Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Can anyone help me pick a monitor for M1 Pro Mac

D

dootec

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 24, 2022
6
2
I'm looking for a external monitor for 16 inch M1 Pro Macbook to increase my productivity.

Most of the time I will use to write some codes with this monitor in daily basis.

What I want on monitors:
  1. High resolution for I need to see multiple Apps on one screen simultaneously.
  2. Not blurry, just clear texts and images.
  3. Nice and shiny good colours.

And also I'm a newbie for Macbooks and I heard some scaling issues. I don't know what to consider when buying. Can anyone help me choosing the right one.


Here is that I found these monitors (sorted by my most wanted):
  1. Huawei Mateview (27 inch, 3:2 ratio, 3840x2560@60Hz, 163 ppi) : https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/b4452703
  2. Samsung M8 (32 inch, 16:9 ratio, 3840x2160@60Hz, 140 ppi) : https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/c0042af9
  3. Dell U2723QE (27 inch, 16:9 ratio, 3840x2160@60Hz, 163 ppi) : https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/25df2a36
  4. LG 27UL850-W (27 inch, 16:9 ratio, 3840x2160@60Hz, 163 ppi) : https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/7d2c1745

But, people recommend ~2K res with ~110ppi so if its true, I should get this one: (https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays2/)
  1. Dell P2723DE (27 inch, 16:9 ratio, 2560x1440@60Hz, 109 ppi)https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/3e022a9d

Can anyone help me to pick a monitor and clearify resolution/scaling issue? Or any monitor recommendation would be appreciated, thank you.
 
Last edited:
Where are you located? I don’t think you can buy Huawei monitors in the US. I’m waiting for the new Samsung Viewfinity
 
dootec said:
Huawei Mateview (27 inch, 3:2 ratio, 3840x2560@60Hz, 163 ppi) : https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/b4452703
Click to expand...
I've a pair of Mateviews on my Mac Studio and I'm pretty happy. The 3:2 aspect ratio makes it the same width & definition as a 4k 27" with a couple more inches of screen space tacked on the bottom, so it will be perfect for coding.

I think I'd strongly recommend the Mateview for general use, coding etc. given the price - however, here are the downsides to be aware of:

It's got a matte screen so if you prefer glossy screens that might be a downvote & is probably the thing I like least about the Mateview - but it's not grainy/sparkly like some matte coatings. This really depends what you prefer - with matte, there are almost no visible reflections of stuff behind you, but bright sunlight hitting the screen from an angle gets scattered and makes the screen hard to view. With glossy, you get reflections of things directly behind you that really annoy some people, but light from the sides gets bounced away giving much better blacks & contrast.

The other downsides are that the speakers are probably worse that what you already have in the Macbook, there's no "pivot" (i.e. you can't rotate the screen into portrait mode), it uses an external power brick and the stand is non-detatchable so you can't use an alternative VESA mount. Power output is only 60W so it should keep your MacBook topped up but isn't going to charge it very rapidly. However, you can get 3 of them for a price of a Studio Display, so as I said, I'm a fan of this display.

dootec said:
But, people recommend ~2K res with ~110ppi
Click to expand...
There are some specific use-cases in photography, graphics or GPU-stretching 3D workflows where fractional scaling causes problems and it may make sense to stick with a 110ppi screen if that is your primary workflow - but in general, more ppi = better.

A 163ppi display will always give you sharper text & images than are possible on a 110ppi display. A scaled "looks like 1440p" image on a 4k screen is actually a 5k image downsampled to 4k and contains far more detail than a regular 1440p display can show.

Also, some people act as if you can only possibly ever use a 4k display in "looks like 1440p" mode to get the exact same UI size as an iMac. At 32" and beyond, many people will be happy using 1:1 4k mode. A 4k 27" display is perfectly usable in 2:1 "looks like 1080p" mode (which is still full 4k resolution with no scaling issues) - you just get rather large icons and dialogs, but I've never encountered anything that actually has problems - especially if you put the software in full-screen mode.

With the the MateView, I actually keep them in "looks like 1920x1280" mode and find that the extra vertical space makes up for the larger menu/icon bars & I prefer the slightly larger text - you can still fit more lines of code on screen in VS code than on a 16:9 display. "looks like 2560x1707" (the equivalent of 1440p) worksperfectly well though and would be perfect for coding.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Marty_Macfly, dootec and chikorita157
Yes, I heard some consumer reviews about reflection and sound system of MateView and thank you for your detailed answer.

theluggage said:
A 163ppi display will always give you sharper text & images than are possible on a 110ppi display. A scaled "looks like 1440p" image on a 4k screen is actually a 5k image downsampled to 4k and contains far more detail than a regular 1440p display can show.
Click to expand...
Hımm, actually does Apple selected "looks like X" resolution renders double of this size then downgrade the resolution to X? In this way monitor is sharper than other monitors which are same resolutions.

theluggage said:
With the the MateView, I actually keep them in "looks like 1920x1280" mode and find that the extra vertical space makes up for the larger menu/icon bars & I prefer the slightly larger text - you can still fit more lines of code on screen in VS code than on a 16:9 display. "looks like 2560x1707" (the equivalent of 1440p) worksperfectly well though and would be perfect for coding.
Click to expand...
"looks like 1920x1280" which means 1080p resolution but it is sharper than standard 1080p. But why dont you use "looks like 2560x1707" resolution on daily basis? Is this so small? I'm asking you because, my main reason to buy this monitor that I want to use bigger virtual canvas which resolution is 4K+, but downgrade to 1080p it hassles to me :) But "looks like 2560x1707" is hope for me.
 
dootec said:
Hımm, actually does Apple selected "looks like X" resolution renders double of this size then downgrade the resolution to X? In this way monitor is sharper than other monitors which are same resolutions.
Click to expand...
It doesn't downgrade it back to X (which would be pointless), it downgrades it to the actual resolution of your display.

So in "(looks like) 2560x1440" on a 4k display everything is rendered at 5120x2880 and then reduced to 3840x2160, which is still a lot more detailed than an actual 2560x1440 display.

The only issue is that 1 pixel on the 5120x2880 image corresponds to about 3/4 of a pixel on the actual display - which you really won't notice on a screen full of code, but might notice if you're leaning in close to tweak pixels in a photograph.

I wrote a long post on it a while back: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/psa-4k-display-resolutions.2345906/

dootec said:
"looks like 1920x1280" which means 1080p resolution but it is sharper than standard 1080p
Click to expand...
No, it means 4k resolution but with everything plotted double size (i.e. twice as many pixels). Twice 1920x1280 is 3840x2560 (or 1920x1080 => 3840x2160 on a regular 4k), the native resolution of the display.

dootec said:
But why dont you use "looks like 2560x1707" resolution on daily basis? Is this so small?
Click to expand...
It gives the same size menus/buttons/system text/icons as you'd get on a 5k iMac or Studio Display - not quite as sharp but still better than on an actual 110ppi/1440p display. Which is what many people seem to like & are used to from iMacs.

Personally, I'm overdue for a new pair of glasses and I prefer the slightly larger text in "looks like 1920x1280" and don't mind the UI being a bit large. Also, remember that in something like XCode or VS Code you'll be able to set the font size to however small your eyes can handle & that will be considerably smaller than on a 110ppi screen.

Bottom line: rest assured you'll get more lines of code on a Mateview than on any other 27" display (unless you've got a 5k screen and very good eyesight).
 
  • Like
Reactions: dootec
xraydoc said:
Pretty sure images are always rendered 1:1. Only UI elements get scaled up.
Click to expand...
No/yes/sort of. Problem is, Apple uses “Scaled” to cover at least 3 different situations (one of which isn’t “scaled” at all). I suggest you look at my much longer post from months back:


The big clue is that if you take a screen shot in “looks like 2560x1440” mode you’ll get a full resolution 5120x2880 image. The whole point of these shenanigans is that MacOS and Mac apps can only render at 110ppi or 220ppi, and the fractional scaled modes convert the rendered result to 163ppi or whatever your screen can show. The obvious effect is to change the apparent UI size, but it actually affects the whole display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dootec
theluggage said:
No/yes/sort of. Problem is, Apple uses “Scaled” to cover at least 3 different situations (one of which isn’t “scaled” at all). I suggest you look at my much longer post from months back:


The big clue is that if you take a screen shot in “looks like 2560x1440” mode you’ll get a full resolution 5120x2880 image. The whole point of these shenanigans is that MacOS and Mac apps can only render at 110ppi or 220ppi, and the fractional scaled modes convert the rendered result to 163ppi or whatever your screen can show. The obvious effect is to change the apparent UI size, but it actually affects the whole display.
Click to expand...
My bad then. I always thought that while the UI gets scaled, an app like photoshop would still render the photo in its window at 1:1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dootec
xraydoc said:
My bad then. I always thought that while the UI gets scaled, an app like photoshop would still render the photo in its window at 1:1.
Click to expand...
That's the annoying/unfortunate thing in Photoshop - images at 100% or 200% can't be displayed pixel-correct anymore.
But this is one of the rare cases where uneven scaling is actually unfavorable. In general, you barely have any disadvantages and the gain in detail or space prevails (in regard to an actual lower-res 1440p or similar panel) .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dootec
dootec said:
But why dont you use "looks like 2560x1707" resolution on daily basis? Is this so small? [...]
Click to expand...
Just my two cents: I run my two MateViews at "looks like 3008×2005". I want UI elements and fonts to be small and have lots of room for actual content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dootec
I just bought a Sony 42" 4k monitor that I am quite happy with. KD-43X80. It takes a few days to get used to having that much screen, but it is nice. At this size/resolution you don't need any scaling or pixel doubling. That means it isn't "Retina" but the real estate seems more valuable to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dootec and AlphaCentauri
Hello again, I bought Mateview and I have been using it for 3 days.

3:2 format is beautiful and I'm so shocked when I look my 1080p 16:9 monitor, because it is so tight. Thanks to movie industry for forcing to use them 16:9 format to our homes. I hope like 3:2 formats become popular and we see more alternative displays. :) I recommend Mateview for all people except gamers.

I used my new monitor with Mac and Windows 10.

With Win10, there is no issue with scaling %150 which is recommended by Windows. Everything is perfect. Texts are crystal clear.
At the games, Mateview is not good. Maybe single player games are best fit for it. So I am going to play Spiderman Remastered for "just testing" at August 10 (^_^)


With Mac, "Looks like 1920x1280" best for clarity but I think UI is so big but also I kind of like :) @theluggage what is your font size when you are using "Looks like 1920x1280"?

"Looks like 2560x1707" and "looks like 3008×2005" are good resolutions for lots of room. @Amethyst1 what is your font size when you are using "Looks like 3008×2005"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
I have the m8, nice and I appreciate its additional capabilities. Image quality wise it’s nice but I wish it could go a little brighter. Great price and performance though!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dootec
dootec said:
With Mac, "Looks like 1920x1280" best for clarity but I think UI is so big but also I kind of like :) @theluggage what is your font size when you are using "Looks like 1920x1280"?
Click to expand...
I've generally left everything as defaults - but I've changed VS Code to 11pt and XCode to 10pt - but they could go quite a bit smaller and still produce clear (but small) text - as you said, this is the best mode for clarity. Web browsers generally look best if you "zoom out" one or two steps. The main downside of the large UI is that menu/tab/status bars take up more vertical space - but the extra vertical space on the Mateview more than makes up for that, and by the time you've put something like VS Code into full screen it's not very significant. YMMV if you're using an App that has bulky tool palettes etc. but anything cross-platform like VS Code or the Affinity apps was probably designed with 1080p PCs in mind.

Ultimately - use whatever mode and font size you like!

Aside - PSA - one thing I should mention about the Mateview is that I'm assuming everybody is using a USB-C connection. When I tried HDMI I only got 30Hz 50 Hz - seems like HDMI 2.0 really does max out at 3840x2160@60Hz and won't stretch to 3840x2560@60Hz. Moral - use USB C (which also gives you two handy USB 2 ports on the display & will top up your MacBook battery into the bargain).

Edit: 50Hz not 30Hz.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dootec
theluggage said:
Aside - PSA - one thing I should mention about the Mateview is that I'm assuming everybody is using a USB-C connection.
Click to expand...
I am not. ;) The MateView does 60 Hz via DisplayPort and USB-C.

theluggage said:
When I tried HDMI I only got 30Hz - seems like HDMI 2.0 really does max out at 3840x2160@60Hz and won't stretch to 3840x2560@60Hz.
Click to expand...
The MateView does 50 Hz via HDMI 2.0 OOTB.

HDMI 2.0 is limited to 600 MHz pixel clock (unless you do something to the colour space), which isn’t enough for 3840×2560 at 60 Hz. But it is for 50 Hz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dootec
Amethyst1 said:
I am not. ;) The MateView does 60 Hz via DisplayPort and USB-C.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but USB-C-USB-C and USB-C-DisplayPort are both using the USB-C output on the Mac in DisplayPort mode.

I stand corrected on the 30Hz vs. 50Hz thing. I knew it couldn't do 60Hz.
 
Amethyst1 said:
Desktop icons: 13
Finder windows: 13
Firefox: 13
Terminal windows: 12
Click to expand...
Probably, I believe you are hiding Dock for extra room? :)


theluggage said:
The main downside of the large UI is that menu/tab/status bars take up more vertical space - but the extra vertical space on the Mateview more than makes up for that, and by the time you've put something like VS Code into full screen it's not very significant.
Click to expand...
Yeah, If I found way to decrease scaling Chrome tabs/menus (UI), I would go for "Looks like 1920x1280" for clarity.

But I didn't find it so I use "Looks like 3008×2005" because there is no difference in text clarity between its and "Looks like 2560x1707". For extra room and same clarity, I chosen 3K :) Its good deal imo :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
dootec said:
Probably, I believe you are hiding Dock for extra room? :)
Click to expand...
No, it’s oriented vertically at the left edge of the screen and set to a very small size. I don’t mind losing a bit of width as long as I have as much height as possible. I tried auto-hiding the Dock — it drove me mad. Same goes for the menu bar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back