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

Wolfpup

macrumors 68030
Original poster
My understanding is macOS needs 4K or higher to look right, and then interface elements look like they’re 1080p or whatever in terms of size, but they’re more detailed. I don’t totally understand what people mean, but hopefully text and the interface will be crisp and not too small if I get a 4K or higher resolution monitor.

I just can’t see getting a regular Apple Studio Display because it lacks HDR. I mean objectively it’s maybe not a bad idea for me but…I want HDR and that’s a lot of money for bad contrast and no HDR.

The price on the XDR is nuts of course, but is supposed to have good sound quality, good everything except maybe the response time is slow (I’m hoping it’s good enough).

But…the lack of even dual I outs or an hdmi input is kinda meh.

I want to be able to attach an Apple TV or PlayStation or switch or windows pc or whatever…

But what the heck else would I get? I need mini LED or I guess OLED. OLED I’m worried about burn in or just not being bright enough. There’s a few tandem OLED monitors, I guess.


This guy almost seems pretty good, the only LG tandem monitor I could find, which at least is brighter than most OLEDs.

It’s basically an extra wide 32” monitor…not sure if the curve would drive me nuts since I’d be using it sometimes close up, sometimes across the room while doing dishes or cooking.

Maybe there’s something quality cheaper.

Not sure if the speakers on that lg or anything else are any good.

I’ve got a 12 year old 24” 1080p IPS with beats speakers, 300nits which just gets the job done during a bright day at 100%, and the speakers are just good enough. Like not bad, don’t compare to my Samsung TV.

Any ideas? It’s a ton of money no matter what, I’d really rather have the ability to hook up other devices, like an AppleTV so I can use a remote while watching stuff, or if I decide I can’t stand macOS.

Heeeeeelp 😬

Honestly there’s probably 43” TVs that would get the job done, but 43” 16:9 is maybe too big, and I’d need a vesa mount thingee to slow it to tilt up and down, sometimes I could tilt it up a bit like my current monitor is.

Edit:
Maybe something like this or an LG or Sony equivalent would make sense.


Maybe kinda gigantic, and I’d have to see if I could use it okay without the ability to tilt, and if not attempt to attach a vesa mount thingee (I guess they’re less than $100) and otherwise it’s probably near perfect for what I want…

Ugh. Apple, why not just give us a freaking hdmi port lol
 
Last edited:
What happens is apple sells monitors that by default are set to 2x scaling. What that means is if you want to have that super crisp text look that a macbook or imac screen has (or a studio display), then the ideal sizes and their resolutions are:

* 24" 4k (1920x1080 equivalent)
* 27" 5k (2560x1440 equivalent)
* 32" 6k (3008x1692 equivalent)

Otherwise you're going to want to use 1x scaling. The most common at this time is probably 27" 2160x1440. Maybe 24" 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. Those are classic resolutions.

You can use nonstandard resolutions as well. For example 32" 3840x2160 (properly called UHD but often called 4K). This is smaller than you'll feel comfortable reading without adjusting your zoom level in programs like your web browser and office apps or whatever. But you'll probably find that 32" 4k looks FINE without scaling.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with JoeG4.
I just want to add that 218 ppi is "retina" on an Apple desktop.
And I don't recommend non standard resolutions with macOS.

A 24" 1920/1080 (FHD) is only 94 ppi. I can't advise 24" anymore.
(iMac 24" retina is 4480*2520 at 2x scaling, so 2240*1260)

A 27" 2160*1440 (QHD) is 109 ppi. It's 1x scaling, but OK at usual work distance.
A 27" 3840*2160 (UHD) at 2x scaling is 1920*1080.. so like a 24" displayed on a 27" (quite big and not really retina)
A 27" 5120*2880 (QQHD) is used at 2x scaling (2160*1440) so 218 ppi. It's perfect except 100% photo editing.

A 32" should be 6016 x 3384 to be retina.

My next monitor will be either a 27" QHD (1x) or QQHD (2x).
 
For "older eyes" (like mine), a 27" 4k display running at "looks like 1080p" is absolutely acceptable.

Younger people will complain, "everything is too big".
When you're older, that becomes a feature, not a bug.

Actually, I have a Dell Ultrasharp 27" 4k which I use with BetterDisplay Pro to scale the image to 2048x1152.

"Scaled"...?
Yes, but still looks just fine to me (I sense that BDP is doing something behind the scenes here, to improve it, as well...)
 
I run a 30" Dell U3023E 2560x1600 while I'm sure there is a difference I've never noticed it being less sharp than any of my high resolution screens.
 
simulated-blurrier.png


simulated-shimmer.gif
simulated-moire.png
 
Please note that all occurances of 2160x1440 above should be read as 2560x1440.

You can easily run displays at non-standard simulated resolutions - I've been running my BenQ 27" 4k SW271 at a simulated 2560x1440 (second setting from the left in Displays) for over 7 years, and have never had an issue with it. While it's undoubtedly not quite as sharp as the 5k XDR next to it, my aging eyes can't really tell the difference.
 
I like 1440p for Macs on a 27”, but currently use 4K on a 32”.

I gutted a mid-2011 iMac and turned it into a mini Display port monitor for my daughter to use with her laptop in clamshell mode, as she really liked the display and the aesthetics of the iMac. It looks nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rnb2
I like 1440p for Macs on a 27”, but currently use 4K on a 32”.
My main monitors are a 6k 32" and a 57" that is essentially 2 32" 4k monitors. While you can tell the quality difference, it's not a deal killer.

6k on a 32" with scaling just looks REALLY NICE. 4k still looks decent.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.