mini paired with Hauwei's new 4.5K 3:2 monitor = iMac killer?

[Amethyst1]

Secondly, 5K is very hard to drive (14 MP vs 8 or 9MP). It's only in the past few years that the majority of external GPUs can handle that.

Most 5120×2880 monitors (e.g. Dell UP2715K, HP Z27q, iMac 5K, LG UltraFine 5K) are driven via two discrete DisplayPort 1.2 connections, each handling one half of the screen (2560×2880). (In the case of the UltraFine, the two connections are tunneled over Thunderbolt 3). My point is - theoretically, any GPU with two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs should be able to handle 2× 2560×2880 to get 5120×2880. Case in point - I was driving my UP2715K from an NVIDIA NVS 510 for some time. That's pretty much a glorified GeForce GT 630, i.e. probably the weakest card out there that meets this requirement and it was fine at the pixel-doubled mode. Scaling would, of course, have been an entirely different matter.

There are also some 5120×2880 screens (e.g. Iiyama XB2779QQS, Planar IX2790) driven via a single DisplayPort 1.4 connection (and thus restricted to 8 bpc). Both AMD and NVIDIA GPUs released in 2016 or later support DP 1.4. Intel, though, only added this with Ice Lake (2020). My point is - merely driving 5120×2880 from a discrete GPU (external or not) has been possible for years.

Btw any ideas why there are almost no 5k monitors on the market

In addition to the reasons mentioned, another is... (presumably) because there's not a high demand for them outside of the macOS world. The majority of users are happy with a "4K" screen of around 27 inches, i.e. around 160 ppi, because they run Windows and its fractional scaling works and looks great.

I have a mid-range laptop bought in 2020 that can only do 4K.

What laptop is that, just out of interest? What CPU/GPU?

 

[tornado99]

Yes, should have mentioned I meant single-cable 5K. The Planar and Iiyama both had terrible quality control for some reason.

Ryzen 5 3550H with Vega 8. I think Intel Ice Lake laptops can only do 4K too. It's only Intel Xe that makes the jump, in fact to 8K.

 

[nlited]

I think with 8K the sheer pixel density means any concerns about fractional scaling disappear. So hopefully when 8K drops to reasonable prices, and you have the hardware to drive it, you could use any HiDPI mode you liked with no sharpness penalty.

100% agree with this! 8k on 27"-32" screen means you literally need a magnifying glass to see the pixels

I was driving my UP2715K from an NVIDIA NVS 510 for some time

My friend had this monitor as well, he used it with late 2013 Mac pro via 2 thunderbolt 2 ports. As I remember macOS had some problems outputting sound to its internal speakers and some others issues which were however solved by apple as time passed

because there's not a high demand for them outside of the macOS world

Yeah good point!

 

[Amethyst1]

I think Intel Ice Lake laptops can only do 4K too

Ice Lake can do 5K without DSC and 6K with DSC.

EDIT: BTW, I hope my babbling about 5K monitors didn't come across as smart-alec or anything - I certainly didn't mean it that way.

 

[Falhófnir]

Wow - I had no idea about this monitor

This is -- INCREDIBLE

I love love love this aspect ratio

Agreed, seems squarer aspect ratios are making a comeback in general I've always felt 16:9 means even 15.6" panels are a bit wanting for vertical space!

 

[Amethyst1]

Agreed, seems squarer aspect ratios are making a comeback in general I've always felt 16:9 means even 15.6" panels are a bit wanting for vertical space!

The funny thing is that when widescreen computer monitors were appearing in the consumer market (~2000), people were complaining about the lack of vertical space compared to good ol' 4:3. Now, we're complaining about 16:9 and are happy with 15:10 or 16:10…

My friend had this monitor as well, he used it with late 2013 Mac pro via 2 thunderbolt 2 ports. As I remember macOS had some problems outputting sound to its internal speakers and some others issues which were however solved by apple as time passed

The speakers in my UP2715K sound absolutely terrible - tinny and no bass at all. I wonder if they're faulty (I got the monitor second-hand). Anyway, I use external speakers.

 

[Falhófnir]

The funny thing is that when widescreen 16:10 computer monitors were appearing in the consumer market (around 2001...2003 IIRC), people were complaining about the lack of vertical space compared to good ol' 4:3. Now, we're complaining about 16:9 and are happy with 15:10 or 16:10 - but e.g. the MateView in 4:3 would be a whopping 3840×2880.


The speakers in my UP2715K sound absolutely terrible - tinny and no bass at all. I wonder if they're faulty (I got the monitor second-hand). Anyway, I use external speakers.

I think for anything 20" or less certainly 16:10 is the limit for productivity (obviously 16:9 is pretty good if it's just a glorified TV!) luckily Apple's MacBooks never got stuck with the horrible 1366x768 15.6" displays which became the defacto standard on Windows laptops for ages. Apparently part of that was because the panel is smaller (cheaper) but the .2" larger diagonal makes it sound bigger It's something to have a 15" laptop with less vertical resolution than a 1440x900 13" MacBook Air! I guess with the iMacs they were just about large/ high resolution enough to get away with 16:9, particularly the 27".

 

[Amethyst1]

I guess with the iMacs they were just about large/ high resolution enough to get away with 16:9, particularly the 27".

The 21.5“ iMac‘s 1080p panel was a joke in terms of real estate, the 27“ was a viable alternative to the 30“ ACD with just 10% less vertical estate but a significantly smaller footprint.

 

[Falhófnir]

The 21.5“ iMac‘s 1080p panel was a joke in terms of real estate, the 27“ was a viable alternative to the 30“ ACD with just 10% less vertical estate but a significantly smaller footprint.

Wow it was only 1080p? Guess I was confused by the retina 4K which defaults to 2048x1152 (@2x retina).

 

[Amethyst1]

Wow it was only 1080p?

Yep. While that was an upgrade over the 20" 1680×1050 panel (which was TN to make matters even worse), it also replaced the 24" 1920×1200 model.

 

[collin_]

The pixel density is a little too low for my taste but otherwise this is pretty compelling.

 

[Amethyst1]

I think for anything 20" or less certainly 16:10 is the limit for productivity

Useless fun fact: The earliest widescreen desktop monitors (the 1998 SGI 1600SW and the 1999/2000 Apple Cinema Display) were 25:16 (1600×1024) which is slightly taller than 16:10.

 

[tornado99]

Does anyone have any comment on how the size of the Mateview feels? Do you need to turn your head a lot while using it?

I've never really got on well with 16:9 27 inch monitors as I like to sit fairly close to the screen (about 50-60cm), and I find I need to turn my head to look at one side or the other. I find 24 inch the sweet spot (and even 25 inch is a little large). The Mateview is 59cm wide, the same as a 27", and 7cm wider than a 24".

 

[Amethyst1]

Does anyone have any comment on how the size of the Mateview feels?

Just taller than the 27“ 16:9 monitor sitting next to it. Still fine but I wouldn’t want it to be any larger.

 

[nlited]

As I switched to MateView from a 16:9 4K 32" monitor, I'd definitely buy MateView 32" if it was available with at least the same PPI of 163. 28,2" is big enough though, so I actually have no complaints

 

[MrGunny94]

I'm getting mine tomorrow and putting it next to the 21:9 3440x1440 100hz Acer Predator X34!... I'll send some pics after. For now I can only use my M1 hooked to one monitor until my 14" arrives next week lol.

 

[MrGunny94]

Today I received an email from Huawei support concerning MateView's HDR issue on macOS. They say that they are aware of the problem and that it is caused by some compatibility problems between MateView and macOS but they are already working on a solution in future firmware updates. That's good news

Any update on this?

 

[nlited]

Any update on this?

Unfortunately no =( Couple of days ago the monitor received some firmware update, but it didn't effect the hdr

until my 14" arrives next week lol

Pls check what hidpi scaling options are available with Mateview when you'll get that new shiny 14" MBP!
I wonder if the new MBPs are finally capable of doing scaling wider than 3008 pixels

 

[Amethyst1]

I wonder if the new MBPs are finally capable of doing scaling wider than 3008 pixels

My thoughts exactly

 

[MrGunny94]

Unfortunately no =( Couple of days ago the monitor received some firmware update, but it didn't effect the hdr


Pls check what hidpi scaling options are available with Mateview when you'll get that new shiny 14" MBP!
I wonder if the new MBPs are finally capable of doing scaling wider than 3008 pixels

Yeah that's something I'm worried about, for now I'll test it out with my M1 but I'm planning to leave it turned off until next week since I got a 3440x1440 34" ultrawide right next to where I'm putting the Mateview.

 

[nlited]

Some info on internal screen scaling options of the new MBPs
True retina scaling by default + maintaining enough screen estate thanks to increased native resolution!

 

[Amethyst1]

Some info on internal screen scaling options of the new MBPs
True retina scaling by default + maintaining enough screen estate thanks to increased native resolution!

And finally a higher ppi to boot. Not quite the 338 ppi you can get in the Dell XPS 13 though

 

[tornado99]

The new MBP ratio is quite strange, it's slightly above 16:10, but still quite far from 3:2.

 

[Amethyst1]

The new MBP ratio is quite strange, it's slightly above 16:10, but still quite far from 3:2.

It's 16:10 with an additional 74 pixels in height to compensate for the inclusion of The Notch so that you don't lose precious vertical screen estate. This is what I call thinking things through

 

[tornado99]

Makes sense. I do find some of the new reviews a bit too enthusiastic. It's essentially 16:10 plus a couple? of lines extra text that you can fit on the screen. It's hardly going to give you a different experience in terms of workspace.