Review: BenQ's Affordable MA270U 4K Monitor Is Made for MacBooks

[eltoslightfoot]

Thank you for this long-winded ridiculous, petulant explanation of stuff that us "professionals" know already.

I practically used to sell consumer electronics and and I've been involved with computer hardware since computer shopper days. Remember that?

Stuff isn't that hard to figure out so thank you for enlightening me, or more so just trying to feel that you're correct and somebody else doesn't understand.

I made one very specific point and it still stands. I didn't say anything that since this monitor isn't for photographers it's time to riot. Not did I say that this particular monitor should be for us photo pros. It was a very specific point about the state of the market and how manufacturers market these products. (ie. Srgb = amazing).

Just saying that someone's observation isn't valid because you don't need what talking about is not helpful to any kind of conversation. I don't need your ham sandwich, that doesn't affect you at all does it. So...ok move on, next.

Thanks anyway.

That isn’t really what you said originally. You made it clear that all monitors need this. That’s what prompted the responses you don’t like. We responded with, well the market is this way because there are other markets than just photographers. Anyway I agree, let’s move on.

 

[Mr. Nice]

4K at 27 inches... wouldn't the pixels-per-inch be noticeably lower than the Apple Studio Display?

Here is a nice comparison (in German) about 27" 4K vs. 27" 5K:

Monitore für Macs: Brauchst du Apples Pixeldichte?
- Monitors for Macs: Do you need Apple's pixel density? -

Picture:
109 ppi (left) - 163 ppi (middle) - 218 ppi (right)

He notes 5 things in his comparison:
"1. native and non-native scaling (so for example “like 2560 x 1440” on the 4K display) I can't tell the difference in blind tests for the life of me.

3. the performance of the GPU suffers little under non-native scaling:...

4. the difference in sharpness between 5K (218 ppi) and 4K (163 ppi) is perceptible, but small. I can see it most clearly when I open a high-resolution photo with fine structures. Text looks practically the same from a normal distance."

The comparison is worth reading and interesting!

 

[turbineseaplane]

Here is a nice comparison (in German) about 27" 4K vs. 27" 5K:

Monitore für Macs: Brauchst du Apples Pixeldichte?
- Monitors for Macs: Do you need Apple's pixel density? -

Picture:
109 ppi (left) - 163 ppi (middle) - 218 ppi (right)

I think it’s my aging eyes but the middle one looks fine.
Left is too grainy at this point though

 

[Mr. Nice]

I wouldn't call a 4K 27" monitor as "made for Macs".

Please stop spreading manufacturers' lies. Even a simple old 2K (2560X1440) panel from 15 years ago looks better and uses less GPU power than any 4K 27" display.

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.

I don't understand how someone can use a non-Retina level DPI monitor in 2025.

Folks,
in my previous comment I referred to a comparison: 27“ 4K vs 27” 5K which is worth reading.
After reading it, I think that 27” 4K is also enough for me (as for most others).
If you still really want 27” 5K, you have to decide:
Samsung, LG, Asus or the Apple Studio Display.

For me, this 1K more is not worth the extra cost.

-> Mac mini M4 with 27" 4K Display and the software BetterDisplay = Money saved

4K 27" and Made for Mac is borderline clickbait.

Apple brought up his disciples very well:
4k is blasphemy, buy the Apple Studio Display.
No, thanks

The may be OK if you don't care about quality. The Apple Studio Display is orders of magnitude better than any $400 display. You get what you pay for.

And sometimes you pay for things you don't need.

4K 24 inch would work better for Macs

I would like a 24” display with 4.5K resolution like the current iMacs. Unfortunately, there's nothing on the market.

27” 4K is a totally valid choice for Macs, yall need to calm down. Sure if you sit it right next to an Apple display that’s 27” 5K, the text sizes will look different at their native Retina resolutions.

Amen!

 

[nathansz]

The only iMac's Apple makes are 24 inch. What are you talking about?

Edit: are you trying to say Intel 24 inch iMacs?

That are saying the 24” iMacs cost the same as the Intel 27”

 

[StudioG]

Yet another opinion — as a photographer and graphic designer I currently use a 31" 4096×2160 17:9 dispay with 99.5% Adobe RGB as my main monitor, bought in 2017. When doing design or surfing the web I use it scaled at 5K HiDPI ("looks like 2560×1350"), and honestly it looks fine to my eyes. Certainly miles better than an actual 2560 display. When I use Photoshop I drop it into 4K ("looks like 2048×1080") for 1:1 pixel accuracy and it works very well for me. The fact that I can almost see the individual pixels does not bother me, in fact sometimes it's helpful when sharpening, etc.

AFAIK QD-OLEDs have the widest color gamut, covering almost all of Adobe RGB and P3. At this point in history sRGB is a joke and should be obsoleted as soon as possible. (When we strive for mediocrity, reach for your knees!) I'm considering getting a 32" 4K QD-OLED display the next time I need one. Yes, low pixel density but "good enough" for me in terms of resolution, and excellent in terms of color if I calibrate it properly.

So when this BENQ (and the Asus one) was announced my ears perked up, but honestly for me I think 4K OLED is going to be the better value, unless a 5K OLED shows up soon (it won't).

 

[mikerally]

I have a HP Z27k G3 display. It’s 4k and I run it in 1080 Hi-DPI mode. I understand that the user interface might seem comically large for some, but I do struggle with eye fatigue when working in a high resolution mode for many hours. For me this 163 DPI mode is just fine. I can sit slightly further back from the screen and avoid straining my eyes.

Dell are releasing a new 4k IPS black display on February 25th, the U2725QE. It has a 3000:1 contrast ratio and 120hz refresh. Top that off with Thunderbolt connectivity and 140w USB-C charging.

 

[star-affinity]

MacRumors have a NVIDIA RTX 5090 in their Mac's to play AAA games at 4K @ 120hz?

That’s not what it’s about.
Even interacting with the operating system feels snappier and smoother and more responsive on a higher refresh rate display. You get less ”input lag” from your actions. I think going up to 120 Hz from 60 Hz is a major difference. Going from 120 Hz to 240 Hz is noticeable, but not as much as the first jump, so I’m okay with 120 Hz for desktop use.

But 60 Hz feels quite laggy and when you’ve tried 120 Hz, even moving the mouse pointer around feels slow and choppy at 60 Hz.

It’s my opinion anyway.

 

[turbineseaplane]

But 60 Hz feels quite laggy and when you’ve tried 120 Hz, even moving the mouse pointer around feels slow and choppy at 60 Hz.

It’s my opinion anyway.

I share this opinion.

It's amazing how it makes everything "feel faster".

It's really hard to enjoy 60hz usage after you've gone higher.

 

[nathansz]

But 60 Hz feels quite laggy and when you’ve tried 120 Hz, even moving the mouse pointer around feels slow and choppy at 60 Hz.

It’s my opinion anyway.

personally in don't feel this at all

I don't really notice a difference plugging my m4 pro MacBook in to my good old 60hz lg display

indeed, as nice as the MacBook screen is, I much prefer to work on the 32 inches of the lg

maybe it's because I consistently use both?

30 hz on the other hand, that I notice

 

[star-affinity]

personally in don't feel this at all

I don't really notice a difference plugging my m4 pro MacBook in to my good old 60hz lg display

indeed, as nice as the MacBook screen is, I much prefer to work on the 32 inches of the lg

maybe it's because I consistently use both?

30 hz on the other hand, that I notice

And you have the MacBook display set to 120 Hz ProMotion?

Try switching the MacBook Pro display between using ProMotion and 60 Hz. I think it’s clearly noticeable how much slower the response is when moving the arrow pointer and windows around.

Now, if you aren’t moving things around very fast and go slow, you won’t notice the difference as much. But there IS a clear difference when going a bit faster.

 

[nathansz]

And you have the MacBook display set to 120 Hz ProMotion?

I do indeed

 

[nathansz]

Try switching the MacBook Pro display between using ProMotion and 60 Hz. I think it’s clearly noticeable how much slower the response is when moving the arrow pointer and windows around.

ok so there is a perceptible difference in the smoothness of animations, but the perceptible difference in responsiveness seems negligible to me

to be fair I have my mouse set at a fairly high dpi (2000) so it whips across the screen pretty good

I also amethyst window tiling and move everything with keyboard shortcuts so rarely am I ever dragging windows around