Apple releases new iMac with 5k display and Haswell-based Mac mini

[Arthur]

more workspace when working on 4k native content being the primary one cited by Apple which as I mentioned is just nonsense.

How can it be nonsense when the palettes and toolbars in Final Cut Pro and Premiere Pro take up more than 0 pixels?

[Arthur]

Well I suppose once the iFixit teardown comes in we'll see if there are any protections aside from any pentalobe screws.

Apparently the screws are tamper-proof.

 

[3s-gtech]

Should be what, a week until pattern tools start appearing on Ebay?

[Arthur]

Should be what, a week until pattern tools start appearing on eBay?

Yeah. I reckon some enterprising Chinese company is making Mac mini screwdrivers as as we speak.

[JRowley]

How can it be nonsense when the palettes and toolbars in Final Cut Pro and Premiere Pro take up more than 0 pixels?

 

As in, when you work on footage in Final Cut Pro for example, you don't have the video being shown at it's native resolution unless it's on a second screen anyway. The amount of space you're going to be left with when working on a 4k video (the example they used) in it's native resolution simply wouldn't be enough to bring people back from using a second screen. So I can't really see a good reason for it, certainly that reason won't make sense to anyone who actually uses Final Cut Pro or Premiere Pro regularly.

 

Here is how Apple thinks you will work with a 5k Screen:

 

 

Here is how people currently work on 1080p content on a 1080p screen:

 

 

Now obviously everyone does work differently, but what they are suggesting is just impractical. I'm not saying that a 5k screen won't be useful, I'm just saying that a 4k screen would be as useful and make a lot more sense.

Edited October 21, 2014 by JRowley

[3s-gtech]

Meh, at the end of the day it's a good selling point. On a big screen like that, more pixels is a good thing, the more space to work the better. For 'simple' 4K editing (which will become more commonplace as cheaper 4K cameras come along) where you won't have a huge number of toolbars but may still want to be able to see your video in 1:1 it'll make sense. Yes, it's overpriced, but it's an iMac.

[JRowley]

Meh, at the end of the day it's a good selling point. On a big screen like that, more pixels is a good thing, the more space to work the better. For 'simple' 4K editing (which will become more commonplace as cheaper 4K cameras come along) where you won't have a huge number of toolbars but may still want to be able to see your video in 1:1 it'll make sense. Yes, it's overpriced, but it's an iMac.

 

They are fairly unique, I will give them that, and actually the price point is a plus considering dell are selling their 5K screen on it's own for more than the whole iMac, so actually I was fairly impressed with Apple this time around in that area at least. As you say it might be useful for the most basic of videos, but then you probably aren't using Final Cut Pro anyway.

[Driftingashore]

The iFixit teardown came in yesterday. Supposedly it's Torx TR6 - pretty sure I actually have one of those! Edited October 21, 2014 by Driftingashore

[localzuk]

TR6 rather than T6 I thought? They're readily available it seems. Pretty sure I've got a few of them in my kits.

[Driftingashore]

TR6 rather than T6 I thought? They're readily available it seems. Pretty sure I've got a few of them in my kits.

 

My mistake, TR6!

[flyinghaggis]

Just noticed an interesting update on this monitor that I thought may be worth pointing out to anyone contemplating it which is that it only runs at 30Hz when displaying in 5k

 

Analyzing the iMac 5K Retina display: How do you squeeze 5K out of a last-gen GPU? (updated) | ExtremeTech

 

One of the major questions regarding Apple’s 5K display is whether or not it would be a 30Hz or 60Hz panel. We’ve had an opportunity to see some demonstrations of gaming on the 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display and can confirm that it’s a 30Hz panel when operating in 5K mode. Below 5K, the panel shifts to 60Hz, though we couldn’t confirm exactly when the 60/30 shift occurs. It’s a 60Hz panel up to at least 2560×1440.

 

If this panel indeed uses an overclocked DisplayPort 1.2 signal, as we discuss below, it could be 60Hz up to 4K (3840×2160). DisplayPort 1.2 is capable of providing an SST link of 60Hz at that resolution. It’s still a beautiful display regardless, and many may argue (with justification) that the 30Hz limit is inconsequential because the GPU inside the system — a fairly weak mobile AMD GPU — can’t drive gaming above 30 fps at 5K anyway.

 

Nonetheless, if you edit video above 30 fps, and wanted to create 5K content, this may impact your buying decision. The original story remains below.

Edited October 28, 2014 by flyinghaggis

[Arthur]

is that it only runs at 30Hz when displaying in 5k

It seems that ExtremeTech are spreading false information. Multiple sources have confirmed the 5k iMac runs at 60Hz.

 

https://twitter.com/gruber/status/523574183251685376

 

 

 

^ Click to enlarge.

[flyinghaggis]

Interesting, surprised Extremetech managed to get it so wrong and haven't corrected it yet.

[Zoom7000]

I just don't get why they almost downgraded the Mac Mini. There is no longer a dual HDD option. The RAM is soldered and you only get a Dual Core option. My Sandy Bridge Quad Core i7 Mac Mini "Server" with dual HDD and upgradable RAM doesn't look too bad all of a sudden!

 

It seems Apple really want customers to go down the route of a MacBook or iMac and targetting the Mac Mini as an entry-level device as opposed to a fully fledged Mac without the display. It also looks like they want to push those who need a true server down the route of the Mac Pro.

 

At the end of the day, it all seems to boil down to cash

Edited October 31, 2014 by Zoom7000

[Arthur]

I just don't get why they almost downgraded the Mac Mini.

Apple did the same thing with the iMac.

 

Apple’s new $1,099 iMac is a MacBook Air in a desktop’s body « Ars Technica

 

Most people are going to skip the 1.4GHz Mac mini and buy the middle one which is $100 more expensive in the US compared to the equivalent Late 2012 model. They have effectively increased Mac mini prices without a lot of people realising.

 

you only get a dual core option.

This could be due to the dual and quad core sockets being different.

 

www.macrumors.com/2014/10/19/mac-mini-2014-benchmark

 

... Apple may have switched to dual-core processors in some Late 2014 Mac minis because Haswell dual-core processors use one socket to connect the logic board and processor while Haswell quad-core processors use different sockets. This would mean Apple would have to design and build two separate logic boards specifically for the Mac mini, while other Macs use the same logic boards across its individual line.

 

This trade-off didn't exist with Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors because both of its dual-core and quad-core processors used the same socket. Another option, according to Poole, is that Apple could have went quad-core across its new Mac mini line, but it would have made it difficult for Apple to hit the $499 price point.

 

Despite the decreased quad-core performance, the single-core performance of the new Mac mini is in line with other Macs' performance jumps from Ivy Bridge to Haswell.

 

There is no longer a dual HDD option.

There's still an option for two drives (PCIe SSD + HDD).

 

The two Thunderbolt 2 ports on the new Mac mini could also be used for external HDDs or even a RAID array.

[Arthur]

Interesting, surprised Extremetech managed to get it so wrong and haven't corrected it yet.

They updated their article yesterday.

 

Updated November 4: Sadly, it’s time for a mea culpa. On October 24 we mistakenly identified the iMac with 5K Retina display as having a 30Hz panel. The 27-inch iMac does indeed output 5K @ 60Hz — and to hit those kinds of frequencies, Apple used its own customized timing controller, rather than DisplayPort 1.2 (which can’t drive 5K @ 60Hz). More on that can be found further down the story.

 

If the Retina iMac could only manage 5k @ 30Hz I reckon most people would end up returning it! Simply moving the mouse cursor across the screen would be really jerky!