Apple Said to Release 31.6-Inch 6K Display With Mini LED-Like Backlight Design in 2019

[Glockworkorange]

I assume it’s meant to mean “the pixels are their own ‘backlight’”

Obviously very sloppy writing.

Would that be “micro-LED?”
[doublepost=1550553856][/doublepost]

If true, I am sure it will make a lot of people happy. At the moment, I don't have a need for such a display with my 5K iMac still rocking, and also using my 60" 4k tv as a display.

I don’t have the need for it, it certainly the want.
[doublepost=1550553976][/doublepost]

Joy..
Probably $4,000

(before Applecare+ for another $499)

Maybe not. AppleCare on the 5K was $160, if I’m it mistaken.
[doublepost=1550554065][/doublepost]

I wonder if 2019 is the year we see a significant redesign for the iMac (maybe Pro only?) and MacBook Pro. increase the screen to bezel ratio, bring in Face ID...

Last year Quo said to be in the lookout for an iMac with “significant” display improvements

That sounds like this.
[doublepost=1550554387][/doublepost]

Man, I hope this is true. I am waiting to get new displays for a long time. I 'm still rocking my two ACD's 30"/23". They still solid but I want to update to a 5K or even better 6K. The prices might be out of this world though. Gotta brace myself since I want to get two of these bad boys.

You better have something strong enough to drive multiples...the iMac Pro can drive two 5K’s and the 15 inch can drive two 5K’s with the regular 5K iMac being able to drive one other 5K over TB 3. Can’t imagine what you’d need to drive more than one 6K.
[doublepost=1550554433][/doublepost]

Some meat amongst the other fluffy news from Kuo..

This sounds very interesting using micro LED tech, 6K?? Well if they want to improve in 5K I guess they don’t have a choice. Sounds like it’ll be a hell of a display and a hell of a price..

MORE K’s!!
[doublepost=1550554527][/doublepost]

Why 6K though?

What's the ppi of a 6K3K at 31.6"?
(what's even the exact pixel dimensions on a so-called 6K3K display?)

And given the 27" 5K3K size scales exactly double Apple's older 27" 1440p displays; how does this 6K scale with Apple's current 'doubling' scaling concept?

I just can't see the 'amazingly better'-ness of a 31.6" 6K3K, over the current 27" 5K3K's?
AFAICT, it means ~20% extra screen pixel real estate, over 27" 5K3K, so effectively a non-ultra "widescreen 5K" resolution.

Too much math...

 

[Tech198]

This can be contrary to how Apple limited its Apple Cinema and/or standalone displays in 2016.

Now their back in the saddle again.

 

[Putzytart]

6k is the price right?

 

[iBungie]

Make sure you plug the USB cables in, I use both a 20” and a 23” ACD on High Sierra and the brightness adjustment works great. In fact they pulsing light in the front also still works with the Mac Pro (but not my iMac Pro, I’m guessing it’s because it doesn’t have a light indicator)

I'm using the old Cinema Displays that have ADC and require an ADC to DVI adapter. Since Mavericks these and all the other plastic framed screens have not been supported - they still work but there is no longer any control over brightness and so the USB plug doesn't help - but thanks for your help & suggestion.

ps if the light on the screen is pulsing might that be an error code?
If I plug in the relevant USB cable I get a three flash code: short - short - long on one of my screens that has grown dimmer over the years due to a backlight issue. On the other screen the LED is steady.

I am definitely in the market for a screen refresh. with current hardware I'd be limited to 4K unless I swap out the GTX680 for something newer. But if I want to go TB3 for a screen such as this rumoured 6K then it's a new computer that's needed. I'll hold out to see what 2019 brings...and start saving

 

[tofagerl]

I would not buy this, because I don't generally spend as much on screens as Apple would like me to spend.
However, this will probably kickstart a new push forwards on screen development, which has REALLY slowed down! Hell, there still isn't a 5k display to match LG's!

 

[Putzytart]

Way too big, imo.

Have no idea why people want to sit right in front of massive television-sized displays. It looks gaudy. Same with the massive phones they make now.

Hope they make a smaller version, but I doubt they will.

Because professional graphic designers and video editors need as much screen real estate as they can get. All of our designers and editors at my work have a double screen set up (2x27inch), and a 31.6 inch screen might be the first screen big enough to not need two of them side by side, especially if 31.6 inch is an ultrawide. Personally my favourite set up was two of the old 23 inch cinema displays.

 

[Glockworkorange]

This YouTuber has a pretty good view discussing a 6K monitor.

If the 6K rumor is accurate, the Mac Pro will probably be the only thing that can drive two of them.

 

[cocoua]

PLEASE !!! 3:2 or 16:10 format!!!!

let us use that screen for work, not to watch Netflix

iMac Pro 16:9 is the biggest fail ever

 

[DanBig]

Lots of news!

Does anybody know what a '6k3k' display means? Is this like the LG 5K2K? 4K for 4k footage, 8k for 8k footage, 5k for 4K video at native resolution plus OS interface, 6k for? I suspect lots of money, it could hit £2000/$2000.

6k3k has more to do with the width and hight of the displays resolution. Many of the newer panels are now ultra wide so the pixel measure would be stretched if we use the older method of measure. So if you hold the pixel to a square dimension the width would be 6k but the hight would be 3k.

 

[AnonMac50]

I'm using the old Cinema Displays that have ADC and require an ADC to DVI adapter. Since Mavericks these and all the other plastic framed screens have not been supported - they still work but there is no longer any control over brightness and so the USB plug doesn't help - but thanks for your help & suggestion.

ps if the light on the screen is pulsing might that be an error code?
If I plug in the relevant USB cable I get a three flash code: short - short - long on one of my screens that has grown dimmer over the years due to a backlight issue. On the other screen the LED is steady.

I am definitely in the market for a screen refresh. with current hardware I'd be limited to 4K unless I swap out the GTX680 for something newer. But if I want to go TB3 for a screen such as this rumoured 6K then it's a new computer that's needed. I'll hold out to see what 2019 brings...and start saving

Oh, I haven’t used the plastic ones with any Intel Macs yet, but I’m not sure why the aluminium ones won’t work, they work fine for me. Sorry I couldn’t help.

Haha the pulsing lights I meant were when you put the computer into sleep. The new iMac Pro doesn’t have an indicator light so I’m guessing that’s why it doesn’t work. But brightness works on both in High Sierra.

 

[frou]

Also, do you guys think that pixelwise 6K would be too small to work at 100% (i.e. at 1:1)?

Very much so... Using @1X UI elements at ~220 ppi would be ludicrous

 

[repoman27]

To quote AppleInsider and several other sites that simply regurgitated the exact same copy, "A 6K3K display refers to standard 6K resolution of 6,144 x 3,072 which at a 31.6-inch diagonal size will yield a pixel density of roughly 217 ppi."

I'm not sure if the 6144 x 3072 resolution was specifically mentioned in Kuo's research note, but the logical extension of Apple's current 16:9 aspect ratio 4K and 5K displays would result in a 6K resolution of 6144 x 3456, while the DCI full frame format for 6K would be 6144 x 3240. I did some math, and seeing as 10 bits per color and 60 Hz are pretty much non-negotiable at this point, 6144 x 3456 is just a hair more than will fit down a single Thunderbolt 3 cable without using display stream compression (DSC). 6144 x 3240 would be possible over a single link, but there wouldn't even be enough headroom left over for a USB 3.0 controller. Going with a 2:1 aspect ratio and 6144 x 3072 resolution drops the DisplayPort bandwidth requirement to 35.857 Gbit/s, which still leaves 4 Gbit/s for a PCIe 2.0 x1 device such as a typical USB 3.0 host controller. This is pretty much at the ragged edge of what can be supported over a single cable without DSC.

It also results in 18,874,368 total pixels, which is exactly twice the number of pixels offered by a 4096 x 2304 display. The MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2018) should be able to drive this display without issue, and other Macs with Thunderbolt 3 ports, including the iMac Pro, new Mac mini and even the new MacBook Air, might still be able to drive it, but only at 8 bits per color.

The mini-LED part of the research note alludes to strong HDR support, so I'm hoping for DisplayHDR 1000 level performance / certification. And I'd also reckon this display will be able to cover somewhere in the neighborhood of 98% of the DCI-P3 color gamut. I'd also expect 85 W USB Type-C power delivery for charging connected laptops.

Perhaps the new Mac Pro will be released before AMD's Navi arrives at the end of the year. I had discounted the idea of Apple using Vega 20 in a modular Mac because it does not support DSC, and thus could not drive an 8K display using a single cable. But apparently Apple may be going with a 6K display to bridge the gap.

 

[frou]

PLEASE !!! 3:2 or 16:10 format!!!!

let us use that screen for work, not to watch Netflix

iMac Pro 16:9 is the biggest fail ever

How about 2:1... So "work" that the monitor's stand will be a steel-toe boot!

 

[cocoua]

Because professional graphic designers and video editors need as much screen real estate as they can get. All of our designers and editors at my work have a double screen set up (2x27inch), and a 31.6 inch screen might be the first screen big enough to not need two of them side by side, especially if 31.6 inch is an ultrawide. Personally my favourite set up was two of the old 23 inch cinema displays.

I also prefer 2 or more screens, but what is more important is the aspect ratio, iMac pro 16:9 is a no sense, how could they fall in that error? who could take that decision? is not a consumer machine, is a tool for create content, what is the advantage of 16:9 for tools organization?

 

[deconstruct60]

Having a larger screen for iMac Pro makes lots of sense. Not only a bigger display but also can fit more hardware inside.

Actually perhaps not "more" hardware but they could gain more flexibility in where the hardware is placed. For example instead of moving the CPU and the RAM over to where the HDD has been (and got dropped), they could move the CPU closer to the middle and the GPU farther off the middle. ( if looking from the back the GPU would shift right 4-5 inches and the CPU could move closer to the middle being the RAM sockets back behind the pedestal arm so can put a "RAM door" back on it. if could service the Flash NAND daughter cards with a bigger door than perhaps all the better.

The could shift the I/O port panel to the left (looking from the back). They could probably slide in another Ethernet port ( either 10GbE or 1GbE ). There is a space on the iPac Pro logic board where they could hav squeezed in another Ethernet port but looks like they rand out of "good" space ( and likely thermals if wanted to do a 10GbE one. ).

I highly doubt that HDD would come back though. Nor a second embedded SSD drive. Nor more DIMM slots than the current four. I think the extra space would mainly be used to move the two major thermal sources farther apart and perhaps run them a bit hotter ( if got more air flow. Bigger fans and/or bigger vents ).
[doublepost=1550615285][/doublepost]

This YouTuber has a pretty good view discussing a 6K monitor.
....
If the 6K rumor is accurate, the Mac Pro will probably be the only thing that can drive two of them.

Not of it is primarily an "ultra wide". Not much 'taller' at all than the 5K and most of the extra pixels contributing to 'width". 2:1 ratio. where don't get much taller. The diagonal measurement gets bigger primarily because wider.

Thunderbolt v3 can traffic two DP 1.2 streams. 2 * 17.28 Gb/s so around 34.56 Gb/s.
Post 137 above outlines something like 6144x3072 format (that leans toward "utlra wide").

6144x3072x60x30 = 33.97Gb/s ... it is a tight squeeze but still under the both 2*DPv1.2 and Thunderbolt v3 (40Gb/s)

It is probably going to be more the case of nothing before 2017-18 and without a discrete GPU are doing to drop out.
(the iMac Pro would probably squeak under that 2018 limit).

The dual DPv1.2 streams that were used to drive many 5K displays had some bandwidth headroom left. If you use the extra headroom to add just incrementally more pixels to use up that headroom ... you can still drive a bigger display with that same two pair of data streams.

 

[CWallace]

Thunderbolt v3 can traffic two DP 1.2 streams. 2 * 17.28 Gb/s so around 34.56 Gb/s.

Post 137 above outlines something like 6144x3072 format (that leans toward "utlra wide").

6144x3072x60x30 = 33.97Gb/s ... it is a tight squeeze but still under the both 2*DPv1.2 and Thunderbolt v3 (40Gb/s)

I would assume Apple will be using Titan Ridge TB3 controllers which supports DisplayPort 1.4 along with Display Stream Compression to allow 8K at 60Hz and 5K (and perhaps 6K?) at 120Hz when using a dGPU. (Total bandwidth remains 40GB/s.)

 

[Putzytart]

My findings suggest that the specs will actually be:

A 31.6 inch screen with an aspect ratio of 19.5 x 9. Pixel dimensions of 6,240 x 2,880 with a pixel density of 218 ppi.

This is basically the same screen that is currently in the iMac 27 inch but wider. Exactly the same height and pixel density but ultra wide format of 19.5x9 instead of 16x9 takes the screen diagonal to exactly 31.6 inches.

What this means is that should you wish (seems excessive but) you can place the new 31.6 incher alongside a current gen iMac and it matches up perfectly, pixel for pixel, meaning this can now be a second screen for iMacs, iMac Pros or a primary screen for the new upcoming Mac Pro.

Obviously the new screen will have reduced bezels and will house a series of Thunderbolt 3 / USB C ports and will provide power for laptop charging along with speakers, Full HD front facing camera, but the screen technology will be an evolution of what is already in today's 27 inch screens, only wider.

You heard it here first.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Actually perhaps not "more" hardware but they could gain more flexibility in where the hardware is placed. For example instead of moving the CPU and the RAM over to where the HDD has been (and got dropped), they could move the CPU closer to the middle and the GPU farther off the middle. ( if looking from the back the GPU would shift right 4-5 inches and the CPU could move closer to the middle being the RAM sockets back behind the pedestal arm so can put a "RAM door" back on it. if could service the Flash NAND daughter cards with a bigger door than perhaps all the better.

The could shift the I/O port panel to the left (looking from the back). They could probably slide in another Ethernet port ( either 10GbE or 1GbE ). There is a space on the iPac Pro logic board where they could hav squeezed in another Ethernet port but looks like they rand out of "good" space ( and likely thermals if wanted to do a 10GbE one. ).

I highly doubt that HDD would come back though. Nor a second embedded SSD drive. Nor more DIMM slots than the current four. I think the extra space would mainly be used to move the two major thermal sources farther apart and perhaps run them a bit hotter ( if got more air flow. Bigger fans and/or bigger vents ).
[doublepost=1550615285][/doublepost]

Not of it is primarily an "ultra wide". Not much 'taller' at all than the 5K and most of the extra pixels contributing to 'width". 2:1 ratio. where don't get much taller. The diagonal measurement gets bigger primarily because wider.

Thunderbolt v3 can traffic two DP 1.2 streams. 2 * 17.28 Gb/s so around 34.56 Gb/s.
Post 137 above outlines something like 6144x3072 format (that leans toward "utlra wide").

6144x3072x60x30 = 33.97Gb/s ... it is a tight squeeze but still under the both 2*DPv1.2 and Thunderbolt v3 (40Gb/s)

It is probably going to be more the case of nothing before 2017-18 and without a discrete GPU are doing to drop out.
(the iMac Pro would probably squeak under that 2018 limit).

The dual DPv1.2 streams that were used to drive many 5K displays had some bandwidth headroom left. If you use the extra headroom to add just incrementally more pixels to use up that headroom ... you can still drive a bigger display with that same two pair of data streams.

If I can get a loaded 2017 iMac (non-pro) to drive one 6K over TB3, I will be fine. I'd love two, but if the 2017 maxes out at one other 5K, it won't push two. Although my 5K is pushing an LG Ultrafine 5K over TB 3. There is no stuttering. Works like a dream

 

[CWallace]

My findings suggest that the specs will actually be: A 31.6 inch screen with an aspect ratio of 19.5 x 9. Pixel dimensions of 6,240 x 2,880 with a pixel density of 218 ppi.

That would also support 6K DCI at 5120 × 2700 (which is the same aspect ratio as 2K DCI and 4K DCI).

 

[Glockworkorange]

I would not buy this, because I don't generally spend as much on screens as Apple would like me to spend.
However, this will probably kickstart a new push forwards on screen development, which has REALLY slowed down! Hell, there still isn't a 5k display to match LG's!

I think there is one other 5K out there---a Dell, but you're right in that the displays are sparse. Not sure why. Perhaps cost and perhaps 4k's are enough for most people.

But with this rumor, the 16 inch MBP and the Mac Pro, I am very excited about the Mac this year.

 

[CWallace]

If I can get a loaded 2017 iMac (non-pro) to drive one 6K over TB3, I will be fine. I'd love two, but if the 2017 maxes out at one other 5K, it won't push two.

Titan Ridge should support a 6K display at 60Hz and possibly 120Hz (might need DSC), however the 40Gb/s limit remains and that is said to not be enough bandwidth to daisy-chain two 5K displays off a single TB3 port.

I think there is one other 5K out there---a Dell, but you're right in that the displays are sparse.

Dell did have a 27" 5K display - the UP2715K - but it has been discontinued and not replaced. Phillips had one, as well, but it also has been discontinued, I believe. So the LG 27" and 34" are the only options I am aware of.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Titan Ridge should support a 6K display at 60Hz and possibly 120Hz (might need DSC), however the 40Gb/s limit remains and that is said to not be enough bandwidth to daisy-chain two 5K displays off a single TB3 port.




Dell did have a 27" 5K display - the UP2715K - but it has been discontinued and not replaced. Phillips had one, as well, but it also has been discontinued, I believe. So the LG 27" and 34" are the only options I am aware of.

I'm surprised--must not have sold too many to Windows users. I imagine Mac users would just use the 5K or pick up the Ultrafine.

 

[repoman27]

I would assume Apple will be using Titan Ridge TB3 controllers which supports DisplayPort 1.4 along with Display Stream Compression to allow 8K at 60Hz and 5K (and perhaps 6K?) at 120Hz when using a dGPU. (Total bandwidth remains 40GB/s.)

The Titan Ridge Thunderbolt 3 controllers *might* support DSC, but the only GPU architecture released thus far that supports DSC is NVIDIA's Turing. I'd be surprised if Apple shifted away from AMD at this point, so unless they're waiting for Navi to release the new Mac Pro, it'll be packing some version of AMD's Vega 20 akin to the Radeon VII, which does not do DSC. Display Stream Compression is an optional feature of the DisplayPort 1.4 spec—you don't have to support DSC in order to be DP 1.4 compliant.

I believe this 6K rumor as provided by Kuo has real legs, because if it's just an informed guess, it's an incredibly well considered one. As I outlined before, 6144 x 3072 @ 60 Hz, 10 bpc, plus a USB 3.0 host controller require exactly 39.857152 Gbit/s. A single Thunderbolt 3 link provides 40 Gbit/s. 6144 x 3072 = 18,874,368 pixels, which is the same as 2 x 4096 x 2304. Every Mac with Thunderbolt 3 is capable of driving the internal display (when present) plus at least two external displays at 4096 x 2304. At 8 bits per color, the two tiles of a 6144 x 3072 display would each require 14.3428608 Gbit/s. A standard 4-lane DisplayPort 1.2 HBR2 main link can handle 17.28 Gbit/s. So it's possible that any Mac with Thunderbolt 3 can drive one of these displays at 8 bits per color (millions of colors). Macs with two Thunderbolt 3 controllers (4 ports) and a discrete GPU could drive two of them. And the MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2018) with Titan Ridge and HBR3 should be able to drive two at 10 bits per color (over a billion colors). If Apple is going to re-enter the standalone display market, it makes a lot of sense to target an installed base larger than just the handful of folks who run out and buy whatever the new Mac Pro turns out to be.

Also, 6144 x 3072 is at least a recognized DCI resolution, and companies like RED already produce cameras that can shoot 6K and beyond, so this display does make sense for the pro market. Especially seeing as many pros will initially be wary of DSC, despite it being "visually lossless". I would imagine that 6K @ 60 Hz will probably be the maximum single-cable resolution for at least the next couple years. Does anyone even produce a TCON or scaler that supports DP 1.4a and DSC?

edit: In case anyone was wondering how I came up with my DisplayPort bandwidth requirements, I used the VESA Coordinated Video Timing Generator Revision 1.2 with Reduced Blanking Version 2. Protocol overhead increases the total number of pixels and lines per frame, as does splitting each frame into tiles so it can be transported as multiple streams by the two independent DisplayPort links. By my calculation, each tile ends up being 3152 pixels x 3160 lines.

 

[1050792]

Wow I actually want this screen.

 

[CWallace]

Does anyone even produce a TCON or scaler that supports DP 1.4a and DSC?

If nobody does, Apple could develop their own custom TCON like they did for the 5K iMac.