To be clear, Display Stream Compression is different from Chroma Subsampling[2], which the parent referenced.
https://www.cablematters.com/blog/DisplayPort/what-is-displa...
There's also a term for audio, but I forgot the exact terminology.
Things like this is applying lossy compression carefully with lab test on real humans to claim that under an A/B test an average human would not discern the difference.
But it still doesn't mean it should not be taken with a grain of salt. In any case, it is objectively inferior (and subjectively might not matters.) On top of my head one thing I'd question is generation loss (but if I am serious in the market of this kind of display I should study more carefully what their claim really is.)
But this is enough a technical detail for anyone to say "they only achieve XxY resolution at Z FPS with DSC" because the theoretical bandwidth isn't there and make do with lossy compression.
Which yes, means that a hypothetical 6k120 could be done at the same compression level as current 6k60 by using both HBR2 streams that a Thunderbolt 4 host port is required to support.
I have the M1 Max 14”, and also bought the XDR around a month ago for the extra 6k screen real estate. One thing I noticed is that I can’t figure out what pixel depth it’s running at on my M1 (intel shows 30 bit framebuffer in System Report, M1 shows nothing). SwitchResX software is reporting that it’s running in “Millions of Colors” (8 bit), but I’m not sure if that’s true. The same setup is reporting Billions of Colors on an intel MacBook.
It overall seems to be there’s things missing for the XDR <-> M1 interactions :S
And while I acknowledge that Apple made a trade off for pixel density, they weren’t forced to make tradeoffs for other features that are common on high end monitors.
So are D-sub connectors and HDMI. Should it have those as well? What about S-Video? Composite?
> they weren’t forced to make tradeoffs for other features that are common on high end monitors
They don't sell any products with DisplayPort connectors, nor do I think they've ever done so (certainly not recently). Selling a product with that connector is a commitment on some level to supporting what people plug into it, and as demonstrated by the OP, PCs are not really supported. It's also more engineering effort, but that's probably marginal.
This is a standard connector with cheap cables that adapt it to legacy devices using the DP alternate mode of USB-C. Apple are known for getting rid of legacy connectors. USB-C is a superior technology, it's only a matter of time before it's used for everything, and I appreciate Apple's efforts to hasten that day.
I have a Mac. I also have a work-issued PC. I have both machines connected to the same displays, and switch between them.
DisplayPort isn't some obsolete technology here. I understand why this display doesn't have HDMI, or DVI, or VGA, or Composite, or S-Video, etc. But DisplayPort would be nice.
Type C is one of the standard interfaces for the Displayport standard, and Displayport is the standard video transport on a thunderbolt cable.
Yes, it's confusing. But it's also a good thing as you can carry lots of stuff over the same cable and connector. A USB-C type cable and connector can carry USB, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort, HDMI, even analogue audio.
Before USB-C, Thunderbolt was using mini-DisplaPort connector and cables.
Everything on the product page suggests it was only designed for Mac: https://www.apple.com/studio-display/
That it happens to work on a PC at all is, I guess, an unintentional side effect that they'd rather not even acknowledge. You can try it unsupported but it's not their problem...
They've never been good at supporting standards not invented there. Hell, ever tried to use a Magic Mouse with a PC? Everything about it feels completely off. Part of me wonders if subtle incompatibilities, where hardware works 80% of the way, is maybe even part of their deliberate strategy to introduce small headaches to the PC experience to frustrate you into switching.
(Of course OSX has its own share of frustrations too, but nothing like using PC hardware on a Mac or vice versa).
Buy the Apple monitor, be impressed, buy the Studio to go with it.
I might just get rid of the monitor. I'm not convinced I loved it for my workflow anyway compared to 2 monitors where I can switch my Mac workspaces independently
Until they get so blurry that reading glasses are obligatory. And then, suddenly, everything is sharp again and that hi-dpi is nice :)
> One problem with high pixel density is that you either have to scale everything up
The bad news is, as a Windows user, very few apps support scaling (aka DPI awareness).
For larger displays, ex: 49" with 5120x1440, you'll take full advantage of every pixel without scaling.
Completely false. I've forgotten the last time I encountered an app that wasn't super ancient and didn't support fractional scaling on Windows 10/11. Sometime in 2017 I think.
That is not true in my experience. Also, for those who don't support it (which by default look blurry) you can enable it in compatibility options and it will generally work well.
Every ginormous “4k2k” or whatever display is just that: ginormous, so the actual pixel density is much lower, and is comparable to a typical (smaller, 1440p, etc) display.
I suspect this is because the fabrication of the LCDs is tuned to a particular pixel size, so if a company wants to make a 4K monitor, they scale existing LCD production up to a large enough size that they can get it 2160 pixels tall (by however wide), and that’s the size of the display. They can advertise having both a large display (which people like) and 4K (which people like), so there’s no downside to the manufacturers.
But if you want actual high pixel density, 200+PPI, your options are basically an Apple monitor (LG’s apple-sold display notwithstanding), or a smartphone.
(I’d love to be proven wrong on this! My holy grail monitor is 200+ppi, 120+Hz, large (27”+), and ideally ultrawide, but alas, such a thing doesn’t exist.)
- fast pixel response (CRTs are close, but the light to dark transitions fail)
- strobing, or a refresh rate that is high enough such that there is no blur (240Hz still doesn't fix this)
- at least 100Hz or so (perhaps only because I haven't used stuff over 144Hz enough yet)
- non glossy without grainy artifacts
- retina pixel density
- no viewing angle issues
- *at least* as good contrast as a 90% dead CRT I got in the trash
- no bloatware in the monitor or whatever they do that adds tons of input lag for no reason
- no local dimming type artifacts that (obviously) local dimming causes, but more importantly what the alpha OLEDs have
- low minimum brightness. most LCDs even at the lowest settings are far too bright
- the option of warm color temperatures
- perfectly flat screen, and pixel sharpness, for the sake of being fair (but the latest CRTs almost pass)
- no backlight bleedThere are plenty of 13" 1440p laptop panels being made. You just have to mate 4 of them together to make a 26" 5K display and yet this isn't done. Hell, I'd just settle for someone selling 13/15" 1440p/4K panels in a cheap, thin bezel enclosure with a VESA mount on the back for $250 - $400 a pop and I could make my own 5K/6K display for cheaper than what they're selling for.
edit: in case anyone knows, I see this monitor "requires two DisplayPorts" for full 8k. Does anyone know if I can plug two display ports into a docking station, and one cord out of the docking station into my 14" m1 mbp? Ideally this would also charge the mbp. Is this possible? If I were to buy such an expensive monitor, I really only want one cord.
That said, the easiest way to get this working is probably to get one of the TB->PCIe expander chassis and plug in an external GPU and let it drive the display.
Desktop PC's/workstations still have their place, and driving multiple high resolution monitors is one of them.
PS: Been drooling over that monitor for the past couple years as an upgrade to my dell 5K's I picked up when apple released their first standalone 5k monitor and more than a few high end mac users apparently ebay'ed their dell monitors to get the apple version. Their loss, my gain... :) Hey apple, why don't you release a 8K monitor? Lol.
(PS: There are a couple other manufactures putting that panel in monitors (viewsonic for one), so its not just dell, and a bunch of 8K tv's if you want higher resolution).
For most of what developers and even graphic designers do, 120 MHz refresh rates aren't required. People who need high refresh rates on large screens already know that and are prepared to spend the money necessary.
Non-curved 60Hz monitors are a thing of the past they should be relegated to monitors that cost 200$.
Obviously it’d be amazing if what you said is true, because both retina and HRR are very nice to have