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.
Decent monitor for macs? Seen at Costco
- Thread starter zapmymac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Costco has great deals and some monitors for your uses. Such as the LG 32" 4K ulrtafine.
As for the monitor you linked. I would go for this from Amazon. $297.
higher resolution and larger screen size.
slickdeals.net
As for the monitor you linked. I would go for this from Amazon. $297.
34" LG 34GP63A-B 3440x1440 160Hz VA Curved FreeSync Premium Gaming Monitor $297 + Free Shipping
higher resolution and larger screen size.
34" LG 34GP63A-B 3440x1440 160Hz Curved FreeSync Premium VA Monitor - $296.99 + F/S - Amazon
Amazon [amazon.com] has 34" LG 34GP63A-B 3440x1440 160Hz Curved FreeSync Premium VA Monitor for $296.99. Shipping is free. Price: $103.00 lower (26% savings) than the list price of $399.99
slickdeals.net
Last edited:
Personally, I would not run anything less than 4K on macOS. macOS's font smoothing on low PPI monitors looks crappy in my opinion.
I'd go for something 4K, then run a "scaled" resolution set to 2560x1440 for 27" 4K monitors or 3008x1692 (it's something like that, can't recall exactly) for 32" monitors. Font at those scaled sizes will look appropriately sized and unless you're doing pixel-perfect graphics or text layout -- which, no offense, you're likely not doing if you're looking at that kind of monitor at Costco -- it'll be more than sufficient. And the font smoothing won't look like garbage.
I used to have a 32" 4K and it was quite satisfactory at (scaled hi-DPI) 3008x1692. If you like text to be a little larger, (scaled hi-DPI) 2560x1600 works well, too.
FYI, the Costco monitor's 2560x1440 (a.k.a. "2K resolution") at 32" is only 92 PPI. That's really low.
4K at 32" is about 138 PPI.
4K at 27" is 164 PPI.
And for reference, Apple's 27" 5K and 32" 6K are both around 218 PPI.
Bottom line - the higher the PPI, the sharper text will look at any size. Get yourself a 4K monitor then you can experiment with scaling sizes to find one that gives you enough balance between desktop space and text size.
Last edited:
So there is a significant difference in text clarity between a native 3440x1440p 34" monitor and something like a 32" 4K monitor scaled down to 1440p?
I thought I would be wasting money when scaling down from a 4k or 5k 2k to a 1440p. People on this forums who've downscaled say the text becomes blurry because of macOS scaling. It needs to use extra GPU and has to be 110 or 220 PPI. I'm sure you've seen that article and Youtube video.
Over the typical 3440x11440 (110 PPI). The LG I linked is 167 PPI~.
Thanks.
From what I understand, MacOS scales a 27' 4k up to 5120x2880 and then scales it back to native, 2560x1440. Here's a great article that explains it in detail:
"4K Scaling" Is Not a Problem on Modern Macs - Byte Cellar
I found myself posting this information so frequently on forum threads and in video comments that I wanted to put it all together in one place so that I can share my experience and what I’ve learned with a single … Continue reading →
bytecellar.com
That's a great article but mostly addresses the performance side of it vs. the clarity. Notice in the comments the author responds to a question about clarity. I don't think most folks who prefer 5K or 6K are primarily concerned about the performance. It's more just a subjective POV about what they want to look at all day. If one likes 4K, that's great.From what I understand, MacOS scales a 27' 4k up to 5120x2880 and then scales it back to native, 2560x1440. Here's a great article that explains it in detail:"4K Scaling" Is Not a Problem on Modern Macs - Byte Cellar
I found myself posting this information so frequently on forum threads and in video comments that I wanted to put it all together in one place so that I can share my experience and what I’ve learned with a single … Continue reading →bytecellar.com
Right, in the discussion about clarity, he says the 2560x1440 scaled non-HiDPI will look blurry and uneven. Apparently choosing the 2560x1440 HiDPI option (I suppose you could chose this in BetterDisplay if not in system prefs) would yield the best results if you have a 27' 4k. I still don't get how a 3840x2160 could be scaled down to 2560x1440 non-HiDPI, does it have to cut pixels into fractions?
Yes.
macOS has two scaling options - HiDPI and non-HiDPI. Typically, if you're using a 4K (or higher) monitor, the non-HiDPI ("low resolution") modes are hidden. They can be forced if you want.
Screenshot shows all the options for my Studio Display (5K) on macOS Ventura 13.2 (older versions will have a bit of a different layout):
The low resolution mode for, say, 2560x1440 is just a 2560x1440 screen buffer blown up to fit the edges of your screen. Fonts will be jagged since they're created with fewer pixels. The HiDPI modes are created with 2x the screen buffer - so 2560x1440 is really created at 5120x2880, so fonts have essentially 4 times the number of pixels that can be used, resulting in sharper text. That image is then shrunk to fit your monitor's native resolution.
If it's not exact (say, a 5K image onto a 4K display), there's some extra math involved ("fractional scaling"), which can add back a little bit of fuzziness to the image, but still looks way better than creating fonts from 4x fewer pixels.
Now, on older Intel machines, this extra math used to cause some performance decrease. On M-series Macs, the difference is virtually indistinguishable, so there's no good reason not to use them unless you're rendering images for the next Pixar movie, laying out photos for National Geographic magazine, or doing layout for the New York Times. I'm being slightly facetious, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.
Bottom line, on a 27" 4K display, rendering macOS at (what looks like) 2560x1440, even though it requires a fractional scaling mode, will still look better than on a native 2560x1440p display. And on an M1 or M2-based Mac, the performance hit will be essentially zero for everything but the most demanding workloads, for which you'd already own a 5K or 6K display anyway.
Windows, on the other hand, uses a different method of font rendering, which, unfortunately for us, actually looks better on lower PPI displays than macOS. So Windows users can get away with lower resolution displays with less font rendering issues (though desktop space will suffer).
There's a lot of talk about how buying a 2560x1440 monitor is such a bad idea on MacOS. I don't agree.
I have a Dell U2520D and it's very good. No issues with sharpness. I run it at its native resolution (2560x1440).
I wonder if that resolution is too low for a 32" monitor if you sit close to it, as it's fine on my 25" one. I guess you won't though, as it's too big to sit close to otherwise you'll have to keep turning your head to see it all!
For reference, I run my (Intel) MBA at 1680x1050.
I have a Dell U2520D and it's very good. No issues with sharpness. I run it at its native resolution (2560x1440).
I wonder if that resolution is too low for a 32" monitor if you sit close to it, as it's fine on my 25" one. I guess you won't though, as it's too big to sit close to otherwise you'll have to keep turning your head to see it all!
For reference, I run my (Intel) MBA at 1680x1050.
I wouldn't quite say "bad idea", but at native 2560x1440, the way Windows renders fonts looks better than macOS. People who've looked at both will often immediately comment about how jagged the Mac's fonts look on-screen. There's many threads on here about it. It's simply the way macOS draws them. There's even several discussions about software "fixes" to force HiDPI font rendering on non-HiDPI displays.
If it doesn't bother you, then that's great (and lucky, to be honest). But for only very slightly more money, a 4K60 display can be had which gives better looking results.
And unless you're playing games on the Mac (and let's be real about that), the high refresh rate 1440p gaming monitors aren't bringing that much to the table, again unless you're not at all bothered by how the text looks.
If given the choice between 4K font rendering or 144+ Hz refresh rates, I'll take 4K.
Interesting you say that because IMHO the best looking non-Apple monitor I've ever used with my Macs is an old Acer 2560x1440. To my eye it looks better than 4K scaled. I think it was called "QHD" resolution but this is going back to 2015.
On a 27” monitor 2560x1440 is a perfectly good non-Retina resolution, avoiding the “bad zone”. The bjango guys (makers of iStat Menus) argue that it’s either 109 or 218dpi, or bust.
I have noticed my 93 ppi display looks much better in Windows than it does in MacOS.
I think the OP has sorta had his thread hijacked.
I've never had a retina Mac in daily use so my under-$300 4K LG monitor looks great compared to what I've had before.
The issue for me is brightness/contrast/gamma etc. and how to configure it properly without investing in calibration equipment that doesn't make sense for a cheap monitor. I asked the question on this forum and didn't get any answers. However, I think I was able to determine a sweet spot for contrast using the display setup in Windows 11 (via Parallels).
I've never had a retina Mac in daily use so my under-$300 4K LG monitor looks great compared to what I've had before.
The issue for me is brightness/contrast/gamma etc. and how to configure it properly without investing in calibration equipment that doesn't make sense for a cheap monitor. I asked the question on this forum and didn't get any answers. However, I think I was able to determine a sweet spot for contrast using the display setup in Windows 11 (via Parallels).
I also agree, though current MacOS does benefit from tweaking the smoothing setting. Used to be easy, now it takes a little more effort. I've been perfectly happy with my Dell U2717D's text clarity; I discern no functional difference between my Win11 laptop and my MBP.
How to Change or Remove Font Smoothing on MacOS Monterey & Big Sur
Are you noticing blurry text on your Mac’s display while navigating through the menu and across apps? More specifically, has this been an issue ever since you updated to macOS Monterey or Big…
osxdaily.com
I also agree, though current MacOS does benefit from tweaking the smoothing setting. Used to be easy, now it takes a little more effort. I've been perfectly happy with my Dell U2717D's text clarity; I discern no functional difference between my Win11 laptop and my MBP.
How to Change or Remove Font Smoothing on MacOS Monterey & Big Sur
Are you noticing blurry text on your Mac’s display while navigating through the menu and across apps? More specifically, has this been an issue ever since you updated to macOS Monterey or Big…
i believe this setting has gone away in Ventura?
The old checkbox went away a while ago. I'd used the Terminal command to experiment and ended up where I was pleased. I can read the setting in Terminal in Ventura with defaults -currentHost read -g AppleFontSmoothing, so it ought to be writeable. (I don't have time to do a reboot to validate right now)
Also not that at least with my Dell display, adjusting the display's sharpness setting also made a difference. Mine's set to 50/100 and if I go too low or too high the text isn't pleasant.
Granted, this is a bit of tweaking to get things started, but it stick once set - I've had my U2717D for a number of years and it's been a great monitor.
Did you try reading this before you set it? On a fresh install of Ventura the key “AppleFontSmoothing” doesn’t exist. If you write it first then you can read it afterwards. You can write any key/value pair you like, but nothing is going to use it.
I’d upgraded rather than a clean install.
Whatever the mechanics, my display is fine, no noticeable difference in readability from my work Window system.
It seemed to when I was on Monterey.
With no observed changes after installing the Ventura update, I've had no reason to mess with it.
I agree, unlike other modern operating systems, macOS handling of sub-4k monitors is horrible. Regardless of the reasons, you'll get a dramatically worse user experience if you opt for anything lower then 4k
5K is by far my preference. However we have and old QHD monitor (2560 x 1440) which I think looks okay and runs native. Looks better to me than scaled 4K - and obviously cheaper. We use it only occasionally.
I have a 34" ultrawide that runs at 3440 x 1440, using Linux, windows, it looks fantastic, but definitely subpar on my MBP. Not horrible, but not great either. The monitor is only about 4 years old, so I'm not about to make any changes
Everything is subpar to me other than 5K (or XDR). With you on that. macOS just doesn't handle displays very well.