At what resolution & size?
You can get OLED + high refresh rate right now, just depending upon the above.
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 Successor Now Expected Early Next Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
At what resolution & size?
You can get OLED + high refresh rate right now, just depending upon the above.
Exactly, I meant 5K. My 27 inch 5K iMac is perfect for my use. But I will never again buy and iMac because it becomes obsolete to quickly. (original post corrected)
The HDR10 standard says "mastered with a peak brightness of 1000 nits".
I'm not sure that means "You have to watch it at 1000 nits".
You're right, but HDR10 is a protocol. It isn't a performance spec like DisplayHDR.
There are other protocols, like HDR10+ and Dolby Vision. None of them have anything to do with performance specs, except insofar as, for example, support for the HDR10 protocol is a fundamental requirement for a DisplayHDR certified panel.
1000 nits is not a requirement for HDR10 support, obviously. 1000 nits of peak luminance is a minimum requirement for DisplayHDR 1000 certification, but not, for example, DisplayHDR 600.
The mistake in that comment (that you replied to) is it applies TV performance-spec standards like "Ultra HD Premium" from the UHD Alliance. Those specs don't translate well to computer displays and monitors. Here's an introduction:
Not all HDR is created equal! - VESA Certified DisplayHDR™
What’s the difference between HDR10, HDR-1000, and DisplayHDR 1000? Often, we see the question of how to compare HDR10 and DisplayHDR. Which is better, and why? The answer in this case is very easy: DisplayHDR is better, but this is a little tongue-in-cheek because they aren’t really the same...
displayhdr.org
I certainly wouldn't the white and light-greys of Tahoe's Liquid Glass at 1000 nits.
That’s not how use of HDR and lighting (ray-traced caustics potentially) works, and ideal HDR screens have 1000+ sustained nits like Apple prosumer products and what monitor manufacturers such as Asus offer for their ProArt prosumer monitor series
They literally just did that with the M4 MacBook Air
They also did it recently with the Mac Minis, first with the M2 Mini and then again sort of with the M4 Mini FWIW
I’ve been assuming that you’re just joking here, but in case you’re not — the “brightness” setting on your display is not what is being discussed when people talk about “luminance” and HDR. People use the words interchangeably, but they’re two different things.
If you crank a Pro Display XDR (1600 nits peak luminance) up to full brightness, nobody’s getting blinded, obviously…
Agreed, at least until the TB5 Macs become more commonplace. But....
It should be noted that only addresses the transmission aspect. While it seems 5k120Hz should be driveable over TB3/4 by using a sufficiently high DSC compression ratio, the internal display engine also needs to be able to process 5k120Hz. This means, I think, that not all TB3/4 Macs will be able to use this monitor.
Among the non-TB5 AS Macs, that processing requirement would seem to exclude all the M1 chips, as well as the base M2 and M3, all of which are listed as supporting a max of 6k60Hz (which is only ≈70% of the pixel rate of 5k120Hz). Though that's not too bad, since what remains (the base M4 and M2/M3/M4 Pro+) can support 8k60Hz, which is a higher pixel rate than 5k120Hz; and that should cover most of the target audience for this display.
At the same time, do you recall an instance in which Apple added a new display format after the machine was released? I'm curious how hard it would be for Apple to reconfigure older and current machines to support 5k120Hz. Can they do it with just a software or firmware update?
Last edited:
There is overall brightness and relative brightness. You are talking about overall brightness (200 nits is the default setting for standard content like the UI), while rendering HDR content is about managing relative brightness.
The Studio Display is not a High Dynamic Range (HDR) display — it doesn’t have the type of backlight needed to provide the necessary contrast — Apple uses something called EDR (Extended Dynamic Range) to “represent” HDR content on the Studio Display. There’s a video from WWDC21 that explains it, here.
That’s why people are stoked about the possibility of a 2D locally-dimmed mini-LED backlight coming to an updated Studio Display. It’s not about overall brightness/luminance (SDR, standard dynamic range), it’s about rendering HDR content with
Here’s a recent article on HDR in displays and how it relates to local dimming: VESA Improve DisplayHDR Certification Criteria (May 2024)
* Strikethrough added because only emissive display panels like OLED offer “true” pixel-level control. That’s why VESA calls its OLED performance specs “DisplayHDR True Black” — as opposed to “DisplayHDR” for backlit panels.
Last edited:
I don’t know, but I think it would need to be a firmware update, probably embedded in a macOS update?
I think the M3 iMac would be the principal target (assuming the base M3 SoC can handle 4.5K 60Hz + 5K 120Hz at all), but note that the M2 Mini and M2-M3 Air (clamshell mode) would also be likely to be included (the base M2 Mini supports one 6K 60Hz + one 5K 60Hz, so its SoC can do 5K 120Hz) — my probably-unfounded fear would be that it would require a dongle, which Apple is fervently opposed to…
Like you, I think the base M1 would be out. But it will have ProMotion, so I think the base M1 would be able to run the display at rates up to 60Hz, just not above that.
Last edited:
I would think an Apple Silicon iMac user would be the least-likely to buy an Apple-branded display since they already have one.
As I mentioned, I don't think the display engines in the base M1/M2/M3 will have the processing power for 5k120Hz, since they're all listed as supporting a max of 6k60Hz, which is only ≈70% of the pixel rate of 5k120Hz.
But M2 isn’t limited to 6K 60Hz — it is one 6K 60Hz AND one 5K 60Hz. Or do you think that doesn’t matter (not a rhetorical question)?
The same or better is likely true for M3, but there’s no Mini, so we only have the Air and the iMac to go by — both support 6K 60Hz AND the built-in display.
I think I see the misunderstanding.
Here's the total display support capacity of the base M3: 6k60Hz + 5k60Hz. That means it has two display engines, one with the former capability and one with the latter.
Neither of those have the pixel bandwidth to support 5k120Hz.
The only way you could get that is if Apple configured the machines to run half the 5k120Hz display with one cable (from one TB port) and half with another cable from the other TB port. Thus you'd have each display engine driving half the display.
It seems highly unlikely that Apple would accept this kludge, even if they could accomplish it.
Note also that it wouldn't work on the iMac unless Apple disconnected the screen, so you'd be paying all that money not to get a 2nd monitor, but merely to swap a 24" for a 27". I can't see a market for that.
MacBook Air (15-inch, M3, 2024) - Tech Specs - Apple Support
MacBook Air (15-inch, M3, 2024) - Tech Specs
Thanks! — I think if that’s the case then this list of 8K 60Hz 4K 240Hz Macs could be the requirement. In short, M2 Pro and above, including M4 Mac mini. [Note that M4 iMac is not listed because it only supports 8K 60Hz (not 4K 240Hz) and M4 MacBook Air doesn’t support either one.]I think I see the misunderstanding.
Here's the total display support capacity of the base M3: 6k60Hz + 5k60Hz. That means it has two display engines, one with the former capability and one with the latter.
Neither of those have the pixel bandwidth to support 5k120Hz.
The only way you could get that is if Apple configured the machines to run half the 5k120Hz display with one cable (from one TB port) and half with another cable from the other TB port. Thus you'd have each display engine driving half the display.
It seems highly unlikely that Apple would accept this kludge, even if they could accomplish it.
Note also that it wouldn't work on the iMac unless Apple disconnected the screen, so you'd be paying all that money not to get a 2nd monitor, but merely to swap a 24" for a 27". I can't see a market for that.
View attachment 2528723MacBook Air (15-inch, M3, 2024) - Tech Specs - Apple Support
MacBook Air (15-inch, M3, 2024) - Tech Specssupport.apple.com
In that case, I agree with those who’ve been saying there’s no chance Apple would use the Studio Display to launch the world’s first 5K 120Hz monitor next year. The Studio Display is for everyone. I think it’s possible they launch a 27" Pro Display XDR with ProMotion (J527, AppleDisplay4,1), but the Studio Display update (J427, AppleDisplay3,1) will be 60Hz or 75Hz, or maybe the rumored 90Hz (which would also be a first), but no more.
I think it’s reasonable to assume it will have a Nano IPS Black panel (which has an enhanced backlight, but it’s not Mini-LED), most likely A16, and DisplayHDR 600 certification. They could market that as the Studio Display HDR.
Last edited:
There is also a credible source on the Upgrade Podcast that has stated that the next Studio Display will be 90hz, not 120. This would likely work then over thunderbolt 4.
I really hope this isn't true. I cannot see myself buying a new monitor until they do >27", at least mini-LED and 120hz.
I really hope this isn't true. I cannot see myself buying a new monitor until they do >27", at least mini-LED and 120hz.
If the panel is anything like the current Studio Display (or MacBook Pros), I can't imagine 120Hz being noticeably better than 90Hz—the response times are just too slow. I'm sure the 90Hz will feel more responsive though.
The vastly improved contrast + HDR capability are what I'm excited for.
The vastly improved contrast + HDR capability are what I'm excited for.