Best external monitor resolution for Mac

[Macintosh1984]

Hi everyone!

I have an iMac 27" Late 2012, 2560x1440px resolution.

I'm thinking of upgrading to a Mac mini M2 Pro or a MacBook Pro 14" M2 Pro.

I also have to think about an external 27" monitor to connect and I don't want to take the Apple Studio Display.

I would like to focus on the issue of resolution and pixel density (DPI).

Still not totally clear to me about resolution, pixel density, scaling, GPU performance and text readability (blurring).

I personally appreciate the quality of my iMac 27" Late 2012, 2560x1440px resolution, although it is not Retina, I ask myself:

A MacBook Pro 14" M2 Pro connected to a 27" 2560x1440px external monitor have the same quality as the iMac? Would the GPU do a scaling job decreasing performance or not? Would the text look exactly like it does on the iMac, or bigger, smaller, blurry?

Choosing the Mac mini M2 Pro instead of the MacBook Pro 14" M2 Pro, would it change the quality on the external monitor?

I would like your comments on this.

Opting for a 27" 3840 x 2160 instead, how would it always be for pixel density, scaling, GPU performance and text readability (blurring) when compared to my iMac?

I hope you can give me information to make the right choice!

 

[satcomer]

Maybe a good Mac centric PD3220u might be a good choice!

 

[JaredJenkinsDesign]

Out of curiosity, what would you be using your monitor for? Casual usage? Professional work? Creative work? Coding? etc.

Choosing the Mac mini M2 Pro instead of the MacBook Pro 14" M2 Pro, would it change the quality on the external monitor?

It won't have an impact on the quality.

A MacBook Pro 14" M2 Pro connected to a 27" 2560x1440px external monitor have the same quality as the iMac? Would the GPU do a scaling job decreasing performance or not? Would the text look exactly like it does on the iMac, or bigger, smaller, blurry?

PPI would be the same on a 27" 1440p (2560x1440) monitor so the sharpness would be pretty much similar.

If you're fine with that on the iMac, then you can save a considerable amount of money by going with a 27" 1440p monitor.

 

[Macintosh1984]

I work in the web field, so Photoshop, Illustrator and sometimes video editing programs. For coding I use BBEdit and Chrome as a browser since nowadays WordPress is used for the creation and management of websites.

Are you telling me that with PPI around 109, there is no GPU scaling work?

Speaking of models, I would like to stick to 27", but choosing 3840x2160 instead of 2560x1440px is better or worse than quality, GPU performance, scaling?

 

[JaredJenkinsDesign]

I work in the web field, so Photoshop, Illustrator and sometimes video editing programs. For coding I use BBEdit and Chrome as a browser since nowadays WordPress is used for the creation and management of websites.

Are you telling me that with PPI around 109, there is no GPU scaling work?

Speaking of models, I would like to stick to 27", but choosing 3840x2160 instead of 2560x1440px is better or worse than quality, GPU performance, scaling?

Ah got it. MacOS runs best when the resolution is set as is or half that for higher pixel density. So for the 4K monitor, either at 3840x2160 or 1920x1080. The GPU scaling occurs when you're running your monitor's resolution anywhere in-between that (2560x1440, 3008x1692, 3360x1890 etc.

With a 27" 1440p monitor, since you're running it at it's highest resolution setting, 2560x1440, there won't be any GPU scaling involved.

From my personal experience with my 27" 4K monitor using scaled resolution at 2560x1440, here's what I've seen regarding quality / GPU performance / scaling:

• Quality/Scaling
  • Text is noticeably sharper and looks better.
  • Due to the scaled resolution on MacOs, there's a slight blurring and fuzziness of text. You'll notice that running it at 1920x1080 will look a bit better than 2560x1440 (although everything will look bigger and you'll have less screen room to work with).
    • Despite the slight blurriness, I still prefer 27" 4K at 2560x1440 over a 27" 1440p monitor as it still looks sharper overall.
  • The further back I am from the monitor, the less of a difference I see between 4K and 1440p so as long as you're not too close to your monitor, 1440p should still work well.
• GPU Performance
  • The Apple Silicon Macs can handle scaled resolution without any issues. I've noticed this with others along with my own Mac Studio as I've had zero performance issues.
  • On my old 2016 MBP, it does get laggy and sluggish at times. So this could be an issue if you had an older Intel Mac but with a M2 Pro Mac, you'll be fine.

Hope that helps, if you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer.

 

[Macintosh1984]

Ah got it. MacOS runs best when the resolution is set as is or half that for higher pixel density. So for the 4K monitor, either at 3840x2160 or 1920x1080. The GPU scaling occurs when you're running your monitor's resolution anywhere in-between that (2560x1440, 3008x1692, 3360x1890 etc.

With a 27" 1440p monitor, since you're running it at it's highest resolution setting, 2560x1440, there won't be any GPU scaling involved.

From my personal experience with my 27" 4K monitor using scaled resolution at 2560x1440, here's what I've seen regarding quality / GPU performance / scaling:

• Quality/Scaling
  • Text is noticeably sharper and looks better.
  • Due to the scaled resolution on MacOs, there's a slight blurring and fuzziness of text. You'll notice that running it at 1920x1080 will look a bit better than 2560x1440 (although everything will look bigger and you'll have less screen room to work with).
    • Despite the slight blurriness, I still prefer 27" 4K at 2560x1440 over a 27" 1440p monitor as it still looks sharper overall.
  • The further back I am from the monitor, the less of a difference I see between 4K and 1440p so as long as you're not too close to your monitor, 1440p should still work well.
• GPU Performance
  • The Apple Silicon Macs can handle scaled resolution without any issues. I've noticed this with others along with my own Mac Studio as I've had zero performance issues.
  • On my old 2016 MBP, it does get laggy and sluggish at times. So this could be an issue if you had an older Intel Mac but with a M2 Pro Mac, you'll be fine.

Hope that helps, if you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer.

Hi JaredJenkinsDesign, thanks for your reply!

A few quick clarifications:

If I understood correctly:
1) an external 27" 2560x1440px monitor, there is no scaling and I would have the same quality and size of interface/texts/icons as my iMac.

2) 27" 2560x1440px equals 110dpi, everything is handled as non-Retina, and since I'm used to some distance from my iMac, even though I know the higher quality of a Retina, I'm fine with a non-Retina too. So the solution to not activate scaling is 110dpi.

3) You tell me that an external 27" 3840x2160px monitor, set to 2560x1440px, means activating the scaling, according to your opinion, the text is sharper than a native 27" 2560x1440px monitor, is that right?

4) How are the dimensions of the texts and icons between a native 27" 2560x1440px and a native 27" 3840x2160px, set to 2560x1440px (scaling)? Same size but sharper for 27" 3840x2160px native, set to 2560x1440px (scaling)?

5) What models have you been able to test/use?

 

[JaredJenkinsDesign]

Hi JaredJenkinsDesign, thanks for your reply!

A few quick clarifications:

If I understood correctly:
1) an external 27" 2560x1440px monitor, there is no scaling and I would have the same quality and size of interface/texts/icons as my iMac.

2) 27" 2560x1440px equals 110dpi, everything is handled as non-Retina, and since I'm used to some distance from my iMac, even though I know the higher quality of a Retina, I'm fine with a non-Retina too. So the solution to not activate scaling is 110dpi.

3) You tell me that an external 27" 3840x2160px monitor, set to 2560x1440px, means activating the scaling, according to your opinion, the text is sharper than a native 27" 2560x1440px monitor, is that right?

4) How are the dimensions of the texts and icons between a native 27" 2560x1440px and a native 27" 3840x2160px, set to 2560x1440px (scaling)? Same size but sharper for 27" 3840x2160px native, set to 2560x1440px (scaling)?

5) What models have you been able to test/use?

You're welcome!

1) Yes that is correct. Same quality and size for interface/text/icons as the iMac.

2) Yes if you're used to working some distance from your iMac and you're currently happy with the quality, then a 27" 1440p monitor will work fine.

3) Yes the 27" 4K monitor will use scaled resolution when set to 2560x1440. Personally for me, it still looks sharper than a 27" monitor at 1440p. If my eyes weren't used to 4K and I only had a 27" 1440p in front of me, I'd probably get used to it after awhile and be fine with it though.

4) Dimensions of text and icons will be the same if both are set at 2560x1440. They're way too small on a 27" if you set the resolution at native 3840x2160 and not usable unless you have the screen really close to your face and have good eyesight.

5) PHILIPS 276E8VJSB (4K) and an old iMac that I used at my work office years ago (I forget the year/model but I know it was 2560x1440 and not a retina model since I had it when I started working there in 2013).

 

[Macintosh1984]

You're welcome!

1) Yes that is correct. Same quality and size for interface/text/icons as the iMac.

2) Yes if you're used to working some distance from your iMac and you're currently happy with the quality, then a 27" 1440p monitor will work fine.

3) Yes the 27" 4K monitor will use scaled resolution when set to 2560x1440. Personally for me, it still looks sharper than a 27" monitor at 1440p. If my eyes weren't used to 4K and I only had a 27" 1440p in front of me, I'd probably get used to it after awhile and be fine with it though.

4) Dimensions of text and icons will be the same if both are set at 2560x1440. They're way too small on a 27" if you set the resolution at native 3840x2160 and not usable unless you have the screen really close to your face and have good eyesight.

5) PHILIPS 276E8VJSB (4K) and an old iMac that I used at my work office years ago (I forget the year/model but I know it was 2560x1440 and not a retina model since I had it when I started working there in 2013).

You opened my mind, thanks again!

I understood that a 27" 3840x2160px would look better thanks to scaling and that the M2 Pro would handle it without much effort.

On the other hand, I would also appreciate a 27" 2560x1440px because I'm already happy with my iMac, the GPU wouldn't be affected at all, but I don't know how much quality I could gain compared to my iMac, perhaps since after 11 years even the same resolution but better components, they should show me better video.

Now it's up to me to decide in the next few weeks, I have an eye on Asus ProArt Display PA279CRV (3840x2160px) and Asus ProArt Display PA278CV (2560x1440px).

Thanks again!

 

[xraydoc]

You opened my mind, thanks again!

I understood that a 27" 3840x2160px would look better thanks to scaling and that the M2 Pro would handle it without much effort.

On the other hand, I would also appreciate a 27" 2560x1440px because I'm already happy with my iMac, the GPU wouldn't be affected at all, but I don't know how much quality I could gain compared to my iMac, perhaps since after 11 years even the same resolution but better components, they should show me better video.

Now it's up to me to decide in the next few weeks, I have an eye on Asus ProArt Display PA279CRV (3840x2160px) and Asus ProArt Display PA278CV (2560x1440px).

Thanks again!

My strong recommendation is to avoid anything less than 4K. You will not be happy with the text scaling on a 27" 1440p display with current versions of macOS. The subpixel rendering of current macOS versions is simply not designed for anything less than "retina" resolution.

I'd recommend a good 4K display if you don't want to spend the money on a Studio Display (which is understandable). Virtually any scaled resolution you chose to use will look fine unless you're extraordinarily eagle-eyed. And M-series Macs exhibit no perceptible performance hit for uneven scaling unlike the Intel Macs.

 

[Macintosh1984]

My strong recommendation is to avoid anything less than 4K. You will not be happy with the text scaling on a 27" 1440p display with current versions of macOS. The subpixel rendering of current macOS versions is simply not designed for anything less than "retina" resolution.

I'd recommend a good 4K display if you don't want to spend the money on a Studio Display (which is understandable). Virtually any scaled resolution you chose to use will look fine unless you're extraordinarily eagle-eyed. And M-series Macs exhibit no perceptible performance hit for uneven scaling unlike the Intel Macs.

I understand and agree with you for the higher quality of 4K with scaling.

I would like to understand at this point, with Catalina and iMac 27" Late 2012 I am satisfied with what I see. Catalina was already around when there were Retina displays.

What are you telling me that for example Ventura handles the non-Retina interface worse than Catalina?

Because if it handles it the same as Catalina, I'm also OK with 1440p, the fact remains that I also mentioned PA279CRV (3840x2160px).

 

[kvic]

I have an eye on Asus ProArt Display PA279CRV (3840x2160px) and Asus ProArt Display PA278CV (2560x1440px).

As others said above, there is absolutely no reason to go with older 1440p displays in year 2023 for using MacOS. The only exception I can think of is the very hardcore photos & graphics output creators who need to pixel perfect inspection of their work and can't find a satisfactory 4k, 5k or 6k display.

 

[Macintosh1984]

As others said above, there is absolutely no reason to go with older 1440p displays in year 2023 for using MacOS. The only exception I can think of is the very hardcore photos & graphics output creators who need to pixel perfect inspection of their work and can't find a satisfactory 4k, 5k or 6k display.

What are you telling me that for example Ventura handles the non-Retina interface worse than Catalina?

Because if it handles it the same as Catalina, I'm also OK with 1440p, the fact remains that I also mentioned PA279CRV (3840x2160px).

 

[xraydoc]

What are you telling me that for example Ventura handles the non-Retina interface worse than Catalina?

Yes, that's what we're saying. Older versions of macOS had settings for subpixel font smoothing. Current versions of macOS have completely removed these options.
But you don't have to believe just us. There's several threads here discussing just that.

 

[Macintosh1984]

Yes, that's what we're saying. Older versions of macOS had settings for subpixel font smoothing. Current versions of macOS have completely removed these options.
But you don't have to believe just us. There's several threads here discussing just that.

I start by saying that in the end I will get a 4K, it is true what you say about a different management of the graphic interface by recent operating systems, I just looked into it, but as this article says https://osxdaily.com/2022/04 /06/change-remove-font-smoothing-macos/ it would be possible to activate subpixel font smoothing if needed.

 

[phillytim]

Has the recommended monitor situation changed, since Apple has disabled subpixel font rendering in recent versions of macOS???

Everything I see lately is that 4K monitors are the standard recommendation, for any resolution greater than 1080p.

 

[xraydoc]

Has the recommended monitor situation changed, since Apple has disabled subpixel font rendering in recent versions of macOS???

Everything I see lately is that 4K monitors are the standard recommendation, for any resolution greater than 1080p.

You buy what you want and what's within your budget. But I personally wouldn't be happy with anything less than 4K on a Mac.
At 27", "looks like 2560x1440" on a 4K display isn't pixel perfect (5K required for that), but it looks much better than an actual 1440p display.

 

[kvic]

I repaired my plain-old 27-inch 2560x1440 iMac in the past few days. Finally got a chance to put it side by side with my brand new 4K LG (with a panel made by BOE) running in scaled 'look like 2560x1440p' mode for a comparison.

Viewing distance is my usual habit between 55-60cm in front of the screens. Much to my surprise, the experience is NOT a day and night difference.

To define a personal experiential reference point of a day and night difference (or the WoW moment) was when I upgraded a iPhone 3GS to iPhone 5. The increased PPI in iPhone 5's screen, PLUS the close viewing distance of a phone, I was very impressed by the much higher fidelity in the visual experience on the iPhone 5.

Back to the two 27-inch screens, for sure you can spot difference at normal viewing distance. But it's not a huge difference. Neither it's a significant upgrade to visual experience. Especially if you only read English or other alphabet derived languages.

With that said, if you also happen to read CJK, especially the traditional Chinese characters with complex strokes/glyphs, a HiDPI or 4K display enhances text clarity quite a lot. Definitely go with 4K over 2K.

Otherwise, I seem to understand now why some people still perfectly fine with a 2K panel. If you're in this category, fine to go with it. You'll also save about 5-8% GPU performance at the minimum since you don't have to (most likely) run in a scaled resolution.

I'm glad I didn't jump on the 5K hype years ago. Perhaps that's just me.

This also completes my recent adventure into updating my screens. See you in a couple of years time.

 

[Mark.g4]

In my humble opinion, the best choice would be a 27" Apple Studio Display, however it is also the most expensive choice.

I bought a LG32" 4k UN880, equipped with an ergonomic gas arm, color coverage >100% sRGB and 95% P3.
Powerdelivery 60W, USB-A hub, 2 small speakers, audio-in, audio-out, usb-c, 2 HDMI.

I use it at a resolution of 2560x1440 or 3008x1692.
There are no problems related to resolution, as we often read on the internet, the machine always runs smooth and snappy at any resolution.
At 2560x1440 the visualization is more defined and gratifying, compared to my imac 27" 2010, especially on the text, but also in the images it is perceptible.

If you look closely you can find it for around $500 when it's on offer and I think at this price it's a best buy.

However, in terms of resolution I wouldn't go below 4k, better 5k or 6k, but if you can't spend money, then 4k is a great choice.

 

[HiRez]

You buy what you want and what's within your budget. But I personally wouldn't be happy with anything less than 4K on a Mac.
At 27", "looks like 2560x1440" on a 4K display isn't pixel perfect (5K required for that), but it looks much better than an actual 1440p display.

I have 2 older Dell 4K 27" monitors and keep them scaled at 1,440 and even with my computer-distance prescription glasses, everything looks quite sharp. Interesting that it would actually look worse on a native 1,440 display though. Those seem to be the most common and affordable, but if it's going to make it look worse than the scaled version I don't think I'd do it. I might be in the market for new monitors soon but I'll have to be careful.

 

[xraydoc]

I have 2 older Dell 4K 27" monitors and keep them scaled at 1,440 and even with my computer-distance prescription glasses, everything looks quite sharp. Interesting that it would actually look worse on a native 1,440 display though. Those seem to be the most common and affordable, but if it's going to make it look worse than the scaled version I don't think I'd do it. I might be in the market for new monitors soon but I'll have to be careful.

That’s because at 4K, there’s enough pixels available to smooth out the fonts (they’re drawn higher than 1440p). At actual 1440, the fonts can’t be smoothed to the same degree.

 

[Basic75]

I understood that a 27" 3840x2160px would look better thanks to scaling and that the M2 Pro would handle it without much effort.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/dual-monitor-recommendations-please.2399458/?post=32402669#post-32402669

 

[Basic75]

there is absolutely no reason to go with older 1440p displays in year 2023 for using MacOS

Yes, there is. I for example don't like non-pixel-perfect rendering and prefer a pair of decent 27" 2560x1440 IPS displays over a 27" 4K. Display choice is very subjective. Some people can't live with less than 120Hz while others won't even notice the difference between 30Hz and 60Hz. Some get eye cancer with less than 220ppi while others can't afford that or don't care or don't see any difference. And for the price of one Studio Display you can get, let's check, eight perfectly usable 110ppi 27" IPS displays.

 

[srikat]

I have a simple rule when it comes to buying monitors for use with Macs:

PPI must be at least 160.

 

[Mark.g4]

Yes, there is. I for example don't like non-pixel-perfect rendering and prefer a pair of decent 27" 2560x1440 IPS displays over a 27" 4K. Display choice is very subjective. Some people can't live with less than 120Hz while others won't even notice the difference between 30Hz and 60Hz. Some get eye cancer with less than 220ppi while others can't afford that or don't care or don't see any difference. And for the price of one Studio Display you can get, let's check, eight perfectly usable 110ppi 27" IPS displays.

This is another urban legend that we continue to read online, because someone said it and others continue to repeat it.
4K looks great, there's no reason not to choose it.
Of course 5k or 6k is better, but if you don't have the budget, 4k will be fine and will look much better than 1440p.
I have an imac 27 2k and a 32" 4k Lg, I much prefer the 32" 4k, the images are much sharper especially in the text.

 

[Basic75]

This is another urban legend that we continue to read online, because someone said it and others continue to repeat it.

At 27" I prefer 2560x1440 over 3840x2160. Did you not get my point that there is a subjective component to choosing a display? And that not everybody wants the same thing?