As if reducing the stand‘s price by a whopping $100 (10%) changes anything.
The stand should be included in the base price, or the base price dropped accordingly IMO.
Last edited:
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.
Why are 5K monitors so hard?
- Thread starter zorinlynx
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The stand should be included in the base price, or the base price dropped accordingly IMO.
Basically because 5k came out before machines could universally support it and to make it work on those platforms is a bunch of hacks like combining two sub-5k outputs into a single monitor.
A 5K monitor released today would no longer need these hacks due to DSC. That’s not the reason. It’s the low demand.
Last edited:
a 5k monitor released today is still going to want to work with the machines on the market from 5-10 years ago one way or another.
But yeah also low demand... because a lot of machines aren't powerful enough to even drive 4k properly and Windows DPI scaling has totally sucked for the past decade.
Then make it so that it can “do” 5K at 10 bpc 60 Hz both via two discrete DisplayPort 1.2/1.4 connections (no DSC) and via a single DisplayPort 1.4 connection (with DSC). And include a “4K” fallback mode for a single DisplayPort 1.2 connection. Maximum compatibility.
What does “drive 4K properly” imply? Gaming?
I still suppose it’s primarily due to the low demand from the PC crowd which is still the overwhelming majority of buyers. So it makes perfect sense for the panel manufacturers to cater to their preferences first, and to macOS’ (comparatively niche) 220 ppi preference second (if at all).
Last edited:
From wikipedia, on Thunderbolt 3:
simultaneously drives two external 4K displays at 60 Hz (or a single external 4K display at 120 Hz, or a 5K display at 60 Hz when using Apple's implementation for the late-2016 MacBook Pros) instead of just the single display previous controllers can drive. The new controller supports PCIe 3.0 and other protocols, including DisplayPort 1.2 (allowing for 4K resolutions at 60 Hz)
Thunderbolt (interface) - Wikipedia
Assuming you mean 5120×2880 10bpc, 120 Hz requires a pixel clock of 1931 MHz and a total bandwidth of 57.9 Gbps using CVT-RB timings (calculator).
Thunderbolt 3 is 40 Gbps max and can encapsulate DisplayPort 1.2 HBR2 (17.28 Gbps max per stream) or 1.4 HBR3 streams (25.92 Gbps max per stream). DP 1.4 also allows Display Stream Compression (DSC) if the GPU and display support it.
There's no way to do 5120×2880 10bpc at 120 Hz via DP 1.4 without DSC. DP 2.0 (77.57 Gbps max) is required for that.
Assuming a 3:1 compression ratio for DSC, thereby reducing the required bandwidth to ≈20 Gbps, it should™ work using HBR3+DSC.
@joevt: Does that make sense?
Last edited:
I agree, and that’s why I included a “standard” stand originally.As if reducing the stand‘s price by a whopping $100 (10%) changes anything.
However, I would be surprised if Apple is selling a $2800 monitor that didn’t have the same attachment type as the Pro Display.
The reason is Apple would want to have the existing Pro Display stands be compatible with any monitor they release for some time.
So XDR, this display, some updated XDR, possibly even a large TV type display at some future date.
I suppose it could have a stand like the old Cinema Display or the imac. But I have noticed apple does not hesitate to use gaps in its own lineup to gird people into buying products they only want part of.
I should clarify, with more space, yes I can see that more lines will be displayed, but the size of the text may be too small. I'm more interested if the 32" 4K will show more lines with similar sized text compared to 27" 5K.
Yes. If you set the scaling so that text is the same size (in millimeters, not pixels) there will be more of it on the 32”. It will just be blurrier.
Conversely, if you set both to look like for example 2560×1440 they will both show the exact same amount of content, but it will be larger and blurrier on the 32”.
Yeah or a brand new model.
I acquired the Huawei Mateview monitors for the time being, I needed something to connect my M1 Pro... I need dual monitors for my workflow as I have a couple of VMs and SSH I connect to.
That seems to be a nice monitor. Do you like it so far? How's the matte screen? Does it block glare well?
the problem is, I'm sick to wait! I'll buy soon the macbook pro m1 and I'll need a monitor for.
It isn't if you ever used a Surface device with a 3:2 screen. It's amazing for terminals and browsing.. to get things done essentially.
We got almost all the way there! It is just too expensive by about $300.
Although, considering the demise of the 27" iMac I would even like to revise my "reasonable price" statement further downwards.
Purchasing the cheapest possible config Mac mini, Studio Display, Magic Mouse and Magic Keyboard comes to $2476, and that doesn't even include Touch ID on the keyboard.
For almost $700 more you get the same 256 GB of storage, the same RAM (arguably less since it is now shared with graphics, the base iMac had an additional 4 GB on the Radeon Pro 5300) and the lowest-end M1 chip available in a desktop Mac.
This is at best a lateral movement from Intel to AS. Had a new 5K iMac been introduced with these specs and this price increase it would not have been well-received. Even with specs that you'd reasonably expect from an iMac update the 42% price hike would be difficult to stomach.
Given that the 27" iMac is no longer an option, I think the Studio Display is too expensive by $600, not $300. (Regrettably, I ordered two anyhow, the first should arrive next week.)
I was looking at this monitor... can't get over that aspect ratio. It's bringing me back to the good ole days ?
4:3 would be even better than 3:2 (12.5% more vertical screen estate at the same horizontal resolution).
Last edited:
Thanks for resurrecting this old thread--I'd forgotten about it. It is interesting to re-live all the frustration that existed prior to the ASD's release over the dearth of 5K options in the market...there really was only one by the end of last year, and it was/is far from perfect. I was especially amazed to read member @- rob - 's prescient "theoretical press release" in Post #50, which was pretty spot-on for everything except (thankfully) the price!
It was also interesting to see the introductory price of the Dell UP2715K in 2014, which at $2,500 MSRP would have made the ASD look like a bargain! I think those who are storming toward Cupertino with torches and pitchforks over the pricing of the ASD forget that 5K displays are a low-volume, specialty item with limited competition.
I'm now in a bit of a conundrum over what to do about a second display for my Mac Studio. I initially was going to get a second ASD, but now we have the rumors of a 27" ProMotion HDR display set to be released in June. There is no doubt in my mind that this will be priced to not cannibalize the XDR, or possibly to replace it, so this means well north of $3,000. I'm leaning toward cancelling my order for the second ASD and waiting to see what happens in June.
$1,000 for the ASD is a not a realistic price. I feel $1,300 would be fair. While I watched the keynote I expected $1,500 immediately before they unveiled the $1,600 price.
Regarding the iMac, it was always a better value. You can still get plenty of refurbished 27" iMacs from Apple. And hopefully they will unveil a 30" model in 2023 at some point.
Ya'll brought back my baby! I'm touched.
One thing I'm hoping for is that now since Apple is moving away from the 27" iMac and has brought out a very capable machine that requires an external monitor, this will open up the market for some of the usual players (LG, Samsung, etc.) to bring out more 5K options for Macs. The market just got bigger, and with the only three really good options being overpriced (ASD, LG Ultrafine, Pro Display XDR) now there's an opportunity for more options to fill this market.
I'm still at a standstill for what to do; my 2015 iMac 5K is still serving me well but might not get MacOS 13. I still have time to think about what to do, and for more options to show up on the market.
By the way, at work they ended up just going with low DPI Dell Ultrawide 29" monitors. The users don't seem to care and are happy. Which... disappoints me? You'd think people would want that retina goodness. At least it made our job coming up with a solution easier.