Thanks. What do you think of the HP Pavilion 32 32-inch Display?
I haven't bought monitors for a long time. In the past, I only bought from NEC, Samsung, HP and Eizo due to their high quality. It looks like these days, monitors from LG, Philips and Dell are ok as well. How about BenQ, Asus, and the rest? Which brands shall we stay away from?
What will happen driving a 4K monitor at a lower resolutions, say 2560x1600, supported by MBP 2010 17"? Things look fuzzy and ugly?
I'll offer again that you think outside the boxes that many of think in, relative to displays, as I have in the past but I educated myself and both no longer have issues with my displays and am more satisfied with my display content (as are my 30 employees!).
Building on phairphan's advice, there's one key bit that most miss - including my past self: throughput of each channel, and that makes a big difference IMO. Think of it this way, you need to water a lawn - would you rather use a hose the size of a drinking straw or one that's 1" in diameter?
Accell, Belkin, Matrox, Eizo, and StarTech list the throughput of their cables while most manufacturers of adapters/cables don't. Those 5 companies are on the DisplayPort product portal for certified products - "certified" is not "compatible", like cheap products made by Monoprice claim and I found this bit out the hard way by spending plenty of money on displays and wondering why my Eizo displays were the only ones working perfectly for years…
The Accell adapter I called out is rated for the maximum throughput for DP 1.2, and it works wonders with the HDMI 2.0-rated displays/monitors in my offices. I also use Accell aftermarket cables for my displays that don't ship with cables made by manufacturers that go through the certification process (both Dell and HP ship with COXOC-made crap that's been binned). To the point, I see resolutions with Accell and Belkin cables in the Displays Pref Pane that weren't showing up with non-certified cables (I've waxed on about this elsewhere in these forums).
I'm buying Macs/PCs and displays this year for both myself and my companies with the hopes of focusing on the new USB-C port but knowing that HDMI 2.0 would better bridge the "gap" with excellent throughput and color gamut. Commenting on the BenQ 32 inch display, I'll recommend passing on it despite owning a few - it's an older display with HDMI 1.4 as are most Dell displays, they're stuck in the past IMHO. With your older MBP, that active adapter will help you bridge a gap of buying a display for your future. If I wanted to work in 4k, a 32 inch display would be the smallest display I would consider; that 43 inch Philips monitor is in two of my offices and it's pretty stunning for general work and presentations when connected to a Mac/PC with that Accell adapter - 4k at 60Hz.
Keep in mind, for your research, that it's not just one data protocol that makes things "work" here. Accell has addressed data conversion and throughput in a $40 adapter. I, too, lean on Eizo and NEC when I need "perfect" output. I've been happy with BenQ since they own the panel manufacturer, their professional panels are very, very good. I'm not keen on LG's consumer products, opting to spend a few more bucks for their business products that also increase the relevant warranty from 1 year to 3 years, but I'll likely not invest in LG displays anytime soon as all of the displays I've purchased over 3 years has been returned/exchanged. Cheers!
