M1 Macbook Pro 2021 "120 hz" mini led display very slow, 120 hz are fake, old lcd technology!

[ASX]

On the left side you see the fast LG 34GP950G (one faint ghost) on the right the M1 Pro 14" 2021 (with 5-6 ghosts):

https://abload.de/img/macbookproznjlf.jpg

It's very ghosty. I saw this also on my recently tested M1 Macbook Pro 2021 16" and the Ipad Pro 2021 12.9" which has up to 45 ms according to notebookcheck.com.

For 120 hz / 120 refreshes per second you need max. 8.3 ms total response time (rise + fall). 45 ms are good enough for 22 hz. This 120 hz are fake because this display can't achive it. So it's smearing very badly.

Here an example of the motion problems within a youtube review:

 

[Lihp8270]

You never stop do you?

Why not just return for a refund?

 

[ASX]

I send it back and refund it. But false advertising 120 hz if the display cant reach it, is scam.

Test Apple iPad Pro 12.9 2021 - Mini LED als Trumpf?

Im Test mit zahlreichen Messwerten: Das starke iPad Pro 12.9-Zoll mit M1-Chip und Mini LED Display.

www.notebookcheck.com

Look for this response times of the ipad pro 2021 12.9" which has a similar panel and the same ghosting.

"99 % aller Screens waren schneller als der getestete."

"99 % of all tested screens are faster than this one."

 

[Lihp8270]

I send it back and refund it. But false advertising 120 hz if the display cant reach it, is scam.

Test Apple iPad Pro 12.9 2021 - Mini LED als Trumpf?

Im Test mit zahlreichen Messwerten: Das starke iPad Pro 12.9-Zoll mit M1-Chip und Mini LED Display.

www.notebookcheck.com

Look for this response times of the ipad pro 2021 12.9" which has a similar panel and the same ghosting.

"99 % aller Screens waren schneller als der getestete."

"99 % of all tested screens are faster than this one."

Why can’t it reach 120hz?

I don’t have one to confirm ghosting but refresh rate is not dependent on response time.

 

[ASX]

Because you need for 120 refreshes per second (1000 ms) 8.3333 ms max. 120 x 8.3333 ms = 1000 ms.

Refresh rate is not depending on response time. Lol.

 

[Broko Fankone]

Yeah, it's as simple as that. If you find this to be an issue, don't buy it. I think response times should absolutely be advertised on any screen. And they are, but usually on gaming monitors where the userbase understand response times are important. (They are important for anyone, actually, not just for gamers)

The new screens flicker at all brightness levels, and are astonishingly slow (30-40ms is horrible). People should know that before they buy them.

Regardless, the reality is that Apple users just don't care that much about slow response times. It's all they ever had, and they are used to it. I use my MBP with a 1ms 180hz 1080p monitor and the difference is extremely noticeable. But if you've never used a fast monitor, then you wouldn't know what you are missing.

And BTW, refresh rate and response times are two different things. But it is true that a high refresh rate is largely wasted on a slow screen. I do have a gaming laptop with a 120hz screen which is very slow (38ms) and it's an ugly experience. Smearing all over the place.

 

[ASX]

Yep, that's the point. But even if you use an iphone 13 pro you will notice that something is extremly wrong in terms of motion handling with this display. Also scrolling is stuttering.

 

[Lihp8270]

Because you need for 120 refreshes per second (1000 ms) 8.3333 ms max. 120 x 8.3333 ms = 1000 ms.

Refresh rate is not depending on response time. Lol.

That’s not how refresh rate works.

Refresh rate is simply how many times per second the display reads it’s buffer and refreshes the screen.

Just because the response time at some point is greater than 8.3ms it doesn’t mean that the display isn’t refreshing at 120hz.

 

[Romain_H]

Deleted

 

[ASX]

@Lihp8270

The picture can't refresh 120 times a second when the pixel response time is above 8.3 ms.

 

[Lihp8270]

Yeah, it's as simple as that. If you find this to be an issue, don't buy it. I think response times should absolutely be advertised on any screen. And they are, but usually on gaming monitors where the userbase understand response times are important. (They are important for anyone, actually, not just for gamers)

The new screens flicker at all brightness levels, and are astonishingly slow (30-40ms is horrible). People should know that before they buy them.

Regardless, the reality is that Apple users just don't care that much about slow response times. It's all they ever had, and they are used to it. I use my MBP with a 1ms 180hz 1080p monitor and the difference is extremely noticeable. But if you've never used a fast monitor, then you wouldn't know what you are missing.

And BTW, refresh rate and response times are two different things. But it is true that a high refresh rate is largely wasted on a slow screen. I do have a gaming laptop with a 120hz screen which is very slow (38ms) and it's an ugly experience. Smearing all over the place.

I’m not defending the iPad Pro. I’ve not seen one to comment how bad the ghosting is, but 40ms black to white isn’t going to be great, but again it’s impossible to really compare to other manufacturers, as they all change what they’re measuring to advertise the lowest.

I game on a 1ms display. But I’m fairly sure it’s not 1ms. Manufacturers of all panels measure in different ways. The spec of my 1ms panel is 1ms grey to grey, the black to white number which notebook check measured isn’t published anywhere or mentioned in any reviews.

Similarly they make another 1ms display which they advertise in the small print as 1ms moving picture response time. Where the GTG and black to white will be much slower.

What 1080p180 display do you use?

 

[Lihp8270]

@Lihp8270

The picture can't refresh 120 times a second when the pixel response time is above 8.3 ms.

Yes it can. The refresh rate is independent of the response time of the pixels.

40ms is poor, but to say it’s not 120hz isn’t true

 

[ASX]

But not full refresh. So it's trash, not useable 120 hz.

This happens on the Macbooks 2021:

 

[Broko Fankone]

1) The thread is not non-sensical. Slow response times are laughable in 2021, especially at such high prices. It's about time users started realising that a beautiful display is largely ruined by slow pixel response times (and in this case, for some users possibly also due to the pulse width modulation, a.k.a flickering. Good modern displays are completely flicker-free). You don't care because your standards are low, not because it does not matter.

2) What OP is talking about is called a "gap". There is a certain gap between each frame, of x amounts of milliseconds. For a 60hz screen, this gap is 16.66ms. For a 120hz screen, this gap is 8.33ms. To avoid this gap of nothing, screens usually hold a frame for the amount of time that gap takes.

Low response times means this gap hold will be shorter, resulting in less smearing/ghosting. Low response times does not mean the 120hz refresh rate is not achieved. It just means it is achieved with a lot of ghosting. This has been the case for Apple's 60hz screens since forever, and users have been OK with that during all that time. I don't expect them to suddenly realize this is a drawback and start demanding faster screens.

Personally, it just doesn't sit right to me to spend the 3,500$ for a specced-out m1 max knowing the display is gimped with so much ghosting. To each their own.

 

[ASX]

Yep, i mean the refresh window compliance.

This panel is from lg. Why is apple not smart enough to order lg nano ips technology of lg 34gp950g for example?

Also apples prerelease qc is very bad. If i would see such a ghosting, i would never release such a bad display with advertised 120 hz.

 

[Lihp8270]

1) The thread is not non-sensical. Slow response times are laughable in 2021, especially at such high prices. It's about time users started realising that a beautiful display is largely ruined by slow pixel response times (and in this case, for some users possibly also due to the pulse width modulation, a.k.a flickering. Good modern displays are completely flicker-free). You don't care because your standards are low, not because it does not matter.

2) What OP is talking about is called a "gap". There is a certain gap between each frame, of x amounts of milliseconds. For a 60hz screen, this gap is 16.66ms. For a 120hz screen, this gap is 8.33ms. To avoid this gap of nothing, screens usually hold a frame for the amount of time that gap takes.

Low response times means this gap hold will be shorter, resulting in less smearing/ghosting. Low response times does not mean the 120hz refresh rate is not achieved. It just means it is achieved with a lot of ghosting. This has been the case for Apple's 60hz screens since forever, and users have been OK with that during all that time. I don't expect them to suddenly realize this is a drawback and start demanding faster screens.

Personally, it just doesn't sit right to me to spend the 3,500$ for a specced-out m1 max knowing the display is gimped with so much ghosting. To each their own.

To be clear, I’m not and have never been disputing the ghosting, or suggesting it’s acceptable.

Merely questioning the statement regarding 120hz not being achieved.

 

[Broko Fankone]

I agree with that. 120 Hz is actually not achieved in the true sense due it being dynamic, though. In this case, you have no option to make it a constant 120hz. Your passive refresh rate options are locked to 60hz and below. Apple decides when the 120hz is fully utilised for you, which is again something I am not a huge fan of. There is no reason not to include a passive 120hz option for those who want to use it, but... eh.

 

[ASX]

The ufo test with chrome browser is using 120 hz constantly. With this bad response times it's only a visual mess.

 

[Stevenyo]

Just chiming in to say the new display is the best I’ve ever seen (xdr and miniLED are amazing. I honestly couldn’t care or judge response time, refresh rate, or motion, I can’t tell my iPad and iPhone have promotion either, and I’ve never really noticed gaming over 60fps being smoother. Hell, mid 20s is entirely playable as long as it’s consistent, 24fps is film speed and that looks like full motion to me!) and in my usage doesn’t ghost anything like the one in the OP’s video. It’s very clear his has a ton of ghosting, but in my usage, I never see it on mine or any of the other new MBP’s I’ve seen. Maybe I’m just blind to it in regular use. Maybe my use case doesn’t make it very apparent, and maybe the above YouTuber got a worse than normal panel or tweaked his settings somehow?

 

[fa8362]

1) The thread is not non-sensical. Slow response times are laughable in 2021, especially at such high prices. It's about time users started realising that a beautiful display is largely ruined by slow pixel response times (and in this case, for some users possibly also due to the pulse width modulation, a.k.a flickering. Good modern displays are completely flicker-free). You don't care because your standards are low, not because it does not matter.

2) What OP is talking about is called a "gap". There is a certain gap between each frame, of x amounts of milliseconds. For a 60hz screen, this gap is 16.66ms. For a 120hz screen, this gap is 8.33ms. To avoid this gap of nothing, screens usually hold a frame for the amount of time that gap takes.

Low response times means this gap hold will be shorter, resulting in less smearing/ghosting. Low response times does not mean the 120hz refresh rate is not achieved. It just means it is achieved with a lot of ghosting. This has been the case for Apple's 60hz screens since forever, and users have been OK with that during all that time. I don't expect them to suddenly realize this is a drawback and start demanding faster screens.

Personally, it just doesn't sit right to me to spend the 3,500$ for a specced-out m1 max knowing the display is gimped with so much ghosting. To each their own.

I haven't seen any ghosting on the 16, so I couldn't care less.

 

[alFR]

Here an example of the motion problems within a youtube review:

At 5.50(approx) in the video he says "It's the best display I've ever seen on a laptop, for sure, no doubt". Clearly it doesn't bother him that much...

 

[bp1000]

Don't know about you but I don't consume content with such agitated cursor movements. Therefore unlikely to ever encounter "ghosting" unless I'm trying to move a window as fast as possible.

 

[3Rock]

Good that you sent it back, now maybe you buy a windows notebook and can go over to windows forum and badmouth them continuously. Quite frankly I’m tired of what you’re posting. It’s like a broken record you’re never gonna be happy. I’m satisfied with my MacBook Pro Max even with a few flaws. All computers have flaws

 

[ASX]

Good for you you are happy with a advertised 120 hz screen which is acting like a 20 - 60 hz screen if you paid 3850 Euros (minimum). Best apple customer. Im not this lemming buyer who will eat everything faulty i get served.

For example I bought my first apple iphone (13 Pro) when apple get rid of this crappy 60 hz screens. Before i never bought any iphone. Because it's hardware was not up to date. 60 hz for such a high price tag. They must be crazy.

 

[Stevenyo]

Good for you you are happy with a advertised 120 hz screen which is acting like a 20 - 60 hz screen if you paid 3850 Euros (minimum). Best apple customer. Im not this lemming buyer who has eating everything faulty i get served.

For example I bought my first apple iphone (13 Pro) when apple get rid of this crappy 60 hz screens. Before i never bought any iphone. Because it's hardware was not up to date. 60 hz for such a high price tag. They must be crazy.

I also have a 120hz iPhone. But I would never notice. What do you do on your iPhone that makes 120hz a requirement? I only really care about the promotion display on my iPhone for the low hz battery saving modes. 60 is more than enough hz for smooth motion. Would you refuse to buy a Lamborghini “because Bugatti makes one with more horsepower therefore the Lamborghini is outdated” even though both are more than enough for anything anyone would ever do with them?