Yes, they're all 32" 16:9 displays. Assuming they're all actually 32" (and not say 31.5"), then the main difference is just the bezel width.
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 announced
- Thread starter eksu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What scaled resolution options do you get? This is what people get for the Pro Display XDR:
With a 32" screen I'd probably want to run it scaled to something like "looks like" 2880x1620, and not the default 3008x1692 of the Pro Display XDR or 3072x1728 of the Dell.
It'd be nice to get 2880x1620 or something like 2720x1530 as a standard option instead of having to run third party software to get that resolution.
It does look good. Just wondering about pricing and availability. The LG 5K was quite hard to find for a while in my country.
I'm planning to move away from Mac in the near future so hopefully will find compatibility for this. I'm planning a machine with Nvidia RTX5090 founders edition.
you aren't telling me THIS won an innovation award?
Only difference is the base is a semicircle not a square.
Only difference is the base is a semicircle not a square.
Wow, in this economy...I literally just ordered the XDR. Wondering if I should cancel that now. Did they announce when it would get released, or when we might get more info on it?
AFAIK it is not how it works. If the LG is indeed 6144x3456, and you opt to use 1:2 3072x1728 UI, then all is fine. It only gets you trouble when you want to scale away from integer, which even on the 6k XDR and 5k ASD you get the same issues (on non-M Pro/Max Macs).And resolution is 6144x3456. As other people say here: that could be tricky for macOS. I guess there's a scaling problem and it requires 6016x3384 to work properly. It seems that this is an XDR for PC
Ah, okay, but non-integer scaling looks ugly in any case, so if you need dirty hacks for ugly picture - that's okay)
Going to need to know way more about this display, but it’s in the ballpark of what I seek
Because that's Air, it's not supposed to be used for any kind of professional stuff and it also has a tiny screen where area is more important than picture quality. 6K 32" screen is a completely different story.
I'm looking at the new LG 5K2K OLED panel... I use mine for gaming (PC) and work (Mac)LG UltraFine™️ 6K Monitor (Model 32U990A)
www.ces.tech
Non-HDR panel with a similar design language on the stand/hinge and a Thunderbolt 5 hub built in. Unknown price.
Yes, Apple started to use non-integer on Pro's by default (but there's an option to set the right value), but this doesn't make non-integer scale look "normal" just because "nobody" complains (I do!).
As I said before, the big screen is a different story and Apple uses integer scaling there, because it's important. And this thread is about big screens either.
Non-integer scaling on Retina screens looks very, very good. I own a 5K iMac and it looks great with non-integer scaling. Furthermore, I own a Retina MacBook and the default setting is non-integer scaling, and it also looks very, very good. In fact, I cannot tell the difference between the default non-integer scaling and 2X scaling in terms of text clarity at my normal MacBook working distance.
If you look very closely, you can tell the difference, but most people don't notice unless prompted. There is a group of people that do notice unprompted, but they are a small minority, and some of them are pixel peepers with their noses up to the screen, who usually wouldn't notice otherwise. They are free to use integer scaling of course though.
The time when non-integer scaling does look more noticeably worse is when the screens are not Retina. That's the main point of Retina after all, so that you don't notice the pixel structure at normal viewing distances. For 218 ppi screens, that viewing distance is 16 inches or greater. Ergonomic recommendations for desktop screen viewing distance by OSHA is 20 inches or greater.
"Sit at a comfortable distance from the monitor where you can easily read all text with your head and torso in an upright posture and your back supported by your chair. Generally, the preferred viewing distance is between 20 and 40 inches (50 and 100 cm) from the eye to the front surface of the computer screen (Figure 1). NOTE: text size may need to be increased for smaller monitors."
I do see how blurry becomes text on 220 PPI if it's not integer even from recommended distance. You talk about that recommended distance, but these measures are meant to be used with recommended PPI and UI size too, right? So no non-integer scaling here.Non-integer scaling on Retina screens looks very, very good. I own a 5K iMac and it looks great with non-integer scaling. Furthermore, I own a Retina MacBook and the default setting is non-integer scaling, and it also looks very, very good. In fact, I cannot tell the difference between the default non-integer scaling and 2X scaling in terms of text clarity at my normal MacBook working distance.
If you look very closely, you can tell the difference, but most people don't notice unless prompted. There is a group of people that do notice unprompted, but they are a small minority, and some of them are pixel peepers with their noses up to the screen, who usually wouldn't notice otherwise. They are free to use integer scaling of course though.
The time when non-integer scaling does look more noticeably worse is when the screens are not Retina. That's the main point of Retina after all, so that you don't notice the pixel structure at normal viewing distances. For 218 ppi screens, that viewing distance is 16 inches or greater. Ergonomic recommendations for desktop screen viewing distance by OSHA is 20 inches or greater.
"Sit at a comfortable distance from the monitor where you can easily read all text with your head and torso in an upright posture and your back supported by your chair. Generally, the preferred viewing distance is between 20 and 40 inches (50 and 100 cm) from the eye to the front surface of the computer screen (Figure 1). NOTE: text size may need to be increased for smaller monitors."
Desktop 220 PPI is a gold standard and fonts/UI elements size are sticked to it. If you set higher resolution, you will get more space and smaller fonts/UI size, so you will have to be closer to the screen and then you will see how it's ugly. 220 PPI is not enough to hide that (any desktop retina screen won't do that).
You mentioned that Apple set non-integer scaling on MBPs by default. I remember that I also noticed that long time ago, but you made me to check again. And the surprise is here:
Integer scaling is default on M1 MBP which has 3456x2234 physical resolution.
As mentioned, the MacBook Air uses non-integer as default, and just about nobody complains about blurry text with those. We already had this discussion. The Pros were non-integer for a while but then Apple updated the Pro screens.
BTW, Apple used to use ~100 ppi as the default for OS X for its flagship professional non-Retina displays. I prefer this. A 2X/4X Retina version of this would be ~200 ppi. If I were to get a 6K 32” monitor, I’d run it scaled to an equivalent size that a 200 ppi screen would provide, as I sit at approximately 22”, which fits with OSHA’s >20” guidelines. I would NOT run at higher resolution than default. I would prefer to run scaled to a lower resolution like 2880x1620 for larger fonts and screen elements, like OS X provided with its older pro tier displays.
I’m not at my Mac but I have the Dell 6k and there’s a resolution between 2560x1440p and the default pixel doubling. I know because that’s what I use.
at the end of its lifecycle? I hope you got a killer dealI literally just ordered the XDR
There's nothing definitive saying that it's the end of its lifecycle though.
Got a bit off, but nothing crazy
I'd say we're definitely gonna see a new one with thunderbolt 5 this year
Your options seem really close to the default to me. Stepping down, the options I see are 3008x1692 and then 2560x1440. I run mine at the default because then stuff matches closely to my ASDs at default.
2560x1440 at 32" makes the screen elements quite large, and reduces screen real estate.
3008x1692 at 32" is Apple's preference these days, but IMO the default font and screen element sizes are a tad small, at least for my 22" seating distance.*
I'd like something in between, since the jump from 2560x1440 to 3008x1692 is IMO quite large.
It's good to hear from @MikeDr206 that Dell's 6K monitor gets standard support in macOS for such an in-between resolution. Here's hoping the LG 6K and the Asus 6K do too.
*This is what I disliked about my 27" 5K iMac. I'm now using a Mac mini M4 with 4K+ 28.2" 3:2 screen at 2304x1536, which is perfect for me for font and screen element sizing.
apple deciding to normalize scaling macOS to 220 ppi has become one of the most significant anti-user decisions for desktop
today, people that want 220 ppi are stuck purchasing monitors that are massively inferior in technology while the rest of the lcd-led monitor market continues to comes down in price.
today, people that want 220 ppi are stuck purchasing monitors that are massively inferior in technology while the rest of the lcd-led monitor market continues to comes down in price.
Thank you. Which Mac do you have, and when you get a chance to check can you tell us the actual 2XXX resolution you are using? Also, do you get HiDPI resolution options between 3072x1728 and 6144x3456?
People with the M4 Mac mini are saying that with the Apple Studio Display 5K, they are missing the 3200x1800 resolution option. This is available with the M4 Pro and Mac Studio.