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 Vision Pro Supports Up to 100Hz Refresh Rate
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
👍👍👍
- The first iPhone didn’t even have 3G, and there was no App Store at all.
- The first iPad
- the first Apple Watch had a very slow SoC and was only able to receive a few updates. It also had serious problem with the screen popping off. It’s also not water proof in any means.
Last edited:
there is no standard for 4K-per-eye displays in the industry...
With that FOV.
With that passthrough.
With that hand tracking.
With that glance tracking.
These are not free. There isn't a pair of little tiny fairies sitting on the M2🧚 and R1🧚♀️ that give those absolutely unique, never-before-dreamt-of-in-the-industry features for zero performance cost.
Well, actually there is a standard now! The Apple Vision Pro. And by all accounts by the several dozen tech writers and AR/VR industry wags who got to try it, the AVP does deliver on that new standard.
A standard that nobody else is CLOSE to meeting it for a good long while and hundreds of thousands of developer-hours. Though EVERY single player in the AR space went straight back to the drawing board on the day of the AVP announcement to try to figure out a way to meet before going bankrupt.
100 Hz sounds unimpressive, if my Taiwanese notebook already has a 144 Hz screen. I can understand though that they can't start with the best version of a product. They still need room for improvements for the later models.
High resolution high refresh laptop display panels are also orders of magnitude cheaper (maybe $30 to $50) than what the vision pro uses (leaks are pointing to the $700 range). I'd imagine at the moment it's either extremely hard or astronomically expensive to have both the 120/144Hz refresh rate and the high resolution. I think Apple came to the conclusion that the much higher resolution for each eye trumps the additional 20 frames when it comes to making the pass through feel seamless and working with text as good of an experience as possible. No other AR/VR headset has anything close to 23 million pixels for the display units.
Last edited:
As you can see from my signature I plough plenty of money into Apple, but I just can't justify spending 3500 on what is basically a cool toy. A really nicely designed, cool toy which I know is probably very impressive to use.
Maybe I'll purchase one from somewhere and return it within the return window. That way I get to experience it and return it by the time the novelty would start to wear off.
It may be a must have device in the next 5-10 years if they manage to make the technical and cost saving strides needed.
Maybe I'll purchase one from somewhere and return it within the return window. That way I get to experience it and return it by the time the novelty would start to wear off.
It may be a must have device in the next 5-10 years if they manage to make the technical and cost saving strides needed.
Sure, if you think ~20hz extra is the only thing which matters when it comes to displays.
Now tell use about the size, resolution, dynamic range, magnification, HDR capability, etc. of all those cheaper 120hz screens.
Last edited:
Other Hertz:
1. Your pocket.
2. Your street cred.
3. Your spine.
4. Your social interaction.
5. Your interpersonal skills.
6. Your appreciation of the real world i.e. people, nature.
7. Your ego when you discover the Quest 4 has 500 x more titles for it, and that they are designed specifically for it.
8. Your vestibular system reaction when you try to do a day's work with it (some people get sick after an hour or so).
I don't have to like everything that Apple makes, and I don't.
1. Your pocket.
2. Your street cred.
3. Your spine.
4. Your social interaction.
5. Your interpersonal skills.
6. Your appreciation of the real world i.e. people, nature.
7. Your ego when you discover the Quest 4 has 500 x more titles for it, and that they are designed specifically for it.
8. Your vestibular system reaction when you try to do a day's work with it (some people get sick after an hour or so).
I don't have to like everything that Apple makes, and I don't.
I can see why it’s limited based purely on the resolution of this thing. Other headsets aren’t really close to this
Apple can only dream of those sales figures for V1. Have you actually seen Meta's sales?
Can someone explain this?
96Hz means the screen is rewriting 96 times per second which should equal 96 FPS as well. Why would 96 equal 24?
You can look up all those numbers yourself. The bottom line is at this price point they don’t offer the best specs.
You're mistaken; the first iPad launched with the A4, the SoC that actually launched on the iPad before coming to the iPhone 4. It's true that the iPhone 4 had more RAM, but the iPad had the A4, not the ARM Cortex A8 from the 3GS
Is the iPhone the bar? The iPhone will be the iPhone for the foreseeable future. Maybe it will fold to be smaller, but for the most part, the small screen device that fits in your pocket and is a camera, web browser and music player will still be a thing for the next 5 years, at least. The problem is any other form factor has a compromise. Apple watch can only be operated with one hand, because it is attached to the other one.
Vision Pro is the mac replacement. The device that comes before the "iPhone" of the form factor (glasses). But the display tech is not there yet, neither is battery or processor performance (Too battery heavy/hot to exist in a sunglass frame.)
You think the Vision Pro V1 will make a profit? Seriously? 😂Yet Meta will probably dream of the profit figures of V1
Correct. I was wondering why this is necessary as we often edit 24p on monitors with 60Hz and it never seemed to be an issue.
It really makes no sense, specially with how important refresh is on these things. The device seems rushed just to get to market. Things that I would have waited for before releasing the device:
• 144Hz Refresh
• 140+ degrees FOV
• Under 350 grams
• 4+ hours of battery life
• $2,000 price point
These specs would not be possible in 2024 or 2025, but what would be necessary, in my opinion, for wide adoption.