Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

5k Retina iMac

The mobile versions of the latest cards may not keep up with their current desktop siblings, but some can outperform the desktop standard bearers of 2011/2012 quite nicely. In particular, I think the M version of the R9 295X with 4GB VRAM offered as a BTO upgrade on the 5K iMac, is an example of a "mobile" GPU that can hold it's own. I believe that the overall trend of process shrinking and demand for small form factor devices with high processing capability has put "mobile" GPU design front and center at AMD and nVidia. By devoting resources to getting maximum compute power to TDP (power/heat metrics) ratios in order to sell into an industry segment that is still growing (mobile) they get the secondary benefit of improving the efficiency of desktop/workstation boards.

I do think Frank makes an interesting point about the 5K display eating up most of the GPUs horsepower leaving too little for compute tasks. It is my assumption that if you are not playing back video or otherwise demanding lots of screen redraws that the GPU can "hold" a static (or near static) image with minimal resource usage - if true, I would further assume that the card can quickly "re-deploy" to compute tasks.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the 5k iMac doesn't have meaningful limitations, it does - just that focusing on a few metrics that fall short of a proper workstation is missing the bigger picture (pun intended). As I posted previously, what attracts me is a machine that can hold me until Broadwell based systems and affordable DDR4 RAM are on the street. As someone who has been fighting the interconnection wars for UHD/4K sources/displays the last year or two I'm also easily seduced by the prospect of a system that can handle that internally with a GPU carefully tweaked to drive a known display.

Cheers - #19
 
Current synthetic benchmark tests put the new Retina iMac near the low-end Mac Pro configurations and far from the stuffed burrito configurations used by many RED owners, so nothing unexpected there.
 
It's an Imac with a new panel and GPU that would not have been the first choice for the current applications out now in the media content industry. Not much to expect a major performance boost.
 
So...I do need a relatively inexpensive computer with a lot of horsepower. Lets say you had $4000-$4500 to spend. What would you get? Would the iMac 5K still be competitive in your opinion? ...or would you just wait for Broadwell. I currently use a 2013 MBPr maxed out...and I have a 2007 MacPro Tower maxed out. The 2007 Mac Pro doesn't get much use these days though.
 
Looked at HP, and they still have the same Z1 G2 model, regrettably. Such an easy opportunity to leap frog Apple here, where is the competition (at least you can get bluray and laid back touch (like the Apple patent, none of that abnormal vertical sore arm stuff).

Like last time, I saw some pictures of work displays that looked a lot bigger than what I could find in store. I wonder if they are old or concept products. The question is, when are we going to see touch systems from them this big.

Two things come to mind about Apple's next IMac: Years ago Apple put in a patent for a lay down touch IMac like device, which is the one I wanted to buy. It had been said that either the touch or other large IMac was going to be a OLED TV model, at one time it was said it was going to be the forerunner to the release of the OLED TV models. As usual, all that have stopped reading by now are missing out on all the good stuff ;) However, that was like 4 YEARS ago (and like 3 YEARS+ after 4k displays were doable). Maybe the hold up is HP and Apple share access to a root patent and Apple doesn't have a current license to produce it yet, maybe they are magically waiting for the recession to be over before they release, maybe it will come when OLED manufacturing yield issues are worked out (Jeff might know).

Broadwell release will be interesting, because the lay down touch Mac is supposed to be bigger, TV sized (30 inches or more).
 
The previous preview link I posted gushed about the display too.

I forgot to add to my estimate above that maybe they are going to go to new LCD technology instead of OLED, blue phase LCD is supposed to be a next gen fast switch low price technology, just as one example. Also that HP is big enough to swing 4-5K on its displays.
 
5K GPU usage.

5K GPU usage.

Now about 5k GPU usage concerns, I hear this a lot over the years. I can demonstrate how there is little down side to having an 5k IMac compared to a 2k one It is not really a concern if the system and app are programmed right, unless you are doing something that requires a lot of processing per pixel etc.

Does a full HD TV require a GPU because it has 2mp over 80kp for 320*240 display, no, it does not even require a processor. Same with 4k or 8k displays. So, displaying a 2D image is processing independent, and the memory bandwidth is small and on card in our case. But doing something with the image does consumer more significant processing resources. On photo editing, which is what this machine should be useful for, requires a lot less than 3D photo realistic editing and lighting. So the 5K machine is very suitable and desirable for that and any lesser tasks, unless we are so self centered with the world revolving around ourselves, it MUST be good for photorealistic editing too. It is not a Mac Pro, or future HP Z machine, however it is far from what I could be for their top model in other ways (older features mentioned before).

Taking another look, in images you are dealing with the resolution of your content taking up processing power. So, to render a 6k dragon frame full resolution and simple scale it to 5k is going to take similar processing resources to doing it to 8k or 320*240 sub VGA screen, as the scaling itself takes up very little resources compared to rendering the frame. However, using the wavelets to render a lower resolution view can save resources independent if resolution again. A 4k render them simply scaled is similar on 5k display as it is on 4k display.

For photo realistic 3D, the better the 3D the more it's processing requirements will presumably increase with the number of onscreen pixels. For instance, the game MDK was an early direct x 3D based game and I would expect it to be able to run tens of times faster, if not hundreds, on the new 5k IMac running Windows unhindered. It uses very simply graphics, same with Rise of the Triad (pretend 3D). But get modern games with most photorealistic 3D games and run it at VGA instead of 5K and it will probably run many times slower (but some games would be instead more bound to non pixel parts of rendering). That is why 3D game would struggle on 4k screens.

So, these screen resolution is only much of a processing concern these days with advanced 3D, but then you can always render to 2k and scale to 5k.

For 2D content processing restricted by content resolution, depending on how the IMac is programmed, there will be some difference, and performance hit, but if done right, it should not be much.

Having said that, some user interfaces and font systems might use convoluted rendering schemes for onscreen objects that suck up some processing resources.
 
In all the years I've been buying and building computers (starting when 'graphics' were writing apps that twiddled the ansi character strings to make things out of 80 columns and 24 rows of text)... I've never once thought to myself "I wish my computer had less resolution"... ever. the M295X might not be able to push enough pixels for 5k sessions of Witcher 3... but I guarantee once I've had a 5k display for a few months I'll want a 6k display. The only real negative adjustment I'll have to make with the 5k iMac for everything other than demanding editing... I'm used to 31+" primary displays now.
 
Last edited:
Yes, its a matter of suitability for purpose. I see people fail again and again with how they quantify products. I push Apple because of where they should be as the top brand with the top model able to buy into most any advancement, and what they should do for PEOPLE (Blu-Ray, DVD) us all. But I don't expect them to do the impossible, or be held back from incremental increment that will suit some sector, but not at the expense of others. So 5k might suit 2D and simple CAD better, good, no reason not to have it. Apple should be doing something in 5k touch that competes with the HP z G2, good also.

I've been around from 16 column text days David (Atari VCS basic cartridge, and wish I had bought the RCA Cosmac VIP computer board). I'm waiting for 16k touch tables, and looking at the processing systems for it. 16k might not be use full for many other personal uses, but completely suitable there.
 
Consumers have said "FUCK YOU!" to touch screens on desktops, so there's no reason to cry about lack of options. They simply do not want it, do not need it, and do not want to pay the premium price for it. It's useful in specific large-format applications where you have giant screens that can be used by teachers and such, but it's really not useful in the professional realm beyond that.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Yes, its a matter of suitability for purpose. I see people fail again and again with how they quantify products. I push Apple because of where they should be as the top brand with the top model able to buy into most any advancement, and what they should do for PEOPLE (Blu-Ray, DVD) us all. But I don't expect them to do the impossible, or be held back from incremental increment that will suit some sector, but not at the expense of others. So 5k might suit 2D and simple CAD better, good, no reason not to have it. Apple should be doing something in 5k touch that competes with the HP z G2, good also.

I've been around from 16 column text days David (Atari VCS basic cartridge, and wish I had bought the RCA Cosmac VIP computer board). I'm waiting for 16k touch tables, and looking at the processing systems for it. 16k might not be use full for many other personal uses, but completely suitable there.
Click to expand...

Yea... those were the days... I had an TI-99 with basic... but the first machine I ever programmed was a TRS-80 Model 3 (80x24... no graphics at all).

As far as touchscreens go... there are some things I like them for and I'd pay a premium to get a quality multitouch interface on an all-in-one or laptop... but not everyone is willing to. I like them for zoom/pan when working with stills, swiping through online content, basic stuff like that. For anything else the mouse is a lot faster.

Just playing with comparable PC configs as I try to convince myself to just buy one... I was trying to figure out how inexpensively you could build a comparable machine using a 4k display... which got me looking at the low cost 4k displays. I don't know if I'm missing one... but it sounds like all the sub $1k 4k displays are either 30hz units or TN panels (crap color, viewing angle, etc...)... and a good quality 4k 60hz ips panel 27"+ look like $1600+. (the Dell UP3214Q looked like the least expensive). So that would leave $900 for the PC. I think you could pretty readily exceed the iMac performance for $900 with a decent quality machine... but you'd be spending $2k+ at the least, not a HUGE difference in price (and the iMac is a very nice package... which IMO is worth more than such a minor price difference).

For the Loaded iMac it's not as good a deal... at $4300 that leaves me with $2700 after the monitor, and I can get a very fast machine for $2700... MUCH faster than the loaded iMac (MUCH!).
 
Last edited:
Adam Levins said:
Frank Glencairn said:
IMHO there is nothing more ergonomic and efficient (especially when you have to do it 8-12 hrs) than a mouse.

What about a Wacom?
Click to expand...

I find the Wacom tablet to be essential for all around computer operation. You won't regret trusting me on this one, once you get used to it, its so much better then mouse or trackpad.
Click to expand...
 
L. Langer said:
Consumers have said "FUCK YOU!" to touch screens on desktops, so there's no reason to cry about lack of options. They simply do not want it, do not need it, and do not want to pay the premium price for it. It's useful in specific large-format applications where you have giant screens that can be used by teachers and such, but it's really not useful in the professional realm beyond that.
Click to expand...

Sorry. L what is this thing on our phones we use, a mouse, tablets, mice, I think they voted already my way. All they have said no too is a naive push in the wrong direction, in no way against touch which is probably better than mice in most situations, if you know how to use it and what you are talking. Most design teams just get things wrong. Look at what Apple, me and otters were thinking with the IPod, yet the industry failed many times on what inevitably proved easier and objectively could be seen to be so. So people said F U to these jack asses time and again, because they simply arrogantly could not figure it out, rather than be humbly let somebody with divine intelligence take the lead. The lost were lost on their own naive ambitions with lack of skill. Look at Steve, spinning rubbish that is now a mantra about how difficult and sore armed, touch was, yet Apple patented a design like the HP Z1 we have known about probably before they even thought of it, having some brains. I have done away with mouse advantages and sore arms compared to mouse usage almost completely in my design work, and because everybody else is such greedy jack asses about it, I'm not telling. They can pay rather than think they should get every last dollar for nothing much.

Let's look at the most popular desktop touch system for the moment, the tablet, you place it flat or near flat on the desktop (because inclined or low enough desktops are the best) and use it. Not as good as what I'm looking at, but I can probably dig up concept drawings of mine from the 90's, maybe older, of inclined desktop systems, because it is nothing to special. You rest your hands on or around the device. One popular touch system that works like this, though often with raised hands for over a hundreds years with not too much arm strain, is the touch keyboard.

Now, sure enough, as you indirectly said, that appropriate touch systems suit appropriate uses, and that the arm waving touch screens of the past were not and the public abated.
 
Daniel Kelly Brown said:
Adam Levins said:
I find the Wacom tablet to be essential for all around computer operation. You won't regret trusting me on this one, once you get used to it, its so much better then mouse or trackpad.
Click to expand...

They have colored screen ones now, believe it or not. They should just make a Wacom all around tablet that users can pick up for presentations and extended desktop and app work. It might cost a $1000 more than a cheap tablet but I've got a feeling various professionals won't mind as long as it is finger and pen touch.
Click to expand...
 
David Kuhn said:
Yea... those were the days... I had an TI-99 with basic... but the first machine I ever programmed was a TRS-80 Model 3 (80x24... no graphics at all).

As far as touchscreens go... there are some things I like them for and I'd pay a premium to get a quality multitouch interface on an all-in-one or laptop... but not everyone is willing to. I like them for zoom/pan when working with stills, swiping through online content, basic stuff like that. For anything else the mouse is a lot faster.

Just playing with comparable PC configs as I try to convince myself to just buy one... I was trying to figure out how inexpensively you could build a comparable machine using a 4k display... which got me looking at the low cost 4k displays. I don't know if I'm missing one... but it sounds like all the sub $1k 4k displays are either 30hz units or TN panels (crap color, viewing angle, etc...)... and a good quality 4k 60hz ips panel 27"+ look like $1600+. (the Dell UP3214Q looked like the least expensive). So that would leave $900 for the PC. I think you could pretty readily exceed the iMac performance for $900 with a decent quality machine... but you'd be spending $2k+ at the least, not a HUGE difference in price (and the iMac is a very nice package... which IMO is worth more than such a minor price difference).

For the Loaded iMac it's not as good a deal... at $4300 that leaves me with $2700 after the monitor, and I can get a very fast machine for $2700... MUCH faster than the loaded iMac (MUCH!).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really wanted to get a TI, but by the time it cane down in price they were closing it down. Shame, the graphics were there before MSX, and looking at what the MSX 3 had in graphic the possibilities would have been interesting. I had several home computers.

TRS 80 actually, now I think of it, was the first or second I programmed too, in a computer course. The days all right My favorite system, believe bit or not, was a Instead PCW 8512, 4 tone monochrome, but that had some charm to that machine.

The loaded IMac is a bit of a premium priced machine without the extra goods.

If you want to turn your IMac into a touch machine, I did come across a company that sold multi touch overlays for provably $500-700 (can't remember). They also did the most serious multi core android HDMI sticks I've ever come across at a nice price that you could plug the muti-touch overlay into, and $1600 for around an 85 inch overlay (sort of screen Jim could put in the back of his Hummer). Imagine playing angry birds on that ;), (Imagine dragging that along to an Angry Birds competition, almost worth it to get ejected from such competition). But I imagine it might cost me up to a $1000 to get it safely delivered and insured here plus those screens still are not cheap enough.
 
Touch interfaces are a great thing. Unfortunately, they suck in terms of usability and ergonomics as far as upright desktop displays are concerned. For brief use, interactive kiosks and certain applications vertical touch monitors are useful. The thing about touch is it works best when the devices we're interacting with are something we put our hands all over anyway. Tablets, smart phones, that sort of thing. I think this is where the tabletop multitouch design still shows a lot of promise.

As for stylus use, whether it's directly on a display or not, it's hard to beat the added precision and unique benefits it offers over a mouse. I love my Wacoms. But for all-day use ergonomics, they're just not there. And for certain tasks, a mouse can still be the better tool. Tablet styli have been much less pleasing for me. The fat-tipped ones that mimic someones finger are pretty much worthless and the fine tipped ones that still work in a broad capacitive way are almost equally worthless because it's near impossible to not experience offset from the pin tip to where the computer thinks it's at. I really wish Apple, Samsung, etc.. would license pen tech from Wacom and incorporate directly into their devices. The Wacom Cintiq tablets are excellent. And as much as I'd like to complain about their relatively low resolution these days, they have a distinct advantage of much lower lag at their current pixel resolutions. Even on my most powerful systems, trying to work in Painter XI at higher resolutions on 'retina' or 4K displays is a nightmare. Of course, Corel won't see another dime of my money on Painter until they start using all the cores and GPU features of current computers. The software feels like a complete kludge at this point. Now I know I'm going off on a tangent, but I think it's relevant here. When touch or stylus interfaces don't offer the same instantaneous response of pen on paper, they fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top