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

Apple Reportedly Working on 90Hz Studio Display, iMac, iPad Air

omenatarhuri said:
90hz? What an odd choice.

But it's more than 60hz, so take my money!
Click to expand...
It’s probably a way of segmenting the market. So ‘pro’ product customers continue to be offered the desirable 120hz option, whilst non-pro consumers get an improved refresh rate.

As the article suggests, the consumer variant called be called Liquid Motion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brofkand
If the price will remain the same, and the ports will jump to thunderbolt 4, it'll make the asking price a little more palatable.

Anyway they have to improve the response time...
It's very prone to ghosting (just like the mini-LED is).
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnbreakableAlex
My Trashcan Mac Pro has a 27" Retina 5K monitor at 60Hz with the LG panel (Dell UP2715K). That's decade-old tech so the current Studio Display is definitely overpriced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Apple’s Glasses
This will likely slot in the lineup at $1999, and the 120 Hz Studio Display Pro will come in at $2999.

A price point for every Apple customer!
 
  • Like
Reactions: zedsdead
Admiral said:
I already have a reasonably priced 5K2K monitor ($725), and it has 120Hz refresh rate and a zero dead pixels guarantee. Some gamers have groused about the pixel response rate being "low" (i.e., not 2ms), but I haven't noticed any ghosting or blurriness, so I suppose it's well-matched to 120MHz. Anyway, I mainly do Microsoft Word, email, and light video editing of a guy mainly sitting in the same place and talking. If it were NASCAR or UFC maybe I'd be dissatisfied.

Apple Studio Display at 90Hz is a Don't Buy! for me. A shame, as I have heretofore been a pretty solid customer for Apple displays.
Click to expand...
Which screen is that does 5K2K with 120Hz for just $725? Genuinely interested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
Why 90 Hz? Knowing that Apple will not refresh it for another 5-6 years, why would anyone buy a display that is not 120 HZ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnbreakableAlex
frou said:
My Trashcan Mac Pro has a 27" Retina 5K monitor at 60Hz with the LG panel (Dell UP2715K). That's decade-old tech so the current Studio Display is definitely overpriced.
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing, Dell doesn’t make that display anymore. If you’re looking for a monitor that displays MacOS at the same level of quality as an Apple first party display there are simply no good options. The studio display is overpriced, but it is quite literally the only product with its particular set of feature in the market. I know because I’ve been gripping about this for months now looking to upgrade from a iMac into a Mac Mini, but the fact that I’d need to drop an extra 1.5k on top just to get the same visual fidelity as my iMac holds me back. None of the alternatives are good enough, and those that come close are hardly cheaper than the Studio Display.At this point I’ve just decided not to upgrade at all until the iMac dies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle, freedomlinux, UnbreakableAlex and 6 others
coachgq said:
Jelly scroll?!
Click to expand...
I'm not too familiar with the iPad mini, but I know the Macbook Pro promotion screens are effectively running at 120hz but with a screen that cannot update fast enough (i.e. cannot refresh every 8.33ms) because it is a bad panel (mini LED doesn't help either). Apple and its typical customers appear to know very little about refresh rates, so just see 120hz and think it's great. As a gamer who fantasises about high refresh rates, I know that Apple's MBP panels suck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnbreakableAlex
city_17 said:
Would 90Hz work with the older Thunderbolt 4 devices?
Click to expand...

You think it may be the problem with their non-standard 5K displays?

Because Thunderbolt 4 already supports 4K 120Hz. There was a very jump in price for Thunderbolt 4 cables, but I don’t think Thunderbolt 5 is that much more expensive?
 
Jay Tee said:
This story doesn't make a lot of sense. Apple were actually selling a few million 27" iMacs for years. It could just be that the 24" covers most requirements with the 27" being the outliers.
Click to expand...
  1. As you say, 24" is a considerable improvement (both in screen and performance) over previous "small" iMacs and would eat some sales of the lower end 5k iMac.
  2. From 2013 to 2021 Apple didn't really offer a viable headless desktop Mac (much has been said about the Trashcan, the 2014 Mini was the Worst Mini Ever, the 2018 Mini was knobbled by Intel integrated graphics and the 2019 Mac Pro was Serious Callers Only) - for a lot of people the iMac was the only viable choice for a desktop Mac. The current Apple Silicon Mini/Studio lineup represents a vast improvement in Apple's "headless" offering (slight hiatus while we wait for the M4 Studio) and a lot of previous 5k iMac users will have gone for this. Not forgetting that although the lower-end 5k Macs are a bargain we'll not see again, a Mini/Studio + Studio Display combo is actually competitive with the higher-end 5k iMacs and iMac Pro - plus cheaper screens are available (& your screen can be carried over to your next Mac).
  3. Cheap, easy 3rd party RAM upgrades - an attractive feature of Intel iMacs - were always going to go away with Apple Silicon (this affects the iMac vs. Studio price comparison).
  4. Intel iMacs used higher-TDP CPUs and GPUs than MacBook Pros, giving them significantly better overall and bang-for-buck performance. With Apple Silicon, iMacs would be using the Mx Pro and Max chips as MacBook Pro - with maybe marginally better performance due to better cooling, but nothing night and day. People who bought an MBP for portability and an iMac for heavy lifting now just need a nice display to dock with their MBP (Apple would love you to buy a Studio Display which is clearly designed for that role).
  5. The whole market is gradually moving from desktops to laptops anyway.
  6. I suspect that the entry-level5k iMac was priced with the assumption that, over it's lifetime, 5k3k would be taken up by the PC world and economies of scale would reduce the cost price. Turns out, the PC world isn't interested in 5k3k - the displays initially launched by Dell and HP tanked, the LG was only really of interest to Mac users and priced accordingly and even the recently launched Samsung 5k3k seems to be a reaction to Apple dropping the iMac!
Maybe Apple will eventually produce another "large" iMac but the odds seem stacked against it.

Admiral said:
I already have a reasonably priced 5K2K monitor ($725), and it has 120Hz refresh rate and a zero dead pixels guarantee.
Click to expand...
5k2k screens are usually ultrawide, 5120x2160 screens, with the same PPI as 4k UHD screens with the same screen height - just wider. Probably 163ppi or less. C.f. the Studio Display/old 5k iMac which is 5120x2880 (so closer to 5k3k) and 220ppi resolution.

5k2k Ultrawide will have many of the same "disadvantages" on Macs as 4kUHD displays - including fractional scaling to get the UI size "just right". Now - don't get me wrong - I'm a great proponent of the usability of 4kUHD displays on Macs and think that the issues with scaling have been over-stated - but the whole point of paying the considerable premium for a 5120x2800 27" screen (or a 6k Pro XDR 32") is to hit that magic 220ppi "sweet spot" for running Mac OS at optimum scaling.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: FriendlyMackle, freedomlinux, Christopher Kim and 4 others
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