MacInTouch Amazon link...
Channels
Other, Products
Here's more on this unannounced Apple-LG mystery monitor update:
Julio Ojeda-Zapata said:
Apple Debuts LG’s All-New 23.7-inch UltraFine Display
Did Apple just stealth-release a new Mac display?
I’m not talking about the much-rumored 6K display that the company is supposedly designing and building for use with the upcoming new version of the Mac Pro. We might hear about such a product at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference, which kicks off 3 June 2019 (see “The Top Conferences for Mac and iOS Professionals in 2019,” 19 May 2019).
No, I’m referring to a third-party monitor, the apparently new 23.7-inch LG UltraFine Display, that, until I went to an Apple Store last week, I knew nothing about. And it seems that few others have heard of it....
It is not so bizarre if coupled to two things: One, Apple planned to release it a bit later, but the 'old' 4K monitor supply ran out unexpectedly (e.g. they turned of production when they thought they had a 4-month supply and only had 2.5 months). The spotty store coverage would line up with this, too...

Two, it is a better bridge between a shift where all the Mac laptops go to Thunderbolt 3 and the current set up, where they have the MacBook outlier on Type-C DisplayPort alternate mode. The 'old' 4K monitor was only geared to cover the latter (and the USB extension sockets were limited to just USB 2.0 bandwidth). According to the manual, this [new] display can either be fed via Thunderbolt v3 or DisplayPort alt mode (but the resolutions may not be the same). So Apple swapped in a less expensive panel for adding Thunderbolt v3 and kept the price the same.

I think the 9to5 article (linkded in the Tidbits one) notes that this should also work with iPad Pro. Similarly, if Apple flipped a "laptop" to ARM, and it had same external display limitations as iPad Pro, this would work. This may "fit" better into the Apple ecosystem after the WWDC events finish outlining where iOS on iPad Pro is going.


P.S. I don't think Apple upgraded the non-Retina iMac (the "edu" / "entry") model. Perhaps they may be using this "slightly less than Retina" TFT panel in a refresh of that to finally dump the 1080p TFT panel. Eventually, this could be used as the panel in an edu/entry price-sensitive iMac upgrade. It is a more mainstream panel, so they get "volume" out of the greater market. (The 21.5" is basically 'custom' to Apple at this point.) The Retinas could move to a similarly sized screen (to share the same basic enclosure), but 'better' (color, backlighting, resolution, refresh, and/or bezel size).
 


Here's more on this unannounced Apple-LG mystery monitor update:
P.P.S. Apple's compatibility support document for the monitor:

So 'iPad Pro' is right there in the title. The overall theme, though, is "very broad" coverage. While not 60Hz refresh, the Thunderbolt 2 Macs (with adapter) are looped in also at reduced resolution. This monitor coverage is the whole Mac deployed base that is not on the vintage/obsolete list and then some increment on top of that (with the new iPad Pro).

(The user manual didn't explicitly suggest IPS panel or P3 color gamut coverage, so perhaps that is a new 'floor' in the future. I'd expect the "Retina" iMacs and any new 6k3K monitor to be at higher HDR classification than this one.)

P.P.P.S. The supplied USB-C cable seems a bit too short to be useful in many placement contexts. LG/Apple may have improved the Type-C socket depth and tolerance implementation, but substantive tension on a cable due to trying to "stretch" to get to the socket probably would cause problems. The cable probably will need a good amount of slack.

There is a picture of an iPad Pro in one of the product pictures.

The iPad Pro is a bit overlapping in placement to the screen in part because the cable isn't really long enough. (It is overlapping because these are being placed into a tight group shot, so the picture isn't "too wide", also, but if let go of that, one can tell.) A device stand that was placed back parallel with the screen's depth from the user would close the distance and fit "better".
 


I also laughed out loud when I saw the $1,000 price tag on the "Pro Stand" for the Pro Display.
What about the reaction from the audience? There was a discernible gasp, which seemed to catch the Apple folks by surprise, when the price was mentioned. A "bridge too far?"
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Via a longtime Mac friend:
Gizmodo said:
How Ridiculous Is Apple's $1,000 Monitor Stand, Really?

... That price seems even more ridiculous when you compare the Pro Display XDR’s stand to the Surface Studio 2, which has a similar display mount that allows the system’s screen to tilt and move up and down with ease, while also allowing the screen to go even lower and transform into something like a digital drafting table. That’s something Apple’s expensive stand can’t do, though the trade-off for that is the Surface Studio 2's inability to rotate into portrait mode.

But the real eye-opener is that the Surface Studio 2 starts at $3,500, and that’s for the entire system which includes a 4500 x 3000 28-inch touchscreen, Core i7 CPU, 16GB of RAM, 1TB SSD, and Nvidia discrete graphics among other things.

... So is Apple’s $1,000 Pro Stand ridiculous? Sure, but it’s on the same level as a mouse with a port on the bottom so you can’t use it while its charging, or better yet, a gold-plated Apple Watch. And as I said before, the Pro Display XDR and Pro Stand weren’t meant for us anyways.
 


Here's more on this unannounced Apple-LG mystery monitor update:
Even less of a "mystery" monitor update in the context of $999 for just the stand for the new Apple XDR monitor. The LG monitor is one that is affordable by a far greater group of users.
It will be interesting if LG incrementally improve the 5K model later if Apple works on incremental improvements for their 27" screens (and sticks with them).
 


I think they thought the same as I did: "So I would have to buy a $5000 monitor and choose between a $200 VESA mount and a $1000 stand?". But apparently the monitor comes with a basic stand, so you only need to put down $1000 if you actually need the Pro stand. They could have explained that better.
Does it actually come with a basic stand though? Not according to Apple's Tech Specs page under "In the Box" only the following is listed:
  • Pro Display XDR
  • Power cord (2 m)
  • Apple Thunderbolt 3 Pro Cable (2 m)
  • Polishing cloth
Even the picture just shows the screen! You do get a polishing cloth though, for your $4999/$5999… (ROFL)
 



Ric Ford

MacInTouch
What about the reaction from the audience? There was a discernible gasp, which seemed to catch the Apple folks by surprise, when the price was mentioned. A "bridge too far?"
Via another old Mac buddy re Jony's $grand stand...
Engadget said:
A $999 monitor stand is everything wrong with Apple today
You can pinpoint the exact moment when Apple lost the WWDC audience on Monday. John Ternus, the company's VP of hardware engineering, had just revealed that the Pro Display XDR, its new high-end 6K monitor, will cost $4,999. That's pricey, but reasonable considering all of the features it offers. But then there was one more thing, and not the good kind. One hour, forty two minutes and five seconds into the keynote stream, he revealed that the Pro Display's stand is a separate $999 purchase. The crowd, which was mostly enthusiastic until then, erupted into cautious murmurs -- enough to make Ternus stammer as he continued on. He was completely unprepared for the Apple faithful to question the glorious technology being bestowed upon them.
 


Via another old Mac buddy re Jony's $grand stand...
In all seriousness, I wonder if Apple would've been better off just charging $5,999 instead of $4,999 for the Pro Display and including the stand as part of the package. I can't imagine that they did not discuss that approach. I doubt that Apple is intentionally trolling its users, but it sometimes feels like they are.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
In all seriousness, I wonder if Apple would've been better off just charging $5,999 instead of $4,999 for the Pro Display and including the stand as part of the package. I can't imagine that they did not discuss that approach. I doubt that Apple is intentionally trolling its users, but it sometimes feels like they are.
Actually, they are charging $5999 for the display, and it still doesn't include the $999 stand. Of course, I'm talking about the $5999 display they showed in the keynote, where they touted its special etched surface. I have no idea what the surface is for their "budget" $4999 (+ $999 stand) version.
 


In all seriousness, I wonder if Apple would've been better off just charging $5,999 instead of $4,999 for the Pro Display and including the stand as part of the package. I can't imagine that they did not discuss that approach. I doubt that Apple is intentionally trolling its users, but it sometimes feels like they are.
Of course, the user retort in this scenario would be, “I paid 6k for a monitor whose stand I did not want or use and insult was added to this injury by charging me 200 bucks for a VESA dongle to use with my existing setup.” When you overcharge for everything, the complaints will always come, eh?
 


In all seriousness, I wonder if Apple would've been better off just charging $5,999 instead of $4,999 for the Pro Display and including the stand as part of the package.
The primary target audience may have deployments other than a generic workplace desk for the monitor. For example, if 25-35% of the folks do not want the stand (and it's $999), there are upsides for not including it. Even more so, if there are going to be multiple ones. At $1K , every 4th display bought could have paid for another display.

Apple's tactic here is to sell more of these than many fewer $30-40k reference monitors. So, take a $30K budget and, instead of getting one monitor, the customer gets 5. So, not is it just the final color grader who gets one, but the last 5-6 steps of the process all get the same monitor. Remote on set, there may not be a standard desk that folks sit at but a mobile production unit embedded into a van or trailer.

In the enterprise sales context, it opens the door for haggling for 'discounts'. Buy 3-5 monitors and get a 'free' $999 stand (where there is a dense group of folks with more normal desk set-ups). If it comes by default, you can't use it as a sales tool....

Pitching it to folks who probably aren't going to buy at $5,999 and discounting if they skip the stand would have gone over slightly better, but those may not be the primary audience. The huge mismatch was doing it in the subset of WWDC where they are mostly talking to a very different group. (in my opinion, the WWDC keynote was a suspect place to do this rollout for this specific product. There is a substantial target audience gap and more time to set the context of use would have helped for those at the edges of the target audience.)
I can't imagine that they did not discuss that approach. I doubt that Apple is intentionally trolling its users, but it sometimes feels like they are.
It isn't trolling as much as they go too far into the P.T. Barnum zone. They are taking something built for group X and showing it to much bigger group Y, because that is a bigger circus show ring audience.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
The primary target audience may have deployments other than a generic workplace desk for the monitor....
Thanks for the post and the good points you make, but there's a big elephant here:
$999 for a display stand?! And no stand at all for $5000/$6000? That just seems abusive, when adjustable VESA stands sell elsewhere for under $50 and Apple's using dirt-cheap non-adjustable stands for its iMacs. How much would that cost to include in the $6000 package, even if Apple stopped using outgrageously cheap, defective parts and then hiding botched repairs?

Apple is similarly abusive with its other prices, of course, such as charging $50 for the exact same watch band you get under $10 elsewhere and charging insane prices for memory and storage upgrades. I wonder how long Apple can keep abusing customers like this, before they revolt?
 


Thanks for the post and the good points you make, but there's a big elephant here:
$999 for a display stand?!
Yes, there is probably a triple-digit mark-up over the raw materials here, but they also don't have cost savings as an objective for the basic materials.

The stand pivots in multiple dimensions and the display weighs about 17 lbs. The whole "moves as light as air" costs something. As you adjust the height, the angle of the monitor has to stay the same. From Apple's site:
... you get a display that feels weightless, moves effortlessly where you want it, and stays exactly where you leave it. ...
The hinge mechanism is probably a contributing factor - especially if it can hold any possible position position precisely (e.g., half rotated, max vertical height tilt and with slight deflection around horizontal). If it is a pain to manufacture, then the costs are going to go up.

The stand all by itself weighs about 3 lbs more than the whole 27" Thunderbolt Display system. 25+ lbs. of probably super overkill high-strength aluminum alloy probably isn't cheap, and milling it isn't either. (The display + stand weigh more than both the 2019 and 2012 models of the Mac Pro.)

As for the display, boring holes through aluminum from multiple directions to "just meet at the right place" probably generates gobs of aluminum scraps (I guess more for the MacBook Air Retina to consume), which cranks up costs of the monitor.

I don't think anyone else is using the all blue backlight display tech. The whole backlight system is entirely custom and only being used in this display (super-custom and low run rate). The panel... any other vendors with these dimensions? Nope. (Again Apple custom and relatively super low run rate.)

Anyone else using this micro etching technique? No. Does it scale to high run rates? Probably a contributing reason isn't widely adopted.
And no stand at all for $5000/$6000? That just seems abusive,
If you "had to" buy it, then perhaps. But since these are entirely optional, that is a bit hyperbolic. Nobody "has to" buy these displays to have a working Mac.

There is no market competition barrier that Apple has set up here at all. These monitors connect to the Macs via a defacto standard that any monitor vendor can implement.
... when adjustable VESA stands sell elsewhere for under $50 and Apple's using non-adjustable stands for its iMacs.
The mostly non-adjustable iMac (and Thunderbolt Display docking station) stands were probably a better move, if "no compromise" adjustable is going to dramatically drive up the price.

As for $50 stuff, that stand is suppose to handle 20 lbs but only weights 8. If you place 15-20-lb. display on that stand and then "man handle" the panel, that stand isn't going to keep up with that. The inertia of the panel is going to be bigger than the stand. If it is a "grab and move" system, the stand has to have some inertial heft to it.

That 8 lbs is more designed for: i.) find a fixed setting for the stand. ii). Set it and then attach the heavy display into a fixed position.
How much would that cost to include in the $6000 package, even if Apple stopped using outgrageously cheap, defective parts?
Should the VESA mount be included? If they do the mount right, then the VESA stand marketplace is already out there. They wouldn't need to do a broad price/ability cross-section of stands. Folks could pick Apple's or another. If the VESA mount was included in all, then they could probably drop the price a bit more (due to volume sold),

Again if the selling into a context where a significantly high number of customers already have VESA, then what is missing as being "standard" is the mount, not the stand.
 


In the enterprise sales context, it opens the door for haggling for 'discounts'. Buy 3-5 monitors and get a 'free' $999 stand (where there is a dense group of folks with more normal desk set-ups). If it comes by default, you can't use it as a sales tool....
Fair enough, though I'm not sure that buyers who are buying multiple $5/6k displays without stands are very sensitive to buying $6/7k displays with bundled stands instead, especially since Apple's underlying ability to discount bulk purchases is unchanged, and the purchases almost certainly are combined with the purchase of computer systems that are at least as expensive as the displays, if not many times as expensive.

PS. Your PT Barnum point is well taken, and it's why I hedged my original comment.
 


I have a Mac Pro 2009 (4,1) firmware updated to Mac Pro 2010 (5,1). Theoretically, I'm out of luck when it comes to upgrading from Mojave to Catalina, so I'm putting almost no effort into understanding it. I am, however, keeping an eye out for the inevitable reports from people attempting and perhaps even succeeding in doing so.
People already have Catalina running on Mac Pro 5,1. You just need to have a supported Metal GPU (same as Mojave), and add "-no_compat_check" to the NVRAM boot-args, and it will run with no further modifications required.

In order to install it, you need to use a supported machine and either install it there and then move the drive to the Mac Pro, or start the Mac Pro in Target Disk Mode and install to its drive from a supported machine. It's possible that this installation workaround will be obviated by something like a Catalina Patcher once the final product is released.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
... If you "had to" buy it, then perhaps. But since these are entirely optional, that is a bit hyperbolic. Nobody "has to" buy these displays to have a working Mac....
I think it's misleading to advertise a display at $5000/$6000 that is not functional without buying additional pricy parts, either an absurdly priced $999 stand or an absurdly priced $199 VESA adapter plus an additional third-party VESA stand.

As I understand it, there is no stand at all included in the price. What are you supposed to do, lean this amazing display up against the wall after coughing up $5000/$6000? Apple could have included a very basic aluminum stand like that used in iMacs, and if you don't want it, deduct $50 from the price. That would make sense and be more honest than advertising and pricing an incomplete product as if it were complete when it's not.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Instead of a 6K display, how about 8K displays?

Dell's 8K display (UP3218K) is only $3,899.99. Yes, I realize that it lacks the brilliance and features of Apple's impressive new Pro Display XDR, but check this out:
Dell said:
UltraSharp 32 8K
The height-adjustable stand lets you tilt, swivel and pivot to just the right viewing position for a comfortable setup and convenience while collaborating.
I wonder if the 2019 Mac Pro is compatible with it? It apparently takes dual-DisplayPort input, while Apple's 6K display is Thunderbolt 3-based.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Here’s another 8K option (besides Dell's UltraSharp 32 8K)... I'm not sure it actually handles 8K input via its HDMI ports, but it has an innovative mounting option, HDR, DCI-P3, AirPlay 2 support, and more:
Samsung said:
Q900 QLED Smart 8K TV [Amazon link]
Our best TV ever combines true-to-life 8K HDR picture quality, AI-powered intelligent upscaling², stunning design, and smart home ready features, for a revolutionary TV experience.

No Gap Wall Mount
 


I think it's misleading to advertise a display at $5000/$6000 that is not functional without buying additional pricy parts, either an absurdly priced $999 stand or an absurdly priced $199 VESA adapter plus an additional third-party VESA stand. As I understand it, there is no stand at all included in the price. What are you supposed to do, lean this amazing display up against the wall after coughing up $5000/$6000? ...
Going back to the pro crowd: yes, that is exactly what many of them do. There are consoles that specifically use that arrangement, and it is not uncommon to have editors and colorists with their monitors at lower angles. For many organizations that work in that level, custom furniture is at every workstation, the desks aren’t at a wall, and the monitors are low for long term comfort. And besides the expense of the custom furniture, expect custom lighting, specific neutral-tone painting, room acoustical treatment and a couch or three that cost as much as the display.

If this were a consumer monitor, I would agree, but the first thing we do with most pro monitors is tear off the cheap stands (some are literally a stamped piece of sheet metal). And when you put the cost of the mount into context with the billing rates of those rooms, it’s barely a blip. That’s the reality of the market these are targeted at.
 


I realized Apple might be pricing the Pro Display XDR based on other professional mastering displays used in a production environment.

At $5-7,000, it would be a bargain compared to the Sony 30" BVM-X300, Atomos NEON 31", or Ikegami HQLM-3125X.
 



I took a quick look at the Sony BVM-X300 and immediately noticed two things:
  • It's OLED.
  • It has feet.
It’s many times more expensive, so OLED is expected (but it’s not as bright, and has fewer pixels). And we take the feet off immediately, because nobody wants a monitor that sits at 90 degrees, 1” above the desk. Seriously, the feet are only there to hold it upright when you take it out of the box.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
At $5-7,000, it would be a bargain compared to the Sony 30" BVM-X300, Atomos NEON 31", or Ikegami HQLM-3125X.
I took a quick look at the Sony BVM-X300 and immediately noticed two things:
  • It's OLED.
  • It has feet.
I couldn't find a price for the Sony, because it's apparently not sold through normal channels, but I also took a quick look at the Atomos Neon, which appears to be not only a monitor but also a recording system, with some serious processing power and its own operating system, plus 1,000,000:1 contrast, 1000 nits of brightness, 15 stops of dynamic ranges, HDR, an 8K option (and also feet)... for $7999 (perhaps saving money by skipping OLED?). Please correct me, if I've missed anything.
 



It’s many times more expensive, so OLED is expected (but it’s not as bright, and has fewer pixels).
For a Mac monitor, OLED 'burn-in' is a potential issue for relatively static screen elements - if you're going to have the Apple menu header on a white menubar in the same place all the time. When the reference monitor is just the same resolution as the reference content you're looking at, there aren't menus, palettes, etc. statically sitting on the screen. There is some motivation for Apple not to use an OLED where there is mixed screen content, but they are chasing that kind of contrast and dynamic range with something besides OLED.
And we take the feet off immediately, because nobody wants a monitor that sits at 90 degrees, 1” above the desk.
Another 5-digit-priced monitor with feet: Eizo Prominence CG3145. Same 'out of the box' ergonomics.
Seriously, the feet are only there to hold it upright when you take it out of the box.
Apple could do something creative with the packaging that comes with the display. For shipping purposes, it will need to have "feet' (and top and sides) to keep the panel away from touching the enclosing container. If all that is needed is ephemeral feet until the system is fully operational, that packing conceptually could be used as a temporary solution until mounted*. You'd need non-normal shipping materials, but it is also a $5000+ thing being shipped. 'Green' eco-friendly Apple probably isn't going to use standard cheap styrofoam spacers. "Throw away" hard plastic feet aren't very "green" either. There is a significant packaging problem of protecting the very expensive panel vs. Apple's minimalistic approach to packaging. So it may ship with a relatively "ugly stand" no one wants to use long-term (and hence is not listed as 'included in the box'.

If the norm is that the 'out of the outer box shell' support is just a temporary solution, then you don't need a long-term solution to fit a short-term need.

*e.g., if the "top" spacer(s) were removed and fit back under the "bottom" spacer to brace front-to-back stability, you'd have 'feet'. Test the monitor to see if it works well. If not, reverse the process and put it back in the box to ship back. If the monitor works, then attach the VESA mount and toss the packaging material as you normally would.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Another 5-digit-priced monitor with feet: Eizo Prominence CG3145. Same 'out of the box' ergonomics.
I thought this part was interesting for that $30,996 monitor:
Eizo Prominence CG3145 | Annex Pro Authorized Reseller
A manufacturer's 5-year warranty covers all components including the LCD panel. EIZO can guarantee the long service life because it manufactures its products at its own factories, ensuring close control over production quality.
Usage time is limited to 30,000 hours (10,000 hours for the LCD panel).
And 10,000 hours is about 833 12-hour days (less than 3 years).
 


I thought this part was interesting for that $30,996 monitor:
Eizo Prominence CG3145 | Annex Pro Authorized Reseller
A manufacturer's 5-year warranty covers all components including the LCD panel. EIZO can guarantee the long service life because it manufactures its products at its own factories, ensuring close control over production quality.
Usage time is limited to 30,000 hours (10,000 hours for the LCD panel).
And 10,000 hours is about 833 12-hour days (less than 3 years).
This suggests that there's an internal register, tracking all the time that the monitor is receiving a video signal. Oy! Makes me nervous.

As for the price, I would think that this is a high-margin item, and there are substantial deals to be made, making the price merely steep, instead of perpendicular.

Still, I'll stick with my 24" Acer.
 


Will the 2018 Mac Minis drive an XDR monitor?

For all those going to ask why or think I am crazy, $6000 for a near reference level monitor for someone who makes a living in video is possibly worth it to me. For accurate color or dynamic range, currently there simply is no other alternative at that price point. So, from a pure technical and usability standpoint, will a 2018 Mac Mini drive an XDR monitor without making the Mini overheat or bringing it to a crawl?
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Will the 2018 Mac Minis drive an XDR monitor? ...
Thanks for bringing up that question, one I had also meant to raise - it applies to all current Macs, not just the Mac Mini. Will a MacBook Pro work with the Pro Display XDR? Will an iMac 5K work with it? How about a MacBook? One of the 2017 MacBook Airs Apple is still selling? A 2013 Mac Pro?

Too bad we don't have more technical details at this point, but one thing we know is that it requires Thunderbolt 3, so that would rule out any Macs that don't have that feature (e.g. 2013 Mac Pro).

A Radeon Pro 580X should be able to drive the new monitor, since that's what Apple specifies for the entry-level Mac Pro, except current Radeon 580X PCIe cards don't have Thunderbolt 3 ports, as far as I know.

Could a Radeon Pro 580X in an iMac 5K drive the new display? How about the iMac Pro's hardware?

Could we drive the Apple 6K display from an external GPU box? (The same question about Thunderbolt 3 support applies here.)

I would be surprised if a Mac Mini could drive the Pro Display XDR at 6K, though, as its integrated Intel graphics are far below the level of a Radeon Pro 580X, but the Pro Display XDR apparently functions in 5K mode, too.
Apple said:
Mac Pro

AMD Radeon Pro 580X
  • 8GB of GDDR5 memory
  • Up to 5.6 teraflops single precision
  • Support for up to six 4K displays, two 5K displays, or two Pro Display XDRs
Apple said:
Pro Display XDR
  • Resolution: 6016 by 3384 pixels (20.4 million pixels)
  • Refresh Rates: [up to] 60.00Hz.
  • Connections: One upstream port for Mac Pro or other Thunderbolt 3 host

3. For Mac models with Thunderbolt 3 driving Pro Display XDR at 5K resolution, USB-C ports have USB 3.1 Gen 1 data transfer speeds.
Apple said:
Mac mini
  • Connections: One display with 5120-by-2880 resolution at 60Hz connected via Thunderbolt 3 plus one display with 4096-by-2160 resolution at 60Hz connected via HDMI 2.0
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Trying to get a handle on 6K display support vs. connections and bandwidth, I came up with a few things that may be useful for discussion.
Ars Technica said:
New DisplayPort 1.4 standard can drive 8K monitors over a USB Type-C cable
... In late 2014, VESA published the DisplayPort 1.3 standard, which increased the available bandwidth enough to drive 60Hz 5K displays or 30Hz 8K displays over a single cable. And today (2016), VESA has finalized and released the DisplayPort 1.4 spec, which can drive 60Hz 8K displays and supports HDR color modes at 5K and 8K.
Computerworld said:
DisplayPort 1.4 to support 8K displays, work with USB-C
4K TVs are gaining popularity, but will be replaced by 8K in the coming years. Sharp was to first to retail an 8K TV for a whopping $133,000. Other top TV makers have shown 8K TVs, and may release them in time for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, which will be broadcast in 8K.

It's still a challenge to transfer 4K video in real-time through USB Type-C port considering the amount of bandwidth required. But VESA has figured out a way to resolve the issue of 8K video transfer. A Display Stream Compression (DSC) technology in DisplayPort 1.4 is designed to compress video into smaller packets, which will make it possible to transmit 8K video from a device to displays.VESA says video quality won't be affected by the compression.
PC Magazine said:
HDMI vs. DisplayPort: Which Should I Use for My PC Monitor?
  • HDMI 1.4: Supports up to 4K (4,096 by 2,160) at 24Hz, 4K (3,840 by 2,160) at 30Hz, or 1080p at 120Hz.
  • HDMI 2.0: Supports up to 4K at 60Hz, and later versions (HDMI 2.0a and 2.0b) included support for HDR
  • HDMI 2.1: Supports up to 10K resolution at 120Hz, as well as improved HDR with dynamic metadata and enhanced Audio Return Channel (eARC) which allows sending Dolby Atmos and DTS:X audio from the display to a receiver.
Cabletime Electronics Co. said:
Displayport Technology
DisplayPort 1.4 can transmit up to 32.4Gbs bandwidth, much more than HDMI’s 18Gbps limitation. This allows a higher resolution of 8K at 60Hz with 10-bit color HDR or 4K at 120Hz to be viewed. ...


DP 1.2DP 1.4HDMI 2.1
Max bandwidth21.6Gbps32.4Gbps48Gbps
Max resolution4K (4096x2160)
@60Hz
4K(4096x2160)
@120Hz

8K(7680x4320)
@60Hz
4K(4096x2160)
@120Hz

8K(7680x4320)
@120Hz

10K(10320x4320)
@120Hz
Audio8-Channel
192KHz
32-Channel
1536 KHz
32-Channel
1536 KHz
And, using Apple's Pro Display XDR 6K specs:
Kramer Electronics said:
Bandwidth Calculator

6016 x 3384 x 10 bits x 60 Hz = 43.97 Gbps
 


A wondering thought here: In the future, would new 4K TV sets and 4K Blu-Ray players, even for upcoming 8K TV sets and 8K Blu-ray players, begin to support DisplayPort connectors? The merging of computers and media? Might be great to standardize to a common connector.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
A wondering thought here: In the future, would new 4K TV sets and 4K Blu-Ray players, even for upcoming 8K TV sets and 8K Blu-ray players, begin to support DisplayPort connectors? The merging of computers and media? Might be great to standardize to a common connector.
DisplayPort and HDMI have been running neck and neck, but each has advantages and disadvantages, depending on applications, devices and the particular point in time. For me, DisplayPort has been better for Mac displays, because I've been able to get better quality with it, but HDMI is often more convenient for hooking things up on the fly. Here's some related recent discussion:
CNet said:
HDMI vs. DisplayPort: Which is best for 4K, HD and gaming monitors?
  • If a feature requires a specific version of one of the standards, that means that both the monitor and the graphics card need to have it. In other words, if your graphics card uses DP 1.4 but your monitor is DP 1.2, you won't get HDR.
  • DP 1.2 and later supports daisy chaining, allowing you to drive more than one monitor off a single output connection. The number of monitors depends upon their resolutions and you'll most likely need a splitter or hub. It's not automatically supported, though, so check the monitor specs.
  • Mini DP, usually found on laptops, and USB-C alt-mode are DP 1.2; USB-C with alt-mode support is actually the successor to Mini DP.
  • HDR display requires DP 1.4 or HDMI 2.0a (or later). On the graphics card side that means Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (i.e., Pascal) and AMD Radeon RX 400 series or newer cards. (Nvidia's RTX series supports HDMI 2.0b, which is necessary for displaying Hybrid Log Gamma HDR, which is currently only really relevant at the moment if you're editing HDR video.)
  • Currently, 8K requires two DP 1.4 connections for 60Hz or a single connection for 30Hz. And a monster system.
  • Adaptive-sync technologies help synchronize the frame-rate output of games with monitor refresh rates to prevent temporal artifacts like tearing (where you briefly see elements of two frames at the same time). For the purpose of this decision, you only really need to know that AMD FreeSync works over both HDMI and DP while Nvidia's G-Sync only works over DP. However, Nvidia G-Sync doesn't work over USB-C (even though it's technically DP) because USB doesn't directly connect to the graphics processor.
  • HDMI is almost universal on modern monitors -- i.e., in every conference room everywhere -- while DP is generally only available on higher end, more expensive models.
  • As of today, no monitors or graphics cards have connections for next-gen HDMI 2.1 which supports generic variable refresh rates (i.e., will work with a TV), resolutions above 5K and Dynamic HDR. Some graphics cards will get firmware updates to enable support, however.
  • If your system doesn't have discrete graphics, it probably only has an HDMI connection, anyway.
 



A wondering thought here: In the future, would new 4K TV sets and 4K Blu-Ray players, even for upcoming 8K TV sets and 8K Blu-ray players, begin to support DisplayPort connectors? The merging of computers and media? Might be great to standardize to a common connector.
I would say it's unlikely. HDMI has several features (not present in DisplayPort or DVI) that are really important for home theater use, including support for audio and CEC.

DisplayPort, on the other hand, remains on the bleeding edge of new display capabilities and (especially in conjunction with a more durable locking connector) tends to produce a more reliable signal on computers that need to output these higher resolutions.
 


I would say it's unlikely. HDMI has several features (not present in DisplayPort or DVI) that are really important for home theater use, including support for audio and CEC.

DisplayPort, on the other hand, remains on the bleeding edge of new display capabilities and (especially in conjunction with a more durable locking connector) tends to produce a more reliable signal on computers that need to output these higher resolutions.
There's also ARC over HDMI, which is important for all those (awful in my opinion) soundbars out there…
 


Trying to get a handle on 6K display support vs. connections and bandwidth, I came up with a few things that may be useful for discussion....
... And, using Apple's Pro Display XDR 6K specs:
6016 x 3384 x 10 bits x 60 Hz = 43.97 Gbps​
The 'color depth factor' in that calculator seems questionable. That seems to be 20% overhead for no good reason....

6016 x 3384 x 10 bits x 3 (r/g/b) x 60 Hz = 36.64Gbps
(which is under Thunderbolt v3's 40Gbps limit).

DisplayPort 1.2 effective delivered data bandwidth is 17.28 Gbps (DisplayPort 1.4 effective rate is 25.92 Gbps). Two times the v1.2 rate is 34.56 Gbps.

Thunderbolt 3 can do better with DisplayPort 1.4 by putting two v1.4 streams onto the network until it bumps into Thunderbolt's upper cap. So, you pragmatically can get up to 38-39 Gbps and still have some headroom for some mundane USB data traffic left.

There's no audio or video on the XDR. I can also see why there is no second Thunderbolt port on the XDR display, because the Thunderbolt bandwidth is about all used up just getting to the display. There pragmatically won't be anything left for something "downstream" to consume, so they don't even offer a downstream Thunderbolt 3 port.

GPUs that are limited to DisplayPort 1.2 output won't be able to do 10-bit color to this monitor. They could drive at 8 bits (~29.32 Gbps), but that is thousands of dollars extra for "undershooting" color range.

There is a decent chance that only the iMac Pro and new Mac Pro can drive this. The newest 27" iMac 5K probably should (though likely limited to doing well on 2D work), but I'm not sure Apple did that work.

The iGPUs of Intel are still stuck on DisplayPort v1.2 for external connections. (There is an embedded DisplayPort 1.4 but that is for the built-in display inside of laptops.) The recently announced 10th generation ("Ice Lake") bumps externals to DisplayPort v1.4, but those aren't shipping unitil later in the year.

Putting a Blackmagic eGPU on a Mac Mini may help. (Since the GPU is embedded there and uses the latest Thunderbolt controllers, it can push the DisplayPort streams from its GPU onto the Thunderbolt network, so downstream from that GPU has enough real data throughput to do it. Whether they are pumping out DisplayPort v1.4 depends on timing and the newest Thunderbolt controller.)

Conceptually, the latest MacBook Pro 15" could...
 


There's also ARC over HDMI, which is important for all those (awful in my opinion) soundbars out there…
More than just that, it's also important if you have a home theater amplifier attached and you want to use it with sources attached directly to the TV (e.g. if your amplifier doesn't have enough inputs or if you're using the TV's tuner). Without ARC, you would need to run a separate cable from the TV's audio-out to an audio input on the amplifier.
 


I am posting my question prior to reading the pages of the monitors discussion thread, for the sake of time.

I have a Mac Pro 2009 (4,1 firmware updated to 5,1) running macOS Mojave with a Sapphire Radeon RX580 8GB video card. My main monitor (of the three connected) is a Dell 34" U3415W curved IPS monitor.

Today, while a contractor was working on finishing up the installation of new windows in the workroom of my house, a stack of wood trim that was leaning up against a bookcase decided it was done being vertical and fell over onto the monitor. To paraphrase John Cleese, "the monitor is no more". Some interesting fractal patterns, but the monitor will need to be replaced.

About the only thing I didn't care for with the monitor is that the white wasn't really rendered as white, so, reading web pages, the contrast between black text and white background wasn't as clear as I would prefer. As I can see now, with 1/4 of the monitor now showing very white due to damage (if it shows anything at all), I'm wondering if I gave up fiddling with the controls too soon.

In any case, I'm looking for recommendations for a replacement 34" (or thereabouts) IPS curved monitor that will work with the video card (prefer DisplayPort input; USB-C or Thunderbolt would allow for use with a future computer).

I don't game, so refresh rate or FreeSync/G-Sync isn't important to me. I work almost exclusively in web browsers, having multiple windows with dozens of tabs open in Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera all the time.

Dell and LG monitors come to mind first, but there are multiple choices in each category, and I welcome any guidance with these or any other brands available.

Help me spend money! :-)
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Dell and LG monitors come to mind first, but there are multiple choices in each category, and I welcome any guidance with these or any other brands available.
After a number of excellent Dell monitors in the past, I more recently bought some Viewsonic displays (24- and 27-inch IPS panels), and they’ve been great, so Viewsonic may be worth considering, too. (At the time I bought them, the Viewsonic quality reports on Amazon sounded better than Dell's did at that point.)
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts