More New 5K Monitors Announced!

[bigglow]

Timeline of 5k computer screens

I wonder which company was first to develop the 5k screen technology? Maybe Dell?

The UP2715K does not have a single port that can handle the 5K bandwidth. It was one of the first 5K monitors and required the use of two DisplayPort (DP 1.2) inputs simultaneously a method known as MST.

For many years and particularly with Thunderbolt 2 (Mini-DisplayPort) macOS drivers did not natively support the MST configuration required for 5K on this specific monitor. This often resulted in flickering, blank screens or only working at lower resolutions (like 4K or 2560x1440).

 

[Dark-Signature]

The UP2715K does not have a single port that can handle the 5K bandwidth. It was one of the first 5K monitors and required the use of two DisplayPort (DP 1.2) inputs simultaneously a method known as MST.

For many years and particularly with Thunderbolt 2 (Mini-DisplayPort) macOS drivers did not natively support the MST configuration required for 5K on this specific monitor. This often resulted in flickering, blank screens or only working at lower resolutions (like 4K or 2560x1440).

I bought this exact Dell (and two more over the years) in 2015 and used it with both a Windows PC and a Mac, but the Mac had to support at least Thunderbolt 3.

I used an adapter (which was available under different brand names) for this. It always worked very reliably.

In addition to the Dell UP2715K, there were other providers of 5K monitors, such as Viewsonic, Iiyama, IBM, HP, and, of course, LG.

 

[bigglow]

In addition to the Dell UP2715K, there were other providers of 5K monitors, such as Viewsonic, Iiyama, IBM, HP, and, of course, LG.

Could you point to 27" 5K from IBM?

With TB5 available these 8K resolutions can be handled easily.

​

Resolution​	Refresh​	Bit Depth​	Chroma​	HDR​	Compression​	TB5 Support​

8K​

60 Hz​

10–12-bit​

4:4:4​

Yes​

None / light DSC​

✅​

8K​

120 Hz​

10-bit​

4:4:4​

Yes​

DSC (low)​

✅​

​

8K

144 Hz

10-bit

4:4:4

Yes

DSC (heavier)

🟡

 

[Yuuuki]

Looking forward to buying the 27" 5k mini led version. Wonder when it will come out in the EU

 

[TJFDenver]

bang for the buck, I picked up a pair of LG 4K (27UP850K-W) for $250 a pop ... great performance for the price

 

[maflynn]

Here's the engadget article on the new monitors.

Finally, there's the beastly 52-inch (52G930B) large-format gaming display. You didn't read that wrong. This is a 52-inch gaming monitor. This 5K display offers a speedy 240Hz refresh rate. The 1000R curvature wraps around the peripheral, which should be great for flying sims and stuff like that.

LG hasn't released any information as to when we'll be able to get our mitts on these displays, or how much they will cost. With all the tech on offer, it's likely they'll cost a pretty penny.

 

[Riot Nrrrd]

I bought this exact Dell UP2715K (and two more over the years) in 2015 and used it with both a Windows PC and a Mac, but the Mac had to support at least Thunderbolt 3.

I used an adapter (which was available under different brand names) for this. It always worked very reliably.

View attachment 2591309

In addition to the Dell UP2715K, there were other providers of 5K monitors, such as Viewsonic, Iiyama, IBM, HP, and, of course, LG.

Are you sure about this? I had read that a 2013 Mac Pro “trash can” could drive this Dell at full 5K with two DisplayPort cables if connected to two different/separate Thunderbolt buses on the computer end, and the trash can only supports Thunderbolt 2 on its 6 Thunderbolt ports.

 

[Riot Nrrrd]

The UP2715K does not have a single port that can handle the 5K bandwidth. It was one of the first 5K monitors and required the use of two DisplayPort (DP 1.2) inputs simultaneously a method known as MST.

For many years and particularly with Thunderbolt 2 (Mini-DisplayPort) macOS drivers did not natively support the MST configuration required for 5K on this specific monitor. This often resulted in flickering, blank screens or only working at lower resolutions (like 4K or 2560x1440).

Does macOS even support MST? My Google searches say “No.”

I had always heard that a 2013 Mac Pro “trash can” could support this monitor with two mini-DisplayPort-to-full-DisplayPort cables, attached to two different Thunderbolt buses on the computer side.

 

[Dark-Signature]

Are you sure about this? I had read that a 2013 Mac Pro “trash can” could drive this Dell at full 5K with two DisplayPort cables if connected to two different/separate Thunderbolt buses on the computer end, and the trash can only supports Thunderbolt 2 on its 6 Thunderbolt ports.

I dunno. May be this was also possible. I didn't have a Mac Pro to test it on.

 

[PaulD-UK]

The Dell UP2715K was introduced a month before the 5K iMac using the same panel technology that Apple had partnered development of with LG and Parade Technologies (for a 5K capable T-Con screen control chip).
Dell produced this presumably to allow the 2013 Mac Pro to share the new 5K iMac screen tech.
As described it needs two miniDP to DP 1.2 cables from the Mac Pro.

When TB3 was introduced in 2016, the monitor needed a TB3 to Dual DP splitter, with two DP 1.2 cables, to enable connecting with only one port with the TB3 MBPs.

Dual cables like this isn’t called MST.
That’s a DP daisy chain mode, not supported for later DP modes with MacOS.

When Apple collaborated with LG on support for the 5K Ultrafine model they used two TB/DP streams down one cable, called SST, to simplify connection to the monitor.
The Dell was never updated to support this mode.

 

[Arctic Moose]

This is a Mac forum, so only 5K @ 27 matters. Else it is not retina quality. This should be quite obvious right?

Well, I would personally never consider a non-Retina display, but, as should be obvious from this forum, there are lots of Mac users that use and prefer all sorts of sub-220-ppi monitors.

Besides, the question was if 5120x2880@32” is 5K (which it is) and not if it is Retina (which it is not.)

 

[Dark-Signature]

Well, I would personally never consider a non-Retina display, but, as should be obvious from this forum, there are lots of Mac users that use and prefer all sorts of sub-220-ppi monitors.

And would you guess that this could be related to the price of a 220 PPI display? If a 220 PPI display cost the same as a 110 PPI monitor, which do you think people would be more likely to choose?

 

[Arctic Moose]

And would you guess that this could be related to the price of a 220 PPI display? If a 220 PPI display cost the same as a 110 PPI monitor, which do you think people would be more likely to choose?

Not sure why that matters (besides, cost is a highly relevant parameter) but a simple search here will reveal lots posts from users that simply do not see the difference and genuinely do not care, or that prefer features not available on Retina displays.

 

[Dark-Signature]

Not sure why that matters (besides, cost is a highly relevant parameter) but a simple search here will reveal lots posts from users that simply do not see the difference and genuinely do not care, or that prefer features not available on Retina displays.

Think about whether there isn't a logical error in this statement: How can these users not see the difference between a low-PPI and a high-PPI monitor if these very users have never seen such monitors side by side?

I guarantee you that when the price is right, these high-PPI monitors will be bought as if there had never been anything else, and why is that? Because that's exactly how it was with VGA to SVGA, or with FHD to WQHD.

 

[Zest28]

Well, I would personally never consider a non-Retina display, but, as should be obvious from this forum, there are lots of Mac users that use and prefer all sorts of sub-220-ppi monitors.

Besides, the question was if 5120x2880@32” is 5K (which it is) and not if it is Retina (which it is not.)

The fact is, Mac's are designed for 27” @ 5K. And it has nothing to do with PPI, but simply due to the fact that running it at any other spec means that the Mac will have to apply scaling as it is unable to exactly match pixel to pixel, resulting in a loss in performance also. Mac's don't work the same like PC's.

And since this is a Mac forum, you know exactly what the user "Dark-signature" meaned by "true 5K". This is not a PC forum.

 

[bigglow]

Does macOS even support MST? My Google searches say “No.”

I had always heard that a 2013 Mac Pro “trash can” could support this monitor with two mini-DisplayPort-to-full-DisplayPort cables, attached to two different Thunderbolt buses on the computer side.

Exactly my point.

I do not understand why anyone would reference tech that is not macOS compatible unless to point out that it doesn't work as expected.

Thank goodness for Thunderbolt 3/4/5. Now implement Target Display Mode on the iMac 24" 4.5K & future iMac 32" 6K.

 

[Dark-Signature]

Exactly my point.

I do not understand why anyone would reference tech that is not macOS compatible unless to point out that it doesn't work as expected.

Thank goodness for Thunderbolt 3/4/5. Now implement Target Display Mode on the iMac 24" 4.5K & future iMac 32" 6K.

Can you please tell me what MST stands for exactly? From the context, I would guess “multiple signal transport,” but I'm not really familiar with the abbreviation.

 

[bigglow]

Does macOS even support MST? My Google searches say “No.”

Thans for this. I hope no one ass me further about macOS compatibility

 

[thenewepic]

Besides, the question was if 5120x2880@32” is 5K (which it is) and not if it is Retina (which it is not.)

5K at 32" has roughly 185 PPI which is obviously not 220 but nevertheless could be retina at just slightly greater distance. So for desktop use I'd call it retina without doubts.
If you want to argue with me that some people still can see pixels at this slightly greater distance I'd answer that some people can see difference even between 220 and 280 PPI: "I had really hoped that 6K would turn out to be enough, but the difference to 8K is visible with the bare eye." So shouldn't we call a 220 PPI monitor retina? Sure, no. It is retina. As well as a 185 PPI monitor. The distance does only matter.

 

[MarkC426]

5K at 32" has roughly 185 PPI which is obviously not 220 but nevertheless could be retina at just slightly greater distance. So for desktop use I'd call it retina without doubts.
If you want to argue with me that some people still can see pixels at this slightly greater distance I'd answer that some people can see difference even between 220 and 280 PPI: "I had really hoped that 6K would turn out to be enough, but the difference to 8K is visible with the bare eye." So shouldn't we call a 220 PPI monitor retina? Sure, no. It is retina. As well as a 185 PPI monitor. The distance does only matter.

Retina…..also known as HiDPI in Mac system settings.
I just set my QHD monitor to HiDPI which is 1280x720 (half normal). Everything is huge on a 27” monitor yes, but is really sharp…..

As you suggest @thenewepic retina (or HiDPI) is retina no matter the screen size….👍

 

[Dark-Signature]

5K at 32" has roughly 185 PPI which is obviously not 220 but nevertheless could be retina at just slightly greater distance. So for desktop use I'd call it retina without doubts.
If you want to argue with me that some people still can see pixels at this slightly greater distance I'd answer that some people can see difference even between 220 and 280 PPI: "I had really hoped that 6K would turn out to be enough, but the difference to 8K is visible with the bare eye." So shouldn't we call a 220 PPI monitor retina? Sure, no. It is retina. As well as a 185 PPI monitor. The distance does only matter.

Here we are approaching a topic that is rarely discussed by us users (although I did read about it somewhere once).

We are talking about retina displays and distances, and by that we mean whether individual pixels can still be distinguished with the naked eye. In the past (more than 10 years ago), there was another term for this, namely pixel pitch, which refers to the space between two pixels and which has become smaller and smaller as displays and panels have developed. With low-resolution monitors (i.e., anything below 140 PPI), it is more this space (pixel pitch) that I dislike about such monitors! This is clearly noticeable when you sit 60 cm away from a 32" FHD monitor. This pixel pitch also contributes to whether the image appears good overall. We will certainly always discuss this in our conversations with my... but perhaps there are two different factors that need to be treated separately if you want to delve deeper into the subject.

 

[PaulD-UK]

Apple has made it easy, for external monitors.
They settled on QHD 109 ppi resolution as their first 27” monitor and iMac resolution, and when they improved it to Retina™ HiDPI resolution for the late 2014 iMac they chose 218ppi, as a straight doubling to 5K.
The ™ is signifiant… 😃

 

[Arctic Moose]

If you want to argue with me

I do not. 😁

 

[Pezimak]

5K at 32" has roughly 185 PPI which is obviously not 220 but nevertheless could be retina at just slightly greater distance. So for desktop use I'd call it retina without doubts.
If you want to argue with me that some people still can see pixels at this slightly greater distance I'd answer that some people can see difference even between 220 and 280 PPI: "I had really hoped that 6K would turn out to be enough, but the difference to 8K is visible with the bare eye." So shouldn't we call a 220 PPI monitor retina? Sure, no. It is retina. As well as a 185 PPI monitor. The distance does only matter.

Retina was pure Apple marketing spin, but at my age I cannot see individual pixels even at 140PPI without sticking my nose to the screen. And it will be like that for most people in their 40’s and up I imagine. As nature takes its course and you age. You can probably see a difference in sharpness though, and of course you can have tiny text and fit more windows on screen with higher resolutions at the same screen size.

 

[the future]

Retina was pure Apple marketing spin

No matter how often you or others repeat this, it still isn't true. The retina displays on first iPhone, then iPad and iMac just made those products a lot better. That's not marketing, that is product innovation. The term "retina display" you can call marketing, because it gives the innovation a catchy name, but you can't call it spin, because it quite accurately describes the effect (that the screen is now so good that your very good retina cannot see pixels/grain anymore) and does not – as spin does – try to show something in a positive light that is not actually deserving it.