I suppose that such 4K or 5K monitors are good for those who play games and watch videos on their computers. Are they beneficial to programmers, writers, and academics who run Matlab, writer papers and design using CAD, occasional use of Illustrator and Photoshop? I suppose that unless the monitor is 32"-43", the letters in 4K and 5K monitors are too small for those who spend a lot of time writing programs, writing academic papers and serving the web. For a combination of uses (besides watching videos and playing games) mentioned above, is it actually better to get two 24-30 inches monitors at 1920x1200, 2560x1440 or 2560x1600?
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.
Actually who need 4K or 5K monitor?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not sure you understand how a Retina display works under macOS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display
The font doesn't get smaller, apple uses some trickery do make it the same size, but more "detailed"
Windows has a similar scaling option, although support is not as universal as macOS.
I went from a 30" 2560x1600 to 27" 4K running at 3200x1800 and I find the image on the 27" considerably crisper. While I'm sure there are many people who like working on two monitors, I don't like it at all and prefer a single monitor with lots of desktop real estate. So, I guess it's really personal preference whether you feel a single 4K monitor is better or two lower resolution monitors are...
Sure the combined resolution can be higher but I don't like having to work between two monitors. For example, trying to use a single window between the two monitors would result in the window being cut i half with the monitor bezels in the middle. Also, it would result in much more head turning.
Yes, there are benefits. The first time you see a 5K iMac next to even a good Ultra HD, QHD, or 4K monitor, you will not believe the difference. It's not the size of text that is different (Mac OS takes care of that), it's the amazing clarity and crispness of even the smallest detail. Every line and font on the page, no matter how small, is legible. I've found that my 27" Dell UltraSharp secondary monitor looks so relatively poor next to the 5K iMac primary screen that I avoid dragging anything but unimportant utility windows onto the Dell anymore. 5K is awesome and exceptional. I will never do development work without one again. My eyes thank me every minute.
No of course not resolution is the number of pixels in a set area. Total pixels and space would be bigger of course though. It will just be more space at a far lower resolution.
Higher resolutions provide far more detail far more precise rendering of the image, they are brilliant for text it's like reading print, they are great for photo and video editing giving far more precise control of the image. Generally they are just nicer in the eyes and brain to use.
I don't have a 4K or 5K monitor but I love the retina displays on my phone and iPad. I've said the same thing about TV resolutions and have read that it's impossible to see the difference between 720p and 1080p (not to mention 4K) from a distance of more than five feet. it seems to me that TV resolutions are mostly marketing hype just like megapixels was on cameras or wattage on stereo systems (you have to be a bit old to remember the Pioneer vs. Marantz competitions).
However, computer displays are a different thing. As I'm typing this, I'd guess that I'm about 24 to 30 inches away from my monitor. Resolution can definitely make a difference at this distance, so one of these days I'll get serious about looking for a nice 4K monitor if the prices drop a bit. For now my 24" 1920 x 1200 monitor will suffice.
However, computer displays are a different thing. As I'm typing this, I'd guess that I'm about 24 to 30 inches away from my monitor. Resolution can definitely make a difference at this distance, so one of these days I'll get serious about looking for a nice 4K monitor if the prices drop a bit. For now my 24" 1920 x 1200 monitor will suffice.
I've used two monitors at work for years, and I've never tried to straddle a single application across both of them. Typically I have one application per window active at a given time. I can't think of an advantage to needing a single application in a window that wide. (I don't even maximize browser windows - too big to be useful.)
It was an example for the OP on the difference between a single high resolution display vs two low resolution displays. I don't do it. I don't like using more than a single monitor.
I rarely watch videos and I never play games on my 5k iMac. But when I'm looking at text for 8-10 hours a day, the 5k iMac screen is indispensible. The characters are crisp and easy to read -- much, much more so than on my previous screen, a Dell U2711 (2560x1440). Absolutely no comparison.
If 5k monitors become widely available and not too expensive I might look at a different setup. But until they do, nothing can move me away from the 5k iMac.
If 5k monitors become widely available and not too expensive I might look at a different setup. But until they do, nothing can move me away from the 5k iMac.
High-resolution displays enhance text legibility more than image sharpness.
This is particularly beneficial to readers of logographic languages (Chinese, Japanese and others) as well as alphabets with more complex characters (Arabic) as well as readers of alphabet systems that have diacritic marks (characters like é or ü or ṭ).
Here's an easy test. Go visit www.nikkei.co.jp (a Japanese news site) with a non-Retina device (or other device with a conventional resolution screen) and a device with a Retina screen (or other high-res display). Even if you don't read Japanese, you can easily see the difference in character legibility.
This is particularly beneficial to readers of logographic languages (Chinese, Japanese and others) as well as alphabets with more complex characters (Arabic) as well as readers of alphabet systems that have diacritic marks (characters like é or ü or ṭ).
Here's an easy test. Go visit www.nikkei.co.jp (a Japanese news site) with a non-Retina device (or other device with a conventional resolution screen) and a device with a Retina screen (or other high-res display). Even if you don't read Japanese, you can easily see the difference in character legibility.
Last edited:
my retina iMac has an auxillary HD display (22 inches).
I like having that additional space for documents, youtube videos blown up to "full screen" and so on. But at the same time, it feels both cramped and low res. The 5K display, by contrast, feels luxurious.
Every so often, I visit art gallery and rare book library websites and marvel at the high resolution pictures. There's something about being able to see fine inked lines as fine inked lines and not just greyed out, antialiased approximations of the real thing.
I like having that additional space for documents, youtube videos blown up to "full screen" and so on. But at the same time, it feels both cramped and low res. The 5K display, by contrast, feels luxurious.
Every so often, I visit art gallery and rare book library websites and marvel at the high resolution pictures. There's something about being able to see fine inked lines as fine inked lines and not just greyed out, antialiased approximations of the real thing.
Last edited:
As a few others indicated, the 4K (or 5K) has nothing to do with viewing pictures or videos, or with screen real estate.
What is it good for? 4K/5K results in extremely crisp and clear text. Viewing code for 8 hours a day is significantly easier on 4K/5K than other monitors. I was surprised as I stayed away from 4K for a few years as I felt it would improve only pictures or video. I happened to sit down at a 4K monitor once, pulled up Xcode, then went out and bought a 4K monitor the same day.
What is it good for? 4K/5K results in extremely crisp and clear text. Viewing code for 8 hours a day is significantly easier on 4K/5K than other monitors. I was surprised as I stayed away from 4K for a few years as I felt it would improve only pictures or video. I happened to sit down at a 4K monitor once, pulled up Xcode, then went out and bought a 4K monitor the same day.
Windows 10 does a pretty decent job with the font scaling, but you run into occasional problems -- especially with older apps coded in Java. Java didn't support scaling for a long time, and when they added the feature? It was added as a "flag" you had to set to a 1 instead of a 0 in your source code before compiling it. Many people didn't do so -- so you find lots of little Java based applications and control panels in Windows that draw super-tiny on a 4K display, with no way to make them readable/usable, other than dropping your screen resolution entirely.
An interesting note though is that MacOS has issues with HDMI and 4K. I have a Mac Pro that runs 4K 60Hz on a 4K TV over HDMI 2.0 under Windows, but when I switch to MacOS it drops to 30Hz. So the machine is capable, but the OS is not.
Granted, serious professionals will us a 4k monitor and not a TV, but if you can run a TV at 4K 60Hz it looks just as good (assuming 4:4:4 support)
Three years ago I saw some 4K monitors on display in Japanese stores. The letters were too small to read even I was near the monitors. A year later, I saw an upgraded Eizo monitor. The letters were easy to read even it was the same size as the model before. I believe it was about 27". Do you mean the situation has improved?
And what might this flag be? I've run into this bug on some of my own java code, and it strains my eyes.
Thanks. Now I see the point of getting a 4K monitor. What about the reasons for getting a 5K monitor? Based on the answers, we see the clarity going from lower res monitors to 4K monitor. Can we tell the differences between 4K and 5K? Given that iPhone can shoot 4K rather than 5K videos, will we be able to see better quality videos when playing or editing 4K videos on a 5K monitor?
Consider two actual physical books.
One is an atlas. It's very large. 19 inches tall, 12 inches wide, and of course it's only useful when it's open-- 24 inches wide.
Along with the usual maps, the publishers have included photos of the earth taken from orbit, so yes, you can ooh and ah at the "resolution."
The other is a birding guide. It's fairly small. 7.7 inches tall, 4.2 inches wide. Inside are maps, and photos of birds. Now, the photos may look fairly spectacular. If the publisher and taken any care, they may be really high resolution. At the same time, though, two pages of the atlas are going to be more informative than two pages of the birding guide-- simply because the birding guide does not use a 4 point font and the atlas does not use a 36 point font (at least for body text)
The imac is designed to be the computer equivalent of an atlas. You can, if you choose to do so, display many more column inches of type, many more controls, many more emails, than you can with an macbook.
The 5k display came about because someone at Apple thought it would be a great idea to double the pixel size of a 2880x1440 display. If the iMac only displayed 4k, some people would come to believe that it was cramped. If it kept the old 2.5k display, some other users might think it didn't look as nice as an ipad, or a retina macbook pro. The only downside, and it is a serious issue, is that even the top end graphics card is less than half as powerful as it needs to be for 5k gaming^H^H^H^H^H^H workloads.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.