7 ms·

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

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?
      - kllrnohj 5y ago
        27" 1440p is only 109 ppi. Basically unchanged since the dawn of computer monitors. 32" 4k is then 137 ppi, and 5k 27" is 218 ppi. All of these are pathetically small numbers compared to the >400ppi we all carry in our pockets, though.
        arvinsim 5y ago
        If am going to put my tin foil hat on, then I would think it's a deliberate action to keep us glued to our mobile devices.
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).

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?
    - kllrnohj 5y ago
      27" 1440p is only 109 ppi. Basically unchanged since the dawn of computer monitors. 32" 4k is then 137 ppi, and 5k 27" is 218 ppi. All of these are pathetically small numbers compared to the >400ppi we all carry in our pockets, though.
      - arvinsim 5y ago
        If am going to put my tin foil hat on, then I would think it's a deliberate action to keep us glued to our mobile devices.

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).