[HN Gopher] Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display
___________________________________________________________________
Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display
Author : sparshgupta
Score : 263 points
Date : 2022-03-08 18:56 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| hughrr wrote:
| Sold. Been waiting for this for years.
|
| Edit: to clarify I will lurk and wait until it is PS200 off on
| Amazon one day because I don't need it immediately.
| alexashka wrote:
| For what? A 2014 display for 1600$?
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Assuming this is the same panel as in the 5k iMac, it's a
| good panel. It doesn't matter that it's old. What matters is
| that it works, and that you can actually buy it. There are
| very few high res displays on the market.
|
| It would be nice if it cost less than 1000EUR, but I guess
| you can't have everything.
| richiezc wrote:
| just find somebody that works with apple and use their 25% or
| 15% off
| valine wrote:
| No 120hz listed in the tech specs, that's gonna be jarring for
| people with a M1 macbook pro.
| yokoprime wrote:
| I hardly notice when switching between my M1Pro monitor and
| larger 27" monitor. Sure my monitor do support 144Hz, but im
| running it at 60Hz... because docking station
| Matheus28 wrote:
| There is a world of difference between 60 Hz and 144 Hz,
| though. I don't think I can go back to anything less than
| 120.
| hughrr wrote:
| Yeah it feels horrible now.
|
| When I got my iPhone 13 pro it cost me an M1 iPad and a 14"
| MBP because everything felt horrible afterwards.
| noahtallen wrote:
| I disagree completely. My main monitor is at 144hz, and it's
| very jarring to switch to my (slightly older) MBP running at
| 60hz. Not having high refresh rate means this new monitor
| won't ever be on my short list.
| swah wrote:
| I feel that while changing from 30hz to 60hz and the latter
| feels smooth (enough). Never used a higher refresh rate
| device but wonder how much more can this keep going and
| humans noticing.
| owenwil wrote:
| There's a good reason for this: Thunderbolt 4 doesn't have
| enough port bandwidth. TB4 can carry a max of 30Gbps but 5K @
| 120hz is 32Gbps. There's no way Apple would do two cables for
| this, and the next gen of Thunderbolt is a while off, so the
| choice makes sense.
| noahtallen wrote:
| Doesn't display stream compression support higher bitrates?
| Also, I think thunberbolt 4 supports DisplayPort Alt Mode
| 2.0, which can handle up to like 80Gbps. But I guess that
| comes at the cost of attaching any other devices other than
| the monitor.
| fotta wrote:
| I think your math is off a bit. TB3/4 carries 40Gbps and
| 5k@120 is 53Gbps (5120 * 2880 * 120hz * 30bits/pixel). But
| your point still stands :)
| owenwil wrote:
| Whoops - you're right!
| shadowfacts wrote:
| DisplayPort 1.4 (which TB3/TB4 support as an alternate mode)
| has enough bandwidth for 5k at up to 144Hz using display
| stream compression (which Apple already uses for the Pro
| Display XDR): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Refre
| sh_frequency_...
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| They've could add a DisplayPort or HDMI 2.1 input to solve
| it.
| o_m wrote:
| They could have made it 90hz then
| notriddle wrote:
| Running a program with fixed-rate 60hz (a lot of games)
| would cause judder. It's the same sort of reason they don't
| do 150% scaling; you want integer multiples of the "low-fi"
| version so that you can upscale without artifacting.
| o_m wrote:
| A little Pro Motion would've fixed that
| whitepoplar wrote:
| I wonder if this will work with Linux or Windows.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Is this the same LG display unit from the previous generations
| and used in the LG display sold seperately at one point?
| danielfoster wrote:
| I can't even see the monitor when I click.
| [deleted]
| fwr wrote:
| Any mentions of the refresh rate? I've been waiting for a 4K/5K
| display that supports 120 Hz to pair nicely with my 2021 MBP, but
| it looks like the only available options so far are funky gaming
| displays: https://tonsky.me/blog/monitors-mac/
| tehnub wrote:
| If you sit far enough away from it, you could try a 48 inch LG
| CX OLED tv. 120 Hz, OLED, 4K
| mholm wrote:
| Looks like 60hz. I don't think anybody has 5k/120hz working
| yet.
| iamricks wrote:
| Yup, i feel like nobody cares about monitor tech, i waited
| for 4k/120hz IPS for a long time
| mark-r wrote:
| It's not that nobody cares, it's just that this stuff is
| genuinely hard. We're too spoiled.
| sa1 wrote:
| So far, I've been using
| https://www.acer.com/ac/en/AU/content/conceptd-model/UM.HC1S...
| skadamat wrote:
| It's almost surely 60hz since they didn't brand it as
| "ProMotion" display like they did with iPhone, Macbook Pro, and
| iPad Pro
| owenwil wrote:
| 60hz, there isn't enough port bandwidth in TB4 to handle 5K @
| 120hz. Anything coming close to being capable enough is years
| away still.
| brigade wrote:
| No, there is with DSC. 144Hz with HDR, or 180Hz with SDR. Or
| even 240Hz with two HBR2 streams.
| wilg wrote:
| I hope it has better Windows support than the Pro Display XDR (it
| won't).
|
| I managed to get the XDR hooked up to Windows at 6K (with a very
| unusual cable) but you can't adjust it below max brightness so
| you get a sustained 1000 nits in your face at all times. Also HDR
| doesn't work. But gaming at 6K is cool af!
|
| Also, this having speakers, camera, and mic is a big step up over
| the XDR (unfortunately for me).
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| No mention of refresh rate, so I'm assuming a 60hz panel, _only_
| offering usb-c and thunderbolt, no hdmi or display port, and no
| mention of hdr rating, or mini /micro led backlight zones.
| Apple's gonna apple i guess. People will still buy it.
| mwambua wrote:
| Anyone know how the display quality on this stacks up to LG's
| ultra-fine 5k display?
| rawrmaan wrote:
| No 12Hz is so unfortunate. Hopefully the next Pro Display XDR
| will have ProMotion, at the very least.
| mholm wrote:
| It'll have to wait for a new Thunderbolt Standard to make it to
| Macs. TB4 tops out at 30GB/s, while 5k/120hz is 32GB/s.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| 12 Hz haha
| alberth wrote:
| "12Hz" is about how fast their website refreshed on me on my
| i7 MacBook Pro.
| arecurrence wrote:
| Most of the features announced are quite nice but strangely (for
| an Apple product), the primary feature being the display is
| simply not. As far as I can tell, it doesn't even have 120 hz let
| alone a good local dimming implementation.
| gertrunde wrote:
| Wow that's a painful website... 5 seconds in and I've scrolled to
| the bottom as fast as possible to get past the fluffy marketing
| bullshit, in the hope that there were some tech specs of some
| sort there, then left...
| jimrandomh wrote:
| It's kind of ridiculous how slow the progress in screen
| resolutions has been. It's disappointing that Apple is only going
| for 5k, not 8k; they're well positioned to fix the ecosystem and
| bring high-resolution large displays to everyone, if only they
| tried.
|
| I'm finally sitting in front of an 8k 65" screen. This gives me a
| nice combination of decent picel density in the center and lots
| of peripheral vision in which to put secondary windows, plus I
| can sit across the room and watch a movie on it. But every
| component of the ecosystem introduced problems and friction.
|
| I have an M1 Macbook Pro on the same desk. The Macbook can't
| drive the 8k TV. I have a separate desktop running Windows with
| an nVidia GPU for that. Every component of the video ecosystem
| has given me friction in getting to 8k. I had to swap my $1k
| nVidia GPU for a different $1k nVidia GPU that wasn't any faster,
| to get HDMI 2.1 support. Had to use special HDMI cables, because
| cables that aren't specially marked as HDMI2.1 compatible don't
| have enough bandwidth. And then the display itself has a
| ridiculous postprocessing bug (I wrote about it at
| https://www.rtings.com/tv/discussions/IyO2wLLsNnJCMT-_/firmw...)
| which makes me think the firmware engineers didn't have a working
| 8k source to test with.
| risho wrote:
| maybe i'm just old and blind but i can BARELY even notice the
| difference between 1440p and 4k if i very explicitly and
| intentionally look for it let alone the difference between 5k
| and 8k. this seems like so beyond unnecessary that it's absurd.
| i might be able to be convinced that you could notice on your
| 8k 65 inch tv if you were standing right in front of it, but on
| a 27 inch display that seems incredibly unlikely to me. also
| what world do we live in where a resolution that is literally
| above 4k isn't considered high resolution.
| jimrandomh wrote:
| I sit 2ft from the 8k screen; it fills much more of my
| peripheral vision than most people's monitors do, and I
| position most things in the middle and never full-screen
| anything. Think of it like a multimonitor setup without the
| seams between monitors.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| I'm more annoyed by slow progress in refresh rates. Resolutions
| have progressed pretty nicely IMO, but the top end monitors
| from Dell, Apple etc still all running at 60hz.
|
| Also feel like 27 inches is pretty small these days, for high
| productivity type of work. Wish Apple went for a 34 inch
| pedrocr wrote:
| I've seen this sentiment a lot but it doesn't track with my
| experience. 4K@60Hz is now common and very cheap (<300EUR for
| an LG IPS 27'' screen). It definitely wasn't just a few years
| ago, people even bought weird 4k@30Hz screens as a compromise.
| 5K is an intermediate step most manufacturers didn't bother
| with and we're getting 8K now at which point we've pretty much
| maxed out human vision for almost all applications. As far as I
| can tell we live in the future and nobody is happy. Maybe it is
| because very high end screens did 4K and 5K early and stopped
| there for a while because at that price it was a niche.
| Meanwhile all the innovation has been on making the cheaper
| ones reach that same level.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| This 5k 27" screens blows your 8k 65" screen out if the water
| at any reasonable viewing distance for a computer monitor...
|
| Nearly no one wants TVs for monitors, the evidence is LG's
| OLEDs which gamers will take 1440p ultrawides with infinitely
| worse picture quality over, just for the more reasonable form
| factor.
| pedrocr wrote:
| Setting the 8K screen farther away so it fills the same field
| of view will make it strictly better than the smaller 5K if
| you can manage it. Same view, more angular resolution and
| your eyes are focused farther away which reduces eye strain.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| No it's not, which is why people take $2,000 1440p monitors
| still.
|
| The "if you can manage it" part is an awkward setup usually
| with terrible ergonomics (a monitor too far away is worse
| for posture because you subconsciously tilt forward), it
| takes a ton of space, it looks hideous
|
| -
|
| Forgive my for my bluntness, but I am _soooo_ tired of
| every conversation about improving _monitors_ being
| sidetracked by people act like using a TV-sized TV as a
| computer monitor is better than strictly anything.
|
| It's like saying using your hand saw as a flat head screw
| driver is strictly better because it had a larger handle...
| as long as you can line it up in the screw.
| pedrocr wrote:
| You may not like it yourself but other people have the
| opposite experience. Setting the screen farther away and
| having your eyes focus at that distance is more
| comfortable for them. That other people choose other
| solutions doesn't invalidate that this solution exists
| and is valued by people. And I used the term strictly
| precisely. If you can manage that setup physically you
| get the same angle of view, more resolution and less eye
| strain. The 8K large screen dominates the 5K small screen
| solution for that set of criteria. If you add other
| criteria you care about instead the evaluation changes.
| chillingeffect wrote:
| I'm very sorry for all the trouble you have had to go through
| in order to have an 8k 65" screen.
| stanmancan wrote:
| Driving an 8K monitor can be a bit hard on some computers, no?
| And chaining multiple 8K monitors is an even bigger challenge.
| wmf wrote:
| If only Apple made an Ultra-powerful computer that could
| drive 8K...
| jimrandomh wrote:
| The key feature is "HDMI 2.1 display stream compression",
| which is only present in very recent GPUs, and without which
| a computer can't output 8k at all. If it's new enough to have
| that feature, it's fast enough to handle 8k no problem. I
| don't typically run videogames at 8k, but I'm sitting close
| enough that I want them centered in a ~4k window anyways
| rather than filling my peripheral vision.
| minimaxir wrote:
| Webcam and sound aside, the display specs seems very similar to
| the LG Ultrafine 5k released all the way back in 2017 for $1299:
| https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMUB2LL/A/lg-ultrafine-5k...
|
| The Studio Display is an additional $300.
| bin_bash wrote:
| Presumably with a much worse webcam and speakers. It's also
| ugly black plastic compared to the aluminum construction of the
| Apple display.
| ericmay wrote:
| No webcam or microphone in the LG displays. Well the 4k at
| least. I assume the 5k is the same. It does have speakers.
| They're ok for the price point but not notable. It's also
| basically unsupported as far as software is concerned. You
| can't connect an iPad to it for example. Or at least I can't
| anymore. Sound would play but not screen mirroring.
| fotta wrote:
| The 5k has a webcam and mic. The webcam is much higher
| quality than my MBP's too.
| ericmay wrote:
| Interesting. Thanks for the info. I guess I should have
| been less lazy and just looked that up before posting.
| When I was looking at both the 4k and 5k it was
| completely lost on me that it had those features. Dang! I
| don't need 5k (or 4k really but w/e) but would have liked
| to have had the webcam and mic.
| brasetvik wrote:
| The 4k does not. The 5k has a webcam, microphone and
| speakers.
| sprite wrote:
| I have the 5K LG monitors, they have camera and mic.
| vesrah wrote:
| I have two of these. They are plagued with bezel cracking,
| uniformity, and other issues.
| minimaxir wrote:
| True, there are QA issues reported with it. (FWIW I've had
| mine since 2017 and only starting to hit random connectivity
| issues now, but 5 years isn't a bad run for a heavily-used
| monitor)
| hinkley wrote:
| Benq's is pretty good but whoever stuck those checkbox-
| filling speakers into the design is making a cruel joke at
| everyone else's expense. I get better sound out of my phone.
| Way, way better sound.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Plus they are not on sale anymore, at least when I was
| looking.
|
| I am guessing this replaces it.
|
| Not really other alternatives out there (displays in 5k).
| dewey wrote:
| Based on the reviews of the LG Ultrafine that extra $300 really
| are worth. Alone for not having a stand as shaky as the
| Ultrafine one.
| bradlys wrote:
| For these types of displays - you shouldn't really ever be
| using the stand that it comes with anyway. Monitor arms are
| ubiquitous and known. They do much better job of holding a
| monitor than the stands that come with most monitors.
| dewey wrote:
| That's a "you are holding it wrong" kinda argument. If you
| pay 1.5k for a monitor you should be able to expect a stand
| that doesn't shake if you bump into your table a bit.
| geodel wrote:
| Ah, so good opportunity for folks looking to save 300 dollars
| and still want to buy display from Apple.
| minhazm wrote:
| Yeah there was no mention of local dimming or refresh rate so
| it seems more like a refresh of that display with the new Apple
| design. Though for refresh rate I kind of understand since I
| don't think there are any 5k 120hz displays on the market. I
| also noticed that it only has a single thunderbolt port, so I'm
| not sure if you can daisy chain the displays. Even just adding
| local dimming would have been a huge difference maker but it
| likely would cannibalize the Pro Display XDR sales.
| cehrlich wrote:
| Glad that Apple is finally back in the game of making monitors
| that don't cost $6k.
|
| Now make the same thing, but 6880x2880 ultrawide.
| deergomoo wrote:
| I wish they would just make a normal display. I'm currently using
| a 27" 1440p display which has some nice features, USB power
| delivery for single-cable video/charging/data, and really
| excellent colour accuracy, but the pixel density is just garbage
| compared to my MacBook. Using them both at the same time is
| jarring (especially since macOS dropped subpixel antialiasing.
| Text looks noticeably less blocky when hooked up to a Windows
| machine).
|
| I don't need a monitor with an embedded iPhone CPU and six
| speakers, I just need the panel out of an old 27" iMac that
| doesn't cost more than the damned computer driving it. I can't
| even get an LG UltraFine anymore, they were discontinued outside
| of the US ages ago.
| markkanof wrote:
| The purchase page seems really confusing compared to how they
| typically do things. Typically, when purchasing something like a
| Macbook, you select the base model and then some of the upgrades
| are listed at + $XXX.00. That combined with the fact that the XDR
| display stand cost so much, I thought they were charging and
| additional $1599 for the VESA adapter. I was momentarily
| absolutely furious until I realized that the VESA adapter is a no
| additional cost option.
| xavxav wrote:
| I'm happy that they finally released this monitor, it felt weird
| that you could get an imac which was sleeker than any existing
| screen, but does anyone know of more affordable alternatives?
|
| This may be a bit weird/niche but I care a lot about the
| thickness of the monitor itself, the depth of the stand and the
| bezel around the screen. I'd like if the object I spend 8 hours a
| day staring at isn't aesthetically horrendous..
| FpUser wrote:
| I would get 5K display if it is 35-40", 27" - no way
| pclark wrote:
| Can anyone help me understand how I'd connect this to a PC? Would
| I need a GPU with Thunderbolt 4 or does the motherboard need
| Thunderbolt 4 and the PC somehow magically utilises the GPU via
| that motherboard display anyway?
| julianbuse wrote:
| If the prodisplay xdr is anything to go by, you wouldn't. That
| could only connect to PC's with thunderbolt, but because the
| monitor controls were built into macOS, you couldn't change any
| settings or use it at its native resolution.
| nickpp wrote:
| The question is if there is any PC video card able to connect
| to this display.
| brandonmenc wrote:
| Sad that the Thunderbolt port is perpendicular to the display,
| like on the LG Ultrafine.
|
| Super fragile, especially if you have the monitor on an arm and
| move it around a lot.
| tstrimple wrote:
| Apple accounted for this by making sure none of their monitors
| have a standard VESA mount.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| They do, they are sold separately.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| The VESA mount is actually a no-extra-cost configuration
| option on the Studio Display.
| ericmay wrote:
| Unfortunately I bought an LG 4k display from Apple last year (or
| was it the year before?) for home office work so it'll be a tough
| sell to buy something new, but this solves a couple of my
| problems with my home office setup, namely having to put in
| headphones with a mic for every video call since I use my Mac in
| clamshell mode, and having an external webcam mounted on my
| monitor. This is very close to "one cable to rule them all"
| setup. Maybe I'll just have to save some of my allowance for a
| bit :P
| techpression wrote:
| For all the work Apple is doing to improve their environmental
| impact (which I applaud) I'm completely flabbergasted as to why
| this is a single device monitor. It's quite the impact on the
| environment to require users who have a Mac mini/Studio and a
| MacBook Pro to buy two monitors (no matter how great the
| production chain is). Sure, you can plug/unplug the cable, but
| that works so-so on a Studio with the ports on the back.
|
| Everything else I could've lived with, this is a major omission
| :(
| gen220 wrote:
| Can you not use a thunderbolt switch?
|
| In my home office, I've got two monitors and a switch to flick
| input between a personal machine and a work machine.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Last I looked, Thunderbolt switches were prohibitively
| expensive and only made by oddball companies. My solution is
| a Thunderbolt dock (CalDigit TS3+/TS4+, ThinkPad Thunderbolt
| 4 Dock, etc) along with a TB cable for each machine that I
| swap the connection to the dock with as needed. Since it's a
| single cable swap, it's not much of an inconvenience.
| spudlyo wrote:
| I use an IOGEAR Thunderbolt 2 KVM[0] that lets you switch
| thunderbolt between two computers. I use this in conjunction
| with three TB2 -> TB3 adapters[1] and a CalDigit TS3+[2]
| (which drives my DisplayPort monitor). It's janky, but it
| works, and I don't really notice the speed difference
| dropping down to TB2 speeds since the only TB3 peripheral I
| hang off the CalDigit is an audio interface.
|
| At some point I actually had a TB2 only computer I wanted to
| KVM switch with a TB3 laptop so this weird setup made more
| sense then.
|
| [0]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M74Y03E
|
| [1]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MQ26QIY
|
| [2]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07CZPV8DF
| techpression wrote:
| Do they actually work well (I actually want to know)? I once
| started looking into something like that and it seemed to be
| all pain and suffering to get it to work or it having weird
| behaviours.
|
| If you have a product that you know work I'm all ears, it
| would make my life a lot easier.
| gen220 wrote:
| I currently do this with HDMIs (I somehow make do with a
| measley 4K monitors).
|
| I assumed such a thing existed for thunderbolt but hadn't
| looked into it; it looks like you're right that this market
| is underdeveloped at present. Hopefully somebody does it!
| Or, the wisdom of HN will yield us some options.
|
| Otherwise, if you're willing to settle for affordable
| retina-quality monitors, this is the one I use:
| https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B01LPNKFK0. Cribbed
| from this post which made the HN rounds not too long ago:
| https://www.caseyliss.com/2021/12/7/monitor-liss
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Doesn't the Mac Studio have a Thunderbolt 4 port on the front?
| bradlys wrote:
| Is this not quite niche?
|
| What about the environmental impact of adding extra ports that
| no one is going to use?
| _ph_ wrote:
| I would need to share the screen too between my laptop and my
| desktop mac, so, no. Homeoffice is a thing these days and
| that means, you need to connect a screen to your work
| computer. I would rather not have the additional USB ports on
| the screen (though they are nice) than not having a second
| input. And giving that the screen has an A13 on its own, it
| would have the ability for nice handling multiple inputs,
| e.g. PIP or nice switching of keyboard/mouse attached.
| techpression wrote:
| As already mentioned, people working from home would benefit
| from this a lot, and KVM monitors for two machines have been
| a thing for at least a decade (Dell, Eizo, BenQ amongst
| others have been offering them so there's clearly a market).
| And even if it wasn't very used, the environmental cost of
| just one extra monitor would be many many unused ports.
| ballenf wrote:
| Use the remote control technology in the latest MacOS. It will
| allow the keyboard and mouse from the Studio to control the
| laptop. Even more environmentally friendly than having an extra
| cable.
| goosedragons wrote:
| Just have two devices on instead of one. So much more
| environmentally friendly than an extra cable or two.
| techpression wrote:
| But that doesn't work for the display, only the input
| devices. What I want is what I have now, two devices
| connected to the same display.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I've been using 2 machines with universal control (it works
| pretty well in the latest betas), and it's quite neat.
|
| Unexpected side effect: Two machines allow you to keep
| working while installing system updates, which seem to take
| forever nowadays.
| hultner wrote:
| Am I missing something or is this basically the 6-7 year old LG
| UltraFine 5k 27" with some extra bells and whistles?
| JOnAgain wrote:
| I'm so tempted, but I've been on 32" and 34" for years now, I
| just don't think I could go to 27" again. I am dying for a great
| high end monitor with charging for my laptop, integrated camera
| and speakers. I loved my old cinema display. I really want this,
| just a bit bigger.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| I don't have much to say on the monitor, but that experience
| reminded me that Apple's web design sensibilities are atrocious.
| homarp wrote:
| it says "Powered by Apple silicon. The A13 Bionic chip enables
| innovative Studio Display features like Center Stage, Spatial
| Audio, and "Hey Siri.""
|
| Anyone knows what OS does the screen run ? embedded iOS ?
| yudlejoza wrote:
| How is this news? Apple has had the exact specs (27 in, 5K res)
| available since something like 5-7 years ago, both as a stand-
| alone monitor and as an iMac.
| rewtraw wrote:
| this is a new product.
|
| sure, it may be a middle ground between the existing Pro XDR
| and 5K LG Ultrafine displays, but this is something that was
| just announced today, hence "news".
| danielvf wrote:
| I've worked off Apple Cinema displays since the '90s and Apple
| Studio displays before that. I am a monitor snob. I care deeply
| how things look.
|
| I currently have an Apple XDR Pro monitor. It's not a great
| monitor - it is indeed big, the outside is as cool as anything
| ever made, and the USB-C hub is nice. But in EVERY other way it
| is badly inferior to the stock 5K monitor that comes with even
| the cheapest 27" iMac from a few years ago. I've been wishing for
| just an 27" iMac monitor that I can plug into my laptop, since
| that's the best non-laptop monitor I've found - even contemplated
| building a Frankenstein one. I'm excited I can now just buy one.
| hultner wrote:
| I've been tempted to buy the XDR, would love to hear your
| opinions. Rocking a couple of LG UF 27" 5k's today.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| What's bad about the XDR?
| oppegard wrote:
| I'm not the OP but I've had an XDR for about a month now,
| which replaced a 27" LG UltraFine 5K (same panel as the one
| used on 27" iMac for years). My issue with the XDR is the
| lack of built-in camera, mic, and speakers that are
| serviceable for zoom calls.
|
| I don't need audiophile stuff, but it's remarkable how bad
| the built-in AV was on the LG UltraFine. Mic quality is bad
| enough that I won't inflict it on my co-workers. The camera
| is angled too low, resulting in the top of my head usually
| being cut off. And the speakers go from quiet to really loud,
| with no in-between.
| LocalPCGuy wrote:
| I wish Apple would use their clout to move up in size. I've been
| waiting for a nice 32" monitor or larger for a while at a
| reasonable price. Currently using a 4K 39" TV as a monitor (had
| to contort the settings to get the text readable, etc.) Probably
| has something to do with panel yields and profit, sadly (but
| understandably). That said (and acknowledged, I'm not generally
| an Apple person), I see very little reason to buy Apply monitors,
| from a price perspective I just don't see them as a value and see
| many extremely comparable monitors that work great with Apple
| computers.
| aldanor wrote:
| I'd happily pay $3k-$4k if they simply glued _two_ 27 '' Studio
| displays together, effectively making it a 32:9 49'' ultrawide.
| Come on, Apple.
| ramses0 wrote:
| I've been very happy with this monitor for quite a while
| (probably 2017-ish):
| https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MY142C0/
|
| ...although fair warning it does have occasional "flickering
| maroon blankouts" (1-2x...3-4x per day?). AFAIK they're
| basically two panels side-by-side so sometimes my right-side-
| one will "blip" for half a second. (search flicker in the
| reviews/questions).
|
| Find one you're happy with, and check the reviews! The
| difference between "monitor" and "TV" is massive w.r.t.
| latency.
| coolso wrote:
| Finally an AR coating on a monitor without the grainy sparkly
| look! I bought 3 highly rated monitors last year and returned all
| but one because the anti reflective coatings were visually
| distracting and made the screen look dirty and unsharp. The one I
| kept still has the effect, but to an "acceptable" degree relative
| to the others and I was tired of returning monitors.
|
| Hopefully other manufacturers will follow suit - or at least
| start releasing glossy monitors as an option, for people who
| don't want to view things through an ugly grainy sparkly coating.
| mateo1 wrote:
| The thing is, for most people a glossy monitor with an AR
| coating is a good compromise, since reflections are a lot more
| distracting than a slightly matte finish. For a studio monitor
| this isn't a consideration, but in general the finish is
| mentioned in the specifications.
| coolso wrote:
| The problem is, some monitors aren't "slightly matte" - many
| are very matte, and you can't tell just how matte they are
| into you receive them, since the finish is always just called
| "matte".
|
| Glossy isn't ideal but I'd definitely take it over spending
| $500 on a 4K ultra sharp display only to view everything
| through a fine layer of grainy rainbow colored dust.
|
| Apple's nano-matte technology seems like it could be a
| wonderful albeit expensive compromise, but I know I and many
| others are willing to pay the premium.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| I realize that as a staunch Linux user I'm not in their target
| demographic, but... wow that website is slightly motion sickness
| inducing. Is it as bad to scroll through this on a mac as it is
| on linux? I use a mouse with an actual wheel, maybe they don't
| optimize for that kind of legacy device...?
|
| Edit: it's also just so hard to scroll exactly to the points
| where the information is presented. I just mostly end up at
| points that are meaningless transitions... So confusing...
| ifaxmycodetok8s wrote:
| only seems to look or work "good" when you just scroll by
| holding down the arrow keys
| DougMellon wrote:
| I am on a Mac (M1 Air) and it's not the greatest experience.
| [deleted]
| rchaud wrote:
| It's laggy on Firefox in in a 2014 MBP as well. I won't blame
| Apple, this is just the state of web animation with CSS3 and
| Lottie.
|
| Weird to think that Flash handled this kind of animation
| seamlessly on browsers 15 years ago.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| I don't think (for me) the issue is how smooth the scrolling
| is. It's the fact that these animations are there at all.
| Like... who _wants_ to see these? They add nothing and add
| huge visual confusion...
| dagmx wrote:
| Flash then wasn't dealing with as high resolution content
| though
| rchaud wrote:
| We barely had dual-core processors back then. It's fair to
| assume that Flash's capabilities would have improved with
| hardware advances.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| Mac pointing devices have step-less and inertial scrolling, so
| the scrolling itself is effortless, but the framerate of the
| "video" is too low, so it's either not fluid enough unless you
| scroll like crazy.
| fomine3 wrote:
| Even if it worked perfectly, it's bad design.
| wwalexander wrote:
| I feel like everyone immediately realized what a terrible UX
| scrolljacking provides when the trend started, but Apple has
| pressed on despite their (in my opinion) otherwise thoughtful
| UX design.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > Is it as bad to scroll through this on a mac as it is on
| linux
|
| It is. Despite their investment in desktop hardware (finally!)
| they completely forgot how to do desktop software. Ten years
| ago all those animations where buttery smooth even if they were
| a weird custom "video" code that assembled them out of separate
| PNGs.
| izolate wrote:
| FYI the Studio Display website was outsourced to an agency,
| and not developed in-house by Apple engineers. Outsourcing
| rarely improves the quality of software.
| dmitriid wrote:
| This is even worse
| jimbob45 wrote:
| If you middle-click and scroll down smoothly, it's a better
| experience (provided you nail the right speed). However,
| there's a bunch of text you miss doing it that way.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| Thank you, Apple, but no:
|
| - only 60hz;
|
| - no DisplayPort/HDMI;
|
| - anti-glare coating (I hate the blurriness of matte displays).
| Thaxll wrote:
| Are people really paying 1.6k for a 60hz monitor?
| aryamaan wrote:
| Any suggestions for good 27 inches monitor which works with Mac
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Different priorities. People buying these are looking for good
| specs in color reproduction, contrast (as far as is possible
| without FALD backlighting), and perhaps most importantly
| _consistent QC_.
|
| If you look at reviews for just about any model of monitor
| released in the past 5-6 years QC has been atrocious, with dead
| pixels, backlight bleed, and other odd issues being
| commonplace, making it a challenge to get a unit that's good
| all around. This has been especially true for the display that
| this is most directly replacing (LG Ultrafine 5k).
| moooo99 wrote:
| Show me a higher/same resolution display with a higher refresh
| rate. I'd genuinely curious. I've been searching for a new
| monitor for a few weeks and can't find anything with 4K and
| more than 60Hz refresh rate.
| nwidynski wrote:
| https://www.amazon.com/LG-27GN950-B-Ultragear-Response-
| Compa...
| moooo99 wrote:
| As the other comment pointed out, that is not an apples to
| apples comparison. The monitor you linked is a UHD one
| (3840 x 2160 pixels, around 8.3 megapixels) with a pixel
| density of ~200 ppi. The display showcased by Apple has a
| resolution of 5K (5120 x 2880 pixels, around 14.75
| megapixels) with a pixel density of 217 ppi. Also, based on
| my experiences with LG gaming monitors I would assume that
| the Apple display also has a significantly better color
| accuracy.
|
| If you would have taken a second to look at the specs and
| search for actually comparable products you would find that
| there are, at least to my knowledge, no displays with the
| same resolution and higher refresh rates. This makes sense
| because 5k@60Hz already has incredibly high bandwidth
| requirements.
|
| The best actually comparable product is an LG UltraFine 5K
| which comes in at 1,499EUR msrp which is 246EUR cheaper
| than Apple's Studio Display at 1,745EUR msrp. Oh, and to no
| ones surprise, it also has a 60 Hz refresh rate.
|
| So to answer your initial question: Yes, people do spend
| that kind of money on displays with "only" 60Hz.
| woobar wrote:
| This one is almost half the resolution. UHD vs 5K
| dagmx wrote:
| Production monitors tend to not be high refresh rate, across
| the industry.
| ushakov wrote:
| > studio-quality three-mic array
|
| but will i be able to record an album on it? are those three-mic
| condenser microphones? i guess not
|
| Apple should really stop abusing the word "Studio"
| hackerlink99 wrote:
| Guys I'm thinking of buying it: WILL I BE ABLE TO CONNECT MY XBOX
| TO IT? This question is super important to me. Thanks!
| minimaxir wrote:
| In this case it's unclear; it requires Thunderbolt in, and any
| TB-to-HDMI adapter used will likely cause issues.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| No direct ICC profile is a terrible decision by Apple. Same with
| Apple Pro Display XDR. It's opposite of being pro.
| etcet wrote:
| The height adjustable stand is $400 more than just the tilt
| adjustable stand. Truly revolutionary.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| About the same price as the college textbooks I use to prop up
| my existing monitors
| sys_64738 wrote:
| How thick are those bezels?
| humanwhosits wrote:
| The website doesn't scroll properly
| DCKing wrote:
| I like this announcement, because it means that there's a
| manufacturing line for proper HiDPI [1] displays running in some
| LG factory somewhere that third party manufactures like
| LG/Dell/Iiyama can hopefully use to give us some fresh good-
| looking 27" 5K desktop monitors. It boggles my mind how little
| attention very high pixel density displays have been getting from
| PC display manufacturers. I would also be first in line for a PC
| monitor that uses the M1 iMac display, but I suppose nobody sees
| a market for higher end 24" monitors anymore.
|
| [1]: HiDPI displays that work correctly with macOS' and Linux
| desktop's naive HiDPI implementation, that requires 2x scaling
| for good results.
|
| Nobody in 2022 will sell you a monitor that does that, except for
| Apple's expensive stuff that is hard to use with regular PCs and
| one over the top Dell display. I wish everyone did what ChromeOS
| or modern Windows apps do. I need that extremely crisp font
| rendering in my life.
| wyuenho wrote:
| This is likely a mini-LED screen that Apple has been putting
| into the iPad Pro and MBPs, which is not a technology LG
| possesses. This is likely manufactured in Taiwan or China or
| Germany, using the licensed technology from Taiwan's Epistar.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| There is no evidence for that. It is more than likely an LG
| display, as Apple has been rumored to work be working with LG
| on Apple branded displays, and they are the only producer (so
| far) of 27 inch 5K displays.
| orangecat wrote:
| Yes. My desktop is using a janky 5k display with dozens of dead
| subpixels, and still it was the best option available at the
| time (and it now seems to be discontinued). It's impressive how
| the supposedly diverse PC ecosystem completely fails to deliver
| in certain areas; see also reasonably sized Android phones.
| dijit wrote:
| Apple have always been the first to push higher resolution
| devices for as long as I've been alive.
|
| Laptops in the early 2010's were stuck on 1336x768 until Apple
| kicked up a fuss about having "retina", same with phones which
| had comically low resolutions until Apple made a fuss about it
| with the iPhone 4.
|
| Sadly my eyes aren't as good as they used to be so I can't make
| a lot of use of the extra real-estate, but it always seems as
| if they're ahead when it comes to resolutions on consumer
| devices.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| Dell's 6 year old 8k UP3218 has entered the chat
| goosedragons wrote:
| The ThinkPad R50p had a QXGA screen (2048x1536) option back
| in 2003. Granted Windows had zilch support for it which is
| probably why it died. Even the base model was a 1600x1200
| screen. And there was plenty of phones with 200+ ppi before
| the iPhone 4. I think it has more to do with higher PPI
| screens getting cheaper and Apple could just get more supply
| first...
| dijit wrote:
| That was an extreme outlier, the r-series is an uncommonly
| deployed thinkpad line.
|
| Check the t- or x- series which are many many orders of
| magnitude wider deployed.
| goosedragons wrote:
| You could get a 1600x1200 T60p too...
| digisign wrote:
| I have a 24"(61cm) 4k Dell monitor with Ubuntu... it is a bit
| unique these days, don't think there are many others around.
| Mostly happy with it, but...
|
| I'd rather have _higher_ density like the laptop it is
| connected to, with 4k. Perhaps 200dpi 3:2 or 16:10 around ~22
| "(56cm) diagonal that can do portrait would be my preferred
| monitor. Haven't seen that around unfortunately.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| There was an LG Ultrafine 21.5" 4k display which was the same
| DPI as the MacBook's screen, but it's been long discontinued
| (along with that model of the iMac, which was what the
| display was originally destined for)
| DCKing wrote:
| I've been searching for those, but they're unobtanium even
| second hand. I suppose no-one wants to get rid of these
| monitors once they have them, because there's no replacements
| you can buy.
| hultner wrote:
| Yeah, I used to have 3 of them, really miss them. Got 2x5k
| now but really prefer the 21.5" DCI-4k.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I would love have a 24" 4K rather than a 28" 4K, but sunk
| costs. The 24" imac is 4K, and has a similar DPI to the 27"
| 5K imac.
| mrtksn wrote:
| The PC market seems to be driven by the gamers and the word on
| the gamers street is that it's all about latency.
|
| I actually like extra wide displays. There are few interesting
| options like that but the rest seems to be dominated by low
| color, low resolution, low latency stuff.
| smileybarry wrote:
| Once you get used to low-latency or high-refresh-rate
| displays, you can't not notice the subtle mouse cursor drag
| of a "early days" 4K display (had one at work), or the
| _teeny_ delay of (most) Dell monitors. Honestly considered at
| asome point just asking work to get me a high-Hz display.
| raydev wrote:
| > it's all about latency.
|
| Not just latency, but framerate too.
|
| I wanted to build a gaming PC that would double as a Windows
| dev machine, so I wanted more pixels than 1080p.
|
| Even with my 3090, I can only reasonably do 1440p @ 240Hz,
| and even then I lose some frames on Fortnite with graphics
| settings turned down. 4k was out. Thankfully Alienware makes
| a very nice 1440p 240Hz monitor.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > It boggles my mind how little attention very high pixel
| density displays have been getting from PC display
| manufacturers.
|
| Didn't Apple corner the market on these displays by buying up
| all available capacity for retinas?
| notriddle wrote:
| They cornered the market on TSMC's highest node, also. This
| means AMD still gets to benefit from the process
| improvements, offset by one gen.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| They've had the iMac line using these displays forever and it
| hasn't filtered down to other display makers. Only LG via the
| ultrafine line has used these densities (also Windows and Linux
| support is lacking or janky)
| DCKing wrote:
| Iiyama [1], Dell [2] and LG used a 27" 5K iMac display for a
| little while, but as production at Apple wound down you can
| no longer really buy those in most places.
|
| [1]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12568/iiyamas-prolite-
| xb2779q...
|
| [2]: https://www.dell.com/ae/business/p/dell-
| up2715k-monitor/pd
| [deleted]
| adrianmsmith wrote:
| Would be nice to have >5K resolutions to have more pixel density.
|
| Alas, macOS doesn't support any native scaling other than 100%
| and 200%. So if they did release e.g. a 27" 8K monitor, the text
| would either be too small, or they'd have to use bitmap scaling
| to make it bigger in which case there'd be no advantage of having
| an 8K monitor.
|
| (EDIT: To clarify, all other scaling factors are done by
| rendering at either 100% or 200% and doing bitmap scaling up or
| down. By bitmap scaling 200% up up to e.g. 250%, things are
| bigger so that's good, but there's no extra detail being
| displayed, so you're wasting the resolution of your monitor. You
| might as well buy a cheaper monitor with fewer but larger
| pixels.)
|
| I really don't understand why they don't either (a) adopt
| Windows' approach of allowing rendering directly to any arbitrary
| scale, or (b) at least introduce a 300% mode with bitmap scaling
| analogous to their 100% and 200% modes.
| astrange wrote:
| Your suggestion was tried for years and failed every time
| because it doesn't work. HiDPI shipped because it was 2x or
| nothing. (Later there was 3x.)
|
| The reason Windows developers still think it might work is they
| have no taste and don't care about localized UI, pixel cracks,
| or blurry bitmap controls.
| naikrovek wrote:
| nah, hidpi on Windows is fine if you know what you're doing
| as an application developer. it's those who haven't bothered
| to make the changes recommended or required that make windows
| hidpi support look worse than it is in single-monitor setups.
|
| multiple monitors on Windows with varying dpi scales is not
| great though, and probably can't be until some backwards
| compatibility promises are broken or expired.
| nickpp wrote:
| In the latest Windows 11 there are a bunch of native OS
| dialog which are not high-dpi aware and look pixelated on
| my 4K monitor.
|
| If even Microsoft can't be bothered, what do you expect
| from app developers?!
| solarmist wrote:
| >nah, hidpi on Windows is fine... Exactly, it's fine.
|
| Apple has never settled for "fine" either it's great or it
| gets cuts at some point.
|
| >if you know what you're doing as an application developer.
| Apple also tends to avoid wading into footgun waters to
| keep quality (for 3rd party devs) as high as possible
| across the board.
| xenadu02 wrote:
| > nah, hidpi on Windows is fine if you know what you're
| doing as an application developer.
|
| Many (most?) don't or can't be bothered so the end result
| in practice is that it doesn't work. Microsoft has been
| chasing the HiDPI fairy for decades and the situation
| hasn't really gotten better. They still ship software (both
| in and outside the OS) that isn't HiDPI aware.
|
| Retina prioritizes making it easy for developers to adopt:
| Double the size of artwork, points are 2 pixels, Done. Are
| there quibbles? Sure. But millions of people are looking at
| HiDPI screens where every single thing in the OS and all
| third party apps they use fully support 2x.
|
| No one lives in the magical world where arbitrary scaling
| factors are supported. Doing that as a developer is just
| too damn complicated when @1x + @2x (and maybe @3x) makes
| 98% of people happy and is vastly less work.
| astrange wrote:
| > Microsoft has been chasing the HiDPI fairy for decades
| and the situation hasn't really gotten better.
|
| Well, I want to say it has gotten better. Their Metro
| design is what a UI has to look like to work with
| arbitrary scales and still solve those problems I
| mentioned. The downsides are it uses simple geometric
| shapes and has tons of whitespace everywhere so text can
| reflow in longer languages.
|
| This is probably another big reason behind "flat design"
| in modern websites, the old skuomorphic (sp) stuff would
| be hard to do with vectors.
|
| (As for vectors in UI, they have other performance issues
| which are important if you like live resizing windows.)
| pcr910303 wrote:
| Macs does support non-integer scaling. In fact, macOS currently
| ships non-integer scaling by default in certain MBP models. It
| gets criticized from time to tome, though the newer 14/16" MBPs
| ship 200% as default again.
| NobodyNada wrote:
| Unless things changed since last I checked ~2 years ago,
| macOS's 150% scaling actually renders at 300% and downscales.
| It looks pretty bad (visible aliasing on any kind of text)
| and is wasteful performance-wise.
| TingPing wrote:
| That's just how to do it. You scale extra information down.
| Anything else doesn't work outside of vector based formats.
| pombrand wrote:
| it actually looks great on the LG 5k giving you 2880 pixels
| across and there's no significant performance hit w a M1
| macbook air.
| [deleted]
| newaccount74 wrote:
| As far as I know, it's worse, it renders at 200% and
| downscales.
|
| macOS draws only at 1x or 2x. 3x is iOS only.
|
| Apples decision to support only integer scaling was what
| allowed them to adopt Retina displays very quickly.
| Unfortunately it led to a subotimal solution in the long
| term.
| the_lucifer wrote:
| > It gets criticized from time to tome, though the newer
| 14/16" MBPs ship 200% as default again.
|
| The new 2021 MacBook Pros were such a great design and it's
| clear how every small thing points to them being the greatest
| since 2015 Pros.
| nicoburns wrote:
| I upgraded from 2015 13" Macbook Pro to 2021 14" Macbook
| Pro, and it's remarkable how similar the devices are. The
| physical dimensions are almost identical. Neither have a
| touch bar. And they both have a similar selection of ports
| (HDMI, SD card, aux, mag safe), and in very similar
| locations. The difference is basically improvements in
| quality of pretty much everything: better screen resolution
| and size, better webcam, better keyboard, better speakers,
| USB-C instead of thunderbolt ports and USB-A, better
| battery life, and of course a much much faster processor
| and thermals.
| [deleted]
| petilon wrote:
| > _I really don 't understand why they don't either (a) adopt
| Windows' approach of allowing rendering directly to any
| arbitrary scale_
|
| Windows is badly broken in this regard. I bought and returned a
| Microsoft Surface laptop because its rendering is broken: If
| you display a web page containing horizontal lines (like grid
| lines of an HTML table) then the lines will appear to have
| varying thickness even though they are all set to 1px. That's
| crap; I couldn't believe Microsoft is shipping this. If Windows
| scaling is set to anything other than 100% or 200% you will
| have this issue. Both 150% and 300% have this issue. I have
| never seen such issues on a Mac.
| hughrr wrote:
| I'm running at neither 100% or 200% on my 4k 27"...
| kccqzy wrote:
| UI elements are still rendered at 2x and then downscaled.
| It's just that you (or most people) can't tell the
| difference. Me neither.
| hughrr wrote:
| Exactly.
| adrianmsmith wrote:
| However this decision does mean Apple can't produce
| monitors with more than about 200 PPI without the text
| being too small (at 200%). i.e. they can't go beyond 5K at
| 27".
|
| Which is a shame, you can use 8K monitors with Windows at
| e.g. 300% just fine.
| kccqzy wrote:
| They can easily add support for rendering at 3x. iOS has
| supported that since iPhone 6 Plus. The only thing that's
| missing from macOS is a switch to turn it on, and produce
| all the UI assets at 3x.
| [deleted]
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| > (a) adopt Windows' approach of allowing any arbitrary scale
|
| Apple is all about controlling and curating the user
| experience. They would much rather force you into some lane
| than allow you to go wild configuration wise.
| naikrovek wrote:
| is allowing a 150% option considered "going wild"?
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Personally, no, but the GP did say "allowing any arbitrary
| scale" and that's what I was referring to. Why Apple does
| not allow 150% is beyond me because it is quite reasonable.
| But I can understand why they don't allow users to enter a
| value like 168%.
| petilon wrote:
| > _Why Apple does not allow 150% is beyond me because it
| is quite reasonable._
|
| It is absolutely not reasonable. HTML tables with
| horizontal grid lines will appear to have varying line
| thicknesses when in reality they are all set to the same
| width.
| copperx wrote:
| I'm confused by your post. macOS definitely supports fractional
| scaling since 2012.
| mrkstu wrote:
| It's there but it's noticeably slower/buggier.
| bragh wrote:
| It depends on how the display is detected. Never got it to
| work with Dell UltraSharps, but some curved LG display works
| fine.
| jcelerier wrote:
| It does so by rendering at 200% then downscaling the
| resulting texture which is absolutely horrendous for both
| performance and looks
| bluedino wrote:
| They come with that as default
| tehnub wrote:
| I'm disappointed with the ergonomics of it. First, you have to
| pay extra for height adjustability, and then the height
| adjustment is via an arm that changes the viewing distance when
| you adjust the height. Why can't it just be like Dell monitors
| (and many others) where the screen can be moved up or down on a
| fixed axis, and it's included in the product?
| gumby wrote:
| Interesting: the discontinued 27" iMac was only $200 more
| (1599/1799) despite containing basically an entire Mac mini.
| ThePhysicist wrote:
| I wish they wouldn't make me scroll through two pages of animated
| backgrounds just to see the actual monitor. That said if I would
| spend this much on a monitor I would prefer the Samsung Odyssey
| Neo, which has a 5K resolution on a curved 49' display with a 240
| Hz refresh rate, HDR 2.000 and G-Sync/Freesync. I guess the color
| space coverage is not as good though, and it's not as bright at
| 420 nits, though that's more than bright enough for me.
| deergomoo wrote:
| > 5K resolution on a curved 49' display with a 240 Hz refresh
| rate
|
| That is clearly a gaming monitor. No-one would want to do the
| sort of workloads this display is aimed at on something like
| that.
| tedivm wrote:
| I learned a long time ago to hit "Tech Specs" on the top right
| instead of sitting through the ridiculous marketing pages
| (especially since they have awful performance on Firefox for
| some reason).
| [deleted]
| chimen wrote:
| Toilet paper monitors. Can't be serious with that. Here's a
| good one: https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-
| ultrasharp-40-curv...
| ThePhysicist wrote:
| I have several Dell monitors (writing this on a 27' 4k
| S2721QS), they're absolutely awesome for office work.
| Sometimes I crave for a higher refresh rate though, I have
| another ultrawide monitor with 144 Hz refresh rate and it
| really makes a difference, I find.
| infinityio wrote:
| only 60hz though, which might be a dealbreaker for some
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| The 300 nits brightness kills this model for me. With my desk
| sitting next to a window, even with indirect sunlight
| anything below 400-500 nits starts having usability issues. I
| could lower the shades but I'd much rather let the sunlight
| in.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| Just 140 PPI? _Can't be serious with that_.
|
| I have no idea how people can work with such low pixels
| density, really - I've tried and it's just impossible.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Wow, that looks awesome. I like the Apple displays but I'm
| into seriously wide aspect ratio stuff lately.
|
| I was checking on some comically wide Samsung monitors
| however I wasn't impressed with the build quality.
| joao wrote:
| Fine print: only compatible with macOS Monterey 12.3 or later.
|
| Perhaps only spatial audio and some camera features won't be
| compatible with older macOS versions. Waiting for the first
| reviews.
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| Sadly no built in KVM. I like my BenQ monitor for having KVM
| (among other reasons).
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| I'm reading this on a 27" 5K imac from 2014. It's a nice screen.
| But it's eight years old now. So, what's new?
| alexashka wrote:
| in 2014, you could buy a 27" 5k iMac for 2000$.
|
| Now you can buy the exact same monitor, for 1600$.
|
| We've made a lot of progress.
| [deleted]
| moooo99 wrote:
| That really is a shame. Mac screens have been amazing for a
| long time now, but as soon as the computer inside them is
| outdated and slow, the whole device including the still
| awesome display is obsolete. Thats the main reason I'd
| probably never buy an iMac.
| LanceH wrote:
| If you've ever tried to get an apple monitor repaired, you
| find out it has one part inside which costs roughly the
| same as the monitor.
| dagmx wrote:
| That's $2300 in todays dollars if it helps the cost
| comparison
| ballenf wrote:
| And $2500 in next month's.
| kecupochren wrote:
| Do you not get ghosting issues?
| alexashka wrote:
| iMac 2015. Yes, and it is _bad_.
|
| I now set all my monitors to turn on screensaver within 1
| minute.
| icedchai wrote:
| Same here. My 27" iMac has been my longest running and best
| desktop computer. It still feels pretty fast!
| Koshkin wrote:
| In comparison, my "late 2014" Mac Mini feels slow (after an
| OS upgrade).
| jdlshore wrote:
| Speaking as someone who's in the market for a new display, I
| haven't been able to find a quality 27" 5K screen. LG has one,
| but it gets poor reviews. Everybody else is selling 4Ks, which
| is lower effective resolution than what I'm using now (a 23"
| 1920x1200 Apple Cinema display). So this is definitely
| appealing to me.
| pedrocr wrote:
| The effective resolution of 4K is 2x in both directions
| because to match the size you just set the 27" screen a bit
| farther away so it fills the same field of view. The jump in
| resolution from going 4K will be very noticeable and a 27" 4K
| IPS screen is less than 300EUR. Well worth the upgrade.
| aryamaan wrote:
| I am in the same bucket. LG Ultrafine is the only option
| which seems available. But it's an old model and I am
| surprised the lack of availability from the other
| manufacturers.
| ithkuil wrote:
| I have the LG ultra fine 5k and it's a very good monitor. It
| has a small defect: occasionally there is a small flickering
| on the central vertical line. It goes away if you put the
| screen to sleep and wake it again (it takes a few seconds,
| and I had to do it a handful of times in a year)
| james-redwood wrote:
| I hate this trend in 'ultra modern' websites with the infinite
| scroll pulling you through some sort of animation. The website is
| near unusable as a result.
| [deleted]
| saddestcatever wrote:
| I'm sitting here on a 2015 Macbook Pro and the site barely runs
| :P
| kahrl wrote:
| I might be ignorant here, but what trend? Scrolljacking was
| popular for about 5 minutes back around 2010 during the HTML5
| craze before people realized how awful a UX it is. The only
| place I still see it being used regularly is Apple sites. Have
| you seen this pattern used elsewhere?
| jkelleyrtp wrote:
| Fun fact - if you have "reduce motion" enabled on macOS the
| webpage becomes a normal flat scrollable page (what you'd
| expect).
| ask_b123 wrote:
| Nice fact! I've enabled it now.
| NackerHughes wrote:
| Hey, it's marginally more usable than unskippable Flash intros,
| which is what we used to get.
|
| Although, unlike other similarly effect-heavy apple landing
| pages I've seen in the recent past, this one doesn't appear to
| offer a decent alternative version when javascript is disabled,
| which is a disappointment.
| imglorp wrote:
| Oh sure, they put the anti-reflective coating on the device that
| lives inside on a desk, but the portable stuff all has super
| reflective surfaces making them hell to use outside.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| $1599 isn't _quite_ as bad as I expected, actually.
|
| I've still got my old 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display (a puny 2560
| by 1440 pixels), which i use daily. (The convenience of built-in
| video/mic/USB hub, with one cable, is _indispensible_ and more
| important to me than resolution, and it 's been really unclear to
| me what else could do that with a macbook). But might be ready to
| upgrade to this guy.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| I also have a Thunderbolt Display, which I got last year. It's
| been great and, as you say, having webcam/mic/speakers/usb hub
| _and an Ethernet port_ is absolutely fantastic. And the quality
| of the thing overall is just superb.
|
| Also for me those "add-ons" are more important than pixel
| density, and I'm saying this as a graphic designer. If there
| were a version of this with a bigger size (but with less pixel
| density), and maybe a more 'squared' factor, I'd jump to it
| without even thinking, but alas for Apple pixel density is
| first above everything else.
| pkamb wrote:
| That's the same resolution (screen real estate) as this new
| one. Just 1x and not 2x Retina.
| Uptrenda wrote:
| wow, 600 nits -- that's bright. If you have a mac book pro you
| already have a screen that does 500 nits which easily lets you
| see the screen in the sun. If you're inside without glare you can
| get away with just 250 nits. For smart phones -- the nits are
| typically much higher because people use them in the sun and need
| good visibility outside.
|
| A 600 nit screen inside would almost be too bright for some
| people. I know people who already turn down their laptops because
| 500 is too bright. but i think its good to have the option to
| turn it down rather than a screen that's too dim.
| NathHorrigan wrote:
| I'd disagree, I have a 16" 2021 MacBook that has the XDR
| Display with 1000avg/1600peak brightness and I constantly have
| it maxed.
|
| It's very annoying have it next to my BenQ 4K monitor that
| feels so much flatter in comparison. It just makes any other
| monitor so boring in comparison.
| maherbeg wrote:
| Bummed they didn't release a 32" or 34". I really enjoy using a
| 34" ultrawide with 3 columns of apps.
| 015a wrote:
| For me, its frustrating to not see an option without all the
| webcam, microphone, octuple speaker array, A13, 100w charging, TB
| hub, madness. I have to imagine that adds significant cost, and
| at $1600 we're not in the territory where this stuff can be
| included just 'cause.
|
| I like it, but I imagine some professionals would like to do what
| Apple's marketing images all show; buy two, maybe even three. I'd
| love to have _one_ with all that stuff, but not all of them need
| the bells and whistles; and there 's value in having all your
| displays be identical, especially in work that needs color
| calibration (not to mention, it looks nice).
|
| So, maybe I grab one if the reviews look solid. And hopefully in
| the future they release a version without all that extra stuff
| for closer to the $1200-$1300 an LG 5K ultrafine display can be
| had for.
| yurishimo wrote:
| Except if you compare it to the LG 5K, it's worth the extra
| cost in build quality alone. The LG monitors are notorious
| pieces of junk with flaky connectors that come loose like
| clockwork.
|
| The new Studio display is expensive, but I think the features
| somewhat justify the price compared to the "competition".
| 015a wrote:
| You're speaking very confidently about the build quality of a
| display which was announced to the public two hours ago.
| shadowfacts wrote:
| It's not hard to beat the notoriously bad build quality and
| reliability of the LG UltraFine and Apple has a track
| record of building solid displays (I have an LED Cinema
| Display that's going on 13 years old with nary a single
| issue).
| brailsafe wrote:
| I think your experience has been a constant of most Apple
| products for the last 22 years or so. Some people have no
| issues ever, some people have constant issues all the
| time. That said, I loved the Cinema displays and they did
| have a good track record, but if memory serves, the
| Thunderbolt Display variant was notoriously flaky [0].
| Since they've put out so few external displays, it does
| stain their reputation a bit.
|
| [0] https://superpixel.co/apples-thunderbolt-display-
| worst-apple...
| borland wrote:
| Everything I've heard about the Pro display XDR's has
| been that all the things like USB/Thunderbolt
| connectivity are rock solid. This suggests Apple's
| display group has their goods together, and the Studio
| Display is likely to be solid too.
| hultner wrote:
| I've had 5 ultra fines since they were released in
| 2016/15ish, both 3x4k 21.5", and now 2x5k 27". Never
| experienced any issues, build quality is quite high in my
| opinion and the stand is surprisingly solid, much better then
| my Dell UltraSharps and LG UltraWide.
|
| Of course not at the level of the Apple Displays but they are
| really outliers in the industry.
| localhost wrote:
| My personal take: my two 27" 4K LG monitors run GREAT here. I
| like the extremely small vertical bezels on both of them (one
| is a 144Hz and the other is a 60Hz). Connectors are fine. The
| monitors don't move at all, so build quality issues are
| imperceptible here. I think I paid something like $600 for
| each one at different points in time.
| cloverich wrote:
| Yeah I know its just anecdata but I've been using mine
| daily for over 4 years now, all day every day, and never
| had an issue. I love the single cable + built in
| peripherals and am puzzled at the lack of competition
| around it. I had really questioned whether I was reaching
| when I purchased it for ~$1200 but 4+ years later, there's
| still very little to compare it to. (Tons of great options
| if you don't want built-in peripherals / single cable of
| course)
| hultner wrote:
| So you're asking for the LG UF 5k?
| deergomoo wrote:
| Which is discontinued in most territories.
| skadamat wrote:
| Sadly no HDMI or DisplayPort, so can't use it for Xbox. Sadly
| only 60 Hz Seems like a really gorgeous update to this old thing
| - https://www.adorama.com/lot27md5klb.html?utm_source=adl-gbas...
|
| I hope they do 4k@120hz in the next version!
| rewtraw wrote:
| just use an adapter... Thunderbolt / USB C gives you
| flexibility
| fbkr wrote:
| Can you actually connect HDMI input to a thunderbolt only
| display? I have the LG 5K thunderbolt-only display and cannot
| use it with a desktop PC due to this issue.
| fumar wrote:
| Would something like this work? Xbox or gaming console to
| Apple Studio Display. https://www.amazon.com/Anker-
| DisplayPort-PowerExpand-Aluminu...
| jjcm wrote:
| Awesome to see them finally putting out _almost_ consumer
| friendly pricing displays. Few things I 'm disappointed about
| though:
|
| - 60hz. For this price point I'd expect higher.
|
| - Thunderbolt 3. Interesting that they didn't bump to 4, given
| the Mac Studio is Thunderbolt 4. This means you wont be able to
| daisy chain the displays.
|
| - Lack of size options. Would love to see more variety here.
| After moving to an ultrawide format, I can't see myself moving
| back to standard format monitors from a productivity standpoint.
|
| Overall though excited for this and keen to see how it'll evolve.
| It'll be a miss for me this cycle but keen to see their future
| releases of their monitor line.
| fotta wrote:
| TB4 has the same bandwidth as TB3 so you wouldn't be able to
| daisy chain 5k monitors anyway. Also as the other commentator
| mentioned, TB doesn't have enough bandwidth for 120hz (53Gbps
| vs 40Gbps)
| aldanor wrote:
| Yea. Sad about the lack of ultrawide option, too. Once you get
| used to it, there's no way back.
|
| Two 27'' displays is not an option since you can't center
| anything, so... three Studio displays side-to-side?
| tshaddox wrote:
| I've been running an LG non-curved 3440x1440 ultrawide
| monitor as my main work monitor for several years now. It's a
| great form factor, but the resolution is really sad. It's
| essentially a wider version of the Dell 1440p monitor that I
| had _ten years ago_. My ideal monitor now would be a pixel-
| doubled version of this ultrawide monitor, but I 'm still
| tempted to lose the extra width and upgrade to this 5k
| display.
| yurishimo wrote:
| Same. I have a 32" 1440p display and am considering
| grabbing one of these when I get back to the states in a
| few months. I could live without the speakers, but honestly
| if they're "good enough" they might kick my powered studio
| monitors off of my desk. I like my powered speakers but I
| don't use them anywhere near the volume they thrive at so
| it might be worth it to re-examine my workflow as a
| hobbyist.
| tylerfontaine wrote:
| The Dell U4021QW is probably the best monitor I've ever
| used. I, too, got sad with 1440 vertical pixels on previous
| ultrawides, so I was pretty excited when they announced
| this one. 5120 x 2160 is really a dream. It's limited to
| 60hz, which bothers some folks, but I haven't noticed. I
| don't game or anything on it, though.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I actually forgot that that monitor configuration
| existed. It looks nice, although I assume you would still
| be running at the same UI scaling as a 1440p monitor, and
| the higher pixel density compared to a 34" ultrawide
| 1440p display (around 25% higher) means you put the
| monitor closer to your eyes. So unless you're doing non-
| integer scaling (which I want to avoid if at all
| possible), you get a lot more real estate than the 1440p
| display, but not 2x density. Or you could do 2x scaling,
| but then you've just got the real estate of an ultrawide
| 1080p display. Personally I have plenty of real estate
| with 3440x1440, and what I'm really interested in is
| jumping to 2x scaling.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Yeah I don't know what it is with everyone prioritizing pixels
| over refresh rate.. once you start using 100+hz 60hz starts to
| feel like a slide show. You can see mouse trails and scrolling
| is jerky and uncoordinated, it's painful and insanely
| distracting.
| dnissley wrote:
| I mainly just look at text all day, so the "slow" transitions
| between different bits of text just don't matter all that
| much to me. Resolution helps that text look nice and crisp
| though, which I really do appreciate.
| bob1029 wrote:
| To this day, 27" 1440p, 144hz IPS gaming monitors are still
| my favorite daily driver for any desktop productivity. And
| when I say favorite, I mean by an extremely large margin.
|
| The amount of real estate you get with 2560x1440 is
| fantastic, and you can actually game on it at native
| resolution on older gen graphics. The pixel density of 27" @
| 1440p is the epitome of goldilocks. Every single pixel is
| just the right amount of useful.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| Although I agree that 100+ Hz matters and the difference is
| huge, pixels density is very important also, and for some
| (myself included), it matters more.
| cpuguy83 wrote:
| Remember 60hz CRTs? That was _unbearable_ for me.
| deergomoo wrote:
| For a while I went down the rabbit hole of getting high end
| CRTs for retro games. I'm in a PAL region though, and the
| first time I booted up a 50Hz game I wondered how the hell
| I didn't spend my entire childhood with a migraine. 60 I'm
| fine with but 50 I can literally see flickering.
| owenwil wrote:
| The technology to do 5K @ 120hz just doesn't exist yet. 5K @
| 60Hz is already maxing out Thunderbolt 4.
| Dunedan wrote:
| DisplayPort 1.2 (or newer) and HDMI 2.1 both support 5K at
| 120Hz when using DSC.
| miohtama wrote:
| What's DSC?
| tinus_hn wrote:
| You'd say if they can drive 3 displays at 60hz they should be
| able to drive one at 120hz
| smileybarry wrote:
| Maybe, but I don't see anyone going the way of dual-link
| ports ever again. It was clumsy enough the first time.
| bdcravens wrote:
| A few years ago I would have been very excited about this, and
| immediately upgraded the Thunderbolt Display I had at the time.
| These days I prefer 32" display, and I don't even need 4k (I have
| 2 32" QHD LG displays at both home and work)
| cube2222 wrote:
| As a person who works on a Mac but uses a Windows PC for gaming:
| a pity this only has USB-C inputs, so you won't be able to
| connect a PC with an RTX 30xx card to it.
|
| Still very cool though.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Several Intel and AMD motherboards have both Thunderbolt ports
| along with a DisplayPort in port that lets you pipe the output
| of a discrete GPU (like an RTX 3080) through the Thunderbolt
| connection. These will probably work just fine with the Studio
| display. Some PC laptops with Thunderbolt and more capable GPUs
| probably work with it too.
| jrockway wrote:
| Amazingly, NVidia cards had this port on previous generation
| models, but it got removed for some reason. (Though it's
| actually not clear to me it would work; they did some non-
| standard stuff to get USB 3.1 instead of USB 2.0 alongside
| DisplayPort lanes.)
| minimaxir wrote:
| It most likely wouldn't work with a Windows PC anyways due to
| the tight macOS integration anyways; my iMac in Boot Camp can't
| use any of the USB-C ports on a connected LG Ultrafine 5k at
| all.
| brigade wrote:
| There are bidirectional DisplayPort <-> USB-C cables, as well
| as DisplayPort+USB-A -> USB-C cables/adapters that work with
| the XDR display at 6k, or there are PCIe cards that add a USB-C
| port with DisplayPort alt-mode support
|
| Only problem is that you'll probably need to extract a BootCamp
| driver to control brightness/volume, assuming one will exist
| for this monitor.
|
| (well, if it supports HDR input, you'd use Window's SDR
| brightness to control it that way instead)
| Goosee wrote:
| To connect my windows desktop to lg ultrafine - I use a
| bidirectional display port to thunderbolt 3 cable (amazon
| basics)
| cube2222 wrote:
| Wow! Didn't know those cables can go the other direction as
| well. That's huge!
|
| Thank you! Another example that writing something wrong on
| the internet is the best way to find the truth :)
|
| That said, it looks like there's just one input port and
| three output ports. Would need to do some hack there as well,
| to avoid constant cable changing.
| mulmen wrote:
| Great news. I use an LG ultrawide but it took three LGs to find
| one that MacOS could reliably detect with a supported resolution.
| It was a ridiculously complicated and painful process.
|
| I had a 2014 RMBP with the Thunderbolt monitor and Apple wireless
| keyboard and mouse. Everything "just worked". I never had any
| issues. I just spent my time working instead of fighting with my
| workstation. It was glorious.
|
| Glad to see Apple back to form here. I'm willing to pay the
| premium for a complete solution.
| benjaminwootton wrote:
| The website was too much for my top of the range iPhone 12 to
| handle. Nice work Apple.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-08 23:01 UTC)