[HN Gopher] Connecting a gaming PC to Apple Studio Display
___________________________________________________________________
Connecting a gaming PC to Apple Studio Display
Author : flyingramen
Score : 120 points
Date : 2022-03-22 16:10 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (justin.searls.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (justin.searls.co)
| MBCook wrote:
| Note: Apple released new firmware today with better BootCamp
| support. I'm not sure how much (or if) it would have fixed some
| of this.
| lsy wrote:
| Not the author, but in response to the many variations of "why
| would you do this?", the answer seems simple: If you do most of
| your computing on a Mac, this is one of the few available
| monitors that has highly compatible resolution and behavior, and
| if you have a PC for gaming as well, not everyone has the space
| or desire to maintain a completely separate monitor expressly for
| the purpose of PC gaming.
| Jimbonius wrote:
| krater23 wrote:
| When you buy Apple, you have to have the space for a separate
| monitor. The suffering of the joung Apple user ;P
| searls wrote:
| Yeah, indeed. Not rocket science. I use a Mac all day for work
| and productivity. I play games sometimes on a PC. And as it
| pertains to games, I personally care way more about resolution
| and image quality than I care about frame rates exceeding 60hz,
| which is why I am super grateful to have this display and a
| beefy GPU that can easily drive it at native resolution at 60hz
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Last I checked you can plug any monitor into a Mac, why would
| anyone need this one outside of further embellishing their
| Apple ecosystem of products? I don't buy an iPhone and get mad
| that it doesn't work with Android Auto.
| ents wrote:
| Not quite sure why anyone would hook up a $1600 60Hz monitor to a
| *Gaming PC*
| ur-whale wrote:
| > Not quite sure why anyone
|
| An apple fanboy would, apparently.
| jamra wrote:
| Yes. To pile on, if you're playing a First Person Shooter
| (FPS), you want at least double the Hz. It makes a difference.
| Additionally, there are other factors that gaming monitors
| offer such as brightening darker areas that are around a
| brighter area.
|
| But in general, this monitor, though it's impressive, does not
| have the features needed for gaming.
| smabie wrote:
| Not even just FPSs: >120hz for any kind of gaming is such a
| huge difference I don't think I could ever go back.
|
| The author's use case for this monitor doesn't make any sense
| at all.
| zamalek wrote:
| > >120hz for any kind of gaming
|
| I have reached the point where even the desktop feels
| sluggish at anything under 120hz.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| exactly my sentiment. 120hz is an absolute minimum for
| any desktop stuff as well.
| searls wrote:
| I am lifelong a gamer, have excellent vision, and routinely
| fail side-by-side tests comparing frame rates in excess of
| 60hz. Not everyone can perceive the difference. (One
| explanation is that some people may be able to essentially
| interpolate frames well enough that the information lost is
| not perceptible, in the same way that you might not be able
| to tell the difference between 144hz and 240hz).
|
| That being the case, I'd much rather trade away frames in
| exchange for improved image quality, as I'm doing in this
| case.
| spoonjim wrote:
| If you're using a product in a manner inconsistent with the
| specs, you should only do a write-up if it works. Otherwise it's
| a lot of drivel about how an elephant can't fly.
| searls wrote:
| This is a write-up about how it works. I literally wrote
| detailed instructions on two ways to make it work
| hughrr wrote:
| User connects a premium low market share monitor not designed for
| gaming or for a PC really, despite some software supplied to the
| vendor, to a gaming PC and then complains about how difficult it
| is even though it eventually all works anyway.
|
| I don't get these articles or why you'd even buy one of these
| monitors for this case, even though I own one. I'd grab a random
| 144Hz 4k jobby instead. But I'm not a fan of punching myself in
| the balls over and over again for the hell of it.
|
| So far with this monitor I've read pages of whining from people
| who shouldn't have bought it or didn't buy it. Everyone who
| should have bought it and did buy it seems quite happy. I know I
| am!
| hinkley wrote:
| Back when the Thunderbolt display was a couple years old, I got
| it in my head that I wanted a very beautiful monitor with at
| least a casual gamer compatible response time.
|
| When all was said and done, the monitor I found turned out to
| have similar specs to the Thunderbolt display. Color
| reproduction, pixel response rates. Basically the same panel
| and driver. It was $100 cheaper than the Thunderbolt display,
| at the outside. But made of plastic. So I said fuck it, $100
| for an aluminum exterior isn't that crazy, and I can pick it up
| today instead of dealing with UPS.
|
| I just unplugged that monitor a couple months ago, and I keep
| trying to figure out if I can squeeze it back on my desk by
| rearranging some things.
| hughrr wrote:
| That's some good longevity there. Hope this one lasts as long
| hinkley wrote:
| I wanted to replace it over a year ago but it was the last
| monitor I had with a camera, it was serving to daisychain
| for an old Thunderbolt2 laptop that to be honest I never
| plug in anymore, and with the pandemic, none of the big
| names had really produced anything new in a year.
|
| So it was either get the big brother of my primary display
| (larger but lower ppi), or wait. Last fall they bumped that
| monitor to... I want to say better speakers and a uniform
| bezel (old model was fat at the bottom).
|
| I really miss the speakers in the Thunderbolt display. Holy
| hell are people shipping bad speakers in some otherwise
| excellent monitors. I'm back to using external ones and
| dealing with the EM interference.
| poyu wrote:
| I didn't buy it, but personally I would get it just for the
| design.
| hughrr wrote:
| Well you can't see much of it from the front so I'm not sure
| what the point is of doing that. I bought it because it's the
| only 27" 5k panel you can actually get that has any realistic
| chance of vendor support anywhere in the UK and will charge
| my laptop.
| goosedragons wrote:
| I don't think this is totally accurate. Apple lists several non-
| TB devices as compatible like the iPad Air 5th Gen. In the Ars
| Technica review of it the author mentions it worked just fine on
| the USB C ports of their Radeon RX 6800 just with the devices
| running at USB 2 speeds. Perhaps something else is at play with
| the Nvidia card/drivers?
| cosmiccatnap wrote:
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > non-TB devices as compatible like the iPad Air 5th Gen.
|
| iPads are now TB devices.
| ezfe wrote:
| Not iPad Air, only iPad Pro
| llampx wrote:
| Latest iPad Air with M1?
| searls wrote:
| Yes. They kept it USB-C, presumable to leave some
| differentiation for the Pro models
| https://www.apple.com/ipad-air/specs/
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| It's accurate. The Studio Display connects the same way as the
| Apple XDR Display and the newer revisions of the LG 5k
| Ultrafine, and you can read dozens of pages of people trying
| different ways to get things working.
|
| The problems are...
|
| - Very, very few Nvidia or ATI cards have USB-C video out. They
| seemed to stop caring when VR failed to take off a couple years
| ago.
|
| - So you're left using DisplayPort-to-USBC -- but have to find
| a high-bandwidth DP 1.4 cable. Many of these are incorrectly
| marked or advertised.
|
| - HDMI to DisplayPort/USB-C is a whole other game I won't cover
| here.
|
| - even with the DisplayPort working, you cannot control screen
| brightness or get audio without a USB signal
|
| - which can be solved with some very esoteric Wacom and Belkin
| VR devices
|
| - but which appear to not run a fast enough USB spec to be
| useful with the new Studio Display due to all its A13-driven
| weirdness
|
| - also some setups may require a USB signal to even turn on?
| I'm a little unclear on this mark.
|
| I've been through several of these hoops trying to get the
| earlier, TB-only LG 5k working with anything beyond a MacBook,
| so I've been watching these discussions with interest.
| brigade wrote:
| The Windows ecosystem mess is why Apple says capabilities may
| vary.
|
| - Yes, plenty of people including USB-C advocates like Benson
| Leung really wish NVIDIA didn't drop it for the 30-series.
| Most new laptops have an appropriate port, however, and
| probably at least a quarter of new motherboards.
|
| - A low bandwidth cable _should_ work; if link training
| appropriately trains an HBR2 link then it should light up at
| 4k60 (or 5k60 if DSC is supported.) The more likely issue is
| that his original cable was one of the majority of USB-C - >
| DisplayPort cables that is _unidirectional_ in the wrong
| direction. They only advertise USB-C - > DP, after all.
|
| - The internal webcam and speakers are connected to the USB
| 2.0 bus; you can verify this in System Profiler on a Mac when
| connected via Thunderbolt. Whatever is going wrong with the
| Wacom link is not because USB 2.0 doesn't have enough
| bandwidth.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> The Windows ecosystem mess_
|
| You mean the PC ecosystem. Microsoft did not design the
| specs for USB, TB and DisplayPort.
|
| Still, I'd much rather have this ecosystem "mess" that's
| more or less open and has healthy competition with a
| variety of solid options, rather than an ecosystem where
| stuff mostly just works but is 100% proprietary and locks
| you into a walled garden designed for rent seeking, planned
| obsolescence and e-waste generation (i.e. Apple that sells
| monitors with non user removable power cables attached to
| them).
| searls wrote:
| Yep, all your observations reflect what I've observed with
| the Studio Display. As for the last point, I also have seen
| the display fail to wake up if it doesn't get a signal it
| likes (alternatively requiring me to simply unplug/plug-in
| again, reboot my machine, or change cables). Now that I have
| an approach that successfully works on boot and supports
| display sleep, I'll probably never touch it again
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| VR failed to take off? by what metric
| janten wrote:
| Every
| searls wrote:
| What failed to take off specifically (and what I imagine
| the poster was referring to) is VirtualLink:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualLink
|
| This is the standard that was implemented into cards for a
| couple years in the hopes it would result in headsets that
| connected to a computer with single cable. Compatible
| headsets never materialized so the port disappeared
| sascha_sl wrote:
| PCVR is still very expensive to get into, and last I
| checked the most popular HMD on SteamVR was still the
| original Vive.
|
| And we also only have a few high budget/tier games that are
| made for VR (arguably, only HL Alyx)
|
| The Quest isn't really relevant here, and it's also
| extremely heavily subsidized.
|
| It is by no means mainstream.
| brigade wrote:
| Must have last checked a while ago, because the Vive is
| #4 these days at 7.3%; 47% of the headsets used with
| SteamVR are Quest 2, with the original Quest making up
| another 3.8%.
| nomel wrote:
| The Vive wireless adapter costs as much as the Quest 2.
| So for anyone wanting to cut the cord, it was a no
| brainer.
| goosedragons wrote:
| Yes, but you don't need TB 3 on your PC. It's at least doable
| with some AMD cards as evidenced by the Ars review. Clearly
| something is up with how the USB C port on the 3090 interacts
| with the monitor. Whether that's on Apple's side or Nvidia's.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| There's no USB-C port on the 3090 he linked.
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-
| cards/30-serie...
| goosedragons wrote:
| Ah yeah I mis-read but it is possible with a GPU with USB
| C and not necessarily TB.
| kevingadd wrote:
| This is just a general problem: The term "USB C" doesn't mean
| anything other than the shape of the cable. There are various
| ways to transport video and/or audio over that connect and a
| given port on your PC may support a subset of them or none.
| Some thunderbolt ports can be used to connect an external GPU,
| for example, but even if it's connected your motherboard or
| bios might not support actually talking to that external GPU.
| On windows there is often a thunderbolt app on the system that
| you can open to see which TB features your built-in ports
| support... but if you're trying to plug into your _GPU_ 's
| USB-C port, now it's up to that specific hardware revision and
| your drivers to control what can happen there in cooperation
| with your PC and maybe your bios.
| donatj wrote:
| Reminds me of my 30" Dell Ultrasharp from ~2006 and the nightmare
| that thing is to drive if the situation isn't perfect. It only
| accepts dual-link DVI, even if the signal doesn't demand it.
|
| Driving it on a modern device with anything other than a powered
| active adapter (near $100 until recently _apparently_ ) just
| doesn't work. I went through a lot of adapters before I stumbled
| on a USB-C to Dual Link DVI adapter that actually does the job.
|
| I've tried and tried but hooking it to my Xbox has proven
| basically impossible.
| NickNameNick wrote:
| I'm also curious which adapter cables have worked for you.
|
| I have an old 30 inch HP that I'm reluctant to replace, but
| dual link dvi isn't available on new graphics cards. And it'd
| be nice to hook up my mbp.
| donatj wrote:
| Below is the one I've been using for the last 2 years on my
| 2019 MBP. It does cut out a couple times a day but usually
| comes back on it's own. Every adapter I've used has done that
| for some reason, I don't know why.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07QKM856C/
| justinsaccount wrote:
| Which model do you have? I have an old U3011 and you can get
| the native resolution if you use the display port. I've used a
| native display port cable as well as usb-c to display port and
| it all works fine.
|
| The hdmi ports only do 1080p and despite having a newer Radeon
| card with a DVI port I haven't been able to get that to work
| either (It must not be a dual link port?)
| donatj wrote:
| U3011 is significantly newer. HDMI on monitors _was not a
| thing yet_ when I bought this. It was barely a thing on TVs.
| My TV at the time had DVI.
|
| This is a 3007WFPT - it has for input Dual-Link DVI, VGA,
| component, S-Video (should give you an idea of the age) and
| Composite.
|
| https://jdon.at/OwFuAV - image of the ports
| zaphoyd wrote:
| This seems to suggest that while the Studio Display can be driven
| at 5K by a raw DisplayPort signal (which is great) the audio
| signal is routed over USB rather than the Displayport audio
| channel. That is unfortunate, I was hoping to at least be able to
| get video+audio.
| searls wrote:
| This is correct and indeed unfortunate. Another thing I didn't
| mention in the post is that the driver for the XDR's USB bus is
| the same as the one for the Studio Display's
| ports+camera+audio. I imagine the only way they'd have support
| "spatial audio" is over USB so they just went that route from
| day one
| opencl wrote:
| Really I think the worst part of driving this monitor with
| plain displayport is that there's no way to control the
| brightness, just like the LG 5K.
| varenc wrote:
| That's likely because the Studio Display has Apple's
| proprietary "Spatial Audio" support.
| bni wrote:
| This monitor being 60Hz is a joke, both for gaming and regular
| desktop use. Get a gaming monitor instead.
|
| I use a DisplayPort and USB KVM switch to comfortably switch
| between my gaming PC and Mac mini.
|
| Both PC gaming and Mac work in 144Hz, PC also with G-SYNC.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| It looks like it only has a 60hz refresh rate, interesting that
| someone would pay that premium for it as a gaming monitor. I
| would much rather have 120hz with a quarter of the resolution,
| personally. Guess it depends on what kind of games you play.
| jagger27 wrote:
| Or you can get a 4K Eve Spectrum with a 144 Hz refresh rate for
| less than half the price. There's no need to sacrifice in
| resolution very much either.
| thebigman433 wrote:
| Is it actually worth buying from that company? Arent they the
| ones with incredibly delayed crowdfunding projects? It looks
| like a great monitor spec wise, but what kind of company are
| you buying from?
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| >There's no need to sacrifice in resolution very much either.
|
| I'll never understand why the display industry went went with
| 720/1080/4k/5k etc. (And the camera industry with another,
| but I digress) -- but:
|
| 4k: ~8.3 megapixels
|
| 5k: ~14.7 megapixels
|
| That's a huge difference in resolution.
| jagger27 wrote:
| True.
| kevingadd wrote:
| My guess is they got it for other purposes and they just want
| to be able to play games on that big monitor that's sitting on
| their desk when they're not using it for work.
| searls wrote:
| Ding
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| The author appears to have bought a monitor that's advertised as
| requiring a Thunderbolt 3 connection, and being compatible with a
| limited number of Apple products, and is complaining that it
| doesn't integrate nicely with his gaming PC (which has neither
| Thunderbolt 3 graphics connectivity nor appears on the
| compatibility list).
|
| I don't want to be the Apple apologist here, but ... really?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Yeah, but now they're internet famous being on the front page
| of HN! I'm actually surprised this is a mere blog instead of a
| YouTube video with a poster image of someone with a frustrated
| expression holding obviously incorrect cables.
|
| I'm all for repurposing things, so I don't blame them for
| attempting something most rational people would not bother.
| Been there done that, will attempt it again on something
| different.
| searls wrote:
| Hah, my other appearances on HN's front page have not
| resulted in a particularly long tail of fame.
|
| But I actually really appreciate this comment. I'm just
| trying to have a decent monitor for work that I can also play
| games with sometimes in the evenings and would rather not
| have two monitors on my desk.
| thebean11 wrote:
| It's DisplayPort over USB-C though. Shouldn't DisplayPort
| output with a passive USB-C adapter work fine?
|
| edit: Sounds like it does, but missing the additional features
| like audio.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| He updated the page to say basically "if you use a
| DisplayPort cable with the right connectors that's rated for
| the display resolution then the display part works".
| searls wrote:
| This was not an update. That was in the original published
| version of the post
| mattnewton wrote:
| Personally this reads more as an indictment of the USB-c style
| connector. The physical form used to tell users of basically
| all technical level what was supposed to work when connected to
| what. The current port is anything but "universal" and just
| about anything at all you could imagine can happen when you
| plug in two USB c devices together - your laptop could charge
| the phone, the phone could charge the laptop, the display could
| work without a USB hub, the display could work only as a USB
| hub, the cord could only deliver power, etc.
|
| And my (limited) understanding is that this is all on-spec; in
| practice you also have stuff like the power supply could be
| expected to deliver an off-spec amount like the Nintendo switch
| chargers and not work, etc etc
| searls wrote:
| Yes, it is absolutely an indictment on the connector. The
| story of USB-C is one of people peddling a story that they'd
| solve every power delivery and data protocol problem of all
| time by making every connector the same shape, when in truth,
| having a variety of shapes of connectors can communicate
| compatibility and that was lost in the push for USB-C
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| He's not complaining. He had a problem and found a solution and
| published it. The only person complaining here is you.
| barrenko wrote:
| The subtitle is "You're right, it shouldn't be this hard."
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| ... which is "a statement that a situation is
| unsatisfactory or unacceptable", just in case you were
| looking for the dictionary definition of "complaint" and
| were unable to join the dots.
| [deleted]
| Nullabillity wrote:
| You'd typically expect that a monitor is a monitor is a
| monitor, and supports the same industry-standard connectors and
| protocols. Not doing so would be as absurd as trying to sell a
| phone without a USB port.
| bluetidepro wrote:
| 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/
| madeofpalk wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| ssully wrote:
| I think you overestimate the popularity of refresh rates over
| 60hz.
| akvadrako wrote:
| 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.
| baq wrote:
| you might be the only person that finds 30Hz display
| usable.
|
| IME even non-techies find 30Hz uncomfortable to use.
| akvadrako wrote:
| Most movies are still 24hz. People don't mind it - they
| can interpolate the frames in between better than any
| tech by far.
| p1necone wrote:
| Yes but movies are not interactive, and have real motion
| blur and perfect frame pacing.
| howinteresting wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| ssully wrote:
| I personally think the sweet spot is 1440p at 60hz. I
| find with my build, I can maintain that resolution and
| framerate with graphic settings pretty much maxed out. My
| friend with a similar build has same resolution, but
| targets 120hz. Usually gets there, but has a number of
| games where he is trading graphical fidelity for
| performance.
| p1necone wrote:
| 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.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > 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"
| madeofpalk wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 27 1440 is fine. Is 32 4k that higher dpi wise?
| searls wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| Tagbert wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| p1necone wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| ricardobeat wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Try this test: 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.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| pilif wrote:
| Reminds me of back in 2004 when I wanted to hook a 30" Cinema
| Display (the only display I knew at that size and resolution back
| then) up to a PC.
|
| The same boy way to power a display of that resolution was over a
| dual link DVI connection which no PC consumer graphics card
| supported.
|
| I ended up having to purchase an outrageously expensive CAD
| optimized card but the screen estate was absolutely worth it.
|
| Plus I kept the display for a decade (and migrated to macs in
| 2006ish) only to replace it with a 27" retina iMac in 2015
| searls wrote:
| Yeah, I almost referenced a similar Rube Goldberg machine I'd
| witnessed when I was writing this post, but I didn't want to
| get too mired in discussing how this is really just history
| repeating for the third time
| gumby wrote:
| He purchased a TB monitor to plug into a device that doesn't
| support TB and says "it shouldn't be this hard".
|
| Commenters complain that it's 60 Hz but I don't know of an
| external interconnect that could drive that many pixels any
| faster.
|
| HN is weird sometimes.
|
| (I don't plan to buy this monitor either, but not for the reasons
| above. The LG 5K monitors are perfectly adequate for my needs.
| And like the post's author I was sorry to see target display go).
| brigade wrote:
| Samsung G9 is for sale now, and it pushes 5120x1440 at 240Hz
| without subsampling through DisplayPort 1.4, which is the exact
| same pixel rate as 5120x2880 at 120Hz.
| naoqj wrote:
| 1440p for 49" in 2022? You can probably pick the pixels with
| your fingers.
| ihuman wrote:
| It's an ultrawide, so its really two 1440p 26" screens next
| to each other
| naoqj wrote:
| Doesn't change anything at all. It's a shame that they
| are selling that. And it costs 1600EUR! It's insane.
| howinteresting wrote:
| Are you saying that it is a shame companies are selling
| 110ppi monitors?! 110ppi (27 inches/16:9 at 1440p) has
| been the standard non-retina resolution for a long time.
| It's what I have on my desk right now as an ultrawide --
| I'd be interested in getting a higher-res one but there
| isn't really one that has a high enough refresh rate.
| naoqj wrote:
| Non-retina is a thing of the past. It should be relegated
| to monitors that cost 200EUR.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| Just like non-VRR is a thing of the past, non-120+Hz is a
| thing of the past, etc.
| nohr wrote:
| That renders your complain null and void, what's wrong
| with you?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Are there any alternatives you'd recommend? When last I
| looked I was surprised how limited the options were for
| 2160p + higher refresh rates (I guess maybe
| cables/ports/GPUs need time to catch up?)
| ninkendo wrote:
| Unfortunately there are no monitors sold by any company
| other than Apple (and LG for that one 5K display they
| made specifically _for_ apple) that have a "retina" pixel
| density, which I would define as >200 PPI. (The Studio
| Display's is 218.)
|
| Every ginormous "4k2k" or whatever display is just that:
| ginormous, so the actual pixel density is much lower, and
| is comparable to a typical (smaller, 1440p, etc) display.
|
| I suspect this is because the fabrication of the LCDs is
| tuned to a particular pixel size, so if a company wants
| to make a 4K monitor, they scale existing LCD production
| up to a large enough size that they can get it 2160
| pixels tall (by however wide), and that's the size of the
| display. They can advertise having both a large display
| (which people like) and 4K (which people like), so
| there's no downside to the manufacturers.
|
| But if you want actual high pixel density, 200+PPI, your
| options are basically an Apple monitor (LG's apple-sold
| display notwithstanding), or a smartphone.
|
| (I'd love to be proven wrong on this! My holy grail
| monitor is 200+ppi, 120+Hz, large (27"+), and ideally
| ultrawide, but alas, such a thing doesn't exist.)
| maherbeg wrote:
| Agh yeah that is my dream monitor as well. There are some
| 5k2k ultrawides that get close but the reviews aren't
| positive :(
| jjcm wrote:
| It's 110ppi, which is the most common display PPI still.
| Keep in mind 1440p is a family of resolutions, not a single
| resolution. In this case this monitor is 5120x1440, which
| is twice the resolution of the most common 1440p resolution
| (2560x1440).
| cehrlich wrote:
| I don't think the person you're replying to was comparing
| those two monitors, just pointing out that 5120x2880 at
| 120hz is the same amount of data as 5120x1440 at 240hz.
| z3t4 wrote:
| One problem with high pixel density is that you either have
| to scale everything up, or everything becomes super tiny.
| And second problem is that with bad eye sight due to aging
| things get blurry anyway... That 12px font ... I'll just
| keep buying larger monitors.
| redbell wrote:
| Totally agree!
|
| > One problem with high pixel density is that you either
| have to scale everything up
|
| The bad news is, as a Windows user, very few apps support
| scaling (aka DPI awareness).
|
| For larger displays, ex: 49" with 5120x1440, you'll take
| full advantage of every pixel without scaling.
| naoqj wrote:
| >The bad news is, as a Windows user, very few apps
| support scaling (aka DPI awareness).
|
| That is not true in my experience. Also, for those who
| don't support it (which by default look blurry) you can
| enable it in compatibility options and it will generally
| work well.
| turdnagel wrote:
| Apple's philosophy around high pixel density is to be
| able to run at a scale factor of 2. (Or close to 2 on
| mid-2010s Apple laptops, or sometimes 3, as on newer
| iPhones.) That way everything is physically the same
| size, but looks a lot nicer. Mac users running 5k
| monitors aren't running 5120 x 2880, they're running 2560
| x 1440 at 2x.
| mdoms wrote:
| It's ultrawide, 49" is the diagonal size (as always). It's
| a smaller vertical size than a typical 16:9 1440p monitor.
| cehrlich wrote:
| It's the exact same vertical size as a 27" 16:9 monitor.
| frankchn wrote:
| Does it use Display Stream Compression or something? Raw
| 5120x1440 x 240 fps x 8 bits x 3 colors = 39.55 Gbits/sec.
| DP1.4 has a maximum data rate of 25.92 Gbits/sec. DP2.0 on
| the other hand does 77.37 Gbits/sec.
| searls wrote:
| Important to note that this is a 110dpi monitor and therefore
| not retina nor suitable for integer resolution scaling,
| whereas the Studio Display is 218dpi. I care a lot more about
| resolution and dot pitch than about frame rates higher than
| 60hz
| hbn wrote:
| I have one and somehow managed to get it into a mode where
| the UI was an appropriate size and it ran at 120Hz. Worked
| perfectly for almost a year, then I updated to Monterey and
| cannot for the life of me get it to run in HiDPI mode at my
| old preferred scaling. Tried all the third party monitor
| controlling apps (EasyRes doesn't have the scaling I'd like
| in the HiDPI list of resolutions)
|
| I might just get rid of the monitor. I'm not convinced I
| loved it for my workflow anyway compared to 2 monitors
| where I can switch my Mac workspaces independently
| noahtallen wrote:
| That's fair, but the overall point is that Apple could have
| added a standard connector (normal Display Port) without
| sacrificing quality.
| fckgw wrote:
| Why would Apple add a connector that none of their
| computers use?
| function_seven wrote:
| So people like me would consider buying it.
|
| I have a Mac. I also have a work-issued PC. I have both
| machines connected to the same displays, and switch
| between them.
|
| DisplayPort isn't some obsolete technology here. I
| understand why this display doesn't have HDMI, or DVI, or
| VGA, or Composite, or S-Video, etc. But DisplayPort would
| be nice.
| stanmancan wrote:
| Apple hasn't been in the business of selling you things
| to use on non-Apple devices for a very... very long time.
| gumby wrote:
| > DisplayPort isn't some obsolete technology
| here...DisplayPort would be nice.
|
| Type C _is_ one of the standard interfaces for the
| Displayport standard, and Displayport is the standard
| video transport on a thunderbolt cable.
| manicdee wrote:
| Same reason Dell adds USB-C, DP, HDMI to their monitors:
| so you can use their product in preference to someone
| else's.
|
| Buy the Apple monitor, be impressed, buy the Studio to go
| with it.
| jolux wrote:
| Thunderbolt 4 is a standard interface, and it supports
| DisplayPort 1.4 as well as 2.0.
| artimaeis wrote:
| The Samsung G9 is only capable of achieving 240Hz with
| display stream compression (DSC). Source:
| https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/odyssey-g9.
| cehrlich wrote:
| Apple's $5000+ Pro Display XDR uses DSC when you plug stuff
| into the rear USB ports, so I think it would be fine to use
| it on the Studio Display also.
| brigade wrote:
| Even without anything plugged in, or any other displays
| downstream of the host thunderbolt port, XDR will
| preferentially negotiate one HBR2+DSC stream if the host
| supports it. (17.28gbps)
|
| Which yes, means that a hypothetical 6k120 could be done
| at the same compression level as current 6k60 by using
| both HBR2 streams that one Thunderbolt 4 host port is
| required to support.
| liquidise wrote:
| DSC was arguably the hallmark change of DisplayPort 1.4[1].
| To say something is "only capable of achieving" its
| performance by utilizing the very tech it is built on feels
| like there has been a misunderstanding somewhere.
|
| To be clear, Display Stream Compression is different from
| Chroma Subsampling[2], which the parent referenced.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling
| KolenCh wrote:
| "Only capable of achieving" is likely referring to it
| being lossy. It is reasonable for some consumers or
| manufacturers to not settled with lossy.
| searls wrote:
| Tough but fair.
| cma wrote:
| > Commenters complain that it's 60 Hz but I don't know of an
| external interconnect that could drive that many pixels any
| faster.
|
| Displayport with DSC (Display Stream Compression) should be
| able to drive it faster than 60.
| infogulch wrote:
| Doesn't this "monitor" have enough processing power to run a
| complete MacOS? How is it different from the new iMac?
| savoytruffle wrote:
| It runs some kind of A13, so similar to an iPhone 11. But it
| may not be a fully capable version of that chip. All retail
| 'Apple Silicon' Macs use a version of M1, which is more of an
| enhanced A14.
|
| It might be similar to the Apple Developer Transition Kit from
| two years ago, which was an A12 with extra GPU power. But until
| someone can get software actually running on it, will be hard
| to know.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| Doesn't a raspberry pi have enough processing power to run Mac
| os?
|
| The ability to run something and have it be preformant are two
| completely different things.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| I'm pretty sure my little 12" Macbook with a dual-core m3 has
| less processing power than a Raspberry Pi 4.
|
| MacBook runs a little slow but it's more than enough for word
| processing and web browsing.
| enlyth wrote:
| Personally I wouldn't use a low refresh rate monitor for gaming,
| 60Hz looks way too blurry once you get used to higher ones.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Depends on the type of game, IMHO. For FPS or other fast paced
| competitive, yes refresh rate is important, but for things like
| open world single player RPGs I could see someone trading
| higher pixel density for refresh rate -- those extra frames
| don't help a lot in that circumstance, but the extra clarity
| and detail does.
| MarioMan wrote:
| While often related, refresh rate is not inherently tied to
| blurriness. High resolutions improve sharpness while ULMB,
| Lightboost, or even using a CRT can reduce ghosting to improve
| motion clarity. High refresh rates primarily help with
| perceived smoothness and latency.
| aaomidi wrote:
| I wouldn't use it for anything at this point.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| I appreciated this post because I bought an Apple Studio Display
| to replace my LG 5K UltraFine that I should get in a few weeks
| (VESA option took longer to ship) and I was curious how much
| easier/harder it would be when using Windows. I'm primarily a Mac
| user but like the author, would like to use my external monitor
| with all of my devices if possible.
|
| I built an AMD gaming rig last year with a motherboard with a TB3
| port built-in (one of the few AMD options to support this) but
| because of how it is configured (there is only one DP-in port on
| the motherboard and you need two of them over DP 1.2 to get a 5K
| signal), the LG 5K only outputs at 4K. All things considered,
| that was a fine trade-off.
|
| But it looks like the new display is DP 1.4 (at least in theory),
| meaning I can at the very least use the adaptor cable to just get
| 5K signal, even if speakers and webcam don't work.
|
| I wish all of this were easier and that Thunderbolt were easier,
| because it's such a great technology and it is frustrating we
| have so few options.
| rock_artist wrote:
| This is nice. But... I'm waiting for the one that will "hack" the
| internal iDevice so it'll become a smart AppleTV :) and an A13
| gaming device
| withinrafael wrote:
| Bingxing Wang has a similar post about connecting a Pro Display
| XDR if interested in going down this road
| https://www.imbushuo.net/blog/archives/1006/
| TillE wrote:
| Plugging a Macbook into a normal high-end monitor requires a
| USB-C to DisplayPort cable. Doing the opposite requires...the
| exact same type of cable. The only weird part here is that it's
| 5K.
|
| You should be able to send audio over DisplayPort too, but I
| wouldn't be surprised if Apple doesn't support that.
| hinkley wrote:
| It's getting read hard to find good displays with a Thunderbolt
| out port on them. I was interested in Apple's new display for
| about as long as it took to find the picture of the back of the
| display and only see one lightning bolt. Nope, not interested.
|
| It's not a great experience having to plug multiple USB-C
| devices into my machine, especially in a WfH world. I'm going
| to end up damaging a laptop shuffling things around at some
| point.
| searls wrote:
| The Studio Display carries all audio over USB Audio, FWIW.
| That's why I didn't just settle on high-bandwidth DP-to-USB-C
| cable--the speakers are actually quite good
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Apple supports it. I'm doing it right now.
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| Feels like the 90s with proprietary stuff from SGI.
| anaisbetts wrote:
| I don't know why anyone would buy this goofy monitor, the LG
| 27GN950-B has a gorgeous 4K@144Hz HDR screen, works great for
| gaming and for reading text / coding, and is cheaper too. You
| could get this monitor, a pair of great AudioEngine A2 speakers
| and a webcam, and still have money left over
| pdpi wrote:
| A 4K display at the same pixel density as this would be a 21"
| diagonal. MacOS does a relatively ok job of displaying a
| logical resolution of 1440p on a 4K display but windows just
| completely shits the bed with high dpi modes. Pixel-perfect
| logical 1440p on physical 5k looks better than the alternatives
| by a wide margin.
| searls wrote:
| This used to be true, and I think is why we STILL don't see
| very many high resolution monitors targeting the PC market,
| but Windows 10 is actually quite good at resolution scaling
| now. It typically picks the right default and everything
| scales great IME
| pdpi wrote:
| I'm using a 4k display at 1440p logical resolution as my
| secondary display, and there's a bunch of apps I won't run
| on it because they look like pants.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| That monitor looks like the ugly run-of-the-mill gaming
| accessory, and the AudioEngine A2 are terrible speakers (I've
| owned them). Gaming gear has good specs in general, but
| aesthetically pleasing it is not.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| 5K resolution is perfect since it can drive retina level at
| 1440p, the best pixel density at 27 inches. (Personal
| preference obv)
| nimbix wrote:
| IMHO 4k was the worst thing to ever happen to monitors. Now
| we have screens ranging from 24" to 43+" all using the same
| physical resoluton. This means that at all the most popular
| screen sizes you need to use some weird 1.5 or 1.25 scaling
| factor which results in all sorts of weird rendering quirks,
| like 1px gaps when rendering engines try to fit elements to
| pixel boundaries. Plus SVGs often rasterize to a blurry mess
| since there is no rendering magic that could make a 1px line
| rasterize nicely over one and a half pixel.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 1080p was the same way. 1440p was almost exclusively an
| Apple thing. Monitor manufacturers want to sell size, not
| resolution.
|
| I'm starting to wonder if vector formats and layout engines
| need pixel hinting capabilities, like font formats already
| do. As far as I'm aware browser engines already have to
| hack in these sorts of layout tweaks to avoid, say, float-
| based layouts collapsing into multiple lines at odd zoom
| percentages. Apple's insistence on integer scaling ratios
| is noble, but it also renders the display part of their
| hardware ecosystem an island.
| legalcorrection wrote:
| Windows does fractional display scaling just fine. Most
| software these days supports it and renders perfectly. Yes,
| occasionally you run into some legacy pixel-based UI and
| get a blurry window. This will almost always be some
| utility software, not a program you interact with for long
| periods of time.
| turtlebits wrote:
| 4k on a Mac without non-integer scaling makes the UI too large
| (essentially running at 1080p).
| [deleted]
| eddyg wrote:
| A 5K display offers about 1,000 extra horizontal and 700 extra
| vertical pixels.
|
| When you're working with 4K images and video, that's enough
| space for video editing tools on the side and timelines at the
| bottom, all while viewing "UltraHD" in its full, unscaled
| beauty.
|
| Until you've experienced what it's like to use a 5K (or even
| 6K, which will _really_ spoil you), it 's hard to appreciate
| why 4K is insufficient for many professionals.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Since you're talking about video editing, the lack of HDR is
| very nearly a deal breaker for that professional market. Also
| this is an 8bit + FRC panel if you care about that sort of
| thing.
|
| Regardless multi-monitor setups exist and are well supported,
| so it's not hard to get both a 4k preview at 1:1 scaling and
| have plenty of room for controls by just running 2 displays.
|
| It'd be nice to have it all - 5k, >60hz, and a decent HDR
| support. Even just 90hz would be a good improvement, but
| 120hz gets you zero pulldown for 24fps video! But alas that
| display doesn't exist. This display doesn't seem to really
| strike a good balance of what's achievable, it feels like a
| stop gap placeholder for the now canceled 27" iMac
| coob wrote:
| Which is why Apple make the XDR for the professional
| market.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| It's not >60 Hz though
| gannonburgett wrote:
| You don't really ever need >60Hz for editing though.
| You're working with 60fps, at most, but even more likely
| 30fps or 24fps.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Remember all those 120hz and 240hz plasma TVs back in the
| day that couldn't take any >60hz input signal? Yeah that
| wasn't just pointless marketing. It was so they could
| show 24fps and 48fps video content smoothly, without 3:2
| pulldown artifacts.
|
| If you're working in a professional video studio, chances
| are you're probably going to encounter 24fps video. So
| yeah, still matters beyond gaming.
| [deleted]
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I'm not much into video editing, but is it not useful
| that 120 hz is a multiple of 24, while 60 hz is not?
| Swizec wrote:
| I've had the 5K LG 27" monitor for about 5 years now and 4K
| monitors just look blurry now. Feels like you can count the
| pixels even though you can't.
|
| Reading VSCode off this monitor feels like reading analog
| text on paper. It's amazing for eye strain. Really doesn't
| feel like you're staring at a screen all day.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I experienced the same thing, even more abruptly, when I
| switched away from a 32 inch 4K monitor to a Samsung CRG9
| 49-inch monitor. Feels like I can count the pixels on the
| 49 inch monitor. I love the wider real estate, but now I
| want something with at least the vertical pixel density of
| the 4K monitor, but the same height as a 32 inch, and the
| same width as a 49 inch. Whatever that comes out to be.
| silon42 wrote:
| for that resolution, I'd want a ~40 inch or more.
| llampx wrote:
| Pixels are nothing without the corresponding physical real
| estate imo
| orangecat wrote:
| Reading text is far more pleasant at high DPI, especially
| with proper scaling which you don't get at 27" 4k.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| This is why I have a comically large 43" 4k which I operate
| at 1x. It's roughly the same density as a 27" at 1440. High
| DPI is nice and all, but I'll take more space to work over
| pixel density any day.
| ansible wrote:
| I just have a 42in LG TV that I use as my main work
| monitor. It was around $220 a few years ago. After
| working out the kinks with using it (because a TV is
| _not_ a monitor), it 's been pretty good. I also position
| it further away from me than I would a normal monitor. In
| part, that is because I would otherwise see some dimming
| around the edges due to the viewing angle. And also
| because focusing further away works better (getting old
| can sometimes be inconvenient).
|
| It is just 60Hz, so you might not want to use it for
| gaming, though there are higher refresh TVs out there
| these days. Of course you have to dig through the
| marketing fluff to see if they are a true 120Hz panel or
| not.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| Yeah mine is actually an IPS panel. Also 60Hz, but the
| viewing angles are great. I do have mine set back a bit
| more than my previous 27", but the more important
| adjustment I needed to make was to set it 6-8" lower.
| Before that, I only felt comfortable working on the
| bottom half of the screen.
| searls wrote:
| That monitor only has 163dpi, which isn't "retina" or
| particularly tight to my eyes, whereas the Studio Display has
| 218dpi, which looks great at pixel-doubled (200%) rendering.
| Huge differentiation in my book
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| Don't forget that the Apple Studio Display has a _hard-wired_
| power cord. Seriously. The last monitor I owned with a non-
| removable power cord was a CRT.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Unfortunate but, frankly, not something that I care about at
| all. Yes, it might have been nice to be able to use a
| standard cable connector for some things, but that has very
| little material impact on use of the monitor.
|
| This seems more like a moral panic than a true compromise of
| the functionality of the monitor.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| I mean, pets chew on cables. Office chair wheels run over
| cables. Desk feet end up on a cable. Corners of things wear
| down cables. There's a reason all other monitors have
| removable cables. And not all are standard. Some have power
| bricks outside of them. But all are user replaceable.
| Having to service a $1,500-$2,000 monitor because the cable
| isn't easily replaceable is just stupid.
| [deleted]
| woobar wrote:
| This is not true. [1] It is non-standard power cord, but it
| is removable
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/reckless/status/1504473080348884992
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| Is it phsyical possible to remove it yes. But it was not
| designed for it to be removed, it's non standard, it
| requires a significant amount of force to do so, and apples
| own support documentation says that it is not removable so
| you'd likely void the warranty by doing so.
| https://support.apple.com/guide/studio-display/important-
| saf...
| bogantech wrote:
| With a lot of force anything is removable
|
| A direct reply to that tweet shows the Apple documentation
| stating that they consider it non removable by the end user
|
| https://twitter.com/aaron_bukovsky/status/15050013411895050
| 2...
| zamalek wrote:
| Let's an image with it re-attached; without a visit to the
| Geek Bar, at least.
| terramex wrote:
| Linus from LTT YouTube channel tested it and it works:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E75mtGjDRRI&t=1502s
|
| It required significant force to disconnect it first time
| but then it goes out and in as expected.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| He happened to get it out without the connector cracking.
| Though it got pretty chewed up. This will no doubt void
| your warranty as Apple specifically says it isn't
| removable.
| matja wrote:
| Surely a removable power cord would ruin the whole
| aesthetic!?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| OTOH, the last time I had any reason to care about a
| removable power cord was ... never. I've never had an AC
| power cable fail.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| I've never had an AC power cable fail either, but I have
| had a pet chew on one and ruin it, or made it unsafe to use
| (Thankfully no injuries resulted).
| giantrobot wrote:
| You'd need a monitor, speakers, and a webcam. Each with their
| own connection cables to the computer and everything but the
| webcam needing wall warts for power. There's a value is
| reducing desk clutter. It may not be the main reason to pick
| one monitor over another but it definitely has a value to some
| people.
| legalcorrection wrote:
| Do you have a recommendation for a 32" monitor?
|
| Also, would that monitor you linked be good for office use?
| aaomidi wrote:
| M32U
| altairprime wrote:
| It's 240ppi. No PC monitors match that.
| Matthias247 wrote:
| It's actually 217dpi. But it's still a noticable jump from
| the 160dpi that 4k @ 27" offers.
| zamalek wrote:
| Why do people believe anything that Apple says these days? LG
| has a spec-for-spec monitor that's over 3 years old.[1]
|
| [1]: https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27MD5KA-B-5k-uhd-led-
| monit...
| bartvk wrote:
| That's the monitor that Apple sold for the past years in
| their stores (and has now replaced with this new monitor).
| zamalek wrote:
| It's still a monitor that has the same PPI.
| robotnikman wrote:
| I'm surprised his PC doesn't have a Thunderbolt connector. At
| least with all the laptops I've worked with recently they have at
| least 1 thunderbolt 3 connector, maybe its not as common on
| desktops.
| bitanarch wrote:
| It's been a "premium" feature on gaming PC motherboards - i.e.
| you need to pay extra for it and it's pretty rare. Laptops have
| it because Intel's SOCs (e.g. Tiger Lake) have it built-in. But
| on a PC motherboard they'd need to add a Maple Ridge chip from
| Intel separately for the support.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-22 23:00 UTC)