Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

8k Mac Display

S

Schnitzel1979

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 4, 2013
70
38
Hi everyone,

do you know if there are signs for a 8k Mac Display in the future ? Probably a release with the new Mac Studio M3 Ultra ?
Thank you very much !

Best regards,
Schnitzel
 
Do you want a higher refresh rate than 30Hz?

Otherwise, until Thunderbolt 5 is common on Apple products then it is unlikely we'll see an 8k Apple display.

Current M3 design has Thunderbolt 4 controller on the SoC. Base M3 cannot do 8K. M3 Max can do one 8k but I suspect Apple will not release a display that is not usable by the majority of Mac models they sell. Probably the M4 (available Oct 2024?) will have Thunderbolt 5, so maybe next year when Macs are rolled out with TB5 Apple will show an 8k display.
 
Last edited:
picpicmac said:
Do you want a higher refresh rate than 30Hz?

Otherwise, until Thunderbolt 5 is common on Apple products then it is unlikely we'll see an 8k Apple display.

Current M3 design has Thunderbolt 4 controller on the SoC. Base M3 cannot do 8K. M3 Max can do one 8k but I suspect Apple will not release a display that is not usable by the majority of Mac models they sell. Probably the M4 (available Oct 2024?) will have Thunderbolt 5, so maybe next year when Macs are rolled out with TB5 Apple will show an 8k display.
Click to expand...
Hi picpicmac,

thanks for the info ! Then most probably it will be the 5k Studio Display and the M3 Ultra Mac Studio later this year.

Best regards,
Schnitzel
 
  • Like
Reactions: picpicmac
Apple painted itself into a corner and only supports 200-220ppi. An 8K display would have to be around 42". That's rather unwieldy. I can't see many people putting that on their desk. Unless they add @3x super-retina to macOS. Then it could be 8K and 28". But then what's the point?
 
Basic75 said:
Apple painted itself into a corner and only supports 200-220ppi. An 8K display would have to be around 42". That's rather unwieldy. I can't see many people putting that on their desk. Unless they add @3x super-retina to macOS. Then it could be 8K and 28". But then what's the point?
Click to expand...

Yea agree, at retina range, 42" is ok. Many people already have ultra wide monitors, so I don't see this as a problem. It will just be a touch taller.

Personally, I have an 85" 8k display on my desk. Love it. Never going back.
 
Basic75 said:
Apple painted itself into a corner and only supports 200-220ppi. An 8K display would have to be around 42". That's rather unwieldy. I can't see many people putting that on their desk. Unless they add @3x super-retina to macOS. Then it could be 8K and 28". But then what's the point?
Click to expand...

this x1000. They are slowly transitioning to adjustable text size (started with Sonoma or Ventura), but it’s only supported by some apps, and I don’t think it affects UI elements like menus.

Interestingly, this is one area where I think Microsoft did it right with Windows.

The way Apple does this sort of thing with resolution (HiDPI) is further confusing to a lot of people. Some think that to get the true benefit of a 4k monitor, for instance, you need to specify the full 3840x2160 resolution, and that running it at 1920x1080 won’t be any different than using an HD 1080p monitor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Basic75 said:
Apple painted itself into a corner and only supports 200-220ppi. An 8K display would have to be around 42". That's rather unwieldy. I can't see many people putting that on their desk. Unless they add @3x super-retina to macOS. Then it could be 8K and 28". But then what's the point?
Click to expand...

I am currently using a 32" 4K at its 3840x2160 native resolution (no retina mode). I would love to have a 42" 8K display on my desk after I get a Mac Studio with M3 Ultra (will there be one?). Unfortunately a 42" 8K monitor is even less likely to exist than an M3 Ultra Studio. I probably will settle with a 32" 6K. Question is just Dell or Apple.

Really, someone, make a 42" 8K and get my money!
 
whwang said:
I am currently using a 32" 4K at its 3840x2160 native resolution (no retina mode). I would love to have a 42" 8K display on my desk after I get a Mac Studio with M3 Ultra (will there be one?). Unfortunately a 42" 8K monitor is even less likely to exist than an M3 Ultra Studio. I probably will settle with a 32" 6K. Question is just Dell or Apple.

Really, someone, make a 42" 8K and get my money!
Click to expand...

Issue with 8K is that it would require Thunderbolt 5 I believe -- Thunderbolt 4 doesn't have enough bandwidth.

But I agree with you. Is a 42" 8K the same ppi as a 32" 6K?

I have the Dell 6K. Happened to be in the Apple store over the weekend, and took another look at the XDR. The XDR has incredible build quality, and I like the glossy screen better than the matte screen of the Dell (although the matte screen of the Dell is much better than those of yore). Panel-wise they otherwise seem identical to me (I use it for general office work ... couldn't tell you about color fidelity or whatever; the Dell has less "pop" but that's because it has the matte screen).

I paid $2,250 for the Dell, whereas the Apple is $5K + $1K for the stand. I would pay an Apple premium, but not >2x. If the Apple was $4K with stand -- hell, maybe even $5K with stand -- I would have been much more inclined to buy it.

There is also a Dell 8K, which has a less matte screen -- not super glossy, but near glossy; almost perfect to my eyes (I had an old Dell 5K with the same screen coating), but it is 32" as well. For Macs you need an M2 Pro or Max I believe, and it takes up two Thunderbolt ports.
 
MikeDr206 said:
Interestingly, this is one area where I think Microsoft did it right with Windows.
Click to expand...

They sure did

Windows is so much more flexible when using high resolution panels and getting the point sizes just how you'd like it ... and retaining great quality

It's really frustrating Apple is so far behind on this right now
 
turbineseaplane said:
They sure did

Windows is so much more flexible when using high resolution panels and getting the point sizes just how you'd like it ... and retaining great quality

It's really frustrating Apple is so far behind on this right now
Click to expand...

I have a 32-inch 6K monitor, and run it at the default resolution (2x, or 3072x1728 ... the Dell 6K has more pixels than the XDR). Which is fine for nearly everything, but I would love to have the UI text, and the text for things like the Mail app, be 10-20% bigger, due to my aging eyes.

When I first started my career, I gave my boss a hard time because he had a 24 inch monitor (which was huge in the mid 90s) but set the resolution the same as what I did with my lowly 15 or 17 inch -- "you know, one of the advantages of a larger monitor is being able to see more on the screen..." Now I totally understand.
 
MikeDr206 said:
I have a 32-inch 6K monitor, and run it at the default resolution (2x, or 3072x1728 ... the Dell 6K has more pixels than the XDR). Which is fine for nearly everything, but I would love to have the UI text, and the text for things like the Mail app, be 10-20% bigger, due to my aging eyes.

When I first started my career, I gave my boss a hard time because he had a 24 inch monitor (which was huge in the mid 90s) but set the resolution the same as what I did with my lowly 15 or 17 inch -- "you know, one of the advantages of a larger monitor is being able to see more on the screen..." Now I totally understand.
Click to expand...

I have an 85" 8k display. It has the exact perfect size to line up with my 3 30" cinema displays, same ppi. It's game changing for me.
 
MikeDr206 said:
That isn't retina tho? I'd want something like 218+ ppi.
Click to expand...

Yea, there are pros and cons to retina. I can actually see all the pixels in say 22MP photos. In 'theory' you can on a retina. It is displaying that for you. But in reality, because retina, you can't. And when your screen is limited in physical size, you can only blow it up so much. And I can easily stretch a document to be at 200% or 400% and then it's 'retina' amount of pixel density, although it becomes quite awesomely large.

I'm building a 16k display. It will be 'retina' at the distance I place it.

That said, that's probably meaningless for most people.

A lot of it is subjective and workflow dependent.

Only point is, retina is not always better.
 
MikeDr206 said:
I have a 32-inch 6K monitor, and run it at the default resolution (2x, or 3072x1728 ... the Dell 6K has more pixels than the XDR). Which is fine for nearly everything, but I would love to have the UI text, and the text for things like the Mail app, be 10-20% bigger, due to my aging eyes.

When I first started my career, I gave my boss a hard time because he had a 24 inch monitor (which was huge in the mid 90s) but set the resolution the same as what I did with my lowly 15 or 17 inch -- "you know, one of the advantages of a larger monitor is being able to see more on the screen..." Now I totally understand.
Click to expand...
Mail -> Settings -> Font & Colors

Adjust the font sizes up a couple of points and you will be happy.

I use a 32" at native 3840x2160 and have bumped up font sizes a smidge on text-heavy apps and use View Zoom In to bump up the size of text in browsers so I can read easily when I lean back in my chair. Menu sizes don't bother me much as I can still read them fine for the short time I'm looking. The Menu bar is the one thing that really lacks customization in font size, pretty much every other aspect of MacOS has some option that you can tweak. In my early 40s, my eyes are starting to age, so I'm beginning to understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fragmatic
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back