How is the Dell U2724D?

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Just curious. I read in the reviews that colors are very good and it has 120 Hz. Limited connectivity, no USB-C but I can live with that. How is the text clarity? I have a Dell U3223QE and text is very crisp on my Mac Studio, even scaled, but not as sharp on a Mac Pro 5,1 with Radeon Sapphire card and Display Port when the resolution is scaled.

 

[iStorm]

You'll get mixed opinions on this. Some say 1440p displays are fine and others will scoff at it.

Based on specs alone, it won't be as sharp as your current 32" 4K display. That one has a PPI of 138, whereas the 27" 1440p display has a PPI of 109. This would be comparable to the 27" 1440p/non-retina iMacs from 2009 and 2012 or the old Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display from 2011, if you're familiar with either of those.

There is someone who got the Thunderbolt version of this display (U2724DE) and likes it. It really depends on what you're using it for, viewing distance, etc.

New Dell Thunderbolt 4 display! Just picked one up on sale!

This monitor just came out… and the reviews are coming in. Most complain about the lack of 4K and HDR, but it is 1440p and 120hz and best of all… the built in thunderbolt 4 and all of the connectivity because of it. I was thinking about it long and hard at $649, but when I saw the price drop to...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[Mac Hammer Fan]

I use my Dell 32 inch most of the time at 3008 x 1692 which is 108 PPI.

 

[iStorm]

I use my Dell 32 inch most of the time at 3008 x 1692 which is 108 PPI.

That's not exactly how PPI works with scaled resolutions, and it wouldn't be correct to compare them that way. Yes, UI elements and text would be about the same size between the two, but it would be sharper on the 32" display due to the higher actual pixel density of 138 PPI.

3008x1692 is just what it "looks like". The UI is sized to look like a 3008x1692 display, but it's still making use of the full 4K resolution, creating a sharper image. If you're not familiar with scaling on macOS, it uses a display buffer twice the resolution you're using (6016x3384 in your case), and then downscales that to the display's resolution (3084x2160).

Here's an example using 2x scaling to keep things simple. The image on the left is how a 10-pixel wide circle would appear on a native 1080p/1440p display, and the image on the right is how the same circle would appear on a 4K/5K display that "looks like" 1080p/1440p.

As you can see, the circles are the same size, but the one on the right is sharper because of it being upscaled and making use of the higher pixel density. It does not just simply do a 1x1 to 2x2 pixel mapping to achieve the "looks like" 1080p/1440p resolution. The same effect applies to text/fonts as well. (Older versions of macOS handles scaling and font smoothing differently, which may explain why things aren't as sharp on your Mac Pro 5,1.)

 

[MikeDr206]

That's not exactly how PPI works with scaled resolutions, and it wouldn't be correct to compare them that way. Yes, UI elements and text would be about the same size between the two, but it would be sharper on the 32" display due to the higher actual pixel density of 138 PPI.

3008x1692 is just what it "looks like". The UI is sized to look like a 3008x1692 display, but it's still making use of the full 4K resolution, creating a sharper image. If you're not familiar with scaling on macOS, it uses a display buffer twice the resolution you're using (6016x3384 in your case), and then downscales that to the display's resolution (3084x2160).

Here's an example using 2x scaling to keep things simple. The image on the left is how a 10-pixel wide circle would appear on a native 1080p/1440p display, and the image on the right is how the same circle would appear on a 4K/5K display that "looks like" 1080p/1440p.

View attachment 2389737

As you can see, the circles are the same size, but the one on the right is sharper because of it being upscaled and making use of the higher pixel density. It does not just simply do a 1x1 to 2x2 pixel mapping to achieve the "looks like" 1080p/1440p resolution. The same effect applies to text/fonts as well. (Older versions of macOS handles scaling and font smoothing differently, which may explain why things aren't as sharp on your Mac Pro 5,1.)

Your comment needs to be a sticky somewhere. This is the best explanation. If we were in Reddit I’d give you some kind of reward. Too many people think that unless you’re driving a monitor at its native resolution, you’re not getting the benefit of that resolution.

I do blame Apple in part. It does make sense that selection of a given resolution in settings means the monitor will be driven at that resolution.

Apple needs to make more clear that this is the “looks like“ resolution still takes advantage of the full native resolution of the display. When I’m appointed CEO of Apple, I would have your post as a popup when you select the little question mark in settings.