Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

ASX

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 30, 2021
393
118
On the left side you see the fast LG 34GP950G (one faint ghost) on the right the M1 Pro 14" 2021 (with 5-6 ghosts):


It's very ghosty. I saw this also on my recently tested M1 Macbook Pro 2021 16" and the Ipad Pro 2021 12.9" which has up to 45 ms according to notebookcheck.com.

For 120 hz / 120 refreshes per second you need max. 8.3 ms total response time (rise + fall). 45 ms are good enough for 22 hz. This 120 hz are fake because this display can't achive it. So it's smearing very badly.

Here an example of the motion problems within a youtube review:

 
Last edited:

ASX

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 30, 2021
393
118
I send it back and refund it. But false advertising 120 hz if the display cant reach it, is scam.


Look for this response times of the ipad pro 2021 12.9" which has a similar panel and the same ghosting.

"99 % aller Screens waren schneller als der getestete."

"99 % of all tested screens are faster than this one."
 

Lihp8270

macrumors 6502a
Dec 31, 2016
549
799
I send it back and refund it. But false advertising 120 hz if the display cant reach it, is scam.


Look for this response times of the ipad pro 2021 12.9" which has a similar panel and the same ghosting.

"99 % aller Screens waren schneller als der getestete."

"99 % of all tested screens are faster than this one."
Why can’t it reach 120hz?

I don’t have one to confirm ghosting but refresh rate is not dependent on response time.
 

ASX

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 30, 2021
393
118
Because you need for 120 refreshes per second (1000 ms) 8.3333 ms max. 120 x 8.3333 ms = 1000 ms.

Refresh rate is not depending on response time. Lol.
 

Broko Fankone

macrumors regular
Jun 14, 2020
231
204
Yeah, it's as simple as that. If you find this to be an issue, don't buy it. I think response times should absolutely be advertised on any screen. And they are, but usually on gaming monitors where the userbase understand response times are important. (They are important for anyone, actually, not just for gamers)

The new screens flicker at all brightness levels, and are astonishingly slow (30-40ms is horrible). People should know that before they buy them.

Regardless, the reality is that Apple users just don't care that much about slow response times. It's all they ever had, and they are used to it. I use my MBP with a 1ms 180hz 1080p monitor and the difference is extremely noticeable. But if you've never used a fast monitor, then you wouldn't know what you are missing.

And BTW, refresh rate and response times are two different things. But it is true that a high refresh rate is largely wasted on a slow screen. I do have a gaming laptop with a 120hz screen which is very slow (38ms) and it's an ugly experience. Smearing all over the place.
 

ASX

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 30, 2021
393
118
Yep, that's the point. But even if you use an iphone 13 pro you will notice that something is extremly wrong in terms of motion handling with this display. Also scrolling is stuttering.
 

Lihp8270

macrumors 6502a
Dec 31, 2016
549
799
Because you need for 120 refreshes per second (1000 ms) 8.3333 ms max. 120 x 8.3333 ms = 1000 ms.

Refresh rate is not depending on response time. Lol.
That’s not how refresh rate works.

Refresh rate is simply how many times per second the display reads it’s buffer and refreshes the screen.

Just because the response time at some point is greater than 8.3ms it doesn’t mean that the display isn’t refreshing at 120hz.
 

ASX

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 30, 2021
393
118
@Lihp8270

The picture can't refresh 120 times a second when the pixel response time is above 8.3 ms.
 

Lihp8270

macrumors 6502a
Dec 31, 2016
549
799
Yeah, it's as simple as that. If you find this to be an issue, don't buy it. I think response times should absolutely be advertised on any screen. And they are, but usually on gaming monitors where the userbase understand response times are important. (They are important for anyone, actually, not just for gamers)

The new screens flicker at all brightness levels, and are astonishingly slow (30-40ms is horrible). People should know that before they buy them.

Regardless, the reality is that Apple users just don't care that much about slow response times. It's all they ever had, and they are used to it. I use my MBP with a 1ms 180hz 1080p monitor and the difference is extremely noticeable. But if you've never used a fast monitor, then you wouldn't know what you are missing.

And BTW, refresh rate and response times are two different things. But it is true that a high refresh rate is largely wasted on a slow screen. I do have a gaming laptop with a 120hz screen which is very slow (38ms) and it's an ugly experience. Smearing all over the place.
I’m not defending the iPad Pro. I’ve not seen one to comment how bad the ghosting is, but 40ms black to white isn’t going to be great, but again it’s impossible to really compare to other manufacturers, as they all change what they’re measuring to advertise the lowest.

I game on a 1ms display. But I’m fairly sure it’s not 1ms. Manufacturers of all panels measure in different ways. The spec of my 1ms panel is 1ms grey to grey, the black to white number which notebook check measured isn’t published anywhere or mentioned in any reviews.

Similarly they make another 1ms display which they advertise in the small print as 1ms moving picture response time. Where the GTG and black to white will be much slower.

What 1080p180 display do you use?
 

Broko Fankone

macrumors regular
Jun 14, 2020
231
204
1) The thread is not non-sensical. Slow response times are laughable in 2021, especially at such high prices. It's about time users started realising that a beautiful display is largely ruined by slow pixel response times (and in this case, for some users possibly also due to the pulse width modulation, a.k.a flickering. Good modern displays are completely flicker-free). You don't care because your standards are low, not because it does not matter.

2) What OP is talking about is called a "gap". There is a certain gap between each frame, of x amounts of milliseconds. For a 60hz screen, this gap is 16.66ms. For a 120hz screen, this gap is 8.33ms. To avoid this gap of nothing, screens usually hold a frame for the amount of time that gap takes.

Low response times means this gap hold will be shorter, resulting in less smearing/ghosting. Low response times does not mean the 120hz refresh rate is not achieved. It just means it is achieved with a lot of ghosting. This has been the case for Apple's 60hz screens since forever, and users have been OK with that during all that time. I don't expect them to suddenly realize this is a drawback and start demanding faster screens.

Personally, it just doesn't sit right to me to spend the 3,500$ for a specced-out m1 max knowing the display is gimped with so much ghosting. To each their own.
 

ASX

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 30, 2021
393
118
Yep, i mean the refresh window compliance.

This panel is from lg. Why is apple not smart enough to order lg nano ips technology of lg 34gp950g for example?

Also apples prerelease qc is very bad. If i would see such a ghosting, i would never release such a bad display with advertised 120 hz.
 

Lihp8270

macrumors 6502a
Dec 31, 2016
549
799
1) The thread is not non-sensical. Slow response times are laughable in 2021, especially at such high prices. It's about time users started realising that a beautiful display is largely ruined by slow pixel response times (and in this case, for some users possibly also due to the pulse width modulation, a.k.a flickering. Good modern displays are completely flicker-free). You don't care because your standards are low, not because it does not matter.

2) What OP is talking about is called a "gap". There is a certain gap between each frame, of x amounts of milliseconds. For a 60hz screen, this gap is 16.66ms. For a 120hz screen, this gap is 8.33ms. To avoid this gap of nothing, screens usually hold a frame for the amount of time that gap takes.

Low response times means this gap hold will be shorter, resulting in less smearing/ghosting. Low response times does not mean the 120hz refresh rate is not achieved. It just means it is achieved with a lot of ghosting. This has been the case for Apple's 60hz screens since forever, and users have been OK with that during all that time. I don't expect them to suddenly realize this is a drawback and start demanding faster screens.

Personally, it just doesn't sit right to me to spend the 3,500$ for a specced-out m1 max knowing the display is gimped with so much ghosting. To each their own.
To be clear, I’m not and have never been disputing the ghosting, or suggesting it’s acceptable.

Merely questioning the statement regarding 120hz not being achieved.
 

Broko Fankone

macrumors regular
Jun 14, 2020
231
204
I agree with that. 120 Hz is actually not achieved in the true sense due it being dynamic, though. In this case, you have no option to make it a constant 120hz. Your passive refresh rate options are locked to 60hz and below. Apple decides when the 120hz is fully utilised for you, which is again something I am not a huge fan of. There is no reason not to include a passive 120hz option for those who want to use it, but... eh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shadowbird423

ASX

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 30, 2021
393
118
The ufo test with chrome browser is using 120 hz constantly. With this bad response times it's only a visual mess.
 

Stevenyo

macrumors member
Oct 2, 2020
36
66
Just chiming in to say the new display is the best I’ve ever seen (xdr and miniLED are amazing. I honestly couldn’t care or judge response time, refresh rate, or motion, I can’t tell my iPad and iPhone have promotion either, and I’ve never really noticed gaming over 60fps being smoother. Hell, mid 20s is entirely playable as long as it’s consistent, 24fps is film speed and that looks like full motion to me!) and in my usage doesn’t ghost anything like the one in the OP’s video. It’s very clear his has a ton of ghosting, but in my usage, I never see it on mine or any of the other new MBP’s I’ve seen. Maybe I’m just blind to it in regular use. Maybe my use case doesn’t make it very apparent, and maybe the above YouTuber got a worse than normal panel or tweaked his settings somehow?
 

fa8362

macrumors 65816
Jul 7, 2008
1,493
343
1) The thread is not non-sensical. Slow response times are laughable in 2021, especially at such high prices. It's about time users started realising that a beautiful display is largely ruined by slow pixel response times (and in this case, for some users possibly also due to the pulse width modulation, a.k.a flickering. Good modern displays are completely flicker-free). You don't care because your standards are low, not because it does not matter.

2) What OP is talking about is called a "gap". There is a certain gap between each frame, of x amounts of milliseconds. For a 60hz screen, this gap is 16.66ms. For a 120hz screen, this gap is 8.33ms. To avoid this gap of nothing, screens usually hold a frame for the amount of time that gap takes.

Low response times means this gap hold will be shorter, resulting in less smearing/ghosting. Low response times does not mean the 120hz refresh rate is not achieved. It just means it is achieved with a lot of ghosting. This has been the case for Apple's 60hz screens since forever, and users have been OK with that during all that time. I don't expect them to suddenly realize this is a drawback and start demanding faster screens.

Personally, it just doesn't sit right to me to spend the 3,500$ for a specced-out m1 max knowing the display is gimped with so much ghosting. To each their own.
I haven't seen any ghosting on the 16, so I couldn't care less.
 

bp1000

macrumors 65816
Jul 7, 2011
1,421
121
Don't know about you but I don't consume content with such agitated cursor movements. Therefore unlikely to ever encounter "ghosting" unless I'm trying to move a window as fast as possible.
 

3Rock

macrumors regular
Aug 25, 2021
225
221
Good that you sent it back, now maybe you buy a windows notebook and can go over to windows forum and badmouth them continuously. Quite frankly I’m tired of what you’re posting. It’s like a broken record you’re never gonna be happy. I’m satisfied with my MacBook Pro Max even with a few flaws. All computers have flaws
 

ASX

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 30, 2021
393
118
Good for you you are happy with a advertised 120 hz screen which is acting like a 20 - 60 hz screen if you paid 3850 Euros (minimum). Best apple customer. Im not this lemming buyer who will eat everything faulty i get served.

For example I bought my first apple iphone (13 Pro) when apple get rid of this crappy 60 hz screens. Before i never bought any iphone. Because it's hardware was not up to date. 60 hz for such a high price tag. They must be crazy.
 
Last edited:

Stevenyo

macrumors member
Oct 2, 2020
36
66
Good for you you are happy with a advertised 120 hz screen which is acting like a 20 - 60 hz screen if you paid 3850 Euros (minimum). Best apple customer. Im not this lemming buyer who has eating everything faulty i get served.

For example I bought my first apple iphone (13 Pro) when apple get rid of this crappy 60 hz screens. Before i never bought any iphone. Because it's hardware was not up to date. 60 hz for such a high price tag. They must be crazy.
I also have a 120hz iPhone. But I would never notice. What do you do on your iPhone that makes 120hz a requirement? I only really care about the promotion display on my iPhone for the low hz battery saving modes. 60 is more than enough hz for smooth motion. Would you refuse to buy a Lamborghini “because Bugatti makes one with more horsepower therefore the Lamborghini is outdated” even though both are more than enough for anything anyone would ever do with them?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.