3

MacBook Pro 14 (2021) owner

I wanted to buy an external monitor for work and last time I bought FHD (1920x1080) which was a big mistake. Not a clear picture, blurry text.

After reading the forums, it turned out that for a Mac, a good picture requires 2k / 4k - 5k / monitors (where we can get 110 / 220 ppi)

But I came across an interesting article where the picture shows that the ideal option is 2k (2560x1440) or 5k = where PPI is 110 or 220. They write that in 4k there will be display scaling and everything will be small. And you will need to set it to 1920x1080 .... That is, the ideal option is 2k or 5k. enter image description here

Are there any Mac owners with an external monitor, what would you recommend?

  • The monitor is purely for work. I want clear and readable text, nice and rich colors, so that the eyes are pleased while working.

"4K with 60 Hz" or "2K - 75/100 Hz"? Which is better?

4
  • Now this is a good amount of research to invite someone to confirm or reject the advice and perhaps explain how resolution independence works very differently across major operating systems. What was the PPI for your regrettable FHD purchase?
    – bmike
    Commented Jul 28 at 14:27
  • 2
    “in 4k there will be display scaling”  Not in my experience.  2021 M1 MacBook Pro 16" with Dell 27" display at 3840×2160 (60Hz). Resolution set to ‘Default for Display’.  Looks just great.
    – gidds
    Commented Jul 29 at 0:07
  • @gidds If you're not scaling, then you're using native resolution (1:1). Are things not tiny? A lot of this is subjective, of course; but there's more to consider when buying a display for macOS than other OSes.
    – benwiggy
    Commented Jul 29 at 10:53
  • 1
    @benwiggy As you say, it's subjective — but no, things don't seem tiny.  They're not big, but I'm probably around 80cm from the screen, with reasonably good eyesight (though probably not as good as some of the younger folks here) and find it perfectly comfortable.  Of course, you can easily set larger default font sizes in the system preferences and in e.g. your browser.
    – gidds
    Commented Jul 29 at 14:47

3 Answers 3

8

You've effectively answered your own question with the image from this article, which discusses the importance of pixel density over size. The exact ranges may be be a matter of personal preference, but:

  • PPI below 100 will generally look very blurry or pixellated; and the large pixels will make objects look large. A 1080p display at 27" or larger will fall into this group.
  • PPI between 100 - 125 is a sweet spot: objects not too big, nor too small, with reasonable clarity.
  • PPI between 125 to 200 has pixels so small that objects are tiny, but if you scale them down by 2x, you're back below 100ppi in terms of object size. You could use 'non-integer scaling' to scale things to a more suitable ppi.
  • As per the article, using non-integer scalings (1.5x, 1.25x...) to simulate different resolutions can produce 'visual effects', as well as working the GPU harder. However, these may not be that noticeable, and GPUs are increasingly powerful these days. So a 4K 27" may work well enough at a scaled resolution (e.g. 2560x1440), if you already have one.
  • PPI above 200 is where Apple's "Retina" displays sit, and these benefit from the clarity of the high-resolution pixels, which are then scaled down to the 'sweet spot' for object size of c. 110ppi.

For choice, a good bet is a 2k 27" display, at 109ppi; you'll likely have a lot of options in that size. Slightly higher ppi would be better, if possible.

I don't think the refresh rate is important, unless you're dealing with gaming or video where there's constant fast-moving images.

That having been said, I've recently bought a Samsung 24-inch 2K display:

  • At 122ppi, I don't find it too small.
  • It's obviously the same number of pixels as you'd get on a 2K 27" screen, but at 89% the size, which makes things sharper. It's as tall as an A4 page (portrait) at Actual size, and about 2.75 A4 (portrait) pages wide.

You may be able to find a larger display that's "cut from the same cloth" (e.g. the same pixel panel) in the factory.

It was less than £200, so you could probably buy two or three 2K 24" displays for much less money than a 5K display...!

TL;DR: Bigger isn't always better, and ppi is important.

One other parameter to be careful about when buying monitors is the power consumption. Newer displays tend to be more efficient; but slightly older tech (usually cheaper, or on 'special' offer) can be twice or even three times the wattage.

4
  • Got it!! Thanks for advice! Commented Jul 28 at 14:02
  • Forgive the large edits. This might end up being a canonical QA for us as dozens of well prepared people coming from Linux and windows experience can miss the resolution independent nuances of macOS rendering.
    – bmike
    Commented Jul 28 at 14:36
  • I would add some sort of disclaimer/clarification that it is not really PPI that matters, but rather PPI over viewing distance. Granted, desktop monitors usually sit at around the same distance for everyone, but still worth mentioning in my opinion. Commented Jul 29 at 16:11
  • @VladimirCravero Obviously, you'll want larger objects if you're viewing from further away. And distance is a factor in whether you can resolve individual pixels with your eyes. We sit closer to Laptops and phones than monitors, but I'd say the range of variance for monitors is pretty small.
    – benwiggy
    Commented Jul 30 at 8:31
1

You want "clear and readable text, nice and rich colors, so that the eyes are pleased while working."

With a Mac, once you have used a 220ppi screen (e.g. 5K 27" or 4.5K 24") you will never find any other resolution to "please your eyes".

Anything else will be second best. As you have discovered, for 27" the two main such choices are:

2560x1440 (110 PPI) "2K": Problem is that the pixels in text are very obvious - I find that hard on the eyes. Only good thing is that there is nothing to adjust to try and make it better - in other words, it looks poor and you have to put up with it.

3840x2160 (160 PPI) "4K": Problem is that reasonable sized text will look slightly blurry and that you will be forever trying different "looks like" resolutions to improve the text.

With those choices, I would take a the 4K screen as being "better". But this is a subjective choice.

Take your MacBook to a store and try it with different monitors. Have ready a) some text to view and edit, and b) some photos with strong colours and varying resolutions. With a 27" 4K monitor start with a "looks like" 2880x1440 resolution - try that and slightly larger and smaller.

You could also look at a smaller 4K screen. For a 24" 4K the increased resolution (183 PPI) improves the clarity of fonts. It can look good with 2x Retina scaling - "looks like" 1920x1080.

2
  • Can you define "higher resolution 4K"...?
    – benwiggy
    Commented Jul 29 at 7:56
  • @benwiggy That was badly worded. Only way is with a smaller screen - e.g a 24" 4K which is a bit above 180 ppi. I will change it.
    – Gilby
    Commented Jul 29 at 9:25
-1

I have spent weeks looking for the best display for my 27" 5K iMac. (Now I'm using those monitors with Mac Studio.)

Apple Store has long sold a third LG UltraFine in addition to the 27" 5K and 21.5" 4K, which is not shown in the image attached to your question. It is present in the article @benwiggy linked in the answer. That monitor is the 23.7" 4K LG UltraFine.

According to technical specs, its PPI is 183. That’s because it has larger pixels with a pitch of 0.137 mm squared (vs 0.116 mm squared in 27" 5K and 21.5" 4K UltraFine monitors). I have been using two of these monitors for years and have never seen my GPU race unless I'm gaming.

It costs $700 in the US, so you can effectively purchase two 23.7" LG UltraFine for one Studio Display. These monitors do not have a camera (which I prefer because my Mac Studio uses my iPhone camera, which is superior and "upgraded" when I purchase a new phone).

In terms of coding compatibility, you will have only one problem with these: If you connect to a Windows machine, you cannot control the brightness and resolution. That is a typical issue with any product made for Apple devices.

This display is very sharp and 500 nits bright, which is what my iMac used to do. I can wholeheartedly recommend this monitor for everything you do on Apple devices. I also use it for external iPad displays. They are daisy-chainable if you decide to connect more of them later. Also, I have set mine up on a VESA mount, so one monitor is in portrait mode for reading long lines of code, and the other is landscape.


LG UltraFine 23.7" display

3
  • What scaling do you use?
    – benwiggy
    Commented Jul 29 at 8:29
  • 1
    @benwiggy: I didn't have to bother with scaling. I looked it up in Settings and System Report to answer your comment but could not find it. The monitors are made for working with Apple devices. MacOS did a great job picking the resolution/scaling. It has picked my default monitor resolution: 1920* 1080 in landscape mode and 1080* 1920 in portrait mode. Commented Jul 29 at 20:39
  • 1
    So it's using 2x scaling.
    – benwiggy
    Commented Jul 30 at 8:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .