Detnator

jamoses66 said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

What's missing?
No upgradeability. At all. None. Zero. Nada.
No way to upgrade the RAM, SSD or any other components.
What you get is what you get. Forever. You are welcome.
Not even a M.2 slot for when the built in SSD seems very slow and small two years from now.

Those GPU speed/power charts were missing the name of the discrete GPUs they used for comparison. The charts shown when the M1 Pro and Max when the MacBook Pro was released ended up being very misleading. How exactly does the M1 Ultra stack up to a RTX 3090 when ray tracing in Blender? Who knows? Guess we have to wait for a real review to find out. We do know that that the M1 Max hash rate is around 10.7 MH/s while a 3090 gets 121 MH/s so even if the M1 Ultra is twice as fast, it is still 1/6th the speed of the 3090.

Exactly, instead of an all-in-one package with a 27" iMac, they release this overpriced monitor and a cpu with no upgradeability in a box. Cool. Cool. 

You can upgrade the monitor.  For the first time in forever.      

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

What's missing?
No upgradeability. At all. None. Zero. Nada.
No way to upgrade the RAM, SSD or any other components.
What you get is what you get. Forever. You are welcome.
Not even a M.2 slot for when the built in SSD seems very slow and small two years from now.

Those GPU speed/power charts were missing the name of the discrete GPUs they used for comparison. The charts shown when the M1 Pro and Max when the MacBook Pro was released ended up being very misleading. How exactly does the M1 Ultra stack up to a RTX 3090 when ray tracing in Blender? Who knows? Guess we have to wait for a real review to find out. We do know that that the M1 Max hash rate is around 10.7 MH/s while a 3090 gets 121 MH/s so even if the M1 Ultra is twice as fast, it is still 1/6th the speed of the 3090.

Lol. You and your M.2 slot and "omg it's not upgradeable" like you're surprised... again.

It's been 6 years since they started soldering everything.  And for good reason, as has been explained on this forum countless times.  Has it possibly occurred to you, ever -- maybe even when explained to you -- that there's a direct relationship between the performance of these machines and how they're physically put together?  When you want Apple to build in internal upgradeability, you're asking them to compromise some of that performance. That would hurt the rest of their customers, that DON'T CARE about upgrading.

The RAM isn't upgradeable, because, you know, the RAM is part of the actual CPU system now.  But you knew that right?

Why does the internal SSD need to be internally upgradeable on a desktop? It's got up to SIX thunderbolt ports (one channel each) for a combined throughput of nearly 17 GigaBytes per second. Add whatever the heck storage configuration you want, right next to it.

Yes.  You buy what you need, from the start.  And when ANY PART of it is no longer what you need, that's ok, because Apple's stuff holds its value very well. It will meet someone else's needs who is willing to pay you for it, and you use the money from that plus a bit more (which you'd have otherwise spent on some upgrade part) and get a better Mac with your choice of configuration that meets your new needs. The Migration Assistant makes this process ridiculously easy.

That's now been the way you upgrade Apple stuff, for years.  And this approach benefits the vast majority of Apple's customer base a lot more than the ability to open up a Mac and tinker, again as has been explained on this forum countless times.

Meanwhile, the GPU speeds... Not sure what you're talking about.  These were compared directly against the actual options in the 2019 Mac Pro and highest end iMac.  

And you're really going to compare a Mac's graphics performance -- for, you know, doing actual work -- against Nvidia's mining capabilities in a PC?  You do realize the G in GPU stands for "Graphics", right?

How do you not understand that one of the other reasons Apple stuff is so good at what it DOES do is partly because of the absence of the other things it doesn't even try to do?

Hey here's an idea.  Let's complain that the Ford F150 doesn't typically win sports car races, or have a convertible roof.  Or float.  And at that price?  Good grief. What were they thinking? Ford is doomed.

And another round of "omg Apple made it too expensive, it's a rip-off" comments on a new product release. So ridiculous. Critical thinking too much for you? Why are you people even here? What do you want?

Either Apple stuff is good stuff, and so be prepared to pay for it (it's good because of insane amounts of R&D, plus build quality, features, best in class customer support, etc. all of which cost money)...

...or Apple stuff is overpriced junk in which case, why do you waste your lives giving it the slightest attention?

Of course you're free to have your opinions, but please forgive me if I pity your lives...  Again, why are you here?  What do you want?

libertyandfree said:

docno42 said:

Finally!  Apple produces a reasonable display.  May have to get one of these for my MacBook Pro - and I wasn't thinking about that, at all!  Love that center stage finally came to the Mac too.  

The display is a total rip off.  Price is insane considering this nearly same 5k display has been offered in the 27” iMac for years. 

Better display plus a bunch of other features.  See my post above. Compare with everything else on the market.  What comes even close that isn't similarly (or higher) priced?

libertyandfree said:

docno42 said:

fastasleep said:

docno42 said:

shareef777 said:

KBuffett said:

Does anyone know if this can be used with a PC?

This is the LG 5K in an aluminum shell.

This is nothing like the LG 5K display - not sure why people feel compelled to spout such nonsense.

Except that it is a 5K 27” panel made by LG, so it is something like it. 

It's A panel made by LG - LG doesn't offer the coatings Apple does.
LG isn't offering the camera.
LG isn't offering the speakers.
LG isn't offering the connectivity options.
And yes, LG isn't offering the stand options either.

But yeah, other than that, they are completely the same  

You realize most of these options in a display are nice to have but not essential. A $100 set of  External speakers will blow this out of the water and the connectivity options are on the Mac studio as well.  This is a slight upgrade of the old 5k 27” Retina display that has been around for years but now the price is sky high.  

"You realize most of these options in a display are nice to have but not essential..."  Oooohkay?  Your point? What do you consider essential vs not essential?  Essential for what?

For myself, for one... every feature of this display will make me more productive and/or less stressed (which in turn will make me more productive).  Increased productivity will make me more money, which will (a) pay for the purchase, and then some, and (b) improve the lives of myself and my family.  And that's the case for nearly everyone who will buy it.

For your diss on the price (of both this display and the iMac 5K display), I repeat my above: Compare with everything else on the market.  What comes even close that isn't similarly (or higher) priced?

hucom2000 said:

I tend to agree with the "rip-off" comments on this one. 

I would expect a 1500 dollar monitor to be hight-adjustable...   

I don't' see any specs that hint at a revolutionary display. Unlike the XDR it sure seems to be a re-packaged panel, with goodies added, sold very expensively. 

And before you put me in a corner: I'm precisely a so called "fan-boy" who paid $900 for a stand... so I know everything about being taken to the cleaners - voluntarily!

 

Ah this is a good one... You expect it to be height adjustable, at no extra charge.

For starters, the MONITOR, is not height adjustable. Not possible. What is height adjustable is the stand or mount that it sits on.

As any decent engineer knows, or heck look at nearly every other monitor on the market, you'll hopefully figure out that any kind of decent height adjustability is actually very difficult to implement. Nearly every monitor stand or mount that's height adjustable simply has some kind of built in vertical spring. This doesn't last over time. It's inconsistent tension across its range. It usually means some kind of cylinder or other parts rubbing against each other and not being tight enough to hold the monitor physically straight/aligned, so it's wobbly and/or slightly tilted. Put two side by side, and it's virtually impossible to get them to line up.  At least this is my experience with every height adjustable monitor I've ever used, especially the LG 5K one.

For some people, height adjustable is less important than stability, desk space taken up, and other factors.  That Apple provides the option for the minimal base stand is great for them -- they don't have to pay extra for something they don't particularly want.

For those of us who want height adjustability, there are a bazillion options in every budget. That's what the VESA standard (a no-extra-charge option for this display) is all about. You do realize companies make VESA monitor stands, right?  Get whatever you want at any budget.

Or if you don't have time to be bothered with any of that, because you work hard and actually make money with your gear, and your time is worth more than the money you'll save finding, purchasing, accepting delivery of, and setting up some other stand/mount/arm, then you can take Apple's off-the-shelf height adjustable stand, which has been carefully engineered (by the company that cares about providing their customers a better experience than most companies), to solve all the problems in my paragraph above. It's not an over-engineered gimmick (nor is the $1K one for the XDR). It solves real problems, that some people (myself included) care about, at a cost for the insane amounts of R&D that figured it out.

I for one have used the LG 5K displays since release, because I'm more productive with retina 5K than with 4K (I tried it).  Those displays suck for build quality, customer support, etc. and yes, their stands suck, and have all the problems I've described above. I put that stand back in the box and bought a high quality VESA based stand/arm -- for a price close to Apple's $400 stand.  It, too, is well engineered, solves the problems above, has lasted over 5 years so far, solves the problems above and a couple of others as well, and therefore was worth every penny. I tried cheaper options before going there, and was sorely disappointed.  Bottom line: you get what you pay for.

So, I don't see the problem. You've got choice. Each choice is priced comparatively reasonably, for what it offers.  Again, I say, compare this display with everything else on the market.  What comes even close that isn't similarly priced?

lewchenko said:

An insane price for a monitor that can only do 60hz. Even my current monitor can do 144hz and it’s so much nicer on the eyes. Although it’s not 5K.  

Cost a fraction of the price though and has Gsync / active sync. It may not be in the same class colour wise but the refresh rate is so much nicer and I have no issues with the image or colour quality. 

This one's my favorite.  So totally clueless. Or, do you actually know better and you're just a troll?

You do realize that to double the refresh rate means doubling the bandwidth, right?  Is your 144Hz monitor anywhere near 5K? I'm pretty sure 144Hz 5K (or even 120Hz 5K) is impossible through Thunderbolt 4's 32Gbps video bandwidth.

The overwhelming majority of computer displays on the market are 4K or less.  Are there ANY computer displays on the market that are 5K 2880p or higher more than 60Hz?  Other than the following list, are there any computer displays on the market that are 5K 2880p at all...???

• 1. LG Ultrafine 5K
• 2. Apple Studio Display (ASD) 5K -- this one, obviously.
• 3. Apple XDR 6K
• 4. Dell 8K.
  
• 5. I'm aware of a couple of others, that are basically the LG 5K (exactly the same specs) but repackaged by some relatively unknown brand.
• I'm aware of a couple of other monitors that describe themselves as 5K, but they are only 2160p or less, so they don't compare against this one for this discussion.
• Any others? 

I'm not aware of any others (and believe me I've looked, but please point me to any others you know of).  The point: ALL of these are 60Hz maximum. The Dell 8K only gets that much resolution through because it requires two DisplayPorts to drive it (ie. it's essentially two half-8K displays stitched together through both hardware and software).

That's the displays.  Meanwhile I don't know of any computer that's capable of driving any display above 4K at more than 60Hz through one port (ie. without doing the Dell 8K thing).

So yeah... nope, sorry, it doesn't do 144Hz.  If you can figure out how to defy the laws of physics to make a monitor that can do it, then hopefully you can figure out how to price it at a non "insane price" while still covering your R&D costs.  Let us know how that goes.

entropys said:

The latest LG LCDs have this thing called IPS black technology that doubles the contrast ratio and ends up with blacker blacks.  

It is in the new 27 inch and 32 inch 4K dell ultrasharp displays, but not yet in a shipping LG display. I assume these Apple 5k displays have it.

I can’t justify the more than double price difference with the dell, in Australia it’s 240% more with a more limited dock. 320% more if you want to pay for the extra adjustable stand (you have to pay extra for that!!!). The only things it has over the dell is a sexy aluminium frame and more USBc ports, speakers and camera, and 5K of course, and I don’t see the point of thunderbolt anymore.  But then the dell has a wider array of port options.
inwas expecting it to be about $200 more than the LG Ultrafine, eg USD$1500. The dell is USD$750. 

I'm wondering if your comment is satire... 

It's only $300 more than the LG 5K Ultrafine.  And it has a decent collection of real improvements (not just cosmetic) that collectively easily add up (see my post above).  Comparing it with the dell, well, even just the pixel count (5K vs 4K)) is almost double, let alone everything else you listed.

I respect you saying you "can't justify" the price, instead of "waaah it's too expensive".  You're exercising your option to choose something different that better suits both your needs and budget. Wouldn't it be great if more people could manage that.

However...

Your "The only things it has over the dell..." comment seems a bit weird.  The "only" things it has over the dell are... well... everything.  lol.  

And,  you "don't see the point of thunderbolt anymore"...?  Did it have some point that it has now lost?  I feel like that's saying "What's the point of a car when you can walk?".  Does any other protocol have anything close to the functionality Thunderbolt 3 & 4 have?  ...Unless you're saying "what's the point of TB4 when we have USB4...?  Thunderbolt 4 includes USB4 but has a little more, not the least of which is TB4 can handle two displays, USB4 only one.  So yeah, you kinda lost me on that point.

shareef777 said:

sflocal said:

shareef777 said:

KBuffett said:

Does anyone know if this can be used with a PC?

This is the LG 5K in an aluminum shell.

LG has always provided the LCD screens to Apple.  Heck, my 2020 5K iMac is probably using an LG panel.  What's your point?

It's it's just not a "shell", but you keep going with your narrative.

Jesus, you apple fanboys are unbearable. If a comment isn't a glowing review of Apple it's "narrative". It's the same design as the LG 5K (no buttons, built-in camera, speakers,  4 ports on the back, and single uplink cable design). Sure it has newer tech in it, sure AF would hope so after 6 years,but it's functionally the same as the LG 5K but in a prettier shell. Point is that it's NOT anything revolutionary compared to the LG 5K.

Ya'll acting like it's a dis somehow. I love my pair of LG 5Ks and think this is a great replacement for them. Wouldn't get one myself because of the higher cost, but happy for those that got the money for it.

If what you're saying here were true, they'd all be very good points, but it's just not.  I hear your frustration with those responding to you, but they're right. The following is probably overkill to make the point, but you're not getting it from the shorter replies of others, so here it is in detail...

LG 5K:

• 500 nits
• USB3 5GBps
• 14lb
• 1080p camera (~2MP)
• Crappy speakers
• Crappy mic
• Terrible build quality with persistent hardware issues
• Woeful LG customer support
• $1300

Apple Studio 5K: 

• 600 nits + True Tone
• USB3 10Gbps
• 12lb
• 12MP camera (6x the pixels, + Center Stage)
• High quality 3 mic array, directional beam forming (if these are anything like the MBP mics then they're amazing)
• Superior speakers (+ spatial audio)
• Excellent build quality (presumably, if it's typical Apple).
• Best in class customer support
• built in A13 CPU
• $1600

Bottom line, other than the 5K resolution part, it's nothing like the LG 5K. Hardly anyone is complaining that you're dissing it. The problem with your comment is it's just plain wrong.

---------------

You said "...it's functionally the same as the LG 5K but in a prettier shell."  and "Point is that it's NOT anything revolutionary compared to the LG 5K."

Those are two very different statements:

• The second is true: sure, it's not revolutionary. It's not supposed to be. 
• The first is false. It doesn't have to be revolutionary to be functionally different, and this display is significantly "functionally" different to the LG 5K.

What do you expect "revolutionary" to be in a mid-tier display? The XDR is revolutionary, and comes with the corresponding price tag. Many (myself included) were disappointed, justifiably, that the XDR is too expensive for our needs. The XDR price is worth it for the features it brings to the relatively small group of high end users it is meant for. But what about the rest of us?

At the other end is all the cheap stuff that Samsung, Dell, LG, etc. make, for < $1K, that all (comparatively) suck. Sure, 4K, 150 dpi, low brightness, washed out color, crappy/no camera/speakers/mic, etc. is fine for a lot of people -- most people, arguably -- and that's great. Good for them (really). But that doesn't meet the needs of some of us.

When you're on the road with a 220+ dpi, 500+ nits, True Tone, amazingly clear MBP display or even the iPhone/iPad displays, and you're used to it, then come back to home/office to washed out, 150 dpi, 350 nits, etc. it's jarring, a strain on the eyes, and a strain on productivity for those of us who make a living with our gear.

So what about that group? In the middle, there's been this gaping hole (in both products, and users who don't need the XDR features, but want more than washed out 4K, 150dpi, 350 nits, etc). The iMac 5K display sits very nicely in that hole, but we couldn't get that for our MBP or Mac mini, without the built in Mac, nor with Apple's build quality, customer service, etc...  Until today.

It's $300 more than the LG, which seems pretty darn reasonable for all the improvements it adds, for the people it's targeted at. As with all Apple products, for the people it is not targeted at, it's a lousy choice, but that's fine because those people have plenty of other choices. But for those of us in the above mentioned hole, this is what we've been waiting for since the Thunderbolt Display was discontinued 10+ years ago.

Those "unbearable ... apple fanboys" (careful with that phrase -- might want to check the forum rules) are faulting your comments, not because they aren't glowing reviews, but because they're just plain wrong.