27" 2K or 27" 4K for Intel MBP and Big Sur?

[venique]

Hi there! Help me to choose external monitor for my MBP 16" 2019. My budget is about 500-600 USD so Apple/UltraFine etc are not my choice. Most use cases are coding, web-surfing, cinema, games. No any video/photo edit.

I used iMac 27" (2K QHD IPS) for almost ten years and now after switching to the MBP I need external monitor for it. Of course, I dont want to loose in diagonal or image quality, so basicly I'm searching for 27" QHD IPS 60Hz monitor. But there are two absolutely different opinions in the Internet about resolution:
1) if you want 27" so buy QHD monitor and it will be fine due excellent PPI match and native interface scaling (but, of cource, it wouldn't be Retina)
2) if you want 27" so buy only 4K monitor instead of 2K because new Macs and macOS now can manage scaling good enough and you will get good image quality without any blur and it will be Retina

I can't understand which opinion is true.

On the one hand - I have 27" 2K for a long time and I'm glad with it quality. Also I worked with the old iMac and new MBP simultaneosly for some time and differents between Retina and non-Retina displays are don't bother me (at least because bigger screen was farther). On the other hand, 4K obviosly better than 2K but I don't want to use native scaling that will give me 1920x1080 resolution, I want scaling 1-to-1 like on my MBP screen but I'm afraid of scaling because images, fonts etc might be blurry and/or it will be GPU-intense.

Can you please clarify which approach is better, which kind of display I must look for - 27" 2K or 27" 4K? Thanks in advance!

 

[Amethyst1]

I can't understand which opinion is true.

Opinions can never be "true". You can agree or disagree with them. To give you my opinion, which you may agree or disagree with: ( )

1) I consider font rendering on a 27" 2560×1440 (QHD) monitor not nearly good enough on current macOS. I would never ever consider that anymore. Sad but true.
2) 2560×1440 HiDPI (scaled) on a "4K" monitor is much better, but not ideal either, primarily due to blurriness incurred by scaling and secondarily due to a possible performance hit.
3) The best solution at 27" is a 5K (5120×2880) monitor running pixel-perfect 2560×1440 ("Retina"). Best image quality and no blurriness or performance hit due to no scaling. This is what I'm running for my primary monitor. But 5K monitors have all been pretty much discontinued. I got mine (Dell UP2715K) used.

 

[venique]

5K are not only almost discontinued but also pretty expensive.

Two other opinions is similar to mine: 27" 2K or 27" 4K scaled to 2K. But which of them will give to me better quality if I want resolution of interface equal to MBP screen - non-Retina but native scaled 2K monitor or Retina but scaled 4K monitor? non-Retina or possible blur and performance impact?

 

[Amethyst1]

If by quality you primarily refer to the quality of text, 4K scaled to 2K will look better than native 2K on macOS. It won’t look as good as your MBP’s internal screen due to a lower pixel density (ppi) though.

 

[venique]

If by quality you primarily refer to the quality of text, 4K scaled to 2K will look better than native 2K on macOS. It won’t look as good as your MBP’s internal screen due to a lower pixel density (ppi) though.

Also I worked with the old iMac and new MBP simultaneosly for some time and differents between Retina and non-Retina displays are don't bother me (at least because bigger screen was farther).

So while I worked with old iMac and new MBP head-to-head I didnt saw such dramatic difference between them (but it definetly was). Most things that I afraid of is that 4K scaled to 2K will give some blur and perfomance impact so overall 'quality' will be less in comparing with native 2K resolution even if we keep in mind lower pixels density. And of course I understand that even 4K will be not so 'saturated' as internal display, for equal quality I need 5K resolution.

 

[Amethyst1]

Well, if you absolutely don’t mind the way text is rendered on a 27” 2560×1440 monitor, then one of these will not require any scaling with its downsides.

 

[venique]

That's true, but maybe there is something wrong with my eyes... anyway, I'll try to compare some 27" 2K with 27" 4K scaled to 2K and if last one will not give me some kind of blur or performance hit - choice is obvious. In other case 27" 2K will be my best.

 

[venique]

Can't calm with different of Retina and non-Retina, so I've took some photo. On top is iMac 27" 2K w/ native scaling (2560x1440), on the bottom is MBP 16" 2019 w/ "default" scaling (looks like 1792x1120). And yeah, difference is obvious but it is while comparing it head-to-head and I've took this photo right 10cm away from screens when in natural I sit about 1-1.5 meters away. But once again - difference is obvious.

Spoiler: Photo

So 4K is preferable if it will give better results that 2K (I mean without blur due scaling or some lags due perfomance issues).

Also, after some googling I've found that since Mojave release Apple depreceated AA (sub-pixeling) so after updating to macOS Mojave or later users get that ugly blur on all non-Retina screens (better say - non-Retina devices because it impacts even built-in screens). Meanwhile latest macOS on my iMac is High Sierra, so there is no such problem there but it seems if I'll somehow output image from MBP with Big Sur to iMac results will be even worse than you can see on photo. And it will be fair for any 3-rd party 27" 2K monitor right now.

So there is one more pro to 4K... it is seems nice to stick this post for every future doubting users.

 

[venique]

But must note that if I scale Safari window at iMac font became very smooth like on MBP for some reason:

Spoiler: Photo

 

[Amethyst1]

Also, after some googling I've found that since Mojave release Apple depreceated AA (sub-pixeling) so after updating to macOS Mojave or later users get that ugly blur on all non-Retina screens

That’s pretty much the whole point of going for “4K” or higher-resolution monitors on macOS, yep, to get some sort of decent font rendering.

 

[Fishrrman]

How about 32" size, 1440p native resolution? (2560x1440)
Dot pitch will be smaller than your current 27" 1080p display.
But large enough to see without enlarging text (from normal font sizes)...

 

[venique]

Actually, I'm already at 27" 2560x1440, not FullHD.

 

[Amethyst1]

So 4K is preferable if it will give better results that 2K (I mean without blur due scaling or some lags due perfomance issues).

That’s only possible at the pixel-perfect 1920×1080 HiDPI setting, which will be humongous on 27” and a downgrade in screen estate over your 27” iMac.

Face it, the only “perfect” no-downsides solution for pin-sharp 2560×1440 screen estate on macOS is a 5K monitor. There is no alternative. Sad but true.

 

[venique]

There is no alternative. Sad but true.

I truly agree and as I mentioned before I'm looking for the 'best' compromise.

That’s only possible at the pixel-perfect 1920x1080 HiDPI setting

That's why I'm interesting what I will get if scale to 2560, not to 1920.

Or, as alternative, which diagonal will fit better for 4K with 1920 HiDPI setting?

 

[Amethyst1]

That's why I'm interesting what I will get if scale to 2560, not to 1920.

I also have a 28.2" 3840×2560 monitor (same ppi as 27" "4K") scaled to 2560×1707. I can provide a photo so you may be able to see the slight blurriness. I don't notice any performance hit with my GPU, an AMD Radeon RX 460. The GPU in your MBP is more powerful than that so it may be fine for you too.

Or, as alternative, which diagonal will fit better for 4K with 1920 HiDPI setting?

Perfect: 21.5" [original LG UltraFine 4K: 4096×2304 for 2048×1152 HiDPI] for ≈220 ppi
Good: 23.6", 23.7" or 23.8" for ≈185 ppi [LIST]