Agreed. For those using a multiple displays the 27" is good size for that. But since getting a 32" (a lowly LG 4K) my old 27" iMac seems tiny. I wouldn't go back to less than a 32" for my needs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Mini-LED External Display Rumored to Offer ProMotion, But Launch Delayed to Early 2023
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Interesting. What issues do you often have with it? I was thinking of eventually getting a studio display eventually, but didn't even think about running into bugs with it.
Do you think it is worth it?
I'm just going by what the rumor is saying which is a 27" Mini-LED 120Hz "ProMotion" monitor. It'd have to be 5k to be a "Retina" display per Apple's definition and Apple doesn't do non-Retina displays anymore. I'm not sure if DSC would make it possible or not for the bit depth Apple would want to use, or if they plan to use two cables or what (Mac Pro?).
Maybe its not 120Hz, but variable refresh rate 60Hz, which would be better than the Apple Studio Display which doesn't have VRR, but I'm not sure they'd call it "ProMotion" in that case.
A 24" 4k Mini-LED ProMotion display is also possible.
Personally I don't see any new display from Apple any time soon after the Apple Studio Display. Maybe they have something in the works, but I imagine they are going to keep working on it. The Apple Studio Display is pretty unimpressive, especially at its price in 2022, but there aren't many 5k options, and there will be enough Mac users who buy it for 5k and the integration.
For myself, I'm looking at the upcoming crop of FALD 4k 144+ Hz monitors coming out and will either pick one of those, or look for a deal on edge-lit 4k 144Hz.
Last edited:
Meanwhile... Those of us who live in reality already have a mini-LED monitor with 1,152 backlighting zones, 120Hz variable refresh rate (promotion in apple speak) 4K HDR, 1000 nits sustained brightness, 1600 peak, calibrated and supporting multiple HDR formats...
www.asus.com
ProArt Display PA32UCG-Kï½Monitorsï½ASUS USA
ASUS ProArt Display PA32UCG-K - 32-inch, 4K HDR, 1600 nits, 1,152 zones Mini LED Backlight, 120Hz VRR, FreeSync2 HDR, Dolby Vision, HDR-10, HLG, ÎE < 1, DCI-P3, ProArt Hardware Calibration, Thunderbolt⢠3, HDMI(v2.1), VESA DisplayHDR 1400
www.asus.com
HP 27u is an edge-lit display, so is not competing with Sony Inzone M9 (which has 96 FALD zones), but is in the same class as M28U. However, 27u's minimum brightness of 69 nits is a deal-breaker for me -- I've had a monitor with min brightness that high and its a problem. Gigabyte M28U's minimum brightness is 34 nits which works for me, and is one of the reasons it is my pick for cheaper edge-lit 4k 144Hz. The Sony Inzone M9 goes even lower to 10 nits!Again, check out HP OMEN 27u. Surprisingly not many know this new monitor
OMEN by HP Monitors | HP® Official Store
Free Shipping. Buy direct from HP. See customer reviews and comparisons for OMEN by HP Monitors . Upgrades and savings on select products.www.hp.com
It will be it honestly. I don’t see the company offering mini LED & Pro-Motion on a monitor because not all computers will be able to power it. You build one interconnected system hence iMac Pro. That’s how they did it with introduction of 5K resolution… iMac.
I'm trying to work out what the fuss is with ProMotion. I've checked the preferences on my new 16" M1P MBP, and the display is set to ProMotion, but I'm wondering if it even works. When I scroll MacRumors on Chrome and look super closely, it has a subtle jerkiness to it. Should I be expecting better? Or is it only for certain apps?
To be honest i wouldn't be shocked if they could offer a 27" mini-LED promotion display for about the same price of the current studio display and lower the current one to 999,99
Honestly the studio display at 1600,00 price point is embarrassing, that webcam is a joke and competition like Sony, Samsung, LG, HP, Dell where fast to respond with very interesting options at reasonable prices.
Apple can throw many fancy crap on is studio display but at the end is just a monitor that fails in basic stuff.
Honestly the studio display at 1600,00 price point is embarrassing, that webcam is a joke and competition like Sony, Samsung, LG, HP, Dell where fast to respond with very interesting options at reasonable prices.
Apple can throw many fancy crap on is studio display but at the end is just a monitor that fails in basic stuff.
I think there's room for the opposite of a 27" version of the XDR, namely a 32" version of the Studio Display, for those who don't do video work and thus don't need local dimming, etc., but do need more space. I.e., a less expensive 32" rather than a more expensive 27".
Ross says, at 18:00, that "there's clearly room for a bigger monitor in their product line". I'm guessing, from the context, that he means something along those lines, i.e., a larger monitor made for general use.
I'm already maxing out the available space on my 27" iMac, which serves as my main (central) monitor, by moving the dock and menu bar to one of my two side monitors, which is not an optimal solution, but worth it (for me) for the extra vertical space. [See bottom screenshot.] [I can't run the dock vertically on my main monitor, because I'm using three montiors; plus I don't want to give up horiztonal space either. And I don't like the show/hide option.]
Ross says, at 18:00, that "there's clearly room for a bigger monitor in their product line". I'm guessing, from the context, that he means something along those lines, i.e., a larger monitor made for general use.
I'm already maxing out the available space on my 27" iMac, which serves as my main (central) monitor, by moving the dock and menu bar to one of my two side monitors, which is not an optimal solution, but worth it (for me) for the extra vertical space. [See bottom screenshot.] [I can't run the dock vertically on my main monitor, because I'm using three montiors; plus I don't want to give up horiztonal space either. And I don't like the show/hide option.]
Last edited:
The Studio Display should have been 30 at $1599. We do not need a $1999 but a decent $999 external display from Apple.
i can see how it could've sounded sarcastic 😂 but no, i'm serious! it's like retina — once you've experienced it, it's hard to go back 🤤
Why would it be sarcasm? Im not aware of a single other display in this resolution category (above 4k) that has a high frame rate display. Uncompressed, 5K 120fps is more bits than Thunderbolt can handle.
Thunderbolt 3 and 4 can carry up to about 80 Gbit/s one direction, enough for DisplayPort 2.0 with UHBR 20 which is developed based on Thunderbolt 3 in fact.
Pro Display XDR uses DisplayPort 1.4 with DSC. It is however far below the maximum speed, and a 120 Hz version would use about 20.96 Gbit/s.
Signal sending to Pro Display XDR is already compressed with DSC.
It will be possible with Display Port Alt Mode 2.0. It effectively doubles the bandwidth of TB4 by combining the ingoing and outgoing channels. The standard has been in place for while, and VESA certified the first source and sink controllers for it in May.
DisplayPort 1.4 is already enough for 6K 120Hz. 2.0 is required if you want to drive 8K 120Hz.
Using Mureido's bandwidth calculator I get 50.12 Gbps uncompressed for 5k @120 Hz, 10 bit, 4:4:4.
Thus 6k (using Apple's 6k resolution) would be:
50.12 x 6016 x 3384/(5120 x 2160) = 92.3 Gbps
That means you would need ~2.5:1 DSC to use DP 1.4. I've read Apple was willing to use 3:1 DSC in order to drive 2 x 6k with their 2020 iMac. But would Apple be willing to accept that level of lossy compression today? It's claimed that DSC is "visually lossless", but I've not read the studies supporting that claim.
Pro Display XDR requires a GPU capable of supporting DisplayPort 1.4 with Display Stream Compression (DSC) and Forward Error Correction (FEC), or a GPU supporting DisplayPort 1.4 with HBR3 link rate and Thunderbolt Titan Ridge for native 6K resolution.Using Mureido's bandwidth calculator I get 50.12 Gbps uncompressed for 5k @120 Hz, 10 bit, 4:4:4.
Thus 6k (using Apple's 6k resolution) would be:
50.12 x 6016 x 3384/(5120 x 2160) = 92.3 Gbps
That means you would need ~2.5:1 DSC to use DP 1.4. I've read Apple was willing to use 3:1 DSC in order to drive 2 x 6k with their 2020 iMac. But would Apple be willing to accept that level of lossy compression today? It's claimed that DSC is "visually lossless", but I've not read the studies supporting that claim.
View attachment 2029204
DisplayPort 1.4 with DSC is the requirement for Macs to drive Pro Display XDR.
Im running a 32'' monitor at 144hz over DisplayPort.
Edit: My mistake- that's only at 2560 x 1440 (2k). Not sure the situation with higher resolutions.
That's just elaborating on what I already said: The way Macs currently drive the Pro Display XDR is by using DSC.
It completely avoids the question I raised, which is whether Apple would find the compression ratio needed to drive 6k@120Hz with DP 1.4 acceptable today.
Again, the question I'm raising is not whether it's doable, it's whether the needed compression ratio is visually acceptable to Apple.
Apple even allows iPad Air with USB 3.2 Gen 2 to drive a Pro Display XDR. I don't know why DSC (3:1) is not acceptable.