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

Is a 4K monitor better in 30" or around 27"/28"

S

Sarah Hamilton

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 19, 2021
109
24
I know this isn't a monitor board, but we're all mini users here so I guess its appropriate. If I were to run a mini on a 4k 30" monitor, would that provide better readability and not require me to downscale?

I just need help in choosing a monitor. Looking to bite the apple after thanksgiving
 
How's your eyesight?
I'm thinking that "true 4k" (not scaled at all) would yield menus and text (when displayed at normal font sizes) too small and very difficult to read on any display under, say, 43"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trusteft
Sarah Hamilton said:
If I were to run a mini on a 4k 30" monitor, would that provide better readability and not require me to downscale?
Click to expand...
A 32" 4K is ≈138 ppi. I have good vision and can just about cope with that. However, there's a case for the HiDPI modes, i.e. downscaling, nonetheless - the fact that font rendering is awful on macOS in non-HiDPI (i.e. native 4K without downscaling) modes.
 
Over the past seven years I have run using both 27" and 32" 4K displays (27" in the past, currently two 32" 4K's).

Yes, running with the native resolution of 3840x2160 is WAY too small on a 27" monitor, and is still too small on the 32" (usable, but unless you are right on top of the display, it's still too small).

HiDPI modes are the answer. On a 27" I'd recommend the "looks like 2560x1440" mode, as this gives you the same screen real estate and look (but sharper) as a standard 27" QHD monitor.

On my 32" monitors, I run in "looks like 3008x1692" mode. This provides a nice extra amount of real estate while keeping all UI elements at a nice size.

macOS does a really nice job down sampling to either of these modes. At 138 PPI for a 32" 4K display, it's pretty close to "retina". Granted, retina displays on our iPads/Phones/Laptops are much higher PPI's, with desktop monitors they are quite a bit further away from our eyes. I can't discern pixels on my displays, everything is very sharp.

Note that running in HiDPI modes CAN have a performance impact. I did run into some issues in the past with an Intel Mini and integrated Intel graphics. With a discrete GPU you'll be fine.

My MBP M1 13.3" also seems to handle a single 4K monitor running in 3008x1629 HiDPI mode pretty well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert
I have a 27" 4K (HP Z27, which I guess is considered a pretty decent monitor) sitting next to my 27" 5K iMac.

I would say 27" is the absolute maximum for what I would consider somewhat acceptable for 4K, and if possible, I would never go below ~220 ppi. Text looks crisp on the iMac, but on the 4K it is a little jagged, and I feel it in my head and eyes if I try to spend more than a few minutes reading on it.

I would never ever consider 30" at 4K unless I was going to set it scaled to "look like" a much smaller resolution and look at it from across the room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haruhiko and dukee101
You'll find good answers to this question by going to this resource hosted by developer Bjango.

In short, you'll want as high a PPI as possible, and @Arctic Moose is correct: 27" should be the max for a 4K display and still look crisp. Personally, I gave up on nailing the best 4K experience and just ponied up for an LG 5K UltraFine. Yes, it's in that plastic housing and no where near as sexy as an Apple-designed product. Yes, it's got poor support. Yes, the built-in speakers suck. But wow what a display!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Moose
Arctic Moose said:
I would never go below ~220 ppi.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Here is a list of (mostly discontinued) ≈220 ppi displays. I have a Dell UP2715K (discontinued) and it's freaking awesome.

dukee101 said:
[...] nailing the best 4K experience [...]
Click to expand...
Then you want the 21.5" LG UltraFine 4K (also discontinued), which I also have. It's a great display too, although a tad small.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Moose
Fishrrman said:
How's your eyesight?
I'm thinking that "true 4k" (not scaled at all) would yield menus and text (when displayed at normal font sizes) too small and very difficult to read on any display under, say, 43"...
Click to expand...
My eyesight is great, I have tried 4k with my current monitor natively 28 inch and the text is too small for comfort
 
Based on these comments I am wondering why one should ever get a 4K 27" monitor. Perhaps for photography/video?
 
I already had a 32" 1080p monitor when I got my new M1 Mini last week, and that had horrible resolution - everything was huge.

I got my current 31.5" 4k monitor a few days later, and at native resolution, everything IS really small. I had to scale it up one level, and that's about the perfect size for me.
 
How far from the screen you sit is also a factor in this.

It is a triangle of trade-offs between screen res, screen size, and viewing distance.
 
Amethyst1 said:
Out of “necessity”, because “4K” monitors smaller than 27” are getting harder and harder to come by…
Click to expand...
Interesting. I reluctantly went with an Asus ProArt 4K 27" for my new mini because I could not get a top-end calibrated 2K 27" (Dell U2722) I wanted for over a month. When it gets here, I am going to try the Asus 4K 27" for a few days and decide whether to send it back and wait for the Dell.
 
jerryk said:
Interesting. I reluctantly went with an Asus ProArt 4K 27" for my new mini because I could not get a top-end calibrated 2K 27" (Dell U2722) I wanted for over a month. When it gets here, I am going to try the Asus 4K 27" for a few days and decide whether to send it back and wait for the Dell.
Click to expand...
“4K” on 27” is still miles better than “2.5K” on 27”. Believe me, you don’t want to use a sub-“4K” monitor on macOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moonjumper and Arctic Moose
Perhaps it's just me, but I never understood people who used 4K (or higher?) resolution monitors, then either run their OS at lower resolution, or used some type magnification mode or something whatever they are called.
Just get a lower resolution monitor, or a larger monitor! You can't see it, why do you pretend you can?
Not talking to you, just people who do this :) and how it annoys me a bit, while it is clearly none of my business.

From 2015 I had a 40 inch 4K monitor and I found it good for that resolution. Eventually though I got tired of big screens and packed both it and a 1080 40 inch TV which I used as monitor. Now both the monitor and the TV are inside their original packaging doing nothing. I replaced them with a 27" BenQ monitor (1440p) and I am fine with that.
Don't get me wrong, having such a huge screen has some huge advantages, to the point I am tempted to take them out again as I am typing this, but I just can't stand of the huge blackness when one or both of them are off in front of me. It depresses me. I am weird, I know.
Now if the panels could be another color while they were off...yeah good luck with that.

So, to finally answer the original question, I have good eyesight and while I never connected my mini to my 4K monitor as it couldn't handle it at 60hz, having used that 40inch 4K as a monitor (PC) at normal distance ie touchable, I would say I wouldn't go for anything smaller for that resolution. But that's just me.
 
Trusteft said:
Perhaps it's just me, but I never understood people who used 4K (or higher?) resolution monitors, then either run their OS at lower resolution, or used some type magnification mode or something whatever they are called.
Click to expand...
The whole point is to scale in order to get much sharper fonts and UI elements on macOS.

Trusteft said:
You can't see it, why do you pretend you can?
Click to expand...
I can clearly see a difference between a 27" 2560×1440 monitor (terrible), a 27" 4K monitor scaled to look like 2560×1440 (much better but not ideal), and a 27" 5K monitor running pixel-perfect 200% scaling at 2560×1440 (ideal). I've used all three.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: antipodean, Tagbert and jerryk
Trusteft said:
Perhaps it's just me, but I never understood people who used 4K (or higher?) resolution monitors, then either run their OS at lower resolution, or used some type magnification mode or something whatever they are called.
Click to expand...

Because it is scaling the GUI, not actually running the monitor at a lower resolution.

Running “looks like 1600x900” on a 4K 27” monitor will be much sharper than the same content on an actual 1600x900 27” monitor, even though the GUI elements will be the same size. (Measured in mm, not pixels, of course.)

Trusteft said:
You can't see it, why do you pretend you can?
Click to expand...

Because even the difference between 4K and 5K is clearly visible on 27”, no need to pretend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert
Trusteft said:
Perhaps it's just me, but I never understood people who used 4K (or higher?) resolution monitors, then either run their OS at lower resolution, or used some type magnification mode or something whatever they are called.
Just get a lower resolution monitor, or a larger monitor! You can't see it, why do you pretend you can?
Not talking to you, just people who do this :) and how it annoys me a bit, while it is clearly none of my business.

From 2015 I had a 40 inch 4K monitor and I found it good for that resolution. Eventually though I got tired of big screens and packed both it and a 1080 40 inch TV which I used as monitor. Now both the monitor and the TV are inside their original packaging doing nothing. I replaced them with a 27" BenQ monitor (1440p) and I am fine with that.
Don't get me wrong, having such a huge screen has some huge advantages, to the point I am tempted to take them out again as I am typing this, but I just can't stand of the huge blackness when one or both of them are off in front of me. It depresses me. I am weird, I know.
Now if the panels could be another color while they were off...yeah good luck with that.

So, to finally answer the original question, I have good eyesight and while I never connected my mini to my 4K monitor as it couldn't handle it at 60hz, having used that 40inch 4K as a monitor (PC) at normal distance ie touchable, I would say I wouldn't go for anything smaller for that resolution. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
I use a 27" 4K. It is the right size for me, and the image quality is much better than the 27" QHD it replaced. I can definitely see the difference, and I'm not pretending. It was even more obvious when I had them set up alongside each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerryk
When I said "you can't see it, why do you pretend you can?" I wasn't talking about any difference between 4K and 1440p. I was talking about not being able to read easily the tiny font of 4K on a small enough monitor for your eyes, to make you need to enlarge them.

I stand by what I said in my previous post.
 
jerryk said:
Think of it this way. Consider the letter "S". The more pixels used to draw this letter, the more continuously the curves are drawn. This makes it easier on your eyes. Also, graphical items like an icon are rendered with more pixels so they look sharper. The net effect is quite noticeable and is easier on your eyes and less tiring mentally.

I can tell the difference when using my Dell Ultra 27" (1440) and new Asus 4K side-by-side.
Click to expand...
Read my last post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back