Between those two types alone, rather than against non-Retina?
-
-
-
Between 4K and 5K at 27in
-
Um, but the 4K iMac is 21.5-inch. Can’t remember the figures off hand, but it should roughly maintain quality/pixel densities.
-
Wasn't the previous 27in 4K?
-
Nope, went straight from 2560x1440 to double those dimensions.
-
My mistake. As you were.
-
What Al said. It’s not that they’re saying 5K is better than 4K, but it’s a better figure to maintain straight 2x pixel ratio. 5,120 x 2,880
-
Aye. I screwed up. I thought previous Big Mac was 4K.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
At the same size you definitely can tell the difference.
-
At 27in is the key, I guess
-
1 odd thing about new iMac is their claim it has a much brighter screen. I can't run my old one at 3/4 brightness without getting dazzled
-
Quite. It's not like you carry a 27in all-in-one for an afternoon in the park, either.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s more about whole numbers. A 4k monitor pixel-doubled is equivalent of 1920x1080… far too small for 27”. 5k is 2560x1440, about right.
-
Yep, my mistake. Thought previous 27in was 4K.
-
Nah :) 2.5k -> 5k in 2014. https://mactracker.ca
-
Yeah, yeah. We've all got Wikipedia :)
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would also like to see this test - also reviews should rate the life of the product more than constant 'new' models
-
Funny. I'm about to make that point in my forthcoming
@webusermagazine column. -
Good my mind control device is working
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.