Apple's Studio Display vs. Dell's Latest $655 27-Inch UltraSharp Monitor

[theluggage]

There's no "Retina Display Consortium" comprised of independent reviewers or engineers who have collectively determined an industry standard measurement for declaring a display as "Retina".

But there is an accepted standard for human visual acuity, which is the basis of the "retina display" claim.

Visual acuity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...which is that a human eye with 20/20 (or 6/6 in metric) can separate details separated by an angular distance of 1 arc minute. That equates to 1.75mm at 6 metres (20 feet - the basis of "20/20" aka "6/6" vision) or 1/300" at 12" (the basis of the "retina display" claim for the iPhone 4 - see also the use of 300dpi as the 'standard' for acceptable print quality although, to be fair, Apple also had their fingers in that pie with the original LaserWriter).


...and it's an angle so it depends on both the PPI and typical distance from the screen, which is why it can be ~300 ppi for a phone at 12", ~220 ppi for a laptop - typically viewed from a bit further away - and ~160ppi for 27" display viewed at 22".

So, yes, there is a simple and objective bit of math you can do to work out whether the angular size of a pixel on a particular display is less that 1 arc minute at a given viewing distance:

angle (radians) = 1/(ppi*viewing distance)​

multiply by (180*60)/Pi to get angle in arc minutes​

...less than 1 means it is "retina".​

Whether that literally translates to "can't see the pixels" is a bit more slippery. What it really says is that beyond that limit you couldn't visually separate (say) two lines 1 pixel apart (that one is easy to try at home) - and the human brain can do all sorts of visual processing tricks up to and including just plain making stuff up. Then there's the issue of how well different people's eyes focus at different distances, let alone how it interacts with your varifocal glasses... But it's a pretty good rule of thumb that, at less than 1 arc minute per pixel, you're going to see rapidly diminishing returns from cramming in more pixels.

Of course, it's also worth remembering that the Apple displays have better colour gamut, contrast and brightness than a lot of cheaper 4k displays - including that bonded glass/optical coating c.f. the cheaper matte anti-glare coating that even the LG 5k display doesn't match - which will all affect your perception of the quality. Expensive display is nicer - shock horror - and apparently, if you stand far enough away, you can't see the difference between $1600 and $700...

 

[theluggage]

Billy sits as far from his display as Tim Apple tells him to. Billy is a good, unquestioning Apple customer.

Billy understands basic math and physics.

 

[mousekiks]

The Dell is rated for HDR400. That kind of just means that it won’t choke on HDR material but, as the review points out, the dynamic range is insufficient in those brighter levels and it just gets washed out.

Just pointing out the error, not the quality of HDR on the Dell display. The fact of the matter is that the Studio display doesn't support HDR content. Although, I would argue there are monitors in the sub-$1000 market that are great at HDR content. It's just disappointing what Apple did with the Studio display in my opinion.

 

[Joestanxx]

Personally, I would like a 6K 27” monitor. I have a 4K 27” LG IPS display (which cost me $300k and has an awful ‘HDR 400’ mode that is better never used) and putting it in ‘scaled 1440p’ doesn’t give me enough workspace, I need more than that. Scaling it a notch higher to 6k-like is nice but blurry. Oh and it would need to be OLED, have Atmos speakers and cost 1k. See you in twenty years?

you spend $300,000 on a display?

 

[Joestanxx]

It's only 60hz, should be minimum 90hz. I'd pass for that reason alone.

so is the studio display

 

[jakey rolling]

yes I have banned my team for asking for the workplace dell latitudes as they are unreliable rubbish. Our allowed alternative is less unreliable HP dragonflies.

Funny, Dell's have proven to be incredibly reliable in my experience.

I've worked in the same office with a team of 25 other consultants for 15 years. In that entire time we've used Dell Latitude and Precision laptops (only one Precision model was used, and that was because the Lats were in transition at the time). In that time, I've seen maybe six laptops experience some kind of hardware failure (most of them were very minor). We replace laptops every 3 years, so that's basically six out of about 75 laptops that had "some kind" of failure in that time period. Some of those failures were user-caused (in one case, a consultant ran over his laptop bag with a pickup truck). All were repaired under warranty within two days.

I have clients who run Apple shops. Their failure rate is far, far higher. Based on what I've seen anecdotally, had we been using Macbooks, we probably would have hit six failed laptops in a group of 25 within the first ten years - especially the most recent ten years. And we would have paid at least 50% more for them for the privilege.

And as far as service goes, Apple doesn't even hold a candle to Dell. I personally have had six Dell laptops in those 15 years. I've had one failure (a USB port died on my Precision M3800 - definitely a non-critical failure). I had a technician on-site during my lunch hour the next day for a motherboard swap. Resulted in about a half hour of actual downtime. Apple's reliability and support don't even come close to what Dell offers in corporate environments.

Can't speak to how well HP laptops work in a corporate environment, but my daughter has one for school and she absolutely loves it. We have used HP servers, and they've been very good as well with similar support plans as Dell offers. A lot of that will be moot in the next couple of years anyway, as we are likely going to go completely serverless in the next couple of years.

 

[blazerunner]

so is the studio display

LOL, that one in that case is an EASY pass. How do you charge two grand for a monitor at 60hz? LOL, only Apple could do that and ONLY Apple consumers are incapable of seeing how terrible of a value that is and buy it.

 

[jakey rolling]

Billy understands basic math and physics.

If Billy understood math, I doubt Billy would be spending $1700 on a 27" monitor.

 

[jakey rolling]

Of course, it's also worth remembering that the Apple displays have better colour gamut, contrast and brightness than a lot of cheaper 4k displays

Yes. But it is also worth remembering that "cheaper" 4k displays go for around $300 these days. There are a lot of Sub-$800 4k monitors that have incredibly good colour gamut, contrast, and brightness.

 

[carlosandresh]

Studio display doesn’t support HDR…

And I believe also cannot switch between inputs like the UltraSharp...

 

[jakey rolling]

And I believe also cannot switch between inputs like the UltraSharp...

That is correct - there is only one input on the ASD.

 

[theluggage]

If Billy understood math, I doubt Billy would be spending $1700 on a 27" monitor.

If Billy is making $$$/hour sitting in front of his computer 10 hours a day he might quite reasonably decide to spend $6000 for a Pro XDR rather than compromising. Some people pay that for a pair of sneakers. Others want to know how much of a compromise settling for a 4k display will be.

 

[Freyqq]

For the price of the Dell, you could add a $200 speaker bar and a $200 4k webcam and still come out cheaper with better quality on both. The Dell has a USB hub and audio in on the monitor, so while there would be a couple extra wires it would all work the same for the mac. As for the monitor quality, you're trading less pixels for HDR, so depends what you want. If you're watching movies, then HDR and 4k is better as all the content is 4k anyways. If you want sharper text, then the 5k wins but at any reasonable viewing distance you won't see the pixels regardless.

Personally, I use a 24" 4k monitor and a 28" 4k monitor and both look very sharp from a normal viewing distance.

 

[citysnaps]

If you're not fussy about image quality, resolution, color gamut, etc, and only surf the web, email, watch YouTube vids, simply buy a Dell, Sanyo, or whatever. And save a lot of money.

If your livelihood involves creative endeavors where image quality matters, spend the extra money and purchase a better display.

Better image quality costs more money. Astonishing so many people are shocked about that relationship.

 

[SSDGUY]

I have been using TVs and monitors as screens since the early 80ties and I have never raised or lowered any of them. At work I don't have a specific place to sit and just use desks that are available. There are numerous different monitors with regards to sizes, types and how low or high they are. I just use the monitor the way it is if I need it.

I'm not sure I would now how to rise or lower a monitor since I have never done it.

Since I've suffered neck issues most of my years, having the center of my display at eye level while looking straight ahead gives me the most comfortable experience. I've had my current 27" iMac on an 8" high stack of books since day one. It works fine, but I'm looking forward to a less cluttered desk and an easier way to rotate with my newest display purchase.

 

[Zigman]

Just a word of warning for people going from Apple devices to Dell, the build quality and QC is not very good with Dell. I tried two different U2723QE's and both had very bad uniformity and backlight bleed and one actually had some weird coloration seen on a black screen in the middle towards the bottom (a reddish patch when on). The panel does not have much protection down in the back where the ports are located. Literally one of the monitor had a different tint on one half of the screen vs. the other.

Also, be wary of the reviews that say blacks are amazing. The combination of IPS glow and backlight bleed made the blacks look horrible on the two I tried. If you get lucky and get a perfect panel it may be great.

On the positive side I tried them both on my MacBook Pro 16" and PC desktop and they both worked well. I just didn't trust the monitor for long term use after all these issues, so I switched to a LG 27GP950 for use primarily on my PC and it's fantastic. Only issue I can see for some is that it has an aggressive design geared more for gamers with styling, RBG LEDs, etc. Otherwise it has decent colors/uniformity and an amazing 144Hz+ refresh rate, but still has IPS glow like most IPS monitors.

 

[Tagbert]

Yes, but as mentioned before by myself and others, it is blurry. Windows' scaling is tack sharp at any fractional scaling level, macOS isn't, sadly.

True, but the given the poor sizing of 1080 on 27", the 1.5x scaling of 1440 is only slightly less sharp than 5k 1440. if you don't have a 5K next to it, it won't be too hard to live with. it mainly makes a difference at very small font sizes.

 

[Tagbert]

Yup. If you're not fussy and use your computer for surfing the web, email, word processing, spreadsheets, etc., a low cost/resolution display is fine.

If you're doing something creative such as editing image files or processing video, where display quality/resolution/color gamut/etc is meaningful and critical, then naturally you'll pay more money for a much better display. Because you care, the differences are major, and you're fussy.

I have a 2012 27" iMac and a late 2015 27" 5K iMac. Putting them side by side it's immediately obvious my 5K iMac display is far superior.

There's no secret about that.

It matters for text but if you are editing video, the difference between 4k and 5k is pretty minimal. The continuous tones, the movement, and noise between frames will obscure the slight difference in sharpness. for text it can make a difference between legibility at small font sizes.

 

[SSDGUY]

This'll do me.

Hoping the remaining current XDR stock will go out the door for cheap(er).

 

[QuantumDot]

Much better than the panel in your 27" from 2010

Much better means sharper image and better colors, right? I am thinking of buying this for my newly purchased MacBook Pro as external display. It will work like my iMac, right? Thanks!

edit -- people are talking about retina. Does 'retina' mean anything? or is it just marketing? thanks!

 

[jakey rolling]

I tried two different U2723QE's and both had very bad uniformity and backlight bleed and one actually had some weird coloration seen on a black screen in the middle towards the bottom (a reddish patch when on).

Also, be wary of the reviews that say blacks are amazing.

"Ignore all the reviews out on the net - my review is the only one that's real."

 

[mkrgoede]

Wow what a Apple fanboy like article...

The Dell features a better contrast ratio of 2000:1 vs 1100:1 on the Studio Display, has a better reaction time, supports KVM Switch, HDR, has more ports available and is a 1000 USD less in purchase price. You can buy two of these for one Studio Display. Yes it does have 218ppi vs 163 ppi on the Dell but for a large consumer group that is not needed.

The Studio Display is just a fail from Apple. I looked at it at launch and was excited but when I saw the specs and price I was disappointed like crazy.

 

[pshufd]

I have the Dell U2718Q and Dell U2720Q models.

I paid $448 for one U2718Q, $368.31 for the other, and $589 for the U2720Q. I would not buy these at current prices. The U2718Q is a similar monitor but just USB-A instead of USB-C and it won't power USB-C laptops. I like all of these displays though. They get the job done at a good price. I run native 4k to display fine detail on charts. 5k would be too fine. I do have a 2014 iMac 27 so I could display it if I wanted to but things turn out too small at that level. I really do like the 27 inch form-factor the best. It presents a bite-sized view with multiple monitors.

 

[pshufd]

Just a word of warning for people going from Apple devices to Dell, the build quality and QC is not very good with Dell. I tried two different U2723QE's and both had very bad uniformity and backlight bleed and one actually had some weird coloration seen on a black screen in the middle towards the bottom (a reddish patch when on). The panel does not have much protection down in the back where the ports are located. Literally one of the monitor had a different tint on one half of the screen vs. the other.

Also, be wary of the reviews that say blacks are amazing. The combination of IPS glow and backlight bleed made the blacks look horrible on the two I tried. If you get lucky and get a perfect panel it may be great.

On the positive side I tried them both on my MacBook Pro 16" and PC desktop and they both worked well. I just didn't trust the monitor for long term use after all these issues, so I switched to a LG 27GP950 for use primarily on my PC and it's fantastic. Only issue I can see for some is that it has an aggressive design geared more for gamers with styling, RBG LEDs, etc. Otherwise it has decent colors/uniformity and an amazing 144Hz+ refresh rate, but still has IPS glow like most IPS monitors.

It definitely depends on what you are using the monitors for. If you're just doing text or static images, then the Dell 4Ks should be fine. I use them for trading and they are fine for that. I also have a 2014 iMac 27 which I use for office stuff and that's fine for that purpose. You can pick up 2014, 2015 iMacs with 5k displays for $400 - $500 in my area from time to time and I like the display. You're just not going to get the Apple Silicon performance using these old systems but they are fine for office work.

 

[Acorn]

I wish the dell had speakers. I hate the eye sore of speakers on the desk. Anything I can remove from desk including wires helps. Usually monitor speakers are enough for me for general audio use like YouTube and the like. I have nice bluetooth headphones for other uses like music and movies. It would be kind of neat if apple could do some voodoo software magic to create a surround sound like effect if you had 2 or even 3 studio displays. Like a sound exploding on the far left with a plane flying left to middle to right speakers.