4 ms·

For context - this 51" monitor has 22% less pixels than the 32" Apple Pro Display XDR.

by madeofpalk 9mo ago

adamnemecek 9mo ago
But those are retina pixels right? Like what is the max resolution of that display?
- gffrd 9mo ago
  6016 x 3384. Dell monitor is twice the surface area with 3/4 the pixels … or in reverse: Apple display is half the size with 30% more pixels. (edit: corrected dell pixel %)
  - zuminator 9mo ago
    What is going on here? Why is everyone in this thread using 'pixels" to mean ppi? It seems unnecessarily confusing or even misleading. I mean blatantly a 6K monitor has more pixels than a 5K or 4K one, regardless of the pixel density.
    - gffrd 9mo ago
      Yeah, nobody’s saying a 5k monitor has more pixels than a 6k. I think what people are trying to communicate, but struggling to, is that high pixel count on a huge display can be deceptive. I think grandparent was trying to say “comparing a low-poi display to a high-ppi display is not a direct comparison.”
- nixass 9mo ago
  Retina pixels what? Pixel is a pixel, density _of pixels_ is what you're looking for
  - lemoncucumber 9mo ago
    "Retina" is Apple's marketing name for high PPI displays.
    - nixass 9mo ago
      Exactly. Retina is not "pixels" though or type of pixel
      - wlonkly 9mo ago
        I think they mean "but those pixels are very small, right?"
PunchyHamster 9mo ago
good deal considering it's much smaller and twice the price
wmf 9mo ago
Not really. The Dell is 6144x2560 @ 1x while the Apple is effectively 3008x1692. The Dell can fit much more content on the screen.
- madeofpalk 9mo ago
  Yes really. A pixel is a pixel. This dell monitor has pixels the size of boulders. Apple Pro Display XDR has 4.6m more pixels in a significantly smaller area creating a much denser display.
  - wmf 9mo ago
    Denser pixels are worth less because you can't see them; in this case 3x-4x less.
    - throw20251220 9mo ago
      You CAN see then, you CANNOT distinguish them apart without a closer look.
      - wlonkly 9mo ago
        It would be a really ineffective monitor if you couldn't see the pixels.
- FireBeyond 9mo ago
  macOS can specify regions of the screen to be 1x. If I'm using Capture One or Lightroom, my photos are at normal resolution while the UI elements are "retina/2x".
  - wmf 9mo ago
    So you can see more detail but you aren't fitting more photos on the screen.
    - 9mo ago

For context - this 51" monitor has 22% less pixels than the 32" Apple Pro Display XDR.

adamnemecek 9mo ago

But those are retina pixels right? Like what is the max resolution of that display?

gffrd 9mo ago
6016 x 3384. Dell monitor is twice the surface area with 3/4 the pixels … or in reverse: Apple display is half the size with 30% more pixels. (edit: corrected dell pixel %)
- zuminator 9mo ago
  What is going on here? Why is everyone in this thread using 'pixels" to mean ppi? It seems unnecessarily confusing or even misleading. I mean blatantly a 6K monitor has more pixels than a 5K or 4K one, regardless of the pixel density.
  - gffrd 9mo ago
    Yeah, nobody’s saying a 5k monitor has more pixels than a 6k. I think what people are trying to communicate, but struggling to, is that high pixel count on a huge display can be deceptive. I think grandparent was trying to say “comparing a low-poi display to a high-ppi display is not a direct comparison.”
nixass 9mo ago
Retina pixels what? Pixel is a pixel, density _of pixels_ is what you're looking for
- lemoncucumber 9mo ago
  "Retina" is Apple's marketing name for high PPI displays.
  - nixass 9mo ago
    Exactly. Retina is not "pixels" though or type of pixel
    - wlonkly 9mo ago
      I think they mean "but those pixels are very small, right?"

PunchyHamster 9mo ago

good deal considering it's much smaller and twice the price

wmf 9mo ago

Not really. The Dell is 6144x2560 @ 1x while the Apple is effectively 3008x1692. The Dell can fit much more content on the screen.

madeofpalk 9mo ago
Yes really. A pixel is a pixel. This dell monitor has pixels the size of boulders. Apple Pro Display XDR has 4.6m more pixels in a significantly smaller area creating a much denser display.
- wmf 9mo ago
  Denser pixels are worth less because you can't see them; in this case 3x-4x less.
  - throw20251220 9mo ago
    You CAN see then, you CANNOT distinguish them apart without a closer look.
    - wlonkly 9mo ago
      It would be a really ineffective monitor if you couldn't see the pixels.
FireBeyond 9mo ago
macOS can specify regions of the screen to be 1x. If I'm using Capture One or Lightroom, my photos are at normal resolution while the UI elements are "retina/2x".
- wmf 9mo ago
  So you can see more detail but you aren't fitting more photos on the screen.
  - 9mo ago