32" 4K monitor

[CLS7]

I plan to buy a Mac mini M1 or a Mac studio M1 Max and have a questions about choosing a good monitor.

I want a 32" 4K monitor but have read that there are upscaling issues on 4K monitors.

My theory is that you can set it as a 2K in MacOS, am I right here? Is there anyone with a 32" 4K monitor connected to a Mac mini or Mac studio who can explain how to set it so the text and icons will be sharp?

 

[EugW]

Running 1920x1080 on 32" 4K monitor will look really sharp, but it will have HUGE text and screen element sizes. Not really a good idea unless you have vision problems, and it also means you won't have much screen real estate. Running 1920x1080 is best on a 22-24" 4K monitor IMO.

For good text and screen element sizes, many people might prefer scaling a 32" to 3008x1692, but the problem with this is that the text on a 4K 32" will often appear somewhat blurry at typical desktop seating distances. This can even cause some people to have headaches, although YMMV.

After trying a 1440p 32" monitor (92 ppi), a 4K 32" monitor (137 ppi), and a 4K+ 28.2" monitor (164 ppi), I settled on the latter, mainly for the much better text quality.

My 4K+ 3840x2560 28.2" monitor has an equivalent 164 ppi pixel density to a 4K 3840x2160 27" monitor. For such a 4K 27" monitor, most people would probably run at 2560x1440 (like on the 27" 5K iMac), although I would run at 2304x1296 to get a bit bigger text. (On my 4K+ 3840x2560 monitor, it's actually 2304x1536.) However, even at 164 ppi, scaled text quality isn't perfect, although very good.

For my desktop Macs, the only one with near perfect scaling is the 5K 27" iMac (218 ppi). Personally my holy grail is a 5K 30" monitor (~200 ppi), although I'd love to have a 6K 32" monitor (218 ppi) too.

Summary, for desktop monitors (IMO):

32" 4K 137 ppi - Scaled text not so good
27" 4K 164 ppi - Scaled text very good
27" 5K 218 ppi - Scaled text excellent
32" 6K 218 ppi - Scaled text excellent

 

[Nguyen Duc Hieu]

If you can afford it, don't scale text at all.
Or, for Mac OS, scaling to 2k on a 5k monitor will be the best algorithm for the OS to calculate by pixels.
Windows do better text scaling than Mac OS on 1080p and 4k monitors.

 

[Fishrrman]

If I was going to get a 32" display, I'd just get "native 1440p" (2550x1440).
Some will complain that text displayed at normal sizes on such a setup will be "too grainy" for them, but for my "old eyes", it would be fine (right now, I'm using a 27" display at native 1080p).

What I'd like to see, but which nobody makes, is a 32" display at native 5k.
Same resolution as the 27" iMac, but "blown up" just a little.

 

[mcnallym]

Scaling on Mac OS is not good unless can do a basic half the native resolution, like the studio display does, ie halve the 5k to 2560 x 1400.

32” 4K would therefore be a 1920 x 1080 screen res.

will be better of just buying a 2560 x 1440 32” screen or if you really insist on scaling get a 27” 4K and do the 1080p

personally for me I find 1080p big on a 27” but otherwise will hit scaling issues.

is why still on old dell 3008wfp at 2560 x 1600 as cannot find a screen would be happy with to replace it.

ideally a 5k 32” screen would be nice, but also use screen for gaming and find a 27” just too small after a 30”

 

[EugW]

Scaling on Mac OS is not good unless can do a basic half the native resolution, like the studio display does, ie halve the 5k to 2560 x 1400.

32” 4K would therefore be a 1920 x 1080 screen res.

will be better of just buying a 2560 x 1440 32” screen or if you really insist on scaling get a 27” 4K and do the 1080p

personally for me I find 1080p big on a 27” but otherwise will hit scaling issues.

is why still on old dell 3008wfp at 2560 x 1600 as cannot find a screen would be happy with to replace it.

ideally a 5k 32” screen would be nice, but also use screen for gaming and find a 27” just too small after a 30”

On macOS, the Dell 30" 3008WFP at 2560x1600 would be a much better experience than a modern 32" 2560x1440 IMO. The latter is just too pixelated.

The Dell 30" is 101 ppi. The 32" 1440p screen is 92 ppi. That 10% makes a big difference IMO. I say this as an owner of an Apple 30" 2560x1600 Cinema Display and as someone who also bought an Asus ProArt 32" 2560x1440 screen, incorrectly thinking it wouldn't be much different in terms of text quality. The 30" 2560x1600 just looks so much better at the same typical desktop viewing distance.

OTOH, 32" 1440p looks just fine on Windows.

As for the 27", 4K scaled actually looks very good even if not at 2X. You don't need perfect 2X scaling on macOS. What you need is high enough pixel density. 164 ppi is very good. 218 ppi is great.

EDIT:

This is 2304x1536 on a 4K+ 28.2" 3840x2560 screen, which is the same ppi and text size as a 4K 27" 3840x2160 screen running 2304x1296:

Click to enlarge. Photo taken with an iPhone 12 Pro Max at the 1X setting from about 9 inches away.

 

[Sharky II]

In the real world, plenty of people seem to run 32inch 4K screens on macs without issue…

 

[EugW]

In the real world, plenty of people seem to run 32inch 4K screens on macs without issue…

Sure they do. Doesn't mean the text actually looks very good. I actually ran it for a while too. The text was tolerable but definitely not ideal. YMMV.

OTOH, videos and photos looked very nice.

 

[Sharky II]

It's something that people need to see for themselves to decide if it's a problem for them. I was worried about it too, however, anecdotally: my father has a 32" 4k LG monitor with his M1 Mac mini. The text looks better in every (scaled) resolution vs my 30 ACD.

I get way more eye fatigue looking at text on my screen vs his. To me, OSX has clearly let the ball slip when it comes to font reproduction on non-Hi-Def screens.

Distance from the monitor is also a huge factor.

I'm thinking of getting a 4k 32inch for size and productivity, and perhaps a highly colour accurate 27" 2k monitor for perfect pixel to pixel scaling.

 

[CLS7]

Thanks all for the response! I think I will go for an 40" 5k monitor. I have looked at LG 40WP95C-W, is this an good monitor? https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/40wp95c-w or can you recommend other monitors in this size?

 

[Sharky II]

Apologies if this is obvious but just incase you weren't 100% aware, that is basically going to be like 2x 2k monitors side by side, so won't have 'hi def' rendering etc

 

[EugW]

Thanks all for the response! I think I will go for an 40" 5k monitor. I have looked at LG 40WP95C-W, is this an good monitor? https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/40wp95c-w or can you recommend other monitors in this size?

That's a 5120x2160 40" monitor, so 139 ppi. Text will be usable in macOS but not great, despite what their review says (since they review text in Windows, which does text scaling much better than macOS).

Pixels Per Inch PPI Calculator

PPI Calculator finds pixels per inch (PPI) and pixels per square inch (PPI^2). Calculate screen resolution and pixel density using width and height of display screen in pixels. Also find dot pitch and diagonal in pixels. Enter screen diagonal in inches or cm.

www.calculatorsoup.com

 

[Nguyen Duc Hieu]

According to some articles I read on Rtings, some displays reproduce text better than others, on their native resolutions.

It's not about the price or ppi, it's the technical solution applied for the intention of that particular display model.
Some cheap displays can reproduce text better than some other fancy and expensive displays as well.

 

[EugW]

According to some articles I read on Rtings, some displays reproduce text better than others, on their native resolutions.

It's not about the price or ppi, it's the technical solution applied for the intention of that particular display model.
Some cheap displays can reproduce text better than some other fancy and expensive displays as well.

Yes, the pixel structure makes a difference. Unfortunately a “good” pixel structure won’t overcome a low pixel density.

 

[tstafford]

There's no way to know what anyone will like/dislike on this topic. It's a personal preference thing - like "what's your favorite color".

I'm in front of my machine a lot and can't stand the grainy text on a 4K display. Others think it's absurd to pay for 5K or 6K because it doesn't make a difference to them or at least not enough to pay the admittedly ridiculous prices.

OP: The only way to know is to see the monitor in person. When I upgraded my display I started by buying a 4K from AMZN, didn't like it, returned it. Now I run multiple ASD at a silly total cost but resulting in an experience I love every day.

 

[anticipate]

Apologies if this is obvious but just incase you weren't 100% aware, that is basically going to be like 2x 2k monitors side by side, so won't have 'hi def' rendering etc

No. It’s like having a 32” 4K screen with and extra 1/4 screen on the sides. I own one of the Lg 40” 5k displays myself.

It looks great and sharp. I don’t have 20/20 vision though and it’s not quite retina (and yes, Windows which I run on the same screen does scale the text a bit cleaner).

But real world it’s “retina enough”

 

[Sharky II]

Apologies, you're right, I'm 100% wrong

Somewhat related, I went to the Apple Store today and checked out the 5k ASD. I was a bit 'disappointed' to realise that it has the same PPI/sharpness as my 2012 MBP Retina 15". It didn't blow me away in terms of text rendering. Better than my 30" ACD of course, but not better than my MBP and nowhere near our iPhones.

Also somewhat bizarrely, the text rendering on the matte finish (which looked beautiful) was noticeably blurrier, which I thought was pretty weird and a bit 'un-Apple' like...

 

[EugW]

Also somewhat bizarrely, the text rendering on the matte finish (which looked beautiful) was noticeably blurrier, which I thought was pretty weird and a bit 'un-Apple' like...

It's a trade-off. The nano-texture glass' reflection handling is reportedly best in class. However, if I were buying, I'd get the glossy, to save money and for ease of cleaning (and for clearer text).

 

[Galvao]

A 4K monitor produces a sharp image and a sharp text. However, the choice between 3840x2160 or 1920x1080 is like choosing between a rock and a hard place. Different scalings do not result well enough considering one gets a 4K monitor supposedly to have a really good image. I am using 3840x2160 32" and changed every setting I could to have bigger text. But I 'm not very happy with that. And what puzzles me is that Windows 10 that I run eventually (with Parallels) allows to scale up or down in % everything - text, apps, windows, etc with excellent results. Why does not macOS do the same? As it is, I can hardly see the time on the top right corner!

 

[EugW]

A 4K monitor produces a sharp image and a sharp text. However, the choice between 3840x2160 or 1920x1080 is like choosing between a rock and a hard place. Different scalings do not result well enough considering one gets a 4K monitor supposedly to have a really good image. I am using 3840x2160 32" and changed every setting I could to have bigger text. But I 'm not very happy with that. And what puzzles me is that Windows 10 that I run eventually (with Parallels) allows to scale up or down in % everything - text, apps, windows, etc with excellent results. Why does not macOS do the same? As it is, I can hardly see the time on the top right corner!

Well, one thing Apple did is removed sub-pixel antialiasing several years ago. Without it, text on lower pixel density displays often just doesn't look very good.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Personally I love my M32U (32” 4K)

macOS with high refresh rate is excellent

 

[turbineseaplane]

And what puzzles me is that Windows 10 that I run eventually (with Parallels) allows to scale up or down in % everything - text, apps, windows, etc with excellent results. Why does not macOS do the same?

A great question.

Whatever Windows is doing is better, clearer, sharper…at any intermediate resolution I choose.

 

[tdar]

I was looking for a 32 inch monitor that didn’t break the bank like the Apple ones do. But now Lenovo has me rethinking that. They are going to have a new device that is 32 inches and is a micro led display. It’s about the same cost as the cheapest Apple Studio display but has a lot more features for the price. The only problem is that it won’t be out until August. I am excited to see what will be announced in the CES show in about a week.

 

[EugW]

I was looking for a 32 inch monitor that didn’t break the bank like the Apple ones do. But now Lenovo has me rethinking that. They are going to have a new device that is 32 inches and is a micro led display. It’s about the same cost as the cheapest Apple Studio display but has a lot more features for the price. The only problem is that it won’t be out until August. I am excited to see what will be announced in the CES show in about a week.

After buying 4 different monitors this month (including two 32" HDR monitors), I will reiterate that there is a lot more to a monitor than paper specs.

It will be interesting to see what Lenovo offers, but I just hope for their sake they can execute well with good quality QA.

 

[ukguy]

Well, one thing Apple did is removed sub-pixel antialiasing several years ago. Without it, text on lower pixel density displays often just doesn't look very good.

Back in mojave we used to tweak this with a command through terminal when they changed it