I have M1 Max and m4 max next to each other. I don’t see any big difference. What was your RAM and config of M1 Max?
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 Max vs M4 Max display quality is... interesting!
- Thread starter WilliamG
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm on a 16" M1 MBP right now, and can't say I've noticed any problem with scrolling.
I also notice a big difference between by M1 MBP display and my M4 MBP. Isn't the reason to do with this?
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/11/14/m4-macbook-pro-quantum-dot/
The M4 MacBook Pro models feature quantum dot display technology, according to display analyst Ross Young. Apple used a quantum dot film instead of a red KSF phosphor film, a change that provides more vibrant, accurate color results.
Young says that Apple has opted for KSF for prior MacBook Pro models because it doesn't use toxic element cadmium (typical for quantum dot) and is more efficient (and thus less expensive). Way back in 2015, when Apple introduced the first Retina MacBook Pro models, Apple executives said that quantum dot technology was considered at the time, but rejected because of the cadmium requirement.
There are now cadmium-free quantum dot options that Young says have as good or better color gamut and better motion performance than the KSF film Apple previously used. The KSF phosphor coating Apple added to prior MacBook Pro models boosted color by enhancing shades of red, but quantum dot film is considered superior because it often results in better color accuracy and a wider color gamut.
Quantum dot technology has been used for high-end displays for several years, with companies like Samsung and Sony manufacturing "QLED" displays and TV sets.
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/11/14/m4-macbook-pro-quantum-dot/
The M4 MacBook Pro models feature quantum dot display technology, according to display analyst Ross Young. Apple used a quantum dot film instead of a red KSF phosphor film, a change that provides more vibrant, accurate color results.
Young says that Apple has opted for KSF for prior MacBook Pro models because it doesn't use toxic element cadmium (typical for quantum dot) and is more efficient (and thus less expensive). Way back in 2015, when Apple introduced the first Retina MacBook Pro models, Apple executives said that quantum dot technology was considered at the time, but rejected because of the cadmium requirement.
There are now cadmium-free quantum dot options that Young says have as good or better color gamut and better motion performance than the KSF film Apple previously used. The KSF phosphor coating Apple added to prior MacBook Pro models boosted color by enhancing shades of red, but quantum dot film is considered superior because it often results in better color accuracy and a wider color gamut.
Quantum dot technology has been used for high-end displays for several years, with companies like Samsung and Sony manufacturing "QLED" displays and TV sets.
Yes, at least in part especially where color accuracy is concerned.
Motion performance is a combination of many things and people wanting 240hz Mac screens are …interesting.
I’ve owned 60hz LCDs from the early 2000s that had very little ghosting and have also owned multiple MBPs that were terrible. There are often multiple panel manufacturers and sometimes one is much worse than another, but most reviewers don’t do a good job of testing this. My 2019 MBP was great, I had a 2017 MBP that was “ok” but not great, a 2015 one that was terrible, and a 2013 (2nd gen retina) that was probably the best of them all until this M4 16” with regard to motion performance.
It’s not clear cut. OLED will make this a non-issue hopefully, but IMO refresh rates beyond 120hz isn’t really noticeable or useful for general desktop use, for gaming it can be ever so slightly. I’ve used computers with Plasma screens that had an effective 480hz refresh rate (despite taking 60hz as input) 15 years ago and there was more flicker but stellar motion performance. High-end CRTs from the 90s and early 2000s were extremely good with both color and motion despite only having a refresh rates of about 85-100hz at the very top end, but with the downside of a slight bit of phosphor trails.
Marketing has done a great job convincing people they need more than 120hz but beyond VR use cases or very high-level competitive gaming where you can get a slight bit of input latency reduction since the frame draws faster I don’t see it. I occasionally play an e-sports game competitively and used to play at the higher end of ‘semi-pro’ years ago and have used all of these screens at one point or another. I will say my best performance was with a Sony FW-900.
My current PC monitor runs up to 144hz and I set it to 120hz locked in all use cases because GPU power consumption is much worse for me at 144hz in windows and there’s no real noticeable difference when playing or looking at it, and I can run 10-bit at 120hz which I prefer. Below that I start to notice.
Macs in general tend to have worse motion performance but far better default color accuracy and it’s nice to see these things converging in their products after so many years of having to win a panel lottery. I really like my Studio Display but as soon as there is an XDR or Studio Display ‘Pro’ with the same technology that’s in the M4 laptops I am going to upgrade it and take the hit on selling my current one. It’s very good.