Apple Reportedly Developing 5K Retina Thunderbolt Display With Integrated GPU (hothardware.com)

MojoKid quotes a report from HotHardware: If you head over to Apple's website, the Cupertino outfit will happily sell you a 27-inch Thunderbolt display for $999, at least until its inventory runs out. Word on the web is that it's nearly out of stock and Apple doesn't plan to replenish them. Instead, Apple will launch a new version of its Thunderbolt monitor, one that's been upgraded to a 5K resolution and has a discrete GPU stuffed inside. It's an interesting product actually, if you think about it. Depending on the task, it can take some serious graphics muscle to drive a 5K resolution display. It amounts to over 14.7 million pixels (5120x2880), compared to Apple's current generation Thunderbolt display which runs at 2560x1440, or less than 3.7 million pixels. Apple's thinking is likely that if it integrates a GPU capable of driving a 5K resolution into the display itself, it won't have to worry about trying to balance graphics performance with thin and light designs for its future Mac systems.

Comments

External graphics make sense for laptops

[sjbe]

Integrated GPU just means that you'll be looking to upgrade your 5k monitor in a year or two.

That's what most people do anyway. The only people who upgrade piecemeal are geeks like us and even then most of us don't bother. Most people just buy a whole new system when they buy a new computer. Apple knows this better than anyone. What you are saying isn't silly but the numbers don't lie. Most people just go the simple route and upgrade everything.

Honestly I've wondered for a long time why nobody made an external graphics system - either integrated into a monitor or a separate box or in a docking station. I would be SUPER useful for a laptop or other portable device - maybe even for a tablet. Then you can have your industrial strength graphics at your permanent desk but when you are traveling or doing light duty work and don't need it you don't have to lug the extra hardware and have the attendant power drain. It makes a lot of sense if you have a fast enough interconnect. Apple sells a ton of laptops so external graphics processing actually makes a ton of sense for a certain segment.

Re:External graphics make sense for laptops

[squiggleslash]

A quick look at most electronics stores shows that desktop PCs are usually sold with a keyboard and mouse, but no monitor. I'd be very surprised if the majority of people buying those things insist on buying a new monitor.

Of course, "most" ordinary people don't buy desktop PCs, they buy laptops. They rely on "geeks like us" to set up desktops, and they don't want to do that.

I do agree that it's strange that external graphics isn't a concept that's caught on. That said, Apple may suffer poor timing with the idea - Intel has been moving GPUs onto the processor dye recently AND massively upgrading their power. The HD 530, for example, has about as much power as a mid range Radeon and the only reason you wouldn't necessarily use it for gaming is that games still find the concept of integrated graphics weird (I tried it, GTA IV refused to believe mine had more than 128Mb of video memory. Once told via command line switches that, no, really, it does, it ran smoother than it does on my Radeon...)

Now, I'm not saying today you'd want a 4K monitor to be driven by an integrated GPU. But in five years - 3 generations of CPU/GPU from now - there's a very good chance that you will.

Re:How?

[John Allsup]

If you think about how a blu ray player works, for example, turning the video into raw pixels then sending over HDMI is actually quite stupid. Rather, if your display can decompress h264 in hardware, you can just stream the raw h264. With a few decent royalty free standards things could work so much better, albeit against a number of entrenched proprietary interests (which is why I don't hold my breath).

User replacable cards

[sjbe]

Except for modularity, it would be a worse product.

Maybe but maybe not. That's a bit like arguing that a PC with a discrete graphics card is a worse product than one with integrated graphics. Worse in what way? You have to consider the entire product and the equation isn't just as simple as More Complicated = Worse.

The video card would need to sit on a riser (or be perpendicular to the display).

A discrete card could be mounted into a gap in the board flush with the board for the monitor itself. It wouldn't necessarily have to have a riser though that is possible. Even if it did, is that really a problem? I don't see it as one. If my monitor is 4 inches deep vs 6 inches deep is that really a big concern?

It would be bulkier, physically less robust, harder to cool, harder to manage compatibility, and probably more expensive due to the extra components and cooling.

Probably a bit bulkier but not much and not enough to really matter in most cases. Physical robustness isn't likely to be a challenge unless you plan on moving it a lot which kind of defeats the entire purpose of a device like this. Plus it would be roughly as robust as a desktop PC which is demonstrably fine. Cooling is a concern but a well understood and manageable one. We're not talking bleeding edge water cooling here. It definitely would be more expensive than a regular monitor but that doesn't prevent it from being good value for money.

There is probably a market for a 5K monitor with user-replaceable video card, but I think a fixed GPU makes more sense for almost all of Apple's target market.

I think there is almost no chance it will be a user replaceable GPU. Would be nice but it would be pretty contrary to Apple's standard MO. If Apple can make it catch on however it wouldn't surprise me to see something in the PC enthusiast market for user replaceable cards. Unclear how much of a market there is for that but I could see it happening.