6 ms·

To be fair, it's a 60hz refresh rate monitor, which would be considered pretty meh for any modern gaming pc, especially when you look at the price tag. It would

To be fair, it's a 60hz refresh rate monitor, which would be considered pretty meh for any modern gaming pc, especially when you look at the price tag. It would be pretty insane to buy this monitor for specifically gaming. Hundreds of far better options for significantly cheaper... None the less, it's Apple. None of this sounds surprising, sadly. In Apple's defense, the specs are pretty clearly laid out with the ports: https://www.apple.com/studio-display/specs/ https://www.apple.com/studio-display/specs/

madeofpalk 5y ago
It's a weird one. 60hz is pretty low refresh rate. Definitely not a gaming monitor. But it's resolution is quite high. At this resolution, I think there's only one other monitor, the LG Ultra Fine 5k is which is like only $200 cheaper. I think for people that care about resolution/pixel density, this monitor has basically zero competition? There's plenty of lower resolution monitors with higher refresh rates.
- MBCook 5y ago
  That’s the case. And it explains the 60Hz. TB3 can only support 5k@60 due to the amount of bandwidth it takes. So without a newer interconnect (delaying the Studio more) or some fancy custom dual TB setup they didn’t have a choice. The LG has its problems. It’s kind of wobbly, cheap feeling, and the USB-C ports can fail over time from strain/use. The extra $200 for the quality and features of the Apple display sounds reasonable to me given that benchmark. Is it expensive in absolute terms? Yeah. The LG is too. But it’s those two options or step up to the Pro Display at $5k.
  - arvinsim 5y ago
    But would using TB4 solve the issue?
    - ihattendorf 5y ago
      5k60 requires 32.4 Gbps uncompressed, 120 Hz would be double that. TB3, TB4, and USB4 max out at 40 Gbps. The main difference between TB3 and TB4 is that TB4 requires every feature to be implemented (charging DisplayPort, etc.).
- kllrnohj 5y ago
  > the LG Ultra Fine 5k is which is like only $200 cheaper. $300 cheaper and 8 years old now, so likely can find used examples if you wanted. It's pretty clear that 5k / 218ppi just has no significant market appeal at this point outside of the Apple ecosystem. There were a few other 5k displays, but they've all packed up since (including LG, they don't make that 5k Ultrafine anymore afaict) Although arguably since the LG comes with a height adjustable stand it's $700 cheaper than the Studio Display 27"
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Oh yeah - I mean the Studio Display panel is presumably exactly the same as the 27" Retina iMac they shipped in 2014. It's a 4 year old panel. Astonishing it took them until now to ship that as an external monitor. One of the bad qualities of the LG UltraFine was it's stand was not very stable and prone to wobble. I had one.
  - orangecat 5y ago
    It's pretty clear that 5k / 218ppi just has no significant market appeal at this point This is apparently true, and it's baffling. I was able to pick up one of the now-discontinued 5k PC displays a few years ago, and it's fantastic in Linux and Windows with 2x scaling.
    - btgeekboy 5y ago
      I’m trying to make a 32” 4K work for me, and Windows’ 125% scaling is hot garbage. Macos is slightly better, but it’s still obvious it’s not an integer multiple of native.
      - oblak 5y ago
        27 1440 is fine. Is 32 4k that higher dpi wise?
- ssully 5y ago
  I think you overestimate the popularity of refresh rates over 60hz.
  - p1necone 5y ago
    Depends on which market you're talking about. Everyone: Yeah, not particularly common, nor do they really add much. PC gamers specifically (and series/ps5 now too, with those consoles supporting 120hz with compatible tvs and games): Quite popular, and they do significantly add to the gaming experience.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    Yeah, I also want 90hz, but when I need to use HDMI on my fairly recent X1 I must choose between 4k@30hz or 60hz and I would always choose 4k. The banwidth for 4k at 60hz is only now becoming mainstream.
    - howinteresting 5y ago
      The bandwidth for 4k at 60Hz (HDMI 2.0) has been around for a while. The bandwidth for 4k at 120Hz (HDMI 2.1/Displayport 1.4) is only now becoming mainstream.
      - akvadrako 5y ago
        It hasn't been mainstream. I have the X1C7, a flagship in 2019 and it only supports HDMI 1.4. That means when I bought my current laptop, still under the 3-year warranty, I would have had to get something worse to get HDMI 2.0 support, since I compared everything available.
        rsynnott 5y ago
        From th'internet, that laptop appears to have a thunderbolt port; you should presumably be able to use a DP1.2 adaptor and get 4k at 60hz. Or _maybe_ a Thunderbolt monitor like the above 60hz 5k one, though definitely check before buying.
- p1necone 5y ago
  There's plenty of high refresh rate 4k monitors though. I feel like the slightly lower resolution is going to be totally worth it for most people. In fast paced games the difference between 4k and 5k is going to be barely noticeable, but the higher framerate will be pretty a pretty obvious improvement (both because of the higher refresh rate, and because the GPU can run the game faster at the lower resolution).
searls 5y ago
A lot of gamers who can perceive the difference between frame rates often refuse to believe it, but some people can't perceive the difference. Every time I try, I fail blind taste tests between 60hz and 120hz content. Meanwhile, I can easily perceive fine details in resolution & DPI and the subtlest blur or aliasing is probably as jarring to me as a low frame rate is to a gamer who prioritizes FPS counts
- shrimp_emoji 5y ago
  That's crazy. 60 and 120 are night and day. Moving the cursor around at 60 feels like of like waving your hand under one of those LED lights that "invisibly" strobe to save energy.
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    > That's crazy. 60 and 120 are night and day. Moving the cursor around at 60 feels like of like waving your hand under one of those LED lights that "invisibly" strobe to save energy. Many people can't perceive that LED flicker either (or before that, fluorescent light flicker), while others can. I'm a huge fan of the RTINGS monitor reviews, which measure backlight flicker and identify which monitors do and don't have it, because I can notice that flicker and it gives me a headache.
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  I find that hard to believe - most likely the tests you've done were not really exercising 120hz. It's easily noticeable side-by-side even by someone who has no idea how monitors work. The easiest test: move the mouse cursor in a circle repeatedly. The trail at 60hz will complete the full circle, while it will be barely visible at 120/144hz.
- bentcorner 5y ago
  Try this test: https://www.testufo.com/framerates-versus https://www.testufo.com/framerates-versus I think even if you only have a 60hz monitor it'll compare 60 vs 30, you should be able to see a difference between them. I have mine at 180hz and it's extremely easy to track horizontally moving objects at 180hz, and it's almost impossible to see anything in the 30hz content.

madeofpalk 5y ago

It's a weird one. 60hz is pretty low refresh rate. Definitely not a gaming monitor. But it's resolution is quite high. At this resolution, I think there's only one other monitor, the LG Ultra Fine 5k is which is like only $200 cheaper. I think for people that care about resolution/pixel density, this monitor has basically zero competition? There's plenty of lower resolution monitors with higher refresh rates.

MBCook 5y ago
That’s the case. And it explains the 60Hz. TB3 can only support 5k@60 due to the amount of bandwidth it takes. So without a newer interconnect (delaying the Studio more) or some fancy custom dual TB setup they didn’t have a choice. The LG has its problems. It’s kind of wobbly, cheap feeling, and the USB-C ports can fail over time from strain/use. The extra $200 for the quality and features of the Apple display sounds reasonable to me given that benchmark. Is it expensive in absolute terms? Yeah. The LG is too. But it’s those two options or step up to the Pro Display at $5k.
- arvinsim 5y ago
  But would using TB4 solve the issue?
  - ihattendorf 5y ago
    5k60 requires 32.4 Gbps uncompressed, 120 Hz would be double that. TB3, TB4, and USB4 max out at 40 Gbps. The main difference between TB3 and TB4 is that TB4 requires every feature to be implemented (charging DisplayPort, etc.).
kllrnohj 5y ago
> the LG Ultra Fine 5k is which is like only $200 cheaper. $300 cheaper and 8 years old now, so likely can find used examples if you wanted. It's pretty clear that 5k / 218ppi just has no significant market appeal at this point outside of the Apple ecosystem. There were a few other 5k displays, but they've all packed up since (including LG, they don't make that 5k Ultrafine anymore afaict) Although arguably since the LG comes with a height adjustable stand it's $700 cheaper than the Studio Display 27"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  Oh yeah - I mean the Studio Display panel is presumably exactly the same as the 27" Retina iMac they shipped in 2014. It's a 4 year old panel. Astonishing it took them until now to ship that as an external monitor. One of the bad qualities of the LG UltraFine was it's stand was not very stable and prone to wobble. I had one.
- orangecat 5y ago
  It's pretty clear that 5k / 218ppi just has no significant market appeal at this point This is apparently true, and it's baffling. I was able to pick up one of the now-discontinued 5k PC displays a few years ago, and it's fantastic in Linux and Windows with 2x scaling.
  - btgeekboy 5y ago
    I’m trying to make a 32” 4K work for me, and Windows’ 125% scaling is hot garbage. Macos is slightly better, but it’s still obvious it’s not an integer multiple of native.
    - oblak 5y ago
      27 1440 is fine. Is 32 4k that higher dpi wise?
ssully 5y ago
I think you overestimate the popularity of refresh rates over 60hz.
- p1necone 5y ago
  Depends on which market you're talking about. Everyone: Yeah, not particularly common, nor do they really add much. PC gamers specifically (and series/ps5 now too, with those consoles supporting 120hz with compatible tvs and games): Quite popular, and they do significantly add to the gaming experience.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  Yeah, I also want 90hz, but when I need to use HDMI on my fairly recent X1 I must choose between 4k@30hz or 60hz and I would always choose 4k. The banwidth for 4k at 60hz is only now becoming mainstream.
  - howinteresting 5y ago
    The bandwidth for 4k at 60Hz (HDMI 2.0) has been around for a while. The bandwidth for 4k at 120Hz (HDMI 2.1/Displayport 1.4) is only now becoming mainstream.
    - akvadrako 5y ago
      It hasn't been mainstream. I have the X1C7, a flagship in 2019 and it only supports HDMI 1.4. That means when I bought my current laptop, still under the 3-year warranty, I would have had to get something worse to get HDMI 2.0 support, since I compared everything available.
      - rsynnott 5y ago
        From th'internet, that laptop appears to have a thunderbolt port; you should presumably be able to use a DP1.2 adaptor and get 4k at 60hz. Or _maybe_ a Thunderbolt monitor like the above 60hz 5k one, though definitely check before buying.
p1necone 5y ago
There's plenty of high refresh rate 4k monitors though. I feel like the slightly lower resolution is going to be totally worth it for most people. In fast paced games the difference between 4k and 5k is going to be barely noticeable, but the higher framerate will be pretty a pretty obvious improvement (both because of the higher refresh rate, and because the GPU can run the game faster at the lower resolution).

searls 5y ago

A lot of gamers who can perceive the difference between frame rates often refuse to believe it, but some people can't perceive the difference. Every time I try, I fail blind taste tests between 60hz and 120hz content. Meanwhile, I can easily perceive fine details in resolution & DPI and the subtlest blur or aliasing is probably as jarring to me as a low frame rate is to a gamer who prioritizes FPS counts

shrimp_emoji 5y ago
That's crazy. 60 and 120 are night and day. Moving the cursor around at 60 feels like of like waving your hand under one of those LED lights that "invisibly" strobe to save energy.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  > That's crazy. 60 and 120 are night and day. Moving the cursor around at 60 feels like of like waving your hand under one of those LED lights that "invisibly" strobe to save energy. Many people can't perceive that LED flicker either (or before that, fluorescent light flicker), while others can. I'm a huge fan of the RTINGS monitor reviews, which measure backlight flicker and identify which monitors do and don't have it, because I can notice that flicker and it gives me a headache.
ricardobeat 5y ago
I find that hard to believe - most likely the tests you've done were not really exercising 120hz. It's easily noticeable side-by-side even by someone who has no idea how monitors work. The easiest test: move the mouse cursor in a circle repeatedly. The trail at 60hz will complete the full circle, while it will be barely visible at 120/144hz.
bentcorner 5y ago
Try this test: https://www.testufo.com/framerates-versus https://www.testufo.com/framerates-versus I think even if you only have a 60hz monitor it'll compare 60 vs 30, you should be able to see a difference between them. I have mine at 180hz and it's extremely easy to track horizontally moving objects at 180hz, and it's almost impossible to see anything in the 30hz content.