32" or 27" for 4K?

[Sarah Hamilton]

Looking to get a new 4K monitor. What do you think is more suitable 32" or 27"? I'm currently on a 28". I've found these two displays, which are fairly reasonable in pricing at the moment:

Samsung ls27a700nwuxxu or Samsung LU32J590

Which one would you choose?

 

[duanepatrick]

When it comes to monitors, I will normally go for a higher refresh rate but seeing your choices, both are good enough.

Personally, I like bigger screens for me to see much of my work. I'd go for the 32" option. But make sure that you are also comfortable when facing big screens like me.

 

[Miat]

Looking to get a new 4K monitor. What do you think is more suitable 32" or 27"?

A major factor in that choice is the distance from which you usually view the screen.

I am rarely closer than about 600-700mm (2-2.5 feet) from the screen, and often further away than that (e.g. across the room on the couch watching movies). So around 140dpi equals 'retina' for me, which is a 32" 4K. If you usually sit closer a 27" is probably better for you.

 

[Sarah Hamilton]

When it comes to monitors, I will normally go for a higher refresh rate but seeing your choices, both are good enough.

Personally, I like bigger screens for me to see much of my work. I'd go for the 32" option. But make sure that you are also comfortable when facing big screens like me.

I am comfortable but my home office is tiny. I sit less at my desk.

A major factor in that choice is the distance from which you usually view the screen.

I am rarely closer than about 600-700mm (2-2.5 feet) from the screen, and often further away than that (e.g. across the room on the couch watching movies). So around 140dpi equals 'retina' for me, which is a 32" 4K. If you usually sit closer a 27" is probably better for you.

I think 27” it is. Is it a good monitor? I’m getting it offered to me for $360 including taxes and delivery. Through my employer.

 

[Miat]

Is it a good monitor?

Don't know anything about that particular monitor. Was just commenting on the size choice.

 

[marstan]

If cost were not much of concern, I would go for a 30-32". But, of course, they are twice as expensive as a comparable 27". As for brands, I go for quality which means EIZO, NEC or perhaps BENQ. They cost more but are of much higher quality and last a long time. I go for hardware calibratable models but they also make models less expensive but still high quality without that. As it happens I am waiting for delivery of a EIZO CS2740 (4K) to replace (or maybe supplement) my NEC LCD2690 which is 11 years old and still working well. (I am upgrading to get sharper text that is easier on the eyes, better color accuracy and some convenience features and at 11 years old there is a higher probability of failure.) To me a monitor is more important than the computer; sort of like lenses to camera bodies or speakers to electronics in audio.

 

[Amethyst1]

What do you think is more suitable 32" or 27"? I'm currently on a 28".

What do you want to accomplish by switching to a new monitor?
That 32" you linked to uses a VA panel, like many cheap 32" offerings. I'd only go for an IPS panel due to its better viewing angles. With that being said, the 28" you have now uses a TN panel with the absolute worst viewing angles, so even a VA panel will be an improvement.

 

[solitone]

I also don’t know whether I should get a 27 or a 32” for my MacBook Air M1. I would need it for productivity—writing docs, reading articles and surfing the Web, some coding, and editing videos and photos.

Some people say 27“ is better, but others say 32“ is the best bet. True, 27” has higher ppi, but in terms of scaling, what size works better in MacOS? I was leaning towards 27”, but then watched this video that confused me even farther:

He shows that many apps (e.g. Photoshop) don’t work well with scaling. So it would be safer to buy a bigger 32” screen and not use scaling at all (??)

 

[DFZD]

Here's something to help you decide -


Preference for Features based on Usage


Serious Gaming - Refresh Rate > Resolution > Display Size
Casual Gaming - Display Size >Refresh Rate > Resolution
Casual Mixed Use - Display Size > Resolution > Refresh Rate
Creative Work - Resolution > Display Size > Refresh Rate

As for panels OLED & IPS are better for everything except Serious Gaming.


As for me I have a LG Ultrafine 4k 27" for my MacBook Pro 14 and a LG QHD 27" (75hz) for my Casual Gaming Desktop.

 

[Amethyst1]

So it would be safer to buy a bigger 32” screen and not use scaling at all (??)

A 32" "4K" screen has a pixel density of 136 ppi, which makes text and UI elements a bit small without scaling. I can deal with that, but it depends on your eyesight and viewing distance. However, the main problem is that no scaling means no HiDPI modes, and text rendering has become awful in non-HiDPI modes on macOS unfortunately. Since you also have a HiDPI MBA to illustrate how good text can look like on macOS the difference in text rendering will be very obvious.

 

[Sarah Hamilton]

A 32" "4K" screen has a pixel density of 136 ppi, which makes text and UI elements a bit small without scaling. I can deal with that, but it depends on your eyesight and viewing distance. However, the main problem is that no scaling means no HiDPI modes, and text rendering has become awful in non-HiDPI modes on macOS unfortunately. Since you also have a HiDPI MBA to illustrate how good text can look like on macOS the difference in text rendering will be very obvious.

What size and resolution would you trofmmend for HiDPI?

 

[phrehdd]

If cost were not much of concern, I would go for a 30-32". But, of course, they are twice as expensive as a comparable 27". As for brands, I go for quality which means EIZO, NEC or perhaps BENQ. They cost more but are of much higher quality and last a long time. I go for hardware calibratable models but they also make models less expensive but still high quality without that. As it happens I am waiting for delivery of a EIZO CS2740 (4K) to replace (or maybe supplement) my NEC LCD2690 which is 11 years old and still working well. (I am upgrading to get sharper text that is easier on the eyes, better color accuracy and some convenience features and at 11 years old there is a higher probability of failure.) To me a monitor is more important than the computer; sort of like lenses to camera bodies or speakers to electronics in audio.

I have had EIZO, NEC, and presently BenQ. The BenQ does not handle hardware calibration and it does quite well by me. In fact, it came out of the factory spot on (PD2700U). Most people don't need to hardware calibrate unless they are more into photography and graphics meant for some sort of reproduction work. For day to day use, plenty of less costly alternatives and for gaming, the specs would be different based on a desire for high refresh rates and some monitors that work along with AMD or Nvidia graphics.

Btw, the reason I went with BenQ is that I do little photography and far more work dealing with image restoration which requires a much smaller colour space. If I did return to photography - all that you suggest would make absolute sense for me. (I still have my retired 24" NEC that was outstanding for its day).

 

[marstan]

I have had EIZO, NEC, and presently BenQ. The BenQ does not handle hardware calibration and it does quite well by me. In fact, it came out of the factory spot on (PD2700U). Most people don't need to hardware calibrate unless they are more into photography and graphics meant for some sort of reproduction work. For day to day use, plenty of less costly alternatives and for gaming, the specs would be different based on a desire for high refresh rates and some monitors that work along with AMD or Nvidia graphics.

Btw, the reason I went with BenQ is that I do little photography and far more work dealing with image restoration which requires a much smaller colour space. If I did return to photography - all that you suggest would make absolute sense for me. (I still have my retired 24" NEC that was outstanding for its day).

Yes, of course use case determines what monitor you should get. I do some photographic work but other work as well and the EIZO CS2740 will work as a general purpose monitor for that too except gaming which I have no use for. I assume people on mac forums don't generally do gaming so I don't take it into consideration.

 

[duanepatrick]

Serious Gaming - Refresh Rate > Resolution > Display Size
Casual Gaming - Display Size >Refresh Rate > Resolution
Casual Mixed Use - Display Size > Resolution > Refresh Rate
Creative Work - Resolution > Display Size > Refresh Rate

This is the shortest yet the most useful summary. I'll be using this from now if you don't mind.

 

[royas]

I am conflicted if there is even an advantage in using a 32-inch 4k monitor compared to a 27 inch one? By using a 32 inch 4K monitor you get less PPI and slightly larger UI elements. Moreover, as the resolution is the same you cannot show more content anyway.

 

[phrehdd]

I am conflicted if there is even an advantage in using a 32-inch 4k monitor compared to a 27 inch one? By using a 32 inch 4K monitor you get less PPI and slightly larger UI elements. Moreover, as the resolution is the same you cannot show more content anyway.

I work with a 27" monitor (4k) as I sit relatively close to the monitor. If I sat further, I would get a 32" 4k monitor. Not exactly sure how to explain this but hopefully this will make sense -

Viewing both monitors at the suggested distance for 27" monitors would likely have the 27" monitor looking better.
Viewing both monitors at the suggested distance for 32" monitors and both may look similar in resolution.
Viewing each at their own suggested distance should look very similar.

 

[Rashy]

27" since that offers perfect 220ish ppi Retina for 5K. So 4K is already a small compromise when opting for smooth HiDPI pixel doubling. With 4K at 32" everything would become even bigger, if you opt to keep the virtual 1920x1080p desktop space. Also, 27" needs less space on your desk and costs less money and it doesn't burden your neck as much at smaller viewing distances.

Typing this on my 5K iMac, which I plan to sell in favor of a new MBP + external monitor. Since 5K screens are super rare and I have set Mail and Safari zoom to 120% anyway, I should be fine with 4K at the same 27" space.

 

[marstan]

I bet a 220 ppi 27"5k display is great but I can't see any pixels on my 27" 4k 164 ppi screen run at 1080. I am sure if I had them side-by-side I could tell the difference but stand-alone the 4k looks (pixel) perfect. Now on a 27" 5k screen you would be running 1440 at integer scaling which might be a tad too small for text and icons?

PS: I just got back from the Apple Store and played with the 5k iMac. The default resolution is 5k native and, yes, the text and icons looked a little too small for me but one could live with it; very sharp as you would expect. So I imagine re-scaling to 1440 might look pretty good on it.

 

[Rashy]

Indeed, the 27" iMac scales 1440p at 5K and my preferred 27" monitor would scale 1080p at 4K, to preserve precise pixel doubling without blurriness or GPU penalty. And since some stuff is a bit too small for me right now, I won't mind the smaller virtual space in favor of bigger text and icons. On an even bigger screen like 32" it would start to look a bit silly though, unless you switch to an uneven scaled resolution (absolute no-go for me). Thus for pixel doubling 32" 4K is not a good choice. The Pro XDR sits perfectly here with 6K, but the price is a joke.

Now if there just would be a great 27" monitor with TB power delivery, good speakers and some additional ports rather than only TB/USB-C I would be very happy. So far I couldn't find one, stupid compromises everywhere (or crazy prices) ☹️

 

[DFZD]

Indeed, the 27" iMac scales 1440p at 5K and my preferred 27" monitor would scale 1080p at 4K, to preserve precise pixel doubling without blurriness or GPU penalty. And since some stuff is a bit too small for me right now, I won't mind the smaller virtual space in favor of bigger text and icons. On an even bigger screen like 32" it would start to look a bit silly though, unless you switch to an uneven scaled resolution (absolute no-go for me). Thus for pixel doubling 32" 4K is not a good choice. The Pro XDR sits perfectly here with 6K, but the price is a joke.

Now if there just would be a great 27" monitor with TB power delivery, good speakers and some additional ports rather than only TB/USB-C I would be very happy. So far I couldn't find one, stupid compromises everywhere (or crazy prices) ☹️

I have the LG 27" Ultrafine 4k Display. It does have USB-C but the Power Delivery is limited to 60W and the 2 USB-A ports are only good for a keyboard and mouse, and really nothing that draws power can by plugged in when your MacBook is charging.

But hey, at $500 it's great value.

 

[zerozoneice]

i use 27" 4K 144Hz in scaled (alt+scaled button) 2048x1152, it's a bit smaller than default 1080hidpi and larger than the next default option of 2560x1440. perfect combo for me.

i see no quality difference between 1080hidpi and this resolution, both look pretty sharp to me
probably if i take screenshots of text or icons in both resolutions and then zoom in to see the edge details, maybe yeah...then we can see something different

 

[Amethyst1]

probably if i take screenshots of text or icons in both resolutions and then zoom in to see the edge details, maybe yeah...then we can see something different

Screenshots won't show that since the UI elements are always rendered at the same size (200%). Different scaling options just change the size of the framebuffer macOS draws stuff on. You'd need actual photos of the monitor to see the difference.

 

[zerozoneice]

Screenshots won't show that since the UI elements are always rendered at the same size (200%). Different scaling options just change the size of the framebuffer macOS draws stuff on. You'd need actual photos of the monitor to see the difference.

there you go, thx.
only difference actually is that the app icons are more centered in the launchpad at 2048x1152, but who cares...

 

[teohyc]

I also don’t know whether I should get a 27 or a 32” for my MacBook Air M1. I would need it for productivity—writing docs, reading articles and surfing the Web, some coding, and editing videos and photos.

Some people say 27“ is better, but others say 32“ is the best bet. True, 27” has higher ppi, but in terms of scaling, what size works better in MacOS? I was leaning towards 27”, but then watched this video that confused me even farther:

He shows that many apps (e.g. Photoshop) don’t work well with scaling. So it would be safer to buy a bigger 32” screen and not use scaling at all (??)

I'm the guy who made that video.

Maybe the video is too long so here's my summary:

For 27-inch 4K displays, all UI scaling options will give you sharp looking UI elements.

However the zoom may not appear accurate with Photoshop with certain scaling options:

If you scale to 1080P or 4K (no scaling) workspace, Photoshop 100% zoom will show you a 1:1 pixel. That's the true representation of a 100% zoom.

If you use other scaling options, Photoshop 100% zoom will not show you 1:1 pixel. For example, a 1920px wide file zoomed at 100% WILL NOT BE half the physical width of your display (3840px wide). Go use a ruler to measure.

Happens with Affinity Photo too.

As a graphic designer, all I ask for is for Photoshop to show true 1:1 pixel representation at 100% zoom regardless of the UI scaling applied. Is that too much to ask for?