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 Studio Display 2: Here's What the Latest Rumors Say
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are a number of desirable monitors that aren't available... hoping Apple fills some:
- 8K 40inch - perfect PPI for a retina monitor
- 5K 27inch @ 120hz - 5K@60hz is great for text, but video is problematic and scrolling isn't smooth at 60hz.
- Thunderbolt5 hub - OWC's TB5 hub is great and should be built into monitors. TB3/TB4 devices are very common and having 3 share the bandwidth of a single TB5 port is pretty darn useful.
I don't care about refresh, but would love more 5k options. I use my ASD next to an LG4k and I can see the difference. The crispness of 5k text blows everything else away, and it's something I won't compromise on.
No, it doesn't.
The Studio Display renders at 5k. The misleading "(looks like) 2560x1440" description in display settings effectively means that the UI size - system fonts, menus, buttons etc. are double-size so they render physically the same height/width as you'd get on an old 27" 1440p display. Unless you're running ancient pre-retina software, though, it will be rendered with twice as many pixels in each direction and contain far more detail.
No, it isn't. (see above).
Even if you choose a different scaled mode to get a different-sized UI, everything is rendered at twice the stated resolution and downsampled to fit whatever display you have (whether it is 5k or 4k) and contains far more detail than you would see on a display with that actual resolution. Even on a 4k display in scaled "looks like 2560x1440" mode you get 5k downsampled to 4k which has far more detail than 2560x1440 pixels could show.
These posts show why apple really, really needs to stop confusing scaling with resolution by describing 5k with 2:1 scaling as "2560x1440" because it simply isn't 2550x1440 pixels. Instead, they've removed the "looks like" prefix to make it even more misleading. You can kinda defend the logic if you're a programmer working out how to scale screen coordinates - but from a user POV it's nonsense.
Right, there is the nano-texture option but if my next monitor for my Mac is the Studio then it should be matte without paying the extra charge. My current monitor is an LG with a matte screen.Current model has a 'nano texture' glass option for $300 premium. It's incredible. When off, it seems to suck light/reflections and look like a black hole.
My wife can get bad eyestrain from reflective monitors - but the nano texture MacBook Pro and Studio display work extremely well for her. (I have Dell monitors with less effective plastic matte finish, but good enough for me, but I envy her nano texture Studio.)
Yes, I have the same setup and agree it is MUCH easier on the eyes.Current model has a 'nano texture' glass option for $300 premium. It's incredible. When off, it seems to suck light/reflections and look like a black hole.
My wife can get bad eyestrain from reflective monitors - but the nano texture MacBook Pro and Studio display work extremely well for her. (I have Dell monitors with less effective plastic matte finish, but good enough for me, but I envy her nano texture Studio.)
Paying that much money for the technology inside was brutal but it was worth it for me. In very bright rooms it is insanely better and I notice more reflections on everything now. I have a good PC display but it’s nothing like Apple’s nano coating, I want it on every single device after using it for a couple of months.
If the XDR gets upgraded this year I’ll probably swap them out but I wasn’t going to pay 6 thousand dollars for 5 year old technology.
I think the studio display replacement from Apple is another 1-2 years off, unless they add a model above the current one and price it around $2499.
we all understand this except apparently you who needs to pedantically mansplain the obvious. whether its native 1:1 pixels or down sampled aka retina 5K->3K, you only have 1440 ***effective*** usable to a UI pixels available. if it takes 4 tiny pixels = 1 UI pixel, ok, so the edges are smoother, there is less aliasing etc. thats very nice but it doesn't give a UI 5K of directly addressable, fully usable pixels.
30 years ago I basically wrote 68K assembler to provide what amounts to what Retina is doing - the App always draws to the highest raster size, and the code then drew it actual display pixels which were typically lower res. at the time it was referred to as normalized display coordinates.
no. you can run it at multiple down sampled res's or native 5K. since I know you don't believe this :
Attachments
I would rather have just the display with stand that could also rotate 90° included. Maybe some good speakers built in but definitely not with a camera. You could use your iPhone camera with that if needed. Camera quality doesn’t hold that long as a good screen. Same for big iMac. The internals got dated really quickly and than you have to buy something else while the screen is still perfect. (iMac intel 27” 5k)
You misunderstand @theluggage 's point. The 5K display does give you all those pixels for your content. For example, you get all the actual pixels of a 4K video on there with some extra space for UI around it.
Older iMacs used to let you do that. But then people started realizing that this was implemented in a highly privileged port that allowed Direct Memory Access into the system and Apple cut that **** out. Blame the FBI and other jokers that exploited these things to get into Apple devices. I'm sure Apple can come up with a safer more performant solution, but if you know anything about graphics programming... you can easily take over a system with a cable.
I suppose apple can release a final firmware image for EOL devices and purges all capability other than acting as a display. But then certain groups would probably leverage that to display phishing stuff and coax people into logging in.
Is this concrete / anywhere in the public domain? I thought the reason was they didn't want to let traffic in once they went to 5k and it would require going through the internals due to the weird implementation that was necessary then because of bandwidth limitations at the time (a multi chip configuration if I recall right), and that the original DisplayPort input implementation on the iMacs did not route internally to the host.
Funny enough I would actually love that. I'm in the minority of being a fan of the notch, I think it's super practical while giving a unique design choice that just kind of makes me like it. But would absolutely love everything else to be edge to edge. So yeah do it Apple! And do it on the iMac as well. The iPad is the only device I don't want to see anything like that, you need to be able to hold the iPad easily.
The iMac 4K and iMac 5K have custom timing controllers to drive the entire panel at 60Hz instead of each half at 30Hz (like the first 5K displays from Dell, HPE and others did via two DP inputs). One of the drawbacks of this is it meant that the Target Display Mode was no longer available because both internal DP channels were now used by the CTC so one was not available for TDM.
More than 60Hz has a major benefit even for excel work. I was getting severe eye strain until I upgraded to 120Hz by the recommendation of my doctor. Immediate relief and have no issues since! Using my windows laptop screen for an extended period of time reintroduces this since it’s 60Hz. I need to take a lot of breaks.
Given how often Apple historically updates their displays, a new one this year would be insanely soon and I can't imagine it happening. Going by their regular schedule, we won't see an update till around 2030.
