More New 5K Monitors Announced!

[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.

 

[maflynn]

why Apple needs to stick with certain pixel per inch numbers is a patent that Microsoft holds for resizing of UI elements.

I don't know about patents, but macOS resolution scaling is horrible when compared to both Windows and Linux. I believe its th expectation that every mac user is using an apple branded display, and given that over 85% of macs being sold are portable, they're not wrong.

Better Display largely resolves the issue by providing HiDPI resolutions that are not available via the systems panel.

 

[Pezimak]

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:

View attachment 2591173

View attachment 2591174

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.

"Classic specifications of a 4K monitor", apart from the 5k horizontal resolution. There is obsession with PPI. As someone else said no one mentions PPI with TV's.

And 'genuine 5K 27" monitor" is pure Apple marketing.

 

[maflynn]

There is obsession with PPI.

There was a conversation/argument in a different thread because I bought a 4k 32" monitor and another member said it was a horrible decision because I'll be able to see the pixels, because of the PPI of a 4k/32" monitor is horrible. My logic was I could spend 700 - 800 dollars on a high end 4k monitor with lots of great features and high end performance or spend the same amount on a low 5k monitor with a cheap panel and low end features.

For the record, my 32" 4k monitor is awesome, best decision to buy it, and I don't give a rats rectum about PPI. In the photography world, these folks are called pixel peepers because they obsess over individual pixels at the expense of the picture

 

[jakey rolling]

This is a Mac forum, so only 5K @ 27 whatever Apple tells you is good at any given point matters. Else it is not "Retina" quality.

FTFY.

This should be quite obvious right?

Only to Apple fanatics. To people who follow more than one brand of computer, no, it is actually pretty ridiculous (and a particular kind of sad hilarity).

 

[jakey rolling]

And 'genuine 5K 27" monitor" is pure Apple marketing.

It's not even that. I don't think Apple's marketing has the phrase "genuine 5k" anywhere. This is an entirely made-up phrase by Apple loyalists who are desperately trying to convince themselves that the specs Apple are putting into their monitors (as meaningless as they may be) are the only true measure of a good monitor.

Apple could one day release an ultrawide of their own, and you will hear the tune change in these forums almost immediately.

 

[jakey rolling]

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 Apple's marketing department.

A more accurate version of your comment.

Apple is one company making a monitor with 5k resolution. They aren't the only one and they weren't the first one. What the industry decides is the standard is the standard. Apple users are free to continue to be confused by Apple's marketing if they want, but that doesn't make the industry wrong for following an industry standard for naming.

The only company doing the "misleading" here is Apple.

 

[Pezimak]

There was a conversation/argument in a different thread because I bought a 4k 32" monitor and another member said it was a horrible decision because I'll be able to see the pixels, because of the PPI of a 4k/32" monitor is horrible. My logic was I could spend 700 - 800 dollars on a high end 4k monitor with lots of great features and high end performance or spend the same amount on a low 5k monitor with a cheap panel and low end features.

For the record, my 32" 4k monitor is awesome, best decision to buy it, and I don't give a rats rectum about PPI. In the photography world, these folks are called pixel peepers because they obsess over individual pixels at the expense of the picture

Yeap, it is like this. A 4K TV can come in 42", 45", 50", 55", 60", 65", 75", 80" sizes and NO ONE ever criticises the PPI differences, every TV manufacturer calls it 4K still.
But it seems those obsessed with PPI on monitors would claim only 'one' of those sizes is 4K and the rest are fake due to the PPI being different.

 

[Dark-Signature]

Yeap, it is like this. A 4K TV can come in 42", 45", 50", 55", 60", 65", 75", 80" sizes and NO ONE ever criticises the PPI differences, every TV manufacturer calls it 4K still.
But it seems those obsessed with PPI on monitors would claim only 'one' of those sizes is 4K and the rest are fake due to the PPI being different.

Unfortunately, it is inevitable in this day and age that users suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. This always becomes apparent when you run out of arguments and accuse other users of being obsessed with a particular manufacturer.

As far as the argument about 4K TV is concerned, this is obviously a poor example because, in practice, people usually gather in front of a TV at different distances and angles to watch a series or film, whereas with a monitor as a work tool, a user usually has to WORK at a comparable distance. It is obvious that when working, much greater importance is attached to good conditions and quality than when consuming film material. Sure, there will be people who want to dispute this, but seriously: can you still take such people seriously when you want to answer this question for yourself?

 

[the future]

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??!...

You can absolutely make out the difference between a 220 PPI display and a 160 (or even lower) PPI display at a normal viewing distance. The only question is if this matter to you more than other things (like a bigger screen or an ultrawide screen).

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

The term is a marketing term, but the effect is very real. It means not being able to discern individual pixels from a typical viewing distance. So no, it is not „just“ marketing.

And if you prefer a retina type display, you can thank Apple for more or less single-handedly creating the necessery demand for those by making the 2014 27“ iMac a 5K machine. Who knows if we otherwise had ever gotten high-PPI displays at all, because on the Windows side of the market there are very few users willing to spend a lot of money on a display.

As someone else said no one mentions PPI with TV's.

Yeah, because you sit a lot further apart from a TV. Hence, bad example. But even there PPI matters to an extent as the move to 4K made ever bigger screen sizes possible. You certainly wouldn‘t want a > 65“ TV with a lower resolution.

 

[MarkC426]

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

Well said….👍

Even my Dell QHD Ultrasharp monitors show ‘HiDPI options in the displays panel, ok it is 1280x720…😆, but the option is there.

 

[Pezimak]

Unfortunately, it is inevitable in this day and age that users suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. This always becomes apparent when you run out of arguments and accuse other users of being obsessed with a particular manufacturer.

As far as the argument about 4K TV is concerned, this is obviously a poor example because, in practice, people usually gather in front of a TV at different distances and angles to watch a series or film, whereas with a monitor as a work tool, a user usually has to WORK at a comparable distance. It is obvious that when working, much greater importance is attached to good conditions and quality than when consuming film material. Sure, there will be people who want to dispute this, but seriously: can you still take such people seriously when you want to answer this question for yourself?

You can absolutely make out the difference between a 220 PPI display and a 160 (or even lower) PPI display at a normal viewing distance. The only question is if this matter to you more than other things (like a bigger screen or an ultrawide screen).



The term is a marketing term, but the effect is very real. It means not being able to discern individual pixels from a typical viewing distance. So no, it is not „just“ marketing.

And if you prefer a retina type display, you can thank Apple for more or less single-handedly creating the necessery demand for those by making the 2014 27“ iMac a 5K machine. Who knows if we otherwise had ever gotten high-PPI displays at all, because on the Windows side of the market there are very few users willing to spend a lot of money on a display.



Yeah, because you sit a lot further apart from a TV. Hence, bad example. But even there PPI matters to an extent as the move to 4K made ever bigger screen sizes possible. You certainly wouldn‘t want a > 65“ TV with a lower resolution.

So what do you 2 call the 4K 43” TV’s people use as monitors? Or 4K 27” monitors or 4K 32” monitors? Do you only call the 27” one proper 4K because of its PPI due to its size? The argument is still the same as for TV’s as people do not buy new houses for when they upgrade their TV size so the viewing distanced remains the same. It makes no sense to ONLY consider one size as being a proper what ever resolution because of it’s PPI.

As for seeing a difference in PPI yes sure some may see it, but someone in here I think stated you can see individual pixels from a viewing distance which is BS IMO.

 

[MarkC426]

What about 4k laptops….
Too many ppi to be called 4k!

 

[the future]

So what do you 2 call the 4K 43” TV’s people use as monitors? Or 4K 27” monitors or 4K 32” monitors?

Please check the posting history (in this thread) first before quoting. I always said that every display with a 5120 x 2880 resolution is a 5K display, no matter how big it is. Same with 4k displays, of course.

You shouldn’t be so hung up on designations. It‘s just that for some folks high-PPI are more important than for others. That‘s all it is, really.

As for seeing a difference in PPI yes sure some may see it, but someone in here I think stated you can see individual pixels from a viewing distance which is BS IMO.

Depending on the size of the display and the sharpness of your eyes, you absolutely can. The threshold is more individual than a term like „retina display“ can convey, but it is somewhere between 110 and 220 PPI for everyone (desktop seating distance).

 

[PaulD-UK]

@Pezimak ”So what do you 2 call the 4K 43” TV’s people use as monitors? Or 4K 27” monitors or 4K 32” monitors?”

They are all called UHD.

5K 16:9 monitors can be called QQHD, but because until recently there have only been 27”5120x2880 monitors, that size has been universally known as 5K, and ignored by ‘the Industry’, except for Apple focussed products.

There are also 21:9 widescreen monitors called DQHD for 5120x1440, and UW5K for 5120x2160.

The fact that QQHD 5K monitors have never by adopted by ‘the Industry’, but have only existed in the Apple ecosystem until recently is the main reason that there is this naming confusion.

Even now QQHD 5K at sizes bigger than 27” are mostly vapourware..,

 

[melodibit]

A more accurate version of your comment.

Apple is one company making a monitor with 5k resolution. They aren't the only one and they weren't the first one. What the industry decides is the standard is the standard. Apple users are free to continue to be confused by Apple's marketing if they want, but that doesn't make the industry wrong for following an industry standard for naming.

The only company doing the "misleading" here is Apple.

No, it’s not Apple’s marketing. It’s the computer display industry misleadingly invoking TV industry marketing. Apple doesn’t use “5K” in its marketing. It uses “retina” which means the pixels are small enough that the human retina can’t distinguish one pixel from another, making the image essentially as sharp as reality.

When TVs made the leap from 1080p to 4K, they marketed 4K as an increase in quality, which it absolutely was. 4K didn’t mean you were getting a bigger TV. 4K meant you were packing 4x as many pixels into the same space. This was a technological leap forward. Essentially “4K” is the TV industry’s version of “retina”.

So when we talk about “5K” computer displays it’s reasonable to assume it’s the same type of technological leap as 1080p to 4K. But no, it’s not. In the computer display industry it just means the display is wider. It’s not an increase in quality just an increase in quantity. This conflation is the result of marketing chicanery on the part of computer display vendors. It’s essentially dishonest.

 

[jabbr]

I think the LG panel must be what the upcoming ASD refresh will use. SWEET!

since this is aimed @ gamers... maybe the panel will have pretty decent response times

 

[Dark-Signature]

@Pezimak .

There are also 21:9 widescreen monitors called DQHD for 5120x1440, and UW5K for 5120x2160.

Little correction: 5120x2160 is known as UW4K, not UW5K.

 

[rappr]

No, it’s not Apple’s marketing. It’s the computer display industry misleadingly invoking TV industry marketing.

Clearly it’s all big bad evil megacorp Apple’s marketing that’s out to lie to and trick all the unsuspecting sheep 🙄.

You should hear Tim Cook’s evil, maniacal laugh anytime they sell a Studio Display!

 

[IvyKing]

For most people who live outside of the Apple bubble, PPI is a far less useful measure than resolution, size, or aspect ratio (even though those three things together are what end up defining PPI). For many, many people, a 5k2k 120Hz wide screen monitor with a 160PPI is much more useful than a 27" 16:9 "Retina" display.

For this user, a 27" monitor with 218PPI is more useful than a 5k2k 120Hz 160PPI wide screen. I do a lot of reading on screens and the higher PPI resolution makes a difference.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

A more accurate version of your comment.

Apple is one company making a monitor with 5k resolution. They aren't the only one and they weren't the first one. What the industry decides is the standard is the standard. Apple users are free to continue to be confused by Apple's marketing if they want, but that doesn't make the industry wrong for following an industry standard for naming.

The only company doing the "misleading" here is Apple.

👍 ~to what you have written above.

I am assuming that other companies are making the Apple displays (the screen) according to Apple's specifications, and not Apple itself. It also means that these display-making companies also produce displays with different specifications for other companies such as Dell, Samsung, and so on. I could be wrong of course.

I just look at the 5k display of my 2019 iMac, and next to it to a 5k BenQ display, and regardless how I set the iMac's display it is quite inferior than the BenQ one. I can clearly see it when photo editing and such tasks. Yes, maybe I am being deceived by my old eyes, but I don't think so.

 

[melodibit]

👍 ~to what you have written above.

I am assuming that other companies are making the Apple displays (the screen) according to Apple's specifications, and not Apple itself. It also means that these display-making companies also produce displays with different specifications for other companies such as Dell, Samsung, and so on. I could be wrong of course.

I just look at the 5k display of my 2019 iMac, and next to it to a 5k BenQ display, and regardless how I set the iMac's display it is quite inferior than the BenQ one. I can clearly see it when photo editing and such tasks. Yes, maybe I am being deceived by my old eyes, but I don't think so.

Which model is your BenQ?

 

[StellarVixen]

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…..

Finally high refresh rate monitors!

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Which model is your BenQ?

BenQ PD27305S. This is a 27" 5k monitor. It is not a cheap monitor considering that it costs around $1,200 USD, but color calibration and things like that aren't an issue, since BenQ provides the software and controls to calibrate it-if that is what one wants to do. However, the monitor is pre-calibrated to meet standard specifications for photographers, for example.