800, but it appears as though it’s still 1440x900 (like the pre-retina), because where there was one physical pixel before, there are now four.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #75 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 

Yeah, it's really the same kind of niggles you'd get on any multi-monitor Mac setup. 

 

I remember when Mavericks came out they were crowing about all the improvements they'd made to multi-monitor support. But the first time I go to use it, they haven't even implemented the naive/obvious multi-monitor mode, which is to just ignore all boundaries and treat all monitors as one big canvas. That is, with a menu bar across the top of the whole canvas, and a Dock centred on the whole canvas, and full screen apps that fill the whole canvas.  That kind of mode would be perfect for this application. I think Ubuntu can do that.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post


You really want a big blank bar across the middle of your screen content, both vertically and horizontally, where there's display bezel and no pixels?

I don't.

 

There are some situations where a single menu bar stretched across two or more monitors is OK. One is where ultra-thin bezel videowall monitors are used. Also, many times there is not so much information in the middle of the menu bar so even standard width bezels would be OK.

 

I like the idea that going full-screen on any app would fill all of the monitors with that one app.

 

The videowall application is way more important in my line of work. In this case, I'm not interested in having the menu bar shown at all. It would however be really nice to be able to address maybe a 2x2 array of monitors at each monitors' native resolution from a single MacPro that is treating the four monitors as a one big canvas (as ascii describes).

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply
post #76 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

One thing though, this pretty well confirms that we won't see new iMacs until Yosemite releases in the Fall.

Fall begins on Sept 23, so we're probably looking at a post-iPhone 6 October event.

The big hold up here is likely Intel. If Apple wants Broadwell in the iMac they need to get Intel to deliver. Having an interim driver release has never stopped Apple in the past.
post #77 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundaboutNow View Post
 

 

The Mini DisplayPort part of Thunderbolt can't do 6400 x 3600, but data to drive an external GPU could run over TB2. Maybe something like the Matrox "double head to go" or "triple head to go" could present itself as a ~6400 x 3200 monitor to the Mac, so a only a single TB2 connector on the Mac drives a multi-monitor setup. Or maybe new TB monitors will have integrated GPU, so multiple monitor setup is via daisy-chaining the monitors, again, off of a single TB connection. Theoretically, the e-GPU concept could enable even GPU challenged MacBooks to power multi-monitor rigs, couldn't it? It's fun to speculate.


pci-e 2.0 X4 less overhead sucks for any mid to high end GPU

post #78 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeB View Post


pci-e 2.0 X4 less overhead sucks for any mid to high end GPU

Yes it does for many tasks. However there is one advantage when driving very high pixel count displays and that is when the bandwidth demand to the GPU is lower than that required to drive the display. Thus an embedded GPU would permit reasonable performance over a TB2 connection. There are a lot of if ands and buts here as such a system would suck for many uses where lots of data has to transfer between the CPU and GPU.

I've stated many times before that the GPU belongs as close to the CPU as possible. For the most part that remains true. Putting a GPU in the monitor would get around the bandwidth issues associated with TB2, but it would still suck for any advanced GPU usage.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's OS X 10.10 Yosemite beta hints at Retina display iMacs