Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
66,630
35,941


Any typical search for a consumer Mac monitor inevitably leads to the Apple Studio Display – a seamless but prohibitively expensive option for most users at $1,599. That's where BenQ's MA270U steps in, offering Mac-native features at a much more palatable $459.99.

benq-ma270u-27.jpg

Unlike typical PC monitors that often feel retrofitted for Mac compatibility, this is a 27-inch 4K display that arrives ready for MacBook use out of the box, complete with built-in color matching, keyboard integration, and even Focus mode support. But can a third-party monitor truly deliver Apple-like integration without the Apple price tag?

Key Display Specifications

  • 27-inch IPS panel with Nano Matte coating
  • 3840 x 2160 (4K) resolution
  • 400 nits peak brightness
  • 1200:1 native contrast ratio
  • 99% sRGB, 95% P3 color gamut
  • 60Hz refresh rate
  • 5ms response time
  • HDR10 with VESA Display HDR 400 certification
  • 178° viewing angles

Design and Build Quality

MA270U-2.jpeg

Peeling the protective material off the "Nano Matte" IPS panel reveals a thin black bezel around the top and sides, and a slightly thicker chin with the BenQ logo centered in an inoffensive, almost hidden black finish. The rear of the display is plastic with a metallic finish that curves outwards slightly, while the stand is a brushed metal pipe about 2.5 inches in diameter.

MA270U-4.jpeg

Assembly is extremely simple and requires no tools. You just click the neck of the stand to the back and then use the key-screw to fasten on the rectangular base, which includes a rubber strip along the front for placing accessories.

MA270U-3.jpg

Once the monitor was set up alongside my Apple Studio Display, BenQ's design perhaps inevitably looked a little dated. The monitor sports clean lines and thin bezels, but its predominantly plastic construction lacks Apple's signature sophistication. The aluminum-effect back cover tries to bridge this gap, though it can't match Apple's minimalist refinement and keen eye for curves and lines.

ma270u-5-1.jpeg

That said, build quality impresses where it matters. The steel neck provides rock-solid stability, while the soft-touch area on the base is a nice afterthought. While it won't win any design awards in my book, the construction feels reassuringly robust.

Connectivity and Setup

03-ma270u-product-03.jpeg

Connectivity-wise, the monitor is fairly well-accommodated round the back. The 90W USB-C port connects and provides power to your Mac, while an additional 15W USB-C port and one 7.5W USB-A port offer options for connecting other devices (in my case, a Bluetooth receiver for my mouse, and an external USB hard drive).

ma270U-6.jpeg

Crucially, the hub can provide power even when the display is off, so you can keep your MacBook and whatever else plugged in and charging regardless. There are also two HDMI 2.0 ports (sadly not 2.1), plus a headphone jack and an extra 7.5W USB-A port located under the panel, next to a glowing power button and a physical toggle to manually set brightness, volume, and display output.

ma270u-7.jpeg

Getting started couldn't have been easier. I plugged in the supplied USB-C cable and my MacBook Air instantly recognized the display and began drawing 90W of power from it. I also tried connecting to an M4 Mac mini, both directly and via a Ugreen Thunderbolt 4 dock, and had zero issues.

ma270u-8.jpeg

As I got comfortable with the setup, I was impressed by the flexibility of the MA270U's stand, offering a range of adjustments that make it easy to find your ideal viewing position. The height adjustment provides a generous 115mm of vertical travel, while the tilt mechanism allows the screen to move from -5° backward to 20° forward. Paired with 15° of swivel in each direction, you can fine-tune the display's position to minimize glare and maximize comfort. The robust stand keeps the display stable at any position, and the smooth pivot function rotates 90 degrees in either direction for portrait orientation viewing.

The built-in 3W speakers are adequate for system sounds but won't replace dedicated audio solutions – you won't be surprised to learn that they're noticeably inferior to MacBook speakers, and the less said about them the better.

Display Performance and Color Accuracy

Here's where the MA270U excels. The 60Hz panel's 3,840 x 2,160 resolution delivers crisp, vibrant visuals, while the 5ms response time is perfectly adequate (unless you're a hardcore FPS gamer). Colors pop without appearing oversaturated, and BenQ's color-matching technology is impressive – the difference between my MacBook Air's display and the MA270U was barely perceptible when using the recommended color profile. I even swapped out my Air for a MacBook Pro with a Liquid Retina XDR display, and only the brightness difference was visible. The monitor maintained consistent color reproduction across its 400 nits brightness range. Indeed, I was impressed with how good it looked alongside my Studio Display.

ma270u-10.jpeg

The Nano Matte panel handles glare admirably under normal conditions. However, direct sunlight remains challenging. It's not quite as effective as Apple's nano-texture glass option in this respect, but remember – that's a $300 upgrade on the Studio Display, which also boasts a higher 600 nits of brightness. One other thing worth mentioning is how fast the MA series monitor wakes from sleep – it impressively matched the speed of my Mac and the Studio Display.

Display Pilot 2 Software
... Click here to read rest of article

Article Link: Review: BenQ's Affordable MA270U 4K Monitor Is Made for MacBooks
 
4K at 27 inches... wouldn't the pixels-per-inch be noticeably lower than the Apple Studio Display? It's probably not a huge deal for gaming or watching movies, but text and images might look a little fuzzy. I doubt it would really bother casual users, but if you're someone who spends several hours a day working with either one... o_O
 
Garbage speakers and no UVC webcam… how is this "Made for Macs"?? Amazon had the Dell S2722QC for $249 for a few weeks recently, $279 right now… 4K 27-inch. Sure, this has far more ports, but I don't think that's what Mac users are needing… they need something comparable—even at 4K—to the Stupido Display. I'm at a loss as to how these 3rd parties just simply cannot figure this out.

I will reiterate: the most asinine aspect of all of this is that the iMac has ALL OF THE HARDWARE necessary to replicate the Studio Display, at 24-inches and 4.5K, but Apple has decided that it hates its users, hates the environment, and loves money more than both. If Apple made the M# iMacs work in a Target Display Mode, I can guarantee they'd sell AT LEAST 3 times as many. AND it would keep millions of 8GB M# iMacs from landfills… where they ABSOLUTELY are destined in the next few years. Shameful.

(I currently have 3—A TOTAL OF THREE!—M1 iMacs deployed among clients, while having dozens of 5K and 4K Intel iMacs. None of my clients are dumb enough to pay the ridiculous price of the M# iMac if it cannot be used in Target Display Mode with a MacBook or mini. The 4K and 5K iMacs saw spectacular resale value for Windows 10 users. The M1 iMacs—most of which were sold with only 8GB of RAM—are seeing resale prices already falling BELOW that of the 2019/2020 Intel 5K iMacs. It is absurd. At this point, we're moving to multiple $300 27-inch 4K displays in most cases. Apple is literally leaving cash on the table and losing sales. And the fact that M4 Mac minis are sold out at Amazon until mid-Feb and March really should tell the exec team how moronic their decisions in the past several years have been.)
 
Last edited:
My laptop is 120hz, my phone is 120hz, my desktop monitors (home and work) are 60hz.

I can't tell any difference between the three.
It seems some people can spot the difference right away, and others not at all; I'm the same as you and can't see what the big deal is. For me, it's the brightness that makes a difference; I prefer at least 500 nits. Too bad, because otherwise this monitor seems like a decent value.
 
It seems some people can spot the difference right away, and others not at all; I'm the same as you and can't see what the big deal is. For me, it's the brightness that makes a difference; I prefer at least 500 nits. Too bad, because otherwise this monitor seems like a decent value.

I can easily and quickly tell the difference with an iPhone; I carry a work issued SE and my 16 Pro. I don't care in the slightest, but I can see it.......but with a desktop monitor? Nah.
 
If Apple made the M# iMacs work in a Target Display Mode...
Your average iMac user doesn't care about Target Display Mode. They don't even know what Target Display Mode is.

... I can guarantee they'd sell AT LEAST 3 times as many.
😂

Only way you can guarantee that is if you were to buy what didn't sell to make up the shortfall.


That said, I'd be more inclined to buy an iMac if it could do Target Display Mode.
 
Last edited:
iMac has ALL OF THE HARDWARE necessary to replicate the Studio Display, at 24-inches and 4.5K
I would definitely park such a display next my M4 iMac -- but I bet it would cost upward of $999.

(edit: this got me curious, and it seems there are nearly no available 4K monitors at 24" anymore -- they're pretty much all 27" or larger)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux
Garbage speakers and no UVC webcam… how is this "Made for Macs"?? Amazon had the Dell S2722QC for $249 for a few weeks recently, $279 right now… 4K 27-inch. Sure, this has far more ports, but I don't think that's what Mac users are needing… they need something comparable—even at 4K—to the Stupido Display. I'm at a loss as to how these 3rd parties just simply cannot figure this out.

I will reiterate: the most asinine aspect of all of this is that the iMac has ALL OF THE HARDWARE necessary to replicate the Studio Display, at 24-inches and 4.5K, but Apple has decided that it hates its users, hates the environment, and loves money more than both. If Apple made the M# iMacs work in a Target Display Mode, I can guarantee they'd sell AT LEAST 3 times as many. AND it would keep millions of 8GB M# iMacs from landfills… where they ABSOLUTELY are destined in the next few years. Shameful.

(I currently have 3—A TOTAL OF THREE!—M1 iMacs deployed among clients, while having dozens of 5K and 4K Intel iMacs. None of my clients are dumb enough to pay the ridiculous price of the M# iMac if it cannot be used in Target Display Mode with a MacBook or mini. The 4K and 5K iMacs saw spectacular resale value for Windows 10 users. The M1 iMacs—most of which were sold with only 8GB of RAM—are seeing resale prices already falling BELOW that of the 2019/2020 Intel 5K iMacs. It is absurd. At this point, we're moving to multiple $300 27-inch 4K displays in most cases. Apple is literally leaving cash on the table and losing sales. And the fact that M4 Mac minis are sold out at Amazon until mid-Feb and March really should tell the exec team how moronic their decisions in the past several years have been.)
TDM, while useful, wasn’t a widely used feature. Then there was the issue for a while of not being able to push the pixels over a single cable, and the feature was dropped. Then, AirPlay from Mac to Mac became available, and works with the M1: it can add longer term life to your “crippled” 8 GB iMacs, and if one must have the best connection, USB-C can be used (from videos I’ve watched, it helps performance).
Nobody is buying an all in one, consumer desktop with the end goal of using it as a screen for another device. The return of TDM would not triple sales.
 
The main problem is how can you call it 'made for apple' with regular 4k. It won't look like an Apple screen, pixel density wise, stuff will be either too big or too small depending on how you set the scaling.

Other than that, I don't care about 1400 Hz refresh or oled with marketing prefixes which may or may not actually be oled. I'd like to have displayport though, since I trust HDMI about as far as I can throw it.

Edit: and what's with the fetish for BRIGHTNESS? I'd very much like the contrary, a monitor that has good contrast at very low brightness for reading and coding sessions.
 
Last edited:
I have an original 27” LG Ultrafine 5K monitor from 2018, and there is still no compelling reason to upgrade. It’s still a better monitor than most of what is available on the market. Apple Display’s only advantage is 100 nits of brightness, and that relatively minor difference doesn’t justify the hefty upgrade cost. Despite the hype, very little has changed in the display market in the last 6 years.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.