You realize that extra K is almost double the number of pixelsBut $3k for an extra K….. and maybe 300-400 more nits. For $2000 plus extra??????
Or "Pro Display Mini"I'm guessing "Studio Display Pro"
Notice how folks criticize the ASD yet offer no alternatives. Yeah, it's $$$ but it performs.
This Dell Ultrasharp 40 Curved looks tempting! Can I ask you?:Me too. Mac Studio Ultra tucked in behind the 5K2K 40" Ultrawide. So the only visible brand is the Dell one at the bottom of it and an Apple logo on the mouse. People think my new "Dell" looks great.
After a decade plus on 27" iMac screens, I could never come back from an ultra wide. That extra screen RE is just too useful for me.
Dual 27” 5K is my work daily driverI get work done on 27
This Dell Ultrasharp 40 Curved looks tempting! Can I ask you?:
I assume you're running it at 5120x2160. With your Studio, how sharp is text? (Text is 90% of what I work with.)
When I put two Dell 4k 27" monitors together and angled them into a slight V, I found that reading text on the edges of the monitors was at such an extreme angle that I had to strain to read it, and I gave up on that setup. Does the curve of your Dell solve this issue?
Thanks!!
Double the number of pixels means? Unless you have the eyes of a friggen Falcon it doesn’t mean diddly. lolYou realize that extra K is almost double the number of pixels
Or "Pro Display Mini"![]()
VERY helpful, thank you so much! I wish the Mac had Windows-type scaling so we could run our monitors at their native resolutions. I will try 3840x1620 resolution when I bring my laptop to the stores to check these monitors out (and I wouldn't have thought of bringing my laptop to a store even though it's obvious, so I'm glad you mentioned it!).I hope this is helpful.
The difference between 4 and 5k to the human eye are almost non existent. Apple 5k displays feel like a gimmick. We’ve had 5k for 7 years now. If they offer a $2000 8k promotion display that would make sense. A full OLED or Micro LED display. Apples high end monitor is wonderful. But unless your making animation or a professional artists it’s useless for the money.Part of this is poor marketing of 5k screens. 5 sounds 20% more than 4k, but in reality 4K represents 8.3 million pixels whereas 5K is 14.7 million pixels, about 77% more.
Really don’t see Apple releasing any 27” iMacs anytime soon. 30” or 32” yes.It's possible that this is just revealing what will eventually be the new 27" iMac Pro. It would make sense for the pro model to have a mini-LED display. Perhaps the panel itself is the only thing they got right, but it's not for a higher end Studio Display, but a powerful and higher end iMac.
It would be priced way under the 32" XDR, which could see a mini-LED upgrade as well (and a little more justification for the price). And it would also be inline with the MacBook Pro specs.
Just guesses, of course. Or wishful thinking.![]()
The current Apple decision makers are starting to P*ss me off. . . . Apple is starting to slip (I.E. the universal wimpy assed 24" iMac)... Come-on-man! . . .Wait
Having used a 27" 4K at home and a 27" 5K at work, I can say that I do notice a difference in sharpness but only when the monitors are close up. If I push both of them further back on my desk, then I can't really tell the difference. I thought I would miss the 5K monitor when the WFH started but the 27" 4K has gotten the job done for my Graphic Design tasks.The difference between 4 and 5k to the human eye are almost non existent. Apple 5k displays feel like a gimmick. We’ve had 5k for 7 years now. If they offer a $2000 8k promotion display that would make sense. A full OLED or Micro LED display. Apples high end monitor is wonderful. But unless your making animation or a professional artists it’s useless for the money.
I agree, I think 27" 1440p is the perfect working resolution where at 100% the OS scale is just the right size, then 5K is pixel doubled 1440p to then give the retina look to it. I honestly think that studio display is so close to being the perfect display for me. The issues for me are:As someone who has used 4K and 5K screens a ton and side by side at times, I can say with 100% confidence that 5K is noticeably better than 4K especially when it comes to text. It is an absolute pleasure to work on a 5K screen (Studio Display for example) and I have a 4K 144hz LG Ultragear next to it. There is no comparison.
It’s not one of those 5Kx1440 wide screens is it? People are always posting about them saying “see there are other 5K monitors out there!”.Which 5K resolution Eizo and how much does it cost?
If you look at small text on a 4K and 5K next to each other, you can usually see that one is more legible than the other. If you are looking at video, the temporal aliasing, scaling, and compression will mask the difference.The difference between 4 and 5k to the human eye are almost non existent. Apple 5k displays feel like a gimmick. We’ve had 5k for 7 years now. If they offer a $2000 8k promotion display that would make sense. A full OLED or Micro LED display. Apples high end monitor is wonderful. But unless your making animation or a professional artists it’s useless for the money.
That would be amazing. Hoping for a 32", but how will they gimp the display so that it won't compete with the XDR, I wonder.Really don’t see Apple releasing any 27” iMacs anytime soon. 30” or 32” yes.
Interesting. So the extra internals on the ASD is what's driving the cost up, but really, there doesn't seem to be a need for all that inside. But it doesn't sound like Apple to not have a fully realized and tested product before releasing to mass manufacturing. It is interesting though as it does feel like the ASD started as something else (Smart Display w/AppleTV, or iMac). And the cost just doesn't make sense, especially with the additional $400 for a stand/functionality that should have already been included. Sounds like attempts to recoup $$$ for all those extra parts because as you mentioned, the panel is very similar to the 27" 2020 iMac. There are improvements and the ASD is an upgrade, but they are very similar.I understand why you are thinking that but my main issue is the following;
- During the March Peek performance event this year they stated the Mac Pro is up next for Apple Silicon.
- Would Apple actually release a iMac Pro anywhere near the time of a new Mac Pro?(I vote no as Apple really spaces out brand new desktop designs as they use them more of a marketing tool "halo products".)
- The current 27" Mac Studio display is more of a frankenstein of components Apple already uses. Its as if Apple was planning on doing some kind of Apple TV/iOS integration with the current model but axed it and just sold the display at an inflated price because it also same CPU as iPhone 11, 64 gb memory, using aging iMac panel tech(though panel is still very good and upgraded a bit).
My conspiracy guess is the 27" Mac Studio display gets axed as they are just reusing older components and the 27" Mini LED replaces it then they unlock whatever new feature they were planning on doing in the first place. This would be similar to how the iPhone 11 iPhone 12 had a U1 ultra-wideband chip which Apple didn't provide any info at the time why it was there and then later on Apple launched AirTag. There has to be some reason why they are loading up the current display with iOS components that you do not need(which is a major issue because the inflated price ruins the current Studio Display from being used in a multiple monitor setup unless you like paying money for extra webcams/storage..etc).
So I must have robotic eyes then because I see a clear difference and upgrade going from 4 to 5 especially with text.The difference between 4 and 5k to the human eye are almost non existent