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 XDR Hands-On: Better Than the Pro Display XDR in Almost Every Way
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"so we thought we'd pick one up to test out and compare"
Maybe I'm missing the bit where the device is returned for a good store credit, but at $3300 a screen, I feel I'm in the wrong line of work.
Maybe I'm missing the bit where the device is returned for a good store credit, but at $3300 a screen, I feel I'm in the wrong line of work.
Nugget
macrumors 68020
"pro" is short for "profit margins"
DesertNomad
macrumors 6502a
I have a 32" XDR and 27" Studio on my main machine. There is simply no way that a 27" display can replace a 32" display.
raythompsontn
macrumors 65816
How about a “Display NEO”? That would really get the phanbois an orgasmic experience to complain.
Apple does not force anyone to purchase the display. The ability to choose, from other vendors, how quaint.
Apple does not force anyone to purchase the display. The ability to choose, from other vendors, how quaint.
That is true, pricing aside. I have a 27inch non Apple monitor for my work and Mac mini.
Apple replaced the $4,999+ Pro Display XDR with the better, more affordable Studio Display XDR, so we thought we'd pick one up to test out and compare to the now-discontinued Pro Display XDR.
Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos.
The Studio Display XDR is the same size as the Studio Display at 27 inches, and it has the same 5K resolution. It's smaller than the 32-inch Pro Display XDR that had a 6K display, and that's probably going to be a major downside for people who prefer larger display sizes. A 32-inch display size works well for a single monitor setup, but 27 inches feels comparatively smaller and is better for multi-display setups.
Apple designed the Pro Display XDR with the same perforated, vented back panel that it used for the Mac Pro, and in comparison, the Studio Display XDR is plainer because it adopts the Studio Display look.
With those downsides out of the way, almost every other Studio Display XDR feature is an improvement over the Pro Display XDR. It uses a mini-LED panel with 2,304 local dimming zones (the Pro Display XDR was limited to 576 local dimming zones). It's brighter than the Pro Display XDR, with deeper blacks, better contrast, and improved HDR. The display is bright enough to match the mini-LED MacBook Pro, and it's really the only display that pairs well with Apple's high-end notebook.
The Studio Display XDR also supports a variable refresh rate from 47Hz to 120Hz, which Apple calls Adaptive Sync. It's not as noticeable as it is on a smaller display, but you can tell a difference when gaming, scrolling quickly, or using the Studio Display XDR next to another display that doesn't support a 120Hz refresh rate.
While the Pro Display XDR didn't come with a camera or speakers, the Studio Display XDR does. It has a 12-megapixel Center Stage camera for video calls and a six-speaker audio system that's ideal for most things you want to do on a Mac.
There are two Thunderbolt 5 ports, one upstream and one downstream, so you can daisy-chain multiple displays together. 140W passthrough charging is available, and there are also two USB-C ports for connecting peripherals.
The Pro Display XDR did not have dual Thunderbolt ports for daisy-chaining displays, so the addition of an extra Thunderbolt port adds more setup versatility.
The Studio Display XDR is a solid upgrade over most displays, and there are very few monitors on the market that can match what Apple is offering. Given the $3,299 price point and the focus on professional use, the Studio Display XDR isn't for the average Mac user. The standard Studio Display is better suited to more casual use, and most people can even get away with a cheaper 4K display from a third-party manufacturer.
Article Link: Apple Studio Display XDR Hands-On: Better Than the Pro Display XDR in Almost Every Way
For my Mac mini it’s perfect but when I’m working, I use three displays.
Laptop and an ultra wide monitor at work which I can treat as two displays by having app windows side by side.
My 27inch at home can be a tad small in some instances when I try to use it to replicate two average size monitors in one.
But it just about does the job, maybe my next purchase will be a 32inch but I don’t think I could justify apple’s displays because even the Studio Display at around $1500 is more expensive than my computer.
Doesn’t feel right.
What an outstanding review - thanx for posting it. It's great seeing a professional review/assesment.
Over the last week I've played with a Studio Display XDR at two different Apple Stores and was blown away. Will definitely be purchasing one when they're in stock.
-BigMac-
macrumors 68030
Come down in price? You must be new around here
ThomasJL
macrumors 68020
For people who prefer a single monitor setup, the size and resolution are the biggest flaws of the Studio Display XDR. In terms of size and resolution, the Pro Display XDR seems perfect. 32 inches seems like the perfect size for a single monitor setup.
Steve Jobs was really onto something when the 30-inch Apple Cinema Display was released during his time as CEO. That range between 30 to 32 inches seems perfect for single monitor setups because users can put the display at a normal distance from their face. Anything larger would have to be moved further away, and also would have a picture quality that would appear grainy during typical personal computer use—it’s like what happens when someone hooks up a Mac to a large 4K television.
A 32" version would have prob been $5999+, well over what the Pro Display XDR was because the new specs are technically superior to the Pro and stand is included. Imagine the backlash and lack of sales...
Moonjumper
macrumors 68030
As someone who has moved countries a couple of times, a removable power cord is really useful. I hated having to use an adaptor on my UK devices when moving to the Netherlands, and an adaptor on the stuff I bought in the Netherlands when I moved back to the UK. Thankfully, most electronics have a removable cable, including all my Apple stuff, so it wasn’t a problem with them. It is a shame that isn’t universal on Apple products.
"Better in almost every way" seems ridiculous, since you only come to that conclusion by giving more weight to the improvements than the downgrades, where the latter include going from 32" 6k to 27" 5k and, it appears, from a true 10-bit panel to a much cheaper 8-bit one. Those changes (esp. the reduction in size) are at least as signiifcant as the improvements (and many, including myself, consider them moreso).
That makes the article sound more like a paid marketing piece for Apple than serious independent tech journalism.
That makes the article sound more like a paid marketing piece for Apple than serious independent tech journalism.
Last edited:
ThomasJL
macrumors 68020
I agree that a 32-inch version would’ve been significantly more expensive than the current price of the 27-inch version due to using the latest technology. But there is no excuse for charging more for the stand. A stand like that could’ve been made with very old technology since it’s just cheap metal and contains no electronics. Tim Cook should not be praised for including a stand as it’s a basic part of every monitor.
Size and resolution is usually the most important aspect before any purchase. Minor my 'Phil Schiller' :-D
ThomasJL
macrumors 68020
I agree. It’s mind-boggling how clueless and mediocre Tim Cook is to not think of something as obvious as that. In addition to international usage without an adapter, if a power cable gets damaged, it’ll be a hassle to replace if it’s non-removable. Again, it’s cluelessness and mediocrity on the part of Cook.
What determines what Apple needs to charge to make a profit isn't the specs, but the BOM. For instance, when new Macs are released, they always have better specs than the last generation, but often Apple is able to keep the price the same.
And since Apple switched from an expensive 10-bit panel with the old XDR to (it appears) a much cheaper 8-bit panel with the new XDR, it's possilbe they the BOM on a new 32" XDR would have been no more than that of the old one, even with the 120 Hz and additional local dimming zones.
Last edited:
I'll say it again.
I got the LG 32 6K for $2000 +tax when it came out halloween 2025.
Couldn't be happier.
Go compare the specs to the Pro XDR display.
I got the LG 32 6K for $2000 +tax when it came out halloween 2025.
Couldn't be happier.
Go compare the specs to the Pro XDR display.
Or just "upper end". The essence of it is that Apple's "Pro" moniker is, for many of their products, purely a marketing term, i.e., it's decided by the marketing dept., not the engineering or pro workflow teams.
And all companies do this. I was recently skiing at Mammoth, and noticed someone with 140 cm beginner skis that had "Pro" in the name.
Regarding power cords... Over many years I have yet to damage one, or have the need to unplug one from the many Macs and displays I've owned. Ditto with TVs, printers, copiers, stereos, etc.
Seems that argument is just a lame cudgel to take a swing at Cook.
Not for me. I use my current Studio Display for processing photographs in Lightroom. I'd have to push a 32" display back on my table for comfortably editing my images.
No doubt 32" would be nice for people into gaming. But I have no interest in that.
Last edited:
I'm absolutely not going to downgrade to 27" from 32". Will just have to wait longer to see if Apple releases a 32" version.
True but just as you reference BOM, the more Apple orders then the better deal they get from the manufacturer and this is a niche product. Apple has never made a 32" miniLED display so it's already "one of a kind" to manufacture and regardless of the 10-bit to 8-bit+FRC change it's got all the benefits you mentioned plus a mobile chip the Pro XDR didn't have. I could see the price being the same as the Pro XDR ($4999) but def not cheaper.
Not to mention you can't trade old displays in to Apple and the resell value is awful.
Moonjumper
macrumors 68030
I'm tempted by the Kuycon G32P. The appearance copies the old 32" Apple Pro Display, but with lower specs, although it does have a slightly higher resolution and much more connectivity. My current 2 32" 4K monitors would be used either side of the 6K for a triple monitor setup.
Of course needs vary, but for me 60Hz and 500 nits wouldn't be a problem for my use case. I wouldn't use it for high speed gaming, I have a 45" 240Hz curved ultrawide OLED monitor with a much lower resolution for that, which I wouldn't use for productivity.
Of course needs vary, but for me 60Hz and 500 nits wouldn't be a problem for my use case. I wouldn't use it for high speed gaming, I have a 45" 240Hz curved ultrawide OLED monitor with a much lower resolution for that, which I wouldn't use for productivity.