I’ve been waiting for this monitor for 10 years. Can’t wait to finally buy it after saving for another 10…
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.
M5 iPad Pro Could Hint at New Studio Display Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The next Studio Display needs all of the following. Sadly I think the don't get the larger version.
>27" option in addition to the 27"
at least mini-LED
and 120hz promotion
Works with HDMI 2.1 ports as an input not just thunderbolt 5, but not Apple's style sadly even though this would work just fine.
>27" option in addition to the 27"
at least mini-LED
and 120hz promotion
Works with HDMI 2.1 ports as an input not just thunderbolt 5, but not Apple's style sadly even though this would work just fine.
Sometimes I hope Apple will launch a 34-inch 6880x2880 21:9 Ultrawide Studio Display with 120Hz
A new 27" Studio Display with mini-LED at the same price as the current model would be an insta-buy.
Bonus points for ability to use stand or VESA arm out of the box. 120Hz would be a nice addition but not a must-have.
Bonus points for ability to use stand or VESA arm out of the box. 120Hz would be a nice addition but not a must-have.
“Although Macs have long supported 120Hz external displays, Apple has yet to ship a standalone monitor with a refresh rate above 60Hz, and they are fairly unusual in the market as a whole.”
That is because most monitors have a high refresh rate then 120hz.. I am banking on this monitor being good and it will be my new monitor for my setup. Just hope I can get it to work with my works laptop too somehow, because I know Apple won’t include more then one input and will not have any buttons or software on the monitor to choose inputs…
That is because most monitors have a high refresh rate then 120hz.. I am banking on this monitor being good and it will be my new monitor for my setup. Just hope I can get it to work with my works laptop too somehow, because I know Apple won’t include more then one input and will not have any buttons or software on the monitor to choose inputs…
Yes Apples thinking, even with it’s 5 grand ‘Pro’ display is that you only ever have one device you want to use with the monitor, ever… tough crap if you have two, you must unplug cables then for that. If the displays were actually not so good, I would question if anyone would actually buy them if the rest of the specs were the same.
This is nitpicking but, back in the Motorola 680x0 era, several of Apple's standalone monitors had 75Hz refresh rates.
In the 90s I used an Apple 16" Color Display, which had a fixed 832x624 resolution and a fixed 75Hz refresh rate (or technically, I think a fixed 74.55Hz refresh rate). I drove it with my PowerBook 160c, and later with my PowerMac 7600.
I imagine with older Macs the monitor will just drop to 60Hz.My sad realization:
I would have to buy a brand new Mac to be able to drive this Studio Display.
My Studio M1 Max ain't gonna cut it.
What about for a MacBook Pro M5? It seems it'll drop to 60Hz for that too? I want to get an external monitor within the next few months & thought the next Studio Display would be perfect but now it seems only m4 Pro & m4 Max will work as 5k 120Hz. If that's the case I'll be better off getting the current one for a cheaper price.
Yeah I'd assume Thunderbolt 5 will be needed if Apple does go with a 120Hz refresh rate, which means base M5 would default to 60Hz. But who knows what Apple is planning...
Would be great if the next display has 120Hz. Hopefully there won't be a price increase. Think if it is going to be released, it will not be available before June 2026. At the same time would like Apple to release a bigger iMac too.
Sure, you can record that, but in reality that's for slow motion video. Professional Video is still finally output to 25fps (PAL-Countries) or 30 (NTSC-Countries), Cinema is 24fps and TV is 60i or 50i, and we won't be going higher framerates anytime soon, because 50/60fps is still linked to a soap-opera look and considered "cheap" or "live-TV look". Besides, the industry has just mostly completed the transition to 1080p - there are still a lot of stations that broadcast in 720p and cinema projectors that only have 2k resolution. Updating that would cost a struggling industry millions for very little if any benefit to most viewers. You won't be able to transmit anything above 60fps on any TV-station in the world, and no widely used online video service will play it back.
They're not OLED over mini LED, they're dual layer OLED. That's what the MacBook Pro line is rumored to be moving to either late 2026 or early 2027 with the M6 generation.
Dual layer OLEDs are already used with many TVs to maximize brightness and reduce burn-in, but those are WOLED panels, whereas the iPad Pro is a RGB OLED dual layer panel. The latter are superior in terms of color and brightness, but more expensive to manufacture. The first 27" tandem RGB OLED panels were only introduced within the last year and are limited to QHD resolution; it'll be a few more years before 5K screens with this panel type come to market.
I was wishing Apple brings a newer 27" Apple StudioDisplay (or possibly a smaller 27" 'Apple Cinema Display' and a larger 30" Apple Studio Display or mix the names as you like) that also brings the Thunderbolt 5 connection and 3x USB-C connections and additionally a ethernet Gigabit port that used to exist in Apple Displays!
ok since everyone needs pedantic clarification
I should of said "and react to it in a useful way. given that human visual reaction time could be as slow as 250ms and at best 150-125ms, 120hz frame rates @ 8.3ms are out of any human reaction time. you may perceive some changes but that doesn't mean you can react that fast. there may be a few indivisuals with faster reactions times closer to 100ms, but thats 10 frames at 120hz." now please cue individuals claiming they are faster w/o lab verification of their fantastical claims 🤦♂️.... also for the pedantic, I'm not saying that there isn't a perceptual difference, but for average normal folks 30-60 or so fps is in the range of max frame rate before you don't perceive any more difference. there are some amongst the gamer crowd who can get to 120 fps, 144 tops. there have been some research that you can perceive a SMALL visual change at upwards of 250fps but an entire screen ? also consider that gamers represent a small portion of the population who have actively trained themselves to see higher speed motion -> frame rates that make zero difference to most folks. just because you can see it doesn't mean everyone else can.
Don’t worry, Apple will be happy to sell you a new mac.My sad realization:
I would have to buy a brand new Mac to be able to drive this Studio Display.
My Studio M1 Max ain't gonna cut it.
For the record, I never mentioned anything about reaction time. That's an entirely different topic. So back to human visual perception.ok since everyone needs pedantic clarification
also for the pedantic, I'm not saying that there isn't a perceptual difference, but for average normal folks 30-60 or so fps is in the range of max frame rate before you don't perceive any more difference. there are some amongst the gamer crowd who can get to 120 fps, 144 tops. there have been some research that you can perceive a SMALL visual change at upwards of 250fps but an entire screen ? also consider that gamers represent a small portion of the population who have actively trained themselves to see higher speed motion -> frame rates that make zero difference to most folks. just because you can see it doesn't mean everyone else can.
Science says that humans can tell between modulated light and a stable field at up to about 500 Hz. Put into simple words, we (as in, many of us, not some exceptional few) can tell a 500Hz flicker from a steady light of the same wavelength and half the intensity (flicker naturally drops the intensity, because well, that's what flicker does) at the right conditions. The reason we can do that is, you may have guess it, human eyes don't work at a given frame rate, they pick some stimuli at one rate, but others at completely different rates. If you care to read about that -- the metric is called critical flicker fusion rate (CFFR). And that affects us on a much wider level -- one'd be surprised how many visual things around us work via modulating some light intensity. Fun fact: high-end color DLPs project monochromatic images at about 1000fps to produce their wide gamut picture for your favourite 24fps movie.
TL;DR 24fps (with extensive motion blur) could be good enough (tm) for many cinematic things, and 60fps can be good enough (tm) for many other things, and 120fps for yet more things, but that's not because these frame rates are somehow at the limit of human vision. If you're still not convinced consider the following problem: how could you show your theatric audience a 500Hz flicker in a movie scene? Something that perhaps your theatrical DLP can achieve, but your camera never filmed.