32" at 4k is fine
it looks neither grainy nor terrible
is it as sharp as my mpb? no
but it's completely usable and the price difference to get to 5k or 6k is still too large to be worth the negligible difference in sharpness
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.
Review: BenQ's Affordable MA270U 4K Monitor Is Made for MacBooks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
32" at 4k is fine
it looks neither grainy nor terrible
is it as sharp as my mpb? no
but it's completely usable and the price difference to get to 5k or 6k is still too large to be worth the negligible difference in sharpness
Because it is literally impossible for anybody to post on the internet without resorting to absolutely insane levels of hyperbole!!!
5k/220ppi is definitely best if you don't mind paying 2-3x the price and choosing from a very limited range of models.
4k is a very reasonable compromise considering the price difference and even in "looks like 1440p" - which is actually 5k downsampled to 4k - they display far more detail than any actual 1440p display... but I guess some people think it actually means "2560x1440 pixels plus scaling artefacts" and see what they expect to see. Personally, my daily workflow doesn't involve climbing on the desk and using a jeweller's loupe to do A/B comparisons between 4k and Pro XDR (whups - now I'm hyperbolizing...) and I'm fine with 4k. Of course, you can also get pixel-perfect 4k in 2:1 or 1:1 mode if you don't mind the UI scale not being in the Goldilocks zone (2:1 is perfectly usable - YMMV a bit depending on what apps your using and whether you're full-screening them).
1440p may be a good choice for some if refresh rate & GPU load are more important than resolution - maybe if you want to do 3D or gaming with a GPU that isn't up to 4k rendering. There are also some crazy expensive 1440p displays around with colour-calibration features that some might need... The problem is that 1440p displays simply can't display 4k content or offer retina-class "pixel free" displays... whereas a 4k display is quite capable of running in "Full HD" mode for games or other times when you need fast rendering more than detail.
Last edited:
Yup. Really is a shame. And, crazy thing is, Apple customers have been asking for a new 24-inch external displays ever since Apple killed off the 24-inch iMac. Most of my business clients that meet with customers/clients (lawyers, pols, etc) didn't want 27-inch billboards on their desk… the 24-inch iMac was a sweet spot of size. Which made the new iMacs WELCOME… except… they cost as much as the 5K (by the time you upgraded RAM and storage) and had zero down-the-line re-use.
Ironically, you make the case FOR me. All of the limitations of TDM—ALONG with the fact that Apple killed it far too prematurely, well before those units really would have hit the point of them being repurposed for TDM (curious timing, eh?)—are no longer an issue. And coupled with Apple's PR stance on the environment, making the M# iMacs work in TDM mode makes even more sense now.
"Nobody is buying…" should be "Nobody had been buying" and "Most people would buy…" if Apple truly wants to live up to its talking points. And at $999 (and lower), the pricing I'm seeing M1 8/256 iMacs going for right now, Apple could absolutely sell 3x more, both to folks wanting an all-in-one computer and others who want a 24-inch 4.5K 'Studio Display SE"… and make no mistake, Apple absolutely could sell a $999 M1 iMac/Display brand new considering the current alternatives. If only they'd been doing it all along! (Realistically, the M1 chip likely costs as much to manufacture as the binned M4 chip, so there is really little reason to ship an M1-based unit any longer. Which is why putting TDM into the iMac from the start would have been the far-superior idea: folks who'd moved to an M1 iMac from an Intel iMac are likely ready at this point to either move to an M4 mini or M4 iMac and use the M1 in TDM, or sell it off to someone else who wanted to use it in TDM. But, no, to the landfill it will go!)
This is pretty key, "my eyes are not what they used to be". I first ran into this with my dad as he aged, and started seeing it with other clients as they got older. Look up "Presbyopia". Dad ended up with a 2014 5K iMac, and because it was SO crisp, it worked for him. However in the last few years he's been complaining and I pushed him to 2048x1152. I have many clients who used 5K iMacs running Windows who I've moved to the 4K Dell S2722QC because I realized they almost all were running the 5K iMacs at 2048-1152… and they couldn't tell the difference (in Windows), and they're mostly in the their late-30s and mid-40s. Yes, everything is bigger on the 4K, but if you just accept that you're stretching a 21-inch screen (in terms of what all you're seeing), and can get past the comically just-a-bit-too-large UI chrome, for most users 27-inch 4K is 'perfect'. In fact, we compared 27-inch 4K to the 24-inch 4.5K iMac and in the end Dad preferred the bigger UI chrome of the 4K.
The fact that Apple hasn't really addressed this in the 20 years since my Dad first complained about it, while Microsoft has massively improved Windows' UI scaling, is pretty frustrating. Apple has even seemed to double-down on it, if anything. (Then again, nobody needed a bigger iPhone screen either… until Apple completely 180'd and now only sells huge-screen iPhones (says the iPhone mini user).)
Doesn't 4k resolution translate to 1920x1080 when in "retina" mode?
If i get a new monitor, I think I'm gonna go with the Asus 27 inch 5k display.
If i get a new monitor, I think I'm gonna go with the Asus 27 inch 5k display.
You can nearly buy 2 of these BenQ for the price of one of the ASUS ProArt. Most of us don't need that. I bought the 32inch BenQ MA 4k. I can see a very, very small difference in the text and photos between it and my 27 inch Intel iMac. There is no keyboard integration with the ASUS. No color matching.
This BenQ allowed me to move to a new, M4 Mac mini for under $1100. My iMac was $2200 new. The performance is significantly better with my new Mini and I love the display.
For 90%+ of people who can see very little difference, this is the best road forward.
The only iMac's Apple makes are 24 inch. What are you talking about?
Edit: are you trying to say Intel 24 inch iMacs?
I don't know what you mean by saying "Apple hasn't addressed this".
THIS is how you address it: run the 5K screen at 2048 by 1152. Now everything is exactly the same size as it would be on a 4K 27" Dell. That was PRECISELY MY POINT.
Is your point some nitpicking that 2048x1152 is not EXACTLY the same as 1920x1080?
So basically this is a monitor for people who don't care. I hope they enjoy their impoverished obsolete color gamut!
It's impossible to tell from people's posts whether they actually understand the difference between a 1920x1080/2560x1440 pixel display and what Apple calls "1920x1080/2560x1440" on a "Hi DPI" display like 4k - but I think Apple's way of describing modes is potentially misleading and confusing. There is a technical justification - from the point of view of a programmer writing software and worrying about translating screen coordinates to pixels - but that's almost the definition of not user-friendly.
Unless you jump through hoops to see the "hidden" modes, all of the modes on offer have 4k resolution - the only difference is how they are scaled.
In "3840x2160" mode, everything is plotted at 1:1 scale - which results in UI elements - system fonts, icons, buttons etc. - which are a bit too small for usability on a 27" display. Your eyesight may vary but this starts to get usable above about 30".
In "1920x1080" mode, everything is scaled 2x to give a 3840x2160 (4k UHD image). Unfortunately, that makes the UI elements a bit big on a 27" screen, which eats into "real estate" a bit - although as your eyeballs age you might appreciate it - but (unless you're running ancient software that doesn't understand "retina") the resolution of the image is still 4k.
"2560x1440" mode also scales everything 2x - to 5k (5120x2880) - but then the result has to be downsampled to 4k to fit on the screen. Still - it's a 4k image and contains significantly more detail than an actual 1440p display would show. The upside is that the UI size is what a lot of people feel is "just right" - same as a classic 27" iMac. The downside is that the downsampling process creates slight blurring around 1-pixel details - whether that is a problem is definitely a "your mileage may vary" issue (personally I struggle to see the practical problem, esp. when other modes are available & suspect that the thought of a non-pixel-perfect image just bugs some people). There's an extra GPU load from this scale-and-resample process - may have been an issue on an old Mac with crummy Intel integrated graphics, but I don't think Apple Silicon is bothered (as long as your application can cope with 5k rendering to start with).
Holy crap this place is toxic. It's a friggin monitor.
I can give you my anecdotal experience. I've got a thread dedicated to my research and decision process, but here's the bottom line...during late 2024 holiday shopping season I was shopping for 4 or 5K 27 or 32" brand name displays with good reviews, hoping to get good quality on a budget (and a sale!), but wanted USB-C-DisplayPort-Alt mode handling DP 1.4. I didn't have a chance to observe a 32" 4K display using a Mac in person, and since some people thought that res. was too low on a 27", I wasn't willing to take the chance.
After exhausting research and handwringing, I got it down to these 2:
1.) Dell U2723QE - 27", 4K, hub monitor. Then on sale at Amazon for $434 + tax.
2.) ASUS 27", 5K, monitor - very recent release. No sales, too new. B&H Photo & Video had for the standard $799, but use the Pay Boo credit card (no annual fee) and get instantly refunded the sales tax.
Wow, it'd cost $338.96 extra for me to get 5K over 4K. I was gradually steeling myself for the pain of paying for that ASUS when Woot! came out with 'open box' condition U2723QEs in a limited supply. Basically new condition with a hole in the box, arrived on my front porch for $320.50 with tax. Now, it'd cost me $478.50 extra to get 5K.
Nope.
Side-by-side with my old 2017 27" 5K iMac, the Dell's text looks plenty sharp. I saw a bit of difference in color, and needed to run the Dell at a higher brightness level, but I'd have to go looking to discern a difference in sharpness of text on this forum, definitely not 'grainy and terrible to me.'
But it might look that way to you. But here's the thing; the 4K vs. 5K thing is a lot like the 60-Hz vs. 120-Hz thing. The sequel to my Dell is 4K, 120-Hz, and I think price close to $700.
So, what's better, 4K at 120-Hz or 5K at 60-Hz and another hundred bucks?
Frankly you can do that for a few bucks with pretty much any modern monitor using BetterDisplay.
That's a good display indeed. It's basically the same panel LG sells in their 27" 4K UltraFine series, but the Dell looks better imho (the monitor, not the panel ^^). In general: as long as you get a decend LG IPS panel and don't totally cheap out I think you'll be fine.
That's one thing I feel like doesn't get enough attention here. 4K ain't 4K. You can't get some cheap backwater panel and expect it to compete with the studio display. There are legit horrible 4K panels out there. But a decent IPS or OLED will do the trick 9 times out of 10, and if you are fine with 60hz you can even go for the USB-C one-cable-solution. Sure, the Studio Display is better in every metric than a 4K@60. 5K really is nice, and personally I'd buy mine again. But I've been doing real "pixel" work on both the LG 4K and the Studio display, and frankly: doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
It really doesn't though. It's fuzzy / blurry.
None of the 3 x 4k monitors I've tried over the years have looked as good at 2560 x 1440 than monitors that are native at that resolution.
I mainly use apps like Logic.
You can get a LG 4K 27” display for about 300 but honestly the 90W USB-C port is worth the 150 difference alone if you use a MBP
The software looks really nice too, I personally have a license for BetterDisplay which gives those same features to any third party monitor but the fact that they bothered to make an utility so Mac users have a easier time out of the box is commendable
The software looks really nice too, I personally have a license for BetterDisplay which gives those same features to any third party monitor but the fact that they bothered to make an utility so Mac users have a easier time out of the box is commendable
I can tell both visually and how it feels to use the device – higher refresh rate makes the input lag (latency from action to reaction) lower which is much nicer in my opinion.
Now, there are other aspects that contribute to latency and visual smoothness than refresh rate (such as the display and device in use, panel type etc.) but I can say that since I started using an OLED display that supports up to 240 Hz at home it feels like everything is a bit delayed and going in slow motion when I use the 60 Hz IPS display I have at work.
The higher refresh rate actually makes the computer feel faster.
The downside is power consumption, so one can use ProMotion (which unfortunately can introduce VRR flicker at times) or set to a fixed 144 Hz, which I did. It is much nicer compared to having it at 60 Hz in my opinion.
I think 27" 120 Hz at 5K (16:9) would be ideal. I think there's a clear difference in text sharpness vs 4K on the same size. But if you don't care about the refresh rare I'd rather go for a 5K at 27". Text gets so much sharper. But I guess it depends on your eyes and what you care about.
Ha, I saw this. Way out of my price range. Cool specialized little monitor for photo studio use, but definitely not suitable (or affordable) for my uses. Still, looks very nice with that 600 nits and HDR.