Why so Few 27" 5K Displays?

[bballers29]

Hey,

I have spent the past year revamping my workstation-- purchased a new M2 Air, desk and desk accessories-- and have been disappointed by the slim pickings for 27" 5K displays. It seems like there are only two options with the Studio Display and the LG UltraFine. They also cost 4 times more than their 24" 4K counterparts. It's so easy finding 24" 4K displays -- I bought an LG for less than $300-- so I was wondering if anyone had a theory as to why there are so few 27" 5K displays at a more affordable price? Thanks!

 

[salamanderjuice]

Because the monitor market is largely driven by PC gamers and businesses. For PC gamers they'd rather have a high refresh rate display that can be driven with an affordable graphics card than a high resolution display that requires an expensive GPU to run at full resolution in games. Businesses are fine with 1080p and 1440p monitors since they're a lot cheaper. Plus with the way Windows does HiDPI 4K monitors are fine.

5K is just too niche, it's only really desired by Mac users and most of those just use laptops anyways.

 

[MacGizmo]

Dell and LG offer several 5k monitors (not all are 27" - I'm using a 34" LG 5k display). To me, the 27" size is pointless for 5k because you can't actually use the display at 5k resolution (everything is too small). Almost everyone with an Apple or LG Ultrafine display end up running it at a 4k resolution anyway.

It's the RETINA ppi (pixels per inch) that's so wonderful on the 27" size display. THAT is what is so difficult to find. It's what makes text appear so crisp on the screen.

To my knowledge, the Apple and LG Ultrafine are the ONLY 5k displays that use full Retina ppi at a consumer-level price and size.

As @salamanderjuice stated in his/her post, it's kind of a niche market - so they're all twice the price of similar sized 4k displays, no matter what vendor you get it from.

 

[JaredJenkinsDesign]

Like others have said, there isn't as big of a demand for very sharp displays whether it's a 27" 5k or a 32" 6k. Most corporate businesses will have a slew of cheap 1080p monitors that gets the job done for your typical office job. As for gamers, 4K requires a more demanding GPU and for some gamers, the difference in sharpness for their games is not significantly noticeable and not worth it over say a 1440p with a higher refresh rate.

If you're after a 27" 5K monitor but at a more affordable price, you'll either have to look at a renewed/refurbished LG UltraFine/Studio Display or wait to see what Samsung's ViewFinity S9 (27" 5K monitor) will be priced at.

 

[kitsunesoba]

One would think that there'd be enough of a demand for 2x UI scaling high-PPI displays from graphics artists, photographers, and video editors (5k+ offers room for toolbars, timelines, etc without scaling down 4k video), and these days WFH programmers (crisp code == less eyestrain) that more companies would have high PPI desktop monitor offerings. None of those crowds are particularly price sensitive, so these products can more easily get away with being priced higher with larger margins than say the majority of gaming displays (a product category that's become very crowded).

It's even more baffling when you see how high PPI has become the standard in midrange-and-above smartphones and laptops. There's clearly an appetite that's being left unsatisfied.

 

[bballers29]

Dell and LG offer several 5k monitors (not all are 27" - I'm using a 34" LG 5k display). To me, the 27" size is pointless for 5k because you can't actually use the display at 5k resolution (everything is too small). Almost everyone with an Apple or LG Ultrafine display end up running it at a 4k resolution anyway.

It's the RETINA ppi (pixels per inch) that's so wonderful on the 27" size display. THAT is what is so difficult to find. It's what makes text appear so crisp on the screen.

To my knowledge, the Apple and LG Ultrafine are the ONLY 5k displays that use full Retina ppi at a consumer-level price and size.

As @salamanderjuice stated in his/her post, it's kind of a niche market - so they're all twice the price of similar sized 4k displays, no matter what vendor you get it from.

Exactly! I want retina PPI on a 27" display. I believe my 24" 4k has a PPI of 180 which I am quite happy with at the moment. But when I eventually get a larger monitor, I don't want to have to sacrifice PPI. which leaves me with only the Studio Display and LG as suitable options.

 

[Gudi]

I was wondering if anyone had a theory as to why there are so few 27" 5K displays at a more affordable price? Thanks!

This particular pixel density is only really useful if you run macOS. So if you look at the Mac global market share, take into account that 80% of all Macs are laptops, which already come with a screen. And also subtract all iMacs, which come with a brilliant built-in screen and Apple's own stand-alone displays. Then you end up with a very tiny market for 27-inch 5K displays.

 

[2aw]

It is because the desktop market has become the 2nd (or even 3rd) priority. For example, Apple focuses on the iPhone, which makes them the most profit, next is their laptops, and even further behind is their desktops.

For example, I still do not have a desktop computer, my current laptop is a 2014 15" MacBook Pro, that is a 9 year old laptop!

If you want 5k 27" displays to be more available you have to create some demand for them, even myself I would like to someday get a desktop with a retina display (I would never settle for less now that I have been using a retina laptop for such a long time), but only if I ever buy one, at this rate I will probably never own another desktop computer again since laptops are so good nowadays.

Which means for the few desktop users that are still out there (because they do their jobs on a desktop or for some other reason need to use a desktop (why? Just use a laptop instead)) they would have to overpay for a retina desktop monitor, less volume means more higher prices to keep the same amount of money incoming to the monitor companies that release these products.

 

[Pressure]

LG 27MD5KA
LG 27MD5KL-B
HP Z27q
Dell UP2715K
Iiyama ProLite XB2779QQS
Samsung ViewFinity S9
Apple Studio Display

These are all 5120x2880 pixels monitors.

 

[okkibs]

Perhaps the root of the issue is that 4k is now so common and 'good enough' that only a small minority of consumers want to pay for a 5k upgrade. Except for specific workflows like editing 4k footage there aren't that many people who really need the higher resolution. And as was mentioned already, the retina 27" 5k ppi issue is Apple specific, Windows users are not affected by that at all.

The moment you go from 4k to 5k you lose out on many features. If you want to know which ones specifically, look at the Asus Proart pa32ucg that has just about everything you can dream of with the current tech. You'll get none of them with 5k.

No 5k monitor currently even does 120Hz, and that is -to me- ridiculous.

Perhaps it is a self-perpetuating issue, 4k being so common that demand for 5k remains low, and little innovation because of that low demand.

It's so easy finding 24" 4K displays -- I bought an LG for less than $300--

Comparing such cheap 4k monitors to high-end prosumer 5k ones is not a fair comparison. If that LG had anywhere near the specs of the Studio Display it would cost more than twice that.

These are all 5120x2880 pixels monitors.

Perhaps check before you post: The iiyama for example is from 2018, not even sold anymore and for a good reason, atrocious reviews...

 

[2aw]

Perhaps the root of the issue is that 4k is now so common and 'good enough' that only a small minority of consumers want to pay for a 5k upgrade. Except for specific workflows like editing 4k footage there aren't that many people who really need the higher resolution. And as was mentioned already, the retina 27" 5k ppi issue is Apple specific, Windows users are not affected by that at all.

The moment you go from 4k to 5k you lose out on many features. If you want to know which ones specifically, look at the Asus Proart pa32ucg that has just about everything you can dream of with the current tech. You'll get none of them with 5k.

No 5k monitor currently even does 120Hz, and that is -to me- ridiculous.

Perhaps it is a self-perpetuating issue, 4k being so common that demand for 5k remains low, and little innovation because of that low demand.


Comparing such cheap 4k monitors to high-end prosumer 5k ones is not a fair comparison. If that LG had anywhere near the specs of the Studio Display it would cost more than twice that.


Perhaps check before you post: The iiyama for example is from 2018, not even sold anymore and for a good reason, atrocious reviews...

4k is still not retina level resolution (only 163 ppi), you will see blurry text on your brand new 4k monitor. That is why 5k and up is needed

i would say apple needs to go further, 217 ppi is scraping the bottom when it comes to retina level resolution, i think 6k should be the standard for a 27" screen (note, i did not do any math to come to the 6k number, if it needs to be higher then it should go up)

and of course the price needs to come down, the gap from the average 4k display to 5k display is about $800, that is too much, it is not good from a value standpoint.