All I’m saying is, on the SAME monitor integer scaling always wins over non-integer scaling, in terms of image quality 😉
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.
Best MacOS 4K Monitor Size - 27", 28" or 32"
- Thread starter hungryghosty
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think it's fairly self-evident that if you could get "looks like 1080p" to render at full fidelity on a 5K monitor, it would look MUCH sharper and clearer than "looks like 1440p" even though the former would be non-integer scaling and the latter would be integer scaling.
Displaying something 33% bigger is going to make it a LOT more clear, even if the image does contain a few extra teensy grey antialiased pixels that basically nobody can actually see.
I can easily see the difference in text quality between integer and non-integer on the same monitor, so I think we have to agree to disagree on this one… 🤔
You’re absolutely right about 27” 4K vs 5K, though. Less pixels always equals less sharpness.
You’re absolutely right about 27” 4K vs 5K, though. Less pixels always equals less sharpness.
I don't think you can really know that, because switching between resolutions (integer scaling vs. fractional scaling) changes the size of the stuff on the screen, so how do you know if something appears sharper because you've switched to integer scaling or if it appears sharper because it's simply bigger?
Go back to post #17 where I attached an image with two lines of text. One is basically integer scaling and the other one is fractional scaling. Can you see a difference between the two?
I've been stalling over getting a new monitor for a while. I have a pair of Studio Displays but need more space. I've been waiting to see if a new Pro Display lands as I can't find a refurb/2nd hand one, but I had to get something.
I was hoping there might be an amazing ultra wide @ 5K with a selection of resolutions, but that's still an issue thanks to macOS scaling.
Anyway, having read this thread I ordered a BenQ PD3205U from Amazon for about £450. It arrived today and you know what, I'm pleasantly surprised.
Text is nice and sharp, its more than bright enough and there's a decent range of resolutions which all look good.
This is coming from an absolute retina-snob. For me its all about the PPI and brightness, but given the cost of this and the lack of inbuilt speakers and webcam, its a bargain.
Now its whether I get a second one and sell the ASDs... its that good.
I was hoping there might be an amazing ultra wide @ 5K with a selection of resolutions, but that's still an issue thanks to macOS scaling.
Anyway, having read this thread I ordered a BenQ PD3205U from Amazon for about £450. It arrived today and you know what, I'm pleasantly surprised.
Text is nice and sharp, its more than bright enough and there's a decent range of resolutions which all look good.
This is coming from an absolute retina-snob. For me its all about the PPI and brightness, but given the cost of this and the lack of inbuilt speakers and webcam, its a bargain.
Now its whether I get a second one and sell the ASDs... its that good.
I was replacing my 2017 27" iMac and looking for an amazing larger 5K+ monitor to pair with my new M4 Pro mini and - while waiting for the release of the Asus ProArt PA32QCV (32" 6K) - decided to pull the trigger on the BenQ MA320U (32" 4K) and am similarly pleasantly surprised. I was also doing a lot of research on displays that would be appear close to the PPI, color, and brightness of the iMac display, and this is more than adequate as a replacement. I may upgrade to the ProArt when it comes out and if it gets amazing reviews, but until then I'm a very happy camper.
Hmm. I was going to buy a 32" 4K display last year to get some more screen real estate but was dissuaded by all the posts to this thread (and similar threads) that said it was too pixelly, i.e., that the resolution wasn't high enough.
So now I'm confused. Ugh.
"Looks like 1692p" on a 4K display means 1.63 physical pixels per logical pixel... so, significantly sharper than the 1:1 ratio that we were all living with 13 years ago... but pretty far away from the usual Apple 4:1 "retina" ratio...
I definitely get it, and I fully admit that the screen isn't at the "retina" ratio, but I sit 30" or farther away from my screen and the 3008 x 1692 resolution looks great for my needs and to my 45+ year-old eyes and provides me with the extra real estate I was looking for, which is especially sweet at this price point ($650 when I purchased it two weeks ago).
Totally understand... and its a real pain buying these things "sight unseen".
I've just bought a second one of those 32" BenQ screens to replace my second ASD. I can't emphasise how many monitors I've tried and rejected due to the screen resolution/brightness/not-retina before. These are really good and a bargain price IMO for a lot more screen real estate.
Thank you.
Is there a reason to choose the BenQ in particular? The model discussed costs over $700 in the US whereas I can get an LG with similar specs and features for $400. The LG also gets rave reviews for image quality. The only thing I don't love about it is that the AC adapter is a separate brick.
I should have bought the previous-gen LG when it was on sale last year for $330, sigh.
No, I just had a look on Amazon and compared prices of 32" 4K screens from Dell, BenQ, LG and Samsung - this one seemed like the best option in terms of price to be honest.
I've always liked the LG screens I've had in the past too - the separate AC block is a but of a pain depending on your setup though.