M1 Macbook Pro 2021 "120 hz" mini led display very slow, 120 hz are fake, old lcd technology!
- Thread starter ASX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So... turns out my prediction of 41ms was right. That's the response time that matches with 24fps. Apple is deliberate.
Also, again, please don't apply gaming logic to working professionals. We do color-critical work, and we need a screen that's high resolution + variable refresh rate + smooth. We don't need fast response time that potentially causes judder.
Or again, please feel free to name a profession aside from gaming that actually needs sharp and clear image while scrolling or while anything is in motion.
Okay. If that's how you feel.
And how color accurate is the LG 34GP950G? Does it support other color profiles for video and photo works separately?
What is its pixel density? Are texts as sharp on this LG 34GP950G as on the new MacBook's screens?
Does the LG 34GP950G reach up to 1600 nits of brightness for HDR?
Does the LG 34GP950G have 10,000 dimming zones and almost no blooming when playing back HDR contents?
I does support different color profiles but no hardware calibration.
The text is sharp at a reasonable distance of 70 cm.
It has only 600 nits peak.
It has only 56 edge led dimming zones. The M1 pro has not 10.000 (this is the amount of led's, 4 mini leds => 1 dimming zone
), it has around 2600 dimming zones. And it has still blooming.
The overall experience is much better than on the tiny 16.2" macbook pro display. You will never watch all day long hdr movies. So your points about the hdr are irrelevant. I have C1 48" oled for this. It looks much better than this macbook screen.
This macbook is only good for hdr, but the rest isn't good. One win and the other keypoints are lose.
The text is sharp at a reasonable distance of 70 cm.
It has only 600 nits peak.
It has only 56 edge led dimming zones. The M1 pro has not 10.000 (this is the amount of led's, 4 mini leds => 1 dimming zone
), it has around 2600 dimming zones. And it has still blooming.The overall experience is much better than on the tiny 16.2" macbook pro display. You will never watch all day long hdr movies. So your points about the hdr are irrelevant. I have C1 48" oled for this. It looks much better than this macbook screen.
This macbook is only good for hdr, but the rest isn't good. One win and the other keypoints are lose.
Last edited:
I does support different color profiles but no hardware calibration.
The text is sharp at a reasonable distance of 70 cm.
It has only 600 nits peak
It has only 56 edge led dimming zones. The M1 pro has not 10.000 (this is the amount of led's, 4 mini leds => 1 dimming zone
The overall experience is much better than on the tiny m1 pro display. You will never watch all day long hdr movies. So your points about the hdr are irrelevant. I have C1 48" oled for this. It looks much better than this macbook screen.
Thank you for confirming to us that only your subjective impressions matter and that 108ppi to your eyes is the same as 254ppi, also that 600 nits of max brightness is superior to 1600 nits of brightness. I have no more question to ask.
From a reasonable distance there is no difference, and my eyes aren't old, im wearing no glasses. 109 ppi are very good. Nothing bad about. I don't think you have ever seen such a monitor.
My smartphone has over 500 ppi, how bad the macbook is? Who will use such useless arguments? Only people who have none.
My smartphone has over 500 ppi, how bad the macbook is? Who will use such useless arguments? Only people who have none.
The 34WK95U has pwm flickering, bad uniformity and looks not really better because you have to scale it up. As i said reasonable distance and you will not see much of a difference. Have tested the 34WK95U a few years ago. Very bad screen. With bad response times. Now you can play your "game" alone. I know the advantages and disadvantages of screens very well . The balance of all features makes the best monitor. Not only single advantages. The most important things about a monitor are uniformity, coating, blb, refresh rate, flicker free and response times. If it sucks you can throw it away.
. The balance of all features makes the best monitor. Not only single advantages. The most important things about a monitor are uniformity, coating, blb, refresh rate, flicker free and response times. If it sucks you can throw it away.
Broko Fankone
macrumors regular
I was trying to make that point by giving OLED TVs with 1ms response as an example, but it just doesn't work in this guy, I guess.
Apple does no wrong is the sentiment you get as well, right?
Of course a screen looks dramatically better when it's fast and responsive. Of course it's ridiculous to imagine playing a game at 30 fps, let alone 24fps. Games might've been played at 30fps 10 years ago and this is no longer the case (and thank god for that!!!). But I digress, this discussion was not and should not be centred around gaming. Personally, I do not use my MBP for games. I have a Windows machine for that. But I still hook up my macbook to the 1ms monitor and of course, the OS feels infinitely better, snappier, more responsive. Every imaginable animation looks better. Scrolling through webpages, text, and social apps like discord is better. Simply moving the cursor around is better. And thus, a bigger pleasure to use than with the integrated screen.
It's an objective fact, but I'm not going to argue with anyone who would defend almost 60ms gray to gray in any kind of capacity. There is just no winning with that type of person. You have better chances winning against a wall.
P.S. I tried the stutter test. It was EXACTLY as bad on both my 1ms monitor, and my MBP with 32/46ms. The slow screen did not make the stutter any better.
Maybe they should make the screen 100, or 200ms slower, so that @bill-p can enjoy their blurry mess while watching 24fps videos, which is what 99% of consumers do all day long. (not)
Leave it to an Apple fan to try and convince you how ghosting is a great thing for professionals.
Last edited:
JonDigital
macrumors 6502
OP pretty much turned this into his/her personal AMA on gaming monitors ?
Yeah, it's also an objective fact that 163ppi and 254ppi are worse than 108ppi. Clearly you guys are the experts.
@Broko Fankone
A guy who is satisfied with 34WK95U has not many needs. I wouldn't say this, when this nightmare monitor hasn't so much burned into my head. I used it for 4-5 hours, even with playing games. Absolute horror. This flickering and motion blur. Flickering alone is causing headache. But the motion sickness wasn't much better.
Working on a fast display with high refresh rate is a joy. If you have seen it once you will never, never love something slower.
The problem is the mbp runs over hdmi 2.0 only with 100 hz on my LG 34GP950G. I wont remove the display port cable of my pc. 100 hz are far less smooth. But i can live with it, because i don't use this mac book much on this monitor.
A guy who is satisfied with 34WK95U has not many needs. I wouldn't say this, when this nightmare monitor hasn't so much burned into my head. I used it for 4-5 hours, even with playing games. Absolute horror. This flickering and motion blur. Flickering alone is causing headache. But the motion sickness wasn't much better.
Working on a fast display with high refresh rate is a joy. If you have seen it once you will never, never love something slower.
The problem is the mbp runs over hdmi 2.0 only with 100 hz on my LG 34GP950G. I wont remove the display port cable of my pc. 100 hz are far less smooth. But i can live with it, because i don't use this mac book much on this monitor.
Broko Fankone
macrumors regular
It's funny how you are presenting other people's comments as mine for the second time in this exact thread. Speaks volumes about your capacity to conduct any kind of sensible discourse.
Yep. You are totally right!
1600 nits brightness, better color accuracy, more dimming zones and heck, even higher pixels per inch still make a display inferior because... response time.
Actually, sorry, pixels per inch is not an advantage of the MacBook's screen because 254ppi is worse than 108ppi, isn't it?
I'm not the one presenting my subjective impressions as facts.
Why more color accurate? Do you have ever used a colorimeter on the macbook screen? The brightness is peak for hdr content . And hdr content is sucking the battery very fast empty. So no big advantage for this mac book.
Much more color accuracy isn't possible:
34GP950G:
Also i had 4 macbook pros 2021. Only 2 had good uniformity. There is not "this" mbp.
. And hdr content is sucking the battery very fast empty. So no big advantage for this mac book.Much more color accuracy isn't possible:
34GP950G:
Also i had 4 macbook pros 2021. Only 2 had good uniformity. There is not "this" mbp.
Last edited:
Broko Fankone
macrumors regular
1600 for HDR only. 500 nits for SDR. I suppose you fully support the absolutely misleading advertisement and reveal of the laptops, right? 500 nits for SDR was not mentioned anywhere.
Is that subjective too? By the way, you failed to refute my statement about you putting words into my mouth - I guess because there is no way to refute it since it's a fact.
You are 100% free to die on this hill, that ghosting is a good thing. In your world apparently that's true. In 2021, we should cater to 24fps use cases most of all on a screen of a 3500$ machine. ? What about the 60fps and the 120fps use cases? Oh, never mind those. It's the 24fps community that's the king of the hill.
And as I sad, my MBP is extremely slow and still stutters with 24fps text. But I'll tell you a little secret. Nobody cares about 24fps scrolling text.
Last edited:
500 nits for SDR was already known from the XDR display.
Okay.
In 2021, we don't have cameras that record 24fps and 30fps videos anymore, right? Because... oh wait...
And absolutely nobody using a MacBook cares about 24fps or 30fps videos. Got it!