Mac Pro for 5K Future

[Pending]

I am at a serious debate myself. Whether to buy an retina iMac or get a Mac Pro and then buy new displays. I mostly do programming (java/web), some photoshop and music in ableton.

Have to options:

iMac 5k with Core i7, 295 AMD and 512 gb flash

or

base Mac Pro.

I am in doubts.

Firstly don't get too serious into the debate.
Sounds like neither would be necessary, but both would do the job for you.
When you say base Mac Pro I assume thats the latest Mac Pro. If you want the extra res the iMac 5k brings for photoshop then it would be useful if you are working in high res files from a DSLR or video. Ableton would be fine running in either. The iMac 5k would prob be the choice of the two as its an all in one solution, no external monitor to hunt for and overall cheaper.

----------

For "Pro Pro PROOO" use you really need to be using a dedicated previewing monitor that supports the correct color gamuts anyway. If you're just making corporate/wedding/Internet videos then blast away, the iMac retina does the job.

Again not really, 'pro' can encompasses all manner of uses these days. When talking dedicated monitors for correct color gamuts etc you are looking at specifics. iMac 5ks are turning up in all sorts of professional post production houses.
At the end of the day many users, not just pro, can make use of a 5k screen to have that extra room. Take photography as one example, you don't even need to be a pro. And the point is they are not a gimmick. Its a well thought out product when you think about it.

 

[EdDuPlessis]

Again not really, 'pro' can encompasses all manner of uses these days. When talking dedicated monitors for correct color gamuts etc you are looking at specifics. iMac 5ks are turning up in all sorts of professional post production houses.
At the end of the day many users, not just pro, can make use of a 5k screen to have that extra room. Take photography as one example, you don't even need to be a pro. And the point is they are not a gimmick. Its a well thought out product when you think about it.

Definitely not any post production house for cinema but I know what you mean. An Eizo 4K connected to a Mac Pro would still be a better option regardless of cost. Desktop level 8K screens are perhaps 5-7 years away and 4K is more than sufficient until then. Think about this, the original Toy Story (and most CG animated movies until 8-10 years ago) was rendered out at 4K, edited at SVGA and then printed on 35mm. They didn't need a 5K screen for the edit.

 

[Pending]

Definitely not any post production house for cinema but I know what you mean. An Eizo 4K connected to a Mac Pro would still be a better option regardless of cost. Desktop level 8K screens are perhaps 5-7 years away and 4K is more than sufficient until then. Think about this, the original Toy Story (and most CG animated movies until 8-10 years ago) was rendered out at 4K, edited at SVGA and then printed on 35mm. They didn't need a 5K screen for the edit.

Anyways Cinema aside, given its not relevant, and keeping on track in relation to an answer for Makdeniss question. IMO either of his choices would do the job that was mentioned, i.e. programming, Photoshop and Ableton.
At the end of the day it depends on how much you want or have to spend.

 

[xav8tor]

I don't think there is a "5K future." It IS an oddball resolution. Sure it's a doubling (quadruple actually) of the current Apple TB display rez, but aside from making things easy for developers and mindless coding of drivers for scaling, where's the advantage? You can't possibly get any work done at native rez without a magnifying glass.

No video editor I know sees an advantage to running UHD/C4K full rez on a single 5K monitor just to also get a TINY bit of extra space to see a fraction of a multilayer/clip timeline and maybe most of the media bin, not to mention the fact that the Apple displays aren't suitable for serious color grading or really, previewing either. The kludgy implementation of 5K via multiple cables and the huge resources required to drive 5K make it a pain, not a pleasure.

For video work, simulation, and even document work, my TB display will do fine as my main monitor for apps, a new 4K (UHD) SST for preview/grading etc., and if a small UHDTV ever comes out in the 30 to 40 inch range, I'd be fine with that as a third monitor running at 30 Hz. to check out the final product to see what the average Joe will see when my final cut is played on their usually cheap TV/monitor. If it looks good on that, anything better will probably look great.

As for the few 4096x2160 "true" 4K monitors out there, they're made with a single purpose in mind: working with DCI Cinema 4K (4092x2160) footage, which will get cropped down to either 2.39:1 or 1.85:1 aspect, eventually tossing some vert./horz. pixels away in the process. Of course, that doesn't stop the vendors from touting their products as being "real 4K and trashing all the 3840x2160 monitors as being inferior, when that resolution makes a lot more sense for the majority. Guys on digital cinematography forums are buzzing about having one, but they can actually benefit from it. If having an ultra wide monitor is desired, there are plenty of other choices, even curved ones...which is also a joke except for limited applications, like building a setup where visual immersion is advantageous sitting up close (e.g., a car/flight sim, etc.)

 

[Nosferax]

getting a 5k screen is the tech equivallent of buying a corvette at 50 years old... You just have to prove something...

 

[Cape Dave]

getting a 5k screen is the tech equivallent of buying a corvette at 50 years old... You just have to prove something...

Yeah, that my eyes are 50 (or in my case 62) and prefer things that are easier to read

 

[VirtualRain]

I don't think there is a "5K future." It IS an oddball resolution. Sure it's a doubling (quadruple actually) of the current Apple TB display rez, but aside from making things easy for developers and mindless coding of drivers for scaling, where's the advantage? You can't possibly get any work done at native rez without a magnifying glass.

You contradict yourself a couple of times here.

5K is not "oddball" because as you say it's exactly double a very common desktop computer display resolution. It's actually more sensible than double 1080p which was never a popular display resolution for computer displays... Only TV.

Then you suggest there's no advantage, except for making it easy to scale... That's precisely the advantage... And if you're familiar with Apples scaling algorithm you would know that retina doubling is a huge advantage in sharpness over non retina displays... Even at resolutions other than "best for retina". And at the "best for Retina" setting you get the benefit of sharp text and working with your content at native resolution.

So, I believe 5K is the future for desktop displays. 4K and 8K are for cinema and TV with a wider aspect ratio that is not ideal for computing work.

 

[xav8tor]

You contradict yourself a couple of times here.

5K is not "oddball" because as you say it's exactly double a very common desktop computer display resolution. It's actually more sensible than double 1080p which was never a popular display resolution for computer displays... Only TV.

Then you suggest there's no advantage, except for making it easy to scale... That's precisely the advantage... And if you're familiar with Apples scaling algorithm you would know that retina doubling is a huge advantage in sharpness over non retina displays... Even at resolutions other than "best for retina". And at the "best for Retina" setting you get the benefit of sharp text and working with your content at native resolution.

So, I believe 5K is the future for desktop displays. 4K and 8K are for cinema and TV with a wider aspect ratio that is not ideal for computing work.

I'm not contradicting myself that I can see, but you might be. The TB display and 5K iMac ARE WIDESCREEN 16:9 displays. 5K is an oddball rez, despite doubling the former max rez of the TB, it offers no real advantage over a dual monitor setup in day to day application, and no current GPU runs it well, if at all. There are TWO 5K displays, and one is a computer, not a monitor. Apple had to invent a gizmo to make it work. What Dell has up its sleeve is anyone's guess right now. As far as Apple goes, they're still a sliver of the pie in desktop market share, and they don't even make a 4K monitor, much less a 5K. I'd venture a guess and say 90% of new Mac Pro users are searching for a decent (non MST 60 Hz.) 4K (UHD) monitor that will run without tearing, sleep issues, artifacts, hacks, etc., me included. Yet the vast majority of the Apple 2013 4K announcement and current nMP webpage is 4K this and 4K that, and not one single offering from them to view the content and every 3rd party solution has at least some issue(s). UHD is here to stay. Adoption rates are 4X what they were for HD, yet still no plug and play solution from Apple.

Yes, computer rez and video rez are different, or more accurately were in the past. However, fast forward to 2014 and I think you'll find vastly more 1920x1080 monitors on the market that any other rez...and I mean by far! B&H has 200 1080p models. 1440 trails way behind at 30 models. Newegg: 1,000 plus 1080p monitors, 231 at 1440, Best Buy: 496 at 1080 and a paltry 40 at 1440. Need I say more? Never a popular computer rez? Today, how about up to TEN times more popular than any other rez out there!

1920x1080 isn't just for video anymore. It's THE mainstream resolution. Video DRIVES monitor development and manufacturing now except for niche products. 16:9 is here to stay. And again, 17:9 like the 4096 LG is not normal in any way, except for those producing DCI C4K content. What people fail to grasp is that it is an acquisition and intermediate resolution. The final output is cut down...way down in the case of widescreen 2:35 films. 21:9 and the like have their uses too, as might 16:10 or even more "square" aspects, but they are far from the norm, or the future, and lag far behind in popularity and sales unless the masses fall for the next marketing gimmick a la 3D and curved screens etc. Then, who knows what they'll try to convince us is the latest greatest thing on Earth.

 

[mintakax]

I guess I'm just repeating what others have said,nonetheless....
My wife (photographer) has a 5K IMac with a second non-4k monitor.
I ( amateur videographer ) have a nMP with a 4K monitor ( 32") and a non 4K monitor. I edit 4k video and use the lower res screen for the UI and the 4K display for the video.
I'm pretty sure that anyone editing 4K video would prefer my setup over hers, while photographers may prefer her setup over mine. Also I would think that people that don't need to see things at higher resolutions would prefer the 5K IMac simply because it's a beautiful screen at the retina resolutions. Who doesn't like beauty

 

[goMac]

I don't think there is a "5K future." It IS an oddball resolution. Sure it's a doubling (quadruple actually) of the current Apple TB display rez, but aside from making things easy for developers and mindless coding of drivers for scaling, where's the advantage? You can't possibly get any work done at native rez without a magnifying glass.

This ones easy. Retina 4k sucks.

Seriously, go run a 4k display at Retina, and a 27" Thunderbolt display on non-Retina. Everything will look sharper on the Retina display, but the reduction in usable work area is painful.

This isn't developers being lazy. This is allowing people who use their displays for real work to keep their work space intact and also gain Retina. Don't need that much work area? Fine. Go buy a 4k display and run it at Retina. Or don't. I don't care. But I will say I haven't bought a 4k display because I don't want to sacrifice work area, so the 5k display is prefect for me.

If I had to pick between a 4k iMac and a 5k iMac, easy choice on the 5k iMac. I can fit more on the screen at once. Duh.

 

[VirtualRain]

This ones easy. Retina 4k sucks.

Seriously, go run a 4k display at Retina, and a 27" Thunderbolt display on non-Retina. Everything will look sharper on the Retina display, but the reduction in usable work area is painful.

This isn't developers being lazy. This is allowing people who use their displays for real work to keep their work space intact and also gain Retina. Don't need that much work area? Fine. Go buy a 4k display and run it at Retina. Or don't. I don't care. But I will say I haven't bought a 4k display because I don't want to sacrifice work area, so the 5k display is prefect for me.

If I had to pick between a 4k iMac and a 5k iMac, easy choice on the 5k iMac. I can fit more on the screen at once. Duh.

Agreed.

Unfortunately due to the lack of 5K options I'm going to buy a pair of 4K displays and run them at some scaled resolution, but when I can run a pair of 5K panels, I'll absolutely be doing that.

 

[apphotography]

For Photoshop I am quite happy with the standard professional 1920x1200 displays. They use less VRAM and GPU processing power and since I am zooming in and out all the time it doesn't really matter to go 4K or 5K.

There is also an issue that Photoshop's path tool is harder to use at retina resolution. The vectors and control points are tiny.

 

[Pending]

Well like it or not, whether you think its oddball or whatever, 5k is gonna be around. Whats more it will be pushed more as we go into the new year. Which is only a good thing apart from offering the end user more choice, it will put more pressure on the gpu card market to produce even more capable cards.
Embrace that future people cos its gonna happen.

 

[beaker7]

Hopefully Apple can manage to release a Mac Pro that can drive a 5K display without eating all available bandwidth before the format is obsoleted by 8K. If they're indeed waiting for Skylake Xeons as expected then the window will be pretty small.

 

[rdav]

Hopefully Apple can manage to release a Mac Pro that can drive a 5K display without eating all available bandwidth before the format is obsoleted by 8K. If they're indeed waiting for Skylake Xeons as expected, then the window will be pretty small.

My guess is that nMP(8,1) will arrive ~2016/Q2 - with the long-awaited SkyLake /ThunderBolt-3. Plus stronger Amd(Gcn/Ace) GPUs and bigger Fusion Drives etc. Then Apple can release separate TB3/5K monitors (in the iMac/27" format). Which could be driven by most of the range.

Thou Apple 5k/monitors may arrive earlier if they can figure out a way to utilize two TB2 channels for one un-tiled screen (unlikely). Also, if this requires the use of 2xTb/bus, then it would be limited to the nMP.

Imho, consumer 8k/10k is about five years away, and may involve Flexible, Transparent, Am/Oled screens, projectors and other innovations. Some examples (in Korean): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8aIwG1R44&spfreload=10

 

[makdeniss]

Firstly don't get too serious into the debate.
Sounds like neither would be necessary, but both would do the job for you.
When you say base Mac Pro I assume thats the latest Mac Pro. If you want the extra res the iMac 5k brings for photoshop then it would be useful if you are working in high res files from a DSLR or video. Ableton would be fine running in either. The iMac 5k would prob be the choice of the two as its an all in one solution, no external monitor to hunt for and overall cheaper.

Yep, I meant between the new mac pro and the imac retina.

At this point I'm leaning towards nMacPro, but I need a good display so that I can enjoy photoshoping and doing coding with nice text . I already have a 27 apple monitor, which is hooked to my current iMac, but I find that I use the second display very rarely. So if I go with the nMacPro I will probably hook it up for the first time being, before getting a 4k display.

Whether the new retina iMac can handle compiling + server side applications is another story. I'm pretty ok with my current setup, but file work is getting more and more laggy.

Still in doubts.

 

[calaverasgrande]

Hopefully Apple can manage to release a Mac Pro that can drive a 5K display without eating all available bandwidth before the format is obsoleted by 8K. If they're indeed waiting for Skylake Xeons as expected then the window will be pretty small.

it took more than a decade for HD to get here.
4k has only just started and you are already worried about 8k?

 

[Pending]

Yep, I meant between the new mac pro and the imac retina.

At this point I'm leaning towards nMacPro, but I need a good display so that I can enjoy photoshoping and doing coding with nice text . I already have a 27 apple monitor, which is hooked to my current iMac, but I find that I use the second display very rarely. So if I go with the nMacPro I will probably hook it up for the first time being, before getting a 4k display.

Whether the new retina iMac can handle compiling + server side applications is another story. I'm pretty ok with my current setup, but file work is getting more and more laggy.

Still in doubts.

It sounds as though a nMP would serve you better, given you can use your Apple display until you buy a 4k display and there are more of those appearing in the new year. Best of luck and enjoy whatever you decide to get.

 

[beaker7]

it took more than a decade for HD to get here.
4k has only just started and you are already worried about 8k?

I've been working in 4k production since 2007. It's not exactly cutting edge anymore.

 

[TruckdriverSean]

I don't think there is a "5K future." It IS an oddball resolution. Sure it's a doubling (quadruple actually) of the current Apple TB display rez, but aside from making things easy for developers and mindless coding of drivers for scaling, where's the advantage? You can't possibly get any work done at native rez without a magnifying glass.

No video editor I know sees an advantage to running UHD/C4K full rez on a single 5K monitor just to also get a TINY bit of extra space to see a fraction of a multilayer/clip timeline and maybe most of the media bin, not to mention the fact that the Apple displays aren't suitable for serious color grading or really, previewing either. The kludgy implementation of 5K via multiple cables and the huge resources required to drive 5K make it a pain, not a pleasure.

For video work, simulation, and even document work, my TB display will do fine as my main monitor for apps, a new 4K (UHD) SST for preview/grading etc., and if a small UHDTV ever comes out in the 30 to 40 inch range, I'd be fine with that as a third monitor running at 30 Hz. to check out the final product to see what the average Joe will see when my final cut is played on their usually cheap TV/monitor. If it looks good on that, anything better will probably look great.

As for the few 4096x2160 "true" 4K monitors out there, they're made with a single purpose in mind: working with DCI Cinema 4K (4092x2160) footage, which will get cropped down to either 2.39:1 or 1.85:1 aspect, eventually tossing some vert./horz. pixels away in the process. Of course, that doesn't stop the vendors from touting their products as being "real 4K and trashing all the 3840x2160 monitors as being inferior, when that resolution makes a lot more sense for the majority. Guys on digital cinematography forums are buzzing about having one, but they can actually benefit from it. If having an ultra wide monitor is desired, there are plenty of other choices, even curved ones...which is also a joke except for limited applications, like building a setup where visual immersion is advantageous sitting up close (e.g., a car/flight sim, etc.)

5K has a future the way 2.5K has a present.

I love the heck out of my 2560x1600 ACD, but mainstream it is not, and never will be. I'm ok with that. If/when it comes time to replace my 30" ACD it will most likely be a 27"-30" something, and if for the sake of argument 4k+ didn't exist, it wouldn't be a 1080p something, especially not at that size, unless I had some special need for a large 1080p monitor. (Pro video as mentioned, maybe twitch gaming where frame rates matter far more than content quality)

So OP, get what size & resolution you like.

I still stick with my belief that right now is not the time to buy into 4k or 5k, as it is currently just a bag of hurt with incompatibilities galore, especially for OS X. A year or two from now it will likely be a very different story, and a 27"-30" 5k display sounds sweet for my (admittedly non-pro) uses.

.

 

[xav8tor]

I've been working in 4k production since 2007. It's not exactly cutting edge anymore.

LOL. That original Red One still working? Where's all the content? Rendered to 35mm print or down to 2K I assume?

Come on, 4K is just now gaining traction in Hollywood and it will be another few years before we have a decent amount of quality content available to the masses. Even though the workflow is now fairly smooth from acquisition through final display, it's still got its hiccups. It will be cutting edge when it is a common form to shoot in, delivered without horrible compression artifacts, and easily displayed without jumping through hoops like MST or living with slideshow refresh rates. Until then, you're right, it isn't cutting edge...more like still in development.

 

[Nosferax]

LOL. That original Red One still working? Where's all the content? Rendered to 35mm print or down to 2K I assume?

Come on, 4K is just now gaining traction in Hollywood and it will be another few years before we have a decent amount of quality content available to the masses. Even though the workflow is now fairly smooth from acquisition through final display, it's still got its hiccups. It will be cutting edge when it is a common form to shoot in, delivered without horrible compression artifacts, and easily displayed without jumping through hoops like MST or living with slideshow refresh rates. Until then, you're right, it isn't cutting edge...more like still in development.

4k film scanning has been going on for quite a few years now. Even the film Baraka got scanned at 8k for its restauration before its release on Bluray...

So, yeah, 4k has been around for a while now.

 

[handsome pete]

4k film scanning has been going on for quite a few years now. Even the film Baraka got scanned at 8k for its restauration before its release on Bluray...

So, yeah, 4k has been around for a while now.

Of course it's been around a while. It's still not a viable distribution resolution.

it took more than a decade for HD to get here.
4k has only just started and you are already worried about 8k?

In terms of computer monitors, broadcast standards are irrelevant.

 

[sirio76]

Come on, 4K is just now gaining traction in Hollywood and it will be another few years before we have a decent amount of quality content available to the masses.

Totally agree.
I've just bought a new 4K Sony TV and I've got very hard time finding UHD contents.

 

[beaker7]

LOL. That original Red One still working? Where's all the content? Rendered to 35mm print or down to 2K I assume?

4K projection mostly. Or now the occasional 4K LED display. Film has been dead for years not sure why anyone would print out to 35.