New Apple Studio Display and Studio Display XDR Don't Work With Intel Macs

[Phaseangle]

And they are different depending on the country you are in.

 

[thecombatwombat]

I suspect they work but just not at full refresh rate and maybe without driving the camera at the same time.

It's no different than how all the previous models actually work just fine with PCs, but Apple never says so.

They only list their computers, that can drive it at full specs. Nothing new there.

Wasn't the original XDR the same? Several thunderbolt macs that weren't support it, could actually run it at a lower resolution, they just weren't listed. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

 

[JohnC1959]

I suspect they work but just not at full refresh rate and maybe without driving the camera at the same time.

It's no different than how all the previous models actually work just fine with PCs, but Apple never says so.

They only list their computers, that can drive it at full specs. Nothing new there.

Wasn't the original XDR the same? Several thunderbolt macs that weren't support it, could actually run it at a lower resolution, they just weren't listed. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

That would be reasonable. If true, then Apple and/or Macrumors should clarify that important point.

 

[chazwatson]

Just looked at the new studio display and it, according the Apple specs in the box section, does not even come with a power cord but operates on 115 vac. Not sure how that works over the Thunderbolt 5 cable.

I guess I just assume that is another mistake by Cook's Apple.

How do you not see the giant black cord coming out of the monitor?

And that jump straight to "another mistake by Cook's Apple"… the irony.

 

[TwoPlus]

It's just a display. Why does it care what CPU the host computer is using? Why is it more complicated than it needs to be do its job as a display?

Maybe a Thunderbolt limitation? Do the old Intel MBPs have enough Thunderbolt bandwidth to drive the display at that resolution and refresh rate? Otherwise, yea, fully agree. Why would the monitor know or care what it’s hooked up to?

 

[HeroOfTime32]

I've always wanted to be able to use an Apple display for both a (1) Mac mini, and a (2) Windows PC...with some kind of setup to be able to 'switch inputs' as-needed. For those who are more tech-savvy than me...will this monitor's inputs, etc. allow something like that? Basically... I finally want to have a gaming PC, and seeing that this is 120Hz, I wanted to know if that kind of thing would be possible.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

I've always wanted to be able to use an Apple display for both a (1) Mac mini, and a (2) Windows PC...with some kind of setup to be able to 'switch inputs' as-needed. For those who are more tech-savvy than me...will this monitor's inputs, etc. allow something like that? Basically... I finally want to have a gaming PC, and seeing that this is 120Hz, I wanted to know if that kind of thing would be possible.

Nope, you would need to a buy a thunderbolt KVM, and they run >$200.

You can always unplug it from one, and plug it into the other, as well..

 

[losthismarbles]

It's just a display. Why does it care what CPU the host computer is using?

If it's been answered already you may ignore this, otherwise:

Because it has a huuuuge real estate; running that thing at max res and its peak 120Hz too (which means running it there even while "gaming" with God knows what settings the user has chosen)?

Requires the relevant GPU horsepower.
Which older models lack; or, when it comes to newer (still not recent though) models, may have, under certain scenarios, but not everywhere, not realistically, so i) how can we advertise 120 for "everyone" and ii) why look bad when we get the inevitable flood of "complaints" about it being "laggy" or "sluggish"?

That's why. Honestly.. basic stuff really. Resolution + usage scenarios -> the GPU required.

 

[JohnC1959]

If it's been answered already you may ignore this, otherwise:

Because it has a huuuuge real estate; running that thing at its peak 120Hz too (which means running it there even while "gaming" with God knows what settings the user has chosen)?

Requires the relevant GPU horsepower.
Which older models lack; or, when it comes to newer (still not recent though) models, may have, under certain scenarios, but not everywhere, not realistically, so i) how can we advertise 120 for "everyone" and ii) why look bad when we get a flood of "complaints" about it being "laggy" or "sluggish"?

That's why. Honestly.. basic stuff really.

Though for other, non-Apple, displays one might run their newer powerful computer at full display specs then occasionally run some other older computer at lower refresh and resolution. People often have just the one monitor on a desk but occasionally use some other computer (Windows) or maybe a gaming console.

 

[lazyrighteye]

Of course, I don't know which “powerhouse” that is.

But I can tell you that companies think economically. While end customers buy something mostly on an emotional basis and are happy to be influenced by advertising or chase the dopamine kick of “the new,” an economically run company does not waste money on a new or more powerful product whose added value cannot be quantified.

Take Apple, for example: the company sells the Mac Pro but doesn't even use it itself. This is because the device has no added value over a Mac Studio but costs considerably more.

In TV shows and movies, it may seem as if companies always use the latest technology. That's because it's advertising.
But in reality, devices are used until a new purchase is justified. Justified mathematically, not justified by a “feeling that everything is faster”.
Maybe after a year, maybe only after 20 years.

Fully agree.

I've made a living working behind a Mac as a creative professional, in several creative studios of various sizes and capacities, for approaching three decades now (holy dang!). And I can attest; from a performance perspective, once I have a dependable rig configured, I'm not touching (as far as upgrades are concerned). And from a business angle, there is virtually zero incentive have the latest greatest. A dependable Macs pays the mortgage. A new Macs is fun.

There was a time when I was doing a lot of live ProTools multitrack sessions on a G4 running OS X (aqua). That G4, to this day, remains THE most bulletproof Mac I've ever used. The studio was configured so that a band could show up, sit down and get to creating. That G4 was armed and ready. All I had to do was hit the Spacebar and - BOOM - 32 tracks of pristine, uninterrupted audio was written to a firewire external (ha). And 8-hour sessions were not uncommon. Again, bulletproof. I still have that rig, tho not actively in the mix.

Back then, that G4 was both my money-maker and my personal Mac - so there was no tinkering. Which, as a long time Apple tinkerer, it was hard for me to resist upgrade cycles. Case in point: the transition from OS 9 to X. For Mac-based ProTools users, it was bruuuuutal. At the time, Avid were THE WORST when it came to keeping their tools up-to-date with Apple's OS update cycle (partly why I think they eventually moved to a Windows-first operation). While I definitely lost time/money during that transition, I was able to get that OS X G4 config humming.

Anyway, I was eventually able to acquire a white iBook for personal use. I keep that thing as up-to-date as was possible. had no idea I was headed own memory lane. 🤪

 

[B4U]

"While Intel Macs will not be updated past macOS Tahoe, Apple plans to provide security updates for three additional years."
Well, while that may be the case for the SW side. My 2019 iMac is considered "vintage" now. And the Genius bar was not able to fix it as some of the parts are no longer available.

 

[losthismarbles]

occasionally run .. at lower refresh and resolution

1) No offense to the average Apple user, but.. Have you grasped the average Apple user? 🙂
They pay and pay and pay more, and then they whine because they still want more, just not good enough. And you want them to pay top-tier, flagship money, only to run it subpar? 🙂

2) Major asterisks in the sale of a product entail a number of issues, including the logistical kind, which can be a hog at best; at best.
Apple doesn't need the headache. You have that kind of money, i'm betting you have -or soon shall- the relevant mac to go with it as well. Or Apple bets that anyway.
I figure it a safe bet personally. Not for me and that's fine.

 

[JohnC1959]

1) No offense to the average Apple user, but.. Have you grasped the average Apple user? 🙂
They pay and pay and pay more, and then they whine because they still want more, just not good enough. And you want them to pay top-tier, flagship money, only to run it subpar? 🙂

2) Major asterisks in the sale of a product entail a number of issues, including the logistical kind, which can be a hog at best; at best.
Apple doesn't need the headache. You have that kind of money, i'm betting you have -or soon shall- the relevant mac to go with it as well. Or Apple bets that anyway.
I figure it a safe bet personally. Not for me and that's fine.

I get that. But still even such a user may have a Windows box in the corner they need to use now and then (grumbling all the way). So my point is more why CAN'T they (even if most won't)?

 

[minik]

About time and that's the way it is, Apple already made a stand loud and clear during WWDC from last year.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

I get that. But still even such a user may have a Windows box in the corner they need to use now and then (grumbling all the way). So my point is more why CAN'T they (even if most won't)?

I work from home so any external monitor I use needs to work with Mac and windows. Currently am using a 32” 4K LG monitor I snagged for $250 from Costco. Doesn’t have all the bells and whistles of the Studio Display but suits my purposes.

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

Those monitors won't work with Intel Macs, and won't work for anyone with an ounce of good sense. In 2026, $1600 for some 12-year old 60Hz technology, and $3300 for a 27" 120Hz Mini-LED… good luck selling those, Tim. It's an insult to Apple fans who have patiently waited for great new monitors, resisting competitors' worthwhile alternatives. And it's an insult to any customer's intelligence, really.

 

[MisterAndrew]

If you're remotely in the market for an overpriced $3000 panel, you've had an Apple silicon Mac for many years by now.

Not if you’re still using your Intel Mac Pro that cost up to $50,000.

 

[MisterAndrew]

I feel bad for anyone who purchased an Intel Mac Pro in 2023. I understand the necessity of planned obsolescence in this instance, but it underscores what a bad-faith proposition the Mac Pro has become for Apple in general. They’re charging top dollar for a chronically outdated piece of hardware. Even the current Mac Pro is an absolute joke.

I got one just before it was discontinued because I expected the Apple Silicon version to be inferior. I was correct.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

I thought that Thunderbolt was a backwards compatible standard. I am not impacted by this, but still.

 

[FrietVanPiet]

So Apple never really prioritizes backwards compatibility. Nothing new here. I’m OK with it, since I think it does prioritize quality over price effectively.

 

[Agent007]

No worries, my Intel Mac is an iMac and already has the same screen.

Talk about a screen BURN. Salute to the curnal!

 

[mentaluproar]

My thought exactly. Also why does Apple care if they sell it to someone using an Intel Mac. A sale is a sale.

Because they would have to support the product in that use case, so making it intentionally incompatible with legacy hardware reduces the maintenance burden for Apple. While that could make sense for some devices, it does not make sense here. its a display. It shows images already rendered by the computer its plugged into. What's so different here?

 

[Agent007]

So Apple never really prioritizes backwards compatibility. Nothing new here. I’m OK with it, since I think it does prioritize quality over price effectively.

"I'm OK with it." Oh man. Pour out some cold tea for the Apple Stans.

 

[Corefile]

Does this monitor support VGA?

 

[citysnaps]

I wouldn’t worry, nobody with Apple Silicon’s gonna buy them either!

Except for people who are fussy about color, such as photographers, who process their files without having to futz around with a calibration puck all the time.

I've had my Apple Studio display for around three years. I set it up once after purchase with one of the Studio Display profiles and haven't messed with it since over the last three years. Prints I make after processing in Lightroom are always dead on. First time, every time. The display doesn't drift at all.

I previously used a large LG display and constantly had to recalibrate using a puck calibrator after making prints that weren't accurate due to display drift. And wasted a lot of expensive ink and paper.