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

[StrangeNoises]

As others have mentioned, it depends on seating distance.

2160p 22” is Retina at 17”.
2160p 24” is Retina at 19”.
2160p 27” is Retina at 21”.

However, as mentioned, I want 5K at 30”.

2880p 27” is Retina at 16”.
2880p 30” is Retina at 18”.
2880p 32” is Retina at 19”.

I have a 27” Retina 5K iMac and a 30” 2.5K Cinema Display BTW.

You (and others) can keep saying this 😜 and maybe I'm just cursed with good eyesight, but sitting at my normal distance (just measured at 24") on a 4K 27" screen, the text looks slightly out of focus. (And I'll readily concede macOS at a non-2x scale may be a factor here, but a 1080p-alike mode is too little real-estate.) And because it looks slightly out of focus, my eyes keep trying to focus better, but of course they can't, because what they're looking at really is soft-edged...

I've had terrible eyestrain-related headaches for years. Since getting the Studio Display, when the text looks properly sharp even if I lean in (to about 16"), my eyestrain headaches have reduced enormously both in number and intensity, measured in the amount fewer painkillers I'm taking for it.

That alone makes the Studio Display worth every penny. And why, at least for me, any comparison to a display with a lower pixel density is invalid. 😀

 

[02-serious-stent]

Bought 2x Dell 4K 32 inch monitors for $350.

Amazing. More screen real estate for 1/2 the price.

 

[Danfango]

Bought 2x Dell 4K 32 inch monitors for $350.

Amazing. More screen real estate for 1/2 the price.

The pixels are large enough to be made of incandescent light bulbs.

 

[StrangeNoises]

So I don't care whether a display is retina or not. I'm still using a pair of 23" 1080p monitors. Using the standard scaling and sit about 36" away and things look fine. Apparently that is "retina" and it's hard to tell the difference between those and my MBP, unless I get up closer.

But...can someone explain why scaling doesn't work well at 4k, but does at 5k and 6k?

The problem with the scaling is actually that macOS looks best when scaled to 200%, or 2x. Thus the "native" resolution on a 4K screen (of any physical size) is the "looks like 1080p" mode. And it's true, macOS does look better then. But... It's a "looks like 1080p" mode. It's big. And you get less on the screen. The 5K at 27" is 2x at "looks like 1440p" mode. You would tend to want to use a 4K 27" at "looks like 1440p" mode too, but to do that, macOS actually renders internally to 5K at 2x, and bitmap-scales down to the monitor's actual resolution. Which is not perfect.

 

[Billrey]

Manufacturers, please just give us a 30” 5K monitor already.

No, at 30" you would need 6k, not 5k, to be retina and around 220 PPI. It's the resolution, the PPI that matters.

 

[kyjaotkb]

5K is the right ppi for 27". 6K is overkill at 27" and it better at the 30-32" range. Once you get to "retina" at a given viewing distance, the extra pixels don't help.

Guess I am more talking about the UI. Happy with 5K but mac OS should make its UI smaller then.

 

[EugW]

The problem with the scaling is actually that macOS looks best when scaled to 200%, or 2x. Thus the "native" resolution on a 4K screen (of any physical size) is the "looks like 1080p" mode. And it's true, macOS does look better then. But... It's a "looks like 1080p" mode. It's big. And you get less on the screen. The 5K at 27" is 2x at "looks like 1440p" mode. You would tend to want to use a 4K 27" at "looks like 1440p" mode too, but to do that, macOS actually renders internally to 5K at 2x, and bitmap-scales down to the monitor's actual resolution. Which is not perfect.

I mentioned this in the other thread, but it bears repeating here.

2X is not the default scaling the vast majority of Apple's laptops sold in the last 5 years. And almost nobody complained. In fact, almost nobody even discussed it. They just accepted it because it looked good.

So yeah, there are always edge cases like yours, but for the mainstream, your experience doesn't necessarily apply.

No, at 30" you would need 6k, not 5k, to be retina and around 220 PPI. It's the resolution, the PPI that matters.

We already discussed this in the other thread. The fact that you repeatedly suggested that macOS Retina only works properly with 2X scaling was rather telling, despite the fact that even Apple's own product settings disagreed with your claims.

Anyhow, I'll repeat again, in usual computing parlance, resolution ≠ pixel density, and no 220 ppi is not the magical number alone.

 

[kyjaotkb]

I can't believe you don't want an integrated sub-woofer.

Deal
Bit non-plussed with tge ‘acoustic surface’ on my Sony A9 tbh.

 

[tornado99]

Another comparison to a non-retina, low-PPI display. 4K 27" is really not that sharp - it's only as sharp as the original non-retina iPhone (around 160 PPI)

This absurdity has to stop.

Retina resolution is actually defined as the resolving ability of the human eye *at a given distance*.

For a large desktop monitor at a typical viewing distance of 2 ft (60cm) the actual detail most people can resolve is 160-180 ppi, with the upper end being more typical amongst young adults. So the absurdity which has to stop is people swallowing Apple's marketing speak without understanding the science behind it.

A phone needs a much higher PPI as you hold it closer to your eyes.

The reason Apple went with 220dpi is because it was double the 110dpi they designed OS-X for, so they could do x2 scaling without changing the size of UI elements. It had nothing to do with biological limits, or there being a magical sharpness line above/below 220dpi.

I have personally compared 163 ppi, 185 ppi, and 220 ppi monitors at 60cm. The latter two are indistingushable in sharpness, and the 163 ppi is such a minor difference I certainly wouldn't spend an extra $1000 to step up the ppi.

 

[Billrey]

Place it farther away, and it will be.

Not much point of a large screen if you are putting it far away is there? Could just as well get a 20" 4k display and put it closer.

 

[Jeo_cz]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but it bears repeating here.

2X is not the default scaling the vast majority of Apple's laptops sold in the last 5 years. And almost nobody complained. In fact, almost nobody even discussed it. They just accepted it because it looked good.

So yeah, there are always edge cases like yours, but for the mainstream, your experience doesn't necessarily apply.


We already discussed this in the other thread. The fact that you repeatedly suggested that macOS Retina only works properly with 2X scaling was rather telling, despite the fact that even Apple's own product settings disagreed with your claims.

I wanted to write the same. MacBooks don't have that (only right) 2x scaling and nobody cares. Probably because there is the right logo (Apple) on them. Moreover, viewing distance to 13" monitor is way shorter than to 27".

 

[walnuts]

I gotta say- I have a very similar Dell (older one without the usb c hub for $300) right next to the studio display. I set the dell to scaled to match 5k, and I just can’t see the pixels or any noticeable lag due to the scaling. I’m happy I have the studio display because of the color accuracy when I need it, and I understand that there are features that some want in it.

I do have trouble understanding why some CAN’T understand why many, probably most, wouldn’t see the worth in the extra 1k pixels and cost. The reason why people keep saying “why don’t you try this 4K monitor instead” is because for a non-tech person they probably can’t see the difference. I barely can and I want to!

 

[Billrey]

But...can someone explain why scaling doesn't work well at 4k, but does at 5k and 6k?

People here are confused. Scaling is fine at 4k or any pixel dimensions, as long as the resolution, the DPI is right.

The sweet spot for a 20-22" monitor is 4k, for a 27" monitor it is 5k, for a 30-32" monitor it is 6k. This keeps the DPI at around 220 PPI which makes macOS happy, so that it can scale at 2x, and keeps everything extremely sharp.

 

[EugW]

Not much point of a large screen if you are putting it far away is there? Could just as well get a 20" 4k display and put it closer.

Yes there is a point of a larger screen put further away. This was also discussed in the other thread already too.

For example, especially for older presbyopics, the closer the screen, the harder it is to focus. That's partially why some (but not all) ergonomics guidelines suggest over 20" seating distance. Hell, even Apple suggests that.

There are other reasons too.

 

[jakey rolling]

Reviewer: "Having to dig up some external speakers to compensate for the lack of speakers is also a bit of a hassle"

Over 90% of computer users: "Good thing I already have a great set of speakers on my desk."

 

[StudioMacs]

The studio display costs in Greece 2000€ with a basic monthly salary 600€. It is for sure just a few people is gonna pay that price for a 6 year, non mini-led, HDRless old monitor just because there is an iPhone inside and an apple outside.
Just for the record, I run an mid 2011 imac 27inch i7 16gb and 1tb ssd with superb results for pro wedding photography and occasionally video. My only complaint is that I cannot use the latest Adobe's software updates.

I had a similar 2013 27“ iMac, and when I got a 2014 5K iMac at work, the display was much better. The Studio Display isn’t as big a jump, but it is an improvement over the previous 5K iMac screen. It‘s brighter, has wider viewing angles, and and better dynamic range.

if you do photo editing, then you should know mini LED has dimming zones that create artifacts in high contrast images. The Pro Display XDR is nice for people editing HDR video, but the IPS panel in the Studio Display is much better for photoshop work.

 

[EugW]

I had a similar 2013 27“ iMac, and when I got a 2014 5K iMac at work, the display was much better. The Studio Display isn’t as big a jump, but it is an improvement over the previous 5K iMac screen. It‘s brighter, has wider viewing angles, and and better dynamic range.

if you do photo editing, then you should know mini LED has dimming zones that create artifacts in high contrast images. The Pro Display XDR is nice for people editing HDR video, but the IPS panel in the Studio Display is much better for photoshop work.

Nitpick: Pro Display XDR is IPS, just like the Studio Display, but with dimming zones. Also, Pro Display XDR is not mini-LED.

 

[roland.g]

Thanks for making click on another link to find the monitor resolution, a baseline spec that should be included in every article on any monitor.

 

[StrangeNoises]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but it bears repeating here.

2X is not the default scaling the vast majority of Apple's laptops sold in the last 5 years. And almost nobody complained. In fact, almost nobody even discussed it. They just accepted it because it looked good.

So yeah, there are always edge cases like yours, but for the mainstream, your experience doesn't necessarily apply.


We already discussed this in the other thread. The fact that you repeatedly suggested that macOS Retina only works properly with 2X scaling was rather telling, despite the fact that even Apple's own product settings disagreed with your claims.

And I'll repeat again, in usual computing parlance, resolution ≠ pixel density.

I think by chance (because I wasn't aware they were doing that until recently) the laptops I've owned since they went Retina were all at 2x scaling in their default "native" mode. And in addition laptop screens, at least from Apple, have an even higher PPI anyway than their desktop displays, so that may be helping to minimise the problem even in the cases where they are using non-2x scaling.

MacBook Air 2019, 2560x1600 227ppi
MacBook Pro 13" 2015 2560x1600 227ppi
MacBook 12" 2015 2304x1440 226ppi

I'm not certain about the default mode of the 12" MacBook, but I'm pretty sure the others were a default "Looks like 1280x800" screen mode.

the Dell XPS13 I got during the period Apple were making crap MacBook Pros... was crazy, 4K at 13". I would run Windows and Linux on that at 300% so it would even be readable. In fact, that made it also a "Looks like 1280x720" screen mode. People have been saying that Windows tends to look better on those 4K screen at "looks like 1440p" where they're actually running at a scale factor of 150%. It's true. Windows does that, Linux does that (under Gnome with Wayland at least), whereas macOS absolutely does only render at 200% and scales down the bitmap if it needs to. One way you can tell is to take a full-screen screenshot while running a "looks like 1440p" mode on a 4K monitor. You'll get a 5K screenshot.

That downscaling it does does not look as good as it would if the text was rendered directly to the final scale factor. It's a macOS problem. The flip side is that it works consistently, whereas both Windows and Linux are plagued (gradually less so over time) with the occasional blurry app that doesn't support the scaling properly so is having to be scaled up to fit by the OS. (Or as often as not on Linux isn't scaled at all, but shows up with tiny unreadable text and UI.)

 

[Puiz]

It’s 4K. Article should start and end there. What next, the Apple Studio Display vs. the Diet Coke? Try making some sense here, there are people actually reading this!

 

[nastysailboat]

I think the Studio Display is absurdly overpriced for a 6 year old panel, but the Dell is only 4K, does not have a camera and does not have a six speaker array. About they only thing similar is that they're both monitors.

There is no substitute for the studio display

 

[StudioMacs]

As others have mentioned, it depends on seating distance.

2160p 22” is Retina at 17”.
2160p 24” is Retina at 19”.
2160p 27” is Retina at 21”.

However, as mentioned, I want 5K at 30”.

2880p 27” is Retina at 16”.
2880p 30” is Retina at 18”.
2880p 32” is Retina at 19”.

I have a 27” Retina 5K iMac and a 30” 2.5K Cinema Display BTW.

Viewing distance is one important metric, but if you care about 2x scaling of the UI, you are talking about a 1440p workspace vs a 1080p workspace.

 

[SSDGUY]

Another comparison to a non-retina, low-PPI display. 4K 27" is really not that sharp - it's only as sharp as the original non-retina iPhone (around 160 PPI)

This absurdity has to stop.

Another comparison to a non-retina, low-PPI display. 4K 27" is really not that sharp - it's only as sharp as the original non-retina iPhone (around 160 PPI)

This absurdity has to stop.

Phones also aren't intended for a viewing distance of 24"-30". Pretty sure people that decide to save a lot of money on a non-ASD monitor are fine with non-retina, or their viewing distance is "retina-enough".

 

[jakey rolling]

Manufacturers, please just give us a 30” 5K monitor already.

Why would manufacturers build something that hardly anybody would buy?

1) Unless it has an Apple logo on it and has the exact specs on it that Apple says are important, few Mac users would buy it.

2) 5k offers little advantage over 4k to users of operating systems that can handle fractional scaling properly, so non-Mac users would see no real value in it.

 

[Jeo_cz]

People here are confused. Scaling is fine at 4k or any pixel dimensions, as long as the resolution, the DPI is right.

The sweet spot for a 20-22" monitor is 4k, for a 27" monitor it is 5k, for a 30-32" monitor it is 6k. This keeps the DPI at around 220 PPI which makes macOS happy, so that it can scale at 2x, and keeps everything extremely sharp.

Just because it's recommended by Apple for its default macos text smoothing? But this can be changed in terminal.