??? 27 inch has been the Apple-standard physical size for 5K for almost a decade now.
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.
Deals: Samsung Kicks Off Father's Day Sale With $250 Off iMac-Like Smart Monitor M8
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But first you need something that people will actually pay that price for.
Samsung doesn't make one but there's cheap 3rd party adapters to VESA mount the M8
The default is already pretty big. I would wager that most people who change it from the default actually go for higher virtual res, not lower.
Thanks...I guess I'll have to go the Apple Store or somewhere that I can see a 27" 5K monitor tied to a MacBook Pro and see it in person!
People on this forum obsess over perfectly even integer scaling to achieve retina PPI even though a regular 4K display at 27" will be indistinguishable from a 5K display at that size when viewed from a normal viewing desk distance for most people (the people who dispute this are the ones who most likely lean in closely to their displays to admire the pixel density).
That being said there is some logic to this. Before high-DPI displays like 4k and 5k became common QHD was the standard resolution for a 27" display (2560x1440). 5K is exactly 2x the vertical and horizontal resolutions of QHD (4x the pixels total). This means that a 5K monitor running in QHD scaled mode will scale the display output exactly 2x the original output. On a Mac this results in optimal sharpness of text and UI elements because of the bizarre way macOS handles UI scaling.
The Mac's internal display engine will render the display in two modes - native and retina. If you set your Mac to any display scaling that's not the optimal 2x scaling of the display's native resolution then the graphics subsystem will still render the display output at 2x and then scale it down to fit the display. For example if you plug a 4K display into a Mac and choose the display setting that looks like QHD then macOS will still render the display at 5K resolution and then scale it down to fit the 4K display resolution. This can lead to a slight loss of sharpness that some users find unacceptable. (I personally barely notice it). Users would have to run a 4K display at the display scaling equivalent of FHD/1080p to get that perfect 2x scaling on a 4K display, which results in an overly large UI.
So that's why Mac users obsess over 5K for 27" displays and routinely trash 4K panels for being inferior and low resolution. It also means that a 32" display has to be 6K to achieve the same 2x scaling equilibrium.
First-hand experience — if you care about color accuracy at all — utter garbage. If you just want to watch Netflix and check your email — highly recommended.
I'm in the market and doing research on monitors since transitioning from an iMac to Studio. I'm, thinking some sort of 34" widescreen but reviews are mixed and only two options for 5k. I'm worried everything will be disappointing going from a 5k Retina to ? Plus, there are many reports of non apple monitors not working properly. Thoughts? Thank you!
Apple does a **** job handling display scaling because they only care about the displays that come with their computer or the ones they sell.
There is zero reason that an OS shouldn't be able to gracefully handle non-integer scaling for a 27" or 32" 4K display and look fantastic.
163 PPI is the same pixel density as the original iPhone. This monitor is basically a 6x12 stack of old school non-retina panels.
For this use case 27" 4K on a desk is definitely 'retina' level. probably too much so for most. I have two at work and no one else in the office can read my screens and always fuss about it when they try.
Scaling is a waste of canvas for me so I fuss about that and how much it sucks turning a nice crisp monitor into a blown up display showing partial info and forcing scrolling everywhere.
1440p is just too small a canvas for what I am used to now after nearly 10 years of 4K. It was nice back in 2008 with the big chin iMacs.
My boss has the same dual S7 set up but in 32", which looks great with his Macbook, from a greater distance as everything is scaled up and massive. If you get up and close to 27" 4K 100% scaling, it's very sharp at 163 PPI but it is a more classic rendering experience rather than scaling everything which limits what you can see but is smoother. I zoom in when someone is observing so they can read/see. It's just a shame nearly no one can see as clearly to use native high resolution from a short distance.
I can tell the difference between my old 807PPI and current 643PPI Sony phones. But you don't need pixel density like that everywhere, and I miss the 2160p canvas size of the XZ Premium compared to the slimmer 21:10 1644p Xperia 1, 643PPI is still excellent and any other phone is out of the question until they step up. It's certainly nice to have higher DPI but it depends on how and where you look at it. My home desktop set up is 102PPI but it's still effectively 'retina' level at 43"
Blowing the scaling factor up to even 110% ruins the canvas size for me. It's a waste of pixels and everything works better at 100% scaling, pixel perfect rendering. I even forced both Sony phones to run native, it's a big difference to my eyes. Opting to use 200% (1080p canvas) to get a crisp render is a joke and I would definitely recommend 4K 43" for a desktop monitor that isn't 5K. given what people have mentioned here, that one 43" panel would be the equivalent of four of these M8s, you just need a very deep desk. 'Normal' size screens and scaling seem really limiting after using that kind of large canvas. It will be more similar to vision pro than this 2014 style 27" 4K 60Hz. Probably better with 144Hz vs 90/96Hz.
For this use case 27" 4K on a desk is definitely 'retina' level. probably too much so for most. I have two at work and no one else in the office can read my screens and always fuss about it when they try.
Scaling is a waste of canvas for me so I fuss about that and how much it sucks turning a nice crisp monitor into a blown up display showing partial info and forcing scrolling everywhere.
1440p is just too small a canvas for what I am used to now after nearly 10 years of 4K. It was nice back in 2008 with the big chin iMacs.
My boss has the same dual S7 set up but in 32", which looks great with his Macbook, from a greater distance as everything is scaled up and massive. If you get up and close to 27" 4K 100% scaling, it's very sharp at 163 PPI but it is a more classic rendering experience rather than scaling everything which limits what you can see but is smoother. I zoom in when someone is observing so they can read/see. It's just a shame nearly no one can see as clearly to use native high resolution from a short distance.
I can tell the difference between my old 807PPI and current 643PPI Sony phones. But you don't need pixel density like that everywhere, and I miss the 2160p canvas size of the XZ Premium compared to the slimmer 21:10 1644p Xperia 1, 643PPI is still excellent and any other phone is out of the question until they step up. It's certainly nice to have higher DPI but it depends on how and where you look at it. My home desktop set up is 102PPI but it's still effectively 'retina' level at 43"
Blowing the scaling factor up to even 110% ruins the canvas size for me. It's a waste of pixels and everything works better at 100% scaling, pixel perfect rendering. I even forced both Sony phones to run native, it's a big difference to my eyes. Opting to use 200% (1080p canvas) to get a crisp render is a joke and I would definitely recommend 4K 43" for a desktop monitor that isn't 5K. given what people have mentioned here, that one 43" panel would be the equivalent of four of these M8s, you just need a very deep desk. 'Normal' size screens and scaling seem really limiting after using that kind of large canvas. It will be more similar to vision pro than this 2014 style 27" 4K 60Hz. Probably better with 144Hz vs 90/96Hz.