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.
The *complete* list of 6K / 32" monitors
- Thread starter displayator
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 6k display 6k retina monitor
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I notice the Samsung G8 line retina-class 32" display is lauded as a gaming monitor. When review of the ASUS 6K 32" display came out, they didn't talk gaming, they focused on color space coverage.
At this point, we can speculate, I imagine based on what prior experience has been with lower resolution displays (say, 4K 27" displays aimed at professional users vs. games), what this means for end users.
So I'm asking you guys...do you think it likely the Samsung 32" 6K will have similar performance in terms of color space coverage for professionals, or will the focus on gamers likely mean high end professional users will still pick the ASUS, LG, etc.?
At this point, we can speculate, I imagine based on what prior experience has been with lower resolution displays (say, 4K 27" displays aimed at professional users vs. games), what this means for end users.
So I'm asking you guys...do you think it likely the Samsung 32" 6K will have similar performance in terms of color space coverage for professionals, or will the focus on gamers likely mean high end professional users will still pick the ASUS, LG, etc.?
Way OT, but that reminds me of watching Andy Warhol's Frankenstein in 3D back in the 70s.
I recall the scene where one of the monsters, a female, I think, fell onto the floor grate. The viewer is at the bottom of the hole below the grate, and suddenly, we all see her liver fall onto our faces. There was a collective gasp from everyone in the audience.
OK..back to OT.
And just like that LG have announced a new 5K tandem OLED 39” widescreen. I expect it will be around the 1500 mark. Also there are PLENTY of monitors that are 1000 to 1500 now so they must sell. Apples monitors start from 1300… Their is certainly a market for them.
What matters most to MR crowd is macOS compatibility. Will the LG UltraGear evo 39GX950B at 145ppi be at par or better than Dell U4025QW at 140ppi?
By comparison 2019 Apple 32" 6K & 2025 ASUS 32" 6K displays are 218ppi.
While the 2025 LG 32" 6K & 2026 Samsung 32" 6K displays appear to be 220ppi.
Last edited:
Let's avoid using the phrase "MacOS compatible" to refer to PPI.
Almost every monitor is MacOS compatible.
That is interesting for gaming as a new 5K2K OLED, but the big news for these Retina+ threads is the second display in the LG UltraGear evo press release, a true 27" 5K with a next-generation ("Zero Optical Distance") 2,304 Mini-LED backlight with DisplayHDR 1000 certification and dual-mode 165Hz/330Hz adaptive sync, which is undoubtedly a competitor for the rumored Studio Display XDR (J527) Apple is expected too launch soon.
I don't know what to make of the on-device AI upscaling and "scene optimization" -- is that mainly a gaming/motion thing or will it help with color and precision?
I'll update the 5K and 6K WikiPosts later today with what we know about both the Samsung and LG developments. To get back fully on-topic, I'm weirdly optimistic now that Apple might have a 32" 6K Studio Display Plus (not XDR) in the works, now that we can see LG's "evo" strategy a bit more clearly.
Last edited:
Ideal ppi is 109 & 218 or 220.
The Dell U4025QW is 140ppi and it often hailed as a the most macOS compatible ultrawide even when Apple never made an ultrawide themselves.
I don't think you have a strong grasp of what the word "compatible" means.
If a thing is MacOS compatible, that means you can connect it to a Mac and it will work. This is the case for all devices, e.g., mice, keyboards, external hard drives, webcams, monitors, etc. etc.
A monitor can be perfectly 100% MacOS compatible regardless of what its resolution is, and regardless of whether or not Apple has ever made a similar monitor. Those are completely irrelevant factors when it comes to compatibility.
So let's stop using the word "compatible" when we're referring to a monitor as having a certain pixel density.
I see where you're getting that and I think my original wording is at issue.
Based on my personal readings the most macOS compatible ultrawide is the Dell that I pointed to.
Other displays have more issues working with macOS than that 5K2K display from Dell.
Hence my pointing out whether the new LG displays will best the Dell.
In other words I was speaking of two points. I limited my 1st point to general macOS compatability.
My 2nd point I provided a new premise then expanded upon it further.
I am not interchanging macOS compatibility with ppi.Those are 2 separate matters.
Let’s hope so, I appreciate the big news is the new 27” monitor. But a 32” would be very nice if 6K and a LOT less then the Pro Display.
Yes, a 31.5" 6K 6144x3456 120 Hz panel with 10-bit 4:4:4 colour would be nice. However, for USB-C that'd probably require a Thunderbolt 5 machine like the M4 Pro Mac mini. The current M4 Mac mini could support it with HDMI 2.1 though.
Yeah I'm sure it will take about 5 seconds to disable the 3D junk.
I don't think so. Apple devices internally use DisplayPort which is then being converted to HDMI so there is no way HDMI would have more bandwidth than DP on the same device.
I am positive that all Macs with a port combination of TB4 (DP1.4) + HDMI 2.1, did get more bandwidth available on the HDMI port than the DP-alt. The display engine on-die is being bottlenecked by the Thunderbolt I/O.
Apple’s M4 (non-Pro) Tech Specs pages say:
“Up to two displays: one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI”
Which implies that when you are not using more than one TB4 monitor then HDMI gets more bandwidth than Apple allows a single TB4 port to receive.
Without using HDMI at more than 4K/60, the TB4 ports support two 6K/60, but I think the way the frame buffer is configured, to support two Pro XDR displays, that means that one TB4 port isn’t allowed to run at the same maximum bandwidth as the HDMI port.
“Up to two displays: one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI”
Which implies that when you are not using more than one TB4 monitor then HDMI gets more bandwidth than Apple allows a single TB4 port to receive.
Without using HDMI at more than 4K/60, the TB4 ports support two 6K/60, but I think the way the frame buffer is configured, to support two Pro XDR displays, that means that one TB4 port isn’t allowed to run at the same maximum bandwidth as the HDMI port.
Last edited:
where did you get this info from? Sorry, I still don't understand. A user could use either Thunderbolt or HDMI for the second display.
@thenewepic "where did you get this info from?"
From Apple. By inference.
"M4
Simultaneously supports up to three displays:
If you reduce HDMI to zero, you don't get more than 6K/60 (x2) and 5K/60 from the TB4 ports.
Greater aggregate bandwidth from TB4, but less per any individual monitor connection than HDMI.
Obviously this particular arrangement is because Apple doesn't specify for any more TB4 bandwidth-hungry monitor than the Pro XDR Display, but I understood that @Chancha was referring to the way that sharing any TB4 video channel maximum bandwidth was constrained in some way by Apple's need to comply with their quoted specs.
In other words, if you try to increase the DP bandwidth requirement on any one TB4 port, it fails, because then you won't get 6K/60 x2 from the other ports, and Apple doesn't want to let this happen, it seems?
I infer that the thousands of posts about troubles getting 5K2K high refresh rate monitors working fully in HDPI mode are a consequence of this anomaly?
Not a random set of bugs, but as a result of Apple's particular deliberate design choices?
From Apple. By inference.
"M4
Simultaneously supports up to three displays:
- Up to three displays: two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz over Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI
- Up to two displays: one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI
- Support for native DisplayPort 1.4 output over USB-C"
If you reduce HDMI to zero, you don't get more than 6K/60 (x2) and 5K/60 from the TB4 ports.
Greater aggregate bandwidth from TB4, but less per any individual monitor connection than HDMI.
Obviously this particular arrangement is because Apple doesn't specify for any more TB4 bandwidth-hungry monitor than the Pro XDR Display, but I understood that @Chancha was referring to the way that sharing any TB4 video channel maximum bandwidth was constrained in some way by Apple's need to comply with their quoted specs.
In other words, if you try to increase the DP bandwidth requirement on any one TB4 port, it fails, because then you won't get 6K/60 x2 from the other ports, and Apple doesn't want to let this happen, it seems?
I infer that the thousands of posts about troubles getting 5K2K high refresh rate monitors working fully in HDPI mode are a consequence of this anomaly?
Not a random set of bugs, but as a result of Apple's particular deliberate design choices?
Last edited:
if you use TB4 at 8K@60 (or 4K@240) then bandwidth of the second TB4 drops to 5K@60 as well. So I don't understand why do you think that HDMI is exceptional here in any way. Apple doesn't say this.
The only difference I see that in case of three displays the third one can be connected as 5K@60 over TB4 but just 4K@60 over HDMI. I don't know why. Is it because HDMI takes additional bandwidth or Apple just isn't aware that there are plenty 5K@60 displays with HDMI 2.1 interface (from other brands)?
So can a M4 Mini support 6K/120 and 4K/120? It can right? The 6K via TB4 and the 4K via the HDMI port?
I don’t know either, but the number of 5K displays with HDMI 2.1 available in October 2024 when M4 Pro/Max launched was precisely *zero* — infinitely far from “plenty.”
Indeed, the only true 5K HDMI 2.0 display was the short-lived 6-bit Iiyama in 2018. None of the original 5Ks from Dell, HP, Philips, Samsung, and LG used HDMI.
Apple would surely have been aware in 2024 that the 2025 wave of 5K displays with HDMI 2.1 (ASUS was the first to announce, in late October 2024) was coming, but supporting a third 5K display via HDMI 2.1 probably wasn’t a priority, since it would not have been possible to test it at the time. Do we know for a fact that it doesn’t work, now that they exist?
yep, you're right, I totally forgot these specs were written last year.
HDMI 2.0 cannot handle 5K@60, only 5K@30 or 4K@60 so we shouldn't count this display anyway.