With current graphics cards (at least for the Windows world -> Nvidia/AMD), it would be technically no problem at all today to bring 6K in 120Hz or more to the display (AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GAMING, I DON'T CARE ABOUT GAMING!).
Apple Silicon has no chance at all against Nvidia's RTX cards when it comes to pure top performance. When it comes to frames per watt, things look better, but users in stationary use are more interested in performance and less in consumption.
wccftech.com
That has an integrated Radeon 660M GPU. The Lenovo specs say 5K 60Hz, but technically USB-C DisplayPort 1.4 alt mode supports up to 8K 60Hz. So maybe it would work? Your problem is nobody has the ProArt 6K yet, but you could try asking ASUS. Or maybe ask Dell — the Dell 6K has been around for two years.
A lot, if not a lot, speaks in favor of the Nvidia chip when you know that it was produced in 5nm (which means it has higher energy requirements) and Apple Silicon M4 Max is already running in 3nm!With recent release of Cyberpunk on Mac, it's been proven M chip GPUs has the same performance/watt metrics to a mobile RTX 5090.
Apple’s M4 Max Barely Has A Better ‘Performance Per Watt’ Metric Compared To The Laptop RTX 5090 When Running Cyberpunk 2077: Ultimate Edition On Battery; NVIDIA’s Top-End Mobile GPU Is 43.7 Percent Faster
A performance comparison between the M4 Max and the laptop RTX 5090 was showcased when running Cyberpunk 2077: Ultimate Edition, revealing some interesting results
We can all safely say, Apple is just being extremely conservative when it comes to power consumption. Like you said earlier, Apple's GPU barely able to handle high refresh rate on desktop mode, let alone gaming.
LG makes great monitors which I have tested and that offers high pixel density + high framerate + extended color gamut.
Those are not high pixel density, and the subpixel layout makes text look worse than it does on an equivalent LCD.
I'd bet the 5090m would have significantly better performance per watt if you ran it at the same maximum power level as the M4. Performance per watt is not linear when changing wattage, from my understanding.With recent release of Cyberpunk on Mac, it's been proven M chip GPUs has the same performance/watt metrics to a mobile RTX 5090.
Apple’s M4 Max Barely Has A Better ‘Performance Per Watt’ Metric Compared To The Laptop RTX 5090 When Running Cyberpunk 2077: Ultimate Edition On Battery; NVIDIA’s Top-End Mobile GPU Is 43.7 Percent Faster
A performance comparison between the M4 Max and the laptop RTX 5090 was showcased when running Cyberpunk 2077: Ultimate Edition, revealing some interesting results
We can all safely say, Apple is just being extremely conservative when it comes to power consumption. Like you said earlier, Apple's GPU barely able to handle high refresh rate on desktop mode, let alone gaming.
If it's like the PA27JCV - you could have one machine connected via TB4 (for power/video/km), and another with DVI/HDMI + USB C connectivity + attach a power cord.
The relationship between pixel count and refresh rate illustrates this point, as seen in the "dual mode" displays that are emerging. The pixel count is quadrupled as the refresh rate is halved. Or, the other way around, as the refresh rate is doubled, the pixel count is quartered.
Fortunately, the world doesn't just consist of Apple
As far as graphics editing is concerned, I've turned my back on Apple for a loooong time because Apple simply isn't powerful enough for it, at least as long as power requirements don't play the primary role, but I also mean stationary work.Got a question, since I don't follow the higher performance PC market. The Windows PCs that do what you're talking about, 3D rendering, much more powerfully than Macs...how many of them have connection technology (e.g.: Thunderbolt 5, very recent HDMI or DisplayPort) that can handle 6K at 120+ Hz?
Nvidea RTX 50xx and AMD RX 79XX have display port 2.1 which is capable of driving a single 8k display @165hz
I wouldn't read too much into the limitations of physical panels to infer the limitations of GPUs.
I'm running four 4K 60Hz displays on a single 10 year old GPU, and it's perfectly fine for typical desktop use. A 6k 120Hz display would only be 23% more pixels per second.
Putting aside the issue that 4 displays probably aren't using just one cable and port, does having the 'resolution x refresh rate' load split between, say, 2 displays vs. 1 matter in terms of the demand it puts on the GPU? I don't know why it would, but they say 'you don't know what you don't know.'
So...why is the pixel count quartered when the refresh rate is only doubled?
It’s not a physical problem. It’s an engineering problem.
Can that GPU run a 4K 240Hz display like the LG 32GS95UE? By your logic, it should be able to, right? But the system requirements are RTX 4080 or above.
I don’t know either, but in practice it does seem to matter. I don’t think the math is as simple as one might think, even in theory, and definitely not in practice.
It’s not half. 8K is quadruple 4K, not double. It’s doubled both horizontally and vertically.
You are right that a dual-mode 8K 120Hz would support 4K at 240Hz. As you know, BOE has just such a display in pre-production.
An engineering problem isn't a physical problem? I didn't mean that the laws of physics don't allow it.
I was responding to this from you: "you are right about the resources -- it's not just about bandwidth"
Where are you getting the RTX 4080 requirement from? It should work just fine on an RTX 3050 (for desktop use, not for fancy games).
I guess I didn't understand what you meant by "limitations of physical panels" -- to use the 4K example(s), I thought you meant the display can't do both 4K and 480Hz at the same time because of the physical limits of the panel itself. So even if all the other engineering obstacles like bandwidth and silicon design/performance were surmounted, a fundamental "physical" problem would remain. For all I know, that could be true, but I haven't heard anyone say that with regard to these dual-mode panels that can do one or the other, but not both.
I see -- my main point in that comment (however sloppily worded) was that the reason why we don't have a 4K 480Hz display today is because the system requirements to run it are too restrictive. The same *was* true for 6K 120Hz until very recently, but I still think it will be a couple of years before we see that, if ever (again, unless Apple does it) -- the gaming industry has no interest in 6K (as opposed to 5K, as seen in the Predator I mentioned, the first of its kind, and not likely to be the last). Dual-mode 8K 120Hz is more likely to come first (before 6K 120Hz), and indeed it has.
I was refuting (in the context of systems that can run a 6K 120Hz display) your assertion that your ten-year old card could do it. You didn't qualify that assertion. There’s more to a GPU than just performance, there’s also the design of the display engine, for example. You are right that RTX 30 series (late 2020) appears to be the minimum for the LG, which is precisely my point -- when cards that can drive 8K 120Hz are five years old, we'll see that. But to take full advantage of its specs (for whatever purpose), the whole point of owning such a demanding display, I (perhaps a bit too quickly, it was the first thing that popped up in my search) relied on this assessment: LG 32GS95UE review: 480Hz OLED wonderland
My only point was to refute this claim, which you had replied to:
Even basic GPUs have plenty of pixel rendering power to drive 6K at 120Hz. They just don't have the port bandwidth.
No GPU can fully take advantage of its specs in all games. I want a monitor that I can run at full specs for desktop apps, then adjust to lower settings to optimize the performance of whatever game I'm playing.
I would warrant that the majority of persons who would want/need such a high resolution and FPS display ARE involved in demanding industries, or Gamers.
It's a tangent for this thread, but I'll ask anyway...given the high workload 8K at 120-Hz puts on a system, and what I think is the tendency for most displays to top out at 32" size, what are the practical benefits of 8K (as opposed to 6K) at 120-Hz?