Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iMac Pro Refresh rate on the iMac Pro?

S

sevenall

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 21, 2010
10
5
With all of the GPU power...it's hard to be believe that you can't drive the screen higher than 60hz?! One of the things holding me back from purchasing iMac models is that crummy refresh rate.

Apple has made the move to 120hz on the latest iPad Pro...why not bring this to their desktops?
 
sevenall said:
With all of the GPU power...it's hard to be believe that you can't drive the screen higher than 60hz?! One of the things holding me back from purchasing iMac models is that crummy refresh rate.

Apple has made the move to 120hz on the latest iPad Pro...why not bring this to their desktops?
Click to expand...
That would make the starting price $5999. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pertusis1 and h9826790
I am just going to comment anyway, first thing first, Apple does not make their screens. There is not a 5k 120hz monitor in existence. In fact apple is now the only people even doing anything 5k as both Dell and HP have both discontinued their 5k monitors.

Even in 4k monitors anything over 60hz is very small pickings, they are generally gaming monitors and there is a very small amount of them to choose from.

Generally the really really really high HZ monitors are 1080p or 1440p. Also it took them ages to even get high res, high hz monitors in IPS they used to be TN.

The ipad pro's Pro Motion thing that it uses for 120hz is new and just obviously not available in full size computer screens at this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: salt5.13, OddyOh and colodane
If Apple is actually using the LG 5K panel inside their 5K iMac, 120Hz is not possible at this moment.

The response time of the LG 5K panel is 12ms (14ms GTG). For 120Hz, the response time cannot be larger than 8ms (without any other latency).
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Dawes and Samuelsan2001
William Payne said:
Before I comment I want to ask, why do you want 120hz?
Click to expand...

The real question is why wouldn't you? ;)

I use two monitors; one is 144Hz 1ms for gaming and I actually really like it for daily use even.

When I go back to the other (27" 1440p IPS 60Hz 8ms) it feels noticeably slower, at least until I get used to it again.

(I often only use one at a time if I'm just doing casual stuff or gaming)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shivetya
Altis said:
The real question is why wouldn't you? ;)

I use two monitors; one is 144Hz 1ms for gaming and I actually really like it for daily use even.

When I go back to the other (27" 1440p IPS 60Hz 8ms) it feels noticeably slower, at least until I get used to it again.

(I often only use one at a time if I'm just doing casual stuff or gaming)
Click to expand...

Gaming is a use case where it is justified, but that is something I do not do so that is why I asked.
 
Altis said:
The real question is why wouldn't you? ;)

I use two monitors; one is 144Hz 1ms for gaming and I actually really like it for daily use even.

When I go back to the other (27" 1440p IPS 60Hz 8ms) it feels noticeably slower, at least until I get used to it again.

(I often only use one at a time if I'm just doing casual stuff or gaming)
Click to expand...

I am also using a 144Hz 1ms monitor (daily normal usage). TBH, if I switch it back to 60Hz (on the same monitor), all I can tell is the mouse cursor not that smooth, but I can't see any other noticeable difference.
 
William Payne said:
Before I comment I want to ask, why do you want 120hz?
Click to expand...

For me, it's about avoiding headaches. I always need to have my monitors at 75hz or above. I don't have issues with laptops (have a Macbook Pro & a Macbook Air). My desktop computers have been Windows machines with 1080p monitors refreshing at 120hz (which avoids all headaches).

I've purchased two iMacs and had to return both because of the splitting headaches that occurred (along with motion sickness type nausea).

Does anyone know whether you can connect a 2017 Macbook Pro (15 inch) to an external monitor and drive 120hz (or above) and what cables/connectors that would require??
 
sevenall said:
For me, it's about avoiding headaches. I always need to have my monitors at 75hz or above. I don't have issues with laptops (have a Macbook Pro & a Macbook Air). My desktop computers have been Windows machines with 1080p monitors refreshing at 120hz (which avoids all headaches).

I've purchased two iMacs and had to return both because of the splitting headaches that occurred (along with motion sickness type nausea).

Does anyone know whether you can connect a 2017 Macbook Pro (15 inch) to an external monitor and drive 120hz (or above) and what cables/connectors that would require??
Click to expand...

Have you been to an eye doctor? unless you have always had 120hz monitors your entire life I wonder if you either have a problem or if you had this before 120hz monitors became a thing?

I do however wonder if you have a physical problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Dawes and h9826790
William Payne said:
Have you been to an eye doctor? unless you have always had 120hz monitors your entire life I wonder if you either have a problem or if you had this before 120hz monitors became a thing?

I do however wonder if you have a physical problem.
Click to expand...

I've always had a high sensitivity to refresh rates. Going back to the old style CRT's I always needed a monitor and drivers that could refresh at least to 75hz. You'd be surprised at how many people are sensitive to this.
 
CRT monitors have a different approach to 'refresh' the screen and from my experience with them (so many years ago I don't remember well) these monitors require a much higher refresh rate than LCD monitors. I used to fiddle around with screen resolution and refresh rates on them and 75Hz seems to be minimal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: filmak
Alright, so I looked into this myself a while ago, and frankly the issue with going over 60 Hz is that the graphics cards simply can't push that many pixels that fast. Doubling from 60 Hz to 120 Hz doubles the pressure on the GPU, which is already intense at 5k. With thermal issues / power draw in consideration, the technology just isn't there for anything past 3440x1440 @ 120Hz. Even then, you're looking at a 1,200$ monitor to get there that is limited to a particular flavor for GPU (FreeSync for AMD, G-Sync for NVIDIA). Since Apple uses their own flavor of vertical-sync in their GPUs for their screens, it is unlikely that Apple will push past 60 Hz in their monitors, as opposed to increasing resolution to 8k or beyond while maintaining 60Hz refresh rate.

As a biological note, the refresh rate of 60Hz is much more noticeable in younger people than it is in older people. This has to do with how the human eye changes over time. Most of the tech guys in my family can attest to being satisfied by lower refresh rates as they got older, but early on we prefer 75 Hz or higher even on LCD panels. Being on the younger side myself (mid 20s), I can visibly see the difference between 60 and 75 Hz. Anything lower than 60 Hz does give me a headache as well, so I can relate to the OP's problem. (This is after having worn glasses most of my life).
 
SecuritySteve said:
Alright, so I looked into this myself a while ago, and frankly the issue with going over 60 Hz is that the graphics cards simply can't push that many pixels that fast. Doubling from 60 Hz to 120 Hz doubles the pressure on the GPU, which is already intense at 5k. With thermal issues / power draw in consideration, the technology just isn't there for anything past 3440x1440 @ 120Hz. Even then, you're looking at a 1,200$ monitor to get there that is limited to a particular flavor for GPU (FreeSync for AMD, G-Sync for NVIDIA). Since Apple uses their own flavor of vertical-sync in their GPUs for their screens, it is unlikely that Apple will push past 60 Hz in their monitors, as opposed to increasing resolution to 8k or beyond while maintaining 60Hz refresh rate.

As a biological note, the refresh rate of 60Hz is much more noticeable in younger people than it is in older people. This has to do with how the human eye changes over time. Most of the tech guys in my family can attest to being satisfied by lower refresh rates as they got older, but early on we prefer 75 Hz or higher even on LCD panels. Being on the younger side myself (mid 20s), I can visibly see the difference between 60 and 75 Hz. Anything lower than 60 Hz does give me a headache as well, so I can relate to the OP's problem. (This is after having worn glasses most of my life).
Click to expand...

G-Sync or FreeSync is some extra functions on top of the traditional V sync. MacOS has no problem to use V sync on these monitors. I am using a 144Hz FreeSync monitor right now. MacOS of course cannot utilise FreeSync, I am using a 1080Ti anyway, but there is no issue at all, never see any tearing in MacOS or Windows, the normal V sync still working.

IMO, it’s just Apple’s strategy to push higher resolution rather than higher FPS. Because most of the public can easily tell the difference in resolution, it makes their Mac easier to look better. In other word, easier to sell.

And if older people are not that sensitive to high FPS. Then the iMac Pro sure has no need to push higher refresh rate. I don’t think any company will make a $5000 computer and the target group is the students.
 
h9826790 said:
G-Sync or FreeSync is some extra functions on top of the traditional V sync. MacOS has no problem to use V sync on these monitors. I am using a 144Hz FreeSync monitor right now. MacOS of course cannot utilise FreeSync, I am using a 1080Ti anyway, but there is no issue at all, never see any tearing in MacOS or Windows, the normal V sync still working.

IMO, it’s just Apple’s strategy to push higher resolution rather than higher FPS. Because most of the public can easily tell the difference in resolution, it makes their Mac easier to look better. In other word, easier to sell.

And if older people are not that sensitive to high FPS. Then the iMac Pro sure has no need to push higher refresh rate. I don’t think any company will make a $5000 computer and the target group is the students.
Click to expand...
Well I (again in my mid 20s) purchased a nearly maxed out iMac Pro for myself, not all young people are students. Some of us are newly-minted pros. ;)
 
SecuritySteve said:
Well I (again in my mid 20s) purchased a nearly maxed out iMac Pro for myself, not all young people are students. Some of us are newly-minted pros. ;)
Click to expand...

I won't doubt that you can earn a lot of money and buy a maxed out iMac Pro. I also earned >10k per month when I was mid 20, and get my 1st million at around 30. I know that's nothing special, not a huge amount of money, but sure enough to buy a Mac. However, what I doubt is if mid 20 belongs to the iMac Pro's target group. If Apple are not aiming the young people, then why push the refresh rate that more favour for young people.

The norm is mid 30 usually have more money to spend, and more willing to spend on tech stuff. If I were Apple, of course I wish everyone like you, young, rich, willing to spend, and love Apple. However, obviously our world isn't like that.
 
h9826790 said:
I won't doubt that you can earn a lot of money and buy a maxed out iMac Pro. I also earned >10k per month when I was mid 20, and get my 1st million at around 30. I know that's nothing special, not a huge amount of money, but sure enough to buy a Mac. However, what I doubt is if mid 20 belongs to the iMac Pro's target group. If Apple are not aiming the young people, then why push the refresh rate that more favour for young people.

The norm is mid 30 usually have more money to spend, and more willing to spend on tech stuff. If I were Apple, of course I wish everyone like you, young, rich, willing to spend, and love Apple. However, obviously our world isn't like that.
Click to expand...
I see your point, but it would be nice to see Apple at least bump up to 70 Hz and tout it as 'buttery smooth' or some other marketing gesture. I guess this is why a modular mac pro would be useful in this situation, since we could pick a monitor more to our tastes and preferences (glossy vs matte, high refresh vs high resolution, etc.). However that's getting a bit off topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790
sevenall said:
For me, it's about avoiding headaches. I always need to have my monitors at 75hz or above. I don't have issues with laptops (have a Macbook Pro & a Macbook Air). My desktop computers have been Windows machines with 1080p monitors refreshing at 120hz (which avoids all headaches).
Click to expand...

I suspect that your problem has nothing to do with refresh rate - unlike CRTs, TFT LCDs just don't flicker in time with the refresh rate (try setting the refresh to 30Hz - still no flicker on static images).

Rather, the likely cause is some TFT displays' use of Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) to control the brightness (i.e. they dim the backlight by turning it on and off very rapidly, and adjusting the on:eek:ff ratio). That does cause flicker - especially as you dim the display. "Flicker free" displays use other methods of dimming or use PWM with a very high frequency base - odds are your 120Hz refresh displays, being upmarket, are flicker-free, but PWM and refresh rate are quite separate issues.

I can't find a straight answer on whether the 5k iMac display is technically flicker-free - I haven't noticed any flicker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbosse, filmak and h9826790
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back