Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
5K, 6K or 8K: new Asus ProArt monitors
- Thread starter rafzamz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unfortunately. The first generation of 5K displays (from 2015, like the Dell UP2715k, or HP, Iilyama, LG) were all glossy screens and that's why their picture quality was so superior. No matt screen could even come close to delivering this quality.
Today, unfortunately, manufacturers only bring out matt displays because some stupid people probably think that a monitor should only be matt.
That leads to the question of where 5K displays tend to be used; who are the target demographics? In other words, do most 5K displays sell to people working in fairly 'high glare risk' environments such as some offices?
In theory the Apple Studio (interesting name which might speak to the first point about target demographic) Display caters to the same demographics (perhaps more so given the very high price), but here Apple offers a matte option at a substantial uptick in price. Most display vendors seem to pick one or the other, and 5K is a small market.
Online researching brought out something I hadn't thought about before - matte is a matter of degree.
It does seem odd the ASD defaults to glossy and competing 5K (and many 4K, I'm surprised to find) displays are matte. It'd be interesting to see how sales %'s would compare is the ASD were sold in glossy & matte versions at the same price.
Does the buying public prefer matte that strongly?
If a YouTube influencer with good connections/sourcing wants to make a compelling video, how about a side-by-side comparison of all currently available brand name 5K 27" displays? Including discussion of how they compare in the degree of matte-ness vs. glossy.
Given the high cost of 5K displays (around $800 for the new ASUS 27" 5K is considered downright 'budget' for the class), the often lamented continued 60-Hz refresh rate in these displays, the fact someone buying a 5K display is often paying a somewhat painful price and presumably hopes to use it long-term, and the rollout of Thunderbolt 5 in M4Pro and M4Max-based Macs (and presumably soon in more Windows PCs), I have a question rooted in the synergy of all this.
Those of you who have or are likely to buy a 5K display (whether the ASUS ProArt, Apple Studio Display, LG or Samsung), if you buy one soon (or already have), and vendors release new 5K 120-Hz displays in a couple of years, do you see yourselves replacing 60-Hz 5K displays with 120-Hz?
Put another way, given that some people hope Thunderbolt 5 (and I'm guessing the latest USB-4 version) opens the bandwidth way for 120-Hz 5K displays, do you find the benefits of 120-Hz compelling?
Those of you who have or are likely to buy a 5K display (whether the ASUS ProArt, Apple Studio Display, LG or Samsung), if you buy one soon (or already have), and vendors release new 5K 120-Hz displays in a couple of years, do you see yourselves replacing 60-Hz 5K displays with 120-Hz?
Put another way, given that some people hope Thunderbolt 5 (and I'm guessing the latest USB-4 version) opens the bandwidth way for 120-Hz 5K displays, do you find the benefits of 120-Hz compelling?
Quote: "...and I'm guessing the latest USB-4 version"
What new USB 4 version would that be?
From Apple's web pages:
M4 Pro and M4 Max
The reason no other panels have existed is that unless someone like Apple pays for the R&D it doesn't happen.
Like the last iMac one in 2014 and the Pro Display XDR panel, it will developed with LG or whoever, with design expertise from Apple, and Apple will sell it.
Apple developed a bespoke 5K Timing Controller chip (DP655) with Parade Technologies in 2014 and that seems to have been it, so far.
Jony Ive dictated that it should have glass, and therefore they're all glass (until others copied them).
What new USB 4 version would that be?
From Apple's web pages:
M4 Pro and M4 Max
- Three Thunderbolt 5 (USB-C) ports with support for:
- Charging
- DisplayPort
- Thunderbolt 5 (up to 120Gb/s)
- Thunderbolt 4 (up to 40Gb/s)
- USB 4 (up to 40Gb/s)
The reason no other panels have existed is that unless someone like Apple pays for the R&D it doesn't happen.
Like the last iMac one in 2014 and the Pro Display XDR panel, it will developed with LG or whoever, with design expertise from Apple, and Apple will sell it.
Apple developed a bespoke 5K Timing Controller chip (DP655) with Parade Technologies in 2014 and that seems to have been it, so far.
Jony Ive dictated that it should have glass, and therefore they're all glass (until others copied them).
Last edited:
I care more about the overall quality and perhaps HDR than I do about 120 Hz. BTW, I tried enabling HDR on my Huawei 3840x2560 28.2" 3:2 aspect ratio monitor scaled to "looks like" 2304x1536. It looks good in macOS, except for one app. For some reason, if I log into a session of Microsoft Remote Desktop to my workplace Windows setup, the text on the remote login doesn't look right, as if anti-aliasing was applied but not properly, but only for text in that specific app or other remote access software like Citrix Workplace when logged into the same Windows setup. I have no idea how to fix it. I attribute it to some sort of strange incompatibility between Windows' and macOS' HDR implementation, that shows through via VPN desktop sharing software. I also note that Windows does sub-pixel anti-aliasing whereas macOS does not, although I wouldn't have thought that would show through VPN remote desktop logins. So, I've just turned off HDR and leave it at SDR 60 Hz in macOS.
BTW, @joevt mentioned that the current M4 Mac minis using Display Stream Compression in theory have enough bandwidth to support 5K 120 Hz. The M4 Mac mini would be the first non-Pro Apple Silicon Mac mini with this amount of bandwidth, using DisplayPort 1.4.
Last edited:
Not exactly new, but later. It's my understanding USB 4 had a 40 Gbps max. throughput, then an improved version came out that can do 80.What new USB 4 version would that be?
The Mac world seems Thunderbolt-focused so I don't know to what extent USB-4 factors into it, but I imagine on the PC side it's relevant and widespread adoption of the 80 Gbps version would open up more potential market for higher bandwidth-demanding resolution/refresh rate combo.s.
@EugW
Quote: @joevt (from another thread)
Through DP 1.4
1) HBR2 x4 can do 5K46 8bpc (custom timing).
2) HBR2 x4 can do 5K37 10bpc (custom timing).
3) HBR3 x4 can do 5K60 8bpc.
4) HBR3 x4 can do 5K55 10bpc (custom timing).
5) HBR2 x4 x2 can do 5K60 10bpc (dual tile display with one HBR2 x4 connection for each half of the display).
6) HBR2 x4 with DSC at 12bpp can do 5K60 10bpc.
5K120 is within the 4K240 bandwidth limit but the dimensions are different. We'll have to see if Apple allows this.
Guess what Apple's reaction would be to 37/46/55 and 60Hz, let alone non-standard 120Hz ??????
Quote: @joevt (from another thread)
Through DP 1.4
1) HBR2 x4 can do 5K46 8bpc (custom timing).
2) HBR2 x4 can do 5K37 10bpc (custom timing).
3) HBR3 x4 can do 5K60 8bpc.
4) HBR3 x4 can do 5K55 10bpc (custom timing).
5) HBR2 x4 x2 can do 5K60 10bpc (dual tile display with one HBR2 x4 connection for each half of the display).
6) HBR2 x4 with DSC at 12bpp can do 5K60 10bpc.
5K120 is within the 4K240 bandwidth limit but the dimensions are different. We'll have to see if Apple allows this.
Guess what Apple's reaction would be to 37/46/55 and 60Hz, let alone non-standard 120Hz ??????
As for me - no. I see the difference between 60 and 120 Hz iPhone display and I prefer 120 Hz on iPhone.
But there is not so much animation on the desktop OS! At best, you'll have smoother cursor movement and windows opening, but most of the time the content on the screen is static. 120 Hz can be useful for gaming, but for gaming, it's better to have a dedicated device (PS/PC/whatever) and a separate monitor that can both handle 120 FPS/Hz.
So again, 120Hz won't make me change my monitor, especially not the XDR.
I agree. I do notice it on my MBP's screen but it's primarily with cursor movement and scrolling which while nice, isn't enough to make me want to use a smaller screen over something larger. For gaming purposes, I can see it being useful though since there's going to be a lot of consistent motion going on.
Honestly, it would come down to price and additional monitor features.
If Apple introduced a 120-Hz 5K 27” tomorrow, priced the same as the current Studio Display, but all other features and deficits the same, I’d consider buying a second ASD to replace my 2020 Intel iMac (and I’d pair it with a M4 Pro Mac mini or consider waiting for a M4 Max Mac Studio if that ever gets a refresh; my M3 Max MBP isn’t going to be upgraded for at least another year) and then look forward to the potential benefits in the future. I wouldn’t sell my existing monitor, however. And it wouldn’t be an instant-upgrade.
But if Apple wanted to charge $500 or $1000 more for 120 Hz, no. I wouldn’t buy it. On macOS, I just don’t see the benefits of faster refresh for my use cases. The times I want a high refresh monitor are when I’m playing games, and for that I have a gaming PC (which wouldn’t work with an Apple Display at 120 Hz unless I also upgraded that to TB5 or whatever and then hoped/prayed this mythical ASD would support. As we know, Windows support for the ASD even with a capable enough GPU or on-board TB4 controller is sketchy) and a PS5 and Xbox Series X. And my 43” 4K LG TV is perfect for that.
The only way I’d be tempted by a more expensive 5K 120 Hz monitor — and I’d have to assume it would be one not made by Apple but by someone else — would be if it could work easily with multiple inputs, so I could use it with my laptops, desktops, and in 4K, presumably also with my gaming consoles. That sort of utility might be convenient enough to push me to pay a slight premium over $1600, but I’m not holding my breath.
It will be interesting to see if this push for 8K displays has any downward pressure for 5K/6K panels at higher refresh rates, but the logistics of pushing that many pixels that quickly is still just expensive and for very little benefit for the primary use cases where high refresh really is an upgrade for a screen over 16”.
Not being a gamer I don't care about 120Hz, 60 is fine, I care about PPI, size and colours accuracy.
Would like a 5k 30ish or 6K 32ish
Would like a 5k 30ish or 6K 32ish
I often wonder if Apple should’ve worked on how to scale the UX in macOS to work well at sub 2x doubling rather than doing all of this stuff. They could still even call it “Retina” by making all kinds of specious arguments about optimal distance from your machine and blah blah blah blah.
Because we lost target display mode because of the custom timing chip, no one else even bothered to take in 5K as a resolution standard (the fact that we have like 3 monitors in 10 years that weren’t in some way associated with Apple is insanely telling; no one else did the work because the price to pain to ratio — to say nothing of sales — didn’t/doesn’t compute) and instead focused in on 1440p, 4K, 6K and now, 8K.
And as much as I love my “Retina” perfectly rendered text and UX elements on my 27” monitors (to the point that I’ve had a 5K iMac or 5K display (LG or ASD) or some combo at home since 2014 (and I took the LG with me to at least one office)), I think I’d prefer a macOS that supported more scaling options. Like 1.25x or 1.5x. This is one of the few areas Windows really did do things better. I won’t go as far as to say that fractional scaling in Linux is better than scaled resolutions in macOS — but that owes more to Linux being Linux and the Wayland stuff taking forever and driver drama and other drudgery than anything else.
Because the truth is, the world wasn’t ready for 5K 27” consumer displays in 2014, no matter how beautiful they are. The hoops Ive had to jump through to get the result, hoops no one else in the industry bothered to do, have left us with this bastardized/abandoned/niche resolution that makes the idiot adherents (i.e., all of us in this thread and threads like it) spend gobs of money on subpar options, just to see our pixels the way they were designed to be shown to us.
And Apple doesn’t even care because most Mac owners have a MacBook Air that they use with a $200 4K monitor they got on Amazon or Best Buy and they don’t even understand how bad 4K looks in scaled resolution that way. So screw it; if we were just going to have to kowtow to the proletariat anyway, I’d rather not have had a decade to get used to 5K screens and would’ve preferred my baseline always be flawed. (Or again, scaling could’ve been reworked in macOS to handle this better. It’s not like the Apple Store wasn’t selling third-party 4K displays before 2014 for Mac Pro owners.)
@filmgirl, scaling WAS better in OS X prior to more recent versions, because OS X included sub-pixel rendering. Since then though, Apple has specifically removed sub-pixel rendering which has made lower ppi screens look worse. Yes, macOS in 2024 looks works than it did in say 2017... but on a Retina display you can't see the difference. You only see the difference on lower ppi screens.
And by lower ppi, I'm talking screens at the popular 138 ppi and lower. However, I run a non-2X scaled resolution on a 163 ppi screen (specifically 2308x1536 on a 28.2" 3840x2560 screen), and at 22" seating distance it looks pretty decent. Not perfect, but decent, even with non-2X scaling. 2X-scaled 218 ppi is crisper, but the non-2X scaled 163 ppi screen is better than I originally expected it to be, enough so that I gave up my 2017 5K iMac to my kid and use the 163 ppi screen as my main screen.
BTW, 4K 27" is 163 ppi. Seating distance does indeed matter. If you sit 16 inches from the screen, it will look bad, but many ergonomists recommend sitting at at least 20" from a desktop monitor. At 20", 163 is not ppi, but it is at 21", and I just happen to usually sit about 22-25" from the screen. (Yes. I measured.) Interestingly, as mentioned, I did not like 138 ppi screens, and it turns out for a 138 ppi screen to be Retina, seating distance must be over 25".
As I've said in other threads, I would actually prefer a LOWER pixel density than 218 ppi. I just don't like the default OS element and font sizing that occurs with 218 ppi 2X scaling. Maybe I sit a bit further than some, but I'd much prefer a 5K 30" 16:10 screen over a 5K 27" 16:9 screen. Those pixel densities are 201 ppi and 218 ppi respectively.
And by lower ppi, I'm talking screens at the popular 138 ppi and lower. However, I run a non-2X scaled resolution on a 163 ppi screen (specifically 2308x1536 on a 28.2" 3840x2560 screen), and at 22" seating distance it looks pretty decent. Not perfect, but decent, even with non-2X scaling. 2X-scaled 218 ppi is crisper, but the non-2X scaled 163 ppi screen is better than I originally expected it to be, enough so that I gave up my 2017 5K iMac to my kid and use the 163 ppi screen as my main screen.
BTW, 4K 27" is 163 ppi. Seating distance does indeed matter. If you sit 16 inches from the screen, it will look bad, but many ergonomists recommend sitting at at least 20" from a desktop monitor. At 20", 163 is not ppi, but it is at 21", and I just happen to usually sit about 22-25" from the screen. (Yes. I measured.) Interestingly, as mentioned, I did not like 138 ppi screens, and it turns out for a 138 ppi screen to be Retina, seating distance must be over 25".
As I've said in other threads, I would actually prefer a LOWER pixel density than 218 ppi. I just don't like the default OS element and font sizing that occurs with 218 ppi 2X scaling. Maybe I sit a bit further than some, but I'd much prefer a 5K 30" 16:10 screen over a 5K 27" 16:9 screen. Those pixel densities are 201 ppi and 218 ppi respectively.
@EugW Yeah, I didn’t even want to get into the subpixel mess, but as someone who used to use 1440p displays at work, I remember clearly when they removed those options and even the terminal trick wouldn’t work. Sad times.
Like I said, to me the real sin was not updating your OS components to scale fractionally or independently. The 2x and 3x thing for iOS is fine because Apple controls all of the hardware there and you don’t have resizable windows (on iPhone anyway. And on iPad it’s limited how you can do resizing), but on macOS it is maddening to still default to integer scaling (even on displays they have offered that don’t do that. That thus make them render at a different resolution and then downscale) when fractional would be better here.
I know it’s something Apple tried and I know there were some issues with some first and third party apps (so they said screw it and did what they are doing now), but the one advantage Apple has is that it can force developers to adopt new methods of software.
And if they hadn’t removed subpixel anti-aliasing however many years ago and if they had also continued to allow arbitrary resolution changes under Apple silicon (without having to use BetterDisplay 2), the ecosystem would be better off for it.
I’d be happy with a 5K 30” 16:10 screen too. But alas…
Like I said, to me the real sin was not updating your OS components to scale fractionally or independently. The 2x and 3x thing for iOS is fine because Apple controls all of the hardware there and you don’t have resizable windows (on iPhone anyway. And on iPad it’s limited how you can do resizing), but on macOS it is maddening to still default to integer scaling (even on displays they have offered that don’t do that. That thus make them render at a different resolution and then downscale) when fractional would be better here.
I know it’s something Apple tried and I know there were some issues with some first and third party apps (so they said screw it and did what they are doing now), but the one advantage Apple has is that it can force developers to adopt new methods of software.
And if they hadn’t removed subpixel anti-aliasing however many years ago and if they had also continued to allow arbitrary resolution changes under Apple silicon (without having to use BetterDisplay 2), the ecosystem would be better off for it.
I’d be happy with a 5K 30” 16:10 screen too. But alas…
MacOS used to offer sub 2x scaling. A 3840x2160 option had been available for my iMacPro (5k) and Dell 5K displays for quite some years. And then suddenly it disappeared. It's arguable that everything would look too small on a 27" 5K display under 3840x2160 resolution, but I do like to have that option available.
An Intel Mac mini can use an eGPU to get this bandwidth.
None of the modes listed by Apple require DisplayPort 2.1 or HDMI 2.1. You just need to increase the compression used by DCS to get 8K60, 5K120, 4K240 or 6K120.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/5k2k-at-120hz-with-mac-mini-m4.2441289/post-33527666
I don't think anyone can tell the difference between DSC at 12bpp and DSC at 8bpp (though I haven't looked at it myself yet).
Target Display Mode for the iMac 5K display would have required a Thunderbolt 3 host controller. The first iMac 5K was 2014 which is before Thunderbolt 3 exists. It wouldn't be until 2017 when 5K60 could be transferred via Thunderbolt 3 which supports DisplayPort 1.2. Two DisplayPort 1.2 connections is required for the iMac display (no 5K iMac ever used DisplayPort 1.4 for 5K). Therefore, the Thunderbolt 3 host controller would need two DisplayPort Out Adapters. The Alpine Ridge Thunderbolt controller has one DisplayPort output - a second DisplayPort output would have to come from one of it's Thunderbolt ports. Some complicated circuitry would be required to get a working second DisplayPort Out - maybe even another Thunderbolt controller. Do the Thunderbolt DisplayPort paths need to be the same length for 5K to sync correctly? Can a cross-domain Thunderbolt DisplayPort path reach from one domain to beyond the host controller of the other domain?
That's a lot of technical details, but a Mac M1 2021 can drive a 6K pro display XDR according to apple site.
For me the lack of offerings for 5K and 6K display remains some market reasons (either properly or not properly at all understood).
Pro Display XDR is 60Hz, not 120. It's supported by any Mac with Thunderbolt 3 ports since 2018.
There is a product manual for the 5k monitor as mentioned in an earlier post by Richdmoore:
In that manual it lists the refresh rate as 60Hz.
There are other early posts which link to product pages at various resellers, some of which claim to have it (the 5k version) in stock.
Yes, B&H Photo & Video has the 5K ProArt Display in stock right now for $799. Sign up for their no annual fee PayBoo credit card and use that to get discounted the sales tax.
ASUS ProArt Display PA27JCV 27" 5K HDR Monitor
I sincerely doubt anyone will be making high res 120hz displays anytime soon. Possibly Apple may be the first next year or so. Only just recently we started to have alternatives to 5k/6k.