Anyone has 27” 4k?

[Fishrrman]

You can scale a 4k display to 2k (1440p).
BUT... be aware that doing this puts more of a load onto the GPU.
This isn't meant to scare you away from doing so, but rather to be aware of what is needed (sufficient processing power).

You won't want to run a 27" 4k display at "native [full] 4k".
Text will be too small to see.

Most users set a 4k display at "looks like 1080p" (each pixel is actually comprised of FOUR pixels -- overall image is very sharp).
OR... set it to "looks like 1440p" (but again, the larger amount of scaling in order to display this resolution requires more GPU power).

A compromise (at least for me):
A 32" display (instead of 27").
It can be either native 1440p
or
A 4k display scaled to 1440p.

Others might not like this, but I do.

 

[lukebars]

DON'T do the 1440p. I've recently bought two Dell UltraSharps (1440p) and with M1 Max + Monterey it was eye-bleaching. You will loose your eye sight in weeks

 

[edubfromktown]

I run an AOC U2790VQ 27" at either 4k or scaled (doublescan) 2304x1296 using RDM when I need a bit larger fonts.

The image is super clear on my Mac Mini M1 and 13" 10th gen i5 2020 MBP.

 

[Danfango]

For ref, working combination here:

1. Iiyama XUB2792UHSU-B1 monitor. Nice, IPS, not top end but decent colour and not too expensive.
2. WARRKY USB-C to DisplayPort adapter.
3. Knoll Sapper single arm VESA mount (£30 off ebay - didn't buy a new one!)

No blurring, no flickering, will do 60Hz fine, just works.

I learned to avoid the hell out of HDMI adapters after getting problems with two of them

Nice and tidy. This was with my M1 Mac Mini but it works the same with the M1Pro 14" MBP

 

[Zdigital2015]

I have a BenQ SW271 that I run at true @2x (1080p) and at scaled 1440p. If I am writing, dealing with large volumes of text, etc. I simply change it to @2x and if I’m working with that photos/video or a combo scenario, I move it to 1440p and typography is fine for me. Others in these forums seem overly sensitive to any sort of “blurriness” they perceive and complain at the drop of a hat, so take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I run an AOC U2790VQ 27" at either 4k or scaled (doublescan) 2304x1296 using RDM when I need a bit larger fonts.

The image is super clear on my Mac Mini M1 and 13" 10th gen i5 2020 MBP.

2304x1296 is a good compromise resolution. I tend to use that on my Dell P2415Q 24” monitor. True @2x is nicer on that one as well than my BenQ.

 

[Bug-Creator]

You can scale a 4k display to 2k (1440p).
BUT... be aware that doing this puts more of a load onto the GPU.
This isn't meant to scare you away from doing so, but rather to be aware of what is needed (sufficient processing power).

ou 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.

That is not how "looks like..." scaling in OSX works. Instead the source GFX (both the fonts and GUI elements) are used in a higher resolution. So it may claim to use a 10 pixel font but it is in reality using a 15 pixel one.
Really just a crutch to work around OSX not being able to adapt to different fonts sizes on the fly.
A rather good working crutch but still a crutch.

-> so get the highest pixel density you can afford AND that makes sense with your viewing distance and eyesight.

For me 4k at 32" is already well beyond "Retina"......

 

[5425642]

I’ll wait until tomorrow and see what apple will release

 

[clevins]

The attached images are a 24" 4k LG at native 4k, "default for display" in sys prefs and "Larger Text" settings. I use and prefer Default. Some sites will be small, so I simply zoom those in (CMD+ plus sign). For VS Code, I think you'll want to use Default as welll

 

[roland.g]

There are very few 27" monitors that I have seen at 2880p. And quite pricey.

27" monitors come in 3 major variants.

1. 1080p. Which is like getting less than 1080p b/c most 1080p was 20-24". Now you want to blow that up to 27" and all you get is a the same resolution over a larger surface area. It's 27% larger than a 24" which means that every pixel is 27" larger, and blurrier.

2. 1440p. Which is like getting 1080p in a larger surface. I believe the ppi difference of a 27" 1440p is 109 and on a 24" 1080p is 92. (BUT a 27" 1080p is down to 81 so you can see why my point in #1 is not to get 27" at 1080p).

3. 2160p. 4k. This is an increase in resolution and screen size, though you will also see 28" and 32" 2160p 4k screens. The 27" will be the highest ppi of those 3 variants, considering it is the smallest. The 32" will be 137, while the 27" will be 163ppi and the 28" not far below that at 157. Any of those of course will yield a significant increase in ppi over a 1080p or 1440p screen.

Next is your use. For work use many people go with 2x24" at 1080p though some are starting to upgrade to 2x27" at 1440p, mostly because the price point is still reasonable and their device can drive the resolution with the appropriate dock. Driving a pair of 27-32" 4k displays take more GPU and less computers are capable of that, though not an issue for most recent Macs.

 

[5425642]

There are very few 27" monitors that I have seen at 2880p. And quite pricey.

27" monitors come in 3 major variants.

1. 1080p. Which is like getting less than 1080p b/c most 1080p was 20-24". Now you want to blow that up to 27" and all you get is a the same resolution over a larger surface area. It's 27% larger than a 24" which means that every pixel is 27" larger, and blurrier.

2. 1440p. Which is like getting 1080p in a larger surface. I believe the ppi difference of a 27" 1440p is 109 and on a 24" 1080p is 92. (BUT a 27" 1080p is down to 81 so you can see why my point in #1 is not to get 27" at 1080p).

3. 2160p. 4k. This is an increase in resolution and screen size, though you will also see 28" and 32" 2160p 4k screens. The 27" will be the highest ppi of those 3 variants, considering it is the smallest. The 32" will be 137, while the 27" will be 163ppi and the 28" not far below that at 157. Any of those of course will yield a significant increase in ppi over a 1080p or 1440p screen.

Next is your use. For work use many people go with 2x24" at 1080p though some are starting to upgrade to 2x27" at 1440p, mostly because the price point is still reasonable and their device can drive the resolution with the appropriate dock. Driving a pair of 27-32" 4k displays take more GPU and less computers are capable of that, though not an issue for most recent Macs.

My conclusion is that I need 27” 4k I have found some good ones for 400 USD, I have also looked at the 5k LG ultra fine but I can’t justify 1300 usd for a “old” display it has some years on its neck.

 

[AstroRexaur]

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.

I have an Asus ProArt PA279CV 4k 27inch and it's scaled it to 2560x1440. No blurry text and everything is crystal clear and very sharp. My boyfriend has the same monitor, same model but 2k, and definitively you can see the blurry text and the blurry icons. So, based on my objective review using 2 same monitors (one is 4k and the other 2k) its better the 4k even if you scale it to 2k. I have actually M1 16gb Mac mini.

Edit: my boyfriend has it native 2k and I have it scaled to 2k. So, is a direct comparison.

 

[roland.g]

My conclusion is that I need 27” 4k I have found some good ones for 400 USD, I have also looked at the 5k LG ultra fine but I can’t justify 1300 usd for a “old” display it has some years on its neck.

I use an LG 34" Ultrawide Ultrafine 21:9 5K 2K (5120 x 2160) display. I got it at MicroCenter for $850 a couple years ago. I have it connected to a Mac Mini, but also connect my work Surface Pro 7 to it, and my 15" MacBook Pro to it so it serves as the monitor for any of of the 3 computers I use. And I wall mounted it so that I don't have the stand on my desk, though truth be told the LG stand is quite unobtrusive.

 

[ctjack]

I have an Asus ProArt PA279CV 4k 27inch and it's scaled it to 2560x1440. No blurry text and everything is crystal clear and very sharp. My boyfriend has the same monitor, same model but 2k, and definitively you can see the blurry text and the blurry icons. So, based on my objective review using 2 same monitors (one is 4k and the other 2k) its better the 4k even if you scale it to 2k. I have actually M1 16gb Mac mini.

That is funny. At the moment i use at home some cheap LG 1080P at 24". I also visit the office, and have Dell 2417 1080P 24" screen. Well on papers everything is the same, right? Both 24" at 1080P, big but Dell is so much better to view like 50%-100% better.

 

[czerney]

I bought 2 x 27 U2720Q Monitors and have been using them for two years.

Great monitors but scaling is a consideration. Not enough screen realestate for my liking at which is effectively nice looking 1080p. I think QHD is better for the 27" form factor. If I got a 4k again I'd make sure I got a 32" and up.

I ordered a 38" Dell U3821DW with native 3840 x 1600 that's due to be arriving tomorrow that should be the sweet resolution spot.

 

[5425642]

I bought 2 x 27 U2720Q Monitors and have been using them for two years.

Great monitors but scaling is a consideration. Not enough screen realestate for my liking at which is effectively nice looking 1080p. I think QHD is better for the 27" form factor. If I got a 4k again I'd make sure I got a 32" and up.

I ordered a 38" Dell U3821DW with native 3840 x 1600 that's due to be arriving tomorrow that should be the sweet resolution spot.

Ok, but did you try them with looks like 1440p as they above are with 4K?

 

[Jim Lahey]

Thing is with 32" is that you're dealing with a lower overall pixel density, which puts you on the back foot right from the start even if you can run it native without scaling. Plus you may also find the corners a bit of a stretch if you sit close. As always there's compromises with any choice. In my view, the ideal answer is 5K 27" but then you're dealing with orbital costs and a smaller selection of options to choose from.

 

[mcnuggetswithcheese]

Just wanted to chime in and say that I use two 27" 4K displays at "looks like 2560x1440" and I am very happy.

Ideally, I would also like to have a 5K display so that the 2560p would look retina-crisp --- too bad there aren't any affordable 5K displays in the market yet. My father uses a 5K iMac and it looks amazing.

 

[Danfango]

Might be one announced today. Don’t buy anything for at least 24 hours ?

 

[mjturner]

As a few others are doing, I'm using an LG 27" 4K (27UL650-W) with a resolution of 2560x1440 HiDPI. To my eyes it looks perfectly crisp and I've not experienced any performance issues.

I've tried a few higher resolutions (3008x1692, 3200x1800) and while they look fine in macOS, certain applications look a little bad (in particular some Windows applications accessed via Amazon Workspaces, which I use heavily).

 

[Remikm]

I have two 4K mointors, one is LG 24" and another is HP 27" sitting next to another and I find noticable difference. If you expect 'Retina like' crispy image then 24" is OK. But for 27" to be considered as Retina you need at least 5K like iMac 27 has.

 

[theluggage]

Is someone running 27” 4k? Are the text blurry or is it clear? Are you running 1:1 or have you scaled it?

I have a 28" 4k beside 27" 5k iMac. I've used 27" 1440p displays in the past.
I typically run it in "Looks like 2560x1440" scaled mode, to roughly match the icon sizes of the iMac.

The important thing to understand is that "Looks like 2560x1440" is not the same as 2560x1440 - it is effectively 5k down-sampled to 4k and, as such, carries substantially more detail than a 2560x1440 image.

...and "scaled mode" on 4k or better is nothing like the abomination you get running a standard-def display at non-native resolution. Unless you go out of your way to force the Mac into low-res mode, a 4k display is always getting a 4k signal from the Mac.

The result is slightly "soft" compared to the true 5k display, but is still substantially clearer and less pixellated than actual 1440p. If you're looking at bitmaps/video you probably won't notice the difference (well, I notice but that's because my 4k is a cheap'n'cheerful one that's nice and sharp but can't match the colour gamut of the 5k iMac).

Yes, there's an extra load on the GPU which might have been a problem if you had an old Intel MacBook with crummy Intel integrated graphics but shouldn't cause an M1 Pro to break a sweat.

Or, you can run in "looks like 1920x1080" which - for all practical purposes - is 4k native, but with double-sized system fonts, icons etc. That makes icons etc. a bit chunky (but perfectly sharp) on a 27" screen - but the actual content is essentially 4k, and most applications let you scale that to taste anyway.

...and, finally, if my eyeballs were 20 years younger I'd probably be happy using 1:1 4k on the 28" - the only issue is the tiny icons, menu text, dialogs etc. The actual content can usually be zoomed to suit and, of course, you can preview 4k video and images full screen while controlling things from your MacBook.

In short - unless you're on a tight budget, go 4k.

 

[eriksatie]

I use a 4k LG monitor since several years now. I use it scaled at 2560X1440 with a MacBook Air M1 and it is perfectly fine. Text is sharp (slightly less sharp then at retina resolution) but still very good. text and icon size is just a bit small but totally readable. I can keep two big windows opened or 2 small and 1 big (my default setup)

 

[torontomax]

I'll also chip in my experience. I had LG 27UL550 and been using it about 3 years. Never ever had an issue and I spend most of my time in front it. I've recently got a PS5 and decided to get something with 120hz (thought it might a good idea - didn't knew nearly none of the games ps5 had 120 hz support)

Got Gigabyte M32U - the screen quality was amazing BUT for some reason it had an issue with it's power so it was randomly restarting. And for some clever reason they've put a boot logo when you turn on the monitor... So even when I was just watching a movie it was restarting. The stand was incredibly ugly and had that 'GaMeRZ' look.

Eventually returned it. Needed to get a new one as I already sold my UL550) got a Benq EW3280U - as I had positive experience with their Designer series. Which was not the case. It was the most annoying monitor I've ever seen. The colours were always off and the onscreen menu was garbage. They've put a lot of 'smart' features to change the settings adapting to your room light - which basically to ruin all the colours etc. And the worst part is, you needed to turn off all of them one by one every single time whenever you change the input connection. Even so the colours were always off. After a week trying to calibrate returned that as well.

Now got 32UN880-B which is basically 27UL550 but 32 inch with a great monitor arm, USB-C support (and charge) and I didn't even needed to adjust anything out of the box as the colours were already perfect. I'm quite happy with it. But if I knew Apple was going to release their monitor today, I would have waited.

Using with base mode 14 inch M1 Pro and have no issues with it. Sometimes I also play dota while monitor is hooked (on lowest settings ofc) and fans won't even run. Just stick with LG if you ever get one. No need to pay 1.5K for a monitor. I mean you can just get an old 5k iMac instead for that money...

Edit If you ever read this article, yes it's correct. But even though I am a designer and do professionally UI/UX work, I would never ever get bothered with the issue that's mentioned on the article. It's sooooo edge case and the thing is majority of the users won't have such monitors. So eventually your 'perfect look' is going to be jagged on their screen. Oh, if it's for a device, then I just test the visual on the device itself. I'm not bothered to pick up my phone to see if there's any visual issues. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[spinepro]

I can’t decide if I should go with 27” 1440p aka 2k or 27” 4k for my MacBook Pro 14”.

Is someone running 27” 4k? Are the text blurry or is it clear? Are you running 1:1 or have you scaled it?

I run dual 27" 4k monitors (LG) scaled at 3008 X 1692 (I currently have a 16" MPB but previously had a 14" with the same setup). images and text are crystal clear.