Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
30" plus monitor required
- Thread starter mac-jam
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have one of these https://www.amazon.com/LG-32UD59-B-32-Inch-LED-Lit-FreeSync/dp/B0748KJY4Q and I think it’s great.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
It's a fairly open ended question. Knowing a bit more would help provide better responses.
- Intended usage (Gaming and Photography have different requirements, general office/web browsing has lesser demands)
- Budget
- Desired resolution
- Aspect ratio
- Anything else (adjustable stand, thunderbolt connectivity, VESA mounting)
In the 32" (non-wide screen) form factor, 1440p is "the resolution to get".
It will yield considerably more "work space" than either 32" at 1080p or 32" at 4k (which "looks like" 1080p, but in "HiDPI mode").
If you go to an Apple Store and look at the default resolution on a 5k 27" iMac, that, too, "looks like" 1440p, but on a 27" display. I find text displayed at normal font sizes too small to be comfortable at that resolution (on a 27" display).
32" is essentially the same image, but "blown up" 5" diagonally. Again, it's "native, pixel-for-pixel" resolution, not HiDPI. But to my eyes, it looks better.
I'd consider 32" at 5k (looks like 1440p), but there doesn't seem to be any manufacturers putting out a display with these specs.
It will yield considerably more "work space" than either 32" at 1080p or 32" at 4k (which "looks like" 1080p, but in "HiDPI mode").
If you go to an Apple Store and look at the default resolution on a 5k 27" iMac, that, too, "looks like" 1440p, but on a 27" display. I find text displayed at normal font sizes too small to be comfortable at that resolution (on a 27" display).
32" is essentially the same image, but "blown up" 5" diagonally. Again, it's "native, pixel-for-pixel" resolution, not HiDPI. But to my eyes, it looks better.
I'd consider 32" at 5k (looks like 1440p), but there doesn't seem to be any manufacturers putting out a display with these specs.
Last edited:
I think monitors are personal as to what people want and like so you'll have to figure out what is important to you.
I had the 43" LG, but after a bit I decided that I think at that size a curved monitor would be better as the edges tended to go black which required me to move my head side to side to see the the edges. I now have the 38" Dell (U3818DW) curved monitor and love it. It is perfect for my workflow.
I had the 43" LG, but after a bit I decided that I think at that size a curved monitor would be better as the edges tended to go black which required me to move my head side to side to see the the edges. I now have the 38" Dell (U3818DW) curved monitor and love it. It is perfect for my workflow.
Then what you’re looking for is a high resolution monitor (2560x1440 or 2560x1600), not just a big display. A 32” monitor that’s 1920x1080 will be able to display the exact same content as a 22” at 1920x1080. 4k would just run in HiDPI mode so it’d look like 1920x1080 just very sharp.
I agree with Fishrrman. 32 inches at 2560x1440 (or x1600) has pretty much the same pixel size as 1920x1080 (or x1200) does at 24 inches. Run a 32 inch monitor at 2560x1440 and it's just like having your 24 inch Apple LCD display with almost half-again as much screen space. That's exactly what I am running on the workstation today. (BenQ BL3200PT.)
I have 3 ASUS VA32AQ 32 inch 2560x1440 monitors on my Man Mini 2018 and they work great. I previously used 2 of them alongside my iMac 5K as additional monitors and the third on the PC.
They are reasonably priced (about $300 US on Amazon when I bought them) and I have appreciated the performance to value of them for the couple years I have had them.
i use them during the day for work and at night for watching Netflix/Hulu/A-P etc. While I would not consider them for high-end gaming or video editing (neither of which I do) for work/web/TV they work fine.
They are reasonably priced (about $300 US on Amazon when I bought them) and I have appreciated the performance to value of them for the couple years I have had them.
i use them during the day for work and at night for watching Netflix/Hulu/A-P etc. While I would not consider them for high-end gaming or video editing (neither of which I do) for work/web/TV they work fine.
Like others have said, it's the resolution. Sort that first, and then let the size follow to an extent.
I've had a few QHD(BenQ and Viewsonic 27" 2560x1440) and UW-QHD displays (34" 3440x1440).
For me, the 27" were a good step up from a standard 1080P/similar-ranged 24-27" display, and while I love the 34" LG 3440x1440 (have had a couple of years now), for the size, it's lacking vertical resolution, so am likely moving to a 38" 3840x1600 'QHD+' screen. That may still not be 'nirvana' for what I do and how I use it, but it should be pretty close, letting me do 2 app windows vertically in some cases, while currently most apps I use don't fit well 2 up vertically, although I have plenty of room horizontally.
If you're used to running a 1080P display, consider 4K is effectively a 2x2 grid of those, so consider if that is really going to be what you want (running 4 app windows for example), and at what single display size you might need to make use of that. In other words, if you have the 'right' resolution for what you want to do (i.e. 4 maximized apps on current display concurrently), but you get too small of a display, you'll need to play with font sizes or scaling in order to make things work, and then may not get the desired benefit.
I'm somewhat torn myself between finding (if they even exist) a pair of 30" 4K or 2560x1600 displays to run without scaling, add a second 34" QHD to my current setup, the 38" QHD+, or a single large-but-not-ultrawide 4K or 5K display.
Define your usage and what you'd really like to do more of (display more apps 'full size' side by side might consider ultrawide displays), etc..
I've had a few QHD(BenQ and Viewsonic 27" 2560x1440) and UW-QHD displays (34" 3440x1440).
For me, the 27" were a good step up from a standard 1080P/similar-ranged 24-27" display, and while I love the 34" LG 3440x1440 (have had a couple of years now), for the size, it's lacking vertical resolution, so am likely moving to a 38" 3840x1600 'QHD+' screen. That may still not be 'nirvana' for what I do and how I use it, but it should be pretty close, letting me do 2 app windows vertically in some cases, while currently most apps I use don't fit well 2 up vertically, although I have plenty of room horizontally.
If you're used to running a 1080P display, consider 4K is effectively a 2x2 grid of those, so consider if that is really going to be what you want (running 4 app windows for example), and at what single display size you might need to make use of that. In other words, if you have the 'right' resolution for what you want to do (i.e. 4 maximized apps on current display concurrently), but you get too small of a display, you'll need to play with font sizes or scaling in order to make things work, and then may not get the desired benefit.
I'm somewhat torn myself between finding (if they even exist) a pair of 30" 4K or 2560x1600 displays to run without scaling, add a second 34" QHD to my current setup, the 38" QHD+, or a single large-but-not-ultrawide 4K or 5K display.
Define your usage and what you'd really like to do more of (display more apps 'full size' side by side might consider ultrawide displays), etc..
Anything of interest here? https://www.amazon.co.uk/deal/a82af...m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=P7QQF0ZMC2FZ62TCCBEW
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.