Lol what? 5k screen has 70% more pixels! How can you say there is only difference in pixel densitity. Guess you don't know much about resolutions?
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
That's literally what "difference in pixel density" means, though.
Yes, I have two Samsung UJ59 4K 32" monitors on my desk and my 16" MBP and for the money, they are GREAT. Amazon has them for $298. They are super good for that kind of price. Are they promotion? No. Are they full "retina"? No. But they look darn good and work darn good and I'm only all in at $600.
"Correct PPI for Mac" Wow...if what I have is "incorrect" then how does it function?
I have two Samsumg UJ59 32" 4K monitors connected to my 16" MBP and they work great (and only $298 each)...and my MBP still works great. Matter of fact they look so good, I only keep my Outlook open on my MBP and keep my Office apps and web browsers open on my two 4K monitors.
They actually display at true resolution 3840x2160. The display on the MBP wants to default to some zoomed in setting anyways so you kind of lose real estate anyways.
I kind of laugh at all the Apple fanboys that spew gibberish and gobble up whatever Apple tells them to. Look, I'm fully in the Apple ecosystem (16" MBP M1 Max, iphone 12 Pro Max, iPad Air M1, Apple watch 5), I like their products, but I can function just fine without a $1600 three year old monitor (LG 5K superfine) and am a free thinker. There's no such thing as "incorrect PPI for Mac".
Yes but he says there is only a difference in density but the real estate on screen stays the same. it's not. 70% more room to put stuff is alot!
It's exactly 33.33% in each dimension. But I suppose that most people don't work in full resolution, specially on 27", because all would be too small. Apple monitors are set to 2540x1440 (retina) which can be set on 4K as well and then the only difference is in pixel density. And when watching the monitor from the normal distance it's really hard to find a difference between 27" 4K and 5K.
I love how folks saying "scaling is wrong" and "macOS isn't designed for it" somehow miss that many Apple machines have shipped with scaled resolutions as the "Apple blessed default", particularly on the laptop side.
The real estate depends on how you configure the display. The 5K displays aren’t meant to run at native res. They’re meant to run at a quarter that. Ultimately, you’ll probably configure a 27-inch 5K display to a similar amount of real estate as you would a 27-inch 4K display, as the limiting factor are your eyes.
Can you show me a single 4k 32" monitor that doesn't meet every criteria you just named? You're basically arguing 4k vs 6k. I've got a 1440p 32" screen right here that was even cheaper, can I argue that this is even better than the Samsung?
Who's comparing them on equal terms? For some, a much cheaper but less technically advanced option fits the bill.
You can’t run it sized at 5K because everything is super small. When you run it sized at 1440p, it has the same amount of real estate as a 4K display running sized at 1440p.
4K vs 5K seems pretty similar just an extra number larger or 1.25 larger as a ratio when you just compare the horizontal difference or the numbers. Yet a 5K display has 1.78x as many pixels. 8.3M vs 14.7M pixels.
It would be a better representation to call the following displays by the total number of pixels like so:
4K = 8M
5K = 15M
6K = 20M
So a 15M Studio Display is in a completely different league to a 8M Samsung (M8) display. If Samsung come out with a M15 model then we can compare apples to apples
It would be a better representation to call the following displays by the total number of pixels like so:
4K = 8M
5K = 15M
6K = 20M
So a 15M Studio Display is in a completely different league to a 8M Samsung (M8) display. If Samsung come out with a M15 model then we can compare apples to apples
M8 is not for “Pro” users so of course it has a bigger market and the price is good for what it offers.
Only problem with a 4k 32” screen in beyond 1920px in retina mode is, as macOS doesnt scale x2 but x3, it consumes far more resources.
This happens in all Apple native retina systems, from MBP to iMac, if you set the resolution further than the regular x2 retina, the GPU would be more stressed.
First retina MBP was super slow beyond the native retina and iMac 2018 using illustrator beyond retina was also very slow with large projects
This in a 2, 3 monitor setup could make some differeneces. Maybe not in a daily basis, but if the computer is doing hard task, you will see difference.
At the end of the day, GPUS aren't enough powerful yet to handle so many pixels (8k??). Thats the truth
This happens in all Apple native retina systems, from MBP to iMac, if you set the resolution further than the regular x2 retina, the GPU would be more stressed.
First retina MBP was super slow beyond the native retina and iMac 2018 using illustrator beyond retina was also very slow with large projects
This in a 2, 3 monitor setup could make some differeneces. Maybe not in a daily basis, but if the computer is doing hard task, you will see difference.
At the end of the day, GPUS aren't enough powerful yet to handle so many pixels (8k??). Thats the truth
Think I’ll get the green one, been looking out for a new monitor to go with my M1 Max 16inch and this fits the bill perfectly!!
Anybody know when the green one goes on sale in the UK?
Also how does UI look unscaled at 32inch 4K?
Anybody know when the green one goes on sale in the UK?
Also how does UI look unscaled at 32inch 4K?
The default resolution setting on the 13” MacBook Pro and 13” MacBook Air is (“Looks Like”) 1440x900. Their native screen resolution is 2560x1600.
I guess you’d better tell Apple then that they don’t know what they’re doing.
Explain why scaling is garbage (I’m interested), e.g. for using Office applications, viewing the finder, Teams, Safari, standard stuff?
My daughter uses her 2015 13" MacBook Pro at 1440x900. The native resolution is 2560x1600, so 2X scaling would be 1280x800. (Hers defaults to 1280x800, but later 13" models default to 1440x900.)
I use my 2017 12" MacBook at 1280x800. The native resolution is 2304x1440, so 2X scaling would be 1152x720. (1280x800 is the default, although earlier models defaulted to 1152x720.)
She doesn't notice any difference in quality. If I specifically look for it up close to the screen, I can see a difference, but in normal usage it looks great. The main difference is the sizes of the fonts and UI elements, and of course, screen real estate. I actually prefer the 2X scaling, not for quality reasons, but because of the bigger fonts and UI elements. However, I stick to 1280x800 on the MB because 1152x720 is kinda cramped, and I can deal with using the smaller elements since it's not my main machine.
Yep. I got the M8 today and figured HDR, overall nicer monitor would be a decent upgrade from the HP 32Z I've been using so far. God was I wrong.
That VA Panel is awful! If you have a full-screen white website (e.g. macrumors) you can also see how the brightness tapers off at the bottom.
Also HDR only works via HDMI, not USB-C (plus macOS looks awful on this monitor when you switch on HDR).
Instant return, sadly.
I'll be sticking with the 32Z for now, not as fancy but at least it has an IPS Panel and uniform lighting.
I’m planning on buying one to use for work (mostly MS O 365) during the day, then a study TV in the evening. I have a MacBook Pro 16 (M1 Max).
A monitor that’s turns into TV is exactly what I need for my Study (with seating area).
Why are the vast majority of reviews on YouTube so good, including for picture quality (if the panel is as bad as you say)?