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

theluggage said:
  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.


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.
Click to expand...
Strongly agreed, it is overstated; one of my screens is a 5K2K LG 40" 72Hz ultrawide. Not the ultimate, but a fantastic monitor to use daily. It all depends on what one needs, at similar cost to a 6K Pro I prefer the ultrawide.
 
90hz? Talk about Apple being stupidly proprietary for no reason.

But no worries, the 120hz will be available in the Studio Display Pro(tm) sold for a mere $1500 up-charge. (tilt stand and Apple-branded power cord extra)
 
theluggage said:
  1. 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!
Click to expand...

Got any thoughts why the 5K3K form factor never caught on? I picked up an LG 5K on day 1. I refreshed my monitor earlier this year with an Apple Studio Display. It really boggles my mind that my range of options hadn't changed all that much in the almost decade in between nor did the pricing move much.
 
If APple makes a top-notch external display for under $1200, it would sell like crazy. Would buy in a heartbeat.
Also, it's absurd that you've gotta pay a few hundred bucks extra for it to be height adjustable. That should be a basic feature.
 
heitoo said:
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?
Click to expand...
It’s about bandwidth usage, someone above already replied to my comment with the exact numbers, but 5k@120Hz cannot be supported by TB4, while 4k@120Hz and 5k@90Hz can. Doesn’t have anything to do with the cables, but the overall bandwidth of Thunderbolt 4 vs 5
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Kim, Jumpthesnark and cjsuk
MakeAppleAwesomeAgain said:
That's embarrassing; just make it 120Hz. They have all the technologies in-house.
Click to expand...
120Hz 5k is a lot of bandwidth to pump through a cable. Such a monitor doesn't currently exist, and if Apple makes one and happens to be the first, you likely wouldn't want to pay its price.

All of these super-high refresh rate monitors are 4K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Kim, Jumpthesnark, WylyQuimby and 1 other person
I still don't know what all the fuss is about with promotion. when I got my first promotion phones and iPads I really didn't notice and I spend all day staring at screens. looking back and forth between my iPad and my studio display the only thing immediately noticeable is how much better the contrast is on the iPad with the backlighting
 
Rychiar said:
I still don't know what all the fuss is about with promotion. when I got my first promotion phones and iPads I really didn't notice and I spend all day staring at screens. looking back and forth between my iPad and my studio display the only thing immediately noticeable is how much better the contrast is on the iPad with the backlighting
Click to expand...
So pro-motion on OLED is a real thing, and it is amazing due to he response rate of pixels. Pro-motion on slow LCD like in the MacBook Pro currently leads to ghosting, sure the signal for 120 is being rendered, however you get the same motion blur you were always going to get with 60. So your iPhone pro with 120 looks so amazing cause the OLED is just that fast, however look at older LCD iPads and the 120 is noticeable but it is stunted with the motion blur LCD has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Kim
ThatsMeRight said:
If true, iPhone 17 likely also will be 90 Hz. Gotta keep 120 Hz for Pro models.

Regardless, already a big improvement. I've got an OLED laptop with 90 Hz refresh rate and it feels much more like 120 Hz than 60 Hz in terms of smoothness.
Click to expand...

How about making 120Hz Standard and higher for Pro ?

We are going into 2025 and 90Hz is getting ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnbreakableAlex
bunce66 said:
If Apple makes a top-notch external display for under $1200, it would sell like crazy. Would buy in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

IDK, in my anecdotal experience people that spend that kind of money on display often have a lot of hardware and 5K resolution makes this display a no go if you need to hook it up to something other than a Mac.

For example, I'll always prefer 4K 120Hz display with KVM to a hypothetical Apple Studio display with 120Hz because I can use the former to seamlessly switch between a Macbook and gaming PC as needed.

What I'm trying to say is even though it's a great product, Apple trapped it in this weird niche where it can't become more than a luxury Mac accessory.
 
Last edited:
smirking said:
Got any thoughts why the 5K3K form factor never caught on?
Click to expand...
Too much cost and hassle vs - for PC/Windows users - diminishing returns vs. 4k.

Until Thunderbolt 3 came along (and uptake of that was smaller on PCs than Macs), the Dell and HP displays needed two DisplayPort cables and a suitably powerful graphics card.

Windows has a fully-scalable UI with user-definable PPI that works well on a 4k display set to 200% scale, or 150% if you want more "real estate" (not an option that the Mac offers). Sure, 5k is still better than 4k on Windows but it's not a "magic sweet spot" like it is with MacOS' fixed 110/220ppi.

1080p @ 27" displays of all sizes were (still are) fairly ubiquitous on Windows machines making 4k UHD the obvious 2:1 upgrade. "Gold standard" on the Mac was 1440p on the iMac and 27" Cinema Display - and smaller Apple-made screens tended (with exceptions) to keep around the MacOS-standard-ish 110ppi resolution - making 5k3k@27"/220ppi the optimum upgrade.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux and smirking
theluggage said:
Windows has a fully-scalable UI with user-definable PPI that works well on a 4k display set to 200% scale, or 150% if you want more "real estate" (not an option that the Mac offers). Sure, 5k is still better than 4k on Windows but it's not a "magic sweet spot" like it is with MacOS' fixed 110/220ppi.
Click to expand...

OK, kinda embarrassed to admit I didn't know this but MacOS has a fixed dpi, but Windows doesn't? Is that just a MacOS thing to try to give the same experience everywhere but with Windows you get to go your own way for better or for worse?
 
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like you have to go out of your way to get that refresh rate. 🤔 Aren’t most controllers now built for either 60 or 120? What would be the advantage of 90?
 
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