I’m pretty sure it does, how else would the smart apps like Disney + and Netflix work, it has to have a Wi-Fi
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 New 32-Inch 'M8' Display vs. Apple's Studio Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow this is pretty nice! I've been wanting the Studio Display but holding back because 27" is too small for me and the camera really concerns my privacy because my workspace is in my bedroom. But now Samsung has offered a complete resolution for both issues.
I'm a Linux engineer so the real estate helps tremendously when writing scripts, managing multiple terminals, etc... I think this monitor is the awesome match for me. I'm going to miss my Dell U3415w, but it's time for good-byes after nearly 10 years. I'm gonna go to the Samsung website and tell 'em to take my money.
I'm a Linux engineer so the real estate helps tremendously when writing scripts, managing multiple terminals, etc... I think this monitor is the awesome match for me. I'm going to miss my Dell U3415w, but it's time for good-byes after nearly 10 years. I'm gonna go to the Samsung website and tell 'em to take my money.
I thought he gave pretty detailed pros/cons in the video.
The difference between 5k, 4k 2:1/1:1 and 4k scaled won't show up in a YouTube video.
Can't oblige with the M8, but I've got a "4k+" MateView and tried taking iPad photos comparing that with a 5k iMac screen - which should be generally applicable to other 4k screens (the difference with the MateView is you get the same physical width as a 27" plus 6cm of extra height).
Unfortunately, by the time you've persuaded the iPad to focus, tried to get a picture without horrible moire patterns, then downsampled the results to web-friendly size etc. it's hard to tell the actual differences from the artefacts.
So here's the Mateview in non-integer scaled "looks like 2560x1707" mode, which gives the same UI size as a 5k 27" and the same PPI as a 27" 4k.
...and here's an extreme close-up on the same scene (the stripe-y moire pattern is a camera artefact). It's on the verge of losing the tiny text - but look again at the photo above: that was really tiny text.
And here's the comparable shot in the 5k iMac taken from the same distance (again, the 'basket weave' pattern is a camera artefact made worse by shrinking the image for the web). Big surprise - 5k is better, the tiny text is better rendered, as are the fine lines in the grid.
Now with the MateView in "Looks like 1920x1280" 2:1 mode, with no non-integer scaling. It's lost a bit of screen estate, but the text is sharper:
...and now from the same ~10cm distance as before - you can see everything is a little bit larger but also a lot sharper. I've actually tried 'zooming out' to get the text back to the original size and it's still better.
In the case of the MateView I find the extra vertical space makes 2:1 with the bigger UI mode quite reasonable. It gets a bit large on a 16:9 screen at 28" (but you can still zoom out the content).
Complete nonsense.
Yes, MacOS works best with 220ppi. The price for best is $1600 for a SD or $6000 for a Pro XDR. If you can justify paying that much for a display (quite possible if you use it to make a living) go for it.
However, MacOS also works quite well with 4k displays, and offers a choice of scaling options. Worst case, you run your 4k display in 2:1 mode and have to cope with UI elements that are a bit on the large side - but not "unusable" by any rational meaning of the word. At 1/3 to 1/2 of the price a 220ppi display, that's a perfectly reasonable compromise.
My Mac mini has no scaling option altogether. There's the confusing "resolution: default for display vs scaled" option, but "scaled" actually changes the resolution, not the UI scaling. Haven't used my MBP with an external monitor in a while, but I thought the scaling option only applied to the internal screen.
What I see might not even be the intended behavior. There are big discussions on this like on SuperUser, where some people say "scaled" actually scales and others have my issue. I've used many different displays and never been able to scale, so I thought that's just how it is. Gonna give BetterDummy a shot; never seen that before.
Last edited:
I bought both and have them set up side by side right now.
Apple Studio Display is luxurious, looks awesome—metal and glass. Colors look great—as nice as your MacBook. The speakers are good enough to listen to music while working. Not amazing, but not regular crappy speakers. The webcam is currently terrible but we’re all optimistic a software update will fix it (and it better be soon…).
The Samsung M8 arrived two days ago and is…larger. Design is tasteful, but it looks and feels plasticky. Speakers are regular crappy speakers—fine for meetings but I wouldn’t use them for music. Colors are washed out in comparison. I’m sure it looks good compared to other regular monitors but next to the Studio Display it is not impressive. The webcam is decent: better than the one built in to my 2019 MacBook, but understandably not as good as my iPhone via the EpoCam app (hence the phone mount you see atop the Studio Display until they fix that atrocious webcam problem).
When you put your computer to sleep, the Studio Display turns right off like you’d expect. The M8 has this swirly icon that displays waiting for input or something until I get annoyed and turn it off with the remote. I’ve only had it set up for a day, though, so maybe there’s some configuration to do there.
Incidentally, when I rotated the Studio Display to fit them both on the desk, it was detected automatically and I didn’t have to go and click anything in System Preferences, which was cool.
If the webcam worked as well as it is supposed to, the Studio Display wins hands down for me. The M8 is nicer than most crappy office monitors but doesn’t wow me in any way. I also was surprised it didn’t have VESA mount holes on the back (…honestly I thought Apple was the only one that didn’t automatically have VESA options built in for any old monitor). If I keep it I’ll need to hunt for a workaround for that or use it…somewhere that isn’t my home office.
Apple Studio Display is luxurious, looks awesome—metal and glass. Colors look great—as nice as your MacBook. The speakers are good enough to listen to music while working. Not amazing, but not regular crappy speakers. The webcam is currently terrible but we’re all optimistic a software update will fix it (and it better be soon…).
The Samsung M8 arrived two days ago and is…larger. Design is tasteful, but it looks and feels plasticky. Speakers are regular crappy speakers—fine for meetings but I wouldn’t use them for music. Colors are washed out in comparison. I’m sure it looks good compared to other regular monitors but next to the Studio Display it is not impressive. The webcam is decent: better than the one built in to my 2019 MacBook, but understandably not as good as my iPhone via the EpoCam app (hence the phone mount you see atop the Studio Display until they fix that atrocious webcam problem).
When you put your computer to sleep, the Studio Display turns right off like you’d expect. The M8 has this swirly icon that displays waiting for input or something until I get annoyed and turn it off with the remote. I’ve only had it set up for a day, though, so maybe there’s some configuration to do there.
Incidentally, when I rotated the Studio Display to fit them both on the desk, it was detected automatically and I didn’t have to go and click anything in System Preferences, which was cool.
If the webcam worked as well as it is supposed to, the Studio Display wins hands down for me. The M8 is nicer than most crappy office monitors but doesn’t wow me in any way. I also was surprised it didn’t have VESA mount holes on the back (…honestly I thought Apple was the only one that didn’t automatically have VESA options built in for any old monitor). If I keep it I’ll need to hunt for a workaround for that or use it…somewhere that isn’t my home office.
Attachments
I don't think macOS works best at 220 ppi. Apple likely doesn't even believe that, since they make 254 ppi Macs. At 254 ppi, even scaled resolutions look amazing at relatively close seating distances. They looked pretty decent at 220 ppi as well, but it's possible to see some text quality degradation when seated somewhat close.
For exact 2X/4X resolutions I think macOS would work better at about 200 ppi... for my personal preferences... which is to sit at a distance greater than 20 inches. BTW 20 inches is often cited as a recommended minimum distance for a desktop. I personally prefer to sit at around 25 inches, and at that distance 220 ppi will often result in small default font sizes. 200 ppi at that distance is still "Retina" but the default font sizes are bigger.
For exact 2X/4X resolutions I think macOS would work better at about 200 ppi... for my personal preferences... which is to sit at a distance greater than 20 inches. BTW 20 inches is often cited as a recommended minimum distance for a desktop. I personally prefer to sit at around 25 inches, and at that distance 220 ppi will often result in small default font sizes. 200 ppi at that distance is still "Retina" but the default font sizes are bigger.
How are the viewing angles of the M8?
That is is just moronic. Hopefully this can be fixed through a software update. Other 3rd party monitors don't behave this way.
So far the Studio Display's camera implementation is a fail IMO. However, hopefully this is also something that can be fixed through a software update.
What exactly do you mean by "scaling option" and "resolution"? (Even if you get it, I think others here are still confused)
On Windows 10, (and some Linux distros) you can go into Display settings and literally choose a scale between 100% and 300% in 25% steps. In older versions you could directly set a custom PPI (ultimately the same thing). That's technically better than what MacOS does, but rather depends on all applications being properly written to call the OS to convert between internal coordinates and pixels.
MacOS doesn't have that - it has standard def (110ppi), "HiDPI/Retina" (220ppi) and a series of GPU-driven, non-integer scaled modes that work by rendering at high resolution to an internal buffer and then downsampling to the physical resolution of the display. Unfortunately, Mac OS uses a misleading "looks like xxxx * yyyy" do describe both of these and moshes them all together under the (as you say, misleading) heading of "scaled"
Unless it has changed since Mojave (and I think we'd have heard the screams) what you get on Mac when you choose "scaled" option for an external 4k is something like this:
Hover over those and you'll see a description of them
Far left is "looks like 1920x1080" - which is actually 3840x2160 but with the ppi set to 220. So UI elements get displayed twice the size (which is a bit on the large size for a 27" display), but it's still full 4k with no artefacts. Equivalent to "200%" on Windows.
Far right is "looks like 3840x2160" - which is again 3840x2160 but with the ppi set to 110. So you get tiny UI elements (half the size you'd get on a standard def display)
The three in the middle are the "non-integer scaled modes" - the second to the left ("Looks like 2560x1440") means "render everything at 5k - 5120x2880 - to an internal buffer as if it were 220ppi and then have the GPU downsample it to 4k". That's where the scaling artefacts and extra GPU load come from - although the result still contains a lot more detail than an actual 2560x1440 display would show - and I strongly disagree with the people talking about these 'scaled modes' as if they were hot garbage.
Point is the "Scaled" options are not all the same type of scaling - the clue is that (at least on Mojave) if you hover over any of the middle 3 options you get an extra message "Using a scaled resolution may affect performance". They all have the effect of "changing the UI size" but there's two different ways of achieving that.
As for resolution, the display is always receiving an image at native resolution, which you can check with the display's built-in OSD information menu. The Mac's "resolution" options just change how that is generated. If you actually want to change the resolution of the display - at least on Mojave - you need to option-click on "scaled", check "Show low resolution modes" and choose something like "2560x1440 (low resolution) from the resulting menu. You'll then get a 2560x1440 image (usually) rescaled to 4k using the display's own hardware - and one glance will tell you why you probably don't want to do that.
I think 220 ppi is just "shorthand" for whatever theoretical ppi value that MacOS uses to scale UI elements. I think "HiDPI" (don't blame me for the "D") and "low res" are more accurate (in MacSpeak) terms for 220ppi and 110ppi. A 5k iMac, by the way is 217.5 ppi according to this handy tool.
Slightly O/T - I've just noticed that Pages is actually aware of both PPI and screen size - so if I create an A4 page and set the Zoom to "actual size" on each of my different-sized-and-rezzed displays in turn, pages chooses a different % zoom so that it always comes out actually real life A4 size. Other non-Apple apps don't seem so clever... which kinda demonstrates why Apple have gone for their scaling techniques - which produces tolerable results for dumb software - vs. Windows' theoretically better system (it's had variable PPI and all the OS calls to transform internal units to physical units based on PPI since forever - but if programmers don't use them properly changing the PPI breaks software).
I love the person who voted Disagree on this. As if math (view the image, not my text) is open to opinion.
Have you ever tried to downscale 4K to 2560x1440? It doesn’t really downscale it per se as in not using additional pixels. It actually uses all 4K pixels. The real estate for screen elements (windows, fonts, icons, etc.) is the same with the 5K double-pixeled to 2560x1440 and with the 4K downscaled to 2560x1440. It’s the sharpness of the fonts what suffers with 4K vs 5K (both downscaled to 2560x1440). 4K displays downscaled to 2560x1440 are still significantly better than the native 2560x1440 displays at the same screen size.
I can’t stand 4K downscaled to 2560x1440, and that’s why I own two 5K monitors. However, most people find it totally fine and consider those paying an extra $1,000 for a 5K display compared to a 4K display crazy.
Last edited:
Does anyone know if Dell has anything similar to the Samsung in this article as in basically the same screen size and can double as a 4k tv as well? I know at one time Dell had some good monitors I have one but it’s a 1080p because of when it was bought and it has seen its better days. Probably gee I bought when I bought my first PowerMac G5 and that that was right before the intel transition so it has age on it and a little dark fingerprint of probably a 3 year old girl who always liked to push on the screen in the same spot. Lol I keep it around because of that little memory. I’m not tossing that because of that but desperately to an update.
Sorry didn’t mean to write a Tome.
Sorry didn’t mean to write a Tome.
I don't think Dell has a TV per se, but depending on what you mean by that, maybe you could get a 4K monitor from them, with an HDMI input, and then connect a puck. A Roku, an Apple TV, something like that.
I haven’t watched the video, I meant the article itself. The Verge for example make sure the articles are basically the video in text form which is good.
macOS works great with 4k displays, but only if they are around 22", which would mean getting close to 220 PPI. 4k on a 32" display doesn't work well with macOS's UI scaling, nor is it very sharp or anything even close to 'retina'.
I can vouch for this - my spouse has it for her M1 MBA "docking station"
She runs the Lenovo at perfect 2x for 1920x1080, which she actually loves at 27"
Works great for her and is a beautiful monitor with tremendous color coverage and features built in.
Unlike Apple monitors, it has got lots of I/O and mounting flexibility right out of the box
Folks need to stop insisting that only a certain physical size/resolution combo is "right"
Some people prefer things to be larger on screen, some smaller -- some insist on perfect 2x, some use scaled modes no matter what (see above about wanting things physically larger on screen for example), and they love it
There is no "right" answer on something like this.
Some people prefer things to be larger on screen, some smaller -- some insist on perfect 2x, some use scaled modes no matter what (see above about wanting things physically larger on screen for example), and they love it
There is no "right" answer on something like this.
It's not only that fonts are less sharp - that is obviously a given due to the lower PPI. The bigger problem is that the downscaling adds artefacts and shimmering, esp visible with thin lines, and also blurs the image due to the scaling. Additionally, running in a scaled mode also adds a bit of extra wasteful overhead to the system since it has to render a 5k image and scale it down to 4k 60 times a second.
Interestingly, 22" 4K 2160p works out to almost exactly 200 ppi (not 220 ppi) which perfectly suits my preferences in terms of pixel density for a desktop screen. This is effectively similar to the older non-pixel-doubled 21.5" iMacs which were 1080p at 102 ppi.
However, Apple changed the numbers when they implemented Retina. Instead of just pixel doubling/quadrupling the 21.5" iMac, they increased it even further. They went to 4K 2304p instead of 2160p, so instead of going to 102.5x2= 205 ppi, they went to 218 ppi instead, which was a disappointment to me.
Why did they do that? Probably because they wanted to keep things consistent, and presumably because the cost on the denser panels made sense. The 27" iMac was already 1440p 109 ppi, so when it went Retina it went to 2880p 218 ppl. They made the 21.5" the same 218 ppi.
P.S. Last year I bought a 23" Apple Cinema HD Display. It's 1920x1200 for a pixel density of 98 ppi, which is damn near perfect for font sizing in macOS IMO.
No offense, but this is incredibly subjective
As I type this I'm looking at a 4k/144hz/32" monitor on macOS and it's bloody gorgeous
There is no "shimmering", there are no "artifacts", things are not "blurry"
(and yes I've had a 5k iMac and seen the Studio Display and the XDR in person)
I just ordered an M8. I am a regular business user (Office, Email, PDF Editing etc) and a very occasional iMovie trimming to insert into Powerpoint. For all of these needs, M8 should work well.
Outside of the aesthetic there are a lot of unique features like a detachable camera with a magnetic cover.
The smart TV functionality means in theory you can AirPlay/Miracast to it. And some people may actually use it as a TV who knows.
The se
Samsung recently introduced the M8, a new 32-inch 4K display that's priced at $700, making it less than half as expensive as the Studio Display from Apple. We picked up one of the displays and thought we'd compare it to the Studio Display in our latest YouTube video to see how it performs and whether you can save some money by going with a cheaper option.
In addition to serving as a display, the M8 also doubles as a 4K TV, featuring Tizen OS, built-in apps and an app store, a remote control, built-in Apple AirPlay support, and a 1080p webcam, all of which sounds great.
With a 4K resolution, the display looks great, but unsurprisingly, it's not quite as good as the 5K Studio Display, which definitely has the better screen. The Studio Display is sharper, more vibrant, and offers more accurate color, so it's definitely a better choice for those who are doing professional work.
As for design, the M8 looks to be inspired by the Studio Display and the 24-inch iMac, with Samsung offering it in white, blue, pink, and green aluminum. It looks good, and it's going to match your Apple devices because it's clearly an Apple-like aesthetic. The Samsung display is larger than the Studio Display at 32 inches instead of 27 inches, and out of the box, it's tilt and height adjustable, a feature that requires an upgrade on the Studio Display. There is no VESA mount option, though.
The Studio Display wins out when it comes to the speakers and microphone, and it features 4 USB-C ports, while the Samsung monitor has a couple USB-C ports and a micro HDMI port. The add-on camera attaches magnetically on the M8, and though the Studio Display offers Center Stage for FaceTime and other video apps, the M8 has a similar feature.
All in all, if you're looking for affordability and versatility, the M8 is worth the $700 because it also doubles as a TV, but if you want premium quality for professional work, the Studio Display is the better choice.
Article Link: Samsung's New 32-Inch 'M8' Display vs. Apple's Studio Display
The segment where the reviewer records himself using the two products shows an enormous difference in favor of the Studio Display. Colors, illumination, sound, all that is very noticeably better.
Samsung recently introduced the M8, a new 32-inch 4K display that's priced at $700, making it less than half as expensive as the Studio Display from Apple. We picked up one of the displays and thought we'd compare it to the Studio Display in our latest YouTube video to see how it performs and whether you can save some money by going with a cheaper option.
In addition to serving as a display, the M8 also doubles as a 4K TV, featuring Tizen OS, built-in apps and an app store, a remote control, built-in Apple AirPlay support, and a 1080p webcam, all of which sounds great.
With a 4K resolution, the display looks great, but unsurprisingly, it's not quite as good as the 5K Studio Display, which definitely has the better screen. The Studio Display is sharper, more vibrant, and offers more accurate color, so it's definitely a better choice for those who are doing professional work.
As for design, the M8 looks to be inspired by the Studio Display and the 24-inch iMac, with Samsung offering it in white, blue, pink, and green aluminum. It looks good, and it's going to match your Apple devices because it's clearly an Apple-like aesthetic. The Samsung display is larger than the Studio Display at 32 inches instead of 27 inches, and out of the box, it's tilt and height adjustable, a feature that requires an upgrade on the Studio Display. There is no VESA mount option, though.
The Studio Display wins out when it comes to the speakers and microphone, and it features 4 USB-C ports, while the Samsung monitor has a couple USB-C ports and a micro HDMI port. The add-on camera attaches magnetically on the M8, and though the Studio Display offers Center Stage for FaceTime and other video apps, the M8 has a similar feature.
All in all, if you're looking for affordability and versatility, the M8 is worth the $700 because it also doubles as a TV, but if you want premium quality for professional work, the Studio Display is the better choice.
Article Link: Samsung's New 32-Inch 'M8' Display vs. Apple's Studio Display