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.
HP Launches 4K ENVY Display With USB-C for New MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Honestly, I'd probably buy one of these over the LG one just because the design isn't hideous. I miss the days that Apple made displays...
Its an Intel standard, not Apple
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/io/thunderbolt/thunderbolt-technology-consumer.html
Wait... Am I not understanding the video sync?
It says it supports 60 Hz, and "FreeSync", which matches the video card framerate. I'm guessing this is supposed to eliminate image tearing or the need for VSync, but with only a 60 Hz refresh, is that necessary?
Image tearing happens a lot when the video card's framerate is higher than the monitor's refresh rate. VSync slows down the video card to match the monitor's refresh rate. Why would a monitor need to slow down its refresh? If the video card is getting less than 60 FPS, will there be any image tearing?
Edit:
Looking at more info on FreeSync, it doesn't look like this will benefit gaming much, unless you somehow get image-tearing under 60 FPS.
I guess the benefit would be lower power consumption for non-gaming scenarios, where a very-low refresh wouldn't be an issue.
It says it supports 60 Hz, and "FreeSync", which matches the video card framerate. I'm guessing this is supposed to eliminate image tearing or the need for VSync, but with only a 60 Hz refresh, is that necessary?
Image tearing happens a lot when the video card's framerate is higher than the monitor's refresh rate. VSync slows down the video card to match the monitor's refresh rate. Why would a monitor need to slow down its refresh? If the video card is getting less than 60 FPS, will there be any image tearing?
Edit:
Looking at more info on FreeSync, it doesn't look like this will benefit gaming much, unless you somehow get image-tearing under 60 FPS.
I guess the benefit would be lower power consumption for non-gaming scenarios, where a very-low refresh wouldn't be an issue.
Last edited:
Yes, it could. It would charge, just slower. If you use the 15" MBP really hard, it could very slowly discharge while being plugged in. The 15" MBP could use up to 89 Watt, but usually uses less power. If you use 60 Watt all day, it would run forever. If you use 89 Watt, it will discharge. Many people will be able to use their 15" MBP all day without the battery even starting to discharge. If you're not one of them, that's why the 15" MBP has four USB-C connectors, so you'd have to plug in your charger.
I’m sure Apple didn’t sell enough of its pricey Cinema Display to justify its production. And though it was a competent display for professional requirements, businesses often opted for other serious displays—even ones that cost more than Apple’s. Still, I can’t help but wonder how this will impact Apple’s reputation of providing a complete, compatible experience. Not to mention, Apple prosumers are style-concious and fond of Apple’s aesthetic. Even if it’s not profitable alone, a matching display somehow makes the collective hardware more legit. How difficult or expensive would it be for Apple to re-purpose a Retina iMac’s shell and display to serve as a standalone display?
It's only pushing 1 4k display - nothing else. How would there be bandwidth issues?
5K monitors are used to edit 4K video, while having space on the monitor for tools, palettes, whatever. They are not for people watching videos, they are for people making money by editing them.
Love the design. I wish the LG Ultrafine had that stand.
The ports on the back kill any interest I had in it though. They feel like the result of a survey that asked "If you could only bring two ports with you to a desert island, which two would it be?" and that the most popular answer was "HDMI and then another HDMI!!!!!!!!"
They should've sent the survey out to a few regular folks instead of sending it exclusively to members of the strange HDMI cult they apparently stumbled upon.
The ports on the back kill any interest I had in it though. They feel like the result of a survey that asked "If you could only bring two ports with you to a desert island, which two would it be?" and that the most popular answer was "HDMI and then another HDMI!!!!!!!!"
They should've sent the survey out to a few regular folks instead of sending it exclusively to members of the strange HDMI cult they apparently stumbled upon.
I'd like a clarification on the 4K resolution on screen sizes larger than 22" for connecting to Macs. I've read numerous posts on the web on this, and it seems that there's a good reason not to go beyond 22" on 4K displays for macOS because if pixel doubling is enabled, the screen elements are effectively displayed at 1080p (2160 pixels / 2), which makes icons and fonts too large on 27" monitors. Without pixels doubling, the screen elements (icons and fonts) are too small at 4K.
It seems that for macOS screen elements to be displayed at optimal size on 27" monitors, the displays should be either 2560 x 1440 (non-retina) or 5120 x 2880 (retina with pixel doubling).
I would appreciate a clarification on this. Thank you.
It seems that for macOS screen elements to be displayed at optimal size on 27" monitors, the displays should be either 2560 x 1440 (non-retina) or 5120 x 2880 (retina with pixel doubling).
I would appreciate a clarification on this. Thank you.