[pptr1]

I am really curious about the technology behind the 5k iMac. I am not sure if there is any off the shelf GPU out there that can drive that display using retina type rendering. It's interesting they did a custom controller for the display timing (Timing Controller (TCON)) . They must have had to do deep customizations to use the AMD R9 M290X (comparable to the Radeon HD 7870) to drive it. If this is not innovative I am not sure what is, in terms of an engineering standpoint.

[jsz0]

It's very impressive Apple made the effort to do this now instead of waiting for 'off the shelf' parts but the technology behind this is probably nothing to write home about. The biggest limitation of display bandwidth is currently external HDMI/DP standards which are slowly ratified and adopted. For all-in-ones and laptops additional channels can be added and/or clocked higher for additional bandwidth. Apple's TCON is probably a fairly standard part souped up a bit for higher performance to handle the additional channels / clock speeds. I'd be surprised if they are doing anything fancier than this because the jump from 4K to 5K isn't big enough to require it. Close enough that the 'old/current technology' can be stretched. On the video card side as long as the 7870 has enough VRAM to store frames desktop 2D / light 3D compositing isn't that demanding. The trade off here is heavy 3D (modern gaming) at native 5K or even down to 4K is mostly not happening on this machine. Probably a good choice since 2560x1440 at 120Hz+ is a better choice for gaming than higher resolutions at 60Hz.

[H_L]

The jump from 3840x2160 to 5120x2880 is nearly 2x, in pixel count. That is not just a 'tweak existing technology' kind of jump.

TCON's that can handle a single logical 4K display are just hitting the market, and Apple has one shipping today to handle 5K. A timing controller may be simple tech, but it's cool that they're so far ahead of the curve.

[jsz0]

It's a big jump in pixel count but a 2X increase in bandwidth can be brute forced / tweaked out of existing technology similar to DL DVI or DP MST. IMO that doesn't diminish it at all because lots of technical problems have somewhat obvious solutions but actually making it happen is still difficult and expensive. Even more so if you want to avoid making any ugly trade offs in the process.

[leephillips]

I suppose the custom hardware means there is little chance of getting this to run Linux any time soon?

[tracker1]

Not sure, though I really don't mind OSX, and with homebrew, it's pretty close to a 1:1 for most of my use on OSX...

The only thing that irks me a little is the muscle memory for using the option key for cut-copy-paste in the UI vs the actual ctrl key (ctrl-c etc) in a terminal...

[lanna]

You can easily remap it in System Preferences: http://support.apple.com/kb/PH13742

[tracker1]

But, then I'm pressing command+c in the terminal window.

[excalq]

That's easy to fix. Use iTerm2, and tell it to remap modifier keys (to unflip them). If you use mission-control shortcuts (like move workspace), configure those keys in iTerm2 to "don't remap modifiers"

[torarnv]

You want Karabiner https://pqrs.org/osx/karabiner/

[qqz]

Karabiner is amazing. I love that I can finally recommend it to people and they don't say "I have an iMac…"

[sjwright]

The custom hardware sits in front of an apparently stock standard AMD Radeon video card chip. I doubt it requires any software driver implementation.

[gaius]

VirtualBox is really good, and free.

[revelation]

Well, what is innovative is building an actual 5k display. Or the Intel processors at ever smaller size.

But a shim interface to make one component work with another? Thats the business of millions of companies out there.

[tormeh]

It may not be innovative, but it's something good that makes Apple consistently leapfrog everyone else on everything else than raw processing power and value. I mean, who else would have done this? Dell? Nope.

Apple is actually pretty awesome like this.

[Nevermark]

Exactly. Apple tries to do a lot of firsts when they release a new product category, but most of their updates are about putting the effort into the smallest details that matter to users, even if the users don't know about it.

They are better than anyone else at that simply because nobody else really sees the whole product as their own problem. I.e. each hardware/software/service maker is just optimizing their part.

[sjwright]

My favorite example of this: a MacBook's headphone socket has full support for iPhone earbuds. The little headset microphone is used and the volume/pause buttons operate exactly as on an iPhone.

Obvious in retrospect, but just another example of how Apple treats their product range as a complete ecosystem.

[delecti]

I think the issue is less that only Apple is capable of making these technological leaps, and more that only Apple is capable of pushing them to a wider audience.

Few companies can get away with such a relatively narrow selection of hardware products. Dell for example has dozens of laptop models. By only having a few models, Apple making a big change to one results in a big chunk of the overall market including that feature.

[dbtc]

I would argue that producing the first 5k display that will be purchased by the 'masses' is the real innovation here.

[melling]

I'm not sure. Why doesn't everyone produce them? The PC industry could drive a lot more innovation because there's so many more Windows PCs. Unfortunately, the race to the bottom means margins are two thin to add an extra $10 port, for example.

[boxcardavin]

I'm most impressed that they can manufacture 15 million pixels on a single panel without a single dead pixel. They must be wasting/repurposing a ton of panel square footage when cutting.

[ghshephard]

What makes you think they don't have dead pixels? Hasn't Apple had a policy of not replacing panels with dead pixels unless they fell in Class III or Class IV of ISO 13406-2? (http://www.tested.com/tech/1337-we-uncover-the-dead-pixel-po...)

[nathanvanfleet]

So you mean people buy a Mac that has dead pixels and Apple tells them to go to hell? They have a no-questions asked 16 days to return it or a bit longer than that, but I don't think they'd question a return on a already broken one. You're thinking of people trying to get a warranty repair after a long time of usage. The OP was referring to the fact that when you produce LCD displays you have limitations on panel size because you get defects ever so often so you have to throw away some produced panels because of them.

[ghshephard]

Right - but I'm questioning whether Apple (or any monitor vendor) would throw away a panel that was ISO 13406-2 Class I levels. I.E. a few dead pixels, depending on their nature, and where they are, don't mean you throw away a panel.

Perhaps what happens is they just get resold as Non-Apple Displays. So, the no dead pixel displays go into the premium Apple monitors, but the Class I devices get resold in the white-label market. (This is where you see these great deals on eBay).

[calinet6]

I know it's hard to swallow, but it becomes less and less a problem the higher resolution the screen and the smaller the pixel.

I have one on my 15" rMBP, and I do not notice it unless I put my face within 6" of the screen.

[lostlogin]

I hope you have seen the below from jcheng: I literally just came from my local Apple Store where I got my Retina MBP serviced for two clusters of hot pixels. The Genius had to look up the policy to see if it was covered, and came back saying that Retina MBP screens will be replaced for even a single defective pixel. We were both surprised.

[calinet6]

Wow. That is excellent to know. I'll give it a shot!

[MagerValp]

Would you actually notice a single dead subpixel though at that resolution?

[kenperkins]

It's not dead pixels that you notice; I have a hot pixel on my Retina MBP, and it's very noticeable. But Apple doesn't warranty a single hot/dead pixel.

[jcheng]

I literally just came from my local Apple Store where I got my Retina MBP serviced for two clusters of hot pixels. The Genius had to look up the policy to see if it was covered, and came back saying that Retina MBP screens will be replaced for even a single defective pixel. We were both surprised.

[gsnedders]

Where are you? Apple's warranty policies often vary from region-to-region.

[petercooper]

Oooh, I might have to look into that, thanks. I have 3 or 4 and am still within AppleCare time :-)

[sitkack]

If you can get to the panel itself hot pixels can often be massaged out. really.

[bithush]

I had an issue with a single dead pixel on a 3 month of rMBP earlier this year and Apple replaced it (the whole machine!) without any fuss. The Apple tech guy said (and this is pretty much the exact quote) "the rMBP is all about the screen, a dead pixel is not acceptable". Say what you will about Apple but their support is the best I have ever experienced. If I were you I would book an appointment at an Apple Store and get it fixed. I doubt you will have any problems. Backup everything first and be prepared to do a wipe and get a new machine if that isn't too inconvenient.

[driverdan]

As others have said Apple will absolutely replace the screen for any dead pixels. I had mine first crappy LG screen replaced because of two dead pixels and they told me they'd do it if it was only one.

[wlesieutre]

When looking closely and displaying a solid color, probably. In practice, maybe not.

Once you notice where a dead subpixel is though, your eye goes straight to it every time it's visible.

[alwillis]

There are 14.7 million pixels on the iMac's screen. The definition of a retina display is you can't discern individual pixels at normal viewing distances, so unless you're sitting with your nose against the screen or are using a loupe, you won't be able to see a single dead pixel.

[runeks]

> The definition of a retina display is you can't discern individual pixels at normal viewing distances, so unless you're sitting with your nose against the screen or are using a loupe, you won't be able to see a single dead pixel.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Just because we can't identify individual pixels does not mean a single pixel has no influence. It shapes the overall picture.

If a single dead pixel is not visible at all, why have that pixel there in the first place -- working or not?

I just tested with my iPhone 6 (a 1334x750 px white picture with a single black pixel in the middle of the picture), and the single black pixel is definitely visible. A screenshot of the iPhone showing the picture in question confirms it's a single pixel on the screen.

[thisjepisje]

>The definition of a retina display is you can't discern individual pixels at normal viewing distances

I wonder if this is actually true, the whole "more pixels than photosensitive cells" thing sounds a bit shaky.

[imaginenore]

Yeah, it's nonsense. There are 90-120 million rods and 5-7 million cones in the human retina.

[FireBeyond]

Put a pattern up. 1 pixel by 1 pixel, white, black, white. You'll see just fine. It won't be "grey".

[simonh]

That's true on conventional panels, but the whole point of retina is that the pixels individually are smaller than the human eye can resolve. I'd be interested to see in practice. I suppose it depends how far your eye needs to be from the screen for it you count as retina in that way.

[nitrogen]

The inability to discern an individual pixel with the same color as its neighbors doesn't mean that the same pixel with a vastly different collor won't be seen. A single bright green pixel in a white window will still be visible, even if the edges of the pixel itself can't be seen otherwise.

[driverdan]

Yes. My rMBP had a dead pixel that stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Whenever you have a solid color on the screen you notice it.

[slg]

That was my first thought as well. I wonder if Apple has limited the refresh rate to something like 30hz or if they are banking on most apps simply using the downsized resolution instead of the full 5k. I can't imagine that card trying to play any modern game at anything close to that resolution for example.

[nknighthb]

Of course not. You don't even run recent graphics-intensive games at full resolution on the highest-end MBP with 1/3rd the pixels. We're still some ways from any consumer system taking full advantage of retina displays for high-end gaming.

[jrockway]

Are you sure about that? I have a 4K monitor and initially tested it with 3D games at full resolution and they played fine at 30Hz. I switched to an nVidia card and was able to play at 60Hz just fine.

Going to 5K only about doubles the number of pixels, so it sounds like a solvable engineering problem.

Panels are ready and GPUs are ready; the link layer is why you can't go to Best Buy and buy a 5k monitor. DisplayPort and HDMI both suck.

[kayoone]

4K gaming is currently reserved to the most high end desktop GPUs if you want to play any recent/modern games. To get >60fps you'd need two in sli/crossfire. A M290X is not even close to that. But even on a 4K display you can easily play at 1080p because it scales down nicely, for 5K youd probably have to play at 1440p which is a bit much for the M290X

[jrockway]

Good luck getting >60fps worth of 4k pixels over DisplayPort or HDMI.

I will give my firstborn for an 8k* monitor with a 120Hz refresh rate. He or she will probably have kids when I get that, though.

(4k is not that compelling. At 32" it's only 140ppi, which is nothing approaching "retina" levels.)

[objclxt]

> (4k is not that compelling. At 32" it's only 140ppi, which is nothing approaching "retina" levels.)

...one would hope that you're not viewing the 32" 4K monitor at the same distance you would view your phone from. Comparing PPI of a 32" screen to a 6" one is rather meaningless as the viewing distance is going to be vastly different.

[kayoone]

I agree, while 32" makes native 4K useable in terms of desktop real estate, 8K in retina mode (basically viewable 4K) would be the endgame for usable monitors i guess. However since we are already starting with 5K, i don't think we have to wait as long as you imagine.

[nknighthb]

> I switched to an nVidia card

Which is where you demonstrated that you are a power user. Most consumer systems don't even come with discrete graphics cards anymore.

Consumer systems took a big backwards leap when integrated graphics became the norm again. They're running several years behind the discrete cards someone like you or I might buy.

[jrockway]

All I'm saying is that I think Apple might be able to make it work.

[Igglyboo]

I have a hard time believing this, what games were you playing and what graphics cards are you using? And by 30hz/60hz do you mean your actual frame rate or the monitors refresh rate?

[elif]

I play minecraft, wow, tf2, lfd2 at 4k@60hz on the D700 mac pro. I set everything to ultra and limit framerate to 60fps--it never drops below 50fps

[Igglyboo]

Alright I can believe that, the mac pro is not a machine that an average user owns let alone can afford. You have two graphics cards that are most likely more powerful than a single card that an average pc gamer has.

Also those games aren't too graphically demanding tbh, l4d2 is the newest one and it's over 5 years old.

[jjcm]

I don't think we're that far away from consumer systems being able to take advantage of high res displays. This build here (http://pcpartpicker.com/p/HZQm23) can already drive 4k on almost all games that are currently out, and it's only $1600. Large manufacturers like Dell wont be far behind with desktops sporting similar hardware. I'd expect consumer (as opposed to enthusiast) 4k gaming on the desktop to start happening mid next year.

[kayoone]

that would require a new gpu generation while the current one that is 4K capable (albeit only really smooth in SLI) has just been refreshed.

[driverdan]

If you mean extremely demanding games sure, the rMBP is not a gaming machine. But it plays many games quite well. Examples: Borderlands 2 @ 1920x1200 with high settings (Windows), Fallout 3 @ full res and high settings (Windows), Diablo III, Minecraft (more CPU demanding than GPU), Left 4 Dead 2 @ full res with high settings.

[arohner]

OSX as an OS is weaker than Windows at games performance. For example, Valve officially supports Mac & Windows in-house, and running the same game (e.g. TF2) on the same hardware in windows will see framerate increases of 20%-100%.

[Raptor22]

Why is this? Any technical reasons?

[easytiger]

trying to play any game on the MBPr is a nightmare.

[pjmlp]

The problem is that Apple eco-system tends to be quite limiting in what we can do for gaming in other systems.

So I rather have the choice among powerful GPUs, with drivers kept up to date to the latest OpenGL versions (separately from OS versions), then having retina support.

[slantyyz]

Couldn't they do basically what is being done with current 4K monitors? I.e. treat the monitor like a dual screen using two connections?

[slg]

Most 4k displays do that due to bandwidth restrictions of current display cables. There is unlikely to be any GPU benefit to treating it as two separate displays since you still have to push the same number of pixels.

[jacquesm]

Except of course that both outputs could come from their own separate GPU. Plenty of dual GPU cards.

[moogleii]

So anyone know what the actual native res is?

[wmf]

5120x2880

[at-fates-hands]

Serious question here. At what point is the human eye unable to tell the difference between such high res displays?

I'm thinking in the same terms I used to think when I was doing home audio. My boss had a set of $10K speakers. Sure, they sounded great, but then I listened to a clients $5k speakers and couldn't tell the difference between his and my bosses speakers. It was as if my ears weren't finely tuned enough to tell.

Of course if you ask my Boss about the difference, he'd take an hour to tell all the differences. To me, the lay person at the time, I couldn't tell.

[skizm]

http://i.imgur.com/xiW4vdw.png

[ninkendo]

That chart should really be zoomed to about 1/5 its size... it goes up to 150 inch? Who has displays that big?

The X axis should go from 10 to 60, the Y axis should go from 1ft to 30ft, max.

As it is, it's not all that useful for figuring out what the density limits of a desktop monitor are. (Average desktop monitor sizes occupy maybe 1/12 of the X axis!)

[davidcuddeback]

The chart wasn't made for desktop monitors. It was made for TVs. It's from this article: http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupi...

[Shivetya]

Well with a 4K display your able to sit closer to larger ones because you will not detect the pixels as easier. I know many people think you want more distance with a larger set, but with 4Ks they are just fine, as long as don't move your eyes to much to see the entire screen.

[sampo]

That is a very nice chart.

But gee, one length (viewing distance) is in different units than the other length (screen diagonal size). Hilarious.

[chipotle_coyote]

I'm not entirely sure I follow why you feel this is significant. At least in the US, we tend to measure viewing distance in feet and diagonal screen size in inches, and those are both measures of length. It's not like the two axes are "feet" and "fluid ounces."

[thenmar]

What does "full benefits" mean?

[wiremine]

Here's the full article: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

It doesn't really say, but I would guess it has to do with when you start to see individual pixels.

[kayoone]

For a normal viewing distance when using a desktop PC 4k on 24" or 5K on 27" is pretty much the sweet spot and i am pretty sure Apple won't go above that anytime soon because the benefits are diminishing.

[joefkelley]

A typical generous estimate of human visual acuity is 0.3 arcminutes. As in, any pixel density beyond that is probably not visible to us. It's not an exact measurement since there's disagreement over how to properly measure it. But regardless, most estimates are in the 0.3-0.4 range.

Then simple trig tells us that we are maxed out when:

(distance to screen) * sin(0.3 arcminutes) = pixel size

The new iMac has a 27 inch diagonal, and 5874 pixel diagonal, so its pixel size is 0.004596 inches. Plug that in above, and you can see that you would have to be 53 inches from the screen to be maxing out your visual abilities. Anything closer (like normal) and you actually could still benefit from higher resolution.

[thrownaway2424]

Depends on how far away the monitor is.

[rasz_pl]

wow, you swallowed a lot of bullshit marketing :(

>did a custom controller for the display timing (Timing Controller (TCON))

Apple doesnt produce displays, they dont design TCONs - Tcon is a pcb sitting directly behind glass driving individual crystals, and is designed and manufactured by the same company making the display. Also every Tcon is custom, and build to drive particular type of screen.

Yes, when Dan Rissio says "we manufactured this screen' he is LYING TO YOU. They bought whole thing from LG or Sharp.

AMD doesnt support DP 1.3 yet, so only way for 5K resolution is bonding two 3K screens together, this is so innovative IBM did it 15 years ago in T220.

> retina type rendering

you mean scaling down? this is what GPUs do best, out of the box.

Yes, this screen is amazing. But dont act like its something revolutionary touched by Noodly Appendage.

[WoodenChair]

Apple has had its own display engineers since the '80s. Yes, they use several off the shelf components, but they're also known to create their own chips and oversee specialized manufacturing for particular models/challenges. Case in point was the 21" Apple CRT from the late '90s that featured a Sony Trinitron but also had custom Apple chips that auto calibrated as the display aged based on Apple's ColorSync technology. This looks like a similar collaboration.

You really think the largest company in the world (by market cap) doesn't actively collaborate with its source companies and do custom designs created by its internal engineers together with the supplier's engineers?

[Havoc]

None of which addresses the points raised per parent? And yes we all know Apple has a big market cap and lots of engineers...

[gress]

The points raised by the parent don't need to be addressed because they are just innuendo.

[Havoc]

Then why respond to parent at all if you're not actually responding?

[gress]

Because the response reveals the innuendo. There is no need to credit it with some kind of point by point analysis.

[throwaway6829]

As someone who has worked in Apple's hardware engineering for years, you're pretty much 100% wrong in everything you've said.

[mwfunk]

Yeah, they do in fact make TCONs.

[justinpaulson]

They didn't manufacture it, they designed it. How many tech companies design and manufacture all of their own stuff? Any? They didn't "buy the whole thing from LG or Sharp" they designed and developed it and then used them as manufacturing partner to produce it.

You have really swallowed the Apple hateraide it seems.

[rasz_pl]

Yes, just like they designed Ipad Retina screen, except its designed and manufactured by Sharp.

[thegenius]

Don't be so condescending.

[eevilspock]

> Yes, when Dan Rissio says "we manufactured this screen' he is LYING TO YOU. They bought whole thing from LG or Sharp.

It's not a lie if "we" refers to Apple together with its partners or "manufacture this screen" refers to the combination of LG/Sharp's screen with Apple technology.

Is it a lie when Google says it created Android without mentioning the creators of Linux or Java? Is it a lie if Intel says it manufactures a CPU without mentioning the manufacturers of the silicon wafers?

Dude, it's marketing, which I'm not a fan of. But be fair.

[vegabook]

Okay nobody seriously looks at Apple as a panel manufacturer, unless you (and Apple) are referring to the fact that the company has a stake in Sharp. The plant and expertise required to build panels is clean room stuff that AAPL just does not do. It does industrial design and software. Not "manufacturing of screens" so the point is clear. Android's skin is distant enough from Java and Linux that it can credibly be called a creation of Google. Just as Audi can say it built the car without having to credit the inventor of the internal combustion engine, and instructing a supplier to build a part to its specifications is hardly "manufacturing" it. It is "specifying" it. As every Apple product owner knows: "Designed in California, MADE in China". In this case, made in Japan/korea. As such, "we manufacture" is skirting close to the edge of a lie if "we" is spoken at an Apple branded press conference with no mention whatsoever of partners.

[vegabook]

auto-correlated downvote trend on a perfectly reasonable point: AAPL is not very innovative as Dell is launching the same monitor. Sure the driver logic might have been the subject of some consulting but if anybody thinks it will not appear within weeks on competitor brands they're kidding themselves. Everything about this display is not proprietary AAPL tech.

[rsynnott]

The Dell monitor is apparently four 2560x1440 panels (a fairly common approach to early-stage 4k monitors/tvs, as well. Anandtech were told that the iMac is controlled as a single unit, so it's probably rather different to the Dell, and yes, they probably _do_ have a proprietary controller.

[glhaynes]

As is discussed above, though, even if such displays appear, who will have anything to plug them into? Yes, some people will be able to go find a specific kind of video card to plug into their homebuilt rig to drive it, but who will be offering something like this that normies (95%+ of the market) will comfortably and confidently be able to just go and buy? That counts for something.

[rasz_pl]

Any card with two outputs will do, just like IBM T220 from 2000y.

[jsz0]

Perfectly reasonable speculation/opinions but there's no technical details available of the internals of Dell's upcoming display that uses the same|similar panel or the iMac Retina at this point. You might be getting down voted for your reasonable speculation/opinions because you presented it as fact. Online discussions can be of higher quality when everyone agrees on the difference between fact and opinion.