Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

doboy

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jul 6, 2007
3,768
2,940
For those of you using a 4K monitor with the MacBook, how does it look when you run it at 2560x1440 resolution? I don't want to patch my MacBook to run 4K @ 60Hz so I'm thinking about buying a 4K monitor (future proof) and running it at 2560x1440. I'm specifically thinking about buying the 27" LG 27UD88-W USB-C monitor. Thanks in advance for your input.
 

Hung_Solo

macrumors member
Apr 13, 2016
51
18
I recently purchased this monitor a few days ago and should have it by end of week hopefully. I'll let you know how it performs once I get my hands on it.
 
Last edited:

doboy

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jul 6, 2007
3,768
2,940
I recently purchased this monitor a few days ago and should have it by end of week hopefully. I'll let you know how it performs once I get to get my hands on it.
Thanks! Please let me know.
 

Dunbar

macrumors 6502a
Jun 25, 2010
557
114
Los Angeles, CA
OK I wasted $10 on Quickres for you :) 2560x1440 looks blurry on my 4K LG monitor. I didn't see any standard resolutions in Quickres other than native 4k that looked good. 1920x1080 pixel doubled (one of the stock options in OSX) looks best IMO. The patch is easy to do. Videos are pretty much unwatchable at 30Hz.
 

PatriotInvasion

macrumors 68000
Jul 18, 2010
1,643
1,048
Boston, MA
It's not going to look good. You're better off going with an affordable 2560x1440 native monitor and waiting out the 4K/5K limitations if you want to stick with a 12-inch MacBook. The Acer H7 has a USB-C input that will charge your MacBook simultaneously. Probably the best monitor out for 12-inch MacBook users right now. https://www.amazon.com/Acer-H277HU-kmipuz-27-Inch-speakers/dp/B01B64O3M4

Keep in mind, even 4K displays aren't "Retina" in the way Apple has chosen to define it for Macs. All Retina Macs are over 217 PPI. A 4K 27-inch monitor is only 163 PPI. 5K is where it's at.
 

doboy

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jul 6, 2007
3,768
2,940
OK I wasted $10 on Quickres for you :) 2560x1440 looks blurry on my 4K LG monitor. I didn't see any standard resolutions in Quickres other than native 4k that looked good. 1920x1080 pixel doubled (one of the stock options in OSX) looks best IMO. The patch is easy to do. Videos are pretty much unwatchable at 30Hz.
Oh, I hope your joking about spending $10. I thought you can just option click to change to that resolution. Thanks for letting me know.

It's not going to look good. You're better off going with an affordable 2560x1440 native monitor and waiting out the 4K/5K limitations if you want to stick with a 12-inch MacBook. The Acer H7 has a USB-C input that will charge your MacBook simultaneously. Probably the best monitor out for 12-inch MacBook users right now. https://www.amazon.com/Acer-H277HU-kmipuz-27-Inch-speakers/dp/B01B64O3M4

Keep in mind, even 4K displays aren't "Retina" in the way Apple has chosen to define it for Macs. All Retina Macs are over 217 PPI. A 4K 27-inch monitor is only 163 PPI. 5K is where it's at.
Thanks. I was thinking about getting that monitor, but Costco sold out at $399 :( Also I thought about getting 4K to "future proof." Maybe I should just get the Dell 3415W.
 

Dunbar

macrumors 6502a
Jun 25, 2010
557
114
Los Angeles, CA
I was actually thinking of giving Quickres a try before you posted. I heard that there aren't many options in OSX between pixel doubled 1080p, bigger text, and 4k which results in tiny text. Apparently Windows 10 gives you more options for scaling text and I will be using this monitor with my work issue Thinkpad as well. The extra pixels are not wasted. The pixel doubling results in sharper text (you'll have 4 pixels with 4K for every 1 pixel on 1080p.) Realize that most of us are running our 12" Macbook displays at a scaled resolution as well (1280x800 in my case.)
 

PatriotInvasion

macrumors 68000
Jul 18, 2010
1,643
1,048
Boston, MA
Oh, I hope your joking about spending $10. I thought you can just option click to change to that resolution. Thanks for letting me know.

Thanks. I was thinking about getting that monitor, but Costco sold out at $399 :( Also I thought about getting 4K to "future proof." Maybe I should just get the Dell 3415W.

I don't think 4K now is future proof. Just as 2560x1440 eventually became the standard resolution for 27" displays, so to will 5120x2880 5K. The industry is just waiting on DisplayPort 1.3 to be adopted by Intel chips and GPUs. Will be run over USB-C and/or Thunderbolt 3/USB-C ports.
 

doboy

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jul 6, 2007
3,768
2,940
I don't think 4K now is future proof. Just as 2560x1440 eventually became the standard resolution for 27" displays, so to will 5120x2880 5K. The industry is just waiting on DisplayPort 1.3 to be adopted by Intel chips and GPUs. Will be run over USB-C and/or Thunderbolt 3/USB-C ports.
I agree, but I really don't see MYSELF needing more than 4K in the foreseeable future.
 

Dunbar

macrumors 6502a
Jun 25, 2010
557
114
Los Angeles, CA
The problem with 5K is that I don't see those displays being affordable for another 2-3 years. That assumes the Macbook can drive them at 60Hz (which I doubt.) I will say that 4K videos are incredibly immersive if you sit close enough to this LG 27UD88-W display. I was watching a flying video shot with a helmet mounted camera and it almost felt like you were there.

And text scaling within browsers works pretty well using command +/- to adjust the size.
 

PatriotInvasion

macrumors 68000
Jul 18, 2010
1,643
1,048
Boston, MA
I agree, but I really don't see MYSELF needing more than 4K in the foreseeable future.

With HiDPI modes being what is commonly used with hi-res displays, "needing more than 4K" comes down to whether you prefer the 2560x1440 real estate provided by most 27" displays these days. HiDPI mode on a 4K display is only providing 1920x1080 of usable screen real estate.

The biggest difference between 4K and 5K is available screen real estate more so than crispness (although 5K will be noticeably more crisp to the naked eye the closer you sit).
[doublepost=1469587142][/doublepost]
The problem with 5K is that I don't see those displays being affordable for another 2-3 years. That assumes the Macbook can drive them at 60Hz (which I doubt.) I will say that 4K videos are incredibly immersive if you sit close enough to this LG 27UD88-W display. I was watching a flying video shot with a helmet mounted camera and it almost felt like you were there.

And text scaling within browsers works pretty well using command +/- to adjust the size.

The current MacBook can't drive 5K, but when/if it gets a Thunderbolt 3 compatible USB-C port, it should be able to. Maybe next year. Anyway. My only point is that now is still not a great time to invest in a monitor given 5K on the cusp of being more prevalent, and the transition to USB-C across desktop computing.
 

Dunbar

macrumors 6502a
Jun 25, 2010
557
114
Los Angeles, CA
The biggest difference between 4K and 5K is available screen real estate more so than crispness (although 5K will be noticeably more crisp to the naked eye the closer you sit).

True, it depends on what you're doing though. I actually think for horizontal real estate the ultra wide 21:9 monitors will be a better option once they get something comparable to 4K resolution.

The LG monitor has software that lets you equally parcel up the screen into two halves (thirds etc.) which fits two browsers nicely if you scale the text down. There's even an app that lets you run a PC and a Mac on the screen simultaneously on the monitor and control them using the same mouse/keyboard.
 

apb87

macrumors member
Apr 26, 2010
88
99
The sad part is that in Beta 3, a 2560x1440 hi res option appears after a fresh reboot, but goes away after a system sleep or if I reset the monitor. (LG 27UD88). I took a screenshot while it was enabled.

Also, I was never able to get this option to display with other 3rd party utilities either. The default 2560x1440 looks pretty terrible/pixelated.
 

Attachments

  • Hi res options.png
    Hi res options.png
    476.2 KB · Views: 764

doboy

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jul 6, 2007
3,768
2,940
The sad part is that in Beta 3, a 2560x1440 hi res option appears after a fresh reboot, but goes away after a system sleep or if I reset the monitor. (LG 27UD88). I took a screenshot while it was enabled.

Also, I was never able to get this option to display with other 3rd party utilities either. The default 2560x1440 looks pretty terrible/pixelated.
Is your rMB 60Hz patched? Did you try option-clicking on the scaled option under display setting? I purchased the 27UD88 this weekend when it was on sale at Fry's and have been playing with it on both non-patched 2016 m7 rMB and 2015 13" MBP. I have the option to run 2560x1440 hi res on MBP, but only low res 2560 on rMB using USB-C connection. Also my monitor starts flickering when I use the 2560 @ 60Hz on low res on rMB, but not at 4K @ 30Hz :(
Of course my MBP handles everything without an issue using mDP to DP connection.
 

apb87

macrumors member
Apr 26, 2010
88
99
Is your rMB 60Hz patched? Did you try option-clicking on the scaled option under display setting? I purchased the 27UD88 this weekend when it was on sale at Fry's and have been playing with it on both non-patched 2016 m7 rMB and 2015 13" MBP. I have the option to run 2560x1440 hi res on MBP, but only low res 2560 on rMB using USB-C connection. Also my monitor starts flickering when I use the 2560 @ 60Hz on low res on rMB, but not at 4K @ 30Hz :(
Of course my MBP handles everything without an issue using mDP to DP connection.

Yes, I installed the patch. Still not sure if it showing the hi-res (semi-retina 2560x1440 was a defect or feature). I'm updated to Beta 4 now to see if that option goes away completely, or maybe is consistently supported. 27 inches is pretty large for 1080p, retina or not. Big step down in real-estate from the Dell U3011 2560x1600 I stopped using because I couldn't find a charging + display port solution for under $200.
 

doboy

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jul 6, 2007
3,768
2,940
Yes, I installed the patch. Still not sure if it showing the hi-res (semi-retina 2560x1440 was a defect or feature). I'm updated to Beta 4 now to see if that option goes away completely, or maybe is consistently supported. 27 inches is pretty large for 1080p, retina or not. Big step down in real-estate from the Dell U3011 2560x1600 I stopped using because I couldn't find a charging + display port solution for under $200.
Maybe try third-party app like Quickres?
 

doboy

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jul 6, 2007
3,768
2,940
Finally got the monitor and I am currently running at 1920x1080 (HiDPI) at 60hz. I did use the patch to get the 60hz and I haven't seen any noticeable issues so far.
Thanks for the update. I also got mine over the weekend.
 

Hung_Solo

macrumors member
Apr 13, 2016
51
18
Thanks for the update. I also got mine over the weekend.

Are you experiencing any stuttering/screen tearing when watching a video/movie with the monitor? I highly doubt it has anything to do with the patch/MacBook and more about my settings on the monitor.
 

doboy

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jul 6, 2007
3,768
2,940
Are you experiencing any stuttering/screen tearing when watching a video/movie with the monitor? I highly doubt it has anything to do with the patch/MacBook and more about my settings on the monitor.
I haven't watched too much video on it yet. Also I'm running 4K at 30Hz.
 

omarojo

macrumors newbie
Mar 13, 2018
7
3
It's not going to look good. You're better off going with an affordable 2560x1440 native monitor and waiting out the 4K/5K limitations if you want to stick with a 12-inch MacBook. The Acer H7 has a USB-C input that will charge your MacBook simultaneously. Probably the best monitor out for 12-inch MacBook users right now. https://www.amazon.com/Acer-H277HU-kmipuz-27-Inch-speakers/dp/B01B64O3M4

Keep in mind, even 4K displays aren't "Retina" in the way Apple has chosen to define it for Macs. All Retina Macs are over 217 PPI. A 4K 27-inch monitor is only 163 PPI. 5K is where it's at.

So bottom line.
1- What monitor can we buy where we can set 2560x1440p HiDPI @60hz using our macbook pros (I have mid-2014)

2- Does it mean that any 4k monitor will look awful in macbooks pro ?

I bought the LG 27UD88, and Im extremely disappointed. I had to force 1440p@60hz using SwitchResX and it looks awful. The native automatic resolution suggested by the system is 1920x1080 HIDPI at miserable 30Hz and still it looks not so good.

Like honestly.. my old obsolete Apple LED Cinema Display 24inch looks beaaaaautiful at 1920x1200 and so bright, like half the LG monitor.
I mean.. why did I spent my money in a 4k monitor that looks soooooo bad when all reviews online say is the best 4k monitor for macbooks. damn it.

I just want 1440p@60hz HiDPI where text looks great. and is big enough to read. :(

Thank you all in advance, Im almost crying of anger.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.