16” MBP is long overdue for the 120hz display
- Thread starter 1198271
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And is more expensive and has lower quality. Long overdue is kind of a strange thing to say if there is a whopping half 120hz panel on the market that could be compared to the MBP screen (I am talking about the new ASUS workstation)
What does 120Hz buy the average pro users? I can see it for gaming, but the Mac Book Pro is not designed as gaming machine.
[automerge]1574780283[/automerge]
And an 11" or 12.9" and is running a lower power processor, and less powerful operation system. Also, it taget a content consumer versus working professional market.
[automerge]1574780283[/automerge]
And an 11" or 12.9" and is running a lower power processor, and less powerful operation system. Also, it taget a content consumer versus working professional market.
Don't go telling Apple their iPad Pro line is a "content consumer" device, you make it sound like the Pro moniker is meaningless... oh wait...
bet audio professionals are loving those DSP-heavy bass boosted speakers on the 16". Just about as "content consumer" of a feature you can get, really.
bet audio professionals are loving those DSP-heavy bass boosted speakers on the 16". Just about as "content consumer" of a feature you can get, really.
The MBP 16" doesn't push the envelope in any respect -- and thats exactly what makes it a perfect work machine. Rather, it "undoes" several moves that pushed the envelope too far given the machine's thickness.
When the MBP line initially switched to retina displays, it took *years* to feel and function as snappy as it had previously (especially the 13"). So I'm all for Apple holding off on aesthetic upgrades until they can be implemented without compromising the user experience.
[automerge]1574790470[/automerge]
When the MBP line initially switched to retina displays, it took *years* to feel and function as snappy as it had previously (especially the 13"). So I'm all for Apple holding off on aesthetic upgrades until they can be implemented without compromising the user experience.
[automerge]1574790470[/automerge]
Quu
macrumors 68040
I have a 165Hz 2560x1440 IPS Desktop monitor and honestly it looks amazing even in desktop mode. Scrolling windows, menus. It's not just for gaming, everything is smoother and feels more responsive. I'd actually consider 120Hz a bigger upgrade than going to 4K would be, it's just that good.
And I own a 16" MacBook Pro. It looks great but 120Hz would really make it a whole lot better. If they added adaptive syncing to it like the iPad Pro has then the display would only refresh as often as the content needed it.
When static things are on screen it can refresh at 30Hz, when videos play it would refresh at the same frequency as the video frames per second, when you scroll in a browser you'd get the full 120Hz while the page is in motion etc
These adaptive sync capabilities help to save battery life while retaining the silky smooth scrolling when needed.
Nope. Anyone who works on 120hz video will find the 16” MBP utterly unusable due to limitations of its 60hz panel.
Yeah after having gotten used to the Pro Motion on my iPad Pro, it's very very nice, and really obvious when it's missing when using the normal iPad.
I think iOS changes the refresh rate dynamically based on state of scrolling and animations etc to conserve battery, so imagine macOS could do something similar ? It's possible this is part of the hold up, that macOS is potentially a bit harder to add support to at a lower level , but just a guess.
A higher refresh rate >60 isn't quite a battery hog and the 16” MBP can compensate it with new improvements of an extra 1 hour 🔋.
First retina iPad was pretty bad too.. current iPad Pro resolution is almost same as current 16" MBP, so seems possible.
Royksöpp
macrumors 68030
I don't think it's neccesary for a computer. I use both an iPad Pro and a MBP and I've never found myself wishing for it on my MPB. We do things a lot faster on the iPad and in closer proximity to our eyes. Just how often are you holding your MacBook Pro that close your your face? Mac Screens are so good that the difference between the two is hardly noticeable. Besides, even with Promotion the iPad Pro panel is nowhere close to Mac Panels in terms of quality.
I do wonder, if Apple saw it as a priority on the desktop would they have included it on the Pro XDR ?
Honestly don't know about the technical limitations on which kind / sizes of displays the 120HZ technology became realistic by now beside of the iPads, but I believe (maybe wishful thinking) that 120HZ in Apple MacBook / iMac displays finally is right before the door and will start with the 2020 upgrades ... You've got a point with the Pro XDR though.
Quu
macrumors 68040
The iGPU on these already struggles for smoothness. It's noticeable immediately when scrolling in Chrome or Safari on the iGPU vs the Radeon. Just like it was on the previous 15" and even my 2015 15" etc - Intels graphics have been behind for ages.
I have a 120Hz screen on my Razer Blade 15 and the high refresh rate is wonderful to use and it does so with the Intel GPU, but it's only a 1080p panel. That said, the Mac's screen is great in many other ways so I don't think overall that the Blade's screen is superior. This might be where Ice Lake's GPU improvements could benefit non-gaming general usage.
Strangedream
macrumors 6502a
I'd prefer an OLED or micro-LED to 120Hz first. I think Apple is really milking their current display tech as much as they can before releasing the next gen.
Now don't get me wrong, I get that the color accuracy is excellent, and that there is no burn-in on the current displays, but in 4-6 years aside from P3 colors there hasn't been much improvement.
Now don't get me wrong, I get that the color accuracy is excellent, and that there is no burn-in on the current displays, but in 4-6 years aside from P3 colors there hasn't been much improvement.