HP Launches 4K ENVY Display With USB-C for New MacBook Pro

[jclardy]

This monitor is crap:

• Not 5K
• No USB-C hub
• No DCI-3P

If only LG had this design...

Also it is half the price of the Apple 5k display, is 27" vs 21.5" for Apple's 4k display and actually has other inputs if you want to use this with anything beyond your MacBook. Also, the USB-C ports on Apple/LG 4k display are only USB 2.0 speeds.

It is far from crap, but LG makes a better version of this in the 27UD88-W - USB-C + 60w charging, 2 USB ports, more inputs and similar color space at about the same price.

All I want is a 27" ~4k display (16:10, so whatever that works out to) with thunderbolt 3 input (along with other display port inputs), that allows daisy chaining to a second identical monitor (using only one output on my MacBook.) Also throw in a webcam so I can still video conference with the laptop lid closed. Make that and I will pay 1k for it.
[doublepost=1481122265][/doublepost]

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.

They are way too large IMO - it is essentially a 1920x1080 display at 27". Luckily the new rMBP has enough GPU power to scale the external display so you can set it at an effective 1440p which is the ideal resolution for me.

 

[slimothy]

I like the design of this one better than LG's.

 

[SeminalSage]

How do they get away with calling it "4k" when it's not?

I'm pretty confident that we'll see a full refresh of the Mac lineup in 2017. Just a shame that they've misfired the past few years on that. Apple used to be respected for delivering again and again. Somewhere along the way, they have lost that momentum. Despite claiming otherwise, they have become seduced by profits instead of their passion for great products.

This HP monitor looks great, but I would not be buying it on the simple principle that they claim its 4k when it's not.

How do they get away with calling it "4k" when it's not?

I'm pretty confident that we'll see a full refresh of the Mac lineup in 2017. Just a shame that they've misfired the past few years on that. Apple used to be respected for delivering again and again. Somewhere along the way, they have lost that momentum. Despite claiming otherwise, they have become seduced by profits instead of their passion for great products.

This HP monitor looks great, but I would not be buying it on the simple principle that they claim its 4k when it's not.

Actually, it fits the common 4k standard of 2160p. This matches the resolution on a typical 4k television. I'm not educated enough on screen resolution to know why the the math isn't exact, but 4k usually refers to 4x the picture of 720p, not 1080.

 

[bluespark]

No camera for videoconferencing? Why is it so hard to find this feature on displays? To me, it seems like an obvious thing most people would need or at least appreciate.

 

[sirozha]

Also it is half the price of the Apple 5k display, is 27" vs 21.5" for Apple's 4k display and actually has other inputs if you want to use this with anything beyond your MacBook. Also, the USB-C ports on Apple/LG 4k display are only USB 2.0 speeds.

It is far from crap, but LG makes a better version of this in the 27UD88-W - USB-C + 60w charging, 2 USB ports, more inputs and similar color space at about the same price.

All I want is a 27" ~4k display (16:10, so whatever that works out to) with thunderbolt 3 input (along with other display port inputs), that allows daisy chaining to a second identical monitor (using only one output on my MacBook.) Also throw in a webcam so I can still video conference with the laptop lid closed. Make that and I will pay 1k for it.
[doublepost=1481122265][/doublepost]
They are way too large IMO - it is essentially a 1920x1080 display at 27". Luckily the new rMBP has enough GPU power to scale the external display so you can set it at an effective 1440p which is the ideal resolution for me.

But scaling the display at the non-native resolution degrades the picture quality, doesn't it? If it has 2160 pixels along the vertical axis, and you set macOS to display 1440 pixels along the vertical axis, you are using 3 native pixels to display 2 virtual pixels, so one out of three pixels participates in emulating two discrete pixels. I believe the degradation in quality is noticeable to the naked eye.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I'll take 2 of them.

 

[jonnysods]

I think it's also wattage short for 13'' mbp.
Has anyone tried?

Man this defeats the purpose of even offering a power supply. I'm pretty sure its 60w for the 13 and 85w for the 15.

Makes me want to just get a 2015. I have the 24" ACD at my one office and a 27" TBD at my other office.
[doublepost=1481123802][/doublepost]

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.

Isn't putting a 15" on the 60w bad for the battery? Like using an iPhone charger for an iPad, I thought that reduced the battery health?

 

[Phil A.]

But scaling the display at the non-native resolution degrades the picture quality, doesn't it? If it has 2160 pixels along the vertical axis, and you set macOS to display 1440 pixels along the vertical axis, you are using 3 native pixels to display 2 virtual pixels, so one out of three pixels participates in emulating two discrete pixels. I believe the degradation in quality is noticeable to the naked eye.

I run my 5K iMac at a "looks like" resolution of 2880x1620 and my rMB at a "looks like" resolution of 1440x900. Neither of these is "pixel doubled" and they look fantastic. My eyes aren't as young as they used to be, but there's no visible degradation in quality to me

Here's a picture of my iMac screen at that resolution

Having said that, I wouldn't scale a 1440p monitor as it's too low resolution

 

[BigZ243]

Man this defeats the purpose of even offering a power supply. I'm pretty sure its 60w for the 13 and 85w for the 15.

Makes me want to just get a 2015. I have the 24" ACD at my one office and a 27" TBD at my other office.
[doublepost=1481123802][/doublepost]

Isn't putting a 15" on the 60w bad for the battery? Like using an iPhone charger for an iPad, I thought that reduced the battery health?

No, it should have no affect on the battery.

 

[Analog Kid]

since they chose only to support their own chipset

Where on earth are you getting that from?

 

[Corrode]

Great to see some competition, but all I want is for Apple to let us order the LG 5k display.

 

[ChrisCW11]

Lol, so every new display is for MacBook Pro now? No other computer can use them?

 

[pjarvi]

Bezel looks like an AOC branded display sold at BestBuy.

 

[manu chao]

Man this defeats the purpose of even offering a power supply.

Only if you stress the CPU and/or GPU on a sustained basis. Otherwise it will just charge more slowly, which usually shouldn't be a problem as people don't dock their laptop only for short periods of time.

We have seen real-word tests of battery life that put it anywhere between 3 and 10 hours. If the power consumption resulting in 3 hours of battery is 85 W than that corresponding to a 10-h battery life is 26 W and that for, eg, five hours would be 51 W. And I don't think you get 3 hours if you run a Handbrake job constantly, I'd guess you'd get more like 2 hours and thus the power consumption for 10 h is something like 17 W and for 3 h is 57 W.

Thus unless you really do run Handbrake jobs constantly, this display should power a 15" MBP just fine, even if for very heavy users it might charge pretty slowly.

 

[norrismantooth]

This monitor is crap:

• Not 5K
• No USB-C hub
• No DCI-3P

If only LG had this design...



Keep dreaming.

Not going to happen.

Before you get excited or disappointed, (and call things crap), ENVY is a CONSUMER LINE of HP products sold at BEST BUY.

This is not a professional display -- (ENVY is the key word for consumer)

 

[iReality85]

How do they get away with calling it "4k" when it's not?

But it is.

It's 'UHD 4K' which is an industry-wide accepted term, and marketed as such. As opposed to 'Cinema 4K' (4096 x 2304 resolution). Cinema 4K monitors are far fewer in quantity (NEC, or commissioned by Apple) and really only used in production studios.

It should be noted that this HP monitor isn't meant for real professionals. It's standard sRGB gamut (not DCI-P3 wide gamut). But for your average Apple consumer who is looking for a UHD monitor to enjoy media, it's quite a good buy at that price point.

 

[MrX8503]

Actually, it fits the common 4k standard of 2160p. This matches the resolution on a typical 4k television. I'm not educated enough on screen resolution to know why the the math isn't exact, but 4k usually refers to 4x the picture of 720p, not 1080.

Here's a history lesson for you on 4K.

The "4" in "4K" doesn't mean 4x of any lesser resolution. It's 4*1000 = 4000pixels, meaning 4000 pixels across. Similarly 8K is 8000px across.

The 4K TVs you see are not "true" 4K because it doesn't have 4000px across. So why are they called 4K? Well, TV manufacturers like to steal labels and make up labels all the time. TrueHD, FullHD, UltraHD, etc.

Because of the misunderstanding of "4K", we now have "True 4K" and "Cinema 4K" to denote true 4K.

 

[jetjaguar]

wish they would just make a 32 .. 27 is too small

 

[indiekiduk]

Where on earth are you getting that from?

it was widely reported last month, e.g.
https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/03/2016-macbook-pro-thunderbolt-compatibility-issues/

 

[coolbreeze]

How do they get away with calling it "4k" when it's not?

"10-hour battery life"
"1,000 charge cycles"

And so-on.

Never underestimate the power and shadiness of marketing.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Are you sure? Timmy is in acting a little crazy at the moment.

I for one would buy an easily serviceable Dell running MacOS in a heartbeat as I'm sure many others would.

Ewww...
I would rather eat dirt.

 

[dannys1]

Just so I'm clear - this couldn't charge a 15" mbp right?

Correct. The 15" needs 87 Watts. Seems short sighted to not include enough power.

Correct.. for some reason many are sticking with 60w .. which isn't enough to charge the 15" rMBP.. it needs to be able to pull 85w. Others have tested this with the new LG UltraFine 21", which only does 60w, and the 15" doesn't even show charging..

Sad really.. this basically makes it a dud out the door. I was really interested until I saw it wouldn't charge my 15" MBP.. Thats part of the reason to GO with something like USB-C..

Incorrect, it will charge the 15" rMBP just fine, just slightly slower. Even the 27w charger that comes with the 12" MacBook will charge the 15" rMBP - i'm using it right now and tend to use it more often than the included charger as it's nearer me most of the time. It's slower but if you're always near a port or already full up, speed isn't a priority.

 

[Christopher Kim]

But scaling the display at the non-native resolution degrades the picture quality, doesn't it? If it has 2160 pixels along the vertical axis, and you set macOS to display 1440 pixels along the vertical axis, you are using 3 native pixels to display 2 virtual pixels, so one out of three pixels participates in emulating two discrete pixels. I believe the degradation in quality is noticeable to the naked eye.

I run my 5K iMac at a "looks like" resolution of 2880x1620 and my rMB at a "looks like" resolution of 1440x900. Neither of these is "pixel doubled" and they look fantastic. My eyes aren't as young as they used to be, but there's no visible degradation in quality to me

I have the new 13" MBP w/ Touchbar, and when I'm at my desktop, output to an LG 27" 4K UD68 (same as the UD88, but doesn't have USB-C). I was planning to run at 1080p to be exactly pixel-doubled (4:1 pixel ratio), knowing things would look big, but willing to live with it. However, Macs do their own image scaling, and I've been pleasantly surprised that running 2560x1440 on my monitor looks very good. No jaggies at all, I don't see any difference in "smoothness" between running 1440p and 1080p, and as others have mentioned, the "size" of text / icons etc. on a 27" monitor really is ideal at 1440p. 27" 5K resolution would of course be ideal to run 1440p at perfect pixel-doubling, but for those on a budget thinking about 27" 4K, I'm definitely in the camp that 4K @ 1440p still looks very good.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I think it's also wattage short for 13'' mbp.
Has anyone tried?

Sure it would charge either MBP under normal usage, and during max graphics work it might well actually discharge. But frankly anyone running constant (as opposed to intermittent like most heavy graphics users) heavy graphics should be running a tower not a laptop.

 

[cult hero]

It looks nice, but suffers from the Apple-esque "we don't need no stinking adjustable stands!" As boring as the LG monitors are, they're quite adjustable.

I'd really like to see a Thunderbolt 3 monitor with ports—and not all USB-C. A monitor generally stays at a desk so it makes sense to have USB-A and Ethernet at the very least. The lack of Thunderbolt 3 out on the LG 5K is a really sore point (although at the current price point—presuming it's ever made available at the current price—it's still a good buy in my opinion).