5K 27“ computer monitor recommendation?

[dukee101]

I'm looking for a 5K 27" computer monitor but it seems there is literally only one option on the market: the LG/Apple UltraFine 5K 27" display. I prefer this resolution at this size because it amounts to 220 PPI, which is 'Retina' (HiDPI) at macOS's native integer scaling. Apparently there were a few models some years ago, such as the Dell UP2715K, the HP Z27q, and the Philips 275P4VYKEB, but they're discontinued. Other options like the Planar IX2790 and the iiyama XB2779QQS are impossible to find now. What's the solution here? There's a glut of 4K 27" monitors on the market but to get Retina, you'd have to run them downscaled by 4x to 1080p, which is less than ideal.

 

[onepoint]

What don't you prefer about the LG UltraFine?

 

[dukee101]

What don't you prefer about the LG UltraFine?

1. The price: it's too expensive. Consider that you can get some 4K monitors for $400, so you'd assume 5K would be like $600, and add a 'quality tax' of another $200, and you're at $800 or so. That's $500 less than the $1,300 they charge for this monitor (~40% less). Also consider that you can buy a used iMac 5K for cheaper than this monitor, but unfortunately you can't use it as an external one due to the lack of Target Display Mode.

2. The aesthetics: this looks nothing like the Thunderbolt and Cinema Displays of yore. It doesn't even look like iMacs. For this much money, I'd expect a true Apple-branded and Apple designed monitor, with slim bezels, metallic finish, etc.

3. The power delivery: it can't deliver the full 96W needed to power the latest 16" MacBook Pro. Apple recommends you connect a separate power cable to charge those new MBPs. It's reasonable to expect a top of the line laptop to be connected to a top of the line display, and to take advantage of all of those display's features, including full power delivery.

 

[KPOM]

The 2019 model can deliver 94W of power, which is close to the 96W needed to fully power the 16” MacBook Pro.

 

[onepoint]

1. The price: it's too expensive. Consider that you can get some 4K monitors for $400, so you'd assume 5K would be like $600, and add a 'quality tax' of another $200, and you're at $800 or so. That's $500 less than the $1,300 they charge for this monitor (~40% less). Also consider that you can buy a used iMac 5K for cheaper than this monitor, but unfortunately you can't use it as an external one due to the lack of Target Display Mode.

Agreed, this actually pushed me away from the LG UltraFine displays myself. I guess this is cyclical with your initial question - when there are no other options you can charge what you want.

2. The aesthetics: this looks nothing like the Thunderbolt and Cinema Displays of yore. It doesn't even look like iMacs. For this much money, I'd expect a true Apple-branded and Apple designed monitor, with slim bezels, metallic finish, etc.

Apple has one of those they'd be happy to mortgag... er, sell you!

Have you considered any of the 5k ultrawides? Those seem to be the new "big thing" that tech enthusiasts are hanging on - though from a pricing perspective I guess that puts us back at square one.

 

[dukee101]

Apple has one of those they'd be happy to mortgag... er, sell you!

Have you considered any of the 5k ultrawides? Those seem to be the new "big thing" that tech enthusiasts are hanging on - though from a pricing perspective I guess that puts us back at square one.

Hah! Indeed the Pro Display XDRs are something to behold, but way out of the price range.

I haven't considered ultrawide displays because I prefer not to move my neck too much to see content. I used to actually have 3 external displays, thinking I was more productive with that much more screen real estate, but it was unnecessary. I just need one big 27" display at a beautiful, crisp, high resolution. I think that's why Apple has defaulted to the 27" display size they've made for years now.

I think honestly, given the current market for computer monitors, I might just have to fallback on a high quality 27" 1440p display at 110 PPI, which will still allow for native integer scaling on macOS. Sad, but maybe that's all I can do.

 

[frou]

Despite also featuring 5K in the name, those 5K Ultrawides are far south of 220 PPI, so aren't like the established Retina-grade products. The 34" ones are approx 164 PPI for example, a number horribly suited for macOS

 

[mj_]

Why not 27" 4K with a scaled resolution of "Looks like 2560x1440"? It'll still look significantly better than a native 27" 1440p resolution.

 

[jukkhop]

There are no real alternatives. Either the Ultrafine or XDR.

 

[AMP12345]

If you're looking for near the 220 Hi-DPI I have a Dell P2415Q connected to a CalDigit T3+. Though by the time you buy both you're probably near the $700 for the Ultrafine 4K?

 

[dukee101]

Why not 27" 4K with a scaled resolution of "Looks like 2560x1440"? It'll still look significantly better than a native 27" 1440p resolution.

I'm curious about this. I've heard a lot of people say this configuration would be less than ideal, because of the non-integer scaling. Can you or others on this forum chime in with how this looks/works in practice?

 

[mj_]

Less than ideal? If you consider 2x scaling the "ideal" then yes, a non-integer scaled resolution will be less than ideal by all means. It will cause a higher GPU load, it will require more video RAM, and it will most likely be rendered slightly slower than the "ideal" scaled resolution. That said due to the way scaling is handled by macOS it won't look any worse and will remain just as crisp and gorgeous, and most Macs save for the Mac Mini with its ancient Intel UHD Graphics 620 will have no issues rending a non-integer scaled Retina resolution smoothly. Even in the highest scaled mode possible the display's DPI will remain much higher than on a LowDPI display (such as, for example, a 4K display running at its native unscaled 4K resolution of 3840x2160), and you will continue to benefit from what is arguably beautiful Retina quality.

Deciding that "less than ideal" is not good enough and then opting for a low-resolution LowDPI display is like deciding that a Rolls Royce is "less than ideal" and then opting for a mule-drawn carriage with wooden wheels instead.

 

[dukee101]

Deciding that "less than ideal" is not good enough and then opting for a low-resolution LowDPI display is like deciding that a Rolls Royce is "less than ideal" and then opting for a mule-drawn carriage with wooden wheels instead.

Heh, fair enough. I will consider this.

 

[edanuff]

I upgraded my aging Dell P2415Q monitors to a pair of U2720Qs on a 2013 Mac Pro. I tried the “look like 2560 x 1440” setting and ultimately went with “default for display” scaling which is the 2X 1080 scaling. The 1440 scaling just seems off on Mac OS. I also have a Windows PC connected to these monitors and the Windows 150% scaling looks perfect. Also, as others have mentioned, the way that Mac OS handles rendering to the display in the 1440 scale setting - treating it as a 5K display and downscaling the image to 4K - requires a beefy GPU and results in some subtle but noticeable rendering artifacts. Regardless of which setting you choose, the monitor is still displaying the same number of pixels, but the UX will be a bit larger. My aging eyes aren’t complaining but if it’s a problem, push the monitor back around 3” and you’ll have the same effective size.

 

[rkuo]

non integer scaled resolutions are never ideal. On 4K monitors at 27 inches it’s somewhat noticeable. On 5k monitors non scaled resolutions still look great due to the high PPI.