3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - 14u2c 5y ago
      No way. The difference between 1440p and 4k at 27" is night and day if you are staring at text (code) all day.
    - thirdsun 5y ago
      > 27 1440 is fine That may be your opinion. I'd say it's downright terrible.
- searls 5y ago
  This was absolutely true five years ago but there's been so few recent attempts since GPUs, Windows/Linux, and fast connectors have improved that I think this has become an apparent axiom when it's really more of an untested hypothesis.
- p1necone 5y ago
  I think this is just because 4k has been settled on as the standard, and the difference between 4k and 5k is too small for most manufacturers to bother offering both. You'll likely see 8k as the next common step up from that (it's already happening with TVs). Who knows, maybe we'll have this same conversation again then because Apple will release a 9k display at that point.
Tagbert 5y ago
That is largely due to the manufacturers focusing on price and display size for their volume business. 4K displays are produced in high volume and can be a lot cheaper and can be larger in absolute display size terms. That means that 5K will be more expensive. For some people that additional resolution and sharpness matter more than a few hundred dollars in cost. I would not expect any Windows users to chose this display unless they are the few who would make the same quality vs price choice that an Apple customer might.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  Even at 4K there isn’t much choice if you want that sort of dpi. Dell had a really nice 4K/24” monitor but discontinued it some time ago.
- kllrnohj 5y ago
  > who would make the same quality vs price choice that an Apple customer might. That's a pretty elitest take that doesn't really hold up to any scrunity at all. Other than the resolution, this is a pretty mediocre quality display. At this price point there are no shortage of displays with much better overall image quality, other than the resolution. You're paying for that 5k in more ways than just the price at checkout. Even within Apple's own ecosystem it's pretty weak. It's bigger than the display on the MacBook Pro you're probably docking to it, obviously, but it also looks way, way worse than the display on that MacBook Pro.
  - thirdsun 5y ago
    > Other than the resolution, this is a pretty mediocre quality display. The resolution is the essential feature of this display. And it's an important one due to the way macOS handles scaling. You basically always want to use 2x scaling in macOS. On a 4k / 27" display (which are ubiquitous) that results in an effective screen real estate of 1080p which makes the UI feel too large and cramped.

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.
  - 14u2c 5y ago
    No way. The difference between 1440p and 4k at 27" is night and day if you are staring at text (code) all day.
  - thirdsun 5y ago
    > 27 1440 is fine That may be your opinion. I'd say it's downright terrible.
searls 5y ago
This was absolutely true five years ago but there's been so few recent attempts since GPUs, Windows/Linux, and fast connectors have improved that I think this has become an apparent axiom when it's really more of an untested hypothesis.
p1necone 5y ago
I think this is just because 4k has been settled on as the standard, and the difference between 4k and 5k is too small for most manufacturers to bother offering both. You'll likely see 8k as the next common step up from that (it's already happening with TVs). Who knows, maybe we'll have this same conversation again then because Apple will release a 9k display at that point.

Tagbert 5y ago

That is largely due to the manufacturers focusing on price and display size for their volume business. 4K displays are produced in high volume and can be a lot cheaper and can be larger in absolute display size terms. That means that 5K will be more expensive. For some people that additional resolution and sharpness matter more than a few hundred dollars in cost. I would not expect any Windows users to chose this display unless they are the few who would make the same quality vs price choice that an Apple customer might.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
Even at 4K there isn’t much choice if you want that sort of dpi. Dell had a really nice 4K/24” monitor but discontinued it some time ago.
kllrnohj 5y ago
> who would make the same quality vs price choice that an Apple customer might. That's a pretty elitest take that doesn't really hold up to any scrunity at all. Other than the resolution, this is a pretty mediocre quality display. At this price point there are no shortage of displays with much better overall image quality, other than the resolution. You're paying for that 5k in more ways than just the price at checkout. Even within Apple's own ecosystem it's pretty weak. It's bigger than the display on the MacBook Pro you're probably docking to it, obviously, but it also looks way, way worse than the display on that MacBook Pro.
- thirdsun 5y ago
  > Other than the resolution, this is a pretty mediocre quality display. The resolution is the essential feature of this display. And it's an important one due to the way macOS handles scaling. You basically always want to use 2x scaling in macOS. On a 4k / 27" display (which are ubiquitous) that results in an effective screen real estate of 1080p which makes the UI feel too large and cramped.