Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Is Apple Working On An Ultra HD 5K iMac?

By - Source: DigiTimes | B 25 comments

Last week, Dell revealed that it's launching the world's first Ultra HD 5K monitor. Called the Dell UltraSharp 27, the panel will measure 27 inches and have a resolution of 5120 x 2880 (218 PPI). The panel is aimed at professionals, packing an anti-smudge, anti-reflective "edge-to-edge" screen, a color depth of 1 billion colors, a miniDisplay Port for 4K input and more.

Apple apparently isn't going to sit and let Dell take all the credit. LCD market research firm WitsView, by way of DigiTimes, reports that the fruity iPhone company plans to release a 27-inch iMac model with a 5120 x 2880 resolution. This iMac, along with a number of displays, is expected to heat up the Ultra HD market this year and into 2015.

According to the report, 28-inch Ultra HD monitors (3840 x 2160) had an average retail price of $630 as of August. Additional panel makers are expected to reveal Ultra HD solutions before the end of the year, and in various sizes. WitsView believes that most display vendors are expected to focus on 27-inch, 28-inch and 32-inch Ultra HD units.

Dell's 27-inch 5K monitor solution will arrive in 4Q 2015 and cost a hefty $2,499.99. There's speculation that the monitor will be powered by Multi-Stream Transport (MST), which combines two 2560 x 2880 panels. WitsView's report really doesn't say anything about Apple providing a similar display save for the Ultra HD 5K iMac.

If you want to go shopping for a new high-resolution display, keep in mind that Ultra HD is 3840 x 2160, Ultra HD 4K is 4096 x 2160 and Ultra HD 5K is 5120 x 2880. The naming can definitely get very confusing, especially when so many Ultra HD names are thrown into one topic.

Follow Kevin Parrish @exfileme. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Discuss
Add a comment
Ask a Category Expert
React To This Article

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

  • -5 Hide
    jn77 , September 12, 2014 3:35 PM
    Eh, the standards are "Standard" 480 lines, Low Def (720p), High Def (1080p), 4k, and 8k. There is also a 15k standard. what is 5k? lol Only apple.
  • 4 Hide
    Icaraeus , September 12, 2014 4:16 PM
    They're actually 480p Standard Def, 720p High Def, 1080p Full High Def, 1440/1600/1800p Quad HD then 4k and 5k. Anything else isn't available for consumers.
  • 8 Hide
    TechyInAZ , September 12, 2014 4:16 PM
    5k is such a high resolution for apple, that they will need to put in a very expensive GPU in their to make that display a comfortable viewing experience for movie watching and other stuff.
  • Add your comment Display all 25 comments.
  • 2 Hide
    therealduckofdeath , September 12, 2014 4:19 PM
    Quote:
    Eh, the standards are "Standard" 480 lines, Low Def (720p), High Def (1080p), 4k, and 8k. There is also a 15k standard. what is 5k? lol Only apple.

    Dell released a 5k display a little while ago.

    5k will arrive before 8k. The k "standards" are really not exact science, just resolution near even 1000's, as we are too lazy to say things like 2880p.
  • 0 Hide
    CaptainTom , September 12, 2014 4:26 PM
    It's pretty obvious that UHD is anything above 1080p, and that QHD is 4k and up.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , September 12, 2014 5:47 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Eh, the standards are "Standard" 480 lines, Low Def (720p), High Def (1080p), 4k, and 8k. There is also a 15k standard. what is 5k? lol Only apple.

    Dell released a 5k display a little while ago.

    5k will arrive before 8k. The k "standards" are really not exact science, just resolution near even 1000's, as we are too lazy to say things like 2880p.


    no to lazy, 4k sounds more impressive than 2160p
  • 9 Hide
    nitrium , September 12, 2014 6:25 PM
    I'm sure it must be a bit confusing to avergae consumers that they first measured resolution VERTICALLY (e.g. 720p, 1080p), and now suddenly do a 90 degree turn and measure it HORIZONTALLY (4k, 5k etc).
  • 5 Hide
    turkey3_scratch , September 12, 2014 6:31 PM
    @nitruim: Yes I noticed that naming gimmick, too, because at first I thought 4K had 16X the pixels than 1080p rather than actually 4X.

    I don't see why they are introducing 5k when 4k has not even popularized enough yet, is still too expensive, and is too much for a typical graphics card to handle well. We need a good 5 years until 4k is normal.
  • 1 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , September 12, 2014 6:37 PM
    Quote:
    It's pretty obvious that UHD is anything above 1080p, and that QHD is 4k and up.


    NO. UHD is 3840x2160 and nothing else. 4K is 4096x2160, it's a cinema standard whose name has been stolen for marketing a consumer one.

    Quote:
    I'm sure it must be a bit confusing to avergae consumers that they first measured resolution VERTICALLY (e.g. 720p, 1080p), and now suddenly do a 90 degree turn and measure it HORIZONTALLY (4k, 5k etc).


    "avergae" consumer deserves that for being uneducated about something as simple as screen resolutions.
  • 1 Hide
    vmem , September 12, 2014 7:48 PM
    Quote:

    I don't see why they are introducing 5k when 4k has not even popularized enough yet, is still too expensive, and is too much for a typical graphics card to handle well. We need a good 5 years until 4k is normal.


    5X is essentially 4 times 2560x1440p, or QHD. For the past couple of years 1080p has been marked as the consumer standard, and QHD for "graphic professionals". now that 4K is being marketed as the new consumer standard, graphic professionals need their QHD doubled on both axis as well :-)
  • 5 Hide
    mrmez , September 12, 2014 8:16 PM
    Can't wait for this.
    You can criticise apple for a lot, but not resolution.

    I'm on a 2009 2560x1440 27" iMac. It should be considered ancient, but still one of the best screens around.
  • 0 Hide
    The3monitors , September 12, 2014 11:15 PM
    Good now we can pay 25k for a brand new imac. Woohooo. This being geared for graphic designers I would demand a cintiq to be placed in the screen as well. Since I already know this is going to be around 20k
  • 0 Hide
    kinggremlin , September 13, 2014 9:43 AM
    Dell is going to sell their 5k monitor for $2500. How is Apple going to make an iMac out of that thing? Who's going to want to spend $3000 on a barebones iMac?
  • 0 Hide
    hannibal , September 13, 2014 10:27 AM
    Quote:
    Dell is going to sell their 5k monitor for $2500. How is Apple going to make an iMac out of that thing? Who's going to want to spend $3000 on a barebones iMac?


    iPeople...
    There are always those who are willing to pay. No doubt on that!
  • 0 Hide
    epobirs , September 13, 2014 2:54 PM
    This seems wildly unlikely. The price level required is completely out of the ball park for the iMac's intended market. I could see Apple having their own 5K monitor for the Mac Pro workstation users but more for showing off than expecting to sell any large number before it becomes more affordable.

    What would really be the appeal? You could drive multiple 4K monitors for the same investment and end up with a lot more pixel real estate in the process.
  • -1 Hide
    coolitic , September 14, 2014 9:18 AM
    5k? on something only 27 inches? That's pointless and just 2k would be fine.
  • 0 Hide
    O_Pgamer96 , September 14, 2014 2:58 PM
    gotta love the fact that monitor resolutions are advancing faster then most graphics cards are able to push.
  • 0 Hide
    oxiide , September 14, 2014 4:44 PM
    Quote:
    It's pretty obvious that UHD is anything above 1080p, and that QHD is 4k and up.


    Where did you come up with that? QHD (or Quad HD) is 2560x1440, which is four times 1280x720.

    UHD (Ultra HD) is specifically 3840x2160, or four times FHD.
  • 0 Hide
    redgarl , September 14, 2014 4:56 PM
    What they are going to use for gpus...? Single card are limited to 2160p.
  • 0 Hide
    falchard , September 14, 2014 9:29 PM
    Really doesn't matter. This is aimed at professionals, but there has been more reason to adopt 21:9 standard monitors instead of the 16:9 we have right now. I don't think pasting 2 panels together will be successful and screen real estate is more useful then pixel density.
Display more comments
React To This Article