Ffs you spend all this time just to justify your position of not wanting to buy and keep it. Please do yourself a favor and buy INTC. They need the help more than AAPL does.
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.
M1 Macbook Pro 2021 "120 hz" mini led display very slow, 120 hz are fake, old lcd technology!
- Thread starter ASX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's exactly what I was talking about
"I don't care" / "I don't notice it - gaming on over 60fps does not seem smoother to me" / "gaming is fine on 20fps"
I'm sorry, that's just absolutely hilarious, very much nothing short of a meme. You are the perfect Apple customer! If you think gaming on 20fps (or anything on 20 fps besides 24fps movies) is fine, then you are in no position to give any kind of technically adequate opinion. That's a solid fact, I'm sorry but it is.
There's nothing else to be said about that. Enjoy sub-par technology as much as you like to. It's kinda funny that any kind of criticism is met with "stop it!!" and "i don't care" here. I remember complaining about very legitimate issues with my Acer laptop on the predator forums a while back and couldn't see anyone defending Acer in a such a way or dismissing complaints because they feel personally attacked and their extremely expensive purchase is being questioned in some way. It's ridiculous and it's very sad because the only person who will ever suffer from this kind of attitude is you, the customer. I guess ignorance truly IS bliss.
How many different threads does this ASX guy need to make? We understand, you don’t like the new MacBooks.
Where are the gtg measurements? How do you know the display response times are bad?That's exactly what I was talking about
"I don't care" / "I don't notice it - gaming on over 60fps does not seem smoother to me" / "gaming is fine on 20fps"
I'm sorry, that's just absolutely hilarious, very much nothing short of a meme. You are the perfect Apple customer! If you think gaming on 20fps (or anything on 20 fps besides 24fps movies) is fine, then you are in no position to give any kind of technically adequate opinion. That's a solid fact, I'm sorry but it is.
There's nothing else to be said about that. Enjoy sub-par technology as much as you like to. It's kinda funny that any kind of criticism is met with "stop it!!" and "i don't care" here. I remember complaining about very legitimate issues with my Acer laptop on the predator forums a while back and couldn't see anyone defending Acer in a such a way or dismissing complaints because they feel personally attacked and their extremely expensive purchase is being questioned in some way. It's ridiculous and it's very sad because the only person who will ever suffer from this kind of attitude is you, the customer. I guess ignorance truly IS bliss.
Or are we basing this off of your “I play games at 120hz. I know guys.” routine.
@Broko Fankone
Thats the difference between blind fanboys and users who have knowledge about hardware.
Im no typical Apple buyer. I buy and keep the best no matter which company has released it.
@EnderTW
Ufotest shows a lot of smearing and ghosting. The response times are very bad. On the same level with Ipad Pro 2021 12.9".
@PhoneI
I like the Macbook Pros hdr experience in movies, the noise and battery life. But there are many, many disadvantages which are not really acceptable for this high price.
Thats the difference between blind fanboys and users who have knowledge about hardware.
Im no typical Apple buyer. I buy and keep the best no matter which company has released it.
@EnderTW
Ufotest shows a lot of smearing and ghosting. The response times are very bad. On the same level with Ipad Pro 2021 12.9".
@PhoneI
I like the Macbook Pros hdr experience in movies, the noise and battery life. But there are many, many disadvantages which are not really acceptable for this high price.
Are you serious? Low response times are absolutely easy to notice. It's an apparent thing. It's obvious in all the gaming videos, with motion blur in settings turned off. The low response time creates a "natural motion blur" and it's ugly. I assure you, this will be confirmed in the full review, as it is confirmed with basically every Apple product in existence. You can draw a parallel between the iPad 120 promotion screen. It will more than likely have similar results.
P.S. Playing games at 120Hz won't do it. You need to also play them at 1ms response time
There's nothing to refund. This is professional full time work. Apple has rocked the cart for a few companies.
@Broko Fankone
If he would see a proper 3-5 ms fast ips screen, he would never feel satisfied when using a mac book or ipad.
You would never use a 60 hz screen again without pain for your eyes when u have seen a 144+ hz lcd screen or an oled with 120 hz.
If he would see a proper 3-5 ms fast ips screen, he would never feel satisfied when using a mac book or ipad.
You would never use a 60 hz screen again without pain for your eyes when u have seen a 144+ hz lcd screen or an oled with 120 hz.
I'm not trying to defend apple, I have lots of problems with them and don't use their products exclusively. I just honestly don't understand why the small number of people who actually notice/care about higher than 60hz displays assume everyone needs to live in 120hz+ land. Honest and accurate criticism is a good thing. But claiming that a slow response rate makes a panel have a lower refresh rate is inaccurate. The new Panel is absolutely capable of 120hz, but it also will ghost if you wildly drag around a window like the above reviewer. Both can be true. It's more than ok to mention that you're disappointed by the slow response rate and call for an improvement and more awareness of the issue. But to pretend that it therefore invalidates the monitor's refresh rate and attack anyone who points out that you're factually incorrect is not helpful or constructive. Even with the potential for ghosting, these panels are almost certainly the best on any laptop on sale today for almost every use case. I'm sorry the ghosting comes up in your everyday life and is a problem, I guess you should wait for the Mac Mini Pro and use a super fast response gaming monitor.That's exactly what I was talking about
"I don't care" / "I don't notice it - gaming on over 60fps does not seem smoother to me" / "gaming is fine on 20fps"
I'm sorry, that's just absolutely hilarious, very much nothing short of a meme. You are the perfect Apple customer! If you think gaming on 20fps (or anything on 20 fps besides 24fps movies) is fine, then you are in no position to give any kind of technically adequate opinion. That's a solid fact, I'm sorry but it is.
There's nothing else to be said about that. Enjoy sub-par technology as much as you like to. It's kinda funny that any kind of criticism is met with "stop it!!" and "i don't care" here. I remember complaining about very legitimate issues with my Acer laptop on the predator forums a while back and couldn't see anyone defending Acer in a such a way or dismissing complaints because they feel personally attacked and their extremely expensive purchase is being questioned in some way. It's ridiculous and it's very sad because the only person who will ever suffer from this kind of attitude is you, the customer. I guess ignorance truly IS bliss.
As for gaming fps needs, it depends so much on the game, and I'm not one to play an online competitive shooter, more likely some sort of strategy, simulation, or tycoon style game with the occasional 1st/3rd person action or role playing game thrown in. All of those work perfectly well at frame rates well under 60fps and only the more action oriented games suffer any playability issues in the teens and 20s (seriously, tell me how something like Civilization is harder to play at 22fps than 122). I still target 60fps, but I'd prefer 4k 50-60fps to lowering quality and resolution to hit rock solid 60 or 120 or 144hz when I grew up playing games at 15-30 fps. It's not that more fps isn't better, it's that it's not enough better to be worth the cost and quality downgrades to make it happen.
I can make my Mac's screen ghost. I can also make my ">5ns" external displays driven by a windows machine ghost just as badly. There's only a few people doing work/gaming that actually makes this apparent in day to day use. I'm not saying that's a reason not to make better displays, or hold a manufacturer accountable when they make something subpar, just that in 99% of workloads the new MBP's display will be the best display on any laptop bar none. We can acknowledge that the response time is slower than ideal, while still saying it doesn't actually matter and the screen is still great overall. Nothing about a slow response time limits the refresh rate of the panel. There's a kernel of valid criticism here, but you really do come off as a troll just ******** on everything and everyone else unless they are 100% in agreement. I have seen plenty of fast OLED displays, including the one I use everyday on my iPhone13 Pro, and in my use, I don't see it as any better than my new MBP display. Notice I said "in my use," I can force scenarios where you can tell the differences, but they don't come up in what use the machines for. And, the new panel is without a doubt miles ahead of any other LCD I have ever used. Should a pro Gamer us it? No, probably not. And it's worth noting that in case it helps someone make the right call for themselves, but it doesn't make everyone else 'sheep' or 'idiots' or 'blind' for not having a workflow or use case that makes the slow response rate an issue.
First and foremost, I have not claimed that the slow response time means the new screens cannot achieve 120hz refresh rate. That's OP's statement, and I am not OP. In fact, I explained what OP most likely means in a previous post of mine (the gaps that occur between frames during a refresh cycle). Just to be clear on that, since you are quoting me and writing as if I made that statement.
Secondly, I am in the same boat of owning Apple products but not using them exclusively. I grew up on TV + console, then PC. It's only been an year and something since I started using a MBP 13", specifically for music production (and it's been decent for that purpose). I am neither an Apple hater, nor an Apple lover. I tend to look at tech critically, regardless who manufactured or designed it. As should any customer who is serious about their purchases.
If there is one thing that Apple does consistently, it's to charge premium prices for their products. Often, the most premium of them all, depending on what type of configuration you are after. In that line of thought, that's what I'm trying to do, personally, to spread awareness and make users think a bit more about whether the price is justified. Yes, the new screen is beautiful - of course it would be, it's miniLED, and has exceptional contrast ratio and HDR support. What else would be it, except beautiful? But it's slow. As you can see, people complained for years about things like ports and the Touchbar, and Apple finally implemented the changes. Similarly, if you start demanding more adequate specifications for your screens, one day you might get them.
I don't know if I should even respond to the gaming paragraphs you wrote, because they are simply wrong on all possible levels. The fact that you can put up with less than 30 fps on a game, does not mean that's it's actually acceptable in any shape or form. Yeah, I've spent years and years playing games competitively, but I also played them as a child on the nitendo Famicom, the original Playstation, then on old PCs that could barely push 30fps to begin with on most games, then almost a decade on a 60Hz VA panel, and finally for the last few years on a 180Hz 1ms panel. There is simply no way I would ever consider going back to a 60Hz panel. As you said, a notable exception could be pushing 4K 60fps gaming, which at least provides you an insane leap in resolution and image quality. But there is nothing comparable to the joy of playing a game without any kind of slowness to it. Even games like strategies play better at high fps. Simply moving across the map on 20fps sounds absurd to me. Completely unacceptable. And it sound so to any person in their right mind who would refuse to settle for such insanity. That doesn't mean that some people will not enjoy such an experience. But I feel sad for these people if they believe it's "enough". They are, to put it simply, ignorant about their potential experience.
I'll give you an example. Long ago, people rode horses and carriages. Then they drove the very first cars available. And now they drive modern cars. Your sentiment about 20fps being enough for civ is as valid as is the sentiment that you can go to work with horse-drawn wagon going 15mph from this day onward. No, you won't. Because you understand the advantages of a modern vehicle.
I'm going to end the gaming debate (and let me make this clear - there is no debate here. The debate has been settled long ago, and every self-respectable gamer agrees on it) by saying that Macs are, and were never targeted towards gamers. And I don't think they should be. The big mistake people seem to be making here is for some reason believing that a high refresh rate, paired with fast response times is somehow a combination made solely for gamers. But it is isn't. It's a combination meant for anyone who wants to enjoy an objectively better experience. That's all. And you should strive to get that experience. Especially for the prices you are paying.
If I'm having fun playing a game, then I'm not doing it wrong. I'd argue gatekeeping the **** out of what counts as the "right" way to play is doing it a lot more wrong than using frame rates that our eyes see as full motion just because they're not fast enough TO YOU. That's a you thing, and you're entitled to your OPNION. Yes, in a competitive game more frames can make a small but measurable difference in performance, but that doesn't make lower FPS wrong or bad. I've been gaming at 4k for 7 years, at 1440p for almost 5 before that, and 1600x1200 before that. Resolution is my thing, always has been. 15-20 years ago, ~20fps at 1600x1200 was my go to rather than 60fps at 640x480. Sorry that offends you, but I have fun looking at the pretty slideshow rather than winning by looking through mud-smeared safety goggles.
Name another use case where a slow panel matters? Seriously, I'm curious what you're doing other than competitive gaming that just breaks down because of a little ghosting. Truly curious, because I can't think of it. Again, I'm not saying it wouldn't be better or nicer to have a faster panel, just that I can't see where it would actually be a major issue for anyone. It's totally a good thing to bring up this issue. But I don't think it makes the MBP any worse as a machine.
The 2021 MBP is cheaper than what it replaced in many configurations, while also being much much faster, quieter, longer lasting on a charge, and having an exponentially better display. It costs less than much worse "pro" windows laptops with comparable configs (such as MS's new Surface Studio laptop). It's not ultra premium in price, it's actually a great value. Apple gets this reputation for being overpriced simply by not competing at the low end of the market, but is often actually one of the cheaper options for like for like specs. (less true in the 2016-2020 window, due to a lot of dumb factors coming to a head, let's not talk about those dark ages).
Sorry I conflated you with the OP, you guys have a very similar and weird energy on here, tearing everyone who doesn't agree that these panels and machines are **** down. The slow response rate is a legit concern. And I hope bringing it up helps lead to an eventual improvement. But I'm not holding my breath, since the issue affects so few users and also affects so many panels today. Most users will prioritize color/contrast performance or price much higher than response rate, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I don't have anything more to say to that. Except "enjoy riding your horse in a world of flying cars" (specifically referring to your gaming absurdities. The new macs are not horses at all. They are good performance-wise). You are free to have fun with as much of an objectively bad performance as you like to. I'm sincerely grateful that nobody in the actual relevant gaming worlds thinks like you do. Which is why even consoles picked this up and started offering considerable performance. There is a place for gamers like you in the world. It's just a place of precisely zero objective relevance.
Oh, and for the record, the exact energy here is that anyone who has any kind of criticism towards the new machines has no place here. Not the other way around.
Oh, and for the record, the exact energy here is that anyone who has any kind of criticism towards the new machines has no place here. Not the other way around.
Last edited:
For most apple users a mac is the fastest hardware, everything else does not matter. I tried to tell some of this persons, that m1 isn't snappy, compared with a high end desktop for nearly the price of a m1 max 1 tb ssd / 32 gb ram. They think im a liar. I have seen this ****** performance for a half day with my own eyes. Because of that and other things like the slow response times this m1 macbook pro 2021 has it's back in the parcel for sending it back.
Apple is good with ios, but mac os is not top notch.
Apple is good with ios, but mac os is not top notch.
Have you not seen every review that comments on how great the new screens are? I've seen multiple reviewers say its the best laptop screen they have ever used. Your comments are ridiculous.I don't have anything more to say to that. Except "enjoy riding your horse in a world of flying cars" (specifically referring to your gaming absurdities. The new macs are not horses at all. They are good performance-wise). You are free to have fun with as much of an objectively bad performance as you like to. I'm sincerely grateful that nobody in the actual relevant gaming worlds thinks like you do. Which is why even consoles picked this up and started offering considerable performance. There is a place for gamers like you in the world. It's just a place of precisely zero objective relevance.
Oh, and for the record, the exact energy here is that anyone who has any kind of criticism towards the new machines has no place here. Not the other way around.
"Reviewers", you mean influencers. Nearly every "review" about this m1 pro/max on youtube is not representing an unbiased opinion. Look for notebookcheck review about the similar ipad pro display. 99 % of the screens they tested are faster.
…Well… perhaps I’m wrong, but “screen response time“ is a very interesting specification when a new screen is presented to users as a technical advance. It probably wouldn’t be important for my use, but I suppose pro video creators (e.g.) are interested in that data. I love Apple products, but I believe this specific value or data about the screen is somehow being hidden and … censored!?
I don’t understand how this thread has turned so passionate. I can’t, & don’t want to speculate about the intention behind giving us the info, but I must thank the o.p. and others who try to explain a technical particularity.
It’s good to know, I mean. ?
I don’t understand how this thread has turned so passionate. I can’t, & don’t want to speculate about the intention behind giving us the info, but I must thank the o.p. and others who try to explain a technical particularity.
It’s good to know, I mean. ?
Check my posts. I have criticized these machines a lot, and done so in a way that has led to no argument or disagreement, because I avoid calling other people wrong or bad. I haven't made any attacks on you our your opinions, only pointed out that they are merely opinions, not facts. I've especially committed on the terrible state of the Monterey OS release, lack of FaceID, and inclusion of SD card and HDMI ports at the cost of a TB4 port.I don't have anything more to say to that. Except "enjoy riding your horse in a world of flying cars". You are free to have fun with as much of an objectively bad performance as you like to. I'm sincerely grateful that nobody in the actual relevant gaming worlds thinks like you do. Which is why even consoles picked this up and started offering considerable performance. There is a place for gamers like you in the world. It's just a place of precisely zero objective relevance.
Oh, and for the record, the exact energy here is that anyone who has any kind of criticism towards the new machines has no place here. Not the other way around.
We can criticize Apple and Apple products here. We do it a lot. Telling other forum members they are wrong to like something, the product as a whole is trash because of a single feature quibble, and that generally you and those who think like you are the only ones who have a valid opinion is the weird energy.
I game with high end hardware (still on my 1080ti along with my 5900x due to gpu shortages making prices dumb, sue me), at demanding settings. I prefer to push resolution rather than FPS, because for the vast majority of single player games (the only games I will ever play), anything over full motion video speed doesn't make enough difference to be worth looking at uglier graphics. Yes, you will be a better gamer at faster FPS, but when you're playing against AI or just building a city or designing a car or whatever, there is nothing to gain from 60+ fps. there is no right or wrong when discussing an individual's preferences. I'm not attacking you, but each response I get from you feels like a personal attack simply for enjoying a different type of game than you do.
Please chill out. You and the OP have a good point, one we can add to the list of imperfections in what is arguably the best laptop ever made, you don't need to insult and attack everyone else. Slow response rate is a fault. No one is truly arguing that it isn't, some of us are pointing out that it's not that relevant in daily life for most users (still waiting on the examples of non gaming where it actually matters, I would like to learn, truly!), but that doesn't mean you are wrong or bad or we dislike you or your opinion. I would go so far as to assume that part of making the miniLED, ProMotion, and form factor of these displays works makes it challenging if not impossible to have a super fast panel for now. That still doesn't make it right or ok, just like the terrible stability I've seen in Monterey, the apps that worked on M1 that don't on M1 max, etc. are not right or ok. These machines are far from perfect, and it's ok to criticize them. But it's a weird vibe to come in calling them essentially trash and then complain and lash out when others share a different opinion. Pointing out flaws and ******** on something aren't the same thing, I guess is the point.
Exactly. It's a good point to bring up! These are slow panels, and that's not ideal. But the OP and a couple others came in super hot with this technical quibble/piece of information. This is useful information to share, but this thread is just weirdly heated and odd.
If OP would only post the statement and than chill it would not be that annoying. Do you also go to the surface forums and say "Oh look at how bad the performance is compared to the new M1. The speaker are not as good. I can not buy anything where a hardware spec is subpar."
Not everything what apple gives us is the best in class. I would like to have HDMI 2.1 and a UHSIII reader but this does not mean the package is not good.
So yes its a bummer that the display has slow response times but i take a good contrast and color accuracy over that because i will work with it and not game the whole time.
Also i do not get what you mean with "not snappy". I have a windows laptop, desktop with 165hz and an macbook air and the air is the fastest device for my profession at the moment.
Maybe you should buy a gaming laptop. Apple will never have the best price-performance ratio.
Edit: Ah i see you troll posting in every thread available. Sorry that i took you serious.
Not everything what apple gives us is the best in class. I would like to have HDMI 2.1 and a UHSIII reader but this does not mean the package is not good.
So yes its a bummer that the display has slow response times but i take a good contrast and color accuracy over that because i will work with it and not game the whole time.
Also i do not get what you mean with "not snappy". I have a windows laptop, desktop with 165hz and an macbook air and the air is the fastest device for my profession at the moment.
Maybe you should buy a gaming laptop. Apple will never have the best price-performance ratio.
Edit: Ah i see you troll posting in every thread available. Sorry that i took you serious.
Last edited:
You're kind of... misinformed, actually. Response time and refresh rate are different metrics. I don't think the original poster of this thread truly understands what these metrics actually mean, and they are just harping on the difference as an excuse to say the new screens are bad, but honestly, they aren't.
Screen refresh rate is how long it takes for the screen to read and update new data coming from the computer. 120Hz means it reads and updates this data 120 times per second. Twice the rate of 60Hz. What this means is that during motion, 120Hz should be smoother than 60Hz.
Response time is measured differently depending on whether we are talking about black to white or grey to grey, and also, in most cases, black to white and grey to grey response times are different.
What response time actually is is the time it takes for each pixel to change from one color to another. If response time is faster (or equal) to refresh rate, then the display can fully render a frame at each refresh update, thus making it so that to the eyes of the viewer, the screen appears sharp and clear during motion. But incidentally, a display that has very good response time like this will also look like it's stuttering at lower refresh rates because there's nothing in between the transitional period. The "slower response time" that would have created an in-between frame by artificially causing ghosting won't actually cause anything like that, and instead, it just displays the next frame immediately. So it would actually cause motion to look less smooth. In this case, in order to smooth motion, either motion blur or motion compensation have to be added to make that motion look smoother.
Here's a technical explanation of this phenomenon:
Why does this response time thing matter then? Because of gamers. They think by seeing the next frame immediately, they can better see their targets in motion and can better predict their next move or something like that.
For people who want to just enjoy their computers, the slower response time, up to a point, actually kind of compensates for faster motions and make them seem less juddery. For instance, the new MacBook's screens have a variable refresh rate that can go all the way down to 48Hz, no doubt for video contents that are 24Hz and 30Hz natively.
1000 / 24Hz = ?
It's 41ms.
I think that'll be around the response time of the new MacBook Pro (14 and 16) and... the intention is obvious: it's meant to save on battery life, and also to make motions seemingly smoother for contents as low as 24fps. If all contents on MacOS are 120fps, then at that point, I think we'll be ready for a display that has <8ms response time.
Otherwise, it's best to have a device with slower response time so that contents with low fps (like movies!) won't look too jarring.