Yes, and very handy when writing documents.Well, compared to a 16:9 “4K” monitor running at 1920×1080 HiDPI you’re still getting 18.5% more vertical screen estate.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Optimal pixel density for external display
- Thread starter solitone
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd say more vertical estate is handy for pretty much everything apart from watching 16:9 movies LOL.
Last edited:
I'm also looking for an external monitor for my new MBA M1. This is my first MacOS device, coming from Windows and the monitor still will also be used with Windows (beside the MBA M1), I was used to higher DPI gives you better results, 4K should be better than QHD.
I can't go bigger than 27" on my table, thus if I get the picture in the original post right, I should avoid 4K and go with QHD?
Thanks!
I can't go bigger than 27" on my table, thus if I get the picture in the original post right, I should avoid 4K and go with QHD?
Thanks!
The issue is that text rendering is awful on QHD monitors in macOS. You pretty much need a “4K” or higher-resolution external monitor for use with macOS.
I would buy a 4k monitor. That's 163 ppi which is still quite sharp. There used to be some noticeable performance hit when doing non-integer scaling, however with M1 that's not really of major concern for most uses. QHD will look terrible in comparison to the extremely subtle softening of edges when scaling at other than 2x.I'm also looking for an external monitor for my new MBA M1. This is my first MacOS device, coming from Windows and the monitor still will also be used with Windows (beside the MBA M1), I was used to higher DPI gives you better results, 4K should be better than QHD.
I can't go bigger than 27" on my table, thus if I get the picture in the original post right, I should avoid 4K and go with QHD?
Thanks!
Personally I find my 4K (3840x2560) 28" display works very when 2x scaled (1920x1280), although at 165 ppi it's in the theoretical bad zone.
That bad zone only matters if you’re concerned about having “like on a 110 ppi monitor” size of UI elements, which would necessitate scaling unless your display is 220 ppi.
Last edited:
Thanks guys. So this means for me targeting a 27" screen: Let's go 4K and basically ignore the bad zone thingy if I'm not concerned about the size of UI elements? If so, this helped me a lot to not make a wrong decision. As I want to have USB-C PD,currently targeting a Dell U2720Q or Dell P2721Q, with I guess the U2720Q being the better "technical" product.
Yeah.
Correct. At the default 200% setting, UI elements will be larger than Apple intended but nonetheless very sharp.
What happens if I don't scale by 200% but non-integer e.g. 150% to have more screen real estate towards 2560x1440 with a 4K monitor and a MBA M1? Scaling issues resulting in really visible font blurriness?
It is visible to me, yes. Only you can test if it's also visible to you and, more importantly, if it bothers you.
My advice: don't. I bought a U2720Q last week, currently deciding whether to return it or not:
- Bezel is loose / uneven along the bottom of the screen (esp. noticeable where the power light is as you can see it shining through from the front of the screen).
- Some fairly obvious light leaks on both sides.
- Yellow tint on both sides of the screen (i.e. whites are bluer in the centre 1/3 of the screen than at the sides) - subtle difference but definitely noticeable.
Got mine yesterday and I agree, the build quality of the U2720Q could be definitely better.
I also have some sort of uneven gaps between the bezels and the screen along the bottom, which does not look very attractive. For a ~700 EUR screen, a bit disappointing in this regard to be honest.
But as the screen quality looks OK otherwise (no obvious color issues, light leaks ...), 4K Youtube sample videos look stunning, I think I will keep it. I guess I simply have to teach myself to not always stare at the bezels at the bottom.
Here's my thoughts on this.. I followed @Amethyst1 feedback on the Mateview and I got it. I gotta say it trashes my 3440x1440 ultra wide using MacOS.
Currently I'm using my MBP 14" with the M1 pro full die with one of the Huawei MateView, I gotta say I'm quite impressed by the PPI not only that but the extra vertical space allows me to see more of the terminal shell.
Ok so thoughts about this? I upgraded to one of these to try it out I wanted a 4K screen but tons of people complained about issues with the LG and Philips monitors so I went ahead and got it.
I really like it and bought a 2nd Huawei MateView to put next to this one.
Honestly I'm gonna stick with these until Apple releases their own displays whenever that is.
Currently I'm using my MBP 14" with the M1 pro full die with one of the Huawei MateView, I gotta say I'm quite impressed by the PPI not only that but the extra vertical space allows me to see more of the terminal shell.
Ok so thoughts about this? I upgraded to one of these to try it out I wanted a 4K screen but tons of people complained about issues with the LG and Philips monitors so I went ahead and got it.
I really like it and bought a 2nd Huawei MateView to put next to this one.
Honestly I'm gonna stick with these until Apple releases their own displays whenever that is.
I guess it pretty much boils down to whether you are dead set on running pixel-perfect (in that case, the 220 ppi ballpark is where it’s at) or okay with scaling and its “peculiarities.”
In any case, 164 ppi still beats the crap out of 110 ppi as you’ve noticed.
I guess it pretty much boils down to whether you are dead set on running pixel-perfect (in that case, the 220 ppi ballpark is where it’s at) or okay with scaling and its “peculiarities.”
In any case, 164 ppi still beats the crap out of 110 ppi as you’ve noticed.
Can’t wait to see if we eventually get an Apple display
I would have kept mine if it was just the bezel and the panel had been ok, but the 3 things together annoyed me too much in the end.
This table is not the most accurate thing in the world.
As you are well aware, the screens of new Macs are around 255ppi (128ppi in hidpi), and according to this table, they would be in the "bad zone", which is simply ridiculous and belies the theory that the default scaling of macOS is 110ppi. Macs have been using resolutions for years that result in far above 110ppi.
The point is, 163ppi/2 ~= 82ppi can be extremely comfortable for the eyes, which 110ppi might not be (depends on the user's vision).
Just like 110ppi can be too low on screen real state, but 140ppi can be a lot. Depends of your needs.
Don't prey on those tables and numbers, test the thing for yourself.
Having a 27" 4K scaled to 1440p or 1600p is much better than having those native resolutions.
Last edited:
The “switch” to 255 ppi only happened recently and this table hasn’t (yet) been updated. Best to never take any info on the web at face value anyway.
That’s it.
Last edited:
In my entirely subjective opinion: any day of the week.
LG 34WK95U or MSI PS341WU are those I know about.
Last edited:
Was it ever really? The rule is once you see the individual pixels, you have either too low resolution or sit too close to the monitor. Usually anything above 130ppi should be okay as you can scale the UI however you like with 3rd party software.
That chart of yours doesn't make sense, 109ppi looks bad on modern macOS and definitely isn't "good for non-Retina" as the whole UI is deliberately designed to look bad on non-Retina displays.
Last edited:
This is true for the last couple versions of macOS. Before that, it used a subpixel smoothing system that could be tweaked from the system preferences panel to improve appearance to taste. This no longer exists, so we're pretty much stuck with high-DPI displays. Granted, in 2023, that's not really much of an issue any more, but there are some instances where people would prefer not to use a high-DPI display (like some of these ultrawide displays that have vertical resolutions of only 1440 or 1600)