I appreciate the comparison, and it is certainly useful alongside the narrow focus of PCMag's, but it warrants a reminder that the monitor on the right is SEVEN TIMES THE PRICE of the monitor on the left. Surely there are cases when a Mercedes, rather than a Ferrari, will suffice?
Apple themselves compared the XDR to these 35-40K displays when they announced it. Because of this, comparisons between the XDR and these super-expensive displays is warranted.
Hence beginning my comment with "I appreciate the comparison, and it is certainly useful"... Or did you miss that part?
Curious. What point are you making? It's like you've cut and pasted a wiki on display tech and I can't figure out why. As many articles as MR has had on OLED, Micro-, and Mini-LED, we're all pretty familiar with the terminology and the underlying tech. But thanks I guess.
Apple classifies the Pro Display XDR as an IPS LCD.
You think that's bad? I want a Lamborghini...$200kI want one with stand and Nano tech but damn...$7k
It is funny though it took me a moment to spot the issue, despite the highlight, as I do not even think of it as an acronym any more. Nice catch.In Adobe RGB color gamut testing, relevant for content creation tasks, the Pro Display XDR had what PCMag says is an "excellent" result of 96.7 percent coverage. Comparatively, the Pro Display XDR beat out the Acer Predator X35, the ASUS Rog Strix XG438Q, the Dell U3219Q 4K, and the Razer Raptor 27, which are other displays PCMag has tested, but that's not a surprising result as these comparison displays are more affordable gaming-focused monitors.
I know its a good deal for what it offers. I just wished we had a 5K display/stand/nano at $3k max.
“The rest of us” these days are using iPads by a pretty wide margin. Not only are they not tied down to a desk where the display sits, they also aren’t pining for a cheaper version of the thing they don’t want.
This makes no sense because what apple is comparing it to this level of monitors. Although they cost less than those, they are not as even good for the ones on its same price. It's kind of the same league as the ones costing half US$ 3.5k, but with some gimmicky features, like very high sustained peaks and high resolution. So for mastering and color correction on SDR 2K it's simply NO, buy a cheaper one. If one needs to grade for HDR, buy a way more expensive one.
Something that John Siracusa pointed out in talking about his Pro XDR (on Accidental Tech Podcast) was that in the crazily expensive reference monitors (like the $50k ones), they'll have an additional LCD layer between the backlight array and the "color" LCD, that's entirely in charge of just letting light from the LED backlights through or not, so you can compartmentalize the light from the hundreds of "locally dimmable" LED backlights down into substantially smaller areas. The images you show suggest something like that at work.
They do make (really great) displays "for the rest of us", they're just inconveniently (depending on your needs) attached to all-in-one computers, and called iMacs. Yeah, I'm not particularly thrilled with the situation either.
Full-array local dimming is actually pretty common these days in TVs ... the upper half (or thereabouts) of LED-backlit LCD TVs. Basically a cheaper alternative to OLED. It's my understanding that some of the much more expensive reference monitors use FALD with an additional LCD layer between the backlight LEDs and the normal color LCD layer, used as a mask to give much finer, more precise control of the backlight, so if, say, you have a few stars displayed, they can let the backlight through only where those stars are, rather than for the entire backlight square (1/576th of the screen).
I wonder if part of the problem is that the other companies involved weren't interested in loaning $30k+ monitors to PC Mag just to get compared against an Apple monitor. It's not exactly the kind of thing you happen to have around the office.
