iMac 27” and 4K 32” Display - Setups?

[ruslan120]

Is anybody using a 27” iMac with a 32” 4K monitor? How weildy /unwieldy is the setup? Do you have any pictures?

(Im considering a 32” to use with the iMac but am concerned the distance at which both screen are visible would render retina useless)

 

[Fishrrman]

4k in HiDPI mode on a 32" display (looks like 1080p) will yield text (displayed at "normal" font sizes) that may be WAY too large for your tastes.

BUT...
4k in "full resolution" mode (pixel for pixel) will probably be too small to read text displayed at normal font sizes.

SO...
You'll have to "compromise" by scaling the image to "something in between".
That's going to put a lot more "load" onto the GPU, heat up the iMac and ramp up the fans.

On the other hand...
A 32" 1440p display (2550x1440 native resolution, NOT "4k") would look much better, because it offers that "compromise" resolution, but it's running at "native" resolution WITHOUT scaling.

This is the same resolution that 5k iMacs ship with, in "default mode" for the display, I believe.

No, it's not "4k".
But it's very usable and readable, satisfyingly sharp enough, and won't over-tax the iMac's GPU...

If you just have-to-have 4k, a 27" display is probably the better choice...

(To my knowledge, nobody makes a 32" panel that is 5k, at least not yet)

 

[theluggage]

Is anybody using a 27” iMac with a 32” 4K monitor? How weildy /unwieldy is the setup? Do you have any pictures?

Haven't got a 32" but I've got a 28" on a 2017 5k iMac. Mostly I run it in scaled "looks like 2560x1440" mode.

First, its subjective - Your Eyesight May Vary, but I'd say that in '1:1' mode ('looks like 3840x2160') it's on the verge of usability for me (I can certainly read everything and if my eyeballs were a decade or two younger I'd probably be OK) so my feeling is that 32" would work well at 1:1. Bear in mind that its only the menu/icon/dialogue text that gets small - most applications let you freely zoom whatever you're working on.

Second, the "scaled modes" with intermediate sizes really are very good and while the GPU load may be an issue on Macs with Intel integrated GPUs/Shared VRAM, the GPUs in the better Mac Pro with plenty of VRAM shouldn't break a sweat. It depends a bit on whether you're running GPU-heavy applications and whether you're 'working' on the 4k or using it to preview graphics/video (in which case you may as well keep it at 1:1).

It depends a bit as to which is going to be the "main" display - I use the 5k as my main display and have the 4k on one side because, well, my 4k secondary display is a cheap and cheerful one that, although nice and sharp and great for extra 'real estate', isn't fit to lick the iMac's boots in terms of colour/contrast. If I had a high-quality 4k 32" I'd want to use it as the main display and put the iMac to the side. However, given that the iMac's display, size nonwithstanding, is hard to beat that seems a bit of a waste, so I'd probably recommend having a second 27" 4k (at "looks like 1440p") alongside the iMac.

A 32" 1440p display (2550x1440 native resolution, NOT "4k") would look much better, because it offers that "compromise" resolution

Have to disagree with that. The way that the scaled modes work is: a 4k display at 'looks like 2560x1440' is actually a 5k image (5120x2880) in regular 2:1 (i.e. what you normally see on a 5k iMac) downsampled to 4k. The result is slightly 'soft' and has lost some detail compared to true 5k but contains considerably more detail than 1440p (and it is far harder to see the pixels) - it's still a 4k image.

A 1440p display isn't bad but its a bit last decade and with 32" at desktop viewing distances you're gonna start seeing pixels. Scaled mode on 4k will have more detail and you can change mode in seconds to e.g. view 4k content at full quality.

This is the same resolution that 5k iMacs ship with, in "default mode" for the display, I believe.

No, the 5k iMacs ship in 5k "HiDPI" mode. Unless you're using ancient software pre-2012 or so that doesn't include support for retina displays or hasn't bothered to include retina versions of icons etc. that's true 5k (just as the 'looks like 1080p' mode on 4k displays is true 4k, just using double-sized assets).

The "looks like xxxx x yyyy" notation used by Apple is misleading - all it really tells you is the physical size of icons, fonts etc. relative to the screen size is the same as a standard def screen of that resolution. On a retina display, unless you jump through hoops to show the low-res options, the actual resolution is usually much better.

Scaled modes on 4k/5k/"Retina" displays are night and day compared to the awful results you get with non-native resolutions on standard-def screens (which just involves sending whichever resolution you've chosen and letting the display sort it out).

 

[mj_]

A 32" 1440p display (2550x1440 native resolution, NOT "4k") would look much better, because it offers that "compromise" resolution, but it's running at "native" resolution WITHOUT scaling.

I strongly disagree with that. A 32" 4K display will look SOOOO MUCH better than any 32" QHD display even when scaled. On a 32" QHD display you will be able to see every single pixel due to its extremely low double-digit PPI of just 91. Let me repeat that: 91 pixels per inch! The 90s called. They want their individual pixels back

A 32" 4K will look MUCH better even in a non-optimal scaled resolution. The difference is like night and day.
[automerge]1582911053[/automerge]

Is anybody using a 27” iMac with a 32” 4K monitor? How weildy /unwieldy is the setup? Do you have any pictures?

Not a 32" but a 27" 4K. Although I don't use it anymore because even that was too unwieldy for me. I had to turn my head too much, and the outermost edges were too far for my personal taste. I could have rectified this by moving further away from the displays but that would have required a deeper desk, and I would have had to decrease the scaling on both to see as well as I do now. That's why I've reverted back to a single display for the time being.

My next computer is most likely not going to be an all-in-one anymore but a 49" Ultrawide display connected to either a tower computer or a powerful yet quiet laptop. As much as I love the iMac and its display I loathe the fact that already I am limited in my capabilities to improve my current desk setup.

 

[ruslan120]

Thank you for the detailed and clear responses - I really appreciate them.

That's going to put a lot more "load" onto the GPU, heat up the iMac and ramp up the fans.

Thank you for the clear response. I have a Vega 48 in the iMac and a 5700 XT in an external box, so graphics power is a non-issue. I would probably plug it into the eGPU.

I use the 5k as my main display and have the 4k on one side because, well, my 4k secondary display is a cheap and cheerful one that, although nice and sharp and great for extra 'real estate', isn't fit to lick the iMac's boots in terms of colour/contrast.

This is exactly what I was wondering. I would probably go for a higher quality panel for video editing - I've noticed that 5K makes less of a difference for video editing than screen size (32" is a night and day difference compared to 27" IMO). BUT... even high-end panels have a hard time competing with the iMac. At least in my brief experience (I hope I'm wrong).

The iMac's display, size nonwithstanding, is hard to beat that seems a bit of a waste...

This is my worry. Also, using the iMac on the side would de-center the iMac's speakers and detract from the user experience. Another worry - moving the 32" and 27" to usable distances would detract from the high pixel density of the iMac.


Kind of regretting going for an iMac over a Mac Mini (if only Apple made an 8-core Mini). -____-

 

[gilby101]

Kind of regretting going for an iMac over a Mac Mini

I don't think that improves the situation. Whatever Mac you have, the design elements look best (size, sharpness, etc.) on displays with about either 220 ppi (Retina mode) or 110 ppi (non-Retina). Anything else as you need to use the scaled resolution compromise if you want text size to look as intended and as the same on both screens.

For 16:9 screens:
220 ppi = 4096x2304 (4K) on 22", 5120x2880 (5K) on 27", or 6016x3384 vertical pixels (6K) on 32"
110 ppi = 2560x1440 on 27"
Wider screens include:
110 ppi = 3440x1440 on 34" - that would look quite good next to the iMac as the vertical inches is the same as the iMac's.

Given you have a iMac (like me) then a second screen the same physical size looks good - so either 5120x2880 or 2560x1440. If I wanted larger then it is either a 6K screen or a wide 34".

But look at the vertical pixels and inches to work out the ppi for monitors you are thinking about. If they are not about 110 or 220 ppi, you will end up with either slightly fuzzy text or different size text on the two screens.

Though 3 years old, this article has a good discussion of screen sizes https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays

You don't say your usage of the iMac, but if photography or video editing you will likely want something which has similar colour response to the iMac. I have a Dell 27" 1440pixel screen next to my iMac - this is nice as a secondary screen (non-Retina) but the colour response is different (maybe I just need to adjust it)

On the other hand...
A 32" 1440p display (2550x1440 native resolution, NOT "4k") would look much better, because it offers that "compromise" resolution, but it's running at "native" resolution WITHOUT scaling.

I agree with the thrust of your comment about avoiding scaling, but I think you mean a larger wide screen to keep the vertical inches the same as the iMac and with native 1440 pixels - that is something like 3440x1440 on a wide screen 34".

 

[Fishrrman]

"I agree with the thrust of your comment about avoiding scaling, but I think you mean a larger wide screen to keep the vertical inches the same as the iMac and with native 1440 pixels - that is something like 3440x1440 on a wide screen 34"."

No, I meant a 32" display with a native resolution of 2550x1440 (1440p).
That will have a native dot pitch of about .2775mm.
At 70+ that's just about right for me.

Actually, I'm currently using a 27" 1080p display with a dot pitch around .31mm.
Younger folk will complain, "that's too grainy", but for my aging eyes, it's fine.

 

[ruslan120]

@gilby101 I think you misunderstand. I completely agree in terms of pixel density and quality. I meant that using a 27” screen was a first time decision for me and I’m locked into it now.

 

[gilby101]

At 70+ that's just about right for me.

Us 70+ers should stick together. Needing a bigger text (and so pixel) size than stranded Apple open up a different set of choice. I suggest you would find a 'retina' screen would help clarity for you - but at a bigger than normal pixel size. That means 27" with around 2000 lines.

 

[PaulD-UK]

As another 70+ (!) I have a Dell 30" 2560x1600 16:10 second monitor alongside my 2019 27" iMac. I find the 1600 pixel depth a help with reading long pages. As a fairly high-end product it has good character sharpness for a non-retina panel. Bought s/h it was affordable...

 

[ruslan120]

As another 70+ (!) I have a Dell 30" 2560x1600 16:10 second monitor alongside my 2019 27" iMac. I find the 1600 pixel depth a help with reading long pages. As a fairly high-end product it has good character sharpness for a non-retina panel. Bought s/h it was affordable...

That sounds awesome. It’s such a shame 16:10 became less popular recently.

Would you have any pictures of how the setup looks by chance? I’m trying to gauge what the size difference is like.