I will continue to use Dell U4919DW, which is perfect for my purpose (home music studio).
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.
What monitor is everyone using with the Mac Studio (can't afford the Apple monitors)?
- Thread starter Cromulent
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I will be using my 28" Samsung LU28R550UQR. Comes with an antireflective coating as standard and has VESA holes in the back. It's 'only' 4K not 5, but I could buy six of them compared to the price of the Studio Display, and the SD sure won't be six times better. I'll not mention the Samsung's removable mains cable, that's just rubbing it in.
I’m a software engineer and also interested in this topic. Right now I have two old Dell 17” 60Hz 1080p monitors. I just got a 14” M1 Max MBP. I‘m kinda winding down my career as I go on 64 yrs old. Those monitors I use are just too fatiguing on my eyes some days, and I have to stop working for a while due to blurry vision from them (my iPad Pro doesn’t cause that).
I’m on the hunt for replacements. I spend 40 hrs/week mostly looking at code in IntelliJ IDEA (Darkula mode). I went to look at monitors at Microcenter today. I saw a 144Hz Dell S3422DWG or something that seemed OK for $600 or so, but the Studio Display looks so much better, but it’s just 60Hz so maybe that’s an illusion in the store. I have a pending order for the Studio Display but have four weeks to change my mind. If I get the Apple I will still use one of my crap Dells as a second display, but I would really like to get two new ones that work well and don’t cause so much fatigue.
Would love to hear some recommendations. I don’t care about gaming or Photoshop or fast video and such, but I do care about looking at a display all day that will be comfortable for my old eyes.
Last edited:
It is limited by the TB4 bandwidth. The Mac Studio can do 120 hz at 4k no problem. I have seen some reviews on YouTube claiming they are getting 144 hz with a 4k display. I don't think you can do above 60 hz at 5k over TB4 yet.
I have a mac studio, and I'm using two Gigabyte G27Q; by default, those were set to 144 Hz by the studio, so I leave it like that. I understand two things high frequency uses more power from graphics, and the primary use is for Gamming, but all my life, I used 60 Hz on my old monitors, so I leave it like that; I don't know if I'm forcing too much graphics for just every day working but... I don't know. I am not sure what is the optimum setting yet.
I just use a Philips 279p1 as that is good enough for me at 60 hz as most people can see only 30 - 60 frames per second, so I personally never put too much stock in that specification and I'm not much of a gamer. An having a History of Animation course in college, I'm amazed how the old timers like Animators Disney and Max Fleischer Studios (Popeye, Betty Boop and Superman) did their early animations. Don't get me wrong I would love a higher end Monitor, but my priorities are on other things at the moment.
Nope. "US TV from the 70's [sic]": In the 70s, as with all standard NTSC TV from the late 40s through the conversion to digital, the frame rate was 29.97Hz.
No, a 4k image on a 32" screen not going to be as sharp as a 5k image on a 27" screen. Scaling or not.
Even in unscaled mode, pixels on a 4k 32" screen will be more noticeable and any artefacts you get from using 'scaled mode' will be more obvious. That said, your alternative is - if you want 32" plus iMac sharpness - to save up $5000 for a Pro Display XDR.
Its only a 'rule of thumb' but the 'retina' distances are about 16" for a 5k iMac, 21" for a 27" 4l display and 25" for a 32" 4k (http://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/) - that's how far away your eyes have to be from the display before a person with typical vision will be unable to make out pixels (or notice scaling artefacts). So it comes down to why you want a 32" screen - if you're going to view it from further away than you would a smaller display it will probably be fine, but if you want to have it close up to fill more of your field of view you won't get that retina 'sharpness'.
...but as @Killerbob said, on a 32" display you'd probably be fine with 1:1 4k mode and nor have to bother with scaling (...and if your eyeballs aren't up to that you probably won't notice the effects of scaling so much).
True, that's the frame rate, no argument - but I suspect @MajorFubar was thinking of the field rate (2 interlaced fields, each containing alternate lines of the frame) of ~60Hz. For material shot on an (old school, analogue) video camera each field was taken 1/60s apart so the motion is smoother than you'd get from a non-interlaced/progressive-scan video at 30fps - so you in that case you can probably argue the toss as to whether the "refresh rate" is 30Hz or 60Hz.
A modern TV described as "60Hz" displaying an interlaced "NTSC" (480i) picture has a frame rate of ~30Hz c.f. a field rate of ~60Hz (and the smoothness of motion will depend on how the video was produced - although a modern TV will probably interpolate everything up to 60 or 120 fps)
However, computers tend to stick to progressive scan (i.e. no interlaced fields) so the field rate/frame rate distinction doesn't apply and the refresh rate is what it is. Still, the 60Hz rate does have a history going back to the old haunted fishtanks of the 70s.
Plus 60Hz is fairly low c.f. later computer CRT displays which ISTR got up to about 90Hz at one point - e.g. the Atari ST mono monitor was 71.25 Hz, and completely ruined me for 50Hz (I'm in the UK so standard is 25fps/50Hz) displays) but that's partly because CRTs actually flickered at the refresh rate - whereas modern TFT LCDs don't so higher frame rates are all about smoother motion.
The looks of scaled monitors in macOS has been discussed a few times;
Take a look in these threads, but remember the answer is very subjective. I for instance like the 32” monitor size, and I see no pixels at 4K. I used to work on two 27” ATDs, and think the move to two LG 32UL950-W monitors was an improvement. Others may think differently. I can tell you I have seen the Studio Display next to an LG Ultrafine 5K, I could NOT see the difference no matter how hard I tried, and I work in photography and spend too much time in front of computers editing photos. Hence, in my opinion, the Studio Display is overrated - and certainly too expensive for what you get.
Take a look in these threads, but remember the answer is very subjective. I for instance like the 32” monitor size, and I see no pixels at 4K. I used to work on two 27” ATDs, and think the move to two LG 32UL950-W monitors was an improvement. Others may think differently. I can tell you I have seen the Studio Display next to an LG Ultrafine 5K, I could NOT see the difference no matter how hard I tried, and I work in photography and spend too much time in front of computers editing photos. Hence, in my opinion, the Studio Display is overrated - and certainly too expensive for what you get.
I am now using an LG 40" Ultrawide (5K2K) Thunderbolt 4 monitor. It is incredible (I wish it was brighter and cheaper, but you basically get a 32" 4K screen with an extra 1/3 more real estate at the same 140+ PPI). I am impressed. The scaling is very good on Monterey latest version too.
I went with this: https://www.amazon.com/LG-32UN650-W-Compatibility-Borderless-Adjustable/dp/B08FQ42MN1
It's the same panel as the much-talked about UN880, but without the swivel arm mount and extra ports, which, to me, didn't justify the extra $200.
I like the monitor a lot. I did a ton of research beforehand, but you never know until you get the screen in front of you and work with it for a few hours. I'm running it at 3008 X 1692 which seems to be the sweet spot for added screen real-estate and readability. No complaints at all, and a big improvement over my 2011 27in iMac (yes, 2011).
It's the same panel as the much-talked about UN880, but without the swivel arm mount and extra ports, which, to me, didn't justify the extra $200.
I like the monitor a lot. I did a ton of research beforehand, but you never know until you get the screen in front of you and work with it for a few hours. I'm running it at 3008 X 1692 which seems to be the sweet spot for added screen real-estate and readability. No complaints at all, and a big improvement over my 2011 27in iMac (yes, 2011).
I have this too. It's wonderful. I just updated to the 40" Ultrawide model.
If anyone wants one I will be selling it soon....
NEED HELP with my Samsung M8 with Mac Studio Ultra:
I'm struggling with resolution settings on my Samsung M8 display as connected to my Mac Studio Ultra. I'm only seeing 3 resolution settings in the Display pref panel, and they are all too large! The finest resolution option offered is 1920 X 1080. The other 2 are: 1280 X 720 and 960 X 540 (HiDPI).
1920 X 1080 is WAYYY too large (coarse) for my purposes, I'm using it as an extended monitor attached via USB-C. My main monitor is a LG TV attached via HDMI.
I've tried the "click option key while pressing the "scaled" button" trick but that does not reveal additional resolution options. :-(
Can anybody guide me along to a more suitable (finer) resolution setting please? My desire is to be able to display numerous secondary pop-up windows in my recording studio--I use a DAW (MOTU Digital Performer 11) with the LG TV displaying the main sequencer window, and the M8 is meant to show my mixer and other plug-in windows. As it is now, my mixer alone will barely fit, due to the large resolution setting.
I'm coming away from a decade of using a Mac Pro 5.1 with the same LG TV as main monitor and a 30" Apple Cinema HD Display (DVI) as my extended second monitor--I was able to select from many resolution options on that one. Not so with the M8--and it's causing me great concern! :-(
Any help greatly appreciated!
Greg
Austin TX
I'm struggling with resolution settings on my Samsung M8 display as connected to my Mac Studio Ultra. I'm only seeing 3 resolution settings in the Display pref panel, and they are all too large! The finest resolution option offered is 1920 X 1080. The other 2 are: 1280 X 720 and 960 X 540 (HiDPI).
1920 X 1080 is WAYYY too large (coarse) for my purposes, I'm using it as an extended monitor attached via USB-C. My main monitor is a LG TV attached via HDMI.
I've tried the "click option key while pressing the "scaled" button" trick but that does not reveal additional resolution options. :-(
Can anybody guide me along to a more suitable (finer) resolution setting please? My desire is to be able to display numerous secondary pop-up windows in my recording studio--I use a DAW (MOTU Digital Performer 11) with the LG TV displaying the main sequencer window, and the M8 is meant to show my mixer and other plug-in windows. As it is now, my mixer alone will barely fit, due to the large resolution setting.
I'm coming away from a decade of using a Mac Pro 5.1 with the same LG TV as main monitor and a 30" Apple Cinema HD Display (DVI) as my extended second monitor--I was able to select from many resolution options on that one. Not so with the M8--and it's causing me great concern! :-(
Any help greatly appreciated!
Greg
Austin TX
Well---the LG TV is using HDMI--not sure if the cable is 1.0 or 2.0---but that monitor is not the problem. I'm using a USB-C cable to connect the Samsung M8. Shouldn't that give enough bandwidth for higher resolutions?
I just searched the resolution specs for the Samsung M8--they are:
3840 x 2160 4K.
So--I'm a long way off. Wonder why the Mac Studio is not providing that option? Even with the option key/scaled button trick?
Greg
3840 x 2160 4K.
So--I'm a long way off. Wonder why the Mac Studio is not providing that option? Even with the option key/scaled button trick?
Greg
Download and install SwitchResX and see what it says - there is an Apple Silicon version available in Beta (4.12.1b9). It very likely is cable related; I find that the higher frequencies you are trying to use, the better the cables have to be, especially with DP and HDMI.
Great--I'll explore that---it probably is cable-related--but that's frustrating because the M8 is advertised as a USB-C monitor at 3840 x 2160. I'll post my findings here--thank you all for any help!