Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

taxi_driver

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 26, 2017
129
24
I have a physical space limitation that allows for a 24" monitor to use with a MPB M1. Unfortunately I didn't find many 24" 4k monitors that are sold new, so am wondering what my best alternatives are/optimal resolution so things don't look too terrible.

Found a couple models from BenQ and Asus that seemed solid. I do photo editing in addition to general productivity/work use.
 

Ben J.

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2019
1,062
623
Oslo
Forget about 4k. 4k means 4000 pixels horisontally, and you don't need that on a 24" monitor. You'll be using a much lower resolution, because with a hi res of 4k, menus, text etc will be so small that it will be unusable.

What you need is a monitor made for photo and graphics, with a large color space, and factory calibrated. Look for stuff recommended on photo sites.


(Added: I'm using Lightroom Classic and Photoshop on my 32" BenQ PD3200U with a setting of 1600 x 900. That's "1,6K" in 4k speak, and I have no problems with detail and sharpness.)

My point is; you choose the physical size of screen you want, (considering how close you want to sit to it), and then you pick the resolution that lets you have a good balance between the size of menus and graphic elements and how much "screen "real-estate" you get - which most often results in choosing a much lower resolution than 4k. And then you might brag about your 4k monitor, but it doesn't make one bit of difference.

Don't worry about people arguing about scaling and default resolution - I know from decades of using macs professionally with photos and graphics that choosing lower resolutions in macOS most often doesn't degrade the image in any way.
 
Last edited:

taxi_driver

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 26, 2017
129
24
Forget about 4k. 4k means 4000 pixels horisontally, and you don't need that on a 24" monitor. You'll be using a much lower resolution, because with a hi res of 4k, menus, text etc will be so small that it will be unusable.

What you need is a monitor made for photo and graphics, with a large color space, and factory calibrated. Look for stuff recommended on photo sites.


(Added: I'm using Lightroom Classic and Photoshop on my 32" BenQ PD3200U with a setting of 1600 x 900. That's "1,6K" in 4k speak, and I have no problems with detail and sharpness.)

My point is; you choose the physical size of screen you want, (considering how close you want to sit to it), and then you pick the resolution that lets you have a good balance between the size of menus and graphic elements and how much "screen "real-estate" you get - which most often results in choosing a much lower resolution than 4k. And then you might brag about your 4k monitor, but it doesn't make one bit of difference.

Don't worry about people arguing about scaling and default resolution - I know from decades of using macs professionally with photos and graphics that choosing lower resolutions in macOS most often doesn't degrade the image in any way.

Thanks a ton for the reality check and guidance here. I wasn't entirely targeting 4k for bragging rights rather a closer analog to what I'm accustomed to on my MPB displays.

I can't remember the last time I bought a monitor and some new names like BenQ came up during my searches.
 

taxi_driver

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 26, 2017
129
24
Forget about 4k. 4k means 4000 pixels horisontally, and you don't need that on a 24" monitor. You'll be using a much lower resolution, because with a hi res of 4k, menus, text etc will be so small that it will be unusable.

What you need is a monitor made for photo and graphics, with a large color space, and factory calibrated. Look for stuff recommended on photo sites.


(Added: I'm using Lightroom Classic and Photoshop on my 32" BenQ PD3200U with a setting of 1600 x 900. That's "1,6K" in 4k speak, and I have no problems with detail and sharpness.)

My point is; you choose the physical size of screen you want, (considering how close you want to sit to it), and then you pick the resolution that lets you have a good balance between the size of menus and graphic elements and how much "screen "real-estate" you get - which most often results in choosing a much lower resolution than 4k. And then you might brag about your 4k monitor, but it doesn't make one bit of difference.

Don't worry about people arguing about scaling and default resolution - I know from decades of using macs professionally with photos and graphics that choosing lower resolutions in macOS most often doesn't degrade the image in any way.

Thanks a ton for the reality check and guidance here. I wasn't entirely targeting 4k for bragging rights rather a closer analog to what I'm accustomed to on my MPB displays.

I can't remember the last time I bought a monitor and some new names like BenQ came up during my searches.
 

ducknalddon

macrumors 6502
Aug 31, 2018
347
574
Forget about 4k. 4k means 4000 pixels horisontally, and you don't need that on a 24" monitor. You'll be using a much lower resolution, because with a hi res of 4k, menus, text etc will be so small that it will be unusable.
No they won't, macOS is really good at handling high dpi displays. The ppi on that size screen would be lower than the original posters MacBook Pro.
 

FreakinEurekan

macrumors 604
Sep 8, 2011
6,539
3,417
I’ll respectfully disagree with the first reply; if you’re reading a lot of text using HiDPI mode on a 4k external display will look MUCH sharper than lower resolution. I would be looking for 4k on a 21-22” or 5k on a 27”. At 24” Apple uses a “4.5k” display with the iMac, which is difficult to find on most external displays.

Lower resolution can be fine in certain circumstances, but it all depends on how you use it.
 

Ben J.

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2019
1,062
623
Oslo
No they won't, macOS is really good at handling high dpi displays. The ppi on that size screen would be lower than the original posters MacBook Pro.
I've never seen an apple laptop that was able to use true 4k resolution. It's often around 2k maximum.

I'd love to see a screenshot of a mac desktop with menu bar, dock and a couple of Finder windows with true 4k resolution. Please show me.
 

Ben J.

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2019
1,062
623
Oslo
I'd love to see a screenshot of a mac desktop with menu bar, dock and a couple of Finder windows with true 4k resolution. Please show me.
Nearly 4k, this is what I see on my BenQ PD32000U @ 3840x2160 (Edit: I guess that qualifies it as a '4k monitor'):
(and this is with menu bar set at 'large' and Finder window text size @ 16pts, the maximum.) View that screenshot in fullscreen on a 24" display and tell me what you think.

Skjermbilde 2024-10-24 kl. 19.18.54.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HobeSoundDarryl

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
OP, may I suggest you actually share the SPACE vs. just sharing 24"? For example, I could just barely fit an iMac 27" in my favorite work space because the top of the monitor ran right up against a hanging cabinet (above).

When I went separates though, I went 40" because even though that number is much greater, the height of the actual monitor was more flexible and could fit in the very same "hole." This monitor is actually about the same screen height as that former 27" screen but is spread out over a wider space... so I have more usable screen space in the same physical space. And its height flexibility makes it possible to easily lower it several inches lower than that 27". At its lowest height, the top of the monitor is only 18" on stand... and I could hang it lower with a wall VESA mount if desired. I'd bet your "hole" for up to a 24" monitor is taller than 18". If so and you wanted it, you could consider this 40" monitor or even "bigger" if you wanted more screen R.E.

Now, if you know you want 24" and only 24", this is no big deal. But the point is that your actual space may afford quite a range of "fit" not necessarily limited to only 24" or less.
 
Last edited:

taxi_driver

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 26, 2017
129
24

b93kbtynv8wd1.jpeg


This might be helpful to share/show; I could feasibly fit a larger monitor particularly if wall mounted. granted superficially that sounds a bit more laborious/intensive, particularly given that I rent and don't own my place.

I was also mindful to not overwhelm/crowd my desk area/space. you make a good point/reminder of screen size not being indicative of overall footprint.
 

taxi_driver

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 26, 2017
129
24
OP, may I suggest you actually share the SPACE vs. just sharing 24"? For example, I could just barely fit an iMac 27" in my favorite work space because the top of the monitor ran right up against a hanging cabinet (above).

When I went separates though, I went 40" because even though that number is much greater, the height of the actual monitor was more flexible and could fit in the very same "hole." This monitor is actually about the same screen height as that former 27" screen but is spread out over a wider space... so I have more usable screen space in the same physical space. And its height flexibility makes it possible to easily lower it several inches lower than that 27". At its lowest height, the top of the monitor is only 18" on stand... and I could hang it lower with a wall VESA mount if desired. I'd bet your "hole" for up to a 24" monitor is taller than 18". If so and you wanted it, you could consider this 40" monitor or even "bigger" if you wanted more screen R.E.

Now, if you know you want 24" and only 24", this is no big deal. But the point is that your actual space may afford quite a range of "fit" not necessarily limited to only 24" or less.

See my last post with the desk setup/link to desk dimensions, would be curious and appreciate hearing your thoughts
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
It would be so much better if you measured the space vs. sending me to a website description but I went and I think I interpret the description to mean you have 28" of width between the vertical rails/posts that hold the shelves and probably 24.8" of space from desktop to shelf above desktop.

So then I looked up a random 24" monitor on Amazon and a 24" monitor is 16.5" tall and 21.8" wide. So you would probably have room for larger than that in both dimensions if my interpretation of the space is correct. Again, you should measure so you know for sure.

That 40" I chose could easily fit inside the vertical space of up to 24.8" if that is correct. However, it is an ultra-wide and 37" wide. Are those vertical bars far enough back from the front of the desk such that a monitor could be in front of them and yet be far enough back on the desk to be OK to you? Or would that be too close to the front edge for you? It's hard to tell from the picture but they look pretty far back, so maybe. You might want to cut out a piece of cardboard 37" wide and stick it there to gauge how close the screen would be to the front edge and also consider the left & right overhang too (towards 5" overhang on both sides). Having some space behind is OK. The stand needs some space back there and you can always tuck accessories (more storage for one) and a desktop back there too.

If all that works well for you, mine is Dell 40" 5K2K Ultra Wide, typically priced about the same as ASD. If you determine that overhang left & right is just too much, you can work your way down several sizes there to shrink the width. For example, maybe 34" which is height on stand (adjustable) between about 16" and 21" (easily fitting within the apparent 24" height "hole" you have and width is 32" which would only have about 2" overhanging on each side of the 28" space. Again, maybe fold the cut-out cardboard mockup to that size and put it in place to see what you think of the dimensions of that one too.

And, of course, Dell is not the only monitor maker in town. There's plenty of them. You could do either ASD clone from Samsung or LG... or ASD itself if desired. They are all 27" monitors and should all easily fit inside of an apparent 24" vertical "hole". For example, ASD is advertised to be 18.8" tall on stand.

In all of these options, you might want to also consider a stand RISER if you have the space. I have one that is just tall enough to slip the keyboard under it when I'm done using the Mac and it has a couple of easily accessible USB ports. If you get one not too tall, you can probably get similar utility that fits the "hole" too. Just hop on Amazon and shop for "monitor stand USB hub" and similar and there are MANY choices. Then just do the math of monitor height with stand + riser height to be sure both come in below the apparent 24" total height you have available.

Lastly, if you want both but the monitor stand isn't height flexible enough to make a favorite riser work (too tall in total), most monitors come with a VESA mount option, so you could get a VESA mount to put into the wall to make the monitor "float" and not use the monitor's stand at all. You would need one that will let it hang far enough away from the wall to get it in front of the units vertical rails/posts but there are plenty of those available. Then you could have Mac, keyboard, mouse, perhaps any kind of hub (monitor riser or not), other storage, etc below and behind the floating monitor.
 
Last edited:

ducknalddon

macrumors 6502
Aug 31, 2018
347
574
I've never seen an apple laptop that was able to use true 4k resolution. It's often around 2k maximum.

I'd love to see a screenshot of a mac desktop with menu bar, dock and a couple of Finder windows with true 4k resolution. Please show me.
I don't think you understand how the scaling works on macOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gilby101

gilby101

macrumors 68030
Mar 17, 2010
2,946
1,630
Tasmania
Forget about 4k. 4k means 4000 pixels horisontally, and you don't need that on a 24" monitor. You'll be using a much lower resolution, because with a hi res of 4k, menus, text etc will be so small that it will be unusable.
I'm sorry to say you went astray from your first post in this thread. Text is not small, because a 4K (or higher) screen is normally used in a HiDPI mode where, by default, the display is used in a "looks like" mode which is much lower resolution that the physical pixel size. For example, my 27" 5K screen (physically 5120x2880 pixels) is set as 2560x1440 - that is, the size of text will be the same as on a low-res 27" 2560x1440 screen, but will have 4 physical pixels for each of the 2560x1440 pixels and so provides exceptional clarity. This is a scaling factor of 2x (5120/2560)

On a 24" 4K screen (mostly 3840x2160 physical pixels) can used in a "looks like" 1920x1080. With that setting text will be very roughly the size that macOS is designed for and with the exceptional clarity of 2x scaling. Alternatively, it can be set to looks like 2240x1260 which make text (and other screen elements) the same size as on a 24" iMac but with some lack of clarity.

From what you have said you always use your screen without any scaling - so text looks tiny unless the screen is very large.

What is the "right size" depends on personal preference, but desktop Macs are designed to display text with the size provided by the 5K 27", 4K 21.5", and 4.5K 24" iMacs when all are set to a 2x scaling factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richdmoore

Ben J.

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2019
1,062
623
Oslo
I'm sorry to say you went astray from your first post in this thread. Text is not small, because a 4K (or higher) screen is normally used in a HiDPI mode where, by default, the display is used in a "looks like" mode which is much lower resolution that the physical pixel size. For example, my 27" 5K screen (physically 5120x2880 pixels) is set as 2560x1440 - that is, the size of text will be the same as on a low-res 27" 2560x1440 screen, but will have 4 physical pixels for each of the 2560x1440 pixels and so provides exceptional clarity. This is a scaling factor of 2x (5120/2560)

On a 24" 4K screen (mostly 3840x2160 physical pixels) can used in a "looks like" 1920x1080. With that setting text will be very roughly the size that macOS is designed for and with the exceptional clarity of 2x scaling. Alternatively, it can be set to looks like 2240x1260 which make text (and other screen elements) the same size as on a 24" iMac but with some lack of clarity.

From what you have said you always use your screen without any scaling - so text looks tiny unless the screen is very large.

What is the "right size" depends on personal preference, but desktop Macs are designed to display text with the size provided by the 5K 27", 4K 21.5", and 4.5K 24" iMacs when all are set to a 2x scaling factor.
I'm aware of all of this. I've always used other resolutions on my mac screens than the 'native' or standard, except for on large TVs which are often 1080, HD TV, and often suits me fine to run at native res.

My pont is simply; you don't need 4k or 5k if you're not going to use it. OK if you watch a blueray hires movie in fullscreen it will use the native resolution whatever your scaling is set to, but mostly you're paying for four pixels to act as one. You say it gives more 'clarity', I say it gives you more light, and not higher resolution.
 

Fishrrman

macrumors Penryn
Feb 20, 2009
29,233
13,303
A very quick search at amazon for 24" 4k display yields, essentially, nothing.
Exception: ASUS sells a 24" 4k display, but it's $1,200. I don't think the OP wants to spend anywhere THAT much for a small monitor.

So... if you want a 24" display, it's probably going to be 1080p.
A search at amazon shows 3 of them, with 2 priced under $80.

My advice to the OP:
Get a 27" 4k display and "make it work" for you.
Much better in the long run.
 
Last edited:

Emmanuel.th

macrumors member
Mar 23, 2023
39
16
I have bought LG QUD(2K) 24" monitors around 150usd
with 2560px 100% everything so small in 24" from factor
I use 2000px everything look a bit same as 1080p but not pixel like 1080p monitor
But some font and elements not smooth
I use BetterDisplay to fix it
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxi_driver

taxi_driver

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 26, 2017
129
24
I have bought LG QUD(2K) 24" monitors around 150usd
with 2560px 100% everything so small in 24" from factor
I use 2000px everything look a bit same as 1080p but not pixel like 1080p monitor
But some font and elements not smooth
I use BetterDisplay to fix it

i’ll likely end up going down this path, seems most logical and feasible from a few points.
 

blufrog

macrumors regular
Dec 19, 2014
188
71
Thanks a ton for the reality check and guidance here. I wasn't entirely targeting 4k for bragging rights rather a closer analog to what I'm accustomed to on my MPB displays.

I can't remember the last time I bought a monitor and some new names like BenQ came up during my searches.
It's not true. I have a 27" 5K iMac, and more pixels doesn't mean smaller - it means everything renders even smoother than it would otherwise.

It's resolution, not size. These are Macs; not Windows.

Windows - everything gets smaller because everything is a fixed pixel size. Macs scale the UI to the screen resolution, so while it does get a bit smaller, it also gets a lot smoother, and frankly, is easier to read.

From what I read, BenQ have some Mac-specific monitors. I have been looking at this one: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CVLH4T52
 

taxi_driver

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 26, 2017
129
24
I got a lead on a used 21.5” LG Ultrafine 4k for pennies that I’m keen to pick up; PPI is an exact match for native display so feeling like this is the way to go. meanwhile wait/save for an iMac when they come down in cost.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.