A 27" or even a 30" version of the XDR for under $2k (maybe with slightly dumbed-down specs) would not compete with the $6K 32" XDR. Just like Apple used to make 20", 24" and 30" displays, people buy what suits them for size and price.
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's Studio Display vs. LG's UltraFine 5K Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is a lot of negativity about this display, but I looked at one at the Apple Store and I want one. What most people seem to want is a Pro XDR Display for 1000 bucks, and that won't be happening. Do I wish they included the height adjustable mount for the base price? Of course I do. But I want a display that I can use for everyday non video professional use that does not have any scaling issues with text and that leaves me with minimal choices. The speakers on this display are great. I could care less about the web cam and would happily pay less not to have a webcam at all. But I want this display. And I am happy to have it as an alternative to the LG display.
They could be providing the option as a 0 cost option then
That's right, I bought a couple of $30 metal stands from Amazon which I could then connect to the built-in VESA mounts on my LG's. Because...you know....LG built in VESA mounts like everyone else...and included a height adjustable stand.
A company with the R&D and production resources of Apple… can still ONLY build what’s available to be built.
I mean, I don’t follow the actions of monitor companies TOO closely, but I’m not aware of any 5K OLED monitor available for purchase.Apple makes two monitors and both contain panels provided by LG, not Apple.
Yep. I run two of them (1 in portrait) and nothing about the studio display has enticed me to replace them. I'd love to replace them with something better, but nothing better actually exists. Better doesn't just mean a slightly better panel, it means a better overall value.
Wait, did he say HDR? Could someone who has this display please go to stats for nerds and see if it outputs BT.2020? If so, then it's actually not too bad.
That's fair.A company with the R&D and production resources of Apple… can still ONLY build what’s available to be built.
Apple makes two monitors and both contain panels provided by LG, not Apple.
So Apple could have:
1. Used this exact same panel.
2. Built a display that has VESA mounts.
3. Offered optional stands that connect to the VESA mounts.
4. Charged reasonable, competitive prices for what they were offering.
I would buy 2 of these displays if there was a $1200 or less version that could be rotated out of the box.
"just a bit more vibrant" than a 6 year-old plastic display (or my 2015 iMac for that matter) does not get me excited enough to pay $2000 for the extra features, including height adjustability, which said LG and pretty much every other display on the market offers in 2022.
Right, but if Apple can produce their own insanely good silicon, they could produce their own panels, 5K OLED or otherwise.A company with the R&D and production resources of Apple… can still ONLY build what’s available to be built.
Apple makes two monitors and both contain panels provided by LG, not Apple.
I just had to register and share my experience with the Studio Display, because there are some things that people miss or don't know.
First, I think Apple had to hardwire the power cable to the monitor because the standard connectors wouldn't fit in the display. I think the screen is too thin to use any other solution. An other option would have been to make the screen thicker, but then the screen becomes even heavier and more expensive. (Or use another placement for the plug, or an other design overall) Both the old iMac and the Thunderbolt display have a "belly" with enough room for it. By the way, the thunderbolt cable on the old Thunderbolt Display is not removable either. (At least not easily by the user). So at least the USB-C cable is removable this time.
But what about the solution they came up with for the 24 iMac, you may ask? Well, that's a whole different story. Because there the power supply is external and it's just a DC voltage delivered through the connector that wouldn't kill you if you touched it. For the Studio Display, you don't want an external power supply because it's too big and needs air cooling. Remember that it needs to provide 96 watts to charge a Macbook, several watts for the display itself, several watts for the four USB-C ports and you need some headroom, as well. My point is that they couldn't design a plug like the one on the 24 iMac because we're dealing here with AC voltage, not DC voltage. So that connector would have had to meet safety requirements that might not be consistent with the design of the screen and would certainly be very expensive to develop. (I know it is Apple they could have done that, but I think you get my point) Therefore, the simplest solution is to permanently attach the cable. I don't like that either, but at least it's replaceable at an Apple store.
Second, I don't know why everyone is talking about the A13 chip. Okay, maybe it's Apple's own fault because they emphasized it in the keynote. But if there's no Wi-Fi and Bluetooth module built into the display, we won't get new features like Airplay, which is really a missed opportunity.
But why did they include it at all, you ask? Well, maybe it's easier than you think. All these features like center stage and spatial audio have already been developed and built into the iPad. So why reinvent the wheel? With an A13 chip and iOS, they can integrate such features into the display without much development effort. And every newer display has an ARM processor installed, so it is actually nothing special. But maybe the A13 can do more than we know. Maybe it somehow scans the thunderbolt port for connected devices. Why I'm coming to this? Because, as you may know, the display also works with a Windows laptop with a thunderbolt port. But that's only half the story: it also works with a standard USB-C port and an AMD CPU (which I’ve tested). The limitation is that the resolution is kept at 4k, not 5k. The audio and camera perform exactly as advertised. (Without center stage and spatial audio) This is interesting because it means that a standard USB-C port can be used. This is also a plus compared to the old Thunderbolt Display. Because there, you were really limited to a thunderbolt port. (Even with the USB-C to thunderbolt adapter, I have tested that).
BTW: When you connect a Windows PC to the display the brightness is set to maximum and can't normaly be changed. But there is a solution: if you install the Bootcamp drivers on your Windows PC, you can actually control the brightness.
First, I think Apple had to hardwire the power cable to the monitor because the standard connectors wouldn't fit in the display. I think the screen is too thin to use any other solution. An other option would have been to make the screen thicker, but then the screen becomes even heavier and more expensive. (Or use another placement for the plug, or an other design overall) Both the old iMac and the Thunderbolt display have a "belly" with enough room for it. By the way, the thunderbolt cable on the old Thunderbolt Display is not removable either. (At least not easily by the user). So at least the USB-C cable is removable this time.
But what about the solution they came up with for the 24 iMac, you may ask? Well, that's a whole different story. Because there the power supply is external and it's just a DC voltage delivered through the connector that wouldn't kill you if you touched it. For the Studio Display, you don't want an external power supply because it's too big and needs air cooling. Remember that it needs to provide 96 watts to charge a Macbook, several watts for the display itself, several watts for the four USB-C ports and you need some headroom, as well. My point is that they couldn't design a plug like the one on the 24 iMac because we're dealing here with AC voltage, not DC voltage. So that connector would have had to meet safety requirements that might not be consistent with the design of the screen and would certainly be very expensive to develop. (I know it is Apple they could have done that, but I think you get my point) Therefore, the simplest solution is to permanently attach the cable. I don't like that either, but at least it's replaceable at an Apple store.
Second, I don't know why everyone is talking about the A13 chip. Okay, maybe it's Apple's own fault because they emphasized it in the keynote. But if there's no Wi-Fi and Bluetooth module built into the display, we won't get new features like Airplay, which is really a missed opportunity.
But why did they include it at all, you ask? Well, maybe it's easier than you think. All these features like center stage and spatial audio have already been developed and built into the iPad. So why reinvent the wheel? With an A13 chip and iOS, they can integrate such features into the display without much development effort. And every newer display has an ARM processor installed, so it is actually nothing special. But maybe the A13 can do more than we know. Maybe it somehow scans the thunderbolt port for connected devices. Why I'm coming to this? Because, as you may know, the display also works with a Windows laptop with a thunderbolt port. But that's only half the story: it also works with a standard USB-C port and an AMD CPU (which I’ve tested). The limitation is that the resolution is kept at 4k, not 5k. The audio and camera perform exactly as advertised. (Without center stage and spatial audio) This is interesting because it means that a standard USB-C port can be used. This is also a plus compared to the old Thunderbolt Display. Because there, you were really limited to a thunderbolt port. (Even with the USB-C to thunderbolt adapter, I have tested that).
BTW: When you connect a Windows PC to the display the brightness is set to maximum and can't normaly be changed. But there is a solution: if you install the Bootcamp drivers on your Windows PC, you can actually control the brightness.
Except it's twice as expensive as you say when including the stand... Yeah turns out critics look super unreasonable when you make up facts and ignore constructive criticism entirely.
No I don't see what everyone is complaining about either, the Studio display camera looks much better that the LG.
It’s why Microsoft and Android have ruled the tech world for so long. It’s good enough. There are always people who want better which is how apple survives.
I have the UltraFine 5K and it wobbles if I purposely nudge it but maybe my desk is better than most but it doesn’t wobble when I type or use my mouse. Saying it is garbage is really a silly overstatement that tries to place things in a binary category when it’s more of a continuum.
In what way?
I loved my 5C!
If anything, I'd blame the 3GS.
I exchanged about 8 of those for cracks in the plastic where it curved at the corners
No BT.2020. The EDID has an HDR data block describing SDR color up to 603.666 cd/m^2.
Some other notes:
The display does not appear to support HBR3 link rate.
It supports dual HBR2 (Thunderbolt 3/4 only), HBR2+DSC, and HBR2. The LG UltraFine 5K does not support DSC.
Don't know yet what max pixel clock you can get with HBR2 (LG UltraFine 5K has a lower max pixel clock than expected for a HBR2 connection - at least from the one test that one person did).
Below is the EDID for the left tile (used for single tile and dual tile connections). The EDID for the right tile is similar except with only the 2560x2880 tile timing.
Code:
edid-decode (hex):
00 ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 06 10 3a ae 01 79 bb a1
07 20 01 04 c5 3c 21 78 00 0f 91 ae 52 43 b0 26
0f 50 54 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
01 01 01 01 01 01 b7 ce 00 50 f0 70 5a 80 08 20
c8 00 53 4f 21 00 00 1a d0 5c 00 50 a0 a0 3c 50
08 20 e8 08 53 4f 21 00 00 1a bc 34 80 50 70 38
2d 40 08 20 f8 04 53 4f 21 00 00 1a 00 00 00 fc
00 53 74 75 64 69 6f 44 69 73 70 6c 61 79 03 b4
02 03 0f 80 e3 05 00 00 e6 06 01 01 73 73 00 70
bc 00 78 a0 40 78 b0 08 20 a8 08 00 00 00 00 00
1a 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 12
70 12 79 00 00 29 00 10 22 04 e4 d8 ab f3 4e 63
b0 da 54 e9 6a 5c f7 47 01 00 0c 40 17 14 0d 00
14 40 0b 10 78 4e bb 7f 81 07 00 10 fa 04 01 00
00 12 00 16 82 10 00 00 ff 09 3f 0b 00 00 00 00
00 41 50 50 3b ae 01 79 bb a1 7e 00 05 3a 02 92
81 00 7e 00 10 00 10 fa 05 01 01 00 60 c0 d2 ff
55 00 10 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 32 90
70 12 79 00 00 03 00 14 9f 6d 01 84 ff 13 4f 00
07 80 1f 00 3f 0b 77 00 69 00 07 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 95 90
----------------
Block 0, Base EDID:
EDID Structure Version & Revision: 1.4
Vendor & Product Identification:
Manufacturer: APP
Model: 44602
Serial Number: 2713417985
Made in: week 7 of 2022
Basic Display Parameters & Features:
Digital display
Bits per primary color channel: 12
DisplayPort interface
Maximum image size: 60 cm x 33 cm
Gamma: 2.20
Supported color formats: RGB 4:4:4
First detailed timing does not include the native pixel format and preferred refresh rate
Color Characteristics:
Red : 0.6796, 0.3203
Green: 0.2646, 0.6904
Blue : 0.1503, 0.0595
White: 0.3125, 0.3291
Established Timings I & II: none
Standard Timings: none
Detailed Timing Descriptors:
DTD 1: 3840x2160 59.998866 Hz 16:9 134.997 kHz 529.190000 MHz (595 mm x 335 mm)
Hfront 8 Hsync 32 Hback 40 Hpol P
Vfront 12 Vsync 8 Vback 70 Vpol N
DTD 2: 2560x1440 60.000000 Hz 16:9 90.000 kHz 237.600000 MHz (595 mm x 335 mm)
Hfront 8 Hsync 32 Hback 40 Hpol P
Vfront 46 Vsync 8 Vback 6 Vpol N
DTD 3: 1920x1080 60.000000 Hz 16:9 67.500 kHz 135.000000 MHz (595 mm x 335 mm)
Hfront 8 Hsync 32 Hback 40 Hpol P
Vfront 31 Vsync 8 Vback 6 Vpol N
Display Product Name: 'StudioDisplay'
Extension blocks: 3
Checksum: 0xb4
----------------
Block 1, CTA-861 Extension Block:
Revision: 3
Underscans IT Video Formats by default
Native detailed modes: 0
Colorimetry Data Block:
HDR Static Metadata Data Block:
Electro optical transfer functions:
Traditional gamma - SDR luminance range
Supported static metadata descriptors:
Static metadata type 1
Desired content max luminance: 115 (603.666 cd/m^2)
Desired content max frame-average luminance: 115 (603.666 cd/m^2)
Desired content min luminance: 0 (0.000 cd/m^2)
Detailed Timing Descriptors:
DTD 4: 2560x2880 60.000000 Hz 8:9 180.000 kHz 482.400000 MHz
Hfront 8 Hsync 32 Hback 80 Hpol P
Vfront 42 Vsync 8 Vback 70 Vpol N
FAIL: Mismatch of image size vs display size: image size is not set, but display size is.
FAIL: Required 640x480p60 timings are missing in the established timings and the SVD list (VIC 1).
FAIL: Missing VCDB, needed for Set Selectable RGB Quantization to avoid interop issues.
Checksum: 0x12
----------------
Block 2, DisplayID Extension Block:
Version: 1.2
Extension Count: 0
Display Product Type: Extension Section
FAIL: DisplayID Base Block has no product type.
FAIL: Expected 0 DisplayID Extension Block, but got 1.
ContainerID Data Block:
FAIL: Use of DisplayID v2.0 tag for DisplayID v1.2.
Container ID: 2204e4d8-abf3-4e63-b0da-54e96a5cf747
Display Parameters Data Block (0x01):
Image size: 595.2 mm x 334.8 mm
Display native pixel format: 5120x2880
Feature support flags:
Power management (DPM)
Gamma: 2.20
Aspect ratio: 1.78
Dynamic bpc native: 12
Dynamic bpc overall: 12
Vendor-Specific Data Block (0x7f) (Apple), OUI 00-10-FA:
WARN: Expected PNP ID but found OUI.
04 01 00 00 '....'
Tiled Display Topology Data Block (0x12):
Capabilities:
Behavior if it is the only tile: Image is scaled to fit the entire tiled display
Behavior if more than one tile and fewer than total number of tiles: Undefined
Tiled display consists of a single physical display enclosure
Num horizontal tiles: 2 Num vertical tiles: 1
Tile location: 0, 0
Tile resolution: 2560x2880
Tiled Display Manufacturer/Vendor ID: APP
Tiled Display Product ID Code: 44603
Tiled Display Serial Number: 2713417985
Vendor-Specific Data Block (0x7e) (VESA), OUI 3A-02-92:
FAIL: Use of DisplayID v2.0 tag for DisplayID v1.2.
Data Structure Type: DP
Default Colorspace and EOTF Handling: Native as specified in the Display Parameters DB
Number of Pixels in Hor Pix Cnt Overlapping an Adjacent Panel: 0
Multi-SST Operation: Not Supported
Vendor-Specific Data Block (0x7e) (Apple), OUI 00-10-FA:
FAIL: Use of DisplayID v2.0 tag for DisplayID v1.2.
05 01 01 00 60 c0 d2 ff 55 00 10 00 10 '....`...U....'
Checksum: 0x32
Checksum: 0x90
----------------
Block 3, DisplayID Extension Block:
Version: 1.2
Extension Count: 0
Video Timing Modes Type 1 - Detailed Timings Data Block:
DTD: 5120x2880 60.000000 Hz 16:9 180.000 kHz 936.000000 MHz (aspect 16:9, no 3D stereo, preferred)
Hfront 8 Hsync 32 Hback 40 Hpol P
Vfront 106 Vsync 8 Vback 6 Vpol N
Checksum: 0x95
Checksum: 0x90
FAIL: Missing DisplayID Product Identification Data Block.
----------------
Warnings:
Block 2, DisplayID Extension Block:
Vendor-Specific Data Block (0x7f) (Apple), OUI 00-10-FA: Expected PNP ID but found OUI.
Failures:
Block 1, CTA-861 Extension Block:
Detailed Timing Descriptor #4: Mismatch of image size vs display size: image size is not set, but display size is.
Required 640x480p60 timings are missing in the established timings and the SVD list (VIC 1).
Missing VCDB, needed for Set Selectable RGB Quantization to avoid interop issues.
Block 2, DisplayID Extension Block:
DisplayID Base Block has no product type.
Expected 0 DisplayID Extension Block, but got 1.
ContainerID Data Block: Use of DisplayID v2.0 tag for DisplayID v1.2.
Vendor-Specific Data Block (0x7e) (VESA), OUI 3A-02-92: Use of DisplayID v2.0 tag for DisplayID v1.2.
Vendor-Specific Data Block (0x7e) (Apple), OUI 00-10-FA: Use of DisplayID v2.0 tag for DisplayID v1.2.
EDID:
DisplayID: Missing DisplayID Product Identification Data Block.
EDID conformity: FAIL
That‘s not a true comparison unless you can buy an LG with an aluminum construction, 600 nit screen, etc…
Your theory presupposes that the one thing the LG has up on the apple monitor is the only thing that matters, so *that* needs to be rectified to make it a fair comparison, but all the things that Apple has up on the LG don‘t matter.
Mmm, from another thread, someone said it does... what does this mean? Is that not a "genuine" BT2020?
Was going to say something similar. I've got my Studio Display hooked up and I like it so much better than the LG Ultrafine. When I would type the LG was wobbly as hell and now I have a monitor made of metal instead of plastic. The internal speakers sounded nowhere near as good as these. The screen is about half an inch lower than my old iMac was but I can use this height easily. I'm so happy to pay the relatively small difference in price compared to the LG to get this package.
I have two of the LG 5K monitors, one on a 13" MacBook Pro, and the other on an M1 MacMini. Both work very well.
There was an issue using it on the M1 MacMini with pixel shifting, but that was fixed with in a MacOS update a while back.
Make take is that both are very nice, the Apple one looks better, but the stand on the LG is better. I think it's crazy to charge $400 extra for a height adjustable stand, as is having to take it back to Apple to change stands. Also, with the Nano glass and height adjustable stand, it's almost $1K more than the LG one.
There was an issue using it on the M1 MacMini with pixel shifting, but that was fixed with in a MacOS update a while back.
Make take is that both are very nice, the Apple one looks better, but the stand on the LG is better. I think it's crazy to charge $400 extra for a height adjustable stand, as is having to take it back to Apple to change stands. Also, with the Nano glass and height adjustable stand, it's almost $1K more than the LG one.
The 1998 17" Apple Studio Display sold for $2,000.00. Apple's 2022 27" Studio Display is bargain-priced.
Apple could have gone with an external power brick and I wish they had. Then they could have skipped the fans and made the monitor thinner. Apple could also have designed a user removable power cable. It is absurd that they did not.
They have earned all the criticism for that decision.
I got the LG Ultrafine 5K when it came out, about 6 years ago. It's served me pretty well.
The Apple display does look nicely designed, but I couldn't really justify a change.
I expect my LG will carry on for quite a few years yet. But I was wondering... with Apple's new display containing a fully-fledged version of iOS, will it become obsolete in around 7 years' time as that version of iOS becomes long in the tooth?
The Apple display does look nicely designed, but I couldn't really justify a change.
I expect my LG will carry on for quite a few years yet. But I was wondering... with Apple's new display containing a fully-fledged version of iOS, will it become obsolete in around 7 years' time as that version of iOS becomes long in the tooth?
If you pull really hard and don't mind voiding your warranty.