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.
LG UltraFine 6K (32U990A) TB5 Display: Pre-Orders Open September 30
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pretty sure it can run 6K @ 120Hz smoothly. People run dual 6K displays with no problem on a higher end Apple Silicon, and I've seen rare instances of three 6K displays simultaneously (Apple also advertise for this in one of their ads).
The M4 Max supports four 6K displays @ 60Hz and a 4K display @ 144Hz simultaneously.
Unfortunately design has changed dramatically. And at least back is probably plastic:
I'm personally fine with a 60Hz monitor for my workflows. Just found it to be a lost opportunity with the introduction of Thunderbolt 5, especially when it's so emphasised in the marketing.
People used to argue that MacBooks didn't need a high framerate display (because it's not a gaming device) until Apple introduced ProMotion with the 2021 MacBook Pros.
HDR means a million different things and a huge range of peak brightness settings. There is no definitive meaning of HDR.
There is actually a definition for HDR categories from VESA for these monitors, and I'm talking about mainstream usage too.
I found 4K 32" text quite poor. I returned it immediately. It depends on seating distance though. I sit at about 22".
For 4K 32", it's 138 ppi, which requires at least 25" for it to be considered "Retina".
Television viewing and computer viewing are very different. More than anything, a TV is designed for motion video display that's 6 to twelve feet away, while computer viewing is for static displays about two feet away. And at two feet, those pixels you cannot see on your TV are visible, especially since you aren't looking at motion video.
In the Mac system, Apple's preferred display method is to combine four pixels to make one, so a 4K display has an effective resolution of 1080p... but it's an incredibly good picture! Unfortunately, 1080p is not as much desktop space as a lot of us would like, so a 5K or 6K display gives us the fantastic image quality with much more desktop space.
Yeah... exactly dude. You get it!
VESA is not the only standards body in the world. TV makers don't use VESA at all. There's the UltraHD alliance, there's HDMI, there's Dolby, there's IEEE, IEC and others. There's HDR-PQ, HDR-HLG, and HDR-10.
HDR does not mean any one thing. Period.
why do companies show off products in January and wait for the last quarter of the year to release those products
These third party monitors actually specify their VESA HDR classifications right in their descriptions. The LG 6K is a VESA DisplayHDR™ 600 monitor, like the Asus 6K.
Thunderbolt 5 x2, DP 2.1 x1, HDMI 2.1 x1, USB-C down x2, USB-C up x1
Apple only has one port. People like me who use more than one computer are stuck. For this reason (and others), I don't buy Apple displays.
Apple only has one port. People like me who use more than one computer are stuck. For this reason (and others), I don't buy Apple displays.
Looks like a compelling product. I have the previous generation of this line; 32UL950-W 4K Ultrafine 32" which sort of the generation after the Apple/LG Ultrafine line. It’s a great display for pro visual artists and designers that care about industrial design and color coverage without getting into the $3k+ bracket (like the Pro Display XDR).
However, eager to see what Apple will offer if rumors are true of new displays. I am looking for mini-LED or OLD. Honestly a big iPad Pro with tandem OLED is what I want but idk if burn-in on a real pro monitor is a problem. Hope Apple can deliver.
However, eager to see what Apple will offer if rumors are true of new displays. I am looking for mini-LED or OLD. Honestly a big iPad Pro with tandem OLED is what I want but idk if burn-in on a real pro monitor is a problem. Hope Apple can deliver.
Although the XDR retains a couple of advantages over this one, the difference in price is simply unjustifiable.
I have a 4k 27 and I can clearly see pixels from the 'normal' distance (in some circumstances) as well as I am not able to read tiny text elements I work with at 100%.
4K 27" is considered "Retina" at 21". At 22" I cannot resolve the individual pixels but text is less crisp than 5K 27". Text is still very good, but if you're looking for it, it's pretty easy to tell the difference. That said, since it's still very good, that's what I'm using right now (or actually 4K+ 28.2" which has the same pixel density), until I can get a new 6K 32" in the next few months.
"Normal" ergonomic seating distance is considered 20" or further for a desktop, but I do realize some people do sit as close as say 18" away. How far are you from the monitor?
Oh interesting point on lack of speakers. My LG Ultrafine 4K 32" has built-in speakers even though I do not use them much. Good thing this still seems to have an audio jack I guess.
EDIT: Actually I think I confused the audio jack for the power port. I am not sure if it has an audio jack after looking closely.
Also, this is not aluminum?
Last edited:
The LG 32U990A 32" 6K does have speakers, but I'm 100% sure they will suck.
It's mostly plastic AFAIK.
Came here to post the same thing. Very Disingenuous post by Macrumors
Here is the product link:
Clearly shows bezels
I just looked on the official LG page and it does have speakers
As someone needing to replace a 27" iMac and looking at a Mini + nice monitor to do so, the CES announcement made this look like a real competitor for an Apple Studio Display or the tiny handful of other options for my dollars. I'm neither a color pro nor a gamer, so a 6K 32" 60Hz screen for $2000 seems like a perfect sweet-spot of specs and price to me... on paper.
But... this monitor was "announced" back in January, and here we are in September and might finally get an actual price on it, which honestly has not given me a good impression of this device or LG as a company. I don't want to be told about your new great product then nine months later still be waiting to even find out what it costs let alone see something other than an (inconsistent) render.
It's caused me to be a lot more skeptical about what LG is promising than I would have been if it had been ready to ship within a few weeks of being announced, or even if they'd given a price on the dang thing. I wouldn't even consider pre-ordering now--I'll wait to see some reviews and real world-experience, and see how long it takes them to actually start shipping.
I get that everyone has different tastes and needs for screens, which is why there's a variety of them on the market, but I'm reasonably confident that the vast majority of people prefer wider formats, otherwise someone would be making 3:2 screens to satisfy that part of the market. Personally I use an 32" ultrawide at work, with a vertical 24" 16:9 screen off to the side for when I want to read something l long or see a long list, and I really can't see the advantage to going back to a squarer screen.
I am, thus, curious: What is your workflow that a 3:2 screen is something you'd consider the best ratio?
But... this monitor was "announced" back in January, and here we are in September and might finally get an actual price on it, which honestly has not given me a good impression of this device or LG as a company. I don't want to be told about your new great product then nine months later still be waiting to even find out what it costs let alone see something other than an (inconsistent) render.
It's caused me to be a lot more skeptical about what LG is promising than I would have been if it had been ready to ship within a few weeks of being announced, or even if they'd given a price on the dang thing. I wouldn't even consider pre-ordering now--I'll wait to see some reviews and real world-experience, and see how long it takes them to actually start shipping.
1999 called, they have lots of monitors you'd love.
I get that everyone has different tastes and needs for screens, which is why there's a variety of them on the market, but I'm reasonably confident that the vast majority of people prefer wider formats, otherwise someone would be making 3:2 screens to satisfy that part of the market. Personally I use an 32" ultrawide at work, with a vertical 24" 16:9 screen off to the side for when I want to read something l long or see a long list, and I really can't see the advantage to going back to a squarer screen.
I am, thus, curious: What is your workflow that a 3:2 screen is something you'd consider the best ratio?
Last edited: