iMac 5k

[DexterPunk]

Maybe I'm just trying to convince myself that my fairly new (now old) iMac is still what I'd prefer... Although, I can't afford to buy a new iMac right now even if I wanted the new one anyway. But I'm somewhat struggling to see the point of a 5k screen. I can see a point in using super high resolution screens for mobile devices, as you stair at them right up near your face. A computer screen, you're generally sitting a few feet away. I actually think there's a massive difference between 1080p, and something like the previous iMac (2560x1440).... but i'd have thought that was starting to approach the sweet spot. The only real advantage I can see would be extra desktop space. I could probably do away with my second monitor for tools... but realistically, I'd have to sit a whole lot closer to see everything properly.

What are people's thoughts?

[norbs]

Seeing guys using macro lenses to get photos of the pixel size has had me pissing myself.

It is all the inevitable march forward for tech Dex. And Apples way of saying, look at us, innovators.

[Righteous]

I think the issue, much like the first retina ipads is that the grunt required to push things around at native resolution is intense.

For a very long time, everything looks like crap on the Macbook Pros before that got retina display support. I use a lot of After Effects and Adobe Premiere and it just looked terrible.

Games would look stunning at that res, but there's no way the components of that MAC are playing games on anything but the lowest settings to get decent FPS.

That sort of resolution requires the same sort of power as those running triple monitors.

It's a premature leap in resolution, in my opinion.

[norbs]

Knowing how hot my 27"er gets, I can only imagine this things gets toasty.

[DexterPunk]

Dunno... the older non slim iMac would get damn hot... newer ones don't seem to. You'd be struggling to tell if mine is on or not if you felt the back/top of it... It may get a bit warm under load, but nothing like the older ones i used to use to warm my hands at JB in winter. I think they improved the cooling significantly in the newer gens.

[wabbit]

If your slightly familiar with how Apple does its HiDPI screen rendering (eg: double the real pixels, keep on screen items at the original size... so that everything doesn't look stupid and really tiny). The resolution makes sense as its doubled from previous gen iMacs. Ironically 4K wouldn't have worked.

Righty makes a solid point. The 1st gen rMPBs were horrible because the GPU didn't have the grunt to make everything smooth. Hence I bought the 2nd gen, which has the grunt.

As for how high does the resolution need to be, check out this site http://isthisretina.com.

[DexterPunk]

Going on that little calculator... The old mac isn't too far off 'retina' anyway... 81cm viewing distance and it would be. I probably sit around 70cm from mine. 5k seems overkill-ish.

[DexterPunk]

Looking at it now... Fuck it's an impressive screen. :o

[norbs]

Dunno... the older non slim iMac would get damn hot... newer ones don't seem to. You'd be struggling to tell if mine is on or not if you felt the back/top of it... It may get a bit warm under load, but nothing like the older ones i used to use to warm my hands at JB in winter. I think they improved the cooling significantly in the newer gens.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1815601" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe not.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

[wabbit]

Interesting to see the difference between Win 8 and OS X.

[DexterPunk]

Woah. That's not good!

Haven't seen any issues with mine, but mine is running a 690MX. They are saying the 680 is better than the new cards.

Heat was the main reason I bought an r280x for my desktop instead of a 290. CPL actually wasn't stocking them. I assume they've had too many issues.