For the price of one Apple Pro Display XDR you can get four Asus ProArt 6k displays.

I suspect there’s only three 6k panel models in existence – the one used by Apple, the AUO one used by Asus², and the LG one used by LG, Dell, & Kuycon.

It’s strange to me that Dell haven’t dropped the price of their 6k display given that LG are offering the same panel in a much svelter package for 15% less (and you can get the very similar Asus display for 45% less!).

1. Apple don’t appear to have ever published a brightness spec for the original Retina iMac, but Tom’s Guide measured their review model at 382 lumens.
   
   The comparison to the original Retina iMac is apt because it was the first of the retina [desktop] displays, of which these 6k displays are all members. It also had the exact same pixel density – 218 PPI – as the Apple and Asus displays – i.e. each individual pixel is the exact same size – so it’s a very fair point of comparison despite the overall differences in resolution. ↩︎
2. Speculation is that the Asus uses an AUO panel (the same one that’s popular with Chinese display manufacturers, because it’s very cheap). I wouldn’t normally give this much weight, except it is interesting that both the Asus and the Chinese displays are frequently reported as making an annoying whining noise at certain brightness levels, and have identical panel specifications, and were released at similar times (notably, many years after the Pro Display XDR). ↩︎
3. This is what LG states in the monitor’s specifications. Yet, LG also states that this monitor is DisplayHDR 600 certified, which means it’s required to have a static contrast ratio of at least 8,000 : 1. ↩︎
4. As with the LG, Dell states a 2,000 : 1 contrast ratio even though DisplayHDR 600 conformance requires at least 8,000 : 1. ↩︎
5. Asus states a 1,500 : 1 contrast ratio even though DisplayHDR 600 conformance requires at least 8,000 : 1. Though they also describe the 1,500 : 1 as “typical” while also listing 3,000 : 1 as the maximum. ↩︎
6. LG says “typical” brightness is 450, with minimum being 360, without explaining the difference – e.g. whether that’s for a white patch vs full-screen white, or perhaps depending on ambient temperature. I’m choosing to be generous and assume it’s merely a temperature thing, and not likely to be a concern in a typical indoor environment, because 360 is ridiculously dim. ↩︎
7. LG don’t explicitly state this, but it’s a requirement of the DisplayHDR 600 conformance. ↩︎
8. Dell don’t explicitly state this, but it’s a requirement of the DisplayHDR 600 conformance. ↩︎
9. Asus don’t explicitly state this, but it’s a requirement of the DisplayHDR 600 conformance. ↩︎
10. Apple don’t state the actual coverage – just vaguely reference the various colour gamut standards – so these are the figures as actually tested by PCMag. ↩︎
11. Only when used with Macs which support DSC (Display Stream Compression), otherwise the USB-C ports are limited to USB 2.0 (400 Mb/s). ↩︎
12. The tech specs claim it has a built-in KVM, but there’s no mention of that anywhere else in the marketing materials nor the user manual. It does have a USB hub, which you can manually switch between the Thunderbolt or USB upstream ports by diving into the on-screen display, but there’s no apparent support for (a) doing this automatically when the input source changes nor (b) switching input sources & USB routing via keypress. ↩︎
13. Meaning the simple product of the three maximal dimensions. Some of these displays have curved backs, so their actual volume will be substantially less. ↩︎

All in all… meh.

28% fewer pixels for 34% 42% fewer dollars (47% if you’re talking nano-textured) – so technically better value, if you don’t really care about screen real-estate. But that extra real estate is really valuable, and Apple have now apparently ceded the large display market to… well, mostly the tumbleweeds. Sure, there’s technically other 6k displays, like the LG, the Dell, or the Asus, but while they have some advantages – less than half the price, most notably – they have real big disadvantages – like low brightness and poor contrast ratios.

4⨉ the backlight zones is a significant improvement, I’ll grant Apple that. But it doesn’t eliminate the blooming that was problematic with the Pro Display XDR, merely reduces it. In an era of OLED displays – hell, my old LG TV from nearly a decade ago has an OLED display; this ain’t new technology – a brand new, ostensibly-high-end “studio” display still running on LED backlighting is just sad.

The extra brightness of the Studio Display XDR is merely nice – an extra 25% isn’t a big difference (certainly nothing like the +200% or so in going from a competing 6k display to the Apple Pro Display XDR). Props to Apple for the improvement, but it’s minor.

It’s interesting that the new, smaller, lower-resolution Studio Display XDR is nearly the same spatial volume as its big sister (and not as much lighter as its reduced resolution and screen dimensions would suggest). I wonder if that’s dictated by thermals?

I didn’t bother including the audio & camera aspects because I’m genuinely confused as to who, in the market for an expensive display, would care? If you’re doing photography there’s no sound anyway, and if you’re doing videography in this price range you should be using real speakers or headphones.

And the camera… sigh… I miss the iSight, which gave you a much better camera – thanks to physics – that you could optionally buy and use. And look at it – it was a beautiful design that functioned really well, that would have fit in perfectly with the Pro Display XDR!

I’m also choosing to overlook the firmware, which I assume uses the same weird, bastardised, glitchy version of iOS as the prior Studio Display model.

After more than six years, I was hoping for an improved Pro Display XDR, not merely a small version.

1. Only when used with Macs which support DSC (Display Stream Compression), otherwise the USB-C ports are limited to USB 2.0 (400 Mb/s). ↩︎