The display on the new MBP is really incredible.

[PeterLC]

Well, you're wrong. As usual.

It would be quite helpful if you would clarify just WHAT is wrong with tornado99's explanation/experience so the rest if us trying to gain knowledge from this discussion might be better informed, please.

 

[Pro Apple Silicon]

It would be quite helpful if you would clarify just WHAT is wrong with tornado99's explanation/experience so the rest if us trying to gain knowledge from this discussion might be better informed, please.

Go back and read the thread. He's simply trolling with every single response. I'm not giving him the time of day at this point.

 

[JMacHack]

Given that until recently, OS X was only available at 60Hz, why are these forums not full of people bemoaning the terrible flickering? And if 120Hz is significantly better, would 240Hz be better still? what about 480Hz?

lol what, I’ve had crts hooked up to my macs before and they’ve gone past 60hz.

Do you not understand that high refresh looks better until a certain point of diminishing returns? 120 looks far better than 60, but 480 over 240 would barely be noticeable.

 

[5425642]

Unfortunately none of the new MBPs can output above 60hz to external displays, so ProMotion on external displays would require upscaling which is not ideal.

Lie I have done 144hz external display no issue.

 

[tornado99]

I'm not trolling. If you are in any way scientifically-minded you can look up the limits of human visual acuity and do the calculation yourself. I use both a 185 dpi and 220 dpi monitor on a daily basis.

lol what, I’ve had crts hooked up to my macs before and they’ve gone past 60hz.

Do you not understand that high refresh looks better until a certain point of diminishing returns? 120 looks far better than 60, but 480 over 240 would barely be noticeable.

Sorry, but this is also incorrect. A CRT refreshes the entire screen at a given rate, whereas an LCD is able to receive changes to the image at a given rate. They are fundamentally different. If you have a static image on a 60Hz LCD it will be refreshing at 0Hz i.e. not at all, whereas a static image on a CRT will be changing 60 times a second.

This is pretty much the crux of why 60Hz on an LCD is sufficient for desktop usage. Moving the pointer, Finder windows, and page scrolling is simply too slow to make use of any higher update rate. Sure, you could scroll a webpage like a maniac, but your eyes won't be registering what you see even if does update super-quick. On the other hand gaming and videography would definitely see a benefit as the entire screen needs to be refreshed very frequently.

 

[tornado99]

In case anyone is interested I found this post on another thread which may help anyone wondering whether 160dpi really is as good as "Retina".

I bought this monitor [Hauwei Mateview 28 inch] and it's amazing. It looks gorgeous. What I was surprised the most was the screen itself. I've been working on the retina screens for six years now and I was afraid that 163 PPI would be too low. Believe me it isn't. Text is sharp and clear. No pixels visible. I'm very happy with this monitor.

 

[NdTonks]

It’s a nice display, but I have yet to see a 16“ without dead pixels. Five units through our company and the twinnings we bought personally. Each and every one of them has at least 2 dead subpixels. They are subtle, but if I know they exist, they annoy the **** out of me.

I have run tests and scoured every square inch of my 16" at length and am pretty confident in saying absolutely no dead pixels on my display.

 

[senttoschool]

I've had my 16" for a few days now and damn the display is so nice. It makes looking at any other external monitor or any other laptop a chore. It's so crisp, bright, and has amazing contrast. I've never seen a display this nice before.