4K Monitor Choice for new Mac Pro - 24" or 32"

ammentorp

macrumors newbie
Original poster
May 21, 2014
1
0
Hi guys


I have just ordered a new Mac Pro. Next step is to find a suitable monitor. I decided to go for 4K and and I want a high quality monitor for photo retouching and a little bit of video editing (including 4k video).

I found that the Dell UP3214Q or Dell UP2414Q looks like good choices.

I think that 32" sounds like a enormous monitor size. And I wonder if it's too big? It also has to be used for a lot of basic tasks like email, internet browsing etc. On the other hand I think 24" is a bit in the small end. But maybe 2 x 24" inch 4K monitors would be the solution? That gives you the flexibility to turn off one of the monitors when it's not needed.

So I have to decide. Should I go for one 32" screen or two 24" screens?

Any experiences with these monitors? Any experience on working with 32" monitors vs dual 24" inch monitors?

I have browsed 100+ webpages to hear peoples experience with this. But it's not easy to find - since these monitors are pretty new on the market.

Hope to find some advice in here!


Best regards,
Ammentorp
 

flowrider

macrumors 603
Nov 23, 2012
5,924
2,223
^^^^Since the resolution is the same (3840 x 2160) you won't get anymore on screen information from the 32" over the 24". The information will just be larger on the 32" display. And, to me at least, it's disappointing that they are 16:9 aspect ratio. My personal preference is 16:10.

Lou
 
Comment

michael_aos

macrumors 6502
Jan 26, 2004
250
0
I'm looking at the Dell UP3214Q also. Best price I've seen so far is $2179.99.

Are there any other displays I should be looking at?

The LG Ultrawide 34UM95 Thunderbolt 2 display sounds interesting too.
--
 
Comment

The Doctor11

macrumors 603
Dec 15, 2013
5,922
1,334
New York
I think you should save the money and go with the 24 inch. Thats pretty big. But if you feel you want bigger just go with the 32 inch
 
Comment

thefredelement

macrumors 65816
Apr 10, 2012
1,142
559
New York
I really like the idea of that LG, no 4k refresh rate issues and a ton of space... hmm.. thanks for sharing.

I'm looking at the Dell UP3214Q also. Best price I've seen so far is $2179.99.

Are there any other displays I should be looking at?

The LG Ultrawide 34UM95 Thunderbolt 2 display sounds interesting too.
--
 
Comment

flowrider

macrumors 603
Nov 23, 2012
5,924
2,223
I think you should save the money and go with the 24 inch. Thats pretty big. But if you feel you want bigger just go with the 32 inch
I'm really not sure what your adding to the party here. We all know a 32" is physically bigger than a 24", but again, the content on the display is exactly the same as the 24" monitor.

Lou
 
Comment

Jim-H

macrumors member
Dec 31, 2013
42
1
How about a 28" monitor, not gargantuan like the 32" but with better visibility, ie larger fonts etc than the 24".
I would hardly call 32" gargantuan. There are many users that have 3 or 4 30" monitors on their desk.

I'm waiting for a 40" 4K so I can use all the real estate. I could care less for a retina style 4K.
 
Comment

dagamer34

macrumors 65816
May 1, 2007
1,359
101
Houston, TX
Large single monitor vs. dual monitor pretty much comes down to the work you do with it. I've never done any video editing but Photoshop is largely a single screen endeavor (unless you need to reference something). But boy, that 32" monitor is pretty expensive, even if you can find it for $2.1k. Dual-monitors are of course a no brainer for anyone doing web or mobile development due the number of code windows and browsers you need open + reference docs. And you can probably get 2 UP2414Q monitors for $1700-1800 total.
 
Comment

evilpaddy

macrumors regular
Aug 2, 2012
119
0
I use an 8c nMP outputted to two 2013 27" iMacs for the work the OP posted. I'd love a higher resolution display as the transition from my rMBP has proven difficult. That being said, I find working on the two screens quite difficult. You have to be far enough back to actually find the periphery easily readable without craning your neck or twisting in your chair. It's nice to have two displays as PS is optimised for one which allows reference and other material to be on the other. I do however find that I sit squarely in front of the left side or else I naturally stare at the join in the middle.

I think two (or 3 :)) 24" would be more manageable or a single larger display with more effective screen estate. I would not opt for a larger panel with the same resolution. That being said, my needs will be different to others....
 
Comment

Raddock

macrumors member
Jul 7, 2008
58
7
Houston
Hi guys


I have just ordered a new Mac Pro. Next step is to find a suitable monitor. I decided to go for 4K and and I want a high quality monitor for photo retouching and a little bit of video editing (including 4k video).

Best regards,
Ammentorp
What did you end up getting?
 
Comment

The Doctor11

macrumors 603
Dec 15, 2013
5,922
1,334
New York
Wants advice=So I have to decide. Should I go for one 32" screen or two 24" screens?

Any experiences with these monitors? Any experience on working with 32" monitors vs dual 24" inch monitors?

Wants advice=Hope to find some advice in here!
My advice=I think you should save the money and go with the 24 inch. Thats pretty big. But if you feel you want bigger just go with the 32 inch
Complety off topic bullsh** comment=Which wasn't relevant really.
OP said they needed to decide and they wanted advice. I provided my advice.
 
Comment

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
115
Vancouver, BC
Hi guys


I have just ordered a new Mac Pro. Next step is to find a suitable monitor. I decided to go for 4K and and I want a high quality monitor for photo retouching and a little bit of video editing (including 4k video).

I found that the Dell UP3214Q or Dell UP2414Q looks like good choices.

I think that 32" sounds like a enormous monitor size. And I wonder if it's too big? It also has to be used for a lot of basic tasks like email, internet browsing etc. On the other hand I think 24" is a bit in the small end. But maybe 2 x 24" inch 4K monitors would be the solution? That gives you the flexibility to turn off one of the monitors when it's not needed.

So I have to decide. Should I go for one 32" screen or two 24" screens?

Any experiences with these monitors? Any experience on working with 32" monitors vs dual 24" inch monitors?

I have browsed 100+ webpages to hear peoples experience with this. But it's not easy to find - since these monitors are pretty new on the market.

Hope to find some advice in here!


Best regards,
Ammentorp
4K on less than 32" is going to necessitate using a retina-style HiDPI setting to read any text or use the UI which means you're not running native resolution. It will look great, no doubt, but you're not going to get usable 4K desktop real-estate on a monitor less than 32". Even at 32" you're going to have to be sitting pretty close to not have to squint.

If you must buy now, the Dell UP3214Q offers a better backlight with wider colour gamut than the Asus or Sharp displays using the same panel.

However, if you can wait (which is what I plan to do). AU Optronics has a 32" IPS 4K panel in the works that will offer better specs and possibly a lower price point. ASUS has already announced a product based on this panel but it's not expected to ship until later in the year.
 
Comment

scoobeesnac

macrumors member
Mar 4, 2014
44
4
However, if you can wait (which is what I plan to do). AU Optronics has a 32" IPS 4K panel in the works that will offer better specs and possibly a lower price point. ASUS has already announced a product based on this panel but it's not expected to ship until later in the year.
The 27" is on it's way too - rumoured to be the next iMac screen, hopefully a separate Apple Display too...
http://www.panelook.com/M270QAN01.0_AUO_27.0_LCM_overview_20793.html

Let's just hope the new screens have good backlight/colour uniformity unlike the 4k screens (and iMac 27") so far! :(
 
Comment

TechGod

macrumors 68040
Feb 25, 2014
3,171
871
New Zealand
OP said they needed to decide and they wanted advice. I provided my advice.
Not off-topic at all. Your post just simply wasn't relevant, you didn't provide an sort of reasoning other than it's cheaper and the 32" is bigger.

Both of which are obvious hence my comment.
 
Comment

Moonjumper

macrumors 68020
Jun 20, 2009
2,164
1,830
Lincoln, UK
How about a 28" monitor, not gargantuan like the 32" but with better visibility, ie larger fonts etc than the 24".
The 28" 4K monitors are a nice size, and a much lower price, but the TN panels make them unsuitable for the photo and video work the OP will be using them for.

I have transitioned to a dual monitor set up, but would prefer one larger monitor, so I would go with the 32" and probably use one of the scaling resolutions most of the time, with options to switch around at that size.
 
Comment

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,772
1,641
The 27" is on it's way too - rumoured to be the next iMac screen, hopefully a separate Apple Display too...
How is this IPS with view angles of 89 degrees? This looks to be in the similar class as the 28" TN UHD panels that are already out. Cheaper, but not particularly upper percentile quality screens.

At least in that spec, the "hyper viewing angle" (HVA) characteristic is relative to TN panels.... not IPS.


Let's just hope the new screens have good backlight/colour uniformity unlike the 4k screens (and iMac 27") so far! :(
With the reduced view angle, just sit directly in front of it.


P.S. Looks like the specs on that page are a bit off.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/30.htm#auo_panels

It is 178 in tftcentral's spec collection.
 
Last edited:
Comment

The Doctor11

macrumors 603
Dec 15, 2013
5,922
1,334
New York
Not off-topic at all. Your post just simply wasn't relevant, you didn't provide an sort of reasoning other than it's cheaper and the 32" is bigger.

Both of which are obvious hence my comment.
I said "that's pretty big" so my reasoning was the 24" was big enough
 
Comment

Cindori

macrumors 68040
Jan 17, 2008
3,523
369
Sweden
4k becomes too small at 24". I find it extremely hard to read websites without pressing my face up against the screen.

Just look at how ridiculously small the icon text is on this 24" display:



I'd get two 24" and run them in HiDPI instead.
 
Comment

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,195
4k becomes too small at 24". I find it extremely hard to read websites without pressing my face up against the screen.

Just look at how ridiculously small the icon text is on this 24" display:
That problem is true in Windows (where you can resize some elements but not others). Is is NOT true in Mac OS X.

Mac OS X (as of 10.9.3) treats 4k displays as retina displays, like a retina MBP. That gives you a "normal sized" 24" UI at super-sharp 2x high-DPI--very readable and nice on the eyes. Or it gives you your choice of scaled modes that offer extra real estate (and still sharper than normal, just not perfect 2x).

Basically, choose 24" if you want sharpness and clarity, or cost savings. Choose 32" if you plan to use 1x and want maximum workspace.

(Choose 28"... never! Those displays have poor color, poor viewing angles, and pixels that are too small for 1x use, yet too big for 2x retina use. Then again, they are dirt cheap and have low lag for gamers. But as a gamer, I don't notice the 24" Dell's lag anyway. It feels very minor.)

The UP2414Q I just bought looks great at 2x! (Except for glow in the lower corners on black images--but I'm already noticing that less.) Just don't forget to enable 60Hz, which makes your mouse movement much smoother.
 
Comment

mikaella

macrumors newbie
Mar 22, 2008
20
0
London
Hi guys



Hi,

I have had both these monitors. First, I went for the 24" because of the price. I found that it's an excellent monitor, with beautiful color reproduction, pretty good and even backlight, but really only usable in HighDPI aka 1080p Retina. Everything looked gorgeous, but, then again there isn't more real estate than on a normal 1080p screen, everything is just way sharper. Just take any rMPB as reference. You could use "scaled" modes and simulate something like 2560x1440 but in my experience it's a bit laggy and not as razor sharp as 1080p retina, still very nice image though. To me it seems completely unusable in its native resolution.

So, I have exchanged it for the 32".

The good: It's gorgeous(*) and big(ish). At the size, the UHD resolution is bearable. We're dealing with 140 dpi: text and menus are not what i'd call a pleasure to read, but very sharp and nice. I have very good eyesight, but still have to go at times much closer to the screen as normal. Again, I could use scaled resolutions but don't like the hit on performance. 2560x1440 and 3200 x 1800 look very good at the size.

There's also the issue of some Applications not being optimised for high DPI, so they will look fuzzy at any scaled resolution, as will most websites.

To use 4K I've had to adjust my entire workflow. Magnify font sizes in all apps where possible, render pages in the browser at 150%, and so on. Once you get used to it and find your perfect setup, it's (mostly) a joy to use.

I've had absolutely no driver or compatibility issues on OS X 10.9.3 with any of these displays, both work run great at 60Hz.

(*) Must say that I had to return 2 UP3214Q's. The first had some dead pixels, the second a serious vertical banding issue. Third time was a charm tough.

I think one should get these displays only from a dealer with a good return policy.
 
Comment

Similar threads

  • MisterAndrew
16
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Golfmusician
5
Replies
5
Views
525
  • ScreenSavers
17
Replies
17
Views
1K
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.