I really wish more people wanted screens that looked as good as their cellphone.
Bright, sharp text, great color. We've had the great Apple Studio Display for years now, it's about time others came to fix some of it's short-comings like 27" size, 60hz and lack of HDMI ports for use with other systems.
So many of us have to stare at a screen for hours every day and having one that reduces strain on my eyes is well worth $1-3k if they'd just make them.
The company I work at gives all new developers a pair of 1080p displays that could have come right out of 2010.
It amazes me, and it’s so sad. They have no idea what they’re missing. I’m sure high PPI would pay off fast in eye strain. And it’s not like monitors need replacement yearly. Tons of time to recoup that small cost.
I’m not arguing for $2k 37” monitors, just better than $200 ones.
Even $200 will already buy a 4K 27" (LG). Which aren't even bad. I swear by HiDPI as well but my work is the same. 1080p displays and really bad contrast screens too. Definitely not TN (they're not that bad) and not VA (they tend to have way better contrast than IPS). Probably just bottom barrel IPS.
Just about every company does something like this.
At one point in my career, I just started buying my own monitors and bringing them into work.
I remember when ~19 or 20" was the norm, and I bought a dell 30" 2560x1600 monitor. Best $1400 I ever spent, used it for years and years.
(I still have it although I retired it a few years back because it uses something called dual-link DVI which is not easily supported anymore)
I think if you are an engineer, you should dive headlong into what you are. Be proactive and get the tools you need. Don't wait for some management signoff that never comes while you suffer daily, and are worse at your job.
I work for a white-shoe law firm in Boston. I and most of my peers have total compensation approaching $500k.
And we have 1280x1024 monitors from the 00s, and we're not allowed to have anything better, even out of our own pockets, because "that's what we use here".
If you reach the point where you want to replace your in house IT with a company that will give you good tech and good tech support, let me know. I know a few people.
I don't think people care all that much about phones. It's just that phones are power-constrained, so manufacturers wanted to move to OLEDs to save on backlight; and because the displays are small, the tech was easier to roll out there than on 6k 32-inch monitors.
But premium displays exist. IPS displays on higher-end laptops, such as ThinkPads, are great - we're talking stuff like 14" 3840x2160, 100% Adobe RGB. The main problem is just that people want to buy truly gigantic panels on the cheap, and there are trade-offs that come with that. But do you really need 2x32" to code?
The other thing about phones is that you have your old phone with you when you buy a new one, so without even really meaning to you're probably doing a side by side direct comparison and improvements to display technology are a much bigger sales motivator.
This is the insight that sold a billion iPhones. They were obsessed with what happens when you’re at the store, and you don’t need a new phone, and you pick one up, and…
Outside Thinkpads IPS is basically the cheap/default option on laptops, with OLED being the premium choice. With Thinkpads TN without sRGB coverage is the cheap/default option, with IPS being the premium choice.
A fast color e ink would be possible but development would be very expensive for an unknown market. Would be a perfect anti eye strain second monitor though.
Is there a shortlist of top of the line utilitarian monitors that you can just buy, without researching or being some niche gamer?* Something similar to LG G-series TV's. Seems like Apple Studio, Dell UltraSharp are on that list. Any others?
*Struggling for words, but I'm looking more for the expedient solution rather than the "craft beer" or "audiophile" solution.
Keep in mind that normal OLEDs are quite bad for typical development tasks: lots of text with high contrast. Here is an example that would be unbearable for me: [1]. For text, IPS rules so far. For video and games, definitely OLED.
If you truly don't want to research use rtings best monitor for X articles and find your budget and buy that one, if you feel the need to compare further pop the model numbers into your favourite LLM
I have 27" 5K monitors at home since I WFH. One reason I don't really want to RTO is because these monitors aren't standard yet even if they have been out for more than a decade now (and my FAANG employer won't spring for the good stuff). That and my mechanical keyboard would never work in an open office :P.
Isn't the main difference glossy vs matte? With glossy you get usually bright great color and that's what you get on cellphones and Macbooks as well. For some reason matte is still the preference when it comes to monitors and you can't escape their muted color palette.
I have trouble making out details on my 45" UWQHD (3440x1440) displays... so I don't see much point.. maybe slightly easier to read typefaces... I am already zooming 25% in most of the time.
On the plus side, I can comfortably fit my editor on half the screen and my browser on the other half.
Or... it could be my general vision loss issues in that I can't hardly see...
I can't make out a native pixel as it is. I understand that if it had 2x the PPI that it might handle rendering better and that may help, some with visibility... I had a first generation MBP with retina display, and it was amazing. But that's not my issue here. Not to mention the trouble having my work laptop push effectively 4x the pixels if such a mythical beast existed.
The size is so that I can actually work with a single screen, editor on one side, browser on the other... it's almost like 2x 3:2 displays in one. For a workflow it's pretty good... I don't game much, but it's nice for that and content viewing as well. I had considered using side by side displays, like 2x 27" in portrait mode... but settled on this, which is working surprisingly well for now.
Yeah PPD is more useful, although for ultrawide I’ve also heard it’s common to have it closer than regular viewing distance, so that you can glance at side screens / information
I have a Studio Display and would also love if it had a much higher refresh rate, but only because I play WoW on it. Why isn't 60hz enough for programming? I don't think I notice the refresh rate at all when not playing a video game or watching videos.
I'm personally not very sensitive to refresh rates, I only really notice it in video games and it wasn't enough to keep me from replacing my 120hz primary monitor with the Studio Display. I was just curious about why you prefer higher refresh rate for programming, thanks for answering!
It seems rather silly to assume all people universally have the same needs, desires, and expenses. We don't live in the world of The Giver. I can accept that firefighters need a truck much more advanced and expensive than I ever will. It would be odd to compare that expense to how many pizza's I order each year.
> So many of us have to stare at a screen for hours every day and having one that reduces strain on my eyes is well worth $1-3k if they'd just make them.
I'm 53 y/o and didn't have glasses until 52. And at 53 I only use them sporadically. For example atm I'm typing this without my glasses. I can still work at my computer without glasses.
And yet I spent 10 hours a day in front of computer screens since I was a kid nearly every day of my life (don't worry, I did my share of MX bike, skateboarding, bicycling, tennis, etc.).
You know the biggest eye-relief for me? Not using anti-aliased font. No matter the DPI. Crisp, sharp, pixel-perfect font only for me. Zero AA.
So a 110 / 120 ppi screen is perfect for me.
Not if you do use anti-aliased font (and most people do), I understand the appeal of smaller pixels, for more subtle AA.
But yup: pixel perfect programming font, no anti-aliasing.
38" ultra-wide, curved, monitor. Same monitor since 2017 and it's my dream. My wife OTOH prefers a three monitors setup.
So: people have different preferences and that is fine. To each his own bad tastes.
Anecdata but I played games at 4K on a 4GHz Haswell (2013) + 1080 Ti (2017). Definitely faster at 2K but 4K was servicable. It's probably less true now that I'm 1+ years away from the hardware, but 4K gameplay is surprisingly accessible for modest hardware IMO.
I currently have a 4k monitor (+nv4070-super) and it does handle some games fine at 4k but for others I need to use 2k w/ upscaling. Depends on the game.
So good news, there is a fair amount of monitors coming soon which are super high resolution that offer a "dual mode" which is lower resolution that has higher refresh rate. They are pretty cool.
That’s not really true. I tried out 5K which would reasonably be quite heavy, but honestly with a DLSS it’s super viable. If you get the gaming versions of these displays, they also have dual modes and in that mode a 6K display is going to be less heavy to run than a 4K one and a 5K display is going to be 1440p.
Apple has updated Studio Display and XDR coming out soon, they just filed for regulatory approval in China, which historically has meant 1-3 months until release [1]. The updated models are expected to have a 2000+ zone Mini LED backlight and 120hz refresh rate, while the LG is old technology - 60hz and edge lit, plus the matte coating is anecdotally quite blurry and loses a lot of the detail of the 6K panel. May be worth waiting to see what Apple has in store for this product category before putting down thousands of dollars.
As an owner of the XDR, I find it ironic that you're saying "maybe wait to see before putting down thousands of dollars" for this $2K offering when there's no way that a refreshed XDR is going to be less than $6K.
Also as an owner of 2 27" 4K HDR 144Hz monitors that Apple rendered pointless to make the XDR work in the first place ("Wow, Apple's done some magic to make the display bandwidth work!" = "Apple fucked DP 1.4 users post-Catalina and will not admit it". Myself and countless other users saw our Macs that could drive those setups with Catalina be limited to 60Hz HDR, 95Hz SDR with Big Sur on. Hell, we got better performance if we told our displays to downgrade to DP 1.2).
And let's do the math:
- 6016 x 3384
- at 120Hz
- in 10 bit HDR
- 4:4:4 Chroma
works out to be just shy of 80Gbit/s.
Oh... plus if it's like the XDR with three additional ports that we'd assume should be at least 10Gbit/s each, and we're at 120Gbit/s.
Not that the XDR supports HDMI but you'd need at least HDMI 2.2, which isn't on any Mac right now.
And you'd need a full speed TB5 setup, so M4 Pro or Max (which I'll grant if you're laying out $6-7,000 for your display should be the least of your concern).
But saying that the XDR and this are comparable offerings is strange. "Hmm, why would I buy this $2,000 display now, when at some point in the near future Apple might have a better one for only triple the price!"
I did. But the Studio is also a 5K offering which has also been less specced. Perhaps more comparable but still "less for the same price". So, valid. But yes, I love the XDR, but I wouldn't hold it as a "maybe wait for the XDR 2" (and Studio Display 2) as an alternative to this.
Fantasy price for your personal usage or the personal usage of most average consumers/ software engineers, sure. It bears repeating: you're not the target audience.
They've been in the display game a long time. For people that need the product capabilities for their specific job, like color grading, they seem to price them quite well, given everywhere I used to see $30,000-$50,000 reference monitors, I see Studio Displays now.
Other manufacturers are likely to use the same panel as the new XDR and Studio display. The peak display tech this year will be the same glossy, high refresh rate mini LED used in the Apple displays, sold by third parties for a more reasonable price. You have to compromise a bit on the design, but in return you get a sensible price, much greater input connectivity and 'dual mode' which is useful if you want to also use it for gaming.
Basically what he just said, last week I put in a ton of time researching and came to the same exact conclusion.
But of course, you read that. So, I’ll take a hack at guessing what’s on your mind past that.
I bet it won’t be much more expensive than the LG list price, $2000. LG seems hellbent on making margins on this panel in their 1st party monitor. Ex. You can get the same panel but better quality in Asus Proart for $1300.
The key thing to watch here is, is Apple’s also 6K? If so, are they getting better panels than LG gives itself or Asus? (likely)
Regardless, it’s a shitshow with this panel, I’d rather get a used UltraFine 5K than get one of LGs. I’d try Asus if it was easy for me to return. Only new option that’s better than a 10 year old UltraFine 5K with my fellow HiDPI nerds is…the $6K XDR display :/
(n.b. I’m not being precious either, this an extremely painful conclusion I have every incentive to avoid, tl;dr I abandoned an UltraFine 5K to the trash heap because I didn’t have time to figure out how to move it 3,000 miles and assumed _surely_ there was a good option between 24-32” in hidpi…)
It amazes me it’s so hard to find monitors around 210+ PPI. Glad this is one.
That said I would be scared to buy this. I’ve heard so many horror stories about the LG UltraFine 5k and the ports breaking and then having to send it in for repair for a long time.
At this point I don’t trust their build quality for monitors.
In general though, I am so glad to see big high DPI monitors have more than one or two options finally.
For a long time, the only very high (>200) DPI monitors on the market were Apple's first-party ones and the LG UltraFine, the former being stupidly overpriced and the latter having, as you say, reliability horror stories. I assume the dearth of other options was because macOS doesn't do fractional scaling, only 2x, so only Apple users really needed 5K-at-27" or 6K-at-32" whereas Windows/Linux users can be ok with 150% scaling.
But that's finally changing: several high-DPI monitors came out last year, and even more are coming this year, which should force manufacturers to do better re: both price and reliability. Last year I got a pair of the Asus ProArt 5K monitors, plus a CalDigit Thunderbolt hub, and have been very happy with this setup.
> I assume the dearth of other options was because macOS doesn't do fractional scaling
Except it does? I have a 14" MBP with a 3024x1964 display. By default, it uses a doubling for an effective 1512x982, but I can also select 1800x1169, 1352x878, 1147x745, or 1024x665. So it certainly does have fractional scaling options.
macOS fakes fractional scaling by rendering a larger image at 2x and then downscaling it. For example, 1800x1169 renders a 3600x2338 at 2x scaling, then resizes the rendered image to 3024x1964. This is slower and looks worse than true fractional scaling would be, but makes the implementation a lot easier and in practice it’s hard to tell the difference. It’d look pretty awful if the native ppi wasn’t so high.
"The company I work at gives all new developers a pair of 1080p displays that could have come right out of 2010."
I have the same problem. The monitors at the office where I currently work are all low-DPI.
Work is quite irrational when it comes to spending decisions. It's not just penny pinching. They waste a lot of time and money at the same time as they block and worry about much smaller expenses. Asking them to provide one or two good, modern monitors at non-trivial cost would likely be described something as a "luxury" or "treat", which is how they described my personal laptop when they found out how much it cost.
At least I'm able to use my own laptop at the current job. It's much more powerful than anything the company would provide.
As a Linux user, I am confused when I hear other people talking about "scaling" and even more when they talk about being able to use only a restricted set of values for "scaling".
For much more than a decade, I have not used any monitor with a resolution less than 4k with Linux. I have never used any kind of "scaling" and I would not want to use any kind of "scaling", because that by definition means a lower image quality than it should be.
In X Window System, and in any other decent graphic interface system, the sizes of graphic elements, e.g. the size of fonts or of document pages, should be specified in length units, e.g. typographic points, millimeters or inches.
The graphic system knows the dots-per-inch value of the monitor (using either a value configured by the user or the value read from the monitor EDID when the monitor is initialized). When the graphic elements, such as letters are rasterized, the algorithm uses the dimensions in length units and the DPI value to generate the corresponding bitmap.
"Scaling" normally refers to the scaling of a bitmap into another bitmap with a greater resolution, which can be done either by pixel interpolation or by pixel duplication. This is the wrong place for increasing the size of an image that has been generated by the rasterization of fonts and of vector graphics. The right place for dimension control is during the rasterization process, because only there this can be done without image quality loss.
Thus there should be no "scaling", one should just take care that the monitor DPI is configured correctly, in which case the size of the graphic elements on the screen will be independent of the resolution of the connected monitor. Using a monitor with a higher resolution must result in more beautiful letters, not in smaller letters.
Windows got this wrong, with its scaling factor for fonts, but at least in Linux XFCE this is done right, so I can set whatever DPI value I want, e.g. 137 dpi, 179 dpi, or any other value.
If you configure the exact DPI value of your monitor, then the dimensions of a text or picture on the screen will be equal to those of the same text or picture when printed on paper.
One may want to have a bigger text on screen than on paper, because you normally stay at a greater distance from the monitor than the distance at which you would hold a sheet of paper or a book in your hand.
For this, you must set a bigger DPI value than the real one, so that the rasterizer will believe that your screen is smaller and it will draw bigger letters to compensate for that.
For instance, I set 216 dpi for a Dell 27 inch 4k monitor, which will magnify the images on screen by about 4/3 in comparison with their printed size. This has nothing to do with a "scaling". The rasterizer just uses the 216 dpi value, for example when rasterizing a 12 point font, in such a way that the computed bitmap will have the desired size, which is greater than its printed size by the factor chosen by me.
I use Linux as my daily driver (KDE, 200% scaling on a 24" 4K) and I really love its DPI scaling. With Plasma 5 I had a few little bugs involving DPI but they are solved with Plasma 6.
Same wuth all the apps I use (which admittedly are mostly Qt apps because I don't like Gnome/GTK so I avoid those as much as possible).
Doesn't this depend on the application. For example electron applications dgaf about this system, render to a bitmap, and then look terrible as a result.
I've found it much easier to increase your viewing distance for an equivalent effect. All else being equal this provides the additional benefit of reduced eye strain from a decrease in parallax.
For example, I've settled on ~160 PPI viewed at 100cm as my optimal desktop solution. It has an identical perceived pixel density as ~220 PPI viewed at 75cm.
I was forced to do this as my eyes have aged and I can't focus at 5K 27" at a reasonable distance, and can't read the text when I sit far enough back to focus. Hence why 4K 27" (~160 ppi) has become perfect for me.
Would be nice if Apple supported non-integer scaling so I could just dynamically resize everything (without the current technique and performance hit/blurriness of upscaling then downsizing).
I bought a launch LG UltraFine 5K that was in the batch of defective units but I was too lazy to return it. Somehow, it's held up just fine a decade later; only color bleeding is an issue.
I am still using an LG UltraFine 5k since launch. I experienced flickering in the first month and had the monitor replaced by supplier - and it's been amazing ever since! Also, this DPI is perfect for having both crisp text and correct sized elements on screen (in MacOS).
I just bought an Asus 27" 5K to replace my Samsung 27" 5K S9 that bit the dust. They are around 700 bucks now, at least, you can get a 4K 28K for 2-300, but those are just at 157 PPI.
Short story: not worth it because LG has terrible quality control. I bought two copies and experienced bad light uniformity / banding with both, color repro wasn't great, and the matte finish was a bit fuzzy. Many others have had this issue.
I wound up buying the Asus ProArt 32" and out of the box it had good light uniformity, a better matte finish, better color accuracy (using the M-Model P3 profile), and was much cheaper.
I bought the Asus 6K ProArt on launch, replacing an older 4k 27" Dell monitor. The new monitor is definitely an upgrade, but not as great as I was hoping. The matte coating is by far the worst part of the monitor. It's not bad enough to return the monitor, but the graininess is noticeable on white windows. I've definitely enjoyed having the extra screen real estate over the 27" monitor, and the extra resolution has been very helpful for having a bunch of windows open in Unity.
This year at CES there were a number of new monitors unveiled that compete in this space. There's a new Samsung monitor (G80HS) that is a 32" 6k with a higher refresh rate than the LG or Asus. Unfortunately it has the matte coating instead of glossy, so clarity will suffer.
Also of interest are the new OLED offerings with true RGB stripe subpixel layout. This should fix text rendering problems on systems with subpixel antialiasing. Both Samsung and LG are making these OLED monitors with the true RGB layout. There will almost certainly be glossy coatings offered with these panels, and they'll have higher refresh rates than IPS.
Debating a getting that proart to replace my 27" 4k. Do you find the productivity benefits to be meaningful? I'm wondering if I'll just end up making everything bigger and not benefiting or having to move my head too much
Pointless superficial review, standard for Wired, Verge etc - no brightness uniformity check, no color uniformity check, no color accuracy check, no coating grain check.
Meanwhile a good number of reports mention terrible uniformity issues with that model.
Rtings publishes charts in abundance, but the subjective quality of a monitor is more important. For example, a chart will tell you a monitor has low color deviation from sRGB after calibration, but won't tell you that the monitor UI takes 10 laggy clicks to switch from sRGB to DCI-P3 and will reset your selection every time you toggle HDR mode.
I admire Rtings' attempts to add more and more graphs to quantify everything from VRR flicker to raised black levels. They were helpful when I last shopped for a monitor. But the most valuable information came from veteran monitor review sites such as Monitors Unboxed and TFTCentral.
They do a good job of supporting whatever comparisons you want to make, which is useful if you have different preferences; however, I do think they have clear conclusions in many cases, to capture strengths, weaknesses, and "best of" recommendations.
Exactly. Their ten-point scales have no obvious relationship to the underlying measurements, where measurements are even provided, and they rescale the points every so often. (They call this their "methodology version.")
I've noticed that, when a new (expensive, high-commission-generating) product comes out, it often has middling scores at first, and then, a few months later, they've revised their methodology to show how much better the pricey new product is.
1) I trust rtings to not change their position on the basis of what makes them money; that trust is their whole brand.
2) I have not seen products jump from middling to high before, but I have seen the scores change with new methodologies, and sometimes that has the net effect of lowering the scores of older devices. Typically, that seems to represent some change in technology, or in what people are looking for in the market. For instance, I would expect (have not checked) that with the substantially increased interest in high-refresh-rate monitors, the "gaming" score has probably changed to scale with gamer expectations of higher frame rates. That would have the net effect of lowering the score of what was previously considered a "good" monitor. This seems like an inherent property of improving technologies: last year's "great" can be this year's "good" and next year's "meh".
Personally, I never pay much attention to the 0-10 scores in the first place, and always just make tables of the features and measurements I care about. The only exception is for underlying measurements that are complex and need summarizing (e.g. "Audio Reproduction Accuracy").
I've just bought one. The color uniformity is terrible across the screen. It's tolerable to me, but not what I'd expect at the price. Everything else is quite fantastic though.
Ok fine yes, I missed it, but average Delta-E measured without specifying what mode it was measured in, what is the maximum Delta-E (not average - I've used monitors with average dE below one with massive greenish/pinkish color tints, as maximum dE on some colors well exceeded 4), what was deltaE away from the center, what was gamma and colorspace coverage error, is pointless. Check prad.de, they do it right way.
I bought and returned this display. The panel I got was practically unusable if you have even just a little care for color. All four corners were significantly dimmer than the center, and color accuracy dropped off toward the bottom of the screen. Somehow the macOS dock icons were washed-out and dim.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a common issue with this display, not a one-off panel discrepancy.
Do yourself a favor and wait for whatever Apple has upcoming, at least if you’re in the Apple ecosystem already.
If you're in the market for a new monitor, I recommend one with USB-C connectivity with power delivery - so convenient to just have one cable (and works with phones too).
If you suspect that someone is tracking your digital footprints, do not hesitate to reach out to ( techhackers330@gmail.com ) and kindly contact their mail for more consultation ( techhackers330@gmail.com ), Their expertise will empower you to reclaim your privacy and security in the digital world.
1 - I replaced 2x4k 27inch monitors, and so far so good, only annoyance is sometimes I want to share an entire screen as a reflex, I have to remember to have a more window focused workflow.
2 - The power brick is GIGANTIC, but it charges one of my laptops at 96w
3 - It is a bit blurry due to the antiglare coating. Might be annoying to some.
4 - The built-in USB hub is good enough for my Razer Kiyo Pro Ultra, and it gets switched to my active computer, unless I am using HDMI (no USB link available separately from the Thunderbolt or USB-C main ports)
In general, I wanted an Apple XDR display, but with multiple inputs. The results are not as good from an image point of view, but better from a productivity point of view.
For an org I worked for not long ago, I had them buy many of the previous incarnations of this monitor. They all died of an internal power supply issue within a year each. Even the replacements I got died within a year.
The external power supply bricks aren't much better. I've had a few 27" LG 4k monitors, and the ones with a brick seem to fail more frequently (in the monitor, brick was fine).
This is such a cool idea. Text was the one thing I was concerned about with perhaps color correctness/accuracy/calibration options secondarily, but I'm sure they've got that down.
But hearing that the text looks good is the biggest thing. I may actually consider going down this road.
I did this for a bit with a Q900R, a 65in 8k TV - a upside or downside depending on the time of year and climate is that it uses a lot of power and generates a good amount of heat.
One difference between TV and monitor panels is the blue line peak (450 vs 460 nm); lots of people dismiss it as unimportant matter, but to me the further peak towards green the easier it is on my eyes.
I had to service the UltraFine 5K twice before realizing that using it to power the Macbook was killing it (seems power delivery overload). Hooking up the Mac to its own power fixed it.
The thing I heard was always killing them was the ports coming loose from people plugging and unplugging things all the time.
Could it have been that you were plugging and unplugging the MacBook?
Obviously that should totally work. I don’t know what I heard is correct, but I got the impression if you plugged a Mac in and just left it there it would be fine.
I usually left the monitor-to-MBP cable plugged in, but I did have some minor finicky connection issues at one point. But that was nothing compared to the monitor actually dying.
The monitor setup seemed like the ideal solution, less cables and just plug in to the monitor. But the combination of heat from powering the monitor, MBP, the monitor itself, and hot weather does seem like a plausible cause to me.
I’ve been using one for over five years, exclusively with MacBooks which were always powered by the display. I haven’t had any issues with mine. (Except maybe once last year, when it wouldn’t turn on. I had to unplug the display from the power and plug it back in.)
Were you running high loads? I ran heavy, constant gaming loads with the monitor on (monitor specs say typical 140W, max 200W). After switching to the MBP charger, haven't had an issue for 5 years.
So it would be drawing 200W constantly. While it may have been a twice defective fluke, I suspect either the power delivery or heat killed it somehow.
The 100W MBP charger gets very hot by itself, and its twice that for the built-in monitor charger, which is also right next to the hot display panel. Add hot weather to the mix, and it seems like it could be trying to do too much.
I bought one, then returned it the following day.
I cannot comprehend how LG is shipping these monitors and people are buying them.
The matte finish on the screen is very bad. So bad that you see colorful grains (maybe 0.05-0.1mm each) all over the screen. Particularly noticeable on light content.
I had seen some people complaining about it online, but never would’ve imagine that this was the actual issue and it’s still mind boggling that they are producing and shipping these monitors.
"Lastly, if you're set on 6K, there's also the Asus ProArt PA32QCV to consider. I haven't tested it yet, but it's $600 cheaper than LG's model, despite using the same 6K panel.
[...]
The biggest difference is the lack of Nano IPS Black"
How can it be the same panel if it differs in such a fundamental aspect?
These would be differences between two different monitors sharing the same panel. But if one is Nano IPS Black and one isn't, they don't have the same panel.
Thanks for this, just bought one. Been tempted to cave for the Apple XDR for a long time but just couldn't justify it and my 32" 4K just isn't quite cutting it. I see a few complaints here, so my fingers are crossed! I absolutely loved the LG Ultrafine 5K though but 27" was starting to feel limited as my eyes get older.
It arrived. I've had it running about an hour and gut reactions:
* It's a good looking monitor, the stand is fantastic.
* It's certainly 6K. Far crisper than my 4K 32".
* I don't have a problem with the "coating" other people have mentioned. I think I can see what people mean but it's not an impediment from a foot away.
* The color accuracy and the consistency kinda sucks. I've fiddled with profiles and settings, but it's not fantastic. I wouldn't advise it for anyone for who color accuracy is important (not me). The color consistency is more annoying. Like in each corner of the screen the colors are far colder than in the center. You can move a window from the corner to the middle and white goes from very cold to neutral. This is poor for a monitor of this price, but tolerable to me. There's also a sort of purpleish fringing at the far edges of the screen. Reminds me of old CRTs when you had speakers too close to them.
> Beyond that, it has an attention-grabbing design and off-the-charts image quality. It's one of the best monitors you can buy for content creators, despite some of the unfortunate trade-offs it comes with.
> As Sleek As Monitors Get
> The 32-inch LG UltraFine Evo 6K is a very pretty monitor. I wouldn't blame you for mistaking this as an Apple product, given the focus on clean lines, simple shapes, and designerly aesthetic. The extra-wide stand means that the base itself isn’t overly large. Like the Apple Studio Display, the flat base provides more usable desk space rather than occupying it. The stand itself has a unique design, too. It resembles the styling Apple uses on the iMac and Studio Display, but it has a textured pattern on the back. It’s gorgeous, though you probably won’t spend a lot of time looking at the back of the monitor unless your desk is in the middle of the room or in command position (if you know, you know).
I don't see any of this. It looks very thick at the edges, the rounded corners are unrefined, the ventilation holes are 2000s plasma TV vibe, the port arrangement on the back looks atrocious - ports at different heights (there are four types of ports, and all of them are at a different z-height), some sunk into the surface with a counterbore, others protruding with an extra plastic jacket (screaming "these are all unmatched connectors out of the inventory"). The entire back panel looks like that cheap late 2000s/early 2010s metallic-silver spray painted plastic from nondescript TVs and stereo equipment. (Because it probably is). The stand looks thin and flimsy with a a plastic covering/shell on the reverse side. Oh and the corners of the case are just G1 continuity, they're obviously a quarter round stuck to a flat surface.
No, wired, I don't think anyone is mistaking this for an apple product, just because there is some anodized aluminium paint on it.
> the port arrangement on the back looks atrocious - ports at different heights (there are four types of ports, and all of them are at a different z-height), some sunk into the surface with a counterbore, others protruding with an extra plastic jacket (screaming "these are all unmatched connectors out of the inventory").
- DP: it's the one protuding, and I applaud them. Most DP plugs need to be squized, and having an extra few mm to depress the bit sounds comfortable.
- HDMI: it's flushed, and I applaud them. HDMI cables came in a lot of end sizes, some thin some bulky, I'd hate to be stuck with a cable that doesn't fit because they wanted the hole to be recessed.
- USB-C: they're all recessed. I wouldn't have minded them to be flushed, but then it's easier to tell from touch where's the USB hole is. USB are the ones that will be plugged/unplugged the most, it's kinda nice they're clearly differentiated.
- the last hole is for power ? It will be permanently plugged so I'm not sure it even matters.
Reading your comment I was expecting some really bad decisions, and instead ended up agreeing with every single choices. My only surprise is no USB-A.
It reminded me of the Apple philosophy of minimalism and uniformity for the sake of it. I want my devices to be usable and well designed, especially the back panel of a monitor where most people will be trying to plug/ilunplug stuff blind.
6k 16:10 32” oled/microRGB with true rgb subpixels, please.
Though the wait seems 5 more years, at the least. Too many pixels and no tolerance for dead ones.
—
If you — like most of us — care only about pixel density for that sweet crisp code, Chinese 6k XDR knock-off by the name of Kuycon G32P got you covered for a few years now and with a fraction of a price ($1700)
I'm sitting behind one of these right now, got it back at the start of last November, attached to an Ergotron monitor arm. It's worth noting that there are a number of screens coming out that seem to be using roughly this panel but with different price points and feature mixes. MacRumors (and no doubt others) maintaining a nice little dedicated thread [0] on 6K screens with info in an easily digestible form. And so on a meta-note, the most exciting thing to me is simply that we're finally seeing a big leap forward all at once in the screen fundamentals (resolution, refresh, color) after a long and frustrating (to me anyway) period of stagnation. Apple did the first iMac 5K iirc in 2014, twelve(!) years ago. And I thought at the time it wouldn't be long before we had a range of higher res options, but instead Apple eventually did a standalone, then long after LG did a release, there were a couple of rando ones from Dell that got dropped... and that was it. Now we've got lots of 5K and 6K options, 8K ones are coming, currently it's 60Hz but CES has seen higher refresh announced, next few years are looking good. While the LG doesn't take advantage of TB5's full bandwidth, but having 120 Gbps on tap means that we also have plenty of headroom for everything, high resolution, high refresh, and higher color bit depths without having to compromise. So that's all pretty nice.
As far as this one specifically, on a physical level it's perfectly decent. I actually like that unlike the previous LG and most screens it seems nowadays, there is no camera at all. The only real irritation about it is the ginormous power brick it has, which is bigger and heavier then a Mac Mini, and on top of that has a fixed cord (a SHORT fixed cord) which I hate. I prefer having power be integrated and just using a normal power cable, but if nothing else it's irritating that even on high end electronics OEMs still don't use GaN and shrink everything a lot.
I'm no longer doing significant graphics work so haven't invested in updating color calibration hardware, none of my old stuff still works with current higher bit-depth/HDR etc screens. I'm mostly doing coding, CAD, light non-print graphics, etc. So my impressions are purely subjective. List in no particular order vs the older 5k and other screens I've used:
• Whether good luck or just (not) bad luck, quality control on the physical parts hasn't been an issue. There isn't any banding, no dead pixels, light/dark patches or the like that other comments report.
• It claims to be cutting edge in terms of IPS displays, "nano ips black" blah blah, but there isn't any significant noticeable contrast increase vs the old. It's definitely excellent for a standard IPS display but OLED/µLED it is not (though conversely I have no concerns about it being on hours a day display static GUI elements).
• Matte instead of glossy doesn't really do anything for me since I'd reoriented my office space long ago due to everything being glossy. There is a slight shimmer if I focus that bothered me a little more than new but I don't notice after a few months. I don't think it's quite as good as Apple's treatment, but for myself I'd probably just go back to glossy given the choice. YMMV based on lighting.
• It claims to be cutting edge in terms of IPS displays, "nano ips black" blah blah, but there isn't any significant noticeable contrast increase vs the old. It's solid for a standard IPS display but OLED/µLED it is not (though conversely I have no concerns about it being on hours a day display static GUI elements).
• Software situation is mediocre. I have not been able to get LG's software to perform a firmware update, it fails with odd error messages, so I haven't been able to experiment at all with some of the modes that it was advertised with. Their software wants a lot of invasive permissions and is wonky. LG support has not been helpful. Newer screens will presumably come with current firmware out of the box at some point but this was disappointing.
• Also on software, at least under macOS 15 the HDR story seems a bit odd. It's the first desktop Mac screen I've used that has an HDR toggle in the System Settings, and enabling it does make HEIC photos and a few other workflows I surveyed work more like an MBP screen. However it also causes the Mac GUI colors to get all washed out and strange, there isn't compensation there with just the toggle. The may be improved in macOS 26, or might be something one of the Studio modes will help with if I can ever get access to them, but it isn't plug-and-play here.
• If I do toggle it on, having the HDR support with true 10-bit is noticeable in working with high bit depth photos, including everything from any iPhone in awhile.
• Having TB bandwidth out of the hub doesn't matter much to me but does work and means the TB5 input isn't totally wasted. Sometimes convenient to have an extra port. This would probably be of more value for someone using a notebook which is clearly the intended use-case.
Anyway, it's fine, I needed a new screen and it gives me a noticeably improved amount of screen space for my aging eyes but is still on the right size (for me) of not being so big that I'd need a curve though it's right on the edge. I've run 2 and 3-screen (1920x1200) primary use (ie, all for regular system use vs having a secondary proof/video screen like I do now) setups in the past, and there are pluses and minuses particularly with having one be vertically oriented, but it's not bad to have so much space all as a single unified thing.
I think most people would be better off waiting, this was clearly not all baked yet when I got it and there is plenty of competition here or coming, but I'm not returning it either. I'm looking forward to hopefully finally seeing screens that will arguably be "done", basically hitting the limits of human visual acuity in all respects (or at least to the many-9s level of diminishing returns) in the next few years. And I'm also kind of curious longer term still about what effects that might have on the industry, for my entire life progress in video, unlike audio, has been constant and there was always clearly more to do. Once resolution and refresh stops and monitors are "finished" I wonder if that might be interesting for media in terms of reducing the technical rat race?
You misread the article; this is a $2,000 product. An unrelated 32-inch 8k monitor from Asus is $8,000—it's mentioned in passing to disclaim that the LG isn't, technically, the highest-DPI monitor on the market.
I really wish more people wanted screens that looked as good as their cellphone.
Bright, sharp text, great color. We've had the great Apple Studio Display for years now, it's about time others came to fix some of it's short-comings like 27" size, 60hz and lack of HDMI ports for use with other systems.
So many of us have to stare at a screen for hours every day and having one that reduces strain on my eyes is well worth $1-3k if they'd just make them.
The company I work at gives all new developers a pair of 1080p displays that could have come right out of 2010.
It amazes me, and it’s so sad. They have no idea what they’re missing. I’m sure high PPI would pay off fast in eye strain. And it’s not like monitors need replacement yearly. Tons of time to recoup that small cost.
I’m not arguing for $2k 37” monitors, just better than $200 ones.
Even $200 will already buy a 4K 27" (LG). Which aren't even bad. I swear by HiDPI as well but my work is the same. 1080p displays and really bad contrast screens too. Definitely not TN (they're not that bad) and not VA (they tend to have way better contrast than IPS). Probably just bottom barrel IPS.
Just about every company does something like this.
At one point in my career, I just started buying my own monitors and bringing them into work.
I remember when ~19 or 20" was the norm, and I bought a dell 30" 2560x1600 monitor. Best $1400 I ever spent, used it for years and years.
(I still have it although I retired it a few years back because it uses something called dual-link DVI which is not easily supported anymore)
I think if you are an engineer, you should dive headlong into what you are. Be proactive and get the tools you need. Don't wait for some management signoff that never comes while you suffer daily, and are worse at your job.
I work for a white-shoe law firm in Boston. I and most of my peers have total compensation approaching $500k.
And we have 1280x1024 monitors from the 00s, and we're not allowed to have anything better, even out of our own pockets, because "that's what we use here".
If you reach the point where you want to replace your in house IT with a company that will give you good tech and good tech support, let me know. I know a few people.
Out of all the places I would think would want fancy monitors to show off how fancy they are…
Too much creative vibes, fancy monitors do not necessarily communicate seriousness.
So you work at the same company I do? They just “upgraded” us to curved Dell UltraWides with a PPI of 110.
Unsurprisingly this is not a motivating factor to come back to the office, given I have a 220 PPI 6K at home.
> I’m sure high PPI would pay off fast in eye strain.
But we have gray on gray, to compensate. One even has a choice. Do you want light or dark eye strain ?
penny pinching on some monitors for the devs that cost a fortune...
:(
the old monitors still work. its a waste to throw them away. something like that?
I’ve never heard a specific reason, but I fully suspect “it’s fine, why do you need that?” to be the answer.
May be people who have never used HiDPI. Maybe they’ve seen it and don’t get the hype. Maybe they’re just penny pinching. IDK.
I don't think people care all that much about phones. It's just that phones are power-constrained, so manufacturers wanted to move to OLEDs to save on backlight; and because the displays are small, the tech was easier to roll out there than on 6k 32-inch monitors.
But premium displays exist. IPS displays on higher-end laptops, such as ThinkPads, are great - we're talking stuff like 14" 3840x2160, 100% Adobe RGB. The main problem is just that people want to buy truly gigantic panels on the cheap, and there are trade-offs that come with that. But do you really need 2x32" to code?
The other thing about phones is that you have your old phone with you when you buy a new one, so without even really meaning to you're probably doing a side by side direct comparison and improvements to display technology are a much bigger sales motivator.
This is the insight that sold a billion iPhones. They were obsessed with what happens when you’re at the store, and you don’t need a new phone, and you pick one up, and…
Most people, including people who work professionally with computers, spend more time per day looking at their phones than they do at their screens.
I expect people are VERY sensitive to mobile phone screen quality, to the point that it's a big factor in phone choice.
Outside Thinkpads IPS is basically the cheap/default option on laptops, with OLED being the premium choice. With Thinkpads TN without sRGB coverage is the cheap/default option, with IPS being the premium choice.
I'm just getting my new ThinkPad tomorrow with an OLED screen. The X1 Carbon. I haven't seen TN film in ThinkPads for years.
But yes, you are right, they are conservative on new tech in the ThinkPad lineage.
Which ThinkPad has a 14" 4K 100% Adobe RGB compliant IPS display?
As far as I can see, 4k Thinkpad IPS are DCI-P3. There are Yogas with 3.2k Adobe RGB tandem OLEDs.
A fast color e ink would be possible but development would be very expensive for an unknown market. Would be a perfect anti eye strain second monitor though.
Dasung looks to be getting there!
Is there a shortlist of top of the line utilitarian monitors that you can just buy, without researching or being some niche gamer?* Something similar to LG G-series TV's. Seems like Apple Studio, Dell UltraSharp are on that list. Any others?
*Struggling for words, but I'm looking more for the expedient solution rather than the "craft beer" or "audiophile" solution.
Keep in mind that normal OLEDs are quite bad for typical development tasks: lots of text with high contrast. Here is an example that would be unbearable for me: [1]. For text, IPS rules so far. For video and games, definitely OLED.
[1] https://www.savanozin.com/projects/qod
True for current OLED panels, but new OLEDs with LCD-like subpixel arrangements were just announced at CES. Those shouldn't have that problem.
https://news.lgdisplay.com/en/2025/12/lg-display-unveils-wor...
Many monitors use the same panels with only firmware differences. The panel technology IPS/VA/OLED/WOLED is what you shop for.
If you're a gamer QDOLED is best. If you do office work just get whatever is high resolution and makes text sharp.
If you truly don't want to research use rtings best monitor for X articles and find your budget and buy that one, if you feel the need to compare further pop the model numbers into your favourite LLM
32uq850 would be my choice if I were in Europe.
I have 27" 5K monitors at home since I WFH. One reason I don't really want to RTO is because these monitors aren't standard yet even if they have been out for more than a decade now (and my FAANG employer won't spring for the good stuff). That and my mechanical keyboard would never work in an open office :P.
Isn't the main difference glossy vs matte? With glossy you get usually bright great color and that's what you get on cellphones and Macbooks as well. For some reason matte is still the preference when it comes to monitors and you can't escape their muted color palette.
> matte is still the preference when it comes to monitors
The larger screen size of a monitor is more likely to reflect lights than a mobile phone screen.
Also when glare does appear, it is harder to adjust the viewing angle because the user is not already holding the device.
I have trouble making out details on my 45" UWQHD (3440x1440) displays... so I don't see much point.. maybe slightly easier to read typefaces... I am already zooming 25% in most of the time.
On the plus side, I can comfortably fit my editor on half the screen and my browser on the other half.
Most people run in some hiDPI mode so text doesn’t become tiny
But 1440p on a 45” is not good PPI. That could be why you’re struggling to see text clearly
Or... it could be my general vision loss issues in that I can't hardly see...
I can't make out a native pixel as it is. I understand that if it had 2x the PPI that it might handle rendering better and that may help, some with visibility... I had a first generation MBP with retina display, and it was amazing. But that's not my issue here. Not to mention the trouble having my work laptop push effectively 4x the pixels if such a mythical beast existed.
The size is so that I can actually work with a single screen, editor on one side, browser on the other... it's almost like 2x 3:2 displays in one. For a workflow it's pretty good... I don't game much, but it's nice for that and content viewing as well. I had considered using side by side displays, like 2x 27" in portrait mode... but settled on this, which is working surprisingly well for now.
This interaction fully flushes out the problem. The math is not being done between size and resolution to determine PPI.
Yeah PPD is more useful, although for ultrawide I’ve also heard it’s common to have it closer than regular viewing distance, so that you can glance at side screens / information
I would love the apple studio display if the framerate wasn't actually crap.
Even doing programming, 60hz is not enough man.
Plus more peripheral ports.
I have a Studio Display and would also love if it had a much higher refresh rate, but only because I play WoW on it. Why isn't 60hz enough for programming? I don't think I notice the refresh rate at all when not playing a video game or watching videos.
When I move my mouse, or if I'm moving between full screens (terminal to IDE to browser), I see the stutter and slowness.
I code on a LG UltraGear OLED 4K HDR 240 Hz Gaming Monitor.
Could be my sensitivity though.
I'm personally not very sensitive to refresh rates, I only really notice it in video games and it wasn't enough to keep me from replacing my 120hz primary monitor with the Studio Display. I was just curious about why you prefer higher refresh rate for programming, thanks for answering!
> I see the stutter and slowness
Sounds like it is not maintaining 60 fps. Higher display refresh rate wouldn't fix that.
1-3k is 52 weeks of groceries for some people.
It seems rather silly to assume all people universally have the same needs, desires, and expenses. We don't live in the world of The Giver. I can accept that firefighters need a truck much more advanced and expensive than I ever will. It would be odd to compare that expense to how many pizza's I order each year.
> So many of us have to stare at a screen for hours every day and having one that reduces strain on my eyes is well worth $1-3k if they'd just make them.
I'm 53 y/o and didn't have glasses until 52. And at 53 I only use them sporadically. For example atm I'm typing this without my glasses. I can still work at my computer without glasses.
And yet I spent 10 hours a day in front of computer screens since I was a kid nearly every day of my life (don't worry, I did my share of MX bike, skateboarding, bicycling, tennis, etc.).
You know the biggest eye-relief for me? Not using anti-aliased font. No matter the DPI. Crisp, sharp, pixel-perfect font only for me. Zero AA.
So a 110 / 120 ppi screen is perfect for me.
Not if you do use anti-aliased font (and most people do), I understand the appeal of smaller pixels, for more subtle AA.
But yup: pixel perfect programming font, no anti-aliasing.
38" ultra-wide, curved, monitor. Same monitor since 2017 and it's my dream. My wife OTOH prefers a three monitors setup.
So: people have different preferences and that is fine. To each his own bad tastes.
Which font do you prefer for code?
We do, but many of us also want to play a game on occasion and GPUs can barely just handle 4k these days, let alone 6k+.
Anecdata but I played games at 4K on a 4GHz Haswell (2013) + 1080 Ti (2017). Definitely faster at 2K but 4K was servicable. It's probably less true now that I'm 1+ years away from the hardware, but 4K gameplay is surprisingly accessible for modest hardware IMO.
I currently have a 4k monitor (+nv4070-super) and it does handle some games fine at 4k but for others I need to use 2k w/ upscaling. Depends on the game.
So good news, there is a fair amount of monitors coming soon which are super high resolution that offer a "dual mode" which is lower resolution that has higher refresh rate. They are pretty cool.
That’s not really true. I tried out 5K which would reasonably be quite heavy, but honestly with a DLSS it’s super viable. If you get the gaming versions of these displays, they also have dual modes and in that mode a 6K display is going to be less heavy to run than a 4K one and a 5K display is going to be 1440p.
I game at 6K… I don’t play shooters so it’s fine. I turn off VSync, get 100FPS+ in my game of choice (WoW, admittedly and oldish engine). 4090 GPU.
Upscaling tech has come a long way so games can run at lower internal resolutions than your monitor without looking complete crap on a LCD.
some of these newer monitors support a lower native resolution as well, usually with a faster refresh rate. it's a nice feature
Apple has updated Studio Display and XDR coming out soon, they just filed for regulatory approval in China, which historically has meant 1-3 months until release [1]. The updated models are expected to have a 2000+ zone Mini LED backlight and 120hz refresh rate, while the LG is old technology - 60hz and edge lit, plus the matte coating is anecdotally quite blurry and loses a lot of the detail of the 6K panel. May be worth waiting to see what Apple has in store for this product category before putting down thousands of dollars.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2026/01/15/new-studio-display-or-p...
As an owner of the XDR, I find it ironic that you're saying "maybe wait to see before putting down thousands of dollars" for this $2K offering when there's no way that a refreshed XDR is going to be less than $6K.
Also as an owner of 2 27" 4K HDR 144Hz monitors that Apple rendered pointless to make the XDR work in the first place ("Wow, Apple's done some magic to make the display bandwidth work!" = "Apple fucked DP 1.4 users post-Catalina and will not admit it". Myself and countless other users saw our Macs that could drive those setups with Catalina be limited to 60Hz HDR, 95Hz SDR with Big Sur on. Hell, we got better performance if we told our displays to downgrade to DP 1.2).
And let's do the math:
- 6016 x 3384
- at 120Hz
- in 10 bit HDR
- 4:4:4 Chroma
works out to be just shy of 80Gbit/s.
Oh... plus if it's like the XDR with three additional ports that we'd assume should be at least 10Gbit/s each, and we're at 120Gbit/s.
Not that the XDR supports HDMI but you'd need at least HDMI 2.2, which isn't on any Mac right now.
And you'd need a full speed TB5 setup, so M4 Pro or Max (which I'll grant if you're laying out $6-7,000 for your display should be the least of your concern).
But saying that the XDR and this are comparable offerings is strange. "Hmm, why would I buy this $2,000 display now, when at some point in the near future Apple might have a better one for only triple the price!"
You did see that they mentioned the Studio Display as well, yes?
I did. But the Studio is also a 5K offering which has also been less specced. Perhaps more comparable but still "less for the same price". So, valid. But yes, I love the XDR, but I wouldn't hold it as a "maybe wait for the XDR 2" (and Studio Display 2) as an alternative to this.
The apple display will have a complete fantasy price. Why even bother waiting for that?
Fantasy price for your personal usage or the personal usage of most average consumers/ software engineers, sure. It bears repeating: you're not the target audience.
They've been in the display game a long time. For people that need the product capabilities for their specific job, like color grading, they seem to price them quite well, given everywhere I used to see $30,000-$50,000 reference monitors, I see Studio Displays now.
Other manufacturers are likely to use the same panel as the new XDR and Studio display. The peak display tech this year will be the same glossy, high refresh rate mini LED used in the Apple displays, sold by third parties for a more reasonable price. You have to compromise a bit on the design, but in return you get a sensible price, much greater input connectivity and 'dual mode' which is useful if you want to also use it for gaming.
Here's the third party version of the upcoming 5K studio display refresh - 271KRAW16, 5K 27" 165hz glossy with mini led backlight https://www.tweaktown.com/news/109565/msi-unveils-worlds-fir...
The XDR - agree - but not the Studio
Basically what he just said, last week I put in a ton of time researching and came to the same exact conclusion.
But of course, you read that. So, I’ll take a hack at guessing what’s on your mind past that.
I bet it won’t be much more expensive than the LG list price, $2000. LG seems hellbent on making margins on this panel in their 1st party monitor. Ex. You can get the same panel but better quality in Asus Proart for $1300.
The key thing to watch here is, is Apple’s also 6K? If so, are they getting better panels than LG gives itself or Asus? (likely)
Regardless, it’s a shitshow with this panel, I’d rather get a used UltraFine 5K than get one of LGs. I’d try Asus if it was easy for me to return. Only new option that’s better than a 10 year old UltraFine 5K with my fellow HiDPI nerds is…the $6K XDR display :/
(n.b. I’m not being precious either, this an extremely painful conclusion I have every incentive to avoid, tl;dr I abandoned an UltraFine 5K to the trash heap because I didn’t have time to figure out how to move it 3,000 miles and assumed _surely_ there was a good option between 24-32” in hidpi…)
It amazes me it’s so hard to find monitors around 210+ PPI. Glad this is one.
That said I would be scared to buy this. I’ve heard so many horror stories about the LG UltraFine 5k and the ports breaking and then having to send it in for repair for a long time.
At this point I don’t trust their build quality for monitors.
In general though, I am so glad to see big high DPI monitors have more than one or two options finally.
> It amazes me it’s so hard to find monitors around 210+ PPI.
You're in luck; several 5120 × 2880, 600 mm × 340 mm monitors at high refresh rates were announced at CES a couple weeks ago.
And many more.I have waited so long for 220dpi and high refresh rate! Love to see it. Will ditch my Apple Studio Display for it.
For a long time, the only very high (>200) DPI monitors on the market were Apple's first-party ones and the LG UltraFine, the former being stupidly overpriced and the latter having, as you say, reliability horror stories. I assume the dearth of other options was because macOS doesn't do fractional scaling, only 2x, so only Apple users really needed 5K-at-27" or 6K-at-32" whereas Windows/Linux users can be ok with 150% scaling.
But that's finally changing: several high-DPI monitors came out last year, and even more are coming this year, which should force manufacturers to do better re: both price and reliability. Last year I got a pair of the Asus ProArt 5K monitors, plus a CalDigit Thunderbolt hub, and have been very happy with this setup.
> I assume the dearth of other options was because macOS doesn't do fractional scaling
Except it does? I have a 14" MBP with a 3024x1964 display. By default, it uses a doubling for an effective 1512x982, but I can also select 1800x1169, 1352x878, 1147x745, or 1024x665. So it certainly does have fractional scaling options.
If you connect a 4k 2160p monitor, you can go down or up from the default 1080p doubling (https://www.howtogeek.com/why-your-mac-shows-the-wrong-resol...). If you select 2560x1440 for a 4k 2160p screen, that's 150% scaling rather than 2x (https://appleinsider.com/inside/macos/tips/what-is-display-s..., see the image where it compares "native 2x scaling" to "appears like 2560x1440").
macOS fakes fractional scaling by rendering a larger image at 2x and then downscaling it. For example, 1800x1169 renders a 3600x2338 at 2x scaling, then resizes the rendered image to 3024x1964. This is slower and looks worse than true fractional scaling would be, but makes the implementation a lot easier and in practice it’s hard to tell the difference. It’d look pretty awful if the native ppi wasn’t so high.
I believe it was 2x only early on. But as you said it’s fractional now and has been for a longtime.
The instant Apple wanted to use a panel that wasn’t 2x, the feature appeared.
They may have fractional scaling but font rendering absolutely sucks if you don’t have 200dpi or more.
I tried using macOS on a 4K 27 inch monitor and it was pretty unbearable. Worse than a 1080p monitor on Windows or Linux.
They stopped shipping computers that have less than that. They clearly think that’s the minimum that’s viable.
Personally, I’m fine with that. It’s 2026 and I don’t understand why people are using 1080p monitors for work.
Some people don't have a choice. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46698278
"The company I work at gives all new developers a pair of 1080p displays that could have come right out of 2010."
I have the same problem. The monitors at the office where I currently work are all low-DPI.
Work is quite irrational when it comes to spending decisions. It's not just penny pinching. They waste a lot of time and money at the same time as they block and worry about much smaller expenses. Asking them to provide one or two good, modern monitors at non-trivial cost would likely be described something as a "luxury" or "treat", which is how they described my personal laptop when they found out how much it cost.
At least I'm able to use my own laptop at the current job. It's much more powerful than anything the company would provide.
As a Linux user, I am confused when I hear other people talking about "scaling" and even more when they talk about being able to use only a restricted set of values for "scaling".
For much more than a decade, I have not used any monitor with a resolution less than 4k with Linux. I have never used any kind of "scaling" and I would not want to use any kind of "scaling", because that by definition means a lower image quality than it should be.
In X Window System, and in any other decent graphic interface system, the sizes of graphic elements, e.g. the size of fonts or of document pages, should be specified in length units, e.g. typographic points, millimeters or inches.
The graphic system knows the dots-per-inch value of the monitor (using either a value configured by the user or the value read from the monitor EDID when the monitor is initialized). When the graphic elements, such as letters are rasterized, the algorithm uses the dimensions in length units and the DPI value to generate the corresponding bitmap.
"Scaling" normally refers to the scaling of a bitmap into another bitmap with a greater resolution, which can be done either by pixel interpolation or by pixel duplication. This is the wrong place for increasing the size of an image that has been generated by the rasterization of fonts and of vector graphics. The right place for dimension control is during the rasterization process, because only there this can be done without image quality loss.
Thus there should be no "scaling", one should just take care that the monitor DPI is configured correctly, in which case the size of the graphic elements on the screen will be independent of the resolution of the connected monitor. Using a monitor with a higher resolution must result in more beautiful letters, not in smaller letters.
Windows got this wrong, with its scaling factor for fonts, but at least in Linux XFCE this is done right, so I can set whatever DPI value I want, e.g. 137 dpi, 179 dpi, or any other value.
If you configure the exact DPI value of your monitor, then the dimensions of a text or picture on the screen will be equal to those of the same text or picture when printed on paper.
One may want to have a bigger text on screen than on paper, because you normally stay at a greater distance from the monitor than the distance at which you would hold a sheet of paper or a book in your hand.
For this, you must set a bigger DPI value than the real one, so that the rasterizer will believe that your screen is smaller and it will draw bigger letters to compensate for that.
For instance, I set 216 dpi for a Dell 27 inch 4k monitor, which will magnify the images on screen by about 4/3 in comparison with their printed size. This has nothing to do with a "scaling". The rasterizer just uses the 216 dpi value, for example when rasterizing a 12 point font, in such a way that the computed bitmap will have the desired size, which is greater than its printed size by the factor chosen by me.
It's probably called scaling because that's what other OSes do.
For example macOS just renders at 200% and then scales down to the desired level.
Linux is indeed way better at this.
macOS only does the downscaling step if you aren't using an exact 2x UI scale.
If it's exact 2x it just renders the UI using double pixels (2x2 per simulated pixel) and then sends that over the wire.
Yes true I know I just didn't elaborate that. This is why 200% looks the sharpest too.
macOS is better when you have a 216 dpi monitor. Every application works perfectly which you can't say about Linux.
I can say exactly that about Linux?
I use Linux as my daily driver (KDE, 200% scaling on a 24" 4K) and I really love its DPI scaling. With Plasma 5 I had a few little bugs involving DPI but they are solved with Plasma 6.
Same wuth all the apps I use (which admittedly are mostly Qt apps because I don't like Gnome/GTK so I avoid those as much as possible).
Doesn't this depend on the application. For example electron applications dgaf about this system, render to a bitmap, and then look terrible as a result.
I've found it much easier to increase your viewing distance for an equivalent effect. All else being equal this provides the additional benefit of reduced eye strain from a decrease in parallax.
For example, I've settled on ~160 PPI viewed at 100cm as my optimal desktop solution. It has an identical perceived pixel density as ~220 PPI viewed at 75cm.
Use a PPD (pixel per degree) calculator to find a setup that suits your needs: https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/
I was forced to do this as my eyes have aged and I can't focus at 5K 27" at a reasonable distance, and can't read the text when I sit far enough back to focus. Hence why 4K 27" (~160 ppi) has become perfect for me.
Would be nice if Apple supported non-integer scaling so I could just dynamically resize everything (without the current technique and performance hit/blurriness of upscaling then downsizing).
I'm pretty sure your 4K is 28 inches, not 27 inches. 4K 27 inch panels don't exist. That still puts you at 157PPI though.
Edit: it looks like 27 inch is really a thing now and not some sort of labelling trick:
I bought a launch LG UltraFine 5K that was in the batch of defective units but I was too lazy to return it. Somehow, it's held up just fine a decade later; only color bleeding is an issue.
I think the main problem with the LG is if you charge your laptop from it. Doing that heats up the connector and pulls it from the main board.
I am still using an LG UltraFine 5k since launch. I experienced flickering in the first month and had the monitor replaced by supplier - and it's been amazing ever since! Also, this DPI is perfect for having both crisp text and correct sized elements on screen (in MacOS).
32" 6K is very tempting!
I just bought an Asus 27" 5K to replace my Samsung 27" 5K S9 that bit the dust. They are around 700 bucks now, at least, you can get a 4K 28K for 2-300, but those are just at 157 PPI.
Short story: not worth it because LG has terrible quality control. I bought two copies and experienced bad light uniformity / banding with both, color repro wasn't great, and the matte finish was a bit fuzzy. Many others have had this issue.
Here are photos of what I saw:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....
I wound up buying the Asus ProArt 32" and out of the box it had good light uniformity, a better matte finish, better color accuracy (using the M-Model P3 profile), and was much cheaper.
I bought the Asus 6K ProArt on launch, replacing an older 4k 27" Dell monitor. The new monitor is definitely an upgrade, but not as great as I was hoping. The matte coating is by far the worst part of the monitor. It's not bad enough to return the monitor, but the graininess is noticeable on white windows. I've definitely enjoyed having the extra screen real estate over the 27" monitor, and the extra resolution has been very helpful for having a bunch of windows open in Unity.
This year at CES there were a number of new monitors unveiled that compete in this space. There's a new Samsung monitor (G80HS) that is a 32" 6k with a higher refresh rate than the LG or Asus. Unfortunately it has the matte coating instead of glossy, so clarity will suffer.
Also of interest are the new OLED offerings with true RGB stripe subpixel layout. This should fix text rendering problems on systems with subpixel antialiasing. Both Samsung and LG are making these OLED monitors with the true RGB layout. There will almost certainly be glossy coatings offered with these panels, and they'll have higher refresh rates than IPS.
Debating a getting that proart to replace my 27" 4k. Do you find the productivity benefits to be meaningful? I'm wondering if I'll just end up making everything bigger and not benefiting or having to move my head too much
Pointless superficial review, standard for Wired, Verge etc - no brightness uniformity check, no color uniformity check, no color accuracy check, no coating grain check.
Meanwhile a good number of reports mention terrible uniformity issues with that model.
This publications are entertainment pretending (sometimes) they are more than that.
Regurgitated press releases.
when I want display reviews I go to rtings.com
haven't found anyone who compares
Rtings publishes charts in abundance, but the subjective quality of a monitor is more important. For example, a chart will tell you a monitor has low color deviation from sRGB after calibration, but won't tell you that the monitor UI takes 10 laggy clicks to switch from sRGB to DCI-P3 and will reset your selection every time you toggle HDR mode.
I admire Rtings' attempts to add more and more graphs to quantify everything from VRR flicker to raised black levels. They were helpful when I last shopped for a monitor. But the most valuable information came from veteran monitor review sites such as Monitors Unboxed and TFTCentral.
Agreed; rtings has by far the best reviews and comparisons, and detailed tests nobody else seems to do.
I originally found them because they were one of the only sources that tested for PWM flicker in monitors.
Rtings good at measures, but bad at conclusions. Take their numbers and make your own opinion. Prad.de is better at that respect.
They do a good job of supporting whatever comparisons you want to make, which is useful if you have different preferences; however, I do think they have clear conclusions in many cases, to capture strengths, weaknesses, and "best of" recommendations.
Their, rtings.com "conclusions", "scores" and "recommendations" do not always correspond to their own numbers.
Exactly. Their ten-point scales have no obvious relationship to the underlying measurements, where measurements are even provided, and they rescale the points every so often. (They call this their "methodology version.")
I've noticed that, when a new (expensive, high-commission-generating) product comes out, it often has middling scores at first, and then, a few months later, they've revised their methodology to show how much better the pricey new product is.
1) I trust rtings to not change their position on the basis of what makes them money; that trust is their whole brand.
2) I have not seen products jump from middling to high before, but I have seen the scores change with new methodologies, and sometimes that has the net effect of lowering the scores of older devices. Typically, that seems to represent some change in technology, or in what people are looking for in the market. For instance, I would expect (have not checked) that with the substantially increased interest in high-refresh-rate monitors, the "gaming" score has probably changed to scale with gamer expectations of higher frame rates. That would have the net effect of lowering the score of what was previously considered a "good" monitor. This seems like an inherent property of improving technologies: last year's "great" can be this year's "good" and next year's "meh".
Personally, I never pay much attention to the 0-10 scores in the first place, and always just make tables of the features and measurements I care about. The only exception is for underlying measurements that are complex and need summarizing (e.g. "Audio Reproduction Accuracy").
another good one they have is keyboard reviews. They do good work.
Notebookcheck and the German C'T magazine also do really decent jobs.
I've just bought one. The color uniformity is terrible across the screen. It's tolerable to me, but not what I'd expect at the price. Everything else is quite fantastic though.
They gave a color accuracy number, was there something wrong with it?
It needs to be independently measured, not just retold from the spec.
"I measured the average color error"
"I was able to measure 640 nits"
I don't see the problem.
Ok fine yes, I missed it, but average Delta-E measured without specifying what mode it was measured in, what is the maximum Delta-E (not average - I've used monitors with average dE below one with massive greenish/pinkish color tints, as maximum dE on some colors well exceeded 4), what was deltaE away from the center, what was gamma and colorspace coverage error, is pointless. Check prad.de, they do it right way.
I bought and returned this display. The panel I got was practically unusable if you have even just a little care for color. All four corners were significantly dimmer than the center, and color accuracy dropped off toward the bottom of the screen. Somehow the macOS dock icons were washed-out and dim.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a common issue with this display, not a one-off panel discrepancy.
Do yourself a favor and wait for whatever Apple has upcoming, at least if you’re in the Apple ecosystem already.
It's amazing how well the ProDisplay XDR has held out. Especially if you care about any HDR workflow.
I have one sitting in front of me and the panel is perfect. No notes.
If you're in the market for a new monitor, I recommend one with USB-C connectivity with power delivery - so convenient to just have one cable (and works with phones too).
If you suspect that someone is tracking your digital footprints, do not hesitate to reach out to ( techhackers330@gmail.com ) and kindly contact their mail for more consultation ( techhackers330@gmail.com ), Their expertise will empower you to reclaim your privacy and security in the digital world.
Been running it for about two months.
A few thoughts:
1 - I replaced 2x4k 27inch monitors, and so far so good, only annoyance is sometimes I want to share an entire screen as a reflex, I have to remember to have a more window focused workflow.
2 - The power brick is GIGANTIC, but it charges one of my laptops at 96w
3 - It is a bit blurry due to the antiglare coating. Might be annoying to some.
4 - The built-in USB hub is good enough for my Razer Kiyo Pro Ultra, and it gets switched to my active computer, unless I am using HDMI (no USB link available separately from the Thunderbolt or USB-C main ports)
In general, I wanted an Apple XDR display, but with multiple inputs. The results are not as good from an image point of view, but better from a productivity point of view.
For an org I worked for not long ago, I had them buy many of the previous incarnations of this monitor. They all died of an internal power supply issue within a year each. Even the replacements I got died within a year.
The external power supply bricks aren't much better. I've had a few 27" LG 4k monitors, and the ones with a brick seem to fail more frequently (in the monitor, brick was fine).
Ah, I had the same issue, I bet you were powering laptops through the monitor. See my comment on this post.
I use an 8K 55" TV. It was much cheaper than an equivalent monitor and is equivalent to 4x 27" 4k panels. Text rendering is sublime.
I wish the panel was still in production with more dimming zones and DP input.
This is such a cool idea. Text was the one thing I was concerned about with perhaps color correctness/accuracy/calibration options secondarily, but I'm sure they've got that down.
But hearing that the text looks good is the biggest thing. I may actually consider going down this road.
I did this for a bit with a Q900R, a 65in 8k TV - a upside or downside depending on the time of year and climate is that it uses a lot of power and generates a good amount of heat.
Here’s a review of the series - https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q900-q900r-8k-qled
One interesting thing is that it’s been firmware updated to support hdmi 2.1 on all hdmi ports now.
Nice article. I'd add that I have 8k@60 supported when using RX 6600XT and Arc A770.
I can't vouch for the color but it's an LCD panel so I suspect it's probably not the best. I have no way of testing this though.
Text is just a function of pixel count and using the standard rgb lcd cell.
The 55" model hasn't been made in a few years so you'd have to buy used. You'd have to beg samsung to bring it back.
One difference between TV and monitor panels is the blue line peak (450 vs 460 nm); lots of people dismiss it as unimportant matter, but to me the further peak towards green the easier it is on my eyes.
Man I am so jealous. These are now gone. only 65+ are available, too big, ppi too low.
I had to service the UltraFine 5K twice before realizing that using it to power the Macbook was killing it (seems power delivery overload). Hooking up the Mac to its own power fixed it.
Anyone else experience this?
The thing I heard was always killing them was the ports coming loose from people plugging and unplugging things all the time.
Could it have been that you were plugging and unplugging the MacBook?
Obviously that should totally work. I don’t know what I heard is correct, but I got the impression if you plugged a Mac in and just left it there it would be fine.
I usually left the monitor-to-MBP cable plugged in, but I did have some minor finicky connection issues at one point. But that was nothing compared to the monitor actually dying.
The monitor setup seemed like the ideal solution, less cables and just plug in to the monitor. But the combination of heat from powering the monitor, MBP, the monitor itself, and hot weather does seem like a plausible cause to me.
>The thing I heard was always killing them was the ports coming loose from people plugging and unplugging things all the time.
I think it's the heat generated around the connector which causes the problems.
I’ve been using one for over five years, exclusively with MacBooks which were always powered by the display. I haven’t had any issues with mine. (Except maybe once last year, when it wouldn’t turn on. I had to unplug the display from the power and plug it back in.)
Were you running high loads? I ran heavy, constant gaming loads with the monitor on (monitor specs say typical 140W, max 200W). After switching to the MBP charger, haven't had an issue for 5 years.
So it would be drawing 200W constantly. While it may have been a twice defective fluke, I suspect either the power delivery or heat killed it somehow.
The 100W MBP charger gets very hot by itself, and its twice that for the built-in monitor charger, which is also right next to the hot display panel. Add hot weather to the mix, and it seems like it could be trying to do too much.
I bought one, then returned it the following day. I cannot comprehend how LG is shipping these monitors and people are buying them. The matte finish on the screen is very bad. So bad that you see colorful grains (maybe 0.05-0.1mm each) all over the screen. Particularly noticeable on light content. I had seen some people complaining about it online, but never would’ve imagine that this was the actual issue and it’s still mind boggling that they are producing and shipping these monitors.
"Lastly, if you're set on 6K, there's also the Asus ProArt PA32QCV to consider. I haven't tested it yet, but it's $600 cheaper than LG's model, despite using the same 6K panel. [...] The biggest difference is the lack of Nano IPS Black"
How can it be the same panel if it differs in such a fundamental aspect?
A: the control board is different
B: the glass in front is different
C: the backlight is different
D: the naming is different
Any combo of the above.
These would be differences between two different monitors sharing the same panel. But if one is Nano IPS Black and one isn't, they don't have the same panel.
Thanks for this, just bought one. Been tempted to cave for the Apple XDR for a long time but just couldn't justify it and my 32" 4K just isn't quite cutting it. I see a few complaints here, so my fingers are crossed! I absolutely loved the LG Ultrafine 5K though but 27" was starting to feel limited as my eyes get older.
It arrived. I've had it running about an hour and gut reactions:
* It's a good looking monitor, the stand is fantastic.
* It's certainly 6K. Far crisper than my 4K 32".
* I don't have a problem with the "coating" other people have mentioned. I think I can see what people mean but it's not an impediment from a foot away.
* The color accuracy and the consistency kinda sucks. I've fiddled with profiles and settings, but it's not fantastic. I wouldn't advise it for anyone for who color accuracy is important (not me). The color consistency is more annoying. Like in each corner of the screen the colors are far colder than in the center. You can move a window from the corner to the middle and white goes from very cold to neutral. This is poor for a monitor of this price, but tolerable to me. There's also a sort of purpleish fringing at the far edges of the screen. Reminds me of old CRTs when you had speakers too close to them.
Not at all impressed... a giant TV with garbage PPI.
"That gets close to the sharpness of higher-resolution laptops. The current MacBook Pro still beats it, though, with 254 ppi."
Macs have set the bar: let me know when you get a 254 ppi 27" inch OLED monitor.
If this were tandem OLED, it'd be the perfect monitor.
If this had a higher refresh rate I'd be making unwise financial decisions today
This is an superficial review but even then
> Beyond that, it has an attention-grabbing design and off-the-charts image quality. It's one of the best monitors you can buy for content creators, despite some of the unfortunate trade-offs it comes with.
> As Sleek As Monitors Get
> The 32-inch LG UltraFine Evo 6K is a very pretty monitor. I wouldn't blame you for mistaking this as an Apple product, given the focus on clean lines, simple shapes, and designerly aesthetic. The extra-wide stand means that the base itself isn’t overly large. Like the Apple Studio Display, the flat base provides more usable desk space rather than occupying it. The stand itself has a unique design, too. It resembles the styling Apple uses on the iMac and Studio Display, but it has a textured pattern on the back. It’s gorgeous, though you probably won’t spend a lot of time looking at the back of the monitor unless your desk is in the middle of the room or in command position (if you know, you know).
I don't see any of this. It looks very thick at the edges, the rounded corners are unrefined, the ventilation holes are 2000s plasma TV vibe, the port arrangement on the back looks atrocious - ports at different heights (there are four types of ports, and all of them are at a different z-height), some sunk into the surface with a counterbore, others protruding with an extra plastic jacket (screaming "these are all unmatched connectors out of the inventory"). The entire back panel looks like that cheap late 2000s/early 2010s metallic-silver spray painted plastic from nondescript TVs and stereo equipment. (Because it probably is). The stand looks thin and flimsy with a a plastic covering/shell on the reverse side. Oh and the corners of the case are just G1 continuity, they're obviously a quarter round stuck to a flat surface.
No, wired, I don't think anyone is mistaking this for an apple product, just because there is some anodized aluminium paint on it.
> the port arrangement on the back looks atrocious - ports at different heights (there are four types of ports, and all of them are at a different z-height), some sunk into the surface with a counterbore, others protruding with an extra plastic jacket (screaming "these are all unmatched connectors out of the inventory").
- DP: it's the one protuding, and I applaud them. Most DP plugs need to be squized, and having an extra few mm to depress the bit sounds comfortable.
- HDMI: it's flushed, and I applaud them. HDMI cables came in a lot of end sizes, some thin some bulky, I'd hate to be stuck with a cable that doesn't fit because they wanted the hole to be recessed.
- USB-C: they're all recessed. I wouldn't have minded them to be flushed, but then it's easier to tell from touch where's the USB hole is. USB are the ones that will be plugged/unplugged the most, it's kinda nice they're clearly differentiated.
- the last hole is for power ? It will be permanently plugged so I'm not sure it even matters.
Reading your comment I was expecting some really bad decisions, and instead ended up agreeing with every single choices. My only surprise is no USB-A.
It reminded me of the Apple philosophy of minimalism and uniformity for the sake of it. I want my devices to be usable and well designed, especially the back panel of a monitor where most people will be trying to plug/ilunplug stuff blind.
6k 16:10 32” oled/microRGB with true rgb subpixels, please.
Though the wait seems 5 more years, at the least. Too many pixels and no tolerance for dead ones.
—
If you — like most of us — care only about pixel density for that sweet crisp code, Chinese 6k XDR knock-off by the name of Kuycon G32P got you covered for a few years now and with a fraction of a price ($1700)
Seems to be roughly the price of an okay Macbook Pro
> > 60-Hz refresh rate.
Pass.
I'm sitting behind one of these right now, got it back at the start of last November, attached to an Ergotron monitor arm. It's worth noting that there are a number of screens coming out that seem to be using roughly this panel but with different price points and feature mixes. MacRumors (and no doubt others) maintaining a nice little dedicated thread [0] on 6K screens with info in an easily digestible form. And so on a meta-note, the most exciting thing to me is simply that we're finally seeing a big leap forward all at once in the screen fundamentals (resolution, refresh, color) after a long and frustrating (to me anyway) period of stagnation. Apple did the first iMac 5K iirc in 2014, twelve(!) years ago. And I thought at the time it wouldn't be long before we had a range of higher res options, but instead Apple eventually did a standalone, then long after LG did a release, there were a couple of rando ones from Dell that got dropped... and that was it. Now we've got lots of 5K and 6K options, 8K ones are coming, currently it's 60Hz but CES has seen higher refresh announced, next few years are looking good. While the LG doesn't take advantage of TB5's full bandwidth, but having 120 Gbps on tap means that we also have plenty of headroom for everything, high resolution, high refresh, and higher color bit depths without having to compromise. So that's all pretty nice.
As far as this one specifically, on a physical level it's perfectly decent. I actually like that unlike the previous LG and most screens it seems nowadays, there is no camera at all. The only real irritation about it is the ginormous power brick it has, which is bigger and heavier then a Mac Mini, and on top of that has a fixed cord (a SHORT fixed cord) which I hate. I prefer having power be integrated and just using a normal power cable, but if nothing else it's irritating that even on high end electronics OEMs still don't use GaN and shrink everything a lot.
I'm no longer doing significant graphics work so haven't invested in updating color calibration hardware, none of my old stuff still works with current higher bit-depth/HDR etc screens. I'm mostly doing coding, CAD, light non-print graphics, etc. So my impressions are purely subjective. List in no particular order vs the older 5k and other screens I've used:
• Whether good luck or just (not) bad luck, quality control on the physical parts hasn't been an issue. There isn't any banding, no dead pixels, light/dark patches or the like that other comments report.
• It claims to be cutting edge in terms of IPS displays, "nano ips black" blah blah, but there isn't any significant noticeable contrast increase vs the old. It's definitely excellent for a standard IPS display but OLED/µLED it is not (though conversely I have no concerns about it being on hours a day display static GUI elements).
• Matte instead of glossy doesn't really do anything for me since I'd reoriented my office space long ago due to everything being glossy. There is a slight shimmer if I focus that bothered me a little more than new but I don't notice after a few months. I don't think it's quite as good as Apple's treatment, but for myself I'd probably just go back to glossy given the choice. YMMV based on lighting.
• It claims to be cutting edge in terms of IPS displays, "nano ips black" blah blah, but there isn't any significant noticeable contrast increase vs the old. It's solid for a standard IPS display but OLED/µLED it is not (though conversely I have no concerns about it being on hours a day display static GUI elements).
• Software situation is mediocre. I have not been able to get LG's software to perform a firmware update, it fails with odd error messages, so I haven't been able to experiment at all with some of the modes that it was advertised with. Their software wants a lot of invasive permissions and is wonky. LG support has not been helpful. Newer screens will presumably come with current firmware out of the box at some point but this was disappointing.
• Also on software, at least under macOS 15 the HDR story seems a bit odd. It's the first desktop Mac screen I've used that has an HDR toggle in the System Settings, and enabling it does make HEIC photos and a few other workflows I surveyed work more like an MBP screen. However it also causes the Mac GUI colors to get all washed out and strange, there isn't compensation there with just the toggle. The may be improved in macOS 26, or might be something one of the Studio modes will help with if I can ever get access to them, but it isn't plug-and-play here.
• If I do toggle it on, having the HDR support with true 10-bit is noticeable in working with high bit depth photos, including everything from any iPhone in awhile.
• Having TB bandwidth out of the hub doesn't matter much to me but does work and means the TB5 input isn't totally wasted. Sometimes convenient to have an extra port. This would probably be of more value for someone using a notebook which is clearly the intended use-case.
Anyway, it's fine, I needed a new screen and it gives me a noticeably improved amount of screen space for my aging eyes but is still on the right size (for me) of not being so big that I'd need a curve though it's right on the edge. I've run 2 and 3-screen (1920x1200) primary use (ie, all for regular system use vs having a secondary proof/video screen like I do now) setups in the past, and there are pluses and minuses particularly with having one be vertically oriented, but it's not bad to have so much space all as a single unified thing.
I think most people would be better off waiting, this was clearly not all baked yet when I got it and there is plenty of competition here or coming, but I'm not returning it either. I'm looking forward to hopefully finally seeing screens that will arguably be "done", basically hitting the limits of human visual acuity in all respects (or at least to the many-9s level of diminishing returns) in the next few years. And I'm also kind of curious longer term still about what effects that might have on the industry, for my entire life progress in video, unlike audio, has been constant and there was always clearly more to do. Once resolution and refresh stops and monitors are "finished" I wonder if that might be interesting for media in terms of reducing the technical rat race?
----
0: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-complete-list-of-6k...
Thinly veiled ad
$8,000 and it only does 60Hz?! What were they thinking?
You misread the article; this is a $2,000 product. An unrelated 32-inch 8k monitor from Asus is $8,000—it's mentioned in passing to disclaim that the LG isn't, technically, the highest-DPI monitor on the market.
Yes, but the Asus is $8k and it also only does 60Hz.
Apple’s Pro Display XDR, which this absolutely competes with, is also 60 Hz.
It’s $5000. Without a stand.
There are rumors there will be a new version soon. Perhaps we’ll get 120 Hz.
The refresh rate on these super high resolution monitors is not great.
> It’s $5000. Without a stand.
$6K, if you want a comparable matte.
This monitor is not really for gaming; GPUs aren't powerful enough to drive 6K beyond 60 FPS.
For that matter, 6k @ 120 Hz is about 60 Gbps of video data. That's only barely within the limits of the fastest DisplayPort standards.
Thunderbolt 5 can use 3 lanes for a total of 120 gbps.
It's $2000
$2k
Bloody down-voters.
Yeah you looked at a different model. But it's still $8,799.00 and does indeed only do 60Hz.
https://www.asus.com/us/displays-desktops/monitors/proart/pr...
> only do 60 hz
Just so you know 120 hz 10 bit without display stream compression for this will require almost 128 Gbps per second
Doesn’t exist yet