More New 5K Monitors Announced!

[StevenJobsJr]

I have two 32" 4K monitors on my M4 mini and find the text crisp for me. I would be after 5K or 6K for work space not because of text clarity. However that's just me I get everyone has different standards.

It should also be noted I'm pushing 50 and don't have the worlds greatest eyesight....

 

[Dark-Signature]

I have two 32" 4K monitors on my M4 mini and find the text crisp for me. I would be after 5K or 6K for work space not because of text clarity. However that's just me I get everyone has different standards.

It should also be noted I'm pushing 50 and don't have the worlds greatest eyesight....

That's perfectly fine. A colleague of mine also has two 32" Full HD monitors (ViewSonic VX3276-MHD-3) at home and is happy with them, but he doesn't realize that some people have higher expectations when it comes to screen precision.

Counter question: Have you ever worked on a 220 PPI monitor for a long period of time?

 

[klasma]

All of these are 16:9 or worse. They should make 16:10 or 3:2 monitors. Actually, I think that 16:11 would be the sweet spot for me.

 

[StevenJobsJr]

That's perfectly fine. A colleague of mine also has two 32" Full HD monitors (ViewSonic VX3276-MHD-3) at home and is happy with them, but he doesn't realize that some people have higher expectations when it comes to screen precision.

Counter question: Have you ever worked on a 220 PPI monitor for a long period of time?

Not that I recall, the highest PPI on a computer would be my 16" M1 Macbook Pro and my 16" Asus 3K display oled laptop.

 

[Eric5h5]

All of these are 16:9 or worse. They should make 16:10 or 3:2 monitors. Actually, I think that 16:11 would be the sweet spot for me.

The press release says this about the 52-inch: "expansive 12:9 panoramic view". So that's 4:3! (Yeah it's a typo, kind of embarrassing for them.)

 

[klasma]

The press release says this about the 52-inch: "expansive 12:9 panoramic view". So that's 4:3! (Yeah it's a typo, kind of embarrassing for them.)

It’s a typo, that monitor is actually 21:9. Oh, you already wrote that, nevermind.

 

[jakey rolling]

Oh, cool... back in 2006, I already had a 5K monitor with a resolution of 5120x160 (one hundred sixty) pixels...

Stadium lighting strips are hardly classified as "monitors".

 

[jakey rolling]

If you hear/read 5K, you expect 5120x2880 pixels.

Speak for yourself. That's what you think because that's how Apple designed their monitors and that's what Apple's advertising has taught you to think.

So yes, > 27“ 16:9 displays are still 5K displays, no matter the PPI. But no, ultrawide displays with 5120 pixels horizontally but < 2880 pixels vertically are not real 5K displays.

They are real 5k displays just like both Cavendish and Plantain bananas are real bananas.

 

[jakey rolling]

Any 5K2K widescreen monitor will only have a vertical resolution of 1080p if used in MacOS Retina™ mode.
Which isn’t practical for workflow reasons.

So, because Apple is lazy/incompetent/both in their OS design, the industry has to adjust their definition of what a 5k monitor is?

 

[the future]

Speak for yourself. That's what you think because that's how Apple designed their monitors and that's what Apple's advertising has taught you to think.

Huh? This has nothing to do with Apple at all. 99% of all displays are in a 16:9 ratio, so the industry standard for a 5K display is 5120 x 2880.

 

[Dark-Signature]

Stadium lighting strips are hardly classified as "monitors".

And who exactly decides that? According to the other user, it was a 5K monitor!

 

[Populus]

LG have announced 3 new monitors, 27” Mini LED 5K with hi refresh rate and dual mode, a Tandem OLED 39” Curved widescreen 5K dual mode, and one 52” curved dual mode but they do not state the panel tech so I assume LCD:

LG Unveils UltraGear evo, Redefining 5K Gaming With World's First AI Upscaling Technology | LG NEWSROOM

Expanding the Boundaries of High-Resolution Gaming With a New Lineup Spanning OLED, New MiniLED and Ultra-Wide Formats SEOUL, Dec. 26, 2025 — LG Electronics (LG) announced today the global launch of i

www.lgnewsroom.com

If I could fit that 39” one in, that tandem OLED could massively reduce burn in with static windows and taskbars. All monitors have new Ai upscaling tech too.

But we can all look at that new 27” and think Studio Display 2…..

Is there any non OLED with glossy finish?

 

[sir_timbit]

Is there any non OLED with glossy finish?

Since we’re talking about new 5K monitors, I see Samsung has introduced a new one as well. This is part of their gaming monitor lineup.

“The 27-inch Odyssey G8 (G80HF model) provides a sharper 5K option with native support up to 180Hz and with Dual Mode boosting to 360Hz in QHD for smoother motion.”

Samsung Unveils New Odyssey Gaming Monitor Lineup, Featuring World-First 6K 3D and Ultra-High-Resolution Displays

2026 Odyssey gaming monitor lineup introduces record-breaking refresh rates and resolutions for competitive gaming, including the world’s first 3D (6K resolution) glasses-free display

news.samsung.com

 

[Populus]

Since we’re talking about new 5K monitors, I see Samsung has introduced a new one as well. This is part of their gaming monitor lineup.

“The 27-inch Odyssey G8 (G80HF model) provides a sharper 5K option with native support up to 180Hz and with Dual Mode boosting to 360Hz in QHD for smoother motion.”

Samsung Unveils New Odyssey Gaming Monitor Lineup, Featuring World-First 6K 3D and Ultra-High-Resolution Displays

2026 Odyssey gaming monitor lineup introduces record-breaking refresh rates and resolutions for competitive gaming, including the world’s first 3D (6K resolution) glasses-free display

news.samsung.com

Looks good! And if it has a glossy finish, then even better!

 

[Pezimak]

Is there any non OLED with glossy finish?

Sadly it isn’t mentioned anywhere, we will need to wait for more info on that I guess.

 

[melodibit]

The problem with this "is it REALLY 5K?" argument is that this 1080P vs. 4K vs. 5K talk originally dealt with 16:9 TVs, where it tells you everything you need to know. With TVs the highest resolution content available today is basically 3840 x 2160. All you need to know is if your TV is 4K so that it can reproduce all of those pixels without downsampling. If your TV is 4K, it can. There is no concern with aspect ratios because all modern TVs share the 16:9 aspect ratio. There are no "ultra wide" gaming TVs (to my knowledge anyway).

And nobody thinks much about PPI for TVs. At normal TV viewing distances all 4K TVs are more or less "retina" or "high DPI". You'd have to get an 83"+ TV and sit uncomfortably close to it before "retina" clarity collapses. And even IF you did this, and you were annoyed by it, it doesn't matter because there basically is no 5K or 6K content available to restore the "retina" effect. So it's simply not worth thinking about.

OP is technically correct that as long as there are around 5000 pixels of width, regardless of the size of the monitor and regardless of how many pixels there are of height, that IS technically 5K. But the problem is that what the people arguing with OP are trying to say is that "4K/5K" doesn't come close to capturing everything people care about in a computer display, even if it does for TVs.

We're using TV language for computer displays, which sucks. With computer displays to know what you're getting you have to look at size, and resolution, and from those derive PPI. It matters because it determines the sharpness of the text and icons, and whether or not scaling trickery is required between retina and non-retina displays. So talking about a "5K display" just doesn't capture these things that matter for computer display users.

And those of us who snapped up the Studio Display with it's retina PPI, and no scaling hackery taking place when we move windows from the MBP builtin display to the Studio Display know that we will never own another monitor unless it operates this seamlessly, regardless of whether or not the label "5K" is technically correct.

For many Apple Users 5K means 27" at 5120 x 2880 resolution, which works out to 218 PPI. Same as the 27" iMac. Same as the 5K LG Ultrafine. It's understandable for Apple users with this very narrow "5K expectation" to be confused, or even misled by the industry standard definition of "5K", which is ultimately an inappropriate terminology import from the TV industry into the computer industry.

 

[lapstags]

Preemptive strike against apple. The new studio will probably be 120hx mini led and the xpr display will be OLED. I thing lg produces the panels

 

[redmac]

So much confusion in this thread.

I need to clarify some points.

A 5K display is strictly 5120x2880. A 5K2K display is not a 5K display. That’s why it’s called 5K2K, but not 5K. In other words it’s an almost 5K display that lacks the vertical pixels that would make it a true 5K.

5K2K displays are basically trimmed down 5K displays with blown up pixel sizes. You end up with a larger display that shows less content but more of each pixel. It’s only good if you don’t mind seeing individual pixels and not having enough room vertically.

This may be more useful to some people than a 5K display, but unless your vision is ****, it looks **** compared to a real retina screen. I have both in my office and there is no competition between the two.

Lastly, I recently read somewhere that the main reason why Apple needs to stick with certain pixel per inch numbers is a patent that Microsoft holds for resizing of UI elements. MS needs that patent because its OEMs use all those low resolution panels with no standardized screen sizes. Apple on the other hand, has full control on its displays. It only becomes a problem when an uninformed Mac user chooses a low resolution display for cheap.

 

[bigglow]

So much confusion in this thread.

I need to clarify some points.

A 5K display is strictly 5120x2880. A 5K2K display is not a 5K display. That’s why it’s called 5K2K, but not 5K. In other words it’s an almost 5K display that lacks the vertical pixels that would make it a true 5K.

5K2K displays are basically trimmed down 5K displays with blown up pixel sizes. You end up with a larger display that shows less content but more of each pixel. It’s only good if you don’t mind seeing individual pixels and not having enough room vertically.

This may be more useful to some people than a 5K display, but unless your vision is ****, it looks **** compared to a real retina screen. I have both in my office and there is no competition between the two.

Lastly, I recently read somewhere that the main reason why Apple needs to stick with certain pixel per inch numbers is a patent that Microsoft holds for resizing of UI elements. MS needs that patent because its OEMs use all those low resolution panels with no standardized screen sizes. Apple on the other hand, has full control on its displays. It only becomes a problem when an uninformed Mac user chooses a low resolution display for cheap.

To simplify things

- 5K = 16:9 aspect ratio
- 5K2K = 21:9 aspect ratio

 

[con2apple]

I wanted to buy the BenQ PD2730s to upgrade my eleven years old Dell.
But the LG is announced with nice features.

I can wait 😁

 

[Arctic Moose]

It's understandable for Apple users with this very narrow "5K expectation" to be confused, or even misled by fthe industry standard definition of "5K", which is ultimately an inappropriate terminology import from the TV industry into the computer industry.

Well put! 🖥️

 

[Zest28]

Are you suggesting that 5120x2880@27” should be considered 5K, but that 5120x2880@32” should not? If not, what would you call it?

This is a Mac forum, so only 5K @ 27 matters. Else it is not retina quality. This should be quite obvious right?

 

[Pezimak]

So much confusion in this thread.

I need to clarify some points.

A 5K display is strictly 5120x2880. A 5K2K display is not a 5K display. That’s why it’s called 5K2K, but not 5K. In other words it’s an almost 5K display that lacks the vertical pixels that would make it a true 5K.

5K2K displays are basically trimmed down 5K displays with blown up pixel sizes. You end up with a larger display that shows less content but more of each pixel. It’s only good if you don’t mind seeing individual pixels and not having enough room vertically.

This may be more useful to some people than a 5K display, but unless your vision is ****, it looks **** compared to a real retina screen. I have both in my office and there is no competition between the two.

Lastly, I recently read somewhere that the main reason why Apple needs to stick with certain pixel per inch numbers is a patent that Microsoft holds for resizing of UI elements. MS needs that patent because its OEMs use all those low resolution panels with no standardized screen sizes. Apple on the other hand, has full control on its displays. It only becomes a problem when an uninformed Mac user chooses a low resolution display for cheap.

Just an FYI, the new LG 39" 5K monitor has the same screen height as a 32" monitor so it is not lacking in space, it also according to one website, NOT LG as they are yet to post the specs, has more vertical pixels then usual for these monitors.

---------------------------------
Reading in here most seem to be making it up as they go along. Saying 5K is only 5K at this PPI, others saying no it is this resolution, others saying both but then saying a 32" 5K isn't 5K because the PPI is lower. Sounds like a screen snobbery fest lol.

Also sounds like a lot of Apple marketing getting to people to me. I just get what looks good, but what is true is Windows is MUCH better at scaling then Mac is.

I will wait to see the specs from LG on the new 39", if it fits and if it has banding issues. But an RGB Tandem OLED could be nice if it lacks the banding issues. It means clearer text too for an OLED. I appreciate that it has bigger pixels to make it 5k that is true but unless you literally have your nose stuck to the screen are you going to see them??!... can you see them on a 32" 4K monitor? Cause this new LG 39" has the same PPI as that.
Still let's see if Apple release new monitors, it really needs a new 32" that doesn't cost 5 grand! And has MORE then one pathetic input... Forget the speakers forget the poor webcam, fit some more inputs in it! I want a nice Apple 32" made of metal. But not at 5 grand.

 

[con2apple]

A 5K display is strictly 5120x2880. A 5K2K display is not a 5K display. That’s why it’s called 5K2K, but not 5K. In other words it’s an almost 5K display that lacks the vertical pixels that would make it a true 5K.

That is wrong

5K = 5120 x 2880
5K2K = 5120 x 2160

It has nothing to do with „not a 5K display and that’s why we give it another name“. Nothing.

compared to a real retina screen

„Retina“ for screens (like „Retina Display“) is just marketing by Apple.
There is no official definition for it. Even Apple has no definition.

 

[Dark-Signature]

Just an FYI, the new LG 39" 5K monitor has the same screen height as a 32" monitor so it is not lacking in space, it also according to one website, NOT LG as they are yet to post the specs, has more vertical pixels then usual for these monitors.

You have completely misunderstood what is meant by “space”. And besides, the 39“ LG monitor will only offer 5120x2160 pixels, because THAT is what LG means by ”has more pixels than usual other monitors”!

This is also stated in the article, but you have to be able to do some math to understand that the pixel resolution is merely standard:

These are the classic specifications of a 4K monitor, which only has a few more pixels horizontally and now has nothing in common with a genuine 27" 5K monitor.