Samsung's New 32-Inch 'M8' Display vs. Apple's Studio Display

[mrmister]

"The frustrating thing is that Apple got out of the monitor market assuming that vendors would compete for higher quality retina displays on the high end, but instead all the profit margins have been in low resolution, moderate color quality, fast response/refresh gaming screens."

And this was not only predictable, it was the only thing any rational person who knows the market would predict would happen. I still have no idea why they thought this would work out to fulfill what they wish existed.

 

[chucker23n1]

"The frustrating thing is that Apple got out of the monitor market assuming that vendors would compete for higher quality retina displays on the high end, but instead all the profit margins have been in low resolution, moderate color quality, fast response/refresh gaming screens."

And this was not only predictable, it was the only thing any rational person who knows the market would predict would happen. I still have no idea why they thought this would work out to fulfill what they wish existed.

I don’t know that the rise of 144 Hz screens was that predictable in 2014.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

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:

View attachment 1995432

The problem is, it doesn't do that for me. Traveling without my desktop right now, but instead of the "larger text" to "more space" options, I get a drop-down of different resolutions. This has been the same as far as I can remember, and I'm running the latest OS now. Same thing whether I connect to a 2K display or a 4K, I've tried both. Selecting the 1920x1080 option actually sends a 1080p signal to my screen, making things blurry.

There's probably something different about your display that macOS, uh, likes better. Which model is it? This is a well-known issue often discussed on MR and SU, not something specific to me. Annoying enough that someone evidently made a dummying tool to get around it.

 

[EugW]

I remember seeing the UP2715K on Amazon, seeing it's discontinued, then finding a newer Dell 5K monitor that wasn't. But I don't even see it anymore, so let's just assume my memory is bad and it was the UP2715K.

I'm also fine with 2K or even 1200p/1080p. Annoyingly, macOS doesn't let you scale the UI for external monitors (but does for the internal MBP screen), so even 2K makes some things too small for me. My triple screen setup is 2K-2K-1080p so I can move stuff to the right to read it bigger. Maybe it lets you scale on the Studio Display only, which would be kind of a scam.

The problem is, it doesn't do that for me. Traveling without my desktop right now, but instead of the "larger text" to "more space" options, I get a drop-down of different resolutions. This has been the same as far as I can remember, and I'm running the latest OS now. Same thing whether I connect to a 2K display or a 4K, I've tried both. Selecting the 1920x1080 option actually sends a 1080p signal to my screen, making things blurry.

There's probably something different about your display that macOS, uh, likes better. Which model is it? This is a well-known issue often discussed on MR and SU, not something specific to me. Annoying enough that someone evidently made a dummying tool to get around it.

It's treating your monitor as a "non-Retinable" type monitor... which makes sense, since it's only 2K. This is normal behaviour for a 2K monitor. Same thing for my 2560x1600 30" Apple Cinema HD Display. It just shows the numeric resolution options, not the "Larger Text" vs "More Space" options that I have on my 5K iMac.

For a 4K monitor, I guess it could depend upon which one. There are a lot of 4K monitors that are giant, so making those 2X/4X scaled Retina wouldn't necessarily make sense (although it would be better if that was an option for those who need it). OTOH, for a relatively small 4K monitor, 2X/4X scaling would preferred for most people. The monitor would probably have to tell macOS specifically that it was built to work as a Retina 2X/4X scaled monitor (which the Apple Studio Display and the LG Ultrafine 5K probably do). What monitor models do you have?

 

[sudo-sandwich]

It's treating your monitor as a "non-Retinable" type monitor... which makes sense, since it's only 2K. This is normal behaviour for a 2K monitor. Same thing for my 2560x1600 Cinema Display. It just shows the numeric scaling options.

For a 4K monitor, I guess it could depend upon which one. There are a lot of 4K monitors that are giant, so making those 2X/4X scaled Retina wouldn't necessarily make sense (although it would be better if that was an option for those who need it). OTOH, for a relatively small 4K monitor, 2X/4X scaling would preferred for most people. The monitor would probably have to tell macOS specifically that it was built to work as a Retina 2X/4X scaled monitor (which the Apple Studio Display and the LG Ultrafine 5K probably do). What monitor models do you have?

Yeah, I get the technical reason for it not working with 2K, but the text is still too small for me.

My 4K monitor wasn't particularly large. Unfortunately it was just at a past job in a lab, and I don't remember the model. The other 4K "monitor" I tried was my Vizio V605-G3. It's big, but it's also viewed from further away, so it's still unusable at 1:1 scaling in 4K mode.

 

[ErikGrim]

“Real estate refers to the resolution, not the physical size.”

No one runs 5K 27” displays at 5K-sized resolution. The display double pixels to 2560x1440. It’s only if you run the display at the native 5K resolution will you have more real estate, but then your screen elements will be minute.

Uhhh... a 4K runs at 1080p pixel doubled, that's considerably less real estate at a comically large size.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Uhhh... a 4K runs at 1080p pixel doubled, that's considerably less real estate at a comically large size.

It's not comically large to everyone.
It depends upon screen size and preference.

21", 24" & 27" are sizes that can be great at pixel doubled 1080p

For me it's best at 24", but my spouse loves it at 27"

 

[EugW]

Uhhh... a 4K runs at 1080p pixel doubled, that's considerably less real estate at a comically large size.

Your statement doesn't really make sense without context, the most important of which is screen size. For example there are several 4K monitors out there in the 21-24" range. In 2X/4X scaled resolution, that means they're running at the equivalent of ~1080p.

For 1080p, my preferred screen size fits precisely in that range, at 22".

It's not comically large to everyone.
It depends upon screen size and preference.

21", 24" & 27" are sizes that can be great at pixel doubled 1080p

For me it's best at 24", but my spouse loves it at 27"

Yeah, I like my 1920x1200 24" monitor too. I do find 27" too large for 1080p though, at least at usual seating distances.

OTOH, unlike many Mac fans, I find 2.5K/5K 27" screens just a little too small. For 2.5K, ~30" is better for me.

 

[BWhaler]

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.

good points.

 

[Billrey]

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)

It’s not subjective, it’s a matter of fact with the way macOS works. Take a 1px line (0.5 pt) and move it across the screen and see how it shimmers.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It’s not subjective, it’s a matter of fact with the way macOS works. Take a 1px line (0.5 pt) and move it across the screen and see how it shimmers.

Nah
Sorry - no shimmering

Agree to disagree

 

[Karlsruhe]

I think that for the price, the Samsung M8 is a good option. And for me 32" is a big plus, coming from a 27" that I have right now, and not the budget for a Studio Display.

 

[sirozha]

Uhhh... a 4K runs at 1080p pixel doubled, that's considerably less real estate at a comically large size.

I specifically mentioned 4K downscaled to 2560x1440 and not double-pixeled.

 

[M3gatron]

Samsung. Just once it would be great for them to have an original thought in their own heads.

The obsession that anything is a copy of what Apple makes is amusing.
The M8 as a monitors is quite unique in the sense that is one of the few if not the only smart monitor on the market. In terms of design is just similar with other general purposes monitors (like monitors from Dell), the only thing that's similar to an Apple monitor is the stand.

 

[sirozha]

The obsession that anything is a copy of what Apple makes is amusing.
The M8 as a monitors is quite unique in the sense that is one of the few if not the only smart monitor on the market. In terms of design is just similar with other general purposes monitors (like monitors from Dell), the only thing that's similar to an Apple monitor is the stand.

And center stage

 

[theluggage]

There's probably something different about your display that macOS, uh, likes better. Which model is it?

Dell S2817Q (28" 3840x2160) via Plugable USB-C to DisplayPort cable and Huawei MateView (28.3" 3840x2560) via the bundled USB-C cable (so USB-C DisplayPort alt mode). I'm also still running Mojave.

On a 2k display, what you describe is the normal behaviour for standard def displays - and has always been so. Changing the resolution on a "standard def" display kinda worked on old CRT displays but a 2k or lower LCD usually looks lousy at anything other than its standard resolution, and the scaling technique used by macs reslly needs "retina" level resolution to work.

Not sure what MacOS's threshold is for switching to "Retina" behaviour - in theory, resolution and physical screen dimensions are all available in the EDID information that the computer gets from the display.

If you have access to a 4k display and are still getting the "standard def" menu, two things to try are (a) Option-click on the "scaled" radio button (on a "retina" display this toggles between the smaller/larger menu and a list of resolutions) and (b) maybe try a different display connection (HDMI is a bit notorious, and not all USB-C to DisplayPort dongles/cables are equal - I use ones from Pluggable).

Yeah, Apple could do more to make sure that Macs play nicely with third-party displays but, to be fair, display makers usually thoroughly test their own products with Windows but not always with Mac... and it's not unknown for Windows to have broken implementations of standards. It's always worth checking on sites like this before choosing a Mac display.

Have you ever tried to downscale 4K to 2560x1440?

"Looks like 2560x1440" is not "4K downscaled to 2560x1440". It is 5120x2880 downscaled to 3840x2160. On a 4k display it certainly has some artefacts c.f. "true" 4k or 5k but there seems to be some subjective disagreement as to whether that is "barely noticable in day-to-day use" or "so bad it makes your eyes bleed".

"4K downscaled to 2560x1440" would look rubbish. You need something with "retina"-like native resolution (i.e. ~ 1 arc minute per pixel) to get away with non-integer scaling at all.

 

[theluggage]

It’s not subjective, it’s a matter of fact with the way macOS works. Take a 1px line (0.5 pt) and move it across the screen and see how it shimmers.

Well, don't do that then.

Seriously, if you have to explain to people step-by-step how to see these terrible artefacts that supposedly make 4k displays "unusable" on a Mac then maybe - just maybe - they're not so terrible after all, and represent a reasonable compromise when stacked up against the huge cost savings and far wider choice of screen sizes and formats of choosing a non-5k display.

Sorry - no shimmering

You're looking at it wrong

Seriously - these artefacts do exist if you're using non-integer scaled mode. I've already posted a bunch of (not very good) photos of 5k vs. 4k 2:1 vs. 4k scaled to match 5k UI size and, yes, you can see the problem with fine lines and tiny fonts when you take a photo 10cm away from the screen. Whether that's a problem when you're viewing the screen from a sensible distance depends on whether dragging windows around the screen and looking for "shimmer" is a critical part of your workflow (maybe it is for some...)

Then, of course, some people with good eyesight will be happy with 1:1 4k mode on a 32" screen and others will be happy with 2:1 mode and slightly over-large icons/menus/dialogs (again, some people are horribly exaggerating how big a problem this is - esp. when you can hide the dock/menu bar or use full screen mode & set the content zoom/font size to taste) - no scaling artefacts in either case (or none that you wouldn't get anyway unless you habitually keep everything zoomed to "actual pixels" scale).

 

[EugW]

"4K downscaled to 2560x1440" would look rubbish. You need something with "retina"-like native resolution (i.e. ~ 1 arc minute per pixel) to get away with non-integer scaling at all.

A nitpick, but your statement here contradicts itself, since resolution ≠ pixel density. I'm sure you are already aware, but this bears repeating because it is potentially confusing to other readers in this thread.

If the pixel density is high enough, 4K downscaled to to look like 1440p can look very good. And of course, seating distance also matters.

For example, my 2.3K MacBook 12" has a native resolution of only 2.3K 2304x1440, yet it is "Retina". Furthermore, its default setting in macOS is a non-integer scaled resolution of 1280x800, and the quality is excellent... although the screen elements and text sizes are pretty small. The integer scaled resolution would be 1152x720, but that is not the default.

BTW, I did use 1152x720 for a while, but eventually switched back to the default of 1280x800. I didn't use 1152x720 because of clarity. If I look really closely 1152x720 is slightly clearer, but it's a non-issue IMO. The reason I used 1152x720 was because it had larger default font sizes and screen elements. However, I generally don't use my laptop for extended periods so I could deal with the smaller font sizes and screen elements offered by 1280x800, to gain more usable workspace.

I also sit much closer to the laptop screen than I do with a desktop. Indeed, according to the Retina calculator, this 2.3K screen is "Retina" at a seating distance of 15 inches or more. I just measured my seating distance, and I sit at ~16-18 inches from my laptop, vs. ~25" from my desktop.

So back to the claim that a non-integer scaled 4K screen would look rubbish. Well, even at 27" for a 2160p screen, it could be considered "Retina" at a seating distance of 21" or more. As mentioned, I already sit at 25", so that would be "Retina" for me. However, my preference is not to use a 27" 4K screen, for two reasons: 1) The screen elements and text sizing are larger than I need, and 2) I prefer to have more screen real estate. On my desktop I usually like to have two windows open at about 1150-1200 pixels wide each which means about 2350 pixels total, which leaves me about another 200 pixels for other stuff like my icons at the side of the screen. In that context, 2.5K/5K is perfect, whereas 2K/4K feels too cramped.

Unfortunately, that leaves me in a bit of a dilemma. For Retina that means something like a 5120x2880 screen, but with my preferred pixel density, that means a screen size of about 29-32". AFAIK, no such screen exists.

 

[forrestwhite]

What is so difficult about making a small bezel with equal dimensions all around?

THIS!! Companies putting so much effort into the design, only to fail on the last mile.

 

[sirozha]

A nitpick, but your statement here contradicts itself, since resolution ≠ pixel density. I'm sure you are already aware, but this bears repeating because it is potentially confusing to other readers in this thread.

If the pixel density is high enough, 4K downscaled to to look like 1440p can look very good. And of course, seating distance also matters.

For example, my 2.3K MacBook 12" has a native resolution of only 2.3K 2304x1440, yet it is "Retina". Furthermore, its default setting in macOS is a non-integer scaled resolution of 1280x800, and the quality is excellent... although the screen elements and text sizes are pretty small. The integer scaled resolution would be 1152x720, but that is not the default.

BTW, I did use 1152x720 for a while, but eventually switched back to the default of 1280x800. I didn't use 1152x720 because of clarity. If I look really closely 1152x720 is slightly clearer, but it's a non-issue IMO. The reason I used 1152x720 was because it had larger default font sizes and screen elements. However, I generally don't use my laptop for extended periods so I could deal with the smaller font sizes and screen elements offered by 1280x800, to gain more usable workspace.

I also sit much closer to the laptop screen than I do with a desktop. Indeed, according to the Retina calculator, this 2.3K screen is "Retina" at a seating distance of 15 inches or more. I just measured my seating distance, and I sit at ~16-18 inches from my laptop, vs. ~25" from my desktop.

So back to the claim that a non-integer scaled 4K screen would look rubbish. Well, even at 27" for a 2160p screen, it could be considered "Retina" at a seating distance of 21" or more. As mentioned, I already sit at 25", so that would be "Retina" for me. However, my preference is not to use a 27" 4K screen, for two reasons: 1) The screen elements and text sizing are larger than I need, and 2) I prefer to have more screen real estate. On my desktop I usually like to have two windows open at about 1150-1200 pixels wide each which means about 2350 pixels total, which leaves me about another 200 pixels for other stuff like my icons at the side of the screen. In that context, 2.5K/5K is perfect, whereas 2K/4K feels too cramped.

Unfortunately, that leaves me in a bit of a dilemma. For Retina that means something like a 5120x2880 screen, but with my preferred pixel density, that means a screen size of about 29-32". AFAIK, no such screen exists.

My problem is that my eyes see a difference between 4K at 2560x1440 and 5K at 2560x1440.

Once I saw the difference, I can’t un-see it. I was able to buy a 5K monitor from China 2 years ago for under $600, and now I bought a second 5K monitor (Studio Display).

 

[EugW]

My problem is that my eyes see a difference between 4K at 2560x1440 and 5K at 2560x1440.

Once I saw the difference, I can’t un-see it. I was able to buy a 5K monitor from China 2 years ago for under $600, and now I bought a second 5K monitor (Studio Display).

Sure, people's ability to see and preferences differ. And as mentioned, it depends on screen size and seating distance. The bigger the screen and the closer you sit, the more obvious it becomes.

It should be noted that @theluggage's 1 arc minute per pixel description for Retina isn't actually accurate for everyone. It's only relatively accurate for those with average eyesight, but we should remember of course that a ton of people have better than average eyesight. Furthermore, even if you have worse than average eyesight, correction with glasses can put you in the better than average category.

20/15 vision is considered better than average but it is not that uncommon, especially if you're a teen or a young adult, or have had your vision corrected.

And even if someone can occasionally see the difference, often times they just don't care.

 

[Billrey]

A nitpick, but your statement here contradicts itself, since resolution ≠ pixel density.

Hang on, that is simply incorrect. Resolution means sharpness, ie how fine details can be *resolved*. That's what the word means. Resolution is typically measured in PPI, meaning pixels per inch.

Take the display of the Apple Watch. It has a *resolution* of 326 PPI. 484 x 396 total pixels. 326 is relatively high resolution.

If you took those same pixels and stretched them onto a 32" display, that would result in am extremely low resolution of 19 PPI!

With printers, it's the same. A printer's resolution is usually measured in terms of DPI, dots per inch. Again, for a given size of paper, it has to do with how fine details it can resolve. It makes no sense to measure printers in terms of how many total dots it can produce, abstracted from the size.

That is why it makes no sense when folks here are talking about 4k or 5k displays - it all depends on which *size* the screen is - it's the DPI that matters.

So, you've got it exactly wrong and opposite. As Steve Jobs said, the original iPhone had the highest resolution they had shipped at that time, at 160 PPI. Later that resolution was doubled with the iPhone 4.

 

[theluggage]

A nitpick, but your statement here contradicts itself, since resolution ≠ pixel density. I'm sure you are already aware, but this bears repeating because it is potentially confusing to other readers in this thread.

True - I think it is clear from context that we're talking about desktop displays in the 27"-32" range - but you're quite right that 4k-reduced-to-2560x1400 is pretty much what you get on a 13" MBP in default mode, and that works by virtue of the pixels being so small.

Of course, any fule kno that resolution is the minimum angular separation between objects that can be percieved/reproduced, and is measured in either radians or degree/minutes/seconds of arc. (and that the original basis of the "retina" display was that 20:20 vision should let you perceive objects separated by 1 minute of arc, which works out at 1/300" when viewed from 12" - see also 300dpi as the de-facto standard for adequate print resolution, which also comes from the gospel of Apple and Adobe and is also fraught with unit abuse).

My problem is that my eyes see a difference between 4K at 2560x1440 and 5K at 2560x1440.

Some people's problem is that their wallets can feel the difference between $700 and $1600.

However, of course there's a difference. The 1 arc minute == can't see the pixels rule is a very, very crude rule of thumb and reality is a lot more complicated when you're dealing with the genuine Mk1 eyeball, especially a pair of them with quirky auto-focus continually tracking over a scene hooked up to a human "neural engine" doing insane image processing. Also, the "rule" is about being able to perceive two objects separated by 1 arc minute as separate, so how that actually relates to "being able to see the pixels" is debatable.

Then there's all sorts of other issues - if you are comparing two screens they are probably not matched in contrast and brightness. One thing I notice with a couple of 4Ks sitting next to an iMac (even when they're both supposedly set to "P3") is that the contrast is way better on the Apple screen thanks to the bonded glass front and optical coating c.f. the "frosted" matte screens typical on 4Ks. On the Apple, blacks are black - on the 4Ks they're always slightly grey.

I think a better way of looking at it is that once you pass the retina limit you're into rapidly diminishing returns vs. quadratically increasing costs & processing demands.

Nobody is really questioning the fact that Apple's 5k panel is superior. This whole debate - comparing it to 4k displays - only makes sense because it is now so expensive (c.f. the old 5k iMac, or at least the lower-end versions) despite being limited in terms areas such as connectivity (no second DP/HDMI input or AirPlay) and Apple wanting $400 for a basic height-adjustable stand.

Personally, I'm debating whether to "upgrade" my 5k iMac to either a Mac Studio or the Mythical M2 Mini if emerges, and got a MateView (which is ridiculously cheap in the UK) to see if I could live with that (or a pair of them) instead of the 5k. To which the answer is yes for all practical purposes - it's even better in some ways - but I'd miss the extra "pop" of the contrast and colours on the iMac.

 

[theluggage]

Hang on, that is simply incorrect. Resolution means sharpness, ie how fine details can be *resolved*. That's what the word means. Resolution is typically measured in PPI, meaning pixels per inch.

The problem is, "resolution" means different things in different contexts. It is very widely used to refer to the number of independent pixels on a screen or image sensor (as in 5120x2880, 5K, 2 Megapixels etc.), in printing it could be "dots per inch" (where a dot may not be the same as a pixel) or it could also be "lines per inch" which is not the same thing as pixels per inch because you may need a pixel between the lines in order to "resolve" them as separate lines. In optics, resolution is normally an angle - and again it's about being able to see the gap between objects. In terms of the whole "MacOS only supports 220ppi and 110ppi" thing, that's not even a "resolution", it's a scaling factor used to convert internal coordiates/sizes and "real world" units into pixels.

Trouble is, discussing computer displays cuts across all of those contexts... But it's hard to argue that "5120x2880" is not resolution when the actual Mac system report says "Resolution: 5120x2880" in large friendly letters. You just have to be specific.

 

[chucker23n1]

Seriously - these artefacts do exist if you're using non-integer scaled mode.

They do, for obvious reasons, but whether you see them depends on a lot of factors. I’ve been running an rMBP at non-native resolutions: 1920x1080@2x when on my lap, and 1280x800@2x (I think) when on a desk on a stand; the native is in between at 1440x900@2x. I can tell that 1440x900@2x feels slightly sharper when compared directly, but not otherwise. Nor do I notice shimmering in practice, as much as it makes sense to exist.