Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No you don't.

Because a $1600 display's screen shouldn't be worse than the screen of the laptop I'm plugging into said display.

The reality is that while $1600 is already very expensive for a display, a mini-LED HDR display at 27 inches just isn't doable at that price range yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeatCrazy
Is it possible to do 5K over USB-C? Or does that require Thunderbolt 3 / HDMI 2.1?
My external monitor connected to this machine is 5120x2880. It is limited to 30Hz on HDMI (2.0) but works fine with a USB-C to DisplayPort cable. Hope that helps!

Note, M1 MacBook Pros don't seem to like DisplayPort, not sure if they work with the Pro / Max / Ultra.
 
4k is good up to about 32" sitting on a normal desk. At 32", some people may start to see individual pixels. The reason Apple needs higher PPI is their use of integer scaling. Nothing else. If Apple scaled macOS properly to 4k, there would be no need for 5k at anything under 32" monitor size.

So for those of us who wants do deal with reality and not how the world should supposed to be, 5K is better for macOS than 4K.

What you describe is exactly why some of us wants 5K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WP31
I see the discussion like this:
5K is better than 4K
32” is better than 27”

Both statements are right but I will take the 32” option any day of the week, period. And thats why i am out of the apple game, they won’t release an affordable 32” monitor because they have the XDR. After checking the Studio display in my local Apple Store, and realizing what an awful deal it is, i have decided to get a LG 42”c2 in black friday ?
 
5K is expensive because there isn't enough sales volume at that resolution to entice competition and, with no competition, there is no incentive to compete cost enough to reduce prices to an acceptable level. 5K is just not a significant enough improvement for existing consumer demand. Sure there are those that won't be able to live without 25% more pixels in height and width but it will remain a niche resolution at the current market price.

4K isn't perfect. It is good enough for the breadth of the monitor market. Personally, I'd be willing to pay for a monitor with Thunderbolt hub functionality and than more pixels or 600 nits or more. A gamer might also want to see double or more frame rate but pixels aren't much value there either.
The problem with this is that for macOS there is much bigger difference between 4K and 5K especially for text. macOS is bad at handling 4K in 27" size.

With Windows this isn't a problem.
 
I see the discussion like this:
5K is better than 4K
32” is better then 27”

Both statements are right but I will take the 32” option any day of the week, period. And thats why i am out of the apple game, they won’t release an affordable 32” monitor because they have the XDR. After checking the Studio display in my local Apple Store, and realizing what an awful deal it is, now i will get a lg 42”c2 in black friday ?

A lot of people doesn't know how bad macOS is at handling 4K.

5K is good for macOS
4K is awful for macOS (at least for text)
 
Is this a good quality display? I don't care about or understand the need for the smart TV features, I'm just looking for a good quality monitor for a Mac that also looks good. How does it compare to the Dell & LG 32" 4K monitors?
 
You would prefer 2560x1440p on a 27" Cinema Display over a scaled 2560x1440p on a 4K display?! Seriously? If so, that makes zero sense as the scaled off of a 4K is still going to look infinitely better than 2560x1440p@1x, especially with what Apple did to font smoothing in Mojave and later.

I would be sceptical to the 4K display being better for text.


4096 / 2560 = 1.6
2160 / 1440 = 1.5

3840 / 2560 = 1.5
2160 / 1440 = 1.5

macOS isn't great at handling 1.5 or 1.6 scaling compared to 1x or 2x scaling.
 
If you value a bigger screen over resolution, then sure -- it has a bigger screen. As to HDR, given the very large difference in brightness, I suspect the Apple Studio Display will come closer to presenting something that looks like HDR than this display will, but of course we'll see. And I doubt the build quality of this will come even close to Apple's.

Don't get me wrong -- this has its advantages, and the pricing is good. If the reviews are good, I may buy one myself. But your comparison doesn't mention several of things that the Studio Display does better, and those will matter to many people.
I agree with you. It does have its advantages but the price is where it is a mixed bag.

Just for fun I checked the Apple refurbished store last night and for a little over 1100 one can get the 24 inch iMac, with the keyboard and mouse, an actual computer at 4.5k resolution. One can add an iPad and still come out with a cheaper option that this Apple monitor. If you get lucky you can get a 12.9 iPad Pro on the refurbished store and you are at basically the same price as this Apple monitor. A full fledge computer and an iPad which is kinda crazy.
 
Is this a good quality display? I don't care about or understand the need for the smart TV features, I'm just looking for a good quality monitor for a Mac that also looks good. How does it compare to the Dell & LG 32" 4K monitors?

Frankly I'd get a Dell over this. The U3223QE is roughly $800 USD with a better IPS panel and a plethora of ports.
 
I kinda understand for TVs viewed from the couch, but not a desktop/laptop screen.
Unless there’s a sensible scaling number where things look still great but would have the equivalent real state content of the 32” XDR maybe?
I've looked. They don't. You either have to accept fuzzy pre-2012 assets, or buy a proper display designed for the Mac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amartinez1660
A 32" 4k display. AKA completely useless to a Mac user.

At this point I'm not sure who to blame. Apple for not providing any kind of display scaling other than 2x, or the display market for continuing to ignore the size of the Mac user base.
I don't get why you think 4K is useless to "a Mac user". It works quite well for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jochheim
I don't get why you think 4K is useless to "a Mac user". It works quite well for me.

As I type this, my MBP is connected to a lower end 4K LG monitor. Works fine. The scaling seems fine. Doesn't seem to look off.

Maybe this is one of those things where it's not easy to see, but once you do see it, you cannot unsee it.
 
So now everyone who was unsatisfied with the Studio Display can just get this and be satisfied and stop complaining?
No, I'm not going to buy it, I already have a decent 4K monitor that was even cheaper. (a little anyway) :)
 
As I type this, my MBP is connected to a lower end 4K LG monitor. Works fine. The scaling seems fine. Doesn't seem to look off.

Maybe this is one of those things where it's not easy to see, but once you do see it, you cannot unsee it.
I suspect the guy really has good eyesight, and a need to see it VERY clearly. But really, him saying it's not good for "a mac user" is just WAY overboard and very offensive. We all have different eyesight, and needs in a mac display. I'm extremely happy with my 4K display while using my Mac. (It's an LG, but not the 5K version)
 
I agree with you. It does have its advantages but the price is where it is a mixed bag.

Just for fun I checked the Apple refurbished store last night and for a little over 1100 one can get the 24 inch iMac, with the keyboard and mouse, an actual computer at 4.5k resolution. One can add an iPad and still come out with a cheaper option that this Apple monitor. If you get lucky you can get a 12.9 iPad Pro on the refurbished store and you are at basically the same price as this Apple monitor. A full fledge computer and an iPad which is kinda crazy.
I’m with you there. I think the Studio Display is overpriced, but qualify that by noting that it doesn’t have much competition in the 5k space. Lots of us need 27” or larger displays, so if you need that and also need “retina” resolution, the Studio Display starts to look pretty attractive.

That said, it’s outrageous that the height-adjustable stand wasn’t included. Had Apple done that and shipped it with a really good webcam, we’d probably be viewing it very differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tikatika
I suspect the guy really has good eyesight, and a need to see it VERY clearly. But really, him saying it's not good for "a mac user" is just WAY overboard and very offensive. We all have different eyesight, and needs in a mac display. I'm extremely happy with my 4K display while using my Mac. (It's an LG, but not the 5K version)
Is your 4K a 32” display?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.