6 ms·

Awesome to see them finally putting out almost consumer friendly pricing displays. Few things I'm disappointed about though: - 60hz. For this price point I'd e

by jjcm 5y ago

Awesome to see them finally putting out almost consumer friendly pricing displays. Few things I'm disappointed about though: - 60hz. For this price point I'd expect higher. - Thunderbolt 3. Interesting that they didn't bump to 4, given the Mac Studio is Thunderbolt 4. This means you wont be able to daisy chain the displays. - Lack of size options. Would love to see more variety here. After moving to an ultrawide format, I can't see myself moving back to standard format monitors from a productivity standpoint. Overall though excited for this and keen to see how it'll evolve. It'll be a miss for me this cycle but keen to see their future releases of their monitor line.

owenwil 5y ago
The technology to do 5K @ 120hz just doesn't exist yet. 5K @ 60Hz is already maxing out Thunderbolt 4.
- Dunedan 5y ago
  DisplayPort 1.2 (or newer) and HDMI 2.1 both support 5K at 120Hz when using DSC.
  - miohtama 5y ago
    What’s DSC?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - detaro 5y ago
      Display Stream Compression, a lossy compression algorithm optimized for the specific use case of device-display transfers (i.e. relatively low compression ratio == very high quality that's claimed to imperceptible even if it can't run lossless, not needing to work on full frames for speed/sub-frame latency, ...)
    - gknoy 5y ago
      I didn't know either. DSC is Display Stream Compression, and has been part of the spec since 1.4. According to Wikipedia [0], > DSC is a compression algorithm that reduces the size of the data stream by up to a 3:1 ratio.... Using DSC with HBR3 transmission rates, DisplayPort 1.4 can support 8K UHD (7680 × 4320) at 60 Hz or 4K UHD (3840 × 2160) at 120 Hz 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4
  - zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
    DisplayPort 1.2 cannot even do 5k at 60Hz at 10 bits per channel. You might be thinking about DisplayPort 2.0, which is not yet widely supported in video cards or monitors, and even then it needs the (essentially non-existent) UHBR 20 data rate to get to 120Hz. HDMI 2.1 does support 5K@120Hz@10bpc but requires DSC as you say, which is not very commonly found either. (Note that unlike what a sibling comment states, DSC is lossy. Some argue that the less is not noticeable to the human eye, but not everyone agrees)
    - kllrnohj 5y ago
      > HDMI 2.1 does support 5K@120Hz@10bpc but requires DSC as you say, which is not very commonly found either. Not very commonly found on what? Nvidia & AMD have been shipping DSC for ~2 generations now (so almost anything within the last 4 years has it)
      - zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
        It's not commonly found on monitors. DSC is included starting with DisplayPort 1.4, and a good portion of monitors even today still ship with DP 1.2 Nvidia and AMD have not been shipping DSC with HDMI simply because HDMI included DSC starting with HDMI 2.1, which only the current generation of graphic cards and very few monitors support.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  You’d say if they can drive 3 displays at 60hz they should be able to drive one at 120hz
  - smileybarry 5y ago
    Maybe, but I don't see anyone going the way of dual-link ports ever again. It was clumsy enough the first time.
    - kllrnohj 5y ago
      Displays using MST to achieve higher resolutions than a single link allowed worked out more or less fine. The problem there is MacOS doesn't support MST.
      - sbalea 5y ago
        Funny, I am typing this on a Mac connected to an MST Dell 5k display....MacOS supported this setup since at least 2015, when I bought my display.
        kllrnohj 5y ago
        Aha! What MacOS doesn't support is MST daisy chaining for some reason, only MST to a single display to overcome bandwidth limitations.
        Dagonfly 5y ago
        That's a common misunderstanding. DisplayPort MST allows multiple display streams to be multiplexed onto a single DP link. So you are still bound by the bandwidth of a DP connection (25.92 Gbit/s for HBR3). The 5K Ultrafine (which I presume you are talking about) is connected via two separate DP links which are tunneled over a single cable using TB3. That sounds like nitpicking, but is a crucial difference. MST provides daisy chaining of displays, but can not help you exceed bandwidth limits. Whereas the two DP links are completely independent and theoretically allow you to double the max bandwidth. (well 2xHBR3 exceeds the max TB3 bandwidth, so the 5K uses 2xHBR2)
- kllrnohj 5y ago
  And yet somehow the technology to do 8k @ 120hz does exist... ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDUnSsx62j8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDUnSsx62j8 )
  - spartanatreyu 5y ago
    Does that video show the connection used to display that. If not, I'm guessing that example case is either using a lossy data compression or multiple cables running to multiple displays.
    - faeriechangling 5y ago
      Lossy Data Compression is used on the Pro Display XDR and Apple doesn't seem to lose any sleep over it. DSC is quite good.
      - kllrnohj 5y ago
        There's also the fact that nearly all content has compression as part of its path to display anyway. Video & images are obvious examples, but also GPUs almost always render to a lossy compressed framebuffer as well. It just saves way too much memory bandwidth not to do. So as long as 'transcoding' from GPU framebuffer compression to DSC is itself a mostly lossless process, there's realistically not even a quality hit from it anyway
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  Samsung has 5120x1440 @ 240hz today. That is literally half of a 5K panel at double the speed. It amazes me how many people I've seen say this exact same thing about how 5k120hz is impossible.
- Dagonfly 5y ago
  To shed some light: DisplayPort 2.0 supports up to 77.37 Gbit/s of bandwidth. Wikipedia's DisplayPort article has excellent tables about bandwidths of display formats: HDR 5K@120hz (57 Gbit/s) is totally possible with DP 2.0. One could use DisplayPort 2.0 alt-mode to carry that signal over a USB-C cable. With the main disadvantage that the USB ports on the monitor would drop to USB 2.0 speeds [1]. And alt-mode 2.0 is only available on the most recent hosts with USB4 ports. [1] Native USB4 tunneling only supports DisplayPort 1.4a (for now). That's a huge flaw imo, cause falling back to alt-mode takes over the cable and blocks USB3/PCIe tunneling from working. In fact, that flaw is even present on this monitor: > When connected to iPad Pro 12.9-inch (3rd and 4th generation), iPad Pro 11-inch (1st and 2nd generation), or iPad Air (5th generation), Studio Display USB-C ports deliver USB 2 data transfer speeds. Those models don't support TB3 or USB4 on their USB-C port, so they have to use alt-mode with either compression or without HDR.
fotta 5y ago
TB4 has the same bandwidth as TB3 so you wouldn't be able to daisy chain 5k monitors anyway. Also as the other commentator mentioned, TB doesn't have enough bandwidth for 120hz (53Gbps vs 40Gbps)
- mistersquid 5y ago
  > TB4 has the same bandwidth as TB3 so you wouldn't be able to daisy chain 5k monitors anyway. So this each Studio Display will require a direct connection to the laptop/desktop in order to work? That's definitely not great.
  - fotta 5y ago
    Yep. The LG 5Ks are the same way too. Moreover, if you have an Intel MacBook Pro you have to use ports on opposite sides of the laptop if you have 2 displays. You can’t plug them in on the same side.
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  Try doing your same math with the Pro Display XDR or the Samsung Odyssey G9 and your calculations will come up with the monitors being impossible especially accounting for overhead. 5k120hz is very possible with today's tech, you just need to use DSC or 2 links. That is why people were hoping for it.
oceanplexian 5y ago
Yeah I don’t know what it is with everyone prioritizing pixels over refresh rate.. once you start using 100+hz 60hz starts to feel like a slide show. You can see mouse trails and scrolling is jerky and uncoordinated, it’s painful and insanely distracting.
- dnissley 5y ago
  I mainly just look at text all day, so the "slow" transitions between different bits of text just don't matter all that much to me. Resolution helps that text look nice and crisp though, which I really do appreciate.
  - arvinsim 5y ago
    That's why I will be sticking to my 4k 144hz monitor. Yes, it's less than 5k but I get crisp fonts and smooth transitions.
  - faeriechangling 5y ago
    If you look at text specifically all day than high refresh rate is especially useful since you will be scrolling a lot.
    - dnissley 5y ago
      I don't think I'm reading the text while it's scrolling... But maybe I am more than I realize? I actually think I'm more looking at the shape of the text when it's scrolling rather than the actual text itself.
- EugeneOZ 5y ago
  Although I agree that 100+ Hz matters and the difference is huge, pixels density is very important also, and for some (myself included), it matters more.
- bob1029 5y ago
  To this day, 27" 1440p, 144hz IPS gaming monitors are still my favorite daily driver for any desktop productivity. And when I say favorite, I mean by an extremely large margin. The amount of real estate you get with 2560x1440 is fantastic, and you can actually game on it at native resolution on older gen graphics. The pixel density of 27" @ 1440p is the epitome of goldilocks. Every single pixel is just the right amount of useful.
aldanor 5y ago
Yea. Sad about the lack of ultrawide option, too. Once you get used to it, there's no way back. Two 27'' displays is not an option since you can't center anything, so... three Studio displays side-to-side?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I've been running an LG non-curved 3440x1440 ultrawide monitor as my main work monitor for several years now. It's a great form factor, but the resolution is really sad. It's essentially a wider version of the Dell 1440p monitor that I had ten years ago. My ideal monitor now would be a pixel-doubled version of this ultrawide monitor, but I'm still tempted to lose the extra width and upgrade to this 5k display.
  - yurishimo 5y ago
    Same. I have a 32" 1440p display and am considering grabbing one of these when I get back to the states in a few months. I could live without the speakers, but honestly if they're "good enough" they might kick my powered studio monitors off of my desk. I like my powered speakers but I don't use them anywhere near the volume they thrive at so it might be worth it to re-examine my workflow as a hobbyist.
  - tylerfontaine 5y ago
    The Dell U4021QW is probably the best monitor I've ever used. I, too, got sad with 1440 vertical pixels on previous ultrawides, so I was pretty excited when they announced this one. 5120 x 2160 is really a dream. It's limited to 60hz, which bothers some folks, but I haven't noticed. I don't game or anything on it, though.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      I actually forgot that that monitor configuration existed. It looks nice, although I assume you would still be running at the same UI scaling as a 1440p monitor, and the higher pixel density compared to a 34" ultrawide 1440p display (around 25% higher) means you put the monitor closer to your eyes. So unless you're doing non-integer scaling (which I want to avoid if at all possible), you get a lot more real estate than the 1440p display, but not 2x density. Or you could do 2x scaling, but then you've just got the real estate of an ultrawide 1080p display. Personally I have plenty of real estate with 3440x1440, and what I'm really interested in is jumping to 2x scaling.
meerita 5y ago
1800€ is consumer friendly for a 27"? I would pay that for a 34" not a 27.
mekster 5y ago
No HDR, no ProMotion (bad naming for googleability), no Face ID and it's priced as if they're all there. This is some alpha state product which only people who are high are going to buy.

by jjcm 5y ago

owenwil 5y ago

The technology to do 5K @ 120hz just doesn't exist yet. 5K @ 60Hz is already maxing out Thunderbolt 4.

Dunedan 5y ago
DisplayPort 1.2 (or newer) and HDMI 2.1 both support 5K at 120Hz when using DSC.
- miohtama 5y ago
  What’s DSC?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - detaro 5y ago
    Display Stream Compression, a lossy compression algorithm optimized for the specific use case of device-display transfers (i.e. relatively low compression ratio == very high quality that's claimed to imperceptible even if it can't run lossless, not needing to work on full frames for speed/sub-frame latency, ...)
  - gknoy 5y ago
    I didn't know either. DSC is Display Stream Compression, and has been part of the spec since 1.4. According to Wikipedia [0], > DSC is a compression algorithm that reduces the size of the data stream by up to a 3:1 ratio.... Using DSC with HBR3 transmission rates, DisplayPort 1.4 can support 8K UHD (7680 × 4320) at 60 Hz or 4K UHD (3840 × 2160) at 120 Hz 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4
- zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
  DisplayPort 1.2 cannot even do 5k at 60Hz at 10 bits per channel. You might be thinking about DisplayPort 2.0, which is not yet widely supported in video cards or monitors, and even then it needs the (essentially non-existent) UHBR 20 data rate to get to 120Hz. HDMI 2.1 does support 5K@120Hz@10bpc but requires DSC as you say, which is not very commonly found either. (Note that unlike what a sibling comment states, DSC is lossy. Some argue that the less is not noticeable to the human eye, but not everyone agrees)
  - kllrnohj 5y ago
    > HDMI 2.1 does support 5K@120Hz@10bpc but requires DSC as you say, which is not very commonly found either. Not very commonly found on what? Nvidia & AMD have been shipping DSC for ~2 generations now (so almost anything within the last 4 years has it)
    - zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
      It's not commonly found on monitors. DSC is included starting with DisplayPort 1.4, and a good portion of monitors even today still ship with DP 1.2 Nvidia and AMD have not been shipping DSC with HDMI simply because HDMI included DSC starting with HDMI 2.1, which only the current generation of graphic cards and very few monitors support.
tinus_hn 5y ago
You’d say if they can drive 3 displays at 60hz they should be able to drive one at 120hz
- smileybarry 5y ago
  Maybe, but I don't see anyone going the way of dual-link ports ever again. It was clumsy enough the first time.
  - kllrnohj 5y ago
    Displays using MST to achieve higher resolutions than a single link allowed worked out more or less fine. The problem there is MacOS doesn't support MST.
    - sbalea 5y ago
      Funny, I am typing this on a Mac connected to an MST Dell 5k display....MacOS supported this setup since at least 2015, when I bought my display.
      - kllrnohj 5y ago
        Aha! What MacOS doesn't support is MST daisy chaining for some reason, only MST to a single display to overcome bandwidth limitations.
      - Dagonfly 5y ago
        That's a common misunderstanding. DisplayPort MST allows multiple display streams to be multiplexed onto a single DP link. So you are still bound by the bandwidth of a DP connection (25.92 Gbit/s for HBR3). The 5K Ultrafine (which I presume you are talking about) is connected via two separate DP links which are tunneled over a single cable using TB3. That sounds like nitpicking, but is a crucial difference. MST provides daisy chaining of displays, but can not help you exceed bandwidth limits. Whereas the two DP links are completely independent and theoretically allow you to double the max bandwidth. (well 2xHBR3 exceeds the max TB3 bandwidth, so the 5K uses 2xHBR2)
kllrnohj 5y ago
And yet somehow the technology to do 8k @ 120hz does exist... ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDUnSsx62j8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDUnSsx62j8 )
- spartanatreyu 5y ago
  Does that video show the connection used to display that. If not, I'm guessing that example case is either using a lossy data compression or multiple cables running to multiple displays.
  - faeriechangling 5y ago
    Lossy Data Compression is used on the Pro Display XDR and Apple doesn't seem to lose any sleep over it. DSC is quite good.
    - kllrnohj 5y ago
      There's also the fact that nearly all content has compression as part of its path to display anyway. Video & images are obvious examples, but also GPUs almost always render to a lossy compressed framebuffer as well. It just saves way too much memory bandwidth not to do. So as long as 'transcoding' from GPU framebuffer compression to DSC is itself a mostly lossless process, there's realistically not even a quality hit from it anyway
faeriechangling 5y ago
Samsung has 5120x1440 @ 240hz today. That is literally half of a 5K panel at double the speed. It amazes me how many people I've seen say this exact same thing about how 5k120hz is impossible.
Dagonfly 5y ago
To shed some light: DisplayPort 2.0 supports up to 77.37 Gbit/s of bandwidth. Wikipedia's DisplayPort article has excellent tables about bandwidths of display formats: HDR 5K@120hz (57 Gbit/s) is totally possible with DP 2.0. One could use DisplayPort 2.0 alt-mode to carry that signal over a USB-C cable. With the main disadvantage that the USB ports on the monitor would drop to USB 2.0 speeds [1]. And alt-mode 2.0 is only available on the most recent hosts with USB4 ports. [1] Native USB4 tunneling only supports DisplayPort 1.4a (for now). That's a huge flaw imo, cause falling back to alt-mode takes over the cable and blocks USB3/PCIe tunneling from working. In fact, that flaw is even present on this monitor: > When connected to iPad Pro 12.9-inch (3rd and 4th generation), iPad Pro 11-inch (1st and 2nd generation), or iPad Air (5th generation), Studio Display USB-C ports deliver USB 2 data transfer speeds. Those models don't support TB3 or USB4 on their USB-C port, so they have to use alt-mode with either compression or without HDR.

fotta 5y ago

TB4 has the same bandwidth as TB3 so you wouldn't be able to daisy chain 5k monitors anyway. Also as the other commentator mentioned, TB doesn't have enough bandwidth for 120hz (53Gbps vs 40Gbps)

mistersquid 5y ago
> TB4 has the same bandwidth as TB3 so you wouldn't be able to daisy chain 5k monitors anyway. So this each Studio Display will require a direct connection to the laptop/desktop in order to work? That's definitely not great.
- fotta 5y ago
  Yep. The LG 5Ks are the same way too. Moreover, if you have an Intel MacBook Pro you have to use ports on opposite sides of the laptop if you have 2 displays. You can’t plug them in on the same side.
faeriechangling 5y ago
Try doing your same math with the Pro Display XDR or the Samsung Odyssey G9 and your calculations will come up with the monitors being impossible especially accounting for overhead. 5k120hz is very possible with today's tech, you just need to use DSC or 2 links. That is why people were hoping for it.

oceanplexian 5y ago

Yeah I don’t know what it is with everyone prioritizing pixels over refresh rate.. once you start using 100+hz 60hz starts to feel like a slide show. You can see mouse trails and scrolling is jerky and uncoordinated, it’s painful and insanely distracting.

dnissley 5y ago
I mainly just look at text all day, so the "slow" transitions between different bits of text just don't matter all that much to me. Resolution helps that text look nice and crisp though, which I really do appreciate.
- arvinsim 5y ago
  That's why I will be sticking to my 4k 144hz monitor. Yes, it's less than 5k but I get crisp fonts and smooth transitions.
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  If you look at text specifically all day than high refresh rate is especially useful since you will be scrolling a lot.
  - dnissley 5y ago
    I don't think I'm reading the text while it's scrolling... But maybe I am more than I realize? I actually think I'm more looking at the shape of the text when it's scrolling rather than the actual text itself.
EugeneOZ 5y ago
Although I agree that 100+ Hz matters and the difference is huge, pixels density is very important also, and for some (myself included), it matters more.
bob1029 5y ago
To this day, 27" 1440p, 144hz IPS gaming monitors are still my favorite daily driver for any desktop productivity. And when I say favorite, I mean by an extremely large margin. The amount of real estate you get with 2560x1440 is fantastic, and you can actually game on it at native resolution on older gen graphics. The pixel density of 27" @ 1440p is the epitome of goldilocks. Every single pixel is just the right amount of useful.

aldanor 5y ago

Yea. Sad about the lack of ultrawide option, too. Once you get used to it, there's no way back. Two 27'' displays is not an option since you can't center anything, so... three Studio displays side-to-side?

tshaddox 5y ago
I've been running an LG non-curved 3440x1440 ultrawide monitor as my main work monitor for several years now. It's a great form factor, but the resolution is really sad. It's essentially a wider version of the Dell 1440p monitor that I had ten years ago. My ideal monitor now would be a pixel-doubled version of this ultrawide monitor, but I'm still tempted to lose the extra width and upgrade to this 5k display.
- yurishimo 5y ago
  Same. I have a 32" 1440p display and am considering grabbing one of these when I get back to the states in a few months. I could live without the speakers, but honestly if they're "good enough" they might kick my powered studio monitors off of my desk. I like my powered speakers but I don't use them anywhere near the volume they thrive at so it might be worth it to re-examine my workflow as a hobbyist.
- tylerfontaine 5y ago
  The Dell U4021QW is probably the best monitor I've ever used. I, too, got sad with 1440 vertical pixels on previous ultrawides, so I was pretty excited when they announced this one. 5120 x 2160 is really a dream. It's limited to 60hz, which bothers some folks, but I haven't noticed. I don't game or anything on it, though.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    I actually forgot that that monitor configuration existed. It looks nice, although I assume you would still be running at the same UI scaling as a 1440p monitor, and the higher pixel density compared to a 34" ultrawide 1440p display (around 25% higher) means you put the monitor closer to your eyes. So unless you're doing non-integer scaling (which I want to avoid if at all possible), you get a lot more real estate than the 1440p display, but not 2x density. Or you could do 2x scaling, but then you've just got the real estate of an ultrawide 1080p display. Personally I have plenty of real estate with 3440x1440, and what I'm really interested in is jumping to 2x scaling.

meerita 5y ago

1800€ is consumer friendly for a 27"? I would pay that for a 34" not a 27.

mekster 5y ago

No HDR, no ProMotion (bad naming for googleability), no Face ID and it's priced as if they're all there. This is some alpha state product which only people who are high are going to buy.