Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anyone has 27” 4k?
- Thread starter 5425642
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hi, i used quite a lot 27 2k and 27 4k with M1 Air.
27 2K - perfect for video/movie in native 2k resolution. For the work with text, it(2k native) looked quite small for the first month. Then I got used to it. Still the text is that I would consider as really small.
Scaled - I could scale it crystal clear and crisp, but then i would have black unused bars on the left and right of the screen. If i scale to have no black bars, then the image and text is blurry - because it is not a perfect scale.
27 4K - perfect for video/movie in native 4k resolution. Text is even smaller than 2k above when used in native 4K. I know that there are some people who run it native, but it is unusably small. The pro side of the story: 4K perfectly scales down to 1080P(4K 3,840X2160 divided by 2 is exactly 1920X1080P). As a result, no black bars, text is comfortable size(like any of your 1080P screens) but the only difference is text crystal clear and sharp(sharper than your regular native 1080P monitor). So overall I run it 4k native for video, 1080P scaled for text work.
In conclusion:
1) 4K is #1 choice - because 4K is better for movies, and scaled 1080P is perfect for text/browsing. Downside: 4K is too small, 1080P is too large in terms of the space to place your windows.
2) 2K is #2 choice - in native 2K, you can cramp more space and windows to use at the same time, because it fits more than the 1080P mode of 4k screen and is comfortably bigger than native 4K - sort of golden middle for multitasking cramp. But it is worse if you work on text, because no 1080P support.
27 2K - perfect for video/movie in native 2k resolution. For the work with text, it(2k native) looked quite small for the first month. Then I got used to it. Still the text is that I would consider as really small.
Scaled - I could scale it crystal clear and crisp, but then i would have black unused bars on the left and right of the screen. If i scale to have no black bars, then the image and text is blurry - because it is not a perfect scale.
27 4K - perfect for video/movie in native 4k resolution. Text is even smaller than 2k above when used in native 4K. I know that there are some people who run it native, but it is unusably small. The pro side of the story: 4K perfectly scales down to 1080P(4K 3,840X2160 divided by 2 is exactly 1920X1080P). As a result, no black bars, text is comfortable size(like any of your 1080P screens) but the only difference is text crystal clear and sharp(sharper than your regular native 1080P monitor). So overall I run it 4k native for video, 1080P scaled for text work.
In conclusion:
1) 4K is #1 choice - because 4K is better for movies, and scaled 1080P is perfect for text/browsing. Downside: 4K is too small, 1080P is too large in terms of the space to place your windows.
2) 2K is #2 choice - in native 2K, you can cramp more space and windows to use at the same time, because it fits more than the 1080P mode of 4k screen and is comfortably bigger than native 4K - sort of golden middle for multitasking cramp. But it is worse if you work on text, because no 1080P support.
Last edited:
You can, but since 4K 3,840X2160 is not devisible perfectly with no leftover by 1440P, then we have blurry not clear text as a result. But yeah 2K activates and works - but blurry.
This is a 5K resolution: 5120 x 2280. As you can see it is perfectly divided by 2 and brings clear 2560X1440P which is 2K.
That is the next step of shopomania when you start looking for 5K screens.
I understand. So basically the 2k display is the best option is you think 4k 1:1 is to small.You can, but since 4K 3,840X2160 is not devisible perfectly with no leftover by 1440P, then we have blurry not clear text as a result. But yeah 2K activates and works - but blurry.
This is a 5K resolution: 5120 x 2280. As you can see it is perfectly divided by 2 and brings clear 2560X1440P which is 2K.
That is the next step of shopomania when you start looking for 5K screens.
Yes running 27” 4k scaled as secondary screen for my MBP 14. Works nicely! Text is not blurry.
Don’t do the 1440p. It’ll look terrible.
Don’t do the 1440p. It’ll look terrible.
I would do 4K. It is nicer for videos, and perfectly scales to 1080P - I can work on 1080 perfectly fine but i don't keep more than 2 windows side by side at a time. If your workflow is the same then go for it.
If you need more than 2 windows at a time, then 5K scaled to 2K or native 2K display would work better. Or you could try to live with 4K native at 27" when you need window multitasking.
I’m working with one window at the time.I was thinking to have vscode at this display
When you saying don’t do the 1440p are you talking about the scaling or the 1440p display?
The 1440p display. My daughter was using a 22” 1080p at 1:1 and it was horrible. You’d need to run a 27” at 1:1.
I notice you mentioned VSCode. That’s what I’m mostly running on mine
IMO 4k is the bare minimum especially for Mac. 24” 4k, 27” 5k and 32” 6k are the ideal resolutions with the clearest text you can get. I understand that most monitors you can find on the market are 27” 4k but you either deal with comically large UI elements when scaling to 1080P or fuzzy text @1440P. I personally use 2 24 4k displays side by side. Here’s hope that Apple will give us a reasonably priced monitor we need.
Well, I can’t find 24” 4k but I can find 24” 2k but I guess it’s not better then 27” 4k right?
Or well I can get the LG 24” 4k display for 800 USD or a 27” 4k display for only 400 usd
Last edited:
So I have tried my wife's 27" 2k I think it's to big. And that the text is blurry. So I'm guessing 27" 2k is out of the question now.
So is 24" 2k any better? The PPI is higher so my guess is that it's better but how much?
Next step is the LG (Thunderbolt) and it's really expensive.
So is 24" 2k any better? The PPI is higher so my guess is that it's better but how much?
Next step is the LG (Thunderbolt) and it's really expensive.
I can actually see the pixels on those.
It hurts to go and use one when you've had a retina display in front of you for years.
I can agree, I did try my wife’s 27” 1440p now and it’s not any good for me.
First 27” feels to big, then the quality, pixels etc is not any good at 1440p.
So is it any different with 24” 2k?
The only option might be the 24” 4k LG ultra fine…. It’s expensive but I can’t saddle with 1440p 27” anyway.
So the only option is 24” 2k but I don’t have any around to try or 27” 4k but is it any better then 27” 1440p?
I have a 4k monitor scaled to 1440p to match my 5k iMac. It was blurry at first, but I went into the settings on the monitor and cleared it up. Not as crisp as the iMac but I did not expect it to be since its lower resolution than the iMac at the same size. It does the job though and I’m super happy.
if you choose 24" QHD ("2K") display, you'll end up with tiny fonts IMHO. Also, M1 Macs do not support HiDPI scaled resolutions with sub-4K screens (there is a 3rd party apps to somewhat circumvent this - BetterDummy) so you won't be able to easily remedy this problem. So if you want 24", the only sensible option is to get LG's 4K UltraFine (besides this, 4K 24" displays are super-rare).
27" 4K scaled to 1440p HiDPI is also fine with macOS (the OS will render the screen in 5K in this case and then resize it to 4K which will introduce a slight blurring and for some special edge cases - like LCD pixel alignment test images - other visible artifacts). For 27" 5K is the optiomal resolution for macOS but this also limits the options to the 27" UltraFine. Unfortunately the mainstream display market did not go the way Apple envisioned when they introduced Retina/HiDPI support to macOS back in the day (this is why Apple displays use these less-common resolutions - 5K for 27" and 6K for 32").
27" 4K scaled to 1440p HiDPI is also fine with macOS (the OS will render the screen in 5K in this case and then resize it to 4K which will introduce a slight blurring and for some special edge cases - like LCD pixel alignment test images - other visible artifacts). For 27" 5K is the optiomal resolution for macOS but this also limits the options to the 27" UltraFine. Unfortunately the mainstream display market did not go the way Apple envisioned when they introduced Retina/HiDPI support to macOS back in the day (this is why Apple displays use these less-common resolutions - 5K for 27" and 6K for 32").
I’m running a 27“ 3840x2160 Dell U2720Q with my MacBook Pro. Scaled to look like 2560x1440 in macOS. It looks great. Not as crisp as a ‘retina’ display but not blurry or jaggy. If I had to characterise it I’d say it’s like a soft retina. Very pleasing to my eyes.
Last edited:
Ok, then I might try 27” 4k then
Don’t blame me if it sucks. I’m only describing my own experience. Honestly though I was expecting it to be pretty suboptimal when scaled, so I was pleasantly surprised. Just looks like an ever so slightly softer than usual retina to me. No oddities and no overtly visible pixel structure. Just nice clean text, but with a rounder edge than you may expect from, say, an iPad. The quality of the monitor doubtless affects the outcome to an extent.
I use a 4K 27" LG Monitor, works great except for dark mode from my M1 MBA (the flickering and lines problem) 1:1 would be WAY to small for text. I scale it up a lot as my vision isn't the greatest. It's very clear text and no fuzziness.
Go 4k only. Apple's text rendering on anything less is horrible, and can't be altered with the terminal command any more.
I use a 27" 4K display, with the Displays preference set to the middle scaling option. Looks pin sharp and there is no impact on performance.
I use a 27" 4K display, with the Displays preference set to the middle scaling option. Looks pin sharp and there is no impact on performance.