Honestly I just need a platform to see bigger. My work consists mainly on writing and reading PDFs.
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.
External Monitor - help
- Thread starter RaphaZ
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
floral
macrumors 65816
xraydoc
Contributor
I respectfully disagree. As someone who looks at text most of the day, sharp fonts and diagrams are very important to me. I wouldn't go below 4K for that very reason. Retina text is worlds better than text at 1080p.
adrianlondon
macrumors 604
The same resolution but not the same sharpness. Retina downscales to 1080p which means smoother fonts. How important that is to a person and how good their eyesight is, varies.
I run my 13" MBA at 1680x1050 (called "More Space" in settings). I believe the native resolution is 2560x1600.
I run my new (and lovely! but I've never had an external monitor before) 25" monitor at its native resolution of 2560x1440.
To me, as someone over 40 and who wears basic reading glasses, they both look great (with the glasses on 🙂 ).
xraydoc
Contributor
4K at "looks like" 2560x1440 (@ 27") is a very good balance between text size, sharpness and cost (versus 5K @ 2560x1440).
xraydoc
Contributor
Pixels Per Inch PPI Calculator
PPI Calculator finds pixels per inch (PPI) and pixels per square inch (PPI^2). Calculate screen resolution and pixel density using width and height of display screen in pixels. Also find dot pitch and diagonal in pixels. Enter screen diagonal in inches or cm.
www.calculatorsoup.com
xraydoc
Contributor
I ran a 27" 4K at looks-like 2560x1440 and a 32" 4K at looks-like 3002x1620 (or something like that). Both looked very good and way better than what a native 1440p monitor looks like. Fractionally scaled, yes, but still high DPI and on modern Macs, the performance impact is minimal to negligible.
Personally, running a 27" 4K at looks-like 1920x1080 wouldn't give me enough desktop space and text that is way too big. Text would be sized appropriately at looks-like 1920x1080 on a 21"-24" monitor, but simply too big at 27".
That's why Apple uses 5K at 27" instead of 4K (so default can be looks-like 2560x1440). Apple used 4K at just over 21" in the 21" Retina iMac.
Thank you for the site sharing.
What other features can I perceive to be better on the new monitor, in comparison with the old one? I know now that in terms of PPI the newer is just slightly better; and in terms of brightness or contrast, for example, are those features important? I'm still thinking if I will return it (it cost me 100 euros).
xraydoc
Contributor
They're important - but only you can decide how important based on the work that you. I can't really answer that for you.
I certainly wouldn't want to use a super high resolution monitor that produced a dim, washed-out picture, but nor would I want to use a low resolution monitor with hyper-accurate colors and high brightness, because my home computer requirements are 75% text based, 25% images.
Meanwhile, at the office, I have some monitors that have less than 4K resolution but are medical grade insofar as color reproduction, brightness and uniformity, so they're the right tool for the job.
Hello! I found out that the old monitor had a special code name, referring it as a 22". Does that make a difference overall?
Amethyst1
macrumors G3
No. A larger size at the same resolution results in lower pixel density.
Last edited:
Does someone know what is the best resolution for me on 27" if I like 1920x1024 on 24"? What is comparable for 27"?
I know that people love mostly scaled 1440 for 4k display but for me the text is still too tiny.
I have Apple Studio Display right now and 2560x1440 is tiny for my eyes, so I am using bigger UI something like 2034x1090 (do not know excatly right now) but I am thinking to return it and buy cheaper Dell U2723qe but I need to know what native resolution is for bigger UI in macOs next to 2560x1440. Is there something between 1440 and 1080p?
I am speaking only about HIDI do not want this low res which looks blury. And is this setting native or macOs need more GPU and CPU power for scaling?
Thanks!
Last edited:
Amethyst1
macrumors G3
I assume you mean 1920×1080 on 24", which results in 91.79 ppi. The "equivalent" resolution on 27" would be 2160×1215, resulting in the exact same 91.79 ppi. You won't get this HiDPI mode OOTB, i.e. you'll have to add it manually using SwitchResX. You'll get 2048×1152 HiDPI OOTB though, which results in 87.03 ppi.
Scaled HiDPI modes hit the GPU, but whether that impact is noticeable is a different matter.
xraydoc
Contributor
If you're referring to non-fractional and fractional scaling, then the only "native" one is when it is exactly 1/2 of the display's native resolution. For example, the Studio Display is a 5120x2880 panel, so exactly 1/2 would be looks-like 2560x1440. Another example is any 4K display which is 3840x2160; exactly 1/2 would be looks-like 1920x1080.
If you've got any recent Mac, particularly something running on Apple Silicon, the fractional scaling performance impact should be minimal to imperceptible.
There's nothing wrong with running your Studio Display at 2034x1090. But if you want less expensive, then a 27" 4K display running at 1920x1080 would give you similar-sized text as the 27" Studio Display (2034x1090 vs 1920x1080, both at 27"; not terribly different), but wouldn't give you any more desktop space than a native 1920x1080 panel. Although the text would be much sharper as there are 4x as many pixels with which to draw each letter.
There's going to be no "best" here. You're going to have to decide which of the multiple variables here are most important to you. If you truly need text that is that large on a 27" display, then you may as well just go 4K and run it at looks-like 1920x1080 instead of a more expensive 5K Studio Display.
Amethyst1
macrumors G3
A small correction: the pixel-perfect HiDPI mode is exactly 1/4 of the native resolution. (5120×2880) / 4 = (2560×1440).
Apart from "wasting" some pixels once you go below 2560×1440 (on a "5K" display) since e.g. a 2304×1296 HiDPI mode implies a 4608×2592 framebuffer being upscaled for output at 5120×2880. But in the end, what matters is whether it "works" for the OP or not.
Last edited:
Thank you for all the inputs.
I've tested the new monitor for about a month, it was still on the trial period.
I've decided to keep it: today I've ran some tests with the old monitor and I've figure out that to me the image in the new monitor seemed to have better sharpness and was generally better to my eyes (the white colors, for example, didn't hurt my vision; the blur effect was very well controlled). The brightness of the screen is also better, something that couldn't even be matched on the system definitions of the old Samsung: I'll give this to the my nephew!
It seems that sight takes time to get adapted to new patterns, and when I began testing the MSI monitor I was still on the Samsung pattern, if you know what I mean. I don't know if this make sense.
I've tested the new monitor for about a month, it was still on the trial period.
I've decided to keep it: today I've ran some tests with the old monitor and I've figure out that to me the image in the new monitor seemed to have better sharpness and was generally better to my eyes (the white colors, for example, didn't hurt my vision; the blur effect was very well controlled). The brightness of the screen is also better, something that couldn't even be matched on the system definitions of the old Samsung: I'll give this to the my nephew!
It seems that sight takes time to get adapted to new patterns, and when I began testing the MSI monitor I was still on the Samsung pattern, if you know what I mean. I don't know if this make sense.
Thanks! My thinking is that I like 1920x1080 for 24” but for 27” I think it will be waste of workplace and too big fonts.
But I think for 4k monitor is is good as it scaled 1/2 and does not impact performance?
For Studio Display I use something like 2034x1090 but it is maybe 21yyx1090 - do not remember, I am in work right now, so I can not check.
It provide me little bit more workspace against 1920x1080 it is just maybe a feeling and the difference is minor 🙂
On the other hand I am trying to use 2560x1440 and while It is tiny I think I can get used to it as time goes and Iit provides me much more space for more windows opened.
But if I will be using 2560x1440, then I think it does not matter if I have 4k or 5k monitor there is no difference.
I want to be rational as ASD is beautiful display but expensive for the value it brings. My main point why I bought it is design for my phillips hue desk setup and that my previous bosses worked with iMacs and I loved it!
Now I am wondering if I should spend less and use money for something more necessary.. or maybe going to buy 2x4k Dell.
On the other hand my desk setup is in very dark room where light bleed will be much more visible on Dell than Apple? I think that Apple has better black color so for dark corner of my room is maybe still better ASD
If It would be OLED as my TV, I would not hesitate with ASD and keep it.
Btw, I have 14” M1Pro with 10/16/16/1TB so I should be okay with scaling problems.
But to me honest I noticed on my ASD lagging but maybe it was due to 60Hz panel as I am using all devices with promotion technology (iphone, iPad Pro M1, MacBook Pro)
But I think for 4k monitor is is good as it scaled 1/2 and does not impact performance?
For Studio Display I use something like 2034x1090 but it is maybe 21yyx1090 - do not remember, I am in work right now, so I can not check.
It provide me little bit more workspace against 1920x1080 it is just maybe a feeling and the difference is minor 🙂
On the other hand I am trying to use 2560x1440 and while It is tiny I think I can get used to it as time goes and Iit provides me much more space for more windows opened.
But if I will be using 2560x1440, then I think it does not matter if I have 4k or 5k monitor there is no difference.
I want to be rational as ASD is beautiful display but expensive for the value it brings. My main point why I bought it is design for my phillips hue desk setup and that my previous bosses worked with iMacs and I loved it!
Now I am wondering if I should spend less and use money for something more necessary.. or maybe going to buy 2x4k Dell.
On the other hand my desk setup is in very dark room where light bleed will be much more visible on Dell than Apple? I think that Apple has better black color so for dark corner of my room is maybe still better ASD
If It would be OLED as my TV, I would not hesitate with ASD and keep it.
Btw, I have 14” M1Pro with 10/16/16/1TB so I should be okay with scaling problems.
But to me honest I noticed on my ASD lagging but maybe it was due to 60Hz panel as I am using all devices with promotion technology (iphone, iPad Pro M1, MacBook Pro)
Last edited:
Amethyst1
macrumors G3
I think I know what you mean. When I went from a 24" 4K to a 27" 5K monitor, it was initially giving me nausea. Really. A few days later, that feeling was gone.