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
I think my Huawei MateView 28.2" looks reasonably decent aesthetically. Bezels are relatively small. It's not a great monitor overall though, just OK, but the price reflects that. I had to calibrate it myself since the colours were off out of the box.
I think I calibrated the Huawei at around 120 nits or something, in a room with dimmed lighting. According to reviews, the highlights would hit around 500 nits or less in (pseudo-)HDR mode so not even DisplayHDR 600 levels, but these days I just use SDR anyway because my Windows VPN window doesn't play nice on macOS in HDR mode. I get colour fringing around text in HDR mode but strictly in the Windows 11 window, which doesn't happen in SDR mode.
Yep, they call it DEEZAIGNSo it’s just a regular DC-in power port in the center and they made it weird by putting it inside a square border?
Last edited:
I don't know why you call my post a "rant", but ok nevermind...
I admit Excel is an edge case and I wasn't sure if I should include it. I deal mostly with Excel sheets that have hundreds of rows, but yes, there are many with lots of columns too. I replace my Excel comment with Outlook and Email and I'm back on track.
You are also kind of proofing my point. You are getting a much larger (on paper) 32" screen, but because of the different ratio, you end up with exactly the same usable height as you have now.
Actually, I usually don’t use the full height of my screen with my app windows. For example, for my Safari and Citrix VPN windows, I usually place them a little distance below the menu bar, for ergonomics reasons. My preference is a top of the viewable screen that’s about 18” off the table top but I can work with a screen that’s a little taller. My Huawei’s top of screen is at about 19”. The same would go for the Asus 6K for example.
In that context a 16:9 32” screen works but a 3:2 32” screen would not because it would be too tall. Such a screen would be at least 21” from the table top to the top of the screen, assuming a minimum stand height similar to the Asus. It should be noted that the 16:9 32” Apple Pro Display XDR’s chassis’ top is already at 21”. It appears that they designed it with a taller than average minimum height, high enough to easily clear the Mac Studio, but this is not ergonomically ideal for shorter adults like myself. (I’m 5’7” / 170 cm.) My holy grail would be a 200-220 ppi 34” ultra wide, which translates to about ~6K-7K and ~21:9, eg. 6880x2880.
Last edited:
It isn’t stated but the Pro Display XDR SDR brightness is around 500nits, so only 50nits more then the LG one. I am going to wait for some decent in depth reviews of this LG monitor, so far it seems to possibly be the best of the none Apple bunch. And at least you can easily plug two computers into the thing!
Last edited:
He mentions hardware calibration, but I don’t see this information elsewhere. This is a big deal, as it makes the full package quite a bang for the buck: 6K resolution, wide color gamut coverage, true 10-bit panel, and hardware calibration for $2k.
Literally anybody who's had a thunderbolt port in the past 4 years. Maybe even more. The 2019 Pro Display is 6k120 iirc
Sure, at some point there is a too tall, same as there is a too wide eventually.
I just recall the disappointment when I finally upgraded from a 24" screen to a 27" 16:9 screen, realizing it's the same size just a bit wider. 2 x 28" 3:2 sound perfect though, I might consider that.
I'm very much intrigued by this. The slightly disappointing nits spec is giving me hesitation, but just a little. 450 nits is probably plenty for me. I usually keep my 27" ASD between 400 and 450 nits.
I used to have a 30" ACD and that was perfect for a single monitor for me. The 27" displays have never quite done it for me. That form factor has always a battle between not having enough space to comfortably use multiple application windows and having to move some applications to another screen space where 70% of the screen was not needed.
I do rather like my 27" ASD despite my frustrations with the form factor so this will be a tough choice if the LG 6K ends up being a quality product. The other reason I'd hesitate is because I've owned the LG 5K before going to the ASD and people who say they're basically the same display are making the lazy mistake of comparing specs as the only thing that matters.
I used to have a 30" ACD and that was perfect for a single monitor for me. The 27" displays have never quite done it for me. That form factor has always a battle between not having enough space to comfortably use multiple application windows and having to move some applications to another screen space where 70% of the screen was not needed.
I do rather like my 27" ASD despite my frustrations with the form factor so this will be a tough choice if the LG 6K ends up being a quality product. The other reason I'd hesitate is because I've owned the LG 5K before going to the ASD and people who say they're basically the same display are making the lazy mistake of comparing specs as the only thing that matters.
Last edited:
Go do some research. The Pro Display XDR is 60Hz. 6K@120Hz requires 88Gbps of bandwidth. More than TB4. And then even at that, it would max out the port.
TB5 people might be able to, but few have TB5 ports.
I don't doubt that you get more out of a 3:2 screen with your workflow, but any workflow is a very broad statement, and if it were so universally true 3:2 monitors would be more popular and my workplace would have a lot less ultra wide monitors and a lot more vertical screens.
I personally spend more time looking at landscape-format plans and wide flowcharts than I do Word documents, and I scroll those horizontally as much as vertically; so much that I often keep a trackpad next to the keyboard entirely for use scrolling and pinch-to-zooming (my diagramming app is in fact so non-vertical that I have it set to use right-click-and-drag to pan and the scroll wheel to zoom).
Even Excel, I'm far more frequently looking at tables with a very large number of columns and am more interested in viewing as much of a row as possible than many rows of data, so I'm far more likely to have an extremely wide Excel window on my ultra wide primary monitor than to have a really tall one on my portrait secondary monitor.
And while yes, lot of people do spend most of their time in "vertical" documents, the reality for my use case (and I believe the majority of my co-workers) is that I need to have 2-3 documents on the screen at once VASTLY more often than I need to see more than one screen-height worth of content at once. This is why I use an ultra wide and many others at my workplace use side-by-side landscape-oriented 16:9 screens.
Word docs and web pages, absolutely vertical... but if that is your primary need, then you're in theory even better served by a portrait-orientation monitor, which I have to the side of my ultra wide right now, yet not many people do that--only one other person in the office despite two thirds having at least two screens.
I've noticed that in practice, I rarely bother putting documents on my portrait monitor--the extra height/less scrolling just doesn't feel necessary for most tasks, even web-page reading or document writing and editing. Same reason, I suppose, that I rarely use my iPad in portrait orientation, either.
They use those mainly because the monitor industry has been groomed by the TV industry. Very few actually benefit from the extra width you get from 16:9. In the end all you do is sacrifice height for extra white space at the sides.
Nah. You totally skipped over the fact a lot of his co-workers use ultrawide screens.
“ I don't doubt that you get more out of a 3:2 screen with your workflow, but any workflow is a very broad statement, and if it were so universally true 3:2 monitors would be more popular and my workplace would have a lot less ultra wide monitors and a lot more vertical screens.”
Ultrawide screens are extremely popular these days for power users. I’ve said previously I’d love to have a 34” ultrawide but only if was Retina or near Retina. Unfortunately, all the ultrawides are lower pixel density, partially because Windows doesn’t need Retina as much for reasonable text quality.
Basically what you’re saying is only true if you only run one single app window on the screen at a time, but it’s extremely common to want to be able to run 2 or more app windows side-by-side.