Slashdot Mirror
LG Accidentally Leaks Apple iMac 8K Is Coming Later This Year
An anonymous reader writes LG accidentally revealed in blog post that Apple is planning to release a 8K iMac later this year. This news comes as a surprise as the leak came from a different company rather than Apple. LG is one of Apple's biggest display partners and has already demonstrated 8K monitors at CES in Las Vegas. They note that the panel boasts 16 times the number of pixels as a standard Full HD screen.
Seriously, 4k is already overkill in most situations. 8k is just fetishism. And it may well be worse, as all those pixels have to be controlled somehow.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
That twice the RAM of the original Apple II.
I thought the "retina" display already has a higher resolution than the human eye can discern. Are these new Macs for cats?
"We'll make your eyes bleed"
Apple have a history of shutting out suppliers who have loose lips.
Maybe they'll start buying their panels from Samsung...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
WHY?! Apple mostly uses mobile GPUs in their computers. How the hell are they going to push that many pixels in anything outside the desktop?
Any chance LG could be trying to force Apple to build an 8K iMac and use LG as the panel supplier by leaking this? Maybe LG is hoping the rumor will force Apple to deliver in order to avoid disappointing analysts and shareholders.
Keep in mind that if proper scaling ever gets implemented, there is still a long way to go for displays to equal the quality of text compared to paper. I saw noticeable improvements in text quality from laser printers all the way up to 1200dpi, and people back in the day were saying we'd never need anything more dense than 300dpi, then it was 600dpi, etc. If we can get displays to 1200dpi, and especially with near-zero reflectivity, then I'll say we've gone far enough - but we're nowhere near that yet.
But we need GOOD scaling. I've read that Windows 10 will have proper scaling. We'll see.
This will probably be Skylake with GT4e with 72EU's and 128MB eDRAM. Not sure what kind of gaming performance that would give, but probably plenty to drive an 8K display at 60fps in 2D for media production.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
How about just bringing back the 17" macbook for those of us that do real work?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Silly Apple, my Commodore had 64k way back in 1983!
Try it! Library of Babel
The things that people can run in tiny files using algorithms will start to have to be used for normal displays. It's crazy what they can do with 4K or 64K files! Soon!
Correct me if I'm wrong but there isn't a graphics card in existence that can run even a video, let alone a game or 3D application, at 60FPS at that resolution. Even multiple cards would have a problem pulling it off. Plus, Apple computers aren't always great on cooling and you'd need top notch cooling to pull off multiple GPUs.
Windows 10 doesn't scale Win32 apps (the only things worth using) any different than Windows 7 or 8 do. The only thing that scales with high DPI screens is their metro apps which nobody wants of nor are going to use.
8k iMac: depending on the specs of the iMac, that might means that they have managed to increase the pixel density (high DPI).
8k in it self doesn't mean anything. You have to factor in display size, viewing distance, etc.
And there is ONE FIELD that is going to benefit immensely from higher densities: VR!
VR is typically a field of application where you are viewing a relatively small screen (Occulus tend to use typical smartphone displays. Older VR headsets like eMagine 3D visor had even smaller display, like a finger's nail per eye) from a very short distance. (Just next to the eye ball).
Even at the current ultra-high resolution/pixel densities, that are over kill for a normal smart phone screen (1080p FullHD in a smartphone is more than 300DPI), when looked that close still is very pixelated (this FullHD is blown up to cover your *entire* field of view. That end up being not that many pixels per angle of view, even if keeping into account the varying resolution due to the simple len's distortion). (= Unlike older VR headset that used simple rectangular screens to convey a simple rectangular picture and relied on complex and expansive optics to keep the rectangle distrosion free, Occulus rift use a very simple (and cheap len) that completely distrorts the picture and compensate using a shader that draw a "pre-distorted" picture on the display. They don't convey a rectangular picture, but a pin-chusion picture with more pixels spent at the center than the periphery - thus higher resolution in front of you. Still pixels are visible).
So even if it ends up being overkill for the iMac, increasing production of high density displays has nice side effects on the occulus rift.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Feature overkill anyone? I suppose there are probably a few edge cases for needing an 8K display but I can't imagine the everyday user needing it.
Is that the resolution or the price? :-D
I think it would make more sense if it was a stand-alone ultra-wide "Cinema Display"(tm) intended for the Mac Pro.
Ultra-wide 21:9, 34" at 8192Ã--3510 pixels: 221 pixels per inch resolution. That would be on par with the resolution of the retina MacBooks, only 5.6-7.3 times larger.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
sheeeeeit. These are NOTHING compared to the 16k displays that'll be out in the spring. I hear that's when they're going to add the mandatory "oil cooling hotness" to the Mac Pro, too. Of course, if you wait till fall, those 32k displays are on the way!
[Looks sadly at N(ever)T(wice)S(ame)C(color) security monitor...]
As Cheech and Chong might have put it, "Even gets AM!" Well, ok, old school TV that isn't broadcast any longer. But you know what I meant.
Or not. I'm old.
GET OFF MY NURSING HOME'S LAWN!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
This sounds familiar. Who can out K the competition. It is all besides the fact that eye can not see the difference.
I'm a photographer and and constant user/developer of image manipulation software. I edit every shot. I don't need 5k in a monitor; if I need a full-image overview, I can have that, zero perceptible time. If I need to look at pixels, same thing. Or anywhere in between. I do *not* need to be squinting at a monitor in order to resolve detail. I value my vision too highly. And at these resolutions, you don' t squint, you can't see it. And I have extremely high visual acuity.
Higher (and higher) resolution makes sense in data acquisition. Once you have it, you can do damned near anything with it. Even if you exceed the MTF of the lens, you get the advantage that while the edges are smoother, they now start in a more accurate place, geometrically speaking. It can be thought of as like old TV luma; the bandwidth is limited, so the rate of change has a proportionally limited slew rate, but the phosphor on an old B&W monitor is continuous, and you can start a waveform anywhere (horizontally) with luma, to any accuracy within the timing of the display, which can be pretty darned high. So things tend to look very, very good as opposed to what you might expect from naively considering nothing but the bandwidth. It's not like a modern color display, where the phosphor/pixel groups serve to sub-sample the signal no matter how you feed it in. But that advantage goes away when the subtleties exceed your eye's ability to perceive them. Or you have to strain/hurt yourself to do it.
So anyway... any single one or combination of these three things would motivate me to buy more new Apple hardware. Nothing else:
o A Mac pro that is self-contained -- installable, replaceable drives, lots of memory, replicable display cards. The "trashcan" Mac pro is an obscenity. All it did was send me to EBay to buy used prior model Mac Pros. The trashcan isn't so much a wrong turn as it is a faceplant.
o A Mac mid-tower that can have hard drives installed+replaced and at least 16gb of RAM. 32gb would be better. Doesn't have to be that fast. Real gfx. I know, mythical, not probable. Still want it, though. Actually, I want several. :/
o A multicore Mac mini with a real graphics card, 8gb or better ram, network, USB, HDMI and audio ports.
I have uses for all those. Failing that, and in fact that's my expectation, more fail -- I'm done with them. And I have no use whatever for "integrated" graphics.
What's annoying is that just about when they finally managed to a get a stable OS with most of the features I like and want (and the ability to get around the stupid features like "App Nap"), they totally borked the hardware side. I just can't win with Apple. Sigh.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
you are aware of the APPLE WAY to do multi-dpi support?
they'll just double the pixels, it's a relatively fast operation to blit it in double size on the gpu.
also, if you wondered why they have to DOUBLE the dpi with new model and not just 1.5x.. well, there's your answer.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
OSX and iOS originally ran on slow CPUs (PowerPC G3, ARMv6) and as little as 128MB RAM. Even today reading a pdf on a desktop is kinda slow and as for SVG, at least those on wikipedia such as maps with highlights, you can watch them draw. On a 3GHz CPU.
"And I have no use whatever for "integrated" graphics."
I on the other hand am a software development guy. As long as it's snappy in 2D and supports multiple big monitors I'm totally down with integrated graphics since they usually use a lot less power than the discrete solutions, and Intel has really good Linux driver support.
An ASA 25 slide projected in a dark room looks *awesome*. A VCR on a CRT looks crap.
4K = 3840 x 2160 or in other words double the dimension of the 1920x1080 doubled in both directions. I've always thought calling it 4K was a bit dubious, yes it's 4 times the number of pixels but it's only twice the resolution.
The "4K" refers to the number of horizontal pixels, since in cinema 4K it's 4096 pixels across.
The use of "4K" for 16:9 consumer displays is a bit of a misnomer.
dpi for printing != dpi on a display.
A 1200 dpi printer will look better than a 600dpi printer, especially on color because the printer is just dithering 4 colors.
The iMac 5k has an underpowered GPU for it 5k display.
I brought a Mac Pro upgraded with two D700 GPUs and the performance is surprisingly lousy on Mac OS X. I read a test where someone put on Windows on the Mac Pro and found drivers that would work, and not only was the per-GPU OpenGL performance twice that under Mac OS X, but the Windows drivers supported automated SLI whereas the Apple drivers do not (each application has to program it specially under Mac OS X).
I was very disappointed that my shiny Mac Pro could not beat my Windows box with its GTX 780.
Apple working on 8k while still having crappy GPU drivers is not going to be a good experience for those working with OpenGL/3D (as I am). It'll be fine for photo and video work, just not very good for 3D rendering. I really wish Apple would get their shizzle together in this department, the Mac Pro is supposed to be their flagship product and its not cheap. Mac OS X is a pleasure to use for 3D development (compared to Windows), but the performance blows.
You read paper @ 6" away, but read a screen @ 24" away.
From what I remember, when Jobs were alive, a mistake like this would be a death sentence to any present and future business with Apple.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Yes, I'm a developer as well. Let me re-phrase that, as I was going off an assumption that for all I know is no longer true, now that I look directly at it:
I have no use for graphics solutions that consume memory bandwidth that would otherwise be available to CPU core(s.)
Having said that, as memory bandwidth, as far as I was aware, remains nowhere near the bandwidth required to reach "always there when the CPU needs it", and integrated solutions always share memory with the CPU, particularly when data is being passed between CPU and GPU... it just strikes me that integrated probably -- not certainly -- remains a reliable proxy for "makes things slower."
It's also a given that the more monitors the thing is driving, the more memory bandwidth it will need. If that memory is on the same bus as the rest of the memory in the machine, again, adding monitors reduces memory bandwidth available to the CPU, and remember that the monitor has first priority -- system designs can't have the monitor going blank because the CPU wants memory. Doing both -- running graphics intensive tasks on multiple monitors... that's quite demanding. Hence, my preference for non-integrated graphics. When the graphics subsystem has its own memory, CPU performance has, at least in my experience, been considerably higher in general.
I have six monitors on one desktop setup, and two on the other. My lady has two as well. There are times for me when at least two monitors are very busy continuously and simultaneously for long periods of time (hours) at the same time that there is a heavy CPU load (where at least one core constantly at 100% and others variously hitting hard at times as well.)
Now that solid state drives are around, my machine spends a lot more time computing and a lot less waiting on disk I/O, too.
Anyone who definitively knows modern integrated chipset performance, by all means, stick an oar in.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Wouldn't this be the perfect Apple TV? Essentially take an iMac, give it a 40-ish inch screen, tuck in the chin a little bit, and call it a day.