Any idea what monitors these are, dimensions etc ?

[chipandegg]

Mac Studio on order, I’ve been looking at a lot of monitors (even thinking to buy the Studio Display , but looking for something cheaper) and reading a lot (bjango article) I came across these monitors. But I’m not sure how large they are, any ideas?

 

[arw]

I would suspect 32". Definitely larger than 27".
But no idea on the exact models.
Just keep the resolutions in mind for macOS:
- On 27" 5K offers the best experience (at "looks like 1440p").
- The 32" XDR is 6K.
Just my two cents. Depending on the task, lower resolutions may work for you without any cutbacks.
edit: congrats on the upgrade from the MP1,1

 

[Jumpthesnark]

@chipandegg I can't swear to it, but the monitor in the vertical photo, with the guy at the desk, appears to be a Samsung Odyssey G7. It comes in 27" and 32" and here's the link for the 32.

That's just a guess. I did a reverse image search on the photo and found the source is this page. Here's a better image of the monitor, you can see the NVIDIA G-Sync label on the corner of the monitor but he's got lots of other items covering most of it so I can't be certain. Sorry I couldn't help you with the other image. Good luck, and enjoy your Mac Studio!

 

[arw]

@Jumpthesnark 's find looks very probable.
But even text will look very pixelated on this screen as it's only 92 ppi (2560x1440 at 32")
This is almost like an ancient 13" laptop with 1024x576 pixels (90 ppi).
It has to be considered if the Gaming/G-Sync features are that beneficial to your work it justifies the low resolution

 

[chipandegg]

I would suspect 32". Definitely larger than 27".
But no idea on the exact models.
Just keep the resolutions in mind for macOS:
- On 27" 5K offers the best experience (at "looks like 1440p").
- The 32" XDR is 6K.
Just my two cents. Depending on the task, lower resolutions may work for you without any cutbacks.
edit: congrats on the upgrade from the MP1,1

Yesterday I went the Apple store to pick the Mac Studio up, while I was there I checked out the Studio Display and was blown away by it. I spent ages using Logic Pro to see what it was like.

I’ve used 1080p for years so this was another level, it looked amazing. 27” seemed just perfect.

Originally I intended to use a larger or ultrawide monitor with the Mac Studio but I think 27” will be a great size. Plus I stack my older monitor on top of the newer one.

After reading lots about Mac scaling and finding out that 110/220ppi are the sweet spots for Mac, it think I’ll opt for a 1440p 27”, as this will scale correctly as it’s roughly 110ppi?

Obviously it won’t look anything like the Studio Display, but for my use mainly Logic not a lot else, I think the Studio Display will be overkill tbh, I’d love to get it, but it’s very expensive.

Would 1440p look ok, (as I’ve used 1080p for years it would do) some people say yes, some say its awful and that you should get a 4k and scale to 1440p?

 

[chipandegg]

@Jumpthesnark 's find looks very probable.
But even text will look very pixelated on this screen as it's only 92 ppi (2560x1440 at 32")
This is almost like an ancient 13" laptop with 1024x576 pixels (90 ppi).
It has to be considered if the Gaming/G-Sync features are that beneficial to your work it justifies the low resolution

I often see large monitors, or ultra wides with low ppi values. E.g. an ultra wide with a native resolution of WQHD 3440 x 1440 at 100 Hz and a ppi value of 109, would that look pretty bad if it was run nativel?

 

[chipandegg]

@chipandegg I can't swear to it, but the monitor in the vertical photo, with the guy at the desk, appears to be a Samsung Odyssey G7. It comes in 27" and 32" and here's the link for the 32.

That's just a guess. I did a reverse image search on the photo and found the source is this page. Here's a better image of the monitor, you can see the NVIDIA G-Sync label on the corner of the monitor but he's got lots of other items covering most of it so I can't be certain. Sorry I couldn't help you with the other image. Good luck, and enjoy your Mac Studio!

Thanks for doing the reverse image search, completely forgot about that? Yes I noticed the G-Sync label as well.

 

[arw]

Would 1440p look ok, (as I’ve used 1080p for years it would do) some people say yes, some say its awful and that you should get a 4k and scale to 1440p?

• Native 1440p (2560x1440) on 27" is perfectly fine. This is what all non-Retina 27" iMacs used.
• The best is obviously 5K on 27" (exact double the pixels of 1440p in width and height meaning 5120x2880). This is what the Retina 27" iMacs and the Studio Display use.
  • Many (as myself) used a 5K iMac panel and case and bought a controller board to use the combo as an external monitor. Less than half the price of a Studio display but almost as good. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/diy-5k-monitor-success.2253100/
• 27" 4K in "looks like 1440p" uses a non-integer scaling (the UI is rendered in 5120x2880 but then downscaled to 3840x2160 to match the screens 4K resolution.
  • This still looks smoother than a native 1440p screen but:
    • using a.e. Photoshop may be limited if you depend on a 100% view as the non-linear scaling makes it impossible
    • the additional scaling effort reduces performance depending on the application you need. This video may be interesting if you never heard of the problem:
• If you use a 4K screen of the same size as your old one and select "looks like 1080p" everything looks the same size as on your old one but you gain the smooth "Retina" experience and don't loose performance as this is an integer scaling of 2 (1920x1080 > 3840x2160).
  • But this means everything is larger and you therefore have less "space" than with a "looks like 1440p" scaling

Here you find some more infos/discussions on scaled resolutions on 4K displays:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/psa-4k-display-resolutions.2345906/

To sum up:
- If you can afford it, on 27" go 5K.
- 4K at "looks like 1440p" may look almost as good but GPU-dependent applications may suffer due to the additional scaling effort.
- 4K at "looks like 1440p" gives you a smoother, more detailed image than native 1440p (2560x1440).
- I have not seen it, but on a 32" 4K at "looks like 1440p" also seems to be ok looking. Native 1440p on 32" is too low-density and looks pixelated.

 

[Nermal]

I can't swear to it, but the monitor in the vertical photo, with the guy at the desk, appears to be a Samsung Odyssey G7.

It's definitely a Samsung, at least: If I fiddle with the colour sliders then I can see "Sam" in the centre

 

[chipandegg]

• Native 1440p (2560x1440) on 27" is perfectly fine. This is what all non-Retina 27" iMacs used.
• The best is obviously 5K on 27" (exact double the pixels of 1440p in width and height meaning 5120x2880). This is what the Retina 27" iMacs and the Studio Display use.
  • Many (as myself) used a 5K iMac panel and case and bought a controller board to use the combo as an external monitor. Less than half the price of a Studio display but almost as good. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/diy-5k-monitor-success.2253100/
• 27" 4K in "looks like 1440p" uses a non-integer scaling (the UI is rendered in 5120x2880 but then downscaled to 3840x2160 to match the screens 4K resolution.
  • This still looks smoother than a native 1440p screen but:
    • using a.e. Photoshop may be limited if you depend on a 100% view as the non-linear scaling makes it impossible
    • the additional scaling effort reduces performance depending on the application you need. This video may be interesting if you never heard of the problem:
• If you use a 4K screen of the same size as your old one and select "looks like 1080p" everything looks the same size as on your old one but you gain the smooth "Retina" experience and don't loose performance as this is an integer scaling of 2 (1920x1080 > 3840x2160).
  • But this means everything is larger and you therefore have less "space" than with a "looks like 1440p" scaling

Here you find some more infos/discussions on scaled resolutions on 4K displays:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/psa-4k-display-resolutions.2345906/

To sum up:
- If you can afford it, on 27" go 5K.
- 4K at "looks like 1440p" may look almost as good but GPU-dependent applications may suffer due to the additional scaling effort.
- 4K at "looks like 1440p" gives you a smoother, more detailed image than native 1440p (2560x1440).
- I have not seen it, but on a 32" 4K at "looks like 1440p" also seems to be ok looking. Native 1440p on 32" is too low-density and looks pixelated.

Thanks so much for such a detailed reply, just what I was looking for!

I’ve seen that video a few times regarding scaled resolutions on 4K displays. Its how I found out about all of this in the first place, plus the bjango article too.

99% of the time I’ll be using Logic Pro. 4K at “looks like 1440p”, I gather that’s in a 27“ should be ok GPU wise as I imagine Logic Pro isn’t graphically intensive?

Right now I’ve got a dual set up, one 19” and one 23” monitor many years old.

Originally I thought I’ll just get one big 32” monitor, then looked at 34” ultras wides. After seeing the Studio Display, 27 inches looks good, though not enough room to have two 27” monitors side by side (not enough money for two studios either), so was thinking about stacking them if I got two 27” monitors.

Ideally it would be Thunderbolt or USB C to make use of those ports for the main monitor and a secondary monitor would be HDMI.

What would 4K at 32” look like non scaled? As I was looking at exactly this.

 

[arw]

What would 4K at 32” look like non scaled? As I was looking at exactly this.

Probably a very good choice, although the interface may be a little small without scaling.
Size wise and regarding the pixel density, it‘s like having four 16“ FullHD (1920x1080) screens in one instance.
So assuming your 23“ was also FullHD (or 1920x1200, meaning a 16:10 ratio instead of the 16:9) imagine having this interface and pixels clinched into 16“. That‘s how big/small the menu bar will look non-scaled. Pixel density is therefore higher than on your 23“ or 19“ and it will look sharper/more detailed overall.
If it is too small for daily use, scaling will let everything appear larger but you will lose a bit of sharpness.
I assume Logic Pro won‘t suffer from scaling (at all) as its primarily CPU and RAM dependent.

I have no experience with ultra-wides or 34“. So maybe someone else can recommend something in this regard. Plain 16:9 4K at 32“ should give you the largest variety of displays to choose from.