4K panels are much cheaper, especially since Samsung makes them themselves.
5K panels are much rarer. You can check LG's ultrafine 5K price. Definitely not $700. Apple is not the only one charging a lot of money for 5K.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung's iMac-Style 'Smart Monitor M8' With AirPlay Now Available to Pre-Order
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
5K panels are much rarer. You can check LG's ultrafine 5K price. Definitely not $700. Apple is not the only one charging a lot of money for 5K.
A few things people seem to forget. Most people I see with a 5k display is running it in scaled mode for 2560x1440. Sure, pictures and text are sharper. This 4k natively on a 32” display has a native ppi of 137 compared to 109 on a scaled 5k display. I know there are other factors, but running native at this size of a screen actually provides a pretty good resolution to use. Price seems pretty good as well. I have the studio display on order but this seems like a viable option for most people.
32" at 4K is still perfectly fine, I've been looking at monitors at this size and resolution for a while.
So now everyone who was unsatisfied with the Studio Display can just get this and be satisfied and stop complaining?
Because:
1. Windows doesn't benefit from anything higher than 4K. It has awful display scaling and it is going to look awful no matter what you do. You can get away with these large, low PPI displays on Windows because it really doesn't matter.
2. Only Apple/macOS has this desperate need for higher and higher native resolution displays, because it is the only way to achieve more real estate with 2x display scaling.
It really, really is not. I'm not having this conversation.
Precisely. Unbelievable how so many people on this site actively want a monopoly ?
Does anyone actually want to look at a 1000 nits 32" display?
A display that starts at $1599 is not a consumer device, its pro-sumer at best.
Samsung has a lot of software quirks, but barring a few examples, their hardware has always been top-notch relative to the price range that the product in question is targeting.
Can you unplug the power cord without buying a special tool kit?
Last edited:
The Studio Display does this "HDR" too, but with 200 nits more brightness and 50% greater pixel density.
One more design copy.... shame.
The studio display should have been $999 or less. Especially given the Mac Studio price. It's pricey, but the lowest-end model is pretty affordable and powerful, and its a great choice for someone who may not be a top-tier user but still wants a decent machine at a decent price to do powerful video, photo and audio editing. An affordable display to go along with it would have been nice. There's no reason Apple can't sell two or three display devices at different price points, especially if they housed them all in a similar body with different features/quality.
Apple’s Studio Display Gen 2 announcement: “We believe that users have the right to decide the altitude of their monitors. So Apple has re-imagined height adjustment for their monitors. Introducing Apple Height!”
Would buy that from LG or Dell but not from this shi**y copycat company.
Everything is sharper. 217 ppi vs. 137 ppi is a huge deal. I have now used 5K iMac and MacBook Pros for years wich all have around 220 ppi. Last year my employer gave me a 27" 4K display and when I turned it on I was sure it was broken. After some fiddling around and talking to friends I found out that it is not broken but working perfectly fine and the bad resolution is completely normal.
I can't tell if you're kidding or just know nothing about Macs or displays. Your Mac will look decidedly worse on this display than your 2010 Cinema Display.
Someone at Apple was definitely high when they decided to upsell height adjustment as a $400 optional extra on a $1600 monitor.
What are you talking about?
5K 27" displays running in 2x scaled mode which is "looks like 2560x1440" is 218 ppi. Sufficiently high enough to be considered a Retina display.
4K 32" running in 1x native resolution is 137 ppi with ridiculously small..unusably small assets, and an awkward imbalance between sitting far enough away from such a large screen and sitting close enough to see the microscopic assets.
A total non-starter for a Mac user.
400 nits = Not really HDR.