Rumor: Apple could launch new 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display this fall

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited September 2014
The next Mac to receive a high-resolution Retina display could be the all-in-one desktop iMac, according to a new report, which alleges that Apple is planning to have a new 27-inch model sporting a 5K display released in the fourth quarter of 2014.

iMac


The details come from LCD researcher WitsView, which was cited by Taiwanese tech industry publication DigiTimes, which has a poor track record in Apple-related rumors, but typically with regard to its own sources. In this case, the sources are apparently those of WitsView, which expects to see a 5K Apple iMac launching by the end of the year.

Additional details about Apple's alleged iMac with Retina display were not revealed. The Friday report suggested that Apple's iMac would join a number of other "Ultra HD" panels set to arrive before the end of the year.

If Apple does launch a 5K iMac, it may not be cheap: The report said the average price of a 28-inch Ultra HD monitor was $630 in August. Apple currently uses a slightly smaller panel size of 27 inches for its larger iMac, while the base desktop sports a 21.5-inch display.

Signs of a potential Retina display iMac were first spotted in June in Apple's beta release of OS X 10.10 Yosemite. A string of code in the unreleased operating system pointed to scaled display resolutions reaching up to 6,400-by,3,600 pixels, which could be scaled down for a Retina-caliber panel.

Rumors of an iMac with Retina display have been around for years, but as of yet the only Macs with high-resolution panels are the company's MacBook Pro lineup. The company is also rumored to be working on a redesigned 12-inch MacBook Air with Retina display.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 104

    Makes sense. 5120x2880 iMac, here we come.

  • Reply 2 of 104
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member
    I read that it may actually be a true 4K monitor, which makes more sense. Unless there's a newer Displayport standard beyond the present 1.2, it can't handle more than 4096. We would need to use two ports for this, which is clumsy, and not what Apple would normally do.
  • Reply 3 of 104
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post

    I read that it may actually be a true 4K monitor, which makes more sense.



    Why does that make sense? Heck, 16:9 doesn’t make sense. A resolution above 4K allows for the UI to be shown on the same screen as a full size video. Great boon for editing.

     

    Unless there's a newer Displayport standard beyond the present 1.2, it can't handle more than 4096. We would need to use two ports for this, which is clumsy, and not what Apple would normally do.


     

    Yeah, but… Thunderbolt.

  • Reply 4 of 104
    If anything they will launch a stand alone monitor for use with the Mac Pro and the new, yet unreleased, Mac Mini.

    Can't see any way they can get that kind of monitor into a $2K iMac without losing money.
  • Reply 5 of 104
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    I read that it may actually be a true 4K monitor, which makes more sense. Unless there's a newer Displayport standard beyond the present 1.2, it can't handle more than 4096. We would need to use two ports for this, which is clumsy, and not what Apple would normally do.

    iMac?  ports?

     

    I agree that the 'trickledown' of this to the Mac Mini may lead to a problem of dual porting, but an 'all-in-1' solution, with advanced Thunderbolt (3?) or dual TB2 ports for a 2nd monitor is an outlier market. 

     

    If you need more than 2 monitors, UHD and size (given the total 'field' of vision) is adequate.  If you need 4 4K or multiple 5Ks, you are definitely in a small niche of users that "should" be addressed with future (likely way way in the future) Mac Pros.

  • Reply 6 of 104
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member

    Why does that make sense? Heck, 16:9 doesn’t make sense. A resolution above 4K allows for the UI to be shown on the same screen as a full size video. Great boon for editing.

    Yeah, but… Thunderbolt.

    I told you why. Thunderbolt? Well, maybe, but that does cost transmission time. Remember that while Apple has 6 thunderbolt ports, there is only 3 true thunderbolt chips. So only 3 independent Thunderbolt lanes. This would take quite a chunk out of that. So while it could happen, I'm not so sure Apple would want to go that route. And what would be the purpose of such a resolution? Dell just came out with one. But there are no panels for this resolution.. Dell was forced to use two panels, and put them together, which REQUIRES two Displayport connections. No way that I know of to link two panels together into one port, Thunderbolt or not.
  • Reply 7 of 104
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by schlack View Post



    If anything they will launch a stand alone monitor for use with the Mac Pro and the new, yet unreleased, Mac Mini.

     

    I'm not so sure about that.

     

    Apple sure hasn't been in any rush to release their own stand alone monitor lately. When was it last updated again?

     

    Personally, I'm liking a few of the 21:9 displays that I've been reading about from a few different manufacturers. Those seem pretty cool.

  • Reply 8 of 104
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member
    iMac?  ports?

    I agree that the 'trickledown' of this to the Mac Mini may lead to a problem of dual porting, but an 'all-in-1' solution, with advanced Thunderbolt (3?) or dual TB2 ports for a 2nd monitor is an outlier market. 

    If you need more than 2 monitors, UHD and size (given the total 'field' of vision) is adequate.  If you need 4 4K or multiple 5Ks, you are definitely in a small niche of users that "should" be addressed with future (likely way way in the future) Mac Pros.

    Yeah. I just don't see it. I would rather Apple finally came out with a monitor with a high quality display, instead of the sRGB models they've had for so many years. Their displays are poor for video or photo editing, or even publishing. Just not enough color gamut. So we have to go to Ezio or NEC for monitors. It's a shame.
  • Reply 9 of 104
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post

    And what would be the purpose of such a resolution?

     

    I told you why! :p Full size 4K video plus UI on the same screen.

     

    Dell just came out with one. But there are no panels for this resolution.


     

    Well, boys, that tears it. 2048x1536 panels at 9.7” don’t exist. I guess Apple can’t make a retina iPad! ;) 

  • Reply 10 of 104

    This rumor pleases me.

  • Reply 11 of 104
    We've been hearing about retina iMacs for at least a year now. Can we please stop talking about unicorns?
  • Reply 12 of 104
    Originally Posted by woodycurmudgeon View Post

    We've been hearing about retina iMacs for at least a year now. Can we please stop talking about unicorns?



    Not when there’s a company actively working to breed them, no.

  • Reply 13 of 104
    I am not interested, i want a Mac Pro machine.
    … Then i will save for a 4K.
  • Reply 14 of 104

    Hopefully this rumor turns into reality. This is what I've been waiting for to upgrade my iMac. 

  • Reply 15 of 104
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    5K sounds like a gimmick on 27" displays. The human eye can hardly see a difference between 720p/1080p/4k/5k on a monitor that small.

    I'll give it a spin if the rumor is true but right now this makes no sense and reminds me of spec-bragging that Sony/Samsung throw at people, they look good on paper but don't translate in real life.
  • Reply 16 of 104
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,304member
    ochyming wrote: »
    I am not interested, i want a Mac Pro machine.
    … Then i will save for a 4K.

    If video editing, definitely the right choice.
  • Reply 17 of 104
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cali View Post



    The human eye can hardly see a difference between 720p/1080p/4k on a monitor that small.

     

    I'm sorry, but that's complete BS.

     

    I'm not a robot or an alien, I have human eyes, and I can clearly see the difference, especially on a monitor that is meant to be close to you. It's not like people are going to use a 27" monitor 6' away from them.

  • Reply 18 of 104
    Before even considering whether this could be true, I would be curious to know what the current yield is for screens with those specs?
  • Reply 19 of 104
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    Makes sense. 5120x2880 iMac, here we come.


     

    Now that's news worth following; not that butt-**** ugly AppleWatch.

  • Reply 20 of 104
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    I read that it may actually be a true 4K monitor, which makes more sense. Unless there's a newer Displayport standard beyond the present 1.2, it can't handle more than 4096. We would need to use two ports for this, which is clumsy, and not what Apple would normally do.

     

    Worry not; now that SJ is gone, "clumsy" is the new black for Apple.

Sign In or Register to comment.