Oh Happy day. I can finally upgrade from 1440p to 4k 60fps. Any recommendations on what monitor to get?
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.
What 32 inch+ monitor to get with the new 2018 mini?
- Thread starter Mellofello808
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have the same question. I currently have a 27" iMac (which a new Mini will replace) and my second display is an Asus MG279Q (27" 2K IPS).
I'm still a bit hesitant to go with a 32" display due to the physical size, but the Asus PA329Q seems like a good choice if I can find it for a decent price. The LG 32MU99-W also looks interesting. I'm a little surprised that LG hasn't come out with a 32" SuperFine monitor yet, but considering the 27" version is still $1299, I doubt I'd pay up for a 32" version.
Would love to know what 32" 4K monitor offers the best bang for the buck since I see quite a few at or below $600.
Last edited:
I wouldn't buy a 32" 4k display.
If you run it in HiDPI mode (4 pixels for each "perceived pixel"), it will look like a 27" display, "blown up" a bit.
I -WOULD- buy a 32" 1440p IPS display and run it at native resolution.
But there aren't that many of these "out there".
There -are- a few worth investigating.
If you run it in HiDPI mode (4 pixels for each "perceived pixel"), it will look like a 27" display, "blown up" a bit.
I -WOULD- buy a 32" 1440p IPS display and run it at native resolution.
But there aren't that many of these "out there".
There -are- a few worth investigating.
I just bought an LG 32ud99 and love it. These are being discounted and can be had for the mid $700's now. I was waiting for the 32uk950 which was just cancelled and rebadged as the 32ul950. That isn't expected to ship until 1st quarter 2019 now.
Honestly, I don't think spending $1300 on a monitor is worth it. The ud99 at it's current price was about half the price of the mini.
Honestly, I don't think spending $1300 on a monitor is worth it. The ud99 at it's current price was about half the price of the mini.
I tried a 2k 32" monitor a few years ago and the resolution felt too low relative to the screen size to me (similar feeling to 1080P on a 27" monitor). The absolute size of the 32" monitor didn't feel right on my desktop either, but the current generation of monitors are thinner and have smaller bezels, so maybe that helps. I suppose I need to figure out whether 4k on a 32" panel at 100% is even feasible for daily usage for me.
Is there no scaling increment between native 4k and 2k in OSX / HiDPI?
[doublepost=1541017015][/doublepost]
Are you running the 4k LG at 100%?
Sony 43” X720E. It has the best viewing angles of any 4K 43” and no PWM. $500. It’s rtings best tv to use as a monitor. It’s not for gaming though.
I hook my MBP up to an LG 43UD79-B. It's a 4k screen. I watched sales and snagged it for $450 I think from NewEgg with a few coupons.
I actually went on a bit of an Odyssey got a 2018 Mac mini and a 43 inch Dell 4k display. Didn't like it too big. Then went to a 1440p 34 inch wide screen. Also didn't like it. Not enough vertical real estate.
Right now I am back on my original 1440p 32 inch monitor. I am still waiting for the right replacement to come along.
I have decided somewhere around 36 inch 4k would be my perfect size, but such a thing doesn't really exist.
I have been running a 32" display for a few years now, running at 3840x2160 @60Hz. What a great improvement in real estate. My VM's all run at 1440p, with room to spare on the screen for several.
The only issue with this is, obviously, the smaller size of many items. Most notable, built-in Apple things like System Preferences and the Menu Bar are small and cannot be enlarged. Other Apple programs, like Mail and Messages, give you some control over text size for everything but the basic window. But for just about everything else, you can adjust the text size or zoom level to suit your eyes. Safari, for example, now has web site settings where you can set a default zoom (I have it @ 175% for default sites, and you can zoom that up or down with the keyboard as needed). I use an Eizo EV3237, but back when I shopped for a 32", that was about the only thing available. It is in their desktop line, not the professional line. Now other brands are beginning to appear.
Ideally, I would think a monitor running at 3840x2160 would work best on a 36"-38" panel.
The only issue with this is, obviously, the smaller size of many items. Most notable, built-in Apple things like System Preferences and the Menu Bar are small and cannot be enlarged. Other Apple programs, like Mail and Messages, give you some control over text size for everything but the basic window. But for just about everything else, you can adjust the text size or zoom level to suit your eyes. Safari, for example, now has web site settings where you can set a default zoom (I have it @ 175% for default sites, and you can zoom that up or down with the keyboard as needed). I use an Eizo EV3237, but back when I shopped for a 32", that was about the only thing available. It is in their desktop line, not the professional line. Now other brands are beginning to appear.
Ideally, I would think a monitor running at 3840x2160 would work best on a 36"-38" panel.
We are looking at LG 34WK95U-W 34" 21:9 UltraWide 5K Nano IPS Monitor from B&H Photo. We will run it with a Thunderbolt 3 cable. There are reviews for this monitor on YouTube that make me feel good about it with the 2018 Mac Mini.
There is also a 32" version of this: LG 32UL950-W 32" 16:9 4K UHD HDR FreeSync IPS Monitor
There is also a 32" version of this: LG 32UL950-W 32" 16:9 4K UHD HDR FreeSync IPS Monitor
So if I was to get a 32 or 34 inch monitor all the Apple stuff would look small and there is no way around this?? That seems kind of silly this day in age
This has been posted before. It explains why some size/resolution combinations are better than others:
https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/
The figure shows why a 34" 3440x1440 monitor is in a sweet spot for function/value IMHO.
Assuming you're referring to a 4K display, you "get around that" by using macOS display scaling in the preferences. You can set the display to be whatever "equivalent" resolution you want, and macOS scales everything to be that size while still using the full 4K pixels available.
If you've ever used a retina screen version of MacBook/Pro/Air, it's the exact same thing.
Thanks for reposting...I'm starting to understand some of what I need to know before ordering a Monitor.
Yes.
Now there are people who either don't believe this or just have a personal preference for whatever reason. But if, all else being equal, you put a 1440p screen next to a 4k (2160p) screen scaled to 1440p, the 4k will look as sharp or sharper to most people.
It's a pretty simple concept - there's just more pixels making up each screen element whether it's text or icons, and at such a high DPI, the pixel mapping interpolation isn't perceptible.* Some people suggest that anything other than "integer scaling" inherently makes things look "fuzzy". Again, that technically does not make sense, and people often make unreliable statements of comparison, or simply have their own personal preferences. Again, this just isn't an issue for typical users.
Bitmap images such as photos and video that are less than 4K quality aren't going to magically get "sharper" than their source resolution. But they don't look worse either.
(* as the DPI decreases, it's possible that interpolation can become perceptible... I can only speak from personal experience of 4K displays 27" and under... but I think it would have to be an impractically large screen for this to be a practical issue)
No offense intended towards you or the blogger, but I don't think he really has a firm grasp on how 4K works, and I think his entire premise is flawed, and I just wouldn't personally be recommending people read that as reliable information. Just my 2 cents on that. If people want to believe what he's selling, that's their right of course.
BenQ make some good larger displays for different purposes and they tend to be good value, so worth checking out. They were well known for gaming displays, but also produce perfectly credible wide gamut displays for precision colour work nowadays, along with others aimed specifically at designers or animators etc.
Spudner wrote:
"Do you think a 32-inch display is better suited to 1440p?"
Yes, in my opinion.
But my eyes are older.
I'd prefer 32" @ 5k (running in HiDPI so that it "looks like" 1440p), but I don't believe there are any options for that (if there are, they are probably pricey).
"Do you think a 32-inch display is better suited to 1440p?"
Yes, in my opinion.
But my eyes are older.
I'd prefer 32" @ 5k (running in HiDPI so that it "looks like" 1440p), but I don't believe there are any options for that (if there are, they are probably pricey).