New MBP - which external monitor, I'm lost

[laasehn]

Dear all,

I have just got a MBP M1, which is great and hooked it up to my external monitor (Lenovo 4k 27", P27u-10), however it seems not to fit. If I run the native resolution 4k, everything is too small, and if I use the standard then it is too big, and if I use the scaled options is slows down the experience.
So question is: What are the better options on the market?

I have read many articles, but still can't figure my way around if a 32" 4K is what I need or if a 4K 24" is good, or something else...

Can someone guide me - I would prefer the physical size around 27"....

I hope you can help with some ideas.

Kind regards
Lasse

 

[Fishrrman]

Unless your eyesight is VERY good, running a 4k display "at pixel-for-pixel 4k" is going to require a LARGE display to produce text that is readable (at normal font sizes).

Figure 40" as the minimum, but 43" or 50" is more like it.

If that's to big, you must realize from the start that what you're seeing on the 4k 27" display you have now is "what you're intended to see" on a retina-like display that uses "pixel doubling" to produce a sharper image.
In other words, "looks like 1080p".

As you have discovered, running the display in "scaled mode" puts a heavy load on the MBP, and "slows things down". That's a fact of computing life you can't get around.
It's going to be the same with ANY display that you run in scaled mode.

If "looks like 1080p" is "too large" for you on a 27" display, you could get a 24" display.
But I predict you're still going to be unhappy with it, because (simply) "it's smaller".

What I would recommend:
Get a 32" display that has a NATIVE RESOLUTION of 1440p.
Pixel size will be a little smaller, but the display is larger.
It will not be "retina-sharp" because there's no pixel doubling (as you see on the 27" in "looks like 1080p" mode).
But it will still be quite good.

 

[laasehn]

Unless your eyesight is VERY good, running a 4k display "at pixel-for-pixel 4k" is going to require a LARGE display to produce text that is readable (at normal font sizes).

Figure 40" as the minimum, but 43" or 50" is more like it.

If that's to big, you must realize from the start that what you're seeing on the 4k 27" display you have now is "what you're intended to see" on a retina-like display that uses "pixel doubling" to produce a sharper image.
In other words, "looks like 1080p".

As you have discovered, running the display in "scaled mode" puts a heavy load on the MBP, and "slows things down". That's a fact of computing life you can't get around.
It's going to be the same with ANY display that you run in scaled mode.

If "looks like 1080p" is "too large" for you on a 27" display, you could get a 24" display.
But I predict you're still going to be unhappy with it, because (simply) "it's smaller".

What I would recommend:
Get a 32" display that has a NATIVE RESOLUTION of 1440p.
Pixel size will be a little smaller, but the display is larger.
It will not be "retina-sharp" because there's no pixel doubling (as you see on the 27" in "looks like 1080p" mode).
But it will still be quite good.

Thanks for this - I Will try and look for such a monitor.
Just a Little sad it is like this as I have absolutely no issues with the same monitor and my Lenovo x1 nano, where all looks fine, crisp and no power loss when scaling... but guess that’s just the nature of windows vs mac...

 

[Christopher Kim]

I have a similar use case as you - a 27" LG 4K monitor, that I run in closed clamshell mode with my 13" 2016 MBP. I run it at "Looks like 2560 x 1440" at 60hz, which leads to a great size of text / UI icons in a 27" monitor.

Note, one of the reasons the performance is likely worse than when you ran it on your windows Lenovo is that macOS does HiDPI scaling, where it doesn't just display 2560 x 1440 when using a 27" 4K monitor. It actually pixel-doubles it to 5120 x 2880 (ie. 5K resolution), and then downscales that to fit your 3840 x 2160 4K monitor. This is why (in my opinion, and many others with a similar use case), it looks better than a Windows laptop running it at regular 2560 x 1440.

This non-integer scaling is what makes you take a hit in performance. I personally don't really see that much of a performance lag on my 2016 13" MBP with integrated Intel graphics, but my use case is simple stuff (spreadsheets, safari browsing, etc.) , and nothing that requires heavy graphics processing.

You can see this if you go into System Report (About this Mac > System Report), and go to Graphics/Display, you'll see under Resolution, it actually shows 5120 x 2880 (see below), with the "UI Looks like" as 2560 x 1440.

If you want to turn off the HiDPI scaling and run it at a normal 2560 x 1440, go into your Display Settings. Hold the "ALT/OPTION" key, and click on Scaled. It'll open up additional resolutions. Click on the "Show low resolution modes" check box, and you should see both a "2560 x 1440" and a "2560 x 1440 (low resolution)".

Click the Low Resolution option, and it should no longer do the HiDPI scaling. It'll look worse (but probably similar to how it looked with the Lenovo), but shouldn't have that performance hit any more. Give it a try and see what you prefer. If you don't think it looks that worse and you feel graphics improvement is worth the trad-eoff, you can always run it without HiDPI scaling. If you turn it off, you can confirm it in the System Report, as it'll look like this.

When you tur

 

[deeddawg]

Dear all,

I have just got a MBP M1, which is great and hooked it up to my external monitor (Lenovo 4k 27", P27u-10), however it seems not to fit. If I run the native resolution 4k, everything is too small, and if I use the standard then it is too big, and if I use the scaled options is slows down the experience.
So question is: What are the better options on the market?

tl;dr version - check out 27" 1440p (QHD) displays such as the Dell Ultrasharp U2719D.

Longer version:

Generally speaking, for typical desktop display viewing distances, around a 100-110 pixels per inch seems to give the best experience for most folks. Of course preferences and situations (and eyesight) will differ, but it's a good starting point if you don't yet know your own specific preferences.

With a 27" display size, that means a 2560x1440 resolution, aka 1440p or QHD. No scaling since your desktop matches the monitor resolution 1:1.

You can get there with a 4K (4096x2160) display by scaling pixels at a 1.5x ratio, but because it's a non-integer scaling it can impact performance as you've noticed.

With a 5K (5120x2880) display such as the LG or iMac, the scaling is integer and thus less impactful than the non-integer scaling with a 4K display.

This is why for 27" monitors I prefer to stick with QHD (aka 1440p) as I just haven't been able to justify spending the money on the LG 5K display, and I like the screen real estate of a 1440p display. I have a Dell Ultrasharp U2717D (previous model to the U2719D) and have been extremely pleased with it.

Here's a handy (if dated) tool to check pixels-per-inch for different monitor resolutions and sizes:
DPI Calculator / PPI Calculator (sven.de)

 

[laasehn]

tl;dr version - check out 27" 1440p (QHD) displays such as the Dell Ultrasharp U2719D.

Longer version:

Generally speaking, for typical desktop display viewing distances, around a 100-110 pixels per inch seems to give the best experience for most folks. Of course preferences and situations (and eyesight) will differ, but it's a good starting point if you don't yet know your own specific preferences.

With a 27" display size, that means a 2560x1440 resolution, aka 1440p or QHD. No scaling since your desktop matches the monitor resolution 1:1.

You can get there with a 4K (4096x2160) display by scaling pixels at a 1.5x ratio, but because it's a non-integer scaling it can impact performance as you've noticed.

With a 5K (5120x2880) display such as the LG or iMac, the scaling is integer and thus less impactful than the non-integer scaling with a 4K display.

This is why for 27" monitors I prefer to stick with QHD (aka 1440p) as I just haven't been able to justify spending the money on the LG 5K display, and I like the screen real estate of a 1440p display. I have a Dell Ultrasharp U2717D (previous model to the U2719D) and have been extremely pleased with it.

Here's a handy (if dated) tool to check pixels-per-inch for different monitor resolutions and sizes:
DPI Calculator / PPI Calculator (sven.de)

So let's say that I wanted a 5k then, would it then mean that it would run without the scaling issues if it reaches a certain size?

 

[deeddawg]

So let's say that I wanted a 5k then, would it then mean that it would run without the scaling issues if it reaches a certain size?

It should - just like a 4K monitor displaying a 1080P effective desktop. Integer scaling doesn't have the impact that non-integer scaling has.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP wrote:
"So let's say that I wanted a 5k then..."

The only 5k display on the market I know of is the LG/Apple one, and there are quite a few who have bought this display and then became dissatisfied with it.

I wouldn't recommend it.

If you want "4k" (which on the Mac will "look like 1080p"), then either keep using the 27" you have, or perhaps try a 24" 4k display.

If you want 1440p, try a 32" display with NATIVE 1440p resolution.

 

[laasehn]

OP wrote:
"So let's say that I wanted a 5k then..."

The only 5k display on the market I know of is the LG/Apple one, and there are quite a few who have bought this display and then became dissatisfied with it.

I wouldn't recommend it.

If you want "4k" (which on the Mac will "look like 1080p"), then either keep using the 27" you have, or perhaps try a 24" 4k display.

If you want 1440p, try a 32" display with NATIVE 1440p resolution.

Wouldn't the 1440P 32" look just like 1080p does on my 27"? - i.e. too big...

 

[icanhazmac]

+1 for 27" Dell 1440s, I run 2 of these with my 2017 MBP in clamshell. My eyesight is still holding well enough that at 30" away the text is easily readable.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP asked:
"Wouldn't the 1440P 32" look just like 1080p does on my 27"? - i.e. too big"

No.
It WOULD "look like" 1080p on a 24" display -- I believe pixel size is exactly the same.

 

[Christopher Kim]

So let's say that I wanted a 5k then, would it then mean that it would run without the scaling issues if it reaches a certain size?

Yes, because you would run it at perfect-integer scaling. ie. the 27” LG Ultrafine 5K monitor (5120 x 2880) is designed to run at a perfectly pixel-doubled “Looks like 2560 x 1440”, so every ”pixel” takes up 4 actual pixels (double height, double width). That’s what’s meant by integer scaling. The 27” iMac is like this too (5K screen, looks like 1440p).

Wouldn't the 1440P 32" look just like 1080p does on my 27"? - i.e. too big...

Yea, as @Fishrrman said, it‘ll be better. But still a bit bigger than optimal, as in my opinion, 27” is the ideal size for 1440p resolution in terms of size of text / UI / icons for typical distance from a monitor.

 

[richinaus]

FWIW I will never give up my 24"4k monitor. Total sweet spot for me in terms of size and resolution.

Running it currently [in windows....] at 3840 x 2160

Main use is CAD and visualisation.

 

[Christopher Kim]

FWIW I will never give up my 24"4k monitor. Total sweet spot for me in terms of size and resolution.

Running it currently [in windows....] at 3840 x 2160

Wow you run your 24” at the full 4K resolution? Do you have some kind of program that increases font size across the board? Even on my 27”, there’s no way I could run this thing at the full 3840 x 2160 resolution. Everything looks extremely small / tiny.

 

[richinaus]

Wow you run your 24” at the full 4K resolution? Do you have some kind of program that increases font size across the board? Even on my 27”, there’s no way I could run this thing at the full 3840 x 2160 resolution. Everything looks extremely small / tiny.

yep - 100% scaling.

perfect for me
I couldnt stand my 27” 5k imac screen tbh, as too much mouse work for what I do. 24 is perfect.

Lines are what I look at rather than text and there is a lot of zooming to details etc so different use probably to you. If I was looking at text all day I would tend to agree that my set up isnt the best for that.