Recommended 32" screen for 16" macbook

Roc1

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Dec 10, 2015
10
2
Hi

Looking to get a set up using a 16" macbook alongside a 32" screen for desktop photo and video editing.

Can anyone recommend me a 32" screen that that use in this config? Ideally looking for a matte screen and the Benq range look like they get good reviews.

Thanks!
 

Fishrrman

macrumors Core
Feb 20, 2009
19,444
6,741
Be aware that there are no 32" 5k displays (that I know of). At least not consumer or "prosumer" level models. If you know of one, please post the URL.

There ARE 32" 4k displays, but somehow the 4k paradigm on 32" just doesn't "seem right" to me (when run in HiDPI mode, "looks like 1080p"). You could "scale" the display for more pixels (such as "looks like 1440p"), but doing so could put a hard load on the MBP's GPU, causing it to heat up and the fans to max out.

Having said that, when I get a 32" display I'll get a NATIVE 1440p version (2550x1440), that IS NOT 4k. Thus, it can run in native resolution without putting a load on the Mac's GPU. Dot pitch on the 32" 1440p display is .2775, so text should be reasonably sharp even though it's not quite "retina quality".
 

iphone3gnj

macrumors member
Sep 1, 2008
86
10
Asus PA329C. It’s a great monitor. 4k looks fine. I have it alongside a 27” iMac. The text is smaller than the iMac 1440p HiDPI but not as bad as a 27” 4k monitor. Great for photos.
 

Successful Sorcerer

macrumors member
Nov 23, 2019
92
24
I agree with @Fishrrman the resolution scaling is a noticeable hit on the performance and 4K isn't an ideal resolution. I have both a LG 5K and BenQ PD3220U 32 inch monitor and the LG runs much smoother and looks sharper since it can use pixel doubling instead of scaling. I don't know why 4K is used so often for monitors, probably a marketing thing because in native 4K even on 32" the text is really really small. I totally get why Apple uses pixel doubling with 4K on small screens, 5K and 6K.

The BenQ is a wonderful monitor though and has really cool features, for example you have a control puck on which you can assign three color profiles and live switch between them. I have a setting which is saturated and nice on the eyes for browsing, movies and games... a setting for color accurate screen/photo/video work and a setting for print work. Of course you can change that in the menu on other monitors but when working on multi media projects I can compare easily and super quick. I also love the design with thin bezels, lots of connectivity and a great stand, the matte coating also is great. The BenQ SW321C is newer and has even more accurate colours. The mentioned Asus also is great, I think BenQ and Asus make the best "semi-pro" monitors after the pro monitors like NEC and Eizo.
 

Roc1

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Dec 10, 2015
10
2
Thanks guys. Yeah I've just seen about the SW321C so will look into that one more. There's a photography trade show coming to the UK soon so maybe pick up a deal there on one.
 

zhenya

macrumors 604
Jan 6, 2005
6,685
3,288
Why would you not run a 4k 32” monitor at native 4k resolution? I’ve been doing so with a 27” for years whic I could understand might be a bit small for some, but it’s been awesome for me. 32” 4K native should be fine for most users.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppelGeenyus

frou

macrumors 6502a
Mar 14, 2009
792
876
Why would you not run a 4k 32” monitor at native 4k resolution? I’ve been doing so with a 27” for years whic I could understand might be a bit small for some, but it’s been awesome for me. 32” 4K native should be fine for most users.
140 PPI is simply the wrong density for macOS (Apple designs for ~110 Non-Retina and ~220 Retina).

Of course it's possible to force ourselves to use the wrong density just like we can force ourselves to wear shoes that are the wrong size. But why not just use the right one?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Successful Sorcerer

Successful Sorcerer

macrumors member
Nov 23, 2019
92
24
Why would you not run a 4k 32” monitor at native 4k resolution? I’ve been doing so with a 27” for years whic I could understand might be a bit small for some, but it’s been awesome for me. 32” 4K native should be fine for most users.
It's just a preference, doesn't feel right. I use programs with lots of small menus, buttons and options. Everything is tiny and so it makes it unclear. I think these interfaces weren't designed like that.
 

HenryAZ

macrumors 6502a
Jan 9, 2010
626
109
South Congress AZ
Why would you not run a 4k 32” monitor at native 4k resolution? I’ve been doing so with a 27” for years whic I could understand might be a bit small for some, but it’s been awesome for me. 32” 4K native should be fine for most users.
I don't think I'd say "fine for most users". I know personally I could never do this on a 27" monitor. I have been using a 32" 4k monitor, running at 3840x2160 for several years now. Some screen elements are pretty small (though with my good computer glasses I can see them). Wherever possible, I've upped the size of screen elements (fonts, zoom, etc). For example, in Safari, I have my default page zoom set to 175%, which yields a very comfortable size.

I believe the sweet spot for a 4k monitor, running at 3840x2160, is going to be around 36".
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.