silicon display screens pricelist

With excellence nature curve, Flexible LED Display Module can make any shape or angle as you want. Magnetic backside system for easy mounting on any metal sheet. The whole design is very creative, humanized, and lively. Highly modular design could make a LED video wall as big as possible no any size limitation, bigger display area, wider view angle.

Apple"s computers are powerful tools with fantastic displays. If you need more real estate, though, we"ve rounded up the best monitor for your Mac in 2022.

The Dell UltraSharp U2723QE is a newly-upgraded model that comes sporting excellent color coverage. Once you"ve seen it in action, you"ll never want to go back to another monitor. This delightful display comes with support for 4K resolution, and 98% DCI-P3, 100% sRGB, and 100% REC 709. That means you"ll have vibrant, sharp, and naturally beautiful visuals no matter what you"re doing on your MacBook Pro.

On top of sporting a higher resolution panel, the 34-inch monitor also comes with a ton of ports, including a DisplayPort, two HDMI ports, as well as a USB-C (Thunderbolt 3) port, and even some regular USB-A 3.0 ports. That makes it great for accessories, which most MacBook Pros may struggle with. One of the real standout parts of this monitor, though, is its three year warranty for parts and labor. That means you won"t have to worry about dropping such a large sum on a monitor again, at least for a good few years. The LG 34BK95U-W retails for $1,649, but is currently on sale at Amazon and at B&H Photo.

If you don"t mind spending a pretty penny and want to keep everything in the Apple ecosystem, then pair your MacBook Pro with the Apple Studio Display. The newly released 5K monitor comes with a bevy of features, including multiple USB ports, which should help you accessorize as needed.

Like the Pro Display XDR, the Studio Display is geared towards creative professionals. That means multiple reference modes, and P3 wide color gamut support, too. You"ll also find a built-in six-speaker sound system, as well as a 12MP ultra-wide web camera enclosed in the front of the device. The entire thing is powered by an onboard A13 chip, and comes with a nano-texture display that does great at cutting down on glare.

There are better 5K displays out there, but if you really want to keep it in the Apple family, then the Studio Display is the monitor for you. Read our full Apple Studio Display review.

AppleInsider readers can also save $50 on AppleCare for the Studio display with this activation link and promo code APINSIDER at Adorama. Step-by-step coupon instructions can be found here.

The Alogic Clarity is a solid monitor with a distinctly Apple-like design language. Although it"s cheaper than the Apple Studio Display, the Clarity monitor does have its own suite of productivity tricks and additional feature that could help sway your decision.

It"s a 27-inch monitor with a 4K display with a resolution of 3,840 by 2,160 pixels. It packs more port options than the Apple Studio Display, with a pair of HDMI ports, a Type-C, two USB-A ports, headphone jack, and a USB-B port.

The Alogic Clarity doesn"t match Apple"s display pound-for-pound, but it does come in at a cheaper $799.99 — and delivers a lot of value for that price point.

If you"re looking for a reference monitor for high-end graphics and film editing work, then the Pro Display XDR is a solid option. This is a 32-inch monitor with a 6K resolution, HDR supports, and up to 1000 nits of brightness. It"s tailor-made for professionals.

The Pro Display XDR has the same port array as the Apple Studio Display, with three USB-C ports and a single Thunderbolt 3 port. While it doesn"t come cheap, it"s still significantly less expensive than most other professional-grade reference monitors.

It typically costs $4,999 at places like Amazon, or $5,999 with the special matte Nano Texture Glass. But AppleInsider readers can save $100 on the Apple Pro Display XDR in addition to $100 off AppleCare at Adorama with this activation link and promo code APINSIDER. Need help with the coupon? Here are step-by-step activation instructions.

The LG UltraWide 5K2K is a powerful monitor aimed at creative professionals. It"s a 34-inch wide display with a 5K horizontal resolution and 4K vertical resolution. It sports a 90% DCI-P3 wide color gamut range, max brightness of 450 nits, and a resolution of 5120 by 2160 pixels.

On the rear, you"ll find a plethora of ports, from a pair of HDMI ports to a DisplayPort, various USB ports, and a Thunderbolt 3 port. The real draw here is the screen real estate. Its massive display area makes for easier workflows across a variety of creative and productive tasks.

The LG UltraFine 4K has the distinction of being an Apple-approved monitor that you can purchase directly from the iPhone maker. It"s a 23.7-inch display with a 3840 by 2160 resolution, a P3 wide color gamut, and up to 500 nits of brightness.

The Samsung M8 is a 4K monitor that can also act as a smart TV, allowing users to take advantage of online services without a host device. That makes it a bit more versatile than other monitors on the list — but the Samsung M8 still functions well as a dedicated computer display.

While it"s a larger 32-inch monitor, it has a lower pixel density than Apple"s Studio Display. Despite that, it still supports HDR10+, a 99% sRGB color range, and up to 400 nits of brightness. It packs a single HDMI port and a pair of USB-C ports (with one downstream and one upstream port).

There are likely times when a dedicated desktop Mac is going to be more useful to your workflow than a separate monitor. In these cases, your best bet is likely to be the 24-inch iMac, which is powered by an M1 chipset and sports some hefty display features.

It packs a 4.5K display with a 4,480 x 2,520 resolution, 500 nits of brightness, True Tone, and Wide Color range. Of course, it"s also a dedicated computer in its own right, with a powerful M1 chipset and a seven- or eight-core GPU.

Apple’s range of MacBooks that use the company’s own Silicon M1 or M2 processors cannot natively connect more than one external monitor, which is a massive limitation on the previous Intel-based generation of Mac laptops that could run two displays when connected to a USB-C or Thunderbolt 3 docking station or hub.

However, there are ways around this plain M1/M2 limitation, allowing you to run two or more external displays off an M1/M2 MacBook, which we will outline here. In each case, there’s a free software download and a docking station, hub or adapter required.

But if your MacBook setup includes running more than one external display, you have a major problem. Apple’s M1 or M2 chips simply won’t consider it—at least natively.

While the M1 and M2 MacBooks natively support just one monitor, the M1 and M2 Mac Mini does natively support up to two external monitors—one via the HDMI port and a second via USB-C. But the M1 models of the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro support only one external display.

You can use a combination of display technologies to get around the M1/M2 MacBooks’ single-monitor limitation. This should work with most third-party docks, although some manufacturers, such as Caldigit, don’t recommend it.

Many multi-display docks use a combination of native USB-C Alternate Mode (native “Alt Mode” video output) and DisplayLink technology. This combination serves as a workaround to the M1/M2 platform supporting only a single external display via USB-C.

Note that DisplayLink requires a third-party driver to be installed on the Mac. There are different versions of the DisplayLink driver, and some bring their own compromises to the party. But, in general, setup is straightforward.

The DisplayLink macOS app or DisplayLink Manager app are ways of enabling DisplayLink technology on macOS. The app is available as a standalone installer rather than through the mac App Store.

DisplayLink Manager Graphics Connectivity App v. 1.7.0 is compatible with macOS Catalina 10.15, macOS 11 Big Sur and macOS 12 Monterey. It can be managed via the DisplayLink icon in the Apple Menu bar.

The macOS requires the user to permit “Screen Recording” in order for DisplayLink devices to work properly. This can be found in System Preferences under Privacy in Security & Privacy; navigate to Screen Recording in the list on the left, then tick the Screen Recording permission for DisplayLink Manager after unlocking the padlock using your admin password. You may need to quit and restart DisplayLink Manager afterwards.

Installation is straightforward. Older versions did not support laptops’ closed-display/Clamshell mode, but 1.7.0 does support Clamshell mode if the MacBook is Intel-based running macOS 12 or if the MacBook is M1-based running macOS 11 or 12.

The HDMI or DisplayPort output uses Alternate Mode (Alt Mode), and as it is basically a pipeline directly to the system’s native GPU, it will behave just like if you hooked up a USB-C to HDMI dongle to your laptop. This requires no user driver installation.

The second and third displays will rely on the DisplayLink software. DisplayLink uses an installed driver and the system CPU and GPU to convert graphics data on the system into data packets. That data is then sent over the cable as data packets, and converted back to video information and output to the monitors via the DisplayLink chip in the docking station.

Another third-party software solution is SiliconMotion’s InstantView, which operates in a similar way to DisplayLink and works with three of the hardware hubs and adapters we review below.

The initial setup is easier than DisplayLink with the hubs from Hyper but similar with the Satechi hub—but it suffers the same challenge that Apple’s software updates can disable it, which will entail installing a newer version and allowing the necessary security & privacy settings for screen recording, just as with DisplayLink.

Originally, dock manufacturers did not officially supported such a DisplayLink setup for Macs. The solution works, but they rightly warned that this could become unstuck in future versions of the macOS. Whenever there is a new OS update the drivers may need to be updated each time.

A docking station connects to your MacBook via Thunderbolt or USB-C. It then offers multiple ports that your laptop now has access to. These can include new display ports, such as HDMI, as well as Gigabit Ethernet for wired Internet access, USB-C/Thunderbolt/USB-A ports at varying speeds, audio plugs and card readers.

Learn more about the best Thunderbolt docking stations for more details, or you can connect via a simpler USB-C hub. Look for a dock with two or more display ports, preferably ones that can connect to your preferred displays without the need for an adapter. Some, such as the Anker Apex, have two display ports but Anker warns against using it with Macs, even though DisplayLink should work around the problem.

Thunderbolt 4 docks or hubs often have no dedicated display port but three available TB4 ports that can be used to connect directly to a USB-C display or via adapters to HDMI or DisplayPort monitors. While you may have to buy an adapter cable, 40GBps Thunderbolt 4’s port flexibility and backwards compatibility are recommended for users of modern Macs such as the M1 and M2 MacBooks.

Docking station and hub manufacturers are now actively marketing their products as solutions to the M1/M2 external display limitation. Each requires either the DisplayLink download or another similar software solution, such as InstantView, but no further hardware adapter except for the dock or hub itself. And of course these hubs offer the usual multi-port benefits as well as the external monitor solution.

If your hub or dock has just one display port, you could also attach a second or third display via one or more of the spare USB-A ports, using an adapter such as StarTech.com USB 3.0 to HDMI / DVI Adapter. This costs $80 or £80, so needs to be factored in when pricing an M1/M2 MacBook purchase if you require multiple monitors and want to use the USB-A port rather than a display port such as HDMI or DisplayPort. Another option is Plugable’s USB Dual 4K Display Adapter.

This adapter turns an available USB-A 3.0 or USB-C port into one DVI-I or VGA port (DVI to VGA adapter included) and one HDMI output. Each display can simultaneously support the maximum resolution of 2048×1152 at 60Hz. Make sure to use an active HDMI DisplayLink adapter that can support 4K at 60Hz, as some are limited to 4K at 30H

Below we have gathered the best dedicated hubs and docks for multiscreen M1/M2. Note that these listed (and tested) below use USB-C rather than Thunderbolt, so don’t benefit from the MacBook’s potential 40Gbps data bandwidth. If you require all 40Gbps, go for a Thunderbolt dock and install DisplayLink as instructed above.

The Ugreen USB-C Triple Display Docking Station is a quality compact vertical dock supports up to three external displays on a plain (non-Pro or -Max) M1/M2 MacBook if you install DisplayLink software.

Priced at $329/£369, it features two HDMI ports and a DisplayPort and can support three 4K displays at 60Hz on a Mac. There are 12 ports in total, including Gigabit Ethernet, card readers and 10Gbps USB-A and USB-C ports. It connects to the MacBook via 10Gbps USB-C.

Hyper says that it works “without having to download cumbersome drivers” but there is some software installation involved, and you need to allow InstantView access to your Privacy settings in System Preferences. You connect the hub or adapter to your M1 MacBook and find the HyperDisplay app that appears in a Finder folder sidebar. Double-click the macOS InstantView icon and follow the System Preferences instructions. Once this has been completed your MacBook will automatically recognize the adapter from then on.

This compact hub still includes 10 ports, including the all-important 2x HDMI. The first display at 60Hz is added via HDMI and DP Alt-mode and the second at 4K 30Hz through HDMI and InstantView.

Do you really need four screens? If you do, and you can do without 4K resolution, the Plugable USB-C to Quad HDMI Adapter supports that many HD displays even on an M1 or M2 MacBook using the Silicon Motion InstantView software (requires download and installation).

The adapter features just the four HDMI ports so doesn’t offer any Gigabit Ethernet or extra USB-C ports, but does what it says on the box. All four displays can support 1920-x-1080 at 60Hz image.

The USB-C cable tucks neatly into the adapter’s case when not in use, making this a nimbly portable solution… as long as you don’t also carry the four screens around with you.

The Satechi USB-C Multimedia M1 Adapter uses InstantView rather than DisplayLink but the installation process is practically the same when you follow the manual.

It’s more than a mere display adapter, though, as it also boasts USB-C PD passthrough charging at up to 85W, one 5Gbps USB-C port and two 5Gbps USB-A ports.

Like the Hyperdrive Dual 4K HDMI 10-in-1 USB-C Hub, Hyper’s cheaper Dual 4K HDMI Adapter uses the simpler InstantView software rather than DisplayLink.

Lacking any other ports, it’s not a hub and so just facilitates the dual-display function on M1 and M2 Macs. While it’s cheaper than its 10-port sibling, we’d recommend the more able hub—unless you need three displays, in which case you’d need to look at the other hubs and docks reviewed here.

The Alogic Dual 4K Universal Compact Docking Station comes in two models—the CH2, which features two HDMI 2.0 ports; and the CD2, with two DisplayPort ports—so you can choose which best suits the external displays you already own.

Two external screens are probably enough for most people. If you require three, see the other hubs and docks reviewed here. Both screens can be up to 4K at 60Hz. Basic instructions are given on installing the DisplayLink software for M1 and M2 Macs.

The EZQuest Ultimate Plus USB-C Multimedia Hub has two HDMI ports and a VGA port, and supports one 4K at 60Hz and one 4K at 30Hz via HDMI and 1080p HD via VGA. If you want three 4K displays, look instead at the Ugreen Triple Display Dock.

The Baseus 17-in-1 Docking Station has three HDMI ports, each of which can connect to an external 4K display at 30Hz. If you require three 4K external displays at 60Hz, the Ugreen Triple Display Dock will fulfill your needs better. If 30Hz is fine, the Baseus will save you money. 60Hz is better for gamers as it offers smoother video.

Plugable doesn’t recommend the workaround for gaming, video editing, digital audio workstations (DAWs), and protected-content (HDCP) playback. For these workloads, users will want the full throughput of a “bare-metal” native GPU connection—such as provided by the DisplayPort or HDMI port on the dock using Alt Mode.

Caldigit actively recommends against using DisplayLink, as it finds it unreliable and there would be no synergy between the driver and the dock. Because it requires a third-party driver, users are at the mercy of Apple and the third-party developer to support later versions, the company told Macworld.

However, this combination of display technologies does allow M1 and M2 MacBooks to run more than one external monitor, and the M1 and M2 Mac mini to run more than two. And more manufacturers are coming out with docks and hubs that support it.

DIsplayLink and InstantView are workarounds with a potentially limited timespan but the likelihood is that compatibility would be restored at some stage if the worst happened and you would get back your multi-monitor setup.

The Hyperdrive dual 4K HDMI hardware solution is the more expensive but stable workaround of the two—but if you want up to three displays you’ll need a dock such as one of those reviewed above and the DisplayLink solution.

A. Silicon Light Machines currently supplies the GLV modules to customers. There are two main types of the GLV modules: 1080 pixel module and Integrated High-Resolution module.

A. Silicon Light Machines aspires for perfect customer satisfaction and customizes a product to meet the customer requirements. Normally, we quote for a product after the specification is agreed upon. Since specification and price may differ from customer to customer, we do not have a price list.

A. The GLV requires an interface board to communicate with your system. In most cases, the customers prepare an I/F board, but Silicon Light Machines can provide a test board for evaluation purpose.

A. Yes, we will be pleased to supply GLV products for display applications. In 2009, we reacquired the rights to GLV technology for display applications.

The polysilicon price has seen many ups and downs over the last few decades. Which factors cause this volatility? What is the current spot price today? How good is the information from various price data providers? How has the polysilicon price developed since 1981? Here, you will find the answers to all these questions as well as charts that illustrate the price trend.

After the Chinese New Year holidays (January 21-27), the rebound of the global polysilicon price average continues, additionally supported by a stronger Chinese yuan. EnergyTrend’s index for dense mono-grade polysilicon has jumped from CNY165/kg before the holidays to CNY195/kg now, the same value as on December 28, 2022.

In most cases, Bernreuter Research uses EnergyTrend as its data base for the spot price of mono-grade polysilicon in and outside China. For multi-grade polysilicon, we apply a price estimate based on the historical spread between multi and mono grade.

We calculate the global spot price average from our assumption for multi-grade polysilicon in China and from EnergyTrend’s average prices of mono-grade polysilicon in China and overseas. The calculation factors have been updated as follows:

January 5, 2022: Market share of mono grade adjusted to 96% and split between polysilicon produced in China and material supplied by non-Chinese manufacturers revised to 85-15

November 30, 2022: Market share of mono grade adjusted to 98% and split between polysilicon produced in China and material supplied by non-Chinese manufacturers revised to 90-10

Please note that Chinese polysilicon price quotes in RMB always contain the value added tax (VAT, currently 13%). Our calculation is based on net prices without VAT.

Three Taiwanese market research firms provide weekly spot prices of the products in the solar value chain – solar-grade polysilicon, wafers, solar cells and panels – as well as background information on the price trend on their respective English websites: PVinsights, EnergyTrend and PV InfoLink. China-based SunSirs publishes daily spot prices for 100 commodities, including polysilicon, in China. In our short guide on these four providers, we will focus on the polysilicon segment.

Data: In 2009 PVinsights was the first that started publishing weekly photovoltaic (PV) spot price data on the web. Its coverage of the global polysilicon spot price average was expanded with data on the spot prices in and outside China in March 2015; however, this information as well as the monthly data on the polysilicon long-term contract price have gradually been shifted to the paid service since June 2017.

Methodology: PVinsights polls prices “from multiple contributors by telephone until the final price range is clear to us.” Until late 2014, its polysilicon spot price index was 2% to 5% higher than that of EnergyTrend on an annual average; after that, however, it was 2% to 7% lower. In 2019 this spread widened significantly from 7% in the first quarter to 16% in the fourth quarter. In 2020 it grew further to 19% in the first quarter before it returned to 7% in the fourth quarter. The pendulum swang to the other direction in the first half of 2021 when the index of PVinsights was 5% higher than that of EnergyTrend before it became 4% lower again in the fourth quarter. In 2022 the spread increased from 1% in the first quarter to 7% in the fourth quarter; in December it was even more than 10%.

The difference stems from how the single price points of a survey are weighted. PVinsights states only vaguely that “applying judgment to the price discovery process remains today the best method to determine privately traded solar PV component prices. Our experience in making informed, accurate judgments is one of the most important values we offer to PVinsights.com subscribers.” This self-praise cannot hide the fact that the data provider missed the rising market share of higher-priced mono-grade polysilicon for almost two years. Only from late 2020 through the third quarter of 2022 did it seem that PVinsights’ polysilicon spot price index has overcome its bias toward low-price multi-grade polysilicon. We do not regard the index as a reliable source anymore.

Profile: Established in 2010 as the fourth of five research divisions within TrendForce Corp. – a market researcher focused on semiconductors, computers, smartphones, displays and light-emitting diodes – EnergyTrend is also headquartered in Taipeh. Besides price data on PV components and lithium batteries, its website also offers market analysis, features and news.

Data: In August 2018 EnergyTrend enlarged the scope of its polysilicon price survey. It began to cover the global spot price average as well as the spot prices outside China and for multi- and monocrystalline-grade polysilicon in China. With that, EnergyTrend provided the broadest data set on polysilicon spot prices publicly available among the three Taiwanese research firms. In May 2021, however, EnergyTrend stopped publishing a global average value; in October it also abandoned tracking multi-grade polysilicon.

Data: For polysilicon, InfoLink used to provide the weekly spot prices for both multi- and mono-grade material in and outside China, but no global price average. Since September 2021, however, the company has only been tracking the mono-grade price in China. Its weekly price chart contains a forecast of the price change for the coming week, in one of the following five ranges: >3%, 0 to 3%, 0%, 0 to -3% or >-3%.

Profile: Established in 2011, Sunsirs – China Commodity Data Group is a leading provider of data, spot prices and market news on commodities in China. Based in Hangzhou, the capital of the eastern Chinese province of Zhejiang, the company tracks and publishes the daily spot prices of 100 commodities, including polysilicon, on its website, which is loading very slowly.

Data: The only unique feature of Sunsirs’ polysilicon spot price data is its daily update. This, however, is of minor relevance as the polysilicon spot price does not fluctuate strongly within 24 hours. More importantly, the price quote of Sunsirs is often far out of sync with the data from the three Taiwanese providers. Hence, its polysilicon price has little information value.

Statements on the market trend can be contradictory from time to time. If, for instance, one data provider reports high polysilicon inventories in the value chain whereas the other claims low ones, the latter may be based on information from suppliers that are interested in playing down the scope of inventories in order to be in a better bargaining position vis-à-vis their customers. For this reason, it is always a good idea to base your judgment on several views and sometimes, you just have to live with information discrepancies.

In October 2014 when the polysilicon spot price was at US$20.70/kg, GTM Research predicted that polysilicon pricing would “be stable and possibly even increase through 2015, with pricing expected to be in the $18 to $24 per kilogram range.” In contrast, Bernreuter Research already forecasted in July 2014 that the spot price would climb up to $23/kg before it would drop to a range of $18 to $20 per kg by the end of 2014 and then be on the downtrend going forward.

Polysilicon price forecasts are usually based on the industry cost curve. In the early 1980s the consulting company McKinsey popularized this microeconomic graph that is ideally suited to predicting the price of commodity products like polysilicon.

On the industry cost curve, the future market price of polysilicon levels off between the manufacturer’s cash cost that the vertical line of expected demand intersects and the cash cost of the first unit of unneeded capacity – Chart: Bernreuter Research

In its newsletter issued in December 2018, Bernreuter Research predicted: “In a first approximation, we have assumed new PV installations of 110 to 120 GW in 2019. The polysilicon spot price may then rise to a range of $10-11/kg during seasonal demand peaks; but it will return to a range of $9-10/kg by the end of next year. Should high inventory levels persist, the price could approach or even undercut $9/kg.”

A seasonal demand peak remained at bay in 2019; however, the second part of our forecast came true: The global polysilicon spot price average undercut $9/kg in late August and closed the year at $8.50/kg (see the polysilicon price history: 2019: Chinese low-cost plants amplify price pressure).

2020 saw a wild ride of the polysilicon spot price: first being driven down by demand weakness in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic to a record low of around $6.75/kg in late June, then spiking to $12.45/kg in mid-September after explosions at Xinjiang GCL in mid-July and a flood at Sichuan Yongxiang in mid-August temporarily removed a capacity of 68,000 MT from the market.

In mid-December the spot price bottomed out at $10.40/kg. With a deviation of just 20 $Cents/kg, our forecast model for the end of 2020 shown in The Polysilicon Market Outlook 2024 has been validated once again.

Historical data collected by the equipment provider GT Advanced Technologies show that the long-term contract price for high-purity polysilicon oscillated between peak and trough, and vice versa, in regular intervals of seven to eight years from 1981 through 2004. As explained in our polysilicon market analysis, the reason for that phenomenon is a pork cycle from oversupply to shortage to oversupply again.

Between 1981 and 2004, the contract price for high-purity polysilicon fluctuated between peaks and troughs in regular intervals of seven to eight years – Sources: GT Advanced Technologies (GTAT), PVinsights; Chart: GTAT/Bernreuter Research

During this period, polysilicon demand was dominated by the semiconductor industry (polysilicon uses). When global PV installations exploded in 2004, however, the market dynamics began to change.

Therefore, we will focus on the short-term price for solar-grade polysilicon on the spot market in the following sections. The blue year boxes show the rounded-off annual spot price average based on several sources.

As reported both by market researcher Richard Winegarner, President of Sage Concepts, and market participants like Hubert Aulich, at the time a board member of silicon ingot and wafer manufacturer PV Crystalox Solar, the spot price for solar-grade polysilicon rose to $36/kg in 2001 before in 2003 it fell back to $28/kg – the level it already touched in 2000 when the dotcom bubble burst.

According to Winegarner, scrap silicon from the semiconductor industry – until 1998 the only feedstock for the PV branch – was traded at $14/kg in 2003. That is probably the reason why the “Sun Screen” study from Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia (CLSA) quoted an average selling price of $24/kg for polysilicon in 2003.

These two developments were the perfect ingredients for a polysilicon shortage. By the end of the year, the spot price for solar-grade polysilicon had almost doubled from its low of $28/kg to approx. $55/kg.

The increase, however, was not strong enough to scare solar cell and module producers. With a specific silicon consumption of 14 grams per watt (g/W) and a spot price of $28/kg, polysilicon made up costs of $0.39/W or 12.6% of the average wholesale solar module price ($3.10/W) in 2003. Due to the strong demand and the higher polysilicon costs, the average module price increased to $3.35/W in 2004. With a specific silicon consumption of 13 g/W and an annual spot price average of $43/kg, the share of the higher polysilicon costs ($0.56/W) in the module price ($3.35/W) rose only slightly to 16.7 % in 2004.

The PV branch widely thought that polysilicon manufacturers would expand their production capacities to meet increasing demand. It did not take into account, however, that those manufacturers were burnt by the downturn of the semiconductor sector in 1998 after they had heavily invested in new capacities.

In 2004 polysilicon manufacturers began to demand long-term contracts with prepayments from potential customers to secure their investments. “If you can’t be certain about selling the material at a specific price, you won’t be able to find investors,” said Karl Hesse, project director at Wacker’s polysilicon division, at the first Solar Silicon Conference in Munich in April 2004.

The polysilicon spot price had to climb still higher until PV companies were ready to sign long-term purchase contracts with hefty prepayments. When the second Solar Silicon Conference took place in April 2005, the spot price already stood at $80/kg. Wacker, then the world’s second-largest polysilicon manufacturer, announced that it had secured the first long-term contracts, and Hemlock Semiconductor, at the time the world market leader, convinced prospective customers to sign such contracts at the end of the conference.

A resolution of the big polysilicon shortage, however, was still far away as it took the manufacturers 18 to 24 months to expand their production capacities. Consequently, inventories were scraped together from every nook and cranny of the value chain. The thickness of wafers was significantly reduced so that the specific silicon consumption dropped from 13 to 10 g/W. Thus, the PV market was still able to grow by 35% in 2005.

In 2006 the polysilicon shortage got even worse. The last available inventories were running low. In July Peter Woditsch, at the time CEO of wafer manufacturer Deutsche Solar AG, a subsidiary of the now defunct Solarworld group, told us: “I presume that by the end of 2006, all stocks will be fully exhausted.”

Moreover, the additional volume that polysilicon plants churned out was mainly consumed by the semiconductor industry whose wafer production increased by 21% in 2006.

In this situation, Dow Corning presented upgraded metallurgical-grade (UMG) silicon from its factory in Brazil as an alternative feedstock at the 21st European PV Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition in Dresden (Germany) in September. However, the purity of the material was so poor that the company only recommended a 10% ratio for blending UMG silicon with virgin polysilicon.

In times of strong shortage, this was still a welcome source of additional feedstock, but by far not enough to ease the situation. The growth rate of global PV installations went down from 35% in 2005 to 19% in 2006. At the end of the year, the polysilicon spot price crossed the mark of $300/kg.

At a rate of 8%, production of semiconductor wafers in 2007 grew less strongly than in 2006. At the same time, the PV industry managed to tap 60% more scrap silicon from the semiconductor sector: nearly 4,000 metric tons (MT) compared to 2,500 MT in the prior year.

Moderately increasing polysilicon output and further declining specific silicon consumption created additional room for PV growth. Above all, however, the production of thin-film solar modules, which do not require crystalline silicon, more than doubled. All these factors together facilitated an amazing growth rate of 62% for global PV installations in 2007.

Despite its astronomic height, the surge of the spot price was not over yet. In March 2008 it made another leap to a peak of $475/kg. Nevertheless, Trina Solar, one of the leading Chinese integrated manufacturers of solar modules, announced in April it would discontinue developing its own polysilicon plant with an annual capacity of 10,000 MT. Trina pointed to “recent favorable changes in the polysilicon supply environment,” or more concretely: better access to long-term contracts with improved delivery and payment terms.

The company correctly expected polysilicon prices to decrease in the mid-term with significant amounts of new production capacities coming on stream. Already in 2008, considerable additional volumes kicked in. Trina’s decision was an early indicator that the polysilicon shortage would draw to a close. And indeed: In May the spot price began to descend from its plateau above $450/kg.

The polysilicon shortage from 2004 to 2008 drove the spot price to astronomic heights above $400/kg before it crashed down to $55/kg within 15 months – Data sources: UBS/BNEF/PVinsights (2004 - 2010), EnergyTrend (2011 - 2019); Chart: Bernreuter Research

Massive module oversupply spurred a “flight to quality”: The price pressure forced cell and module producers to more quickly reduce their manufacturing costs. The key lever to achieve this is higher cell efficiency: At the time, an increase by one percentage point reduced the cost per Watt by approx. 6%. High efficiency, in turn, requires high quality of the silicon feedstock. Wacker reported it was producing polysilicon at full capacity throughout the year 2009 even though it had brought its new ‘Poly 8’ plant on line earlier than scheduled.

Overall, however, new production capacities tipped the balance on the polysilicon market to oversupply. Starting at $160/kg in January, the spot price further tumbled until it finally stabilized in a range from $55 to $60 per kg in the second half of the year.

In view of the overcapacity, many polysilicon players slammed on the brakes. OCI delayed completing its third plant in South Korea to late 2010; LG Chem shelved its plan to build a polysilicon factory. Chinese wafer producer LDK Solar ran into serious financial problems with a huge debt load and deferred the ramp-up of its 16,000 MT polysilicon plant to 2010. Many other polysilicon projects in China and all over the world were postponed as well; most of them were abandoned later.

The big losers in 2009 were the manufacturers of upgraded metallurgical-grade (UMG) silicon. Producers of solar modules made of UMG silicon, such as Canadian Solar and Photowatt, completely shifted back to polysilicon feedstock in the second half of the year. Photowatt was one of three customers that terminated their UMG silicon contracts with Canadian UMG manufacturer Bécancour Silicon in 2009. In the fourth quarter, Bécancour sold only 2 MT. Consequently, it stopped production.

Until early September 2010, the average polysilicon spot price remained very steady on a level of $54 to $57 per kg. Then, the price began to climb gradually, followed by a steep jump to $80/kg in November, before it relaxed in the seasonally weak December.

What drove this rally? First of all, very strong demand. Polysilicon imports into China, which leads the world’s solar module production, increased almost in lock-step with the spot price. 2010 will go down in solar history as the year with the highest growth rate of new PV installations worldwide, namely 158%.

Moreover, GCL-Poly Energy Holdings increasingly used polysilicon from its subsidiary Jiangsu Zhongneng in-house for wafer production, thus reducing the polysilicon volume for the spot market. Speculative purchases by Chinese brokers additionally pushed the price upwards.

After a slight drop in the winter season, the spot price returned to $79/kg – close to its 2010 high – in March 2011. It lulled small Chinese polysilicon manufacturers into a false sense of security, which would soon after be shattered. In May and June 2011 the price fell back to its long-time level of $55/kg it had in the first half of 2010; it remained above $50/kg until mid-September. Then, however, the downward trend accelerated: Within just one quarter, the spot price plummeted by $20/kg and broke through the $30/kg line.

In the second half, the major polysilicon manufacturers Wacker Chemie, OCI Company and in particular Jiangsu Zhongneng Polysilicon brought large new capacities on line. In addition, REC Silicon launched increasing volumes on the spot market as the wafer production facilities of its parent and customer REC ASA in Norway stumbled under the price pressure; these facilities were ultimately shut down in the second quarter of 2012.

The resulting price slump hit the Achilles’ heel of small and medium enterprises in China because they sold their polysilicon output largely on the spot market. Almost 30 companies suspended or abandoned operation between September 2011 and mid-2012. Cost-competitive manufacturers from the USA, South Korea and Germany filled the gap that domestic companies left.

In order to clear their inventories, Chinese polysilicon manufacturers that abandoned operation threw out their stocks at dumping prices before closing down. Likewise, cash-strapped wafer producers dumped their polysilicon inventories on the spot market in order to retain liquidity. In October 2012 Wacker consequently announced it would introduce short-time work at its Burghausen plant; the overall utilization rate of the company’s polysilicon plants in Burghausen and Nünchritz dropped to 66% in the fourth quarter. Utilization at OCI Company in South Korea even sank to 40% by the end of 2012.

The last straws Chinese manufacturers clutched at were punitive duties on polysilicon imports into China. In reaction to the anti-dumping and countervailing (anti-subsidy) duty investigation the US Department of Commerce had started on solar modules containing China-made cells in November 2011, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (Mofcom) opened an investigation against U.S. and South Korean polysilicon suppliers in July 2012.

Many Chinese observers first expected a Mofcom ruling in February 2013, then in April. The spot market anticipated this move and drove the average polysilicon price up to an interim high of $18.60/kg in early April. Mofcom, however, postponed its decision. When the preliminary duties were finally published on July 18, the spot price had fallen back to $16.60/kg.

Only in mid-August, as late as four weeks after the Mofcom ruling, did the spot market start a short rally. The average price jumped to values above $18/kg, but sank below that mark again in early October. It was less due to the new Chinese duties themselves, but to the fact that the Chinese customs now demanded a certificate of origin for imported polysilicon; if not provided, the highest anti-dumping rate would be imposed. Until importers had adapted themselves to the new requirement, a short-term bottleneck in polysilicon supply occurred.

The duties had a limited impact on the spot price not only because the rate is very low for OCI and zero for Wacker, but also because of a big loophole: So-called processing trade was exempt from any duties. It can be conducted with imported goods (polysilicon) that are processed into products (wafers, cells, modules) destined for export from China.

As the price on the Chinese spot market climbed higher than it did internationally, several domestic polysilicon manufacturers resumed production when the average spot price in China rose up to $18.85/kg after the Mofcom ruling.

As fewer new polysilicon capacities with low production costs came on stream than expected, the downward trend after March remained relatively soft. Two thirds of the new capacity was added in China. When Mofcom announced in August 2014 that the loophole offered by processing trade would be closed, it was the start signal for a couple of large and mid-sized domestic producers to increase capacity even further.

This rapid rise exceeded the growth rate of the PV market. Consequently, the polysilicon spot price fell continuously throughout the year. Starting at more than $19/kg in early 2015, it undercut the 2012 low in June and further tumbled close to $13/kg by the end of the year.

The massive expansion of wafer production capacities and strong increase of new PV installations in China ahead of the feed-in tariff cut on July 1 cannot completely explain this rapid price surge as polysilicon production rose significantly as well. There was also a good deal of market psychology at play.

Two events triggered hoarding purchases so that tight polysilicon supply became a self-fulfilling prophecy: Shortly after U.S.-based manufacturer REC Silicon announced in February that it would temporarily shut down its polysilicon plant in Moses Lake, Washington, the spot price began to rise. The second event was a flurry of media reports in mid-April that the Chinese customs had started investigations of polysilicon “smuggling,” which raised fears that supply would further tighten. After that, the price surge accelerated.

As REC Silicon still was a major player on the spot market at the time, it was not overly surprising that the price rally came to an end when REC announced in early May that it would restart production in Moses Lake. After the installation rush in China was over, the rest of the PV value chain already saw significant price declines; at the same time, Wacker ramped up its new U.S. polysilicon plant to the full capacity of 20,000 MT. Chinese polysilicon manufacturers tried to resist the downward price trend; in late August, however, their inventories had piled up so high that they were forced to succumb to the price pressure.

On September 20, Bernreuter Research warned in its newsletter that the spot price could fall below $12/kg if manufacturers did not curtail production sufficiently. Three days later, REC Silicon announced it would reduce its utilization rate in Moses Lake to 50%. Promptly, the spot price stopped its plunge at $12.65/kg (PVinsights) or $13.10/kg (EnergyTrend) in early October. By the end of 2016, it recovered to a range of $15 to $16 per kg.

Obviously driven by restocking of inventories in expectation of high end demand, the polysilicon spot price climbed further by almost another dollar per kilogram until early March 2017. Then, however, it started a rapid decline by 20% within less than two months, coming close to its low reached in October 2016. While polysilicon manufacturers in and outside China were ramping up new capacities, global PV demand did not develop as strongly as anticipated.

Only in late April did the spot price begin to recover, propelled by the Chinese PV installation rush that set in ahead of the feed-in tariff cut on July 1. After a short phase of weakness in June and July, the spot price made a significant leap in August when many Chinese polysilicon manufacturers suspended production for annual maintenance. Supply was further reduced in early September: After a hydrogen explosion, Wacker had to shut down its 20,000 MT polysilicon plant in the U.S. for several months.

There was, however, another factor that pushed up the spot price, in particular towards the end of the year: The world’s two largest producers of monocrystalline solar wafers, Longi and Zhonghuan Semiconductor, were building up large inventories of high-purity polysilicon as they expanded their production capacities significantly.

In January 2018 Longi’s and Zhonghuan’s strategic inventory stocking kept up the polysilicon spot price before it declined to a range of $15 to $16 per kg due to the usual seasonal weakness of demand.

The news hit the PV industry like a bombshell. The polysilicon spot price immediately plummeted by $1.60/kg; it was the starting shot for a sustained descent. Beginning in June, more than half of all polysilicon manufacturers in China suspended production; one quarter did not resume operation again. This stabilized the spot price, but only for a few weeks in August.

Those manufacturers that returned to the market in the fall increased the pressure on the price. Moreover, new polysilicon plants and factory expansions in China with very low production costs and a total capacity of 152,000 MT came on stream in the fourth quarter. As a result, the spot price fell below the historical mark of $10/kg in late October and closed the year at around $9.50/kg.

Until late July 2019, the polysilicon spot price remained relatively stable, hovering around its new low of $9.50/kg. In August, however, the ramp-up of new Chinese low-cost plants became visible on the market: The spot price began to crumble and fell below $9/kg at the end of the month.

Many market observers expected that PV installations in China would surge massively in the fourth quarter and thus fuel polysilicon demand. Contrary to these assumptions, the surge hardly materialized whereas polysilicon production in China continued to grow. Consequently, the recovery of the spot price starting in mid-September was short-lived: In late November it undercut $9/kg again and slid to $8.50/kg by the end of the year.

Ahead of its time, the display continues to be a go-to pixel pitch for corporate and retail environments thanks to its ability to be installed into confined spaces and produce seamless curves.

Ahead of its time, the display continues to be a go-to pixel pitch for corporate and retail environments thanks to its ability to be installed into confined spaces and produce seamless curves.

The Lotus 0.83mm LED display is our finest and brightest pixel pitch LED display to date, producing a resolution which rivals that of LCD displays whilst delivering all the benefits of fine pitch LED.

A record-breaking LED display, our Camellia 0.95mm became the first sub-1mm pixel pitch available on the market. Designed especially for close-proximity viewing environments where detailed text heavy documents are required, 4K resolution is achieved at 165” diagonal.

Our best selling product of all time, the Lavender 1.2mm display is featured in a range of applications across the globe; from corporate lobbies, boardrooms and meeting spaces through to stunning retail installations and TV studios.

With full HD resolution achieved at 165” diagonal measurement with an exact 16:9 aspect ratio, the Orchid-HD 1.9mm is the perfect display solution for corporate presentation suites and lobbies, captivating retail platforms and command and control centers. The true seamlessness of the Orchid LED cabinets ensures that no crucial details are lost in the margins (or hidden by bezels).

Ahead of its time, the display continues to be a go-to pixel pitch for corporate and retail environments thanks to its ability to be installed into confined spaces and produce seamless curves.

With a minimum viewing distance of less than 6 feet, the display is ideal for directional signage, digital menu boards and window displays. Messages are presented in phenomenal detail with vibrancy ensured even in the highest of ambient light environments with 4000nits brightness and a 160° viewing angle.

With 147K pixels per square meter, the Peony 2.6mm LED display is the perfect solution for broadcast studio backdrops, auditorium displays, digital signage and retail.

For projects with a longer-viewing distance, the Daffodil 2.5mm LED display is the perfect solution. With 156K pixel per square meter, it’s best suited to auditorium environments, digital signage, retail and broadcast studio backdrops.

The Sunflower 3.0mm display is a specialized retail display with a cabinet size of just 192mm x 96mm, making it suitable for creative applications and wall shapes.

Offering a brightness up to 4500nits with high contrast, the video experience of the Tulip 3.90mm display is second to none on a screen of this resolution for outdoor applications.

Apple fans disappointed by the Studio Display could soon have a few more options from the company. According to Bloomberg’sMark Gurman, Apple is developing “multiple new external monitors,” including a refresh of its 32-inch Pro Display XDR from 2019. Details on the upcoming screens are sparse, but Gurman suggests they’ll incorporate built-in Apple Silicon chipsets like the Studio Display, which features a dedicated A13 Bionic processor. He adds that the updated Pro Display XDR could ship after the M2 Mac Pro arrives (more on the computer in a moment).

It’s unclear if Apple’s slate of new monitors could include a Studio Display refresh. As MacRumorspoints out, display analyst Ross Young tweeted in October that the company was preparing to release a monitor with a 27-inch mini-LED panel in the first quarter of 2023. Based on the specs Young shared, it looked like Apple was planning to update the Studio Display with its ProMotion technology.

Apple was supposed to finish transitioning its computer lineup to Apple Silicon two years after the release of its first M1 chip. According to Gurman, feature tweaks and a change in Apple’s manufacturing plans are among the reasons why it’s taken the company so long to announce a new Mac Pro. Barring any additional delays, the new model will likely arrive sometime next year, though Gurman did not speak to a specific timeline.

Excellent display quality is essential for the creative professional, and the best monitors for the Mac Mini demonstrate why Apple computers have long been a cornerstone in the industry.

Designers and videographers flocked to the Mac because of its simple, beautiful design but these creative workers also need great monitors to make their projects possible. Macs have pioneered high-resolution retina displays with a wide color gamut in the portable space.

The Mac Mini(opens in new tab) brings the Apple experience to users that otherwise wouldn"t be able to afford a MacBook(opens in new tab) or a Mac Pro(opens in new tab). The Mac Mini features Apple"s latest M1 silicon(opens in new tab), bringing superfast unified memory to boost overall performance and support for display connections using Thunderbolt and HDMI. If you are searching for a monitor for the Mac Mini, it makes sense that the monitor would also be of the same impressive quality as the one it"s connected to.

With 27 inches and a great, polished design with a sturdy stand, this 4K monitor from Dell is an ideal size for an office desk and an almost perfect match for the Mac Mini. The display is bright enough for most types of work, and the colors look great out of the box. Display height, pivot, swivel, and tilt can be easily adjusted for optimum ergonomics and comfort, and its stand is removable in case you want to hook it up to a VESA wall mount or a monitor arm.

One of the standout features of the PD2725U is its dual-view function, which allows users to split the screen into two parts and display different content on each half. This is particularly useful for professionals working with design or video editing software, as it allows them to preview their work in different color spaces or screen sizes.

Regarding connectivity, the PD2725U has a range of ports, including HDMI, DisplayPort, and USB-C, making it easy to connect to various devices. It also has a built-in KVM switch, allowing users to easily switch between their Mac mini and other computers using a single keyboard and mouse.

In 2019, Apple made headlines for its release of the Pro Display XDR as it delivered the best resolution, causing Mac users to raise eyebrows. Although Liquid Retina 6 held the throne for a long time, technology has moved on, with some 8K monitors from Dell and ViewSonic on the product catalogs. However, those are hard to find and still beyond the capabilities of the M1 Mac Mini.

Apple"s new Mac Mini can support up to two displays (one with a resolution up to 6K at 60Hz connected via Thunderbolt and one with a resolution up to 4K at 60Hz connected via HDMI 2.0), so there is no point in connecting a display that goes over 6K. Most PC monitors have skipped 6K in favor of 5K ultrawide monitors and 8K, the expensive monitor from 2019 offers the best viewing experience in terms of display resolution.

Featuring futuristic aesthetics and brushed aluminum with giant heat sinkholes, the PRO Display XDR is a large, heavy monitor. In addition to the 6K resolution, the device can be turned 90 degrees to function in portrait mode. If you stay within the brand ecosystem, you don"t have to mess with the OS regarding Apple products. Since Mac OS controls everything, you won"t find any buttons on it for adjustments.

Ports:USB 3.1 Type-C (upstream, 65W power, DP Alt Mode), USB 3.0 Type-A (Downstream) (x4), DisplayPort 1.2 (x1), HDMI 2.0 (x2), Anti-theft Kensington Lock

With the ASUS ProArt Display PA279CV, Mac Mini users will have a reliable workhorse. Video and photo editing will be a breeze, and the graphics will be stunning. This 4K monitor is an upgrade from the PA278CV, a QHD monitor. Due to its perfect coverage of the sRGB color space provides a sharp image and accurate colors for content creators. Compared with the PA278CV, it comes with twelve preset modes, making it an excellent option for photo editors using a Mac Mini.

With a 31.5-inch 4K IPS display, a matte black chassis, and a silver metal stand, the Dell P3222QE boasts modern aesthetics. Using a single joystick, the OSD menus can be calibrated or switched between different display modes. Using the stand, you can adjust the display"s height, tilt, swivel, pivot, and rotate to portrait. If you do not wish to be limited by the stand, you can attach the monitor to a wall mount or a monitor arm using the provided VESA mount (100x100).

For Mac Minis equipped with the latest M1 silicon, up to two displays can be connected: one up to 6K resolution at 60Hz connected via USB-C/Thunderbolt and one up to 4K over HDMI 2.0. You can use the Dell P3222QE as the primary or a secondary monitor on your Mac Mini because it has three video inputs: DisplayPort 1.4, HDMI 2.0, and DP Alt mode via USB-C.

Be warned: this monitor certainly doesn"t look Apple-ish and is marketed for gamers. It features a matte black finish with streaks of red in some discrete places, giving its design a gamer-like appeal. Once you get past its looks, you will discover a reliable workhorse with immersive visuals thanks to its 3440x1440 screen resolution and 110-pixel density on its 34" wide curved display.

The connectivity options include one DisplayPort 1.4 port, two HDMI 2.0 ports restricted to 85Hz refresh rate at 3440*1440, and a three-port USB 3.0 hub (upstream and two downstream).

The new segment of "5K2K" monitors combines the horizontal resolution of a 5K display with the vertical resolution of a 4K display. In the end, this produces a larger screen area, a higher pixel density, and, as a result, better image quality and sharpness. In addition, it has excellent connectivity, including a USB Type-C port with charging capability, a DisplayPort port, and an HDMI port, the latter being restricted by the HDMI bandwidth limit to 3,840 by 2,160 at 60Hz.

How do you get a decent display for your Mac Mini at an affordable price if you can"t afford to sell your motorcycle to buy an Apple monitor or an Asus or Dell 4K monitor? Well, look no further than the Dell 2721D.

When using a Quad-HD display, you may need to convince Mac OS to enable HiDPI mode. Otherwise, you will end up with blurry text and small fonts. Google "BetterDummy," and you"ll find a free, open-source solution for Mac OS that lets you enable HiDPI mode on QHD, 4K, and all monitors. That is until Apple updates its OS for better monitor support.How to choose the best monitors for the Mac Mini for you

Besides price and connectivity, ideally, you want a monitor that supports USB-C, Thunderbolt, or HDMI. Still, you must also consider other factors, like resolution and color accuracy, if you are a creative professional and display size. You will also want above-average display sizes if you frequently use your Mac Mini for entertainment or gaming.

There are no limitations to what you can choose unless you have limited space. Monitors with a 27-inch or larger screen are an excellent choice for work and entertainment. Monitors with a screen size under 24 inches usually do not offer 4K resolution. Therefore, if you wish to have excellent resolution and pixel density, a 24-inch monitor is the minimum for desk-based monitors. If you use your Mac Mini for office work, you might go the extra mile or inches in this case and choose a 32-inch display size. An ultra-wide might be your best option for a Mac Mini for entertainment and gaming.

Regarding resolution, a 4K monitor is the sweet spot these days. You can save money by going with a 2K, also known as QuadHD, which is an appropriate option, but you won"t get the crisp text that your Mac Mini is capable of. With Mac OS, DPI is everything, so HiDPI mode is essential. Luckily the Mac Mini supports most monitors. It"s just Mac OS which sometimes is finicky about enabling HiDPI mode on monitor resolutions that are not the Apple defaults. If you run into problems enabling HiDPI, we suggest you try BetterDummy, a free and open-source application that allows all M1-based Macs to enable HiDPI modes on all displays.

Finally, on connectivity, Apple"s Mac Mini with M1 silicon can connect one external display with a Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) port at up to 6K resolution and one external display with its HDMI 2.0 port to a maximum of 4K. If your monitor has a DP connector, you"ll need an inexpensive Thunderbolt 3 / USB-C to DisplayPort (DP) adapter.

Based on the requirements above, we researched the market options and selected the best monitors in a wide range of prices, from Apple"s own Pro Display XDR at the top with its 6K beauty and the same price as a motorcycle down to a decent yet workable QHD 2K workhorse that costs 20 times less yet delivers excellent results. All but one supports USB-C, and most support HDMI 2.0, allowing you to use them as your primary or secondary display on the Mac Mini.

While buying a new smartphone, we make sure to accessorise our phone well. We doll it up and take care of it like a baby. But one of the most important things is its screen protectors. Choosing between screen protector vs tempered glass is essential while ensuring your phone screens’ well-being. They will help you shield your phone screens from everyday scratches, breakage or any other damage.

All it does is add an extra layer of protection over your regular phone screen. Especially if you are accident-prone or clumsy, you need to cover up your phone screens right away using the screen guards. Investing in a good screen protector vs tempered glass is probably the best way to reduce the chances of getting damaged screens, thus letting your phone have a longer lifetime. However, replacement or repairing a damaged screen could cost you a fortune. One can not afford to risk it. Better safe than sorry, no?

Cracked or broken touchscreens are very commonly seen rather than intact ones. Plastic screen protectors vs tempered glass are universally found in the market. Just like a coin, they have both pros and cons. Let’s analyse them:

It is relatively thinner than the glass tempered screen protectors. The thicker the screen guard, the tough it is and thus affording our screens resistance against damages.

In one line, these are everything the plastic ones aren’t. They are the exact opposite of what we mentioned above. They are the more traditional choice for those who wish to cover their phone screens without harming the edges. Tempered glass screen protectors are made by extensively heating the glass and quickly cooling it. As the glass endures both extreme heat and then rapid cooling, they end up being incredibly stronger.

Tempered glass screen protectors contain multiple layers, including an oleophobic nano-coating, anti-shatter film and a penetrable silicone coating on top of the tempered glass. These compressed layers add to the heat and scratch resistivity of the tempered glass as much as five times stronger than normal glass.

Tempered glass screen guards don’t offer as much impact protection as promised by a plastic screen guard. The hammer experiments we mentioned above are not meant to be run on these tempered glass screens.

Installing the plastic screen guards on your phone screens is quite more tedious than the tempered glass ones. There are various kinds of glass protectors for tempered glass screen protectors, such as full or bezel adhesive.