It's still an incremental improvement, albeit an impressive one.
The iMac is still a desktop computer in the same form factor with the same working methods.
When Apple achieve a jump on the scale of the iPhone or iPad, they will have made a revolutionary leap. Whilst it's very impressive of Apple to cram the tech into the Apple Watch, I don't regard that as a worthwhile leap.
If you call that incrememental then we're on very different pages on what to expect from technology and Apple. In fact, you'll going to continue to be very disappointed if you call the 5K iMac a mere incremement in display technology over the previous version. Even Dell's 5K display, which costs as much as the entire 5K iMac, requires two inputs and does a split screen, which makes Apple's solution considerably more advanced… and that's just talking about 5K displays, not 5K over the previous display tech.
I am super happy with the Fusion drive in my iMac but in my old MB I installed two SSD's instead of the optical and the old HDD. I intended to create my own Fusion drive but chickened out when it seemed more complicated than I first thought - so I bought two SSD's. Do you know if it is possible to create a fusion drive using two SSD's? I'd love not have to waste time juggling files between drives.
1) Yes, as far as I know you can create a Fusion drive with anything OS X sees as a potential volume. It's pretty simple if you're fine with using Terminal: diskutil coreStorage
2) The performance issue I encountered with an SSD in the ODD space was the kit reduced the performance to an extent that it was noticeable. After I switched my SSD to the HDD space and the HDD to the ODD space my performance with Fusion was unnoticeable compared to simply having an SSD with the HDD as a separate volume.
I'm looking at a RAID5 TB2, 6-drive setup. I know WiFi enabled things are all the rage but I have my computers hardwired for speed and integrity. As for Time Capsule, I would like to know how many people actually use it for grabbing a deleted file or a previous version. I don't use it (I use SuperDuper! to sync my drive every night) so I'm asking for a show of hands. This article is a review of the iMac 5K, not Time Capsule, so people can tell me its not appropriate to highjack the article but I would like to know.
(In the 25 years I managed a large in-house system, I only had to get an old file a couple of times.)
Sure no problem about the hijack, it's completely related anyway to talk about storage options for the iMac.
I was talking about the tc, just as a means to dump things on and off, or serve an iTunes library. I 've used it as a filemaker server backup and I had it wired too. Never got a file off of it, I too like to clone with ccc, superduper etc. But in the future I will set it up as a set and forget extra option, besides some software syncing with a third party app, that I do to (what I hope are) secure cloud servers, in addition to iCloud, and backblaze for some other things. You can say I 'm backed up alright, lol.
In terms of raid, have a look at owc they offer some great custom solutions. To me this is the best raid available at the moment, taking cues from the mac pro too.
@paxman, sure you can, with any drive, I had a hybrid and ssd scenario. One can even do an sd card and hd too, but I would advice against it for a number of common sense reasons.
The issue is for video editing, a Fusion cannot sustain the initial speed. It isn't skullduggery it's just a fact. Once the system has determined the SSD cache is filled it has to relocate that data to the HD. If maintaining a maximum write is required to capture video you are going to hit a brick wall pretty quickly. I have a friend who bought an iMac and went by the initial read write figures to believe it was all he needed for HD video editing, only to learn the hard way.
That's a very specific use case that in no way shows that Fusion Drive is a gimmick that has no benefit of creating a system that is faster than HDD speeds with a capacity that is larger than an SSD for a given cost.
edit: This guy offers a solution using an external TB RAID for using video files that would exceed the size of the SSD. (It's too bad Apple doesn't offer larger SSDs just for this use case.)
The Fusion drive automatically transfers files between the hard disk and the SSD. You don’t need to do anything, the operating system decides what to put where.
When working with very large files that exceed the free space on the SSD, you may experience stuttering playback with high-resolution video. (This is one of the main reasons I recommend using an external Thunderbolt drive for media storage.)
Thunderbolt RAIDs, depending upon how they are configured, can provide faster throughput and greater storage capacity than a Fusion drive. This is especially important for multicam work.
It's only a gimmick to you because you don't understand the technology behind it. You're "only use an SSD" comment followed up by "use an external HDD" is simply foolish, and absurdly ironic. These are separate drives now. This means you have to manually place unused files or files that won't benefit from an SSD on the HDD, and vice versa. You have no idea what will or won't benefit from the increased speed of the SSD. Sure, you know some of the obvious things, but you don't know what most of them are so your productivity is hindered by your refusal to see the benefit in Fusion Drive. Which is fine, I have no issue with you not wanting to use it, but when you tell people to don't use this "gimmick" despite making them less productive and using their equipment as effectively as possible I take offense. You're doing no one any good by spreading ignorant bias as fact.
PS: Did you know that iCloud Drive requires the boot drive to work? Did you know that if you have a 256GB SSD + 3TB HDD, but pay for a 1TB iCloud Drive, that iCloud Drive will be maxed out at less than 256GB for that machine? The solution: Create a Fusion Drive where you can 1) boost your overall performance, and 2) use the fill 1TB iCloud Drive that some AI users wish to enjoy. I think @digitalclips is one of them.
I'm well aware of how a fusion drive works thank you very much. Its still a gimmick and flash storage is always better. End of story! YOU WILL NOT CONVINCE ME!
I'm well aware of how a fusion drive works thank you very much. Its still a gimmick and flash storage is always better. End of story! YOU WILL NOT CONVINCE ME!
I'm not trying to convince you to use Fusion Drive. I just want you to stop spreading FUD about a perfectly good solution.
It's still an incremental improvement, albeit an impressive one.
The iMac is still a desktop computer in the same form factor with the same working methods.
When Apple achieve a jump on the scale of the iPhone or iPad, they will have made a revolutionary leap. Whilst it's very impressive of Apple to cram the tech into the Apple Watch, I don't regard that as a worthwhile leap.
If you call that incrememental then we're on very different pages on what to expect from technology and Apple. In fact, you'll going to continue to be very disappointed if you call the 5K iMac a mere incremement in display technology over the previous version. Even Dell's 5K display, which costs as much as the entire 5K iMac, requires two inputs and does a split screen, which makes Apple's solution considerably more advanced… and that's just talking about 5K displays, not 5K over the previous display tech.
I am super happy with the Fusion drive in my iMac but in my old MB I installed two SSD's instead of the optical and the old HDD. I intended to create my own Fusion drive but chickened out when it seemed more complicated than I first thought - so I bought two SSD's. Do you know if it is possible to create a fusion drive using two SSD's? I'd love not have to waste time juggling files between drives.
1) Yes, as far as I know you can create a Fusion drive with anything OS X sees as a potential volume. It's pretty simple if you're fine with using Terminal: diskutil coreStorage
2) The performance issue I encountered with an SSD in the ODD space was the kit reduced the performance to an extent that it was noticeable. After I switched my SSD to the HDD space and the HDD to the ODD space my performance with Fusion was unnoticeable compared to simply having an SSD with the HDD as a separate volume.
I think the reason for our difference of opinion is over the definition of incremental. It doesn't necessarily mean small. It means adding to what is existing, and that can be small or big. Revolutionary would imply a new form factor, which the 5k iMac isn't.
Great machine, although I like my dead-silent Pro. (And tolerate my Dell retina display for now--4k and 24" plenty for me, but it's got light bleed and reliability issues. if Apple made a display just like this Dell I'm using, I'd be happier.)
Anyone who has to ask whether to get a Pro or an iMac... get the iMac!
P.S. It's time to turn those USB and TB ports the right way up.
I think the reason for our difference of opinion is over the definition of incremental. It doesn't necessarily mean small. It means adding to what is existing, and that can be small or big. Revolutionary would imply a new form factor, which the 5k iMac isn't.
So changing the external casing is revolutionary to you, but massive internal changes are merely increments. :sigh:
1) Yes, as far as I know you can create a Fusion drive with anything OS X sees as a potential volume. It's pretty simple if you're fine with using Terminal: diskutil coreStorage
2) The performance issue I encountered with an SSD in the ODD space was the kit reduced the performance to an extent that it was noticeable. After I switched my SSD to the HDD space and the HDD to the ODD space my performance with Fusion was unnoticeable compared to simply having an SSD with the HDD as a separate volume.
Yes, I noticed a speed difference, too with the SSD in the Optical drive against the one in the HDD slot. I switched OS X around. Currently I have the Primary User folder as the secondary drive, but it is inefficient as the OS does not use all the space on the primary drive. I will set the HDD positioned SSD as disk1. My project for this weekend Thanks!
Yes, I noticed a speed difference, too with the SSD in the Optical drive against the one in the HDD slot. I switched OS X around. Currently I have the Primary User folder as the secondary drive, but it is inefficient as the OS does not use all the space on the primary drive. I will set the HDD positioned SSD as disk1. My project for this weekend Thanks!
Yeah, that was original setup when I removed the ODD and replaced it with an HDD, using the Advanced settings in System Preferences » Users for relocating the Home folder's volume location. It worked great for giving me (then) excessive internal storage with a fast boot volume, but it was still clunky with the way files are transferred between volumes.
I think you'll be fine with creating your own single volume Fusion Drive.
When I tested one I wasn't really impressed. The screen wasn't as good as the regular 27" iMac sitting next to it. Yes, the 5k portion was pretty cool, but I don't think it was on par with colors, contrast, etc with the regular 27" iMac. It would also lose its colors at certain angles, something the regular 27" iMac doesn't do. Yes, I know its an IPS 5k panel, but there was still some noticeable color shift.
I also noticed it WAS laggy, even with the most simple tasks it would sometimes stutter. There are some other video reviews that show it still stuttering (dropping frames) with the upgraded AMD graphics. I would forget about playing any kind of games on it if you want to use full res.
There's a reason why this iMac doesn't cost $4000 and thats because they didn't use the best panel they could. Something had to give to make it affordable and while the panel is good, its not great.
Bottom line, I would wait for the next revision. Perhaps panel prices will come down and they can use a better quality panel for the same price. And, maybe graphics will be better suited for 5k resolutions.
I'm very suspicious of the quality of your assessment regarding the quality of the "panel," as you put it. I don't see any awareness here on the technology you're looking at. Your phrases: " . . . they didn't use the best panel they could . . . Perhaps panel prices will come down and they can use a better quality panel for the same price."
You don't seem to acknowledge that you are looking at the first-ever oxide-backed LCD display for the mass market.at such a size and pixel density, and that there was no possibility of manufacturing such a display until this very time in the evolution of manufacturing technology, and that there is nothing comparable available at any price. And if it is an IGZO-backed display, of course off-angle shifts are going to occur at different rates and colors because of the greatly reduced interference of the transistor matrix that drives the pixels. That's the same reduction in light-blocking behind the pixels that allows the 30% reduction in backlighting energy, and allows the display to run the same heat management hardware as the previous iMac without change.
I don't have a problem with valid criticism of Apple's offerings, but you seem to be ignoring the background rationale for what you are claiming to see, and I don't even know that much about the background myself, yet I can tell there's some missing in your critique. You have to be very rigorous when you're presenting this kind of negative review. Acknowledge the technical reality. Likewise, it would also help if you backed up your assertions on "stuttering" and frame-dropping with a citation or two. If it's common knowledge, I must have missed it. Probably even in the review I just read here : )
So, can this be used as a stand-alone monitor when used with a Mac Pro? How about a scenario where I can switch between displaying my Mac Pro and the internal computer. That would be cool and allow me to use my Pro for video editing and then while its doing its thing switch back to the iMac to do normal computer stuff. Just thinking.
I've had my Retina iMac for close to three weeks now and I love it. I have the 4.0ghz i7, 32gb memory (upgraded from 8 gigs myself), 3TB Fusion Drive, and the upgraded graphics card. The display is absolutely stunning. The people who say they don't notice much of a difference between the retina iMac and older model iMac's are nuts. I agree with the review that the retina display is a pro-grade panel. The 3 TB Fusion Drive doesn't make much noise at all from what I've noticed. The fan does get pretty loud when you are gaming. I've tried Guild Wars 2, Titanfall, and WoW beta with graphic settings as high as you can go. I really won't be gaming much at all though. I was just curious to see how the retina Mac performed with graphic settings turned up. My main use for the retina iMac is photo editing and music production. So far, I've had no issues at all doing heavy editing with music and photography. Everything runs so much smoother compared to my mid 2011 iMac. Overall, the retina iMac is totally worth it, especially just for the display alone. I have a ton of 4K samples I've found online (not YouTube) and they simply look stunning.
When I tested one I wasn't really impressed. The screen wasn't as good as the regular 27" iMac sitting next to it. Yes, the 5k portion was pretty cool, but I don't think it was on par with colors, contrast, etc with the regular 27" iMac. It would also lose its colors at certain angles, something the regular 27" iMac doesn't do. Yes, I know its an IPS 5k panel, but there was still some noticeable color shift.
I also noticed it WAS laggy, even with the most simple tasks it would sometimes stutter. There are some other video reviews that show it still stuttering (dropping frames) with the upgraded AMD graphics. I would forget about playing any kind of games on it if you want to use full res.
There's a reason why this iMac doesn't cost $4000 and thats because they didn't use the best panel they could. Something had to give to make it affordable and while the panel is good, its not great.
Bottom line, I would wait for the next revision. Perhaps panel prices will come down and they can use a better quality panel for the same price. And, maybe graphics will be better suited for 5k resolutions.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
I actually bought one, unlike you who stood next to one in a store for 30 seconds. The display is unlike anything else in the world. Get better glasses if you can't see that abundantly clearly.
The "lag" you refer to is a documented BUG in Mission Control that affects only this machine and will be fixed soon.
I actually bought one, unlike you who stood next to one in a store for 30 seconds. The display is unlike anything else in the world. Get better glasses if you can't see that abundantly clearly.
The "lag" you refer to is a documented BUG in Mission Control that affects only this machine and will be fixed soon.
Yeah I only spent an hour in the store comparing the two, but never mind that. I'm sorry you wasted your money on a sub-par panel. *shurgs*
Now if you want to read a real review of the retina iMac, hop over to ArsTechnica, where they actually tested the iMac. This review is nothing but turning it on and saying it looks pretty....they fail to mention a few limitations that might be important to some users. The retina iMac does not support Target Display Mode, and it cannot drive external 4K displays, even though it has the power to run an internal 5K display. The limitation is the DisplayPort 1.2 standard. Apple created a special controller for the retina iMac's internal display, but the external DisplayPort is still at 1.2. External displays are only standard resolutions. The review should have noted this, as it may be important for some. Ars also did an initial review where they put the GPU to the test, and it is a good read. Sure it is a good iMac, but some might want to wait for a second-generation model with DisplayPort 1.3.
I love the people that don't own one who insist on criticizing it.
This is the best single display panel in the world.
Get over it. You're jealous. We understand.
I've been jealous of the Retina MBP's for over 2 years now.
I can't stand the so called store reviewers. I agree. The display is the best thing I've ever seen. I'll sit down for a while and download all these 5k wallpapers and use them just to see how they look. I've ran out of adjectives to describe this display.
Comments
If you call that incrememental then we're on very different pages on what to expect from technology and Apple. In fact, you'll going to continue to be very disappointed if you call the 5K iMac a mere incremement in display technology over the previous version. Even Dell's 5K display, which costs as much as the entire 5K iMac, requires two inputs and does a split screen, which makes Apple's solution considerably more advanced… and that's just talking about 5K displays, not 5K over the previous display tech.
1) Yes, as far as I know you can create a Fusion drive with anything OS X sees as a potential volume. It's pretty simple if you're fine with using Terminal: diskutil coreStorage
2) The performance issue I encountered with an SSD in the ODD space was the kit reduced the performance to an extent that it was noticeable. After I switched my SSD to the HDD space and the HDD to the ODD space my performance with Fusion was unnoticeable compared to simply having an SSD with the HDD as a separate volume.
I'm looking at a RAID5 TB2, 6-drive setup. I know WiFi enabled things are all the rage but I have my computers hardwired for speed and integrity. As for Time Capsule, I would like to know how many people actually use it for grabbing a deleted file or a previous version. I don't use it (I use SuperDuper! to sync my drive every night) so I'm asking for a show of hands. This article is a review of the iMac 5K, not Time Capsule, so people can tell me its not appropriate to highjack the article but I would like to know.
(In the 25 years I managed a large in-house system, I only had to get an old file a couple of times.)
Sure no problem about the hijack, it's completely related anyway to talk about storage options for the iMac.
I was talking about the tc, just as a means to dump things on and off, or serve an iTunes library. I 've used it as a filemaker server backup and I had it wired too. Never got a file off of it, I too like to clone with ccc, superduper etc. But in the future I will set it up as a set and forget extra option, besides some software syncing with a third party app, that I do to (what I hope are) secure cloud servers, in addition to iCloud, and backblaze for some other things. You can say I 'm backed up alright, lol.
In terms of raid, have a look at owc they offer some great custom solutions. To me this is the best raid available at the moment, taking cues from the mac pro too.
http://www.g-technology.com/products/g-speed-studio
@paxman, sure you can, with any drive, I had a hybrid and ssd scenario. One can even do an sd card and hd too, but I would advice against it for a number of common sense reasons.
That's a very specific use case that in no way shows that Fusion Drive is a gimmick that has no benefit of creating a system that is faster than HDD speeds with a capacity that is larger than an SSD for a given cost.
edit: This guy offers a solution using an external TB RAID for using video files that would exceed the size of the SSD. (It's too bad Apple doesn't offer larger SSDs just for this use case.)
It's only a gimmick to you because you don't understand the technology behind it. You're "only use an SSD" comment followed up by "use an external HDD" is simply foolish, and absurdly ironic. These are separate drives now. This means you have to manually place unused files or files that won't benefit from an SSD on the HDD, and vice versa. You have no idea what will or won't benefit from the increased speed of the SSD. Sure, you know some of the obvious things, but you don't know what most of them are so your productivity is hindered by your refusal to see the benefit in Fusion Drive. Which is fine, I have no issue with you not wanting to use it, but when you tell people to don't use this "gimmick" despite making them less productive and using their equipment as effectively as possible I take offense. You're doing no one any good by spreading ignorant bias as fact.
PS: Did you know that iCloud Drive requires the boot drive to work? Did you know that if you have a 256GB SSD + 3TB HDD, but pay for a 1TB iCloud Drive, that iCloud Drive will be maxed out at less than 256GB for that machine? The solution: Create a Fusion Drive where you can 1) boost your overall performance, and 2) use the fill 1TB iCloud Drive that some AI users wish to enjoy. I think @digitalclips is one of them.
I'm well aware of how a fusion drive works thank you very much. Its still a gimmick and flash storage is always better. End of story! YOU WILL NOT CONVINCE ME!
I'm not trying to convince you to use Fusion Drive. I just want you to stop spreading FUD about a perfectly good solution.
I think the reason for our difference of opinion is over the definition of incremental. It doesn't necessarily mean small. It means adding to what is existing, and that can be small or big. Revolutionary would imply a new form factor, which the 5k iMac isn't.
Anyone who has to ask whether to get a Pro or an iMac... get the iMac!
P.S. It's time to turn those USB and TB ports the right way up.
So changing the external casing is revolutionary to you, but massive internal changes are merely increments. :sigh:
1) Yes, as far as I know you can create a Fusion drive with anything OS X sees as a potential volume. It's pretty simple if you're fine with using Terminal: diskutil coreStorage
2) The performance issue I encountered with an SSD in the ODD space was the kit reduced the performance to an extent that it was noticeable. After I switched my SSD to the HDD space and the HDD to the ODD space my performance with Fusion was unnoticeable compared to simply having an SSD with the HDD as a separate volume.
Yes, I noticed a speed difference, too with the SSD in the Optical drive against the one in the HDD slot. I switched OS X around. Currently I have the Primary User folder as the secondary drive, but it is inefficient as the OS does not use all the space on the primary drive. I will set the HDD positioned SSD as disk1. My project for this weekend
Thanks!
Yeah, that was original setup when I removed the ODD and replaced it with an HDD, using the Advanced settings in System Preferences » Users for relocating the Home folder's volume location. It worked great for giving me (then) excessive internal storage with a fast boot volume, but it was still clunky with the way files are transferred between volumes.
I think you'll be fine with creating your own single volume Fusion Drive.
I'm very suspicious of the quality of your assessment regarding the quality of the "panel," as you put it. I don't see any awareness here on the technology you're looking at. Your phrases: " . . . they didn't use the best panel they could . . . Perhaps panel prices will come down and they can use a better quality panel for the same price."
You don't seem to acknowledge that you are looking at the first-ever oxide-backed LCD display for the mass market.at such a size and pixel density, and that there was no possibility of manufacturing such a display until this very time in the evolution of manufacturing technology, and that there is nothing comparable available at any price. And if it is an IGZO-backed display, of course off-angle shifts are going to occur at different rates and colors because of the greatly reduced interference of the transistor matrix that drives the pixels. That's the same reduction in light-blocking behind the pixels that allows the 30% reduction in backlighting energy, and allows the display to run the same heat management hardware as the previous iMac without change.
I don't have a problem with valid criticism of Apple's offerings, but you seem to be ignoring the background rationale for what you are claiming to see, and I don't even know that much about the background myself, yet I can tell there's some missing in your critique. You have to be very rigorous when you're presenting this kind of negative review. Acknowledge the technical reality. Likewise, it would also help if you backed up your assertions on "stuttering" and frame-dropping with a citation or two. If it's common knowledge, I must have missed it. Probably even in the review I just read here : )
So, can this be used as a stand-alone monitor when used with a Mac Pro? How about a scenario where I can switch between displaying my Mac Pro and the internal computer. That would be cool and allow me to use my Pro for video editing and then while its doing its thing switch back to the iMac to do normal computer stuff. Just thinking.
I've had my Retina iMac for close to three weeks now and I love it. I have the 4.0ghz i7, 32gb memory (upgraded from 8 gigs myself), 3TB Fusion Drive, and the upgraded graphics card. The display is absolutely stunning. The people who say they don't notice much of a difference between the retina iMac and older model iMac's are nuts. I agree with the review that the retina display is a pro-grade panel. The 3 TB Fusion Drive doesn't make much noise at all from what I've noticed. The fan does get pretty loud when you are gaming. I've tried Guild Wars 2, Titanfall, and WoW beta with graphic settings as high as you can go. I really won't be gaming much at all though. I was just curious to see how the retina Mac performed with graphic settings turned up. My main use for the retina iMac is photo editing and music production. So far, I've had no issues at all doing heavy editing with music and photography. Everything runs so much smoother compared to my mid 2011 iMac. Overall, the retina iMac is totally worth it, especially just for the display alone. I have a ton of 4K samples I've found online (not YouTube) and they simply look stunning.
Thunderbolt 2 doesn’t have enough bandwidth.
When I tested one I wasn't really impressed. The screen wasn't as good as the regular 27" iMac sitting next to it. Yes, the 5k portion was pretty cool, but I don't think it was on par with colors, contrast, etc with the regular 27" iMac. It would also lose its colors at certain angles, something the regular 27" iMac doesn't do. Yes, I know its an IPS 5k panel, but there was still some noticeable color shift.
I also noticed it WAS laggy, even with the most simple tasks it would sometimes stutter. There are some other video reviews that show it still stuttering (dropping frames) with the upgraded AMD graphics. I would forget about playing any kind of games on it if you want to use full res.
There's a reason why this iMac doesn't cost $4000 and thats because they didn't use the best panel they could. Something had to give to make it affordable and while the panel is good, its not great.
Bottom line, I would wait for the next revision. Perhaps panel prices will come down and they can use a better quality panel for the same price. And, maybe graphics will be better suited for 5k resolutions.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
I actually bought one, unlike you who stood next to one in a store for 30 seconds. The display is unlike anything else in the world. Get better glasses if you can't see that abundantly clearly.
The "lag" you refer to is a documented BUG in Mission Control that affects only this machine and will be fixed soon.
I love the people that don't own one who insist on criticizing it.
This is the best single display panel in the world.
Get over it. You're jealous. We understand.
I've been jealous of the Retina MBP's for over 2 years now.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
I actually bought one, unlike you who stood next to one in a store for 30 seconds. The display is unlike anything else in the world. Get better glasses if you can't see that abundantly clearly.
The "lag" you refer to is a documented BUG in Mission Control that affects only this machine and will be fixed soon.
Yeah I only spent an hour in the store comparing the two, but never mind that. I'm sorry you wasted your money on a sub-par panel. *shurgs*
I love the people that don't own one who insist on criticizing it.
This is the best single display panel in the world.
Get over it. You're jealous. We understand.
I've been jealous of the Retina MBP's for over 2 years now.
Get over it, you're a fanboy who can't take Apple criticism. We understand... Were all jealous of your sub-par 5k panel.
Now if you want to read a real review of the retina iMac, hop over to ArsTechnica, where they actually tested the iMac. This review is nothing but turning it on and saying it looks pretty....they fail to mention a few limitations that might be important to some users. The retina iMac does not support Target Display Mode, and it cannot drive external 4K displays, even though it has the power to run an internal 5K display. The limitation is the DisplayPort 1.2 standard. Apple created a special controller for the retina iMac's internal display, but the external DisplayPort is still at 1.2. External displays are only standard resolutions. The review should have noted this, as it may be important for some. Ars also did an initial review where they put the GPU to the test, and it is a good read. Sure it is a good iMac, but some might want to wait for a second-generation model with DisplayPort 1.3.
I love the people that don't own one who insist on criticizing it.
This is the best single display panel in the world.
Get over it. You're jealous. We understand.
I've been jealous of the Retina MBP's for over 2 years now.
I can't stand the so called store reviewers. I agree. The display is the best thing I've ever seen. I'll sit down for a while and download all these 5k wallpapers and use them just to see how they look. I've ran out of adjectives to describe this display.