only $200 if you get the ASD at the $1299 sale price it frequently is.
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.
Testing the New ASUS ProArt 5K Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Basically, you get what you pay less for. Half the price, half the quality (build, backlight uniformity, speakers, lack of webcam)
If you can get a deal on the Samsung it's as good a monitor, with slightly better features.
Take note of the same backlight uniformity backlight bleed issues the Samsung S9 has (and ASD does not).
If you can get a deal on the Samsung it's as good a monitor, with slightly better features.
Take note of the same backlight uniformity backlight bleed issues the Samsung S9 has (and ASD does not).
Look nice with the VESA stand. Out of interest what speaker is in the picture ?
This makes zero sense. The ASD's speakers are downward-aiming, you don't see them unless you stick your face on the desk for whatever reason. All you see from the front of the monitor is the screen & bezel. People who use this monitor know how good the sound is.
It is not a real 5K Display, it is still only a wider 4K Display, because vertical resolution matters, eg. 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 2160p and the real 2880p for true 5k!
Ahem nope, that is just your opinion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution
But feel free to correct me, and wikipedia, etc by linking to a ratified standard by a true global standards body.
You're right-ish. It's not a "real" 5k display in a 16:9 format (I'm also of the opinion of 16:9 being true 5k).
But these monitor are also 100% not a 4k display (5k being dictated by the horizontal pixel count). Watch a widescreen movie on either monitor and it will offer the same 5k resolution (higher than 4k).
Every manufacturer seems to be making up the buzzwords depending on what they offer, I'm surprised they aren't deemed "5k cinematic" or some other bull buzz terminology.
In either case these UW displays are not close to retina and only have 2/3 the pixel count.
It is a 5k 21:9. And as you say, some seem to think only a 16:9 is the true aspect ratio.
Yes those panels are not retina, and depending on what you use it for that doesn't matter. In a perverse manner, running it in a retina mode one could argue it is not a 5k screen either
For productivity work it doesn't matter, for creative production work very few car about it and then wouldn't go for a curved screen anyway. But for now, a 5K2K 21:9 has the highest refresh rate options, the other panels just don't exist.It doesn't matter who's "right" - with the arrival of these ultrawide screens just saying "5k" is really unhelpful even if it is pedantically not false. These screens are not comparable.
Yeah, we've gone from one dumb way of measuring "resolution" (vertical only - 1080p, 1440p etc.) to an equally dumb way (horizontal only - 4k, 5k etc...) - at least the first had a historical excuse from the old analogue CRT days, the "new" way just seems to be based on the idea that "4k" sounded like a cool marketing buzzword...
The whole point of the 5120x2880 @ 27" format - and why Apple users are used to paying a premium for it - is that it has the "Apple standard" pixel density of ~220ppi which many people regard as the "sweet spot" for MacOS - and is what makes the Studio Display look so sharp.
5120x2160 displays have the same pixel density as a 4k display of the same physical height (of course, we have a dumb "diagonal" measure of screen size too, rooted in the bad old days when CRTs were round - but, hey, it makes it worth learning about Pythagoras in school!) - so you will face the same issues with needing fractional scaling to get the UI size just right as you would with 4k.
That's not to say that 5k UltraWide (or even 4k screens) are no good - personally I think the "problems" with 4k and scaling are hugely exaggerated considering the price differences of 4k vs. an ASD - but 220ppi is still better than a lower pixel density.
Also - the main beef about 5k/220ppi displays seems to be that they're "only" 60Hz - but 120Hz or more at 5120x2880 takes a lot of bandwidth and GPU power, and probably needs a Thunderbolt 5 connection to work well. A lower-resolution display might be a better choice for gaming anyway - which is the main scenario where higher frame rate would be more important than higher resolution. Lots of photo/graphic creatives and even coders who want lots of lines of text really don't care about higher refresh rates.
Ahem it starte with comments about calling them 5k2k. And yes I agree they are not comparable. I would never get such a small 5K screen with such an aspect ratio. But that doesn't mean they don't both fall within the 5K category.
And funnily enough, they aren't truly run at 5K resolutions, they typically utilize 2 pixels
, so you lose a lot of screen estate (about half). OK, there are exceptions I seem to recall it was Apple Aperture that could truly make use of it as in that the UI was the enlarged non-native pixel mapping, whilst the photo area in the true 1:1 screen resolution. Are there any other apps that can do that? As I said, likely only limited to specialist software for creatives.Just run at 1:1 so you actually have that desktop estate, or at a multiple of that and it is fine. The retina resolutions makes everything look big and you loose space for productivity.
Well, opinions may differ on that one despite no argument about the hard figures, from a useability perspective and reasoning why anyone would want a larger monitor that could be different and met with some disappointment when you then run it in the same old resolutions. Arguably sitting at the proper distance from the desk will help make those individual pixels indistinguishable
Actually, the higher framerate is really useful when moving windows
Also when scrolling through large log files. And with a Trading View setup, one can have many windows on the screen, all with graphs moving. I notice it when I have to plug into a HDMI screen, and when they can't refresh properly. Ultimately, screens are individual, there is not a single best screen. There are many screens for different purposes. I would prioritize a very different screen setup if Photography was my primary, and yet a different when Videography was. For programming/coding I couldn't go without an ultra-wide any more, but even then, like to have a secondary (and/or tertiary screen). For day trading, I could actually do much more easily with multiple smaller and 4:3 style screens actually with the way I like to look at the charts.
My only point was that it can all be 5K screens under the nomenclature of what a 5K screen is.
This is absolutely not a review. It’s a notification that the product exists.
An extremely late notification (guess those sponsorship funds came in).
It's not quite as slick as having a single screen, but I effectively get an ultrawide workspace by using a 3-monitor setup, putting them as close together as possible (narrow side bezels, if your displays have them, help with this), and having the two side monitors angled towards me. And my central monitor is 5k@27".
I find that's a great setup for work, where you have multiple open windows.. Not sure how well it would work for gaming, where you have just a single window that would need to be spread across all three screens (not even sure if that's possible to do).
Glad I could help!
But remember: the cable is important! Not all USB-C cables are the same and you need one capable of handling the bandwidth. Like I said the USB-C to USB-C cable I use in this case can handle up to 40 Gbps.
If anyone would have it stock, then it would be Canada Computers. Otherwise, it's a very niche product that the average consumer won't care about. It's mainly aimed at macOS users and the vast majority of them use a MacBook, iMac or Mac mini with a 4K/1440p monitor.
I couldn't wait so I bought a Samsung ViewFinity S9 27" 5K monitor back in December 2023 for $1,061.49 after tax.
Because many of us use the webcam 4 to 5 times every single day for Zoom calls.
It's $200 with current ASD sales price, which is now a common price for the ASD.
And yes, $200 is worth it for the Apple quality and product support over the lifetime of use.
That’s not how it works - unless you’re running ancient/poorly coded software that doesn’t support retina displays.
“2560x1440” mode on a 5k display is full 5120x2880 resolution - try taking a screenshot and see what you get. The 2:1 scaling affects the physical size and layout of the user interface elements, not the resolution - everything gets rendered to full 5k. The scaling is needed to make the UI usable on a 5k 27” display. Most applications will let you choose the zoom level and font size of the content. By all means use 1:1 if you have super-vision and super-dexterity, but all it will do is reduce the size of the dock, menu bar, buttons, scroll bars etc. to something that most people find unusable small. Might give you a few percent more “real estate” but won’t double it. It won’t improve the definition of the actual content.
Even the fractionally-scaled modes display far more detail than their “looks like resolution” would suggest.
Most people don't understand Apple display settings. I've given up trying to help people understand it... but if you want to keep up the good fight then you are a better person than I.
It does actually
Although 384 vertical lines is rather uncommon especially with that horizontal resolution. I've added the link several times now