3 ms·

yep. shame about them axing the 17 inch one. wow 5k have significant differences from 4k? maybe i should try that. but again, the forked dp cables means curren

yep. shame about them axing the 17 inch one. wow 5k have significant differences from 4k? maybe i should try that. but again, the forked dp cables means current (mobile at least) graphical power is still sorely lacking. and i'm still waiting for the 5k to be more available and being more affordable.

veidr 10y ago
Yeah, I thought I had the sweet setup with my old 4K monitors. I tried a 27" 4K but 4K just isn't enough, so I returned it for a pair of 24" 4K monitors. Intuitively, I expected 5K at 27" to be roughly the same as 4K at 24". But, nope. It's dramatically better than 4K at 24". I had them side by side in a 3-monitor setup for a time, but within about 30 seconds I though, ugh, I can't even stand to LOOK at these barbaric 4Ks ever again! and I unloaded them on craigslist. But don't take my word for it; every Apple store has a 5K 27" iMac on display. It doesn't actually look crisper to my eye than a "retina" MacBook Pro -- the huge difference, though, is that the 17" 5K panel is awesome at its native resolution. On the MBP you definitely need to use the "scaling" feature, which while much better than the sad old low-res generations of displays, nevertheless does add some fuzziness. 5K at 27" is the best thing readily available today, and I am not sure it needs to get much better than this (if at all) for the resolution of my eyeballs. Spending $1500 for a computer monitor does kind of suck though, so yeah there's that, still... :-/
- raihansaputra 10y ago
  Since the 5k iMacs went in my local stores, I always fiddle with them and be amazed at the oh-so-sharp and huge real estate to play with. I just replaced my ruined mba to a 13" rmbp and the difference is so worth it, but still, as you said, i need to use the scaling feature. I think there is a way to use the retina display on it's native res, but the text will be so unbearably small. Yeah. The cost is still prohibitively expensive to have a desktop-sized display. I mean, FHD took years to be the standard (although i prefer 16:10). We'll have 8k computer displays released before 5k becomes the standard.

veidr 10y ago

Yeah, I thought I had the sweet setup with my old 4K monitors. I tried a 27" 4K but 4K just isn't enough, so I returned it for a pair of 24" 4K monitors. Intuitively, I expected 5K at 27" to be roughly the same as 4K at 24". But, nope. It's dramatically better than 4K at 24". I had them side by side in a 3-monitor setup for a time, but within about 30 seconds I though, ugh, I can't even stand to LOOK at these barbaric 4Ks ever again! and I unloaded them on craigslist. But don't take my word for it; every Apple store has a 5K 27" iMac on display. It doesn't actually look crisper to my eye than a "retina" MacBook Pro -- the huge difference, though, is that the 17" 5K panel is awesome at its native resolution. On the MBP you definitely need to use the "scaling" feature, which while much better than the sad old low-res generations of displays, nevertheless does add some fuzziness. 5K at 27" is the best thing readily available today, and I am not sure it needs to get much better than this (if at all) for the resolution of my eyeballs. Spending $1500 for a computer monitor does kind of suck though, so yeah there's that, still... :-/

raihansaputra 10y ago
Since the 5k iMacs went in my local stores, I always fiddle with them and be amazed at the oh-so-sharp and huge real estate to play with. I just replaced my ruined mba to a 13" rmbp and the difference is so worth it, but still, as you said, i need to use the scaling feature. I think there is a way to use the retina display on it's native res, but the text will be so unbearably small. Yeah. The cost is still prohibitively expensive to have a desktop-sized display. I mean, FHD took years to be the standard (although i prefer 16:10). We'll have 8k computer displays released before 5k becomes the standard.