40" @ 4k is slightly higher ppi than 27" @ 1440p bro (110 v 109)
I'm using a 21.5 inch 1080p display now with ~110 PPI and I think it looks like crap. That's just my opinion though.
40" @ 4k is slightly higher ppi than 27" @ 1440p bro (110 v 109)
Lol, it was 50/50 that my post would read as perhaps disagreeing with you, I was indeed agreeing with you. Cheers10 years is a stretch, and its really impossible state how SSDs will be in 10 years, there's just no evidense at this point to provide any direction.
I think other components should be fine, but then what about the dGPU, apple's track record with dGPUs hasn't been stellar (maybe that's why they went with AMD), all I'm saying is its impossible to project that far into the future![]()
No-- but I'd have to have an awful lot of resources to build and extensively test things that aren't yet on the market. Stuff like-- "does a 34 inch 8K imac even make sense?" "What aspect ratio is optimal for computing"? "Is OLED worth the cost"? Some of that can be tested with projector screens, but most people don't do their computing in darkened rooms.You don't have to be a millionaire to get a 40" 4K display.
I didn't take it that way, but I was thinking about the 10 year mark and it occurred to me that we don't have any track record with regards to long term usage with SSDs. They're a fairly common component and with its limited write cycles in them, its hard to say how things will fare as time goes onLol, it was 50/50 that my post would read as perhaps disagreeing with you, I was indeed agreeing with you. Cheers
They're a fairly common component and with its limited write cycles in them, its hard to say how things will fare as time goes on
The results of our experiment do, however, point to some more general conclusions about SSDs as a whole. Although only two drives made it to 2PB, all six wrote hundreds of terabytes without issue, vastly exceeding their official endurance specifications. More importantly, the drives all survived far more writes than most users are likely to generate. Typical consumers shouldn't worry about exceeding the endurance of modern SSDs.
That's encouraging, and hopefully actual usage results will mirror this test.
Sounds like you are nitpicking excuses man. 4K 40" displays are on the market. You can go try one if you want.No-- but I'd have to have an awful lot of resources to build and extensively test things that aren't yet on the market. Stuff like-- "does a 34 inch 8K imac even make sense?" "What aspect ratio is optimal for computing"? "Is OLED worth the cost"? Some of that can be tested with projector screens, but most people don't do their computing in darkened rooms.
I am kinda torn between these 2 iMac systems:
Both are new 27" retinas. I want it to last me 10+ years for normal use: browsing, YouTube videos, office apps, music etc. No gaming, nothing work related. But I want it to be smooth and not laggy when doing basic tasks and being able to watch any movie quality such as 4K ( or 6K, or 10K...in future) for the next 10 years.![]()
My plan is to not make any upgrades in future (besides RAM which can be easily done)
Oh and I am fixed on iMac, please do not offer me to switch to PC or ask me why. Thank you!
1.
27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display
4.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.2GHz
8GB 1867MHz DDR3 SDRAM - two 4GB (WILL UPGRADE RAM AS NEEDED)
256GB Flash Storage or 512GB Flash Storage or go all the way up to 1Tb Flash Storage???
AMD Radeon R9 M395X with 4GB video memory
2.
27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display
3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1867MHz DDR3 SDRAM - two 4GB (WILL UPGRADE RAM AS NEEDED)
256GB Flash Storage (Using less than 60Gb right now, but any chance apps will get tremendous in the next 10 years???)
AMD Radeon R9 M380 with 2GB video memory
I just ran a 1440p 4K video on a i3 with GT 610 1Gb and it was pretty sharp and smooth, however, 2160p was choppy. Don't see why R9 380 would not last me 10 years considering GT 610 equals to a 10 year old mid-range gaming GPU...
Does it relate to gaming I assume?It means that if those additional features catch on, the card that doesn't have them will become obsolete quicker.
Does it relate to gaming I assume?
That sounds like a good choice for your usage. Enjoy it for as long as it lastsAnyway, thanks all for your time and replies. I am not setting myself to get X amount of years out of this iMac, but I rather bought a machine that suites my needs right now and will in the future. This is the config that I got:
• 3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
• 8GB 1867MHz DDR3 SDRAM - two 4GB (Will throw in another 4Gbx2 myself if needed)
• 256GB Flash Storage
• AMD Radeon R9 M380 with 2GB video memory
DirectX is not supported or used in OS XI noticed M380 does have DirectX 11.1 support and R395 offers DX 12.
Do I care? Is DX even supported on Macs?
Graphics cards manufacturers tend to design their cards against Direct3D specifications. But these new feature sets can also be used in a openGL environment using appropriate extensions.DirectX is not supported or used in OS X
Yes, but directx in itself is not supported on OS X, that OpenGL can benefit from hardware features I see as obvious. (But might not be for OP, so I could have worded that post better)Graphics cards manufacturers tend to design their cards against Direct3D specifications. But these new feature sets can also be used in a openGL environment using appropriate extensions.
On the other hand, I am still using a Quicksilver from 2002 regularly.
How many CPUs?
Jus checking. I have a single CPU Powermac G4 1.25 GHz, and aside from the powersupply getting a bit flaky-- I do think that the "hinged case" may be to blame-- I found that Time Machine stressed the hell out of it. I haven't actually fired it up in years, but it still sits underneath my desk.It has a Radeon 9600, not the Radeon 9000.