Testing the New ASUS ProArt 5K Display

[theorist9]

With Microsoft Word I would entirely agree, with a browser based app I'd also agree. I would argue though that I've never met anyone who is just in MS Word argue they need to buy a retina external monitor....

These kind of monitors are at the slightly more specialist end of the market, as cheap as the Asus is for that market, it is still very expensive for the MS Word crowd.

You've created a straw man version of my argument—that it's about people who are "just in MS Word"—and are arguing against that, rather than my actual argument. Indeed, I've never met anyone who is "just in MS Word".

Rather (and I thought this was understood) I was merely using Word's UI as an example to illustrate the entire world of text-heavy apps, most of which have relatively small UIs.

This includes spreadsheet apps (e.g., Excel), presentation apps (e.g., PowerPoint), various other document creation, formatting, and publishing apps besides Word (e.g., Adobe Acrobat, Preview, LaTeX editors), symbolic math apps (e.g., Mathematica, Matlab, and Maple, which are used extensively in the sciences and engineering), and of course all the various text editors used by anyone who is doing coding. And yes, it also includes web browsers, which you mentioned.

Further, it's specifically those, like me, who spend most of their time doing text-based work that most notice the need for a Retina monitor. That's why I bought mine.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that people who do this kind of work wouldn't be willing to spend the money for 5k displays.

As another example, here's a screenshot of Mathematica, displayed half-screen at 2:1 scaling on my 5k 27" iMac. Its UI is even smaller than Word's, consisting of just the menu bar, title bar, and right and bottom borders. It does have an optional ribbon, but most experienced users don't bother with it.

And I could do screenshots of Excel, Adobe Acrobat, etc. showing the equivalent.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

You've created a straw man version of my argument—that it's about people who are "just in MS Word"—and are arguing against that, rather than my actual argument. Indeed, I've never met anyone who is "just in MS Word".

Rather (and I thought this was understood) I was merely using Word's UI as an example to illustrate the entire world of text-heavy apps, most of which have relatively small UIs.

This includes spreadsheet apps (e.g., Excel), presentation apps (e.g., PowerPoint), various other document creation, formatting, and publishing apps besides Word (e.g., Adobe Acrobat, Preview, LaTeX editors), symbolic math apps (e.g., Mathematica, Matlab, and Maple, which are used extensively in the sciences and engineering), and of course all the various text editors used by anyone who is doing coding. And yes, it also includes web browsers, which you mentioned.

Further, it's specifically those, like me, who spend most of their time doing text-based work that most notice the need for a Retina monitor. That's why I bought mine.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that people who do this kind of work wouldn't be willing to spend the money for 5k displays.

As another example, here's a screenshot of Mathematica, displayed half-screen at 2:1 scaling on my 5k 27" iMac. Its UI is even smaller than Word's, consisting of just the menu bar, title bar, and right and bottom borders. It does have an optional ribbon, but most experienced users don't bother with it.

And I could do screenshots of Excel, Adobe Acrobat, etc. showing the equivalent.

View attachment 2482521

I've given the examples of a large workspace UI, you choose to ignore that part totally.

 

[theorist9]

I've given the examples of a large workspace UI, you choose to ignore that part totally.

Simply false. This is yet another misrepresentation of my position. I explicitly acknowledged that both large UI and small UI apps exist (or more precisely, there are apps where scaling really does affect your workspace, and apps where it really doesn't). Don't know how I can be any clearer than this:

I think what you posted illustrates that it's-app dependent. As your screenshots show, with apps that don't have zoomable workspaces, you can't compensate for a change in scaling. But I contend that the most commonly-used apps (like, for instance, Word), are zoomable.

My argument is simply that apps where scaling does have a significant effect on your workspace are less common than those where it doesn't.

 

[theluggage]

I've given the examples of a large workspace UI, you choose to ignore that part totally.

...but the "small" version of your example would have been unusable by most people on a 27" screen, even at 5k3k resolution. If your can cope with that then good luck - just choose the "looks like 5120x2880" mode (stock up on eye drops and painkillers first) or compromise with one of the fractionally-scaled "more space" modes (which will still be sharper and less artifact-y on a 2880p display than a fractionally-scaled 2160p display).

Where can I see the full timeline whilst maintaining its detail without zooming?

Seriously? "How do I solve this problem without using the thing that solves the problem?"

Have you ever even used a 5k3k 27" or 6k 32" display on a Mac? The UI in default 2:1 mode is not large and pretty space efficient. You can choose fractional scaling to make it a bit smaller but 1:1 really isn't viable. That's the main reason why Mac users have been prepared to pay a hefty premium for the extra ppi over 4k2k or 5k2k displays. The lower ppi on 4k/5k2k does make the default 2:1 UI a bit large on a 27" or higher screen - which is why many people choose to use fractionally-scaled "looks like 1440p" mode to get the same "just right" UI size as on a 5k3k display.

4k/5k2k is a perfectly reasonable choice & a good compromise vs. the cost of 220ppi - and if you want lots of real-estate getting a 30"+ one that is usable in 1:1 mode is certainly a plan - but there are issues with UI size vs. quality - sounds like you're projecting those issues onto 220ppi displays which actually solve the problem (at a cost).

But I contend that the most commonly-used apps (like, for instance, Word), are zoomable.

It is, of course, an act of "genius" by Microsoft that - just as people were starting to move to 16:9 wide screen displays - they introduced a new design for Office apps which relied on a huge horizontal toolbar/ribbon that consumed loads of vertical space rather than using vertical palettes. Of course, they were more concerned with making the UI patentable than making it good by - oh, I don't know, just using the menu system that Jobs hath, in His wisdom, provided. Having functions disappear/reappear and move around as you resize the window earns them extra user-hostile points.

If Apple want my money they should introduce a 3:2 5k screen (currently using a 3:2 4k+ screen which - imho - works very well in 4k 2:1 mode by giving an extra inch or so of vertical real estate to make up for the slightly chunky UI).

 

[theorist9]

they introduced a new design for Office apps which relied on a huge horizontal toolbar/ribbon that consumed loads of vertical space rather than using vertical palettes. Of course, they were more concerned with making the UI patentable than making it good by - oh, I don't know, just using the menu system that Jobs hath, in His wisdom, provided. Having functions disappear/reappear and move around as you resize the window earns them extra user-hostile points.

The ribbon is prominent, but I don't find it be huge, at least on a 27" screen. Instead I think its problems are that: (1) functions are split between the ribbon and the menu, and the division seems arbitrary, so you have to remember (or figure out) where to look; (2) there should be an option to make it vertical or horizontal (I don't agree vertical is always better, but I do think what's needed is to give users the choice); and (3) if you're using it half-screen, stuff becomes difficult to access or hidden--so they should also have given users the choice to keep everything visible, but auto-reduce its magnification.

 

[Tagbert]

The ribbon is prominent, but I don't find it be huge, at least on a 27" screen. Instead I think its problems are that: (1) functions are split between the ribbon and the menu, and the division seems arbitrary, so you have to remember (or figure out) where to look; (2) there should be an option to make it vertical or horizontal (I don't agree vertical is always better, but I do think what's needed is to give users the choice); and (3) if you're using it half-screen, stuff becomes difficult to access or hidden--so they should also have given users the choice to keep everything visible, but auto-reduce its magnification.

I appreciate that you can collapse the ribbon in Excel. Not sure why you can't on Word.

 

[theorist9]

I appreciate that you can collapse the ribbon in Excel. Not sure why you can't on Word.

I'm using Office 365 desktop, and can show/hide the ribbon in Word using CMD-OPT-R.

 

[picpicmac]

So - as with many arguments about terminology - it's really about popular usage rather than standards.

Which is why, in display language, we should speak of the vertical lines (for a raster-like system). So we can just skip the marketing lingo, and say 1440p, or 2160p.

As I've often tried to explain to people, the MacOS System Settings language of "looks like" is just confusing. The System Settings is about the User Interface (not the hardware) and I just wish that Apple choose to use the word "zoom" instead, and have the System Setting list zooms as percentages, not unlike web browsers.

Also: I too lament the loss of 24" 2160p displays. I had hoped to snag one of the last LG ones new, but alas I was too late.

 

[Tagbert]

I'm using Office 365 desktop, and can show/hide the ribbon in Word using CMD-OPT-R.

Ah, nice! I was always looking for a visible control like what Excel had. Now that I look back at Excel that icon is gone, too. They must have cleaned both of those apps up and allowed collapsing on both. thanks for the suggestion. I hope I can remember it.

 

[theorist9]

Which is why, in display language, we should speak of the vertical lines (for a raster-like system). So we can just skip the marketing lingo, and say 1440p, or 2160p.

As I've often tried to explain to people, the MacOS System Settings language of "looks like" is just confusing. The System Settings is about the User Interface (not the hardware) and I just wish that Apple choose to use the word "zoom" instead, and have the System Setting list zooms as percentages, not unlike web browsers.

Also: I too lament the loss of 24" 2160p displays. I had hoped to snag one of the last LG ones new, but alas I was too late.

Agree about both the "looks like" and the marketing lingo.

WRT the latter: Better still if they provided the screen diagonal, aspect ratio, and PPI. That cuts through all the BS and gives the only specs that directly matter when it comes to size and resolution.

Then you'd know exactly what you're getting. Which is, of course, why they won't do it.

It sounds a lot better to market a "40" 21:9 5k2k Ultrawide" than to say what it really is, which is a "40" 21:9 Ultrawide (139 ppi)"—revealing it has far lower resolution than a 27" 5k (218 ppi), and is also lower than a 27" 4k (163 ppi).

As I'm sure you know, bigger numbers market better, so if the most meaningful numbers come out smaller, they won't show them. A notable exception, ironically, is Apple's "looks like" language, which is misleading in the wrong direction--by using those smaller numbers, they are inaccurately making the display performance sound worse than it actually is!

And they are thereby creating confusion, causing people to think the higher scaling actually does make the image look like it would on a lower-res display, which is of course false. As you've noted, it's only "looks like" in the sense of mangification, not resolution. Which is why I agree with your suggestion to use zoom instead, since people are used to that language from apps.

 

[theorist9]

.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

It sounds a lot better to market a "40" 21:9 5k2k Ultrawide" than to say what it really is, which is a "40" 21:9 Ultrawide (139 ppi)"—revealing it has far lower resolution than a 27" 5k (218 ppi), and is also lower than a 27" 4k (163 ppi).

It is not just marketing, it clarifies that there is a lot more useable desktop space to work in. The dpi matters less, get a deeper desk and your eyes won't notice. A 27" 5K is unusable for most at 1:1.

 

[theorist9]

It is not just marketing, it clarifies that there is a lot more useable desktop space to work in. The dpi matters less, get a deeper desk and your eyes won't notice. A 27" 5K is unusable for most at 1:1.

Nope, my eyes will definitely notice. Instead of asserting what would work for me, you should be asking instead.

I need to be able to display the entirety of my often quite large (many columns and rows) spreadsheets on my central monitor, or all of a complex Mathematica notebook there—which means a low zoom and thus small fonts—while also having room on my desk for two side monitors, which will be displaying other material I need at the same time. Plus my eyes focus most comfortably when all three monitors are at at normal reading distance, which they currently are, since I've got the two side montors angled towards me. I couldn't do that with a lower-PPI widescreen positioned further away from me.

To put it another way, I'm currently using 5120*2880 + 3840*2160 + 1920*1200 = 25M pixels, and will soon be moving to 5120*2880 + 2*3840*2160 = 31 M pixels. [Ideally, I'd love to have 3 x 6k = 6016*3384*3 = 61 M pixels, but that's not currently in the cards. It's possible I might be able to swing 3 x 5k = 44 M pixels.] By contrast, a 5k2k widescreen only gives me 5120*2160 = 11 M pixels, which is less than half what I have now.

If you want to display as much data simultaneously as possible, and have it be sharp and readable, a 5k2k widescreen is a poor substitute for what I'm running currently.

And yes, if you are working with small fonts, the total number of pixels is the determining figure for how much data you can display at once while keeping it sharp and readable.

I don't assert what will work for you, because I recognize what you do is very different from what I do. Your answers indicate you don't seem to understand what it's like to work with a lot of text. The difference between you and me is I accept you have reasonable preferences for your workflow that are different from mine, while you don't recognize that in me and others. I think futher discussion would be unproductive.

 

[Powerbooky]

Thunderbolt accessories are TOO DANG EXPENSIVE…..that it matters here. And if you dont think theyre expensive, then the ASD isn’t expensive for you either.

Sure I “like” Thunderbolt. But for how expensive it is, I’ve excluded it from any and all of my purchases decisions. It’s “unimportant”….and…things are quite speedy nowadays anyway, so not a big big loss. Just…a little sad emoji

Thunderbolt versions 1 and 2 used to be more expensive due to Intels expensive licensing. That made Thunderbolt 1/2 enabled KVM's and dock's indeed more expensive. That is something of the past since version 3.
A couple of years I got my 32 inch 21:9 LG monitor for less than this Asus (including tax). It has Thunderbolt 3 and a bigger screen too. The ASD is more than triple the price I paid for the LG - way over my budget.
Besides that, I've been using Thunderbolt since Firewire has been phased out.

 

[vgmrm]

A camera without macOS support, hmm I find that hard to believe. You don't even need drivers for the cameras.

The drivers exist even if it is “transparent” to the user. The only image that appeared on the camera was a black image after the update.
In any case, you don't have to trust my impressions or opinions, you are free to check it out for yourself.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Nope, my eyes will definitely notice. Instead of asserting what would work for me, you should be asking instead.

I need to be able to display the entirety of my often quite large (many columns and rows) spreadsheets on my central monitor, or all of a complex Mathematica notebook there—which means a low zoom and thus small fonts—while also having room on my desk for two side monitors, which will be displaying other material I need at the same time. Plus my eyes focus most comfortably when all three monitors are at at normal reading distance, which they currently are, since I've got the two side montors angled towards me. I couldn't do that with a lower-PPI widescreen positioned further away from me.

To put it another way, I'm currently using 5120*2880 + 3840*2160 + 1920*1200 = 25M pixels, and will soon be moving to 5120*2880 + 2*3840*2160 = 31 M pixels. [Ideally, I'd love to have 3 x 6k = 6016*3384*3 = 61 M pixels, but that's not currently in the cards. It's possible I might be able to swing 3 x 5k = 44 M pixels.] By contrast, a 5k2k widescreen only gives me 5120*2160 = 11 M pixels, which is less than half what I have now.

And when you keep running it in retina mode, you still end up with less desktop space

BTW Rather disingenuous to compare a 3 screen setup to single one. You single 27" 5120*2880 has 14.7M pixels, but most people won't be able to use it 1:1. The default would be 2560x1440. And 100% it looks a lot better than the native 2560x1440 screens that used to exist. And when you are happy with that there is no problem with it.

If you want to display as much data simultaneously as possible, and have it be sharp and readable, a 5k2k widescreen is a poor substitute for what I'm running currently.

That is entirely your prerogative, it is a balance between as much data simultaneously and as sharp as possible. You clearly have a priority for sharpness, for me having a deep enough desk has the same effect.

And yes, if you are working with small fonts, the total number of pixels is the determining figure for how much data you can display at once while keeping it sharp and readable.

I don't assert what will work for you, because I recognize what you do is very different from what I do. Your answers indicate you don't seem to understand what it's like to work with a lot of text. The difference between you and me is I accept you have reasonable preferences for your workflow that are different from mine, while you don't recognize that in me and others. I think futher discussion would be unproductive.

Rather strong don't you think that you are all high and mighty and understand other people's requirements whilst at the same time making a condemning statement towards me. Some may see the irony in that. We simply have different preferences. My ideal would be to have a 10K retina screen, but that doesn't exist. Nor do the larger than 27" screens.

 

[theluggage]

As I've often tried to explain to people, the MacOS System Settings language of "looks like" is just confusing.

Absolutely- desperately needs fixing, these forums are full of evidence that it confuses people.

On paper, the Windows system of having a freely user-selectable UI scale/logical PPI is better - but it does depend heavily on applications being properly written, and the “Mac way” seems particularly robust in the face of old software, multi-display setups with different resolutions or plugging different displays into laptops. It would be a big upheaval for Mac developers and kill a lot of older software… but then, for Mac developers, that’s just a typical Tuesday - it’s Windows users who expect 20 year old software to keep working

Which is why, in display language, we should speak of the vertical lines (for a raster-like system). So we can just skip the marketing lingo, and say 1440p, or 2160p.

Ok, so my display would be 2560p…

Ultimately, sometimes “complicated thing is complicated” and you still need to know more than one number about a display to make a choice. E.g. PPI, aspect ratio and diagonal size. Or PPI, physical height and width. Or horizontal pixels, vertical pixels and diagonal. You can’t boil three numbers down to one and not throw away important data. Also, the “fixed PPI - variable size” model is very much a Mac thing going back to the Mac’s Desktop Publishing heritage. PC users have long used CGA/VGA/WXGA etc. to refer to specific horizontal x vertical pixel counts, and Windows has used a user-definable PPI/scale since forever.

It is not just marketing, it clarifies that there is a lot more useable desktop space to work in.

But “desktop space” is far too subjective for marketing purposes. It’s up to the user whether they buy a bigger screen to use a finer UI scale, or because they want to use a large scale and sit further back - you can’t do both at the same time. A 5k3k 27” display works fine in 1:1 mode - viewed from 10” away! A 5k3k display can display a 4k video 1:1 with space leftover for controls. A 5k3k display will do a better job of fractional scaling if you want a different UI scale.

Possibly, a 32” or larger 5k3k display would be ideal for some people - it wouldn’t have the magic 220ppi resolution but it would allow you to use 1:1 5k mode more easily, and the pixels would be smaller than a similarly sized 4K screen. Unlikely, though, unless 5k catches on in the mass PC market - and for Mac users it would have to undercut the price of a 6k display like the Dell.

 

[theluggage]

The drivers exist even if it is “transparent” to the user. The only image that appeared on the camera was a black image after the update.
In any case, you don't have to trust my impressions or opinions, you are free to check it out for yourself.

Yup, if a device is “USB Class Compliant” then - at least on Mac - it should use the generic drivers built into the OS and “just work”. When something stops working like that, either Apple have broken the driver or the camera wasn’t quite properly class compliant (or a mixture of both). Good luck finding out which by yourself… no support from the manufacturer is inexcusable.

Generally, for basic webcams, mice, keyboards, storage, audio interfaces, MIDI etc. needing to install proprietary drivers on Mac would get them crossed off my list.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Absolutely- desperately needs fixing, these forums are full of evidence that it confuses people.

On paper, the Windows system of having a freely user-selectable UI scale/logical PPI is better - but it does depend heavily on applications being properly written, and the “Mac way” seems particularly robust in the face of old software, multi-display setups with different resolutions or plugging different displays into laptops. It would be a big upheaval for Mac developers and kill a lot of older software… but then, for Mac developers, that’s just a typical Tuesday - it’s Windows users who expect 20 year old software to keep working


Ok, so my display would be 2560p…

Ultimately, sometimes “complicated thing is complicated” and you still need to know more than one number about a display to make a choice. E.g. PPI, aspect ratio and diagonal size. Or PPI, physical height and width. Or horizontal pixels, vertical pixels and diagonal. You can’t boil three numbers down to one and not throw away important data. Also, the “fixed PPI - variable size” model is very much a Mac thing going back to the Mac’s Desktop Publishing heritage. PC users have long used CGA/VGA/WXGA etc. to refer to specific horizontal x vertical pixel counts, and Windows has used a user-definable PPI/scale since forever.


But “desktop space” is far too subjective for marketing purposes. It’s up to the user whether they buy a bigger screen to use a finer UI scale, or because they want to use a large scale and sit further back - you can’t do both at the same time. A 5k3k 27” display works fine in 1:1 mode - viewed from 10” away! A 5k3k display can display a 4k video 1:1 with space leftover for controls. A 5k3k display will do a better job of fractional scaling if you want a different UI scale.

Possibly, a 32” or larger 5k3k display would be ideal for some people - it wouldn’t have the magic 220ppi resolution but it would allow you to use 1:1 5k mode more easily, and the pixels would be smaller than a similarly sized 4K screen. Unlikely, though, unless 5k catches on in the mass PC market - and for Mac users it would have to undercut the price of a 6k display like the Dell.

Yup, agreed.

 

[freshj]

How does this compare to the Samsung Viewfinity S9 for getting on with video work? I have heard that all the smart TV stuff is really annoying and gets in the way. And it has issues with sleep and wake?

 

[BobU]

Is this a good place for these questions?:

JUST got my Asus PA27JCV 5K monitor. Have one issue and one question. The manual as you know is near worthless

I have Windows connected via HDMI and Macbook connected via USB C. (Wish it was Thunderbolt) It takes 15 seconds to switch inputs!! Same for you folks or am I doing something wrong or set improperly?

And, there are Windows and Mac drivers for download. Of course, nowhere does it say to use these or why. My hunch is since factory calibrated I do not need these ICM's. Yes? If not, please educate me.

Thanks!

 

[Tagbert]

Is this a good place for these questions?:

JUST got my Asus PA27JCV 5K monitor. Have one issue and one question. The manual as you know is near worthless

I have Windows connected via HDMI and Macbook connected via USB C. (Wish it was Thunderbolt) It takes 15 seconds to switch inputs!! Same for you folks or am I doing something wrong or set improperly?

And, there are Windows and Mac drivers for download. Of course, nowhere does it say to use these or why. My hunch is since factory calibrated I do not need these ICM's. Yes? If not, please educate me.

Thanks!

I would avoid the manufacturer’s “Drivers”. A monitor should just work using standard protocols and ports and it seems that this one does. Usually the manufacturer’s drivers don’t add anything that you would want and may interfer with normal operations.

As to why it takes that long to switch inputs, that is bad programming and if the same company signed off on that, I would avoid their “driver” software.

 

[BobU]

Well, the drivers are icm's, of course. easy to disable. Seem a tad better color.

Would be nice if someone who has one of these could confirm or deny time to switch inputs. Could be just me. I cannpt tell unless someone else tests theirs.

And, a monitor might just "work" but photographers are a little more exacting.

 

[Tagbert]

Well, the drivers are icm's, of course. easy to disable. Seem a tad better color.

Would be nice if someone who has one of these could confirm or deny time to switch inputs. Could be just me. I cannpt tell unless someone else tests theirs.

And, a monitor might just "work" but photographers are a little more exacting.

If their software provides calibration or color adjustments then it might be worth installing.

 

[coolguy4747]

I would avoid the manufacturer’s “Drivers”. A monitor should just work using standard protocols and ports and it seems that this one does. Usually the manufacturer’s drivers don’t add anything that you would want and may interfer with normal operations.

As to why it takes that long to switch inputs, that is bad programming and if the same company signed off on that, I would avoid their “driver” software.

Yeah, not quite 15 seconds but mine takes an annoying amount of time to switch. Using USB-C and DP.

Edit: I quoted the wrong post oops