dell released their newest ultrasharp model ,U2723QE, U3223QE ultrasharp monitor

[vddobrev]

I sit here with an LG 21.5" 4k display, very high DPI next to a 27" 4k display. I am very much a fan of retina displays and appreciate the added sharpness as I work with text all day. I tend to follow general ergonomic recommendations and do not push my monitor very far back from where I sit (it's bad for eye strain). I configure the 27" 4k display to "appear like 2560x1440".

So basically what I'm saying is, if the 4k 27" class of display was substantially worse than the 5k 27" class, it would be easily visible to me either due to looking at a much higher res. display and seeing the direct comparison constantly or simple seeing it because it's only about 18" away from me.

I have no issues with this 4k display. If I inspect closely then yes, I can see slightly more jagged edges and such than the higher DPI display next to it. But in practical sitting positions it looks like a retina display.

I can't speak to the quality of the Dell under discussion specifically, but, at least the 27" 4k version should look just fine in the larger context of high resolution displays. It's still a relatively high DPI.

My experience with Dell displays in general has been overwhelmingly positive. They are some of the most reliable displays I've ever used and I've used many brands. The second monitor I mentioned is an LG, amongst several I've owned and a few more I've researched I can find one consistency: they all have stupid functional problems that are inexcusable for their price point. For example, while my 22" LG looks amazing in sharpness terms, its backlight is so intensely blue shifted that accurate color is impossible no matter what I do for calibration. It has a faint but annoying buzz that emits from the back when it's not on. It frequently just doesn't turn on when the computer wakes up, something I was able to reproduce with a Windows machine so it's not just some macOS bug.

Continuing on with LG issues, I also have the infamous LG 5k2k ultrawide (34WK95U-W) and that display... it should've been amazing, but, instead it had random issues waking up on Thunderbolt forcing a fully power cycle and the worst burn-in I've seen on any computer display in 20 years. The LG 5k has similar known issues.

If I was only choosing between the LG 5k and this Dell, it would be no contest. I would choose the Dell. There is more to a display than the panel tech, so despite often using LG panels, the only 27" 5k displays that have ever been good have been those that come straight from Apple (or possibly some of the obscure or expensive 5k displays most people have never heard of or tried and aren't really for sale anymore anyway from Dell and whatnot targeted at the color sensitive "pro office" crowd a few years back).

So bottom line, I couldn't assure you the Dell is great because I haven't seen it, but, I can assure you that it's a mistake to buy the LG monitor. Or any LG monitor for that matter.

I also went from a 5K iMac to a 4K 27" Dell P2715Q monitor. At normal distance, I could not tell the difference at 2560x1440. Up close, yes, I could see the resolution difference. That was back in 2018.

Right now I upgraded the P2715Q to a 32" Dell U3223QE. I pushed the monitor further away, and guess what, I do not see the pixels. But the upgrade is clear - better contrast and larger display, so the 2560x1440 looks bigger to my aging eyes with presbyopia.

I also have the opinion that Dell makes one of the most reliable displays. I have 4 displays that are 12 years old. And my employer (a large multinational with over 160K employees) uses only Dell monitors.

 

[Lucagfc]

850 Euro for the 27" or 32"?

27”

 

[Lucagfc]

I also went from a 5K iMac to a 4K 27" Dell P2715Q monitor. At normal distance, I could not tell the difference at 2560x1440. Up close, yes, I could see the resolution difference. That was back in 2018.

Right now I upgraded the P2715Q to a 32" Dell U3223QE. I pushed the monitor further away, and guess what, I do not see the pixels. But the upgrade is clear - better contrast and larger display, so the 2560x1440 looks bigger to my aging eyes with presbyopia.

I also have the opinion that Dell makes one of the most reliable displays. I have 4 displays that are 12 years old. And my employer (a large multinational with over 160K employees) uses only Dell monitors.

Thanks for the reply but I’m still undecided because my eyes are usually using a 4K LG oiled (great quality) a 5k iMac and a wonderful 2021 16” MacBook Pro.

 

[Lucagfc]

I sit here with an LG 21.5" 4k display, very high DPI next to a 27" 4k display. I am very much a fan of retina displays and appreciate the added sharpness as I work with text all day. I tend to follow general ergonomic recommendations and do not push my monitor very far back from where I sit (it's bad for eye strain). I configure the 27" 4k display to "appear like 2560x1440".

So basically what I'm saying is, if the 4k 27" class of display was substantially worse than the 5k 27" class, it would be easily visible to me either due to looking at a much higher res. display and seeing the direct comparison constantly or simple seeing it because it's only about 18" away from me.

I have no issues with this 4k display. If I inspect closely then yes, I can see slightly more jagged edges and such than the higher DPI display next to it. But in practical sitting positions it looks like a retina display.

I can't speak to the quality of the Dell under discussion specifically, but, at least the 27" 4k version should look just fine in the larger context of high resolution displays. It's still a relatively high DPI.

My experience with Dell displays in general has been overwhelmingly positive. They are some of the most reliable displays I've ever used and I've used many brands. The second monitor I mentioned is an LG, amongst several I've owned and a few more I've researched I can find one consistency: they all have stupid functional problems that are inexcusable for their price point. For example, while my 22" LG looks amazing in sharpness terms, its backlight is so intensely blue shifted that accurate color is impossible no matter what I do for calibration. It has a faint but annoying buzz that emits from the back when it's not on. It frequently just doesn't turn on when the computer wakes up, something I was able to reproduce with a Windows machine so it's not just some macOS bug.

Continuing on with LG issues, I also have the infamous LG 5k2k ultrawide (34WK95U-W) and that display... it should've been amazing, but, instead it had random issues waking up on Thunderbolt forcing a fully power cycle and the worst burn-in I've seen on any computer display in 20 years. The LG 5k has similar known issues.

If I was only choosing between the LG 5k and this Dell, it would be no contest. I would choose the Dell. There is more to a display than the panel tech, so despite often using LG panels, the only 27" 5k displays that have ever been good have been those that come straight from Apple (or possibly some of the obscure or expensive 5k displays most people have never heard of or tried and aren't really for sale anymore anyway from Dell and whatnot targeted at the color sensitive "pro office" crowd a few years back).

So bottom line, I couldn't assure you the Dell is great because I haven't seen it, but, I can assure you that it's a mistake to buy the LG monitor. Or any LG monitor for that matter.

With electronic devices sometimes is only lucky or unlucky. I have a LG oled and a ultra wide LG gaming monitor and both are working great

 

[vddobrev]

Thanks for the reply but I’m still undecided because my eyes are usually using a 4K LG oiled (great quality) a 5k iMac and a wonderful 2021 16” MacBook Pro.

Those are some nice displays, no question.

All I can offer is my subjective opinion.

I went to see the Apple Studio Display multiple times before I decided on the Dell U3223QE. I also like the 5K sharpness, it is very nice. But I do not like glossy, it does not work for me, and I purposefully traded it in for size and matte. Even today I was in a shopping mall and went just to check out the ASD again - I just opened a text file and started typing. While I could very well see the sharpness, I could not stand the reflections for more than 5 minutes.

So for me personally, the Dell 32" is the better display (even though it has less ppi than the ASD) because I value the matte screen more than the 5K.

 

[Apple Fanboy333]

My setup with Dell U2723QE and MacBook Pro 14".

 

[Lucagfc]

Those are some nice displays, no question.

All I can offer is my subjective opinion.

I went to see the Apple Studio Display multiple times before I decided on the Dell U3223QE. I also like the 5K sharpness, it is very nice. But I do not like glossy, it does not work for me, and I purposefully traded it in for size and matte. Even today I was in a shopping mall and went just to check out the ASD again - I just opened a text file and started typing. While I could very well see the sharpness, I could not stand the reflections for more than 5 minutes.

So for me personally, the Dell 32" is the better display (even though it has less ppi than the ASD) because I value the matte screen more than the 5K.

I was considering only the 27” dell. Do you think the 32 I better for me? The ppi is lower and I think that the differnece between 5k 27” and 4K on 32” is higher than the one with the 4k 27” isn’t it?

 

[vddobrev]

I was considering only the 27” dell. Do you think the 32 I better for me? The ppi is lower and I think that the differnece between 5k 27” and 4K on 32” is higher than the one with the 4k 27” isn’t it?

Yes, definitely - the 32" has lower PPI, and if you wanted you could notice the difference of pitch size easily. In other words, the 32" will be less retina compared to the 27". But it is also bigger, and if you just move it a bit further away, then it will become retina. In fact it is recommended to view a 32" display from a bigger distance.

That is what I did - I moved the 32" a bit further, my desk allows it as it is very deep at 80cm. Now what I have is a bigger display with very good sharpness comparable to the ASD. And I want to emphasize comparable, as it is not the same. It is more than good for me, but will it be for you - you will have to see for yourself.

For me it was well worth it - ASD is 5000 vs Dell was 1900 in local currency. And when you start to consider the multiple inputs and the USB-C hub of the Dell, then the ASD seems even less of a value.

 

[Lucagfc]

Yes, definitely - the 32" has lower PPI, and if you wanted you could notice the difference of pitch size easily. In other words, the 32" will be less retina compared to the 27". But it is also bigger, and if you just move it a bit further away, then it will become retina. In fact it is recommended to view a 32" display from a bigger distance.

That is what I did - I moved the 32" a bit further, my desk allows it as it is very deep at 80cm. Now what I have is a bigger display with very good sharpness comparable to the ASD. And I want to emphasize comparable, as it is not the same. It is more than good for me, but will it be for you - you will have to see for yourself.

For me it was well worth it - ASD is 5000 vs Dell was 1900 in local currency. And when you start to consider the multiple inputs and the USB-C hub of the Dell, then the ASD seems even less of a value.

I think that the 32 is not a good value here.
LG 5k is 1250 € dell 32 is 1050€

 

[Lucagfc]

My setup with Dell U2723QE and MacBook Pro 14".

Can you share your thoughts? Your eyes are used to the great macbook display how does this dell look like in comparison? Thank you!

 

[Quu]

Can you share your thoughts? Your eyes are used to the great macbook display how does this dell look like in comparison? Thank you!

I have the U2723QE and the 16" M1 Max MacBook Pro so I can give an opinion before the other person chimes in.

The laptop screen is way better. The darks are darker, the lights are brighter without being blown out. The colour reproduction is better. I mean really just the laptop display is far superior. But that is to be expected with it being XDR.

None of this means the Dell is bad, it's one of the best looking IPS based displays I think and you can definitely notice it has improved contrast thanks to its IPS Black panel from LG which gives it a 2000:1 contrast ratio as opposed to the normal 1000:1.

I noticed that improved contrast almost immediately, it doesn't approach what the MacBook Pro's can do especially when viewing HDR content but even in SDR but it's probably the best I've seen an external IPS display apart from Apples own Pro Display XDR to be honest.

I'd give the Dell like 7 out of 10 and the MacBook Pro displays I'd give 9 out of 10 in image quality. To me only a high end OLED in a totally black room would score 10/10 to give an example of my scoring system.

 

[Apple Fanboy333]

Can you share your thoughts? Your eyes are used to the great macbook display how does this dell look like in comparison? Thank you!

I pretty much do agree with @Quu's summary. The Dell U2723QE is definitely an upgrade from my previous HP U28 4K, especially in color gamut and contrast. It has more IPS glow than my previous HP but that is only noticeable when showing a black screen in a dark room (I never sit in complete darkness, and only tested it out of curiosity).

Compared side by side with the MacBook Pro's XDR display, I found that the MacBook Pro has a much more vibrant purple color. However, this is only the case when using the default color profile "Apple XDR Display (P3-1600 nits)" on the MacBook. When switching to "Apple Display (P3-500 nits)" or "Photography (P3-D65)" I found the color reproduction to be fairly similar between the Dell U2723QE and the MacBook's screen, with the exception that the MacBook's screen is noticeably sharper and more contrasty.

I'm pleased with the Dell U2723QE, as I wanted a monitor that I could trust when working with design and digital art. I no longer need to use the MacBook for color proofing, which is really convenient compared to my previous workflow.

 

[Lucagfc]

Thanks to all you guys for the reply!

 

[OW22]

There is a very good article that I read via a YouTube video on displays suitable for Macs.

The upshot is the below graphic. Basically, the sweet spot for Mac to display properly is 217-218 for retina display and 109-110 for non-retina.

Some info from the article.

Thunderbolt 2 and DisplayPort 1.2 have a maximum resolution of 3840×2160 at 60FPS, which means non-Retina resolutions up to about 40-inch are supported by most current Macs. But, that only covers Retina displays up to 20-inch. Thunderbolt 3 equiped Macs, like the 2016 MacBook Pros, can run 27-inch Retina displays though.

There is another issue to contend with. Apple’s interface design in macOS is set up so it is comfortable for most people at a density of about 110 pixels per inch for non-Retina, and about 220 pixels per inch for Retina — text is readable and button targets are easy to hit at a normal viewing distance. Using a display that isn’t close to 110PPI or 220PPI means text and interface elements will either be too big, or too small.

The Display pane in System Preferences includes “larger text” and “more space” options. These can be used as a solution, but if you do, macOS will render the entire screen to a virtual canvas, then bitmap scale it up or down to the desired size. The result is blurry pixels, higher memory usage, more work for the GPU to do, and shorter battery life for laptops. You want to use the “default for this display” setting, if you can. It’s better quality, faster, and gives longer battery life.

Blurry pixels and a scaled display make it very difficult for designers and developers to see if elements are where they need to be. Elements that animate will appear to shimmer as they move. For me, “default for this display” is the only way to go.

And more.

Buying a display with a pixel density in the red zone usually isn’t a good choice, if you want to run “default for this display”. For example, 160PPI will show non-Retina UI too small, but Retina UI too large (it’s worth noting this can be used to buy a display that shows larger text and UI for those who need or prefer it).

The 4K iMac, 5K iMac and Surface Studio are listed as points of comparison, and can’t really be used as external displays. The Surface Studio’s 193PPI display is actually perfect for Windows, where the non-Retina (1×) UI scale is 96PPI, and the Retina (2×) UI scale is 192PPI. If I could buy a Surface Studio as an external display for my Mac, I think I would.

Mac external displays for designers and developers

If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.

bjango.com

 

[palmor]

There is a very good article that I read via a YouTube video on displays suitable for Macs.

The upshot is the below graphic. Basically, the sweet spot for Mac to display properly is 217-218 for retina display and 109-110 for non-retina.

Some info from the article.



And more.

Mac external displays for designers and developers

If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.

bjango.com

There is a caveat to that IMO. If you run 4k in native resolution then it would be in the green zone. That only applies if you plan on scaling.

 

[joevt]

There is a caveat to that IMO. If you run 4k in native resolution then it would be in the green zone. That only applies if you plan on scaling.

You're talking about a different kind of green zone if we define a green zone as where GUI objects such as buttons and menus are the proper size.

The two green zones in the picture are different:
1) the first is for unscaled non-HiPDI mode for display with ppi between 100 and 125. eg. 27 inch 1440p.
2) the second is for unscaled HiDPI modes for display with ppi between 200 and 230. eg. 27 inch 2880p using 1440p HiDPI.

The kind of green zone you're describing is:
3) scaled down HiDPI mode for display with ppi between 125 and 200. eg. 27 inch 2160p using 1440p HiDPI.
Basically, this means any display in the bad zone using a HiDPI mode appropriate (defined by a 218 ppi scaled mode) for the screen size.
The image quality of this green zone is between #1 and #2. Or maybe that's just my subjective opinion.
The higher the ppi, the better.

A fourth kind of green zone would be:
4) scaled down mode for display with ppi less than 125. eg. 27 inch 1080p using 1440p low res mode or 1440p HiDPI mode.
The image quality would be worse than #1 - people would not use this. The problem is the ppi is less than 125. You would use the display as a TV, not a desktop display. By TV, I mean a display that is further away than a desktop display would be.

A fifth kind of green zone would be:
5) scaled up HiDPI mode for display with ppi greater than 250. eg 27 inch 4320p using 1440p HiDPI.
The reason for scaling up is because macOS doesn't have an x3 HiDPI mode (but it did in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard).
I suppose the image quality of this could be near #1 but slightly less.

 

[palmor]

You're talking about a different kind of green zone if we define a green zone as where GUI objects such as buttons and menus are the proper size.

The two green zones in the picture are different:
1) the first is for unscaled non-HiPDI mode for display with ppi between 100 and 125. eg. 27 inch 1440p.
2) the second is for unscaled HiDPI modes for display with ppi between 200 and 230. eg. 27 inch 2880p using 1440p HiDPI.

The kind of green zone you're describing is:
3) scaled down HiDPI mode for display with ppi between 125 and 200. eg. 27 inch 2160p using 1440p HiDPI.
Basically, this means any display in the bad zone using a HiDPI mode appropriate (defined by a 218 ppi scaled mode) for the screen size.
The image quality of this green zone is between #1 and #2. Or maybe that's just my subjective opinion.
The higher the ppi, the better.

A fourth kind of green zone would be:
4) scaled down mode for display with ppi less than 125. eg. 27 inch 1080p using 1440p low res mode or 1440p HiDPI mode.
The image quality would be worse than #1 - people would not use this. The problem is the ppi is less than 125. You would use the display as a TV, not a desktop display. By TV, I mean a display that is further away than a desktop display would be.

A fifth kind of green zone would be:
5) scaled up HiDPI mode for display with ppi greater than 250. eg 27 inch 4320p using 1440p HiDPI.
The reason for scaling up is because macOS doesn't have an x3 HiDPI mode (but it did in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard).
I suppose the image quality of this could be near #1 but slightly less.

I'll admit you kind of lost me there

I look at this way (and maybe my thinking is wrong)

• Green: Running any monitor at it's native resolution with no scaling. The lower the resolution obviously the less crisp the display.
• Green: Running a high rez (i.e. 27" 5k) at "default for display" that lets it use 2x the number of pixels per UI element.
• Red: Running at a scaling that is not 2x.

So my comment was about the 4k monitors in the list that are in the red zone. If you run at native resolution there will be no scaling issues and they will have a better picture than those "green" 1440p monitors. The chart is really about what monitors scale well back down to the default for display setting... or that is how I read it at least.

 

[OW22]

The issue with scaling is discussed in the article. Basically, you're forcing work onto the GPU etc. The point in the article is that if you're getting a non-ASD for example, you're actually better off getting a cheaper monitor that will be for example 27in at 1440, i.e. no 4K and leaving it as the default setting in MacOs with no scaling etc. Yes, the quality close up is clearly less than looking at a 5K monitor like the ASD, you will see the pixels very close up. But for most people sitting a couple of feet away, they will likely not see the difference.

The Display pane in System Preferences includes “larger text” and “more space” options. These can be used as a solution, but if you do, macOS will render the entire screen to a virtual canvas, then bitmap scale it up or down to the desired size. The result is blurry pixels, higher memory usage, more work for the GPU to do, and shorter battery life for laptops. You want to use the “default for this display” setting, if you can. It’s better quality, faster, and gives longer battery life.

What might be interesting, is that some of the curved monitors like the Dell 34in curved monitors or the Samsung ones fall into the sweet green spot at 109 PPI. Or, how about really going all out with the Alienware AW3423DW OLED! Yes, a proper, true OLED 34in curved monitor at 175HZ, HDR, 1000 nits of peak brightness and 0.1 m/s grey to grey! It's a quantum DOT OLED. Now, it's of course overkill for a Mac and is pure gamer heaven, but the Mac would sure look good on it I think.

And it's a few hundred dollars cheaper than the ASD.

 

[joevt]

I'll admit you kind of lost me there

I look at this way (and maybe my thinking is wrong)

• Green: Running any monitor at it's native resolution with no scaling. The lower the resolution obviously the less crisp the display.
• Green: Running a high rez (i.e. 27" 5k) at "default for display" that lets it use 2x the number of pixels per UI element.
• Red: Running at a scaling that is not 2x.

So my comment was about the 4k monitors in the list that are in the red zone. If you run at native resolution there will be no scaling issues and they will have a better picture than those "green" 1440p monitors. The chart is really about what monitors scale well back down to the default for display setting... or that is how I read it at least.

The green zones in the original picture are two ranges of ppi where the display at a certain distance will have comfortably sized text and buttons when drawn unscaled. The first range is for non-retina modes and the second range is for retina (HiDPI) modes.

Your comment about 4K doesn't make sense. If you run a 4K 27 inch display at native resolution (using an unscaled 2160p mode), then the UI objects are too small when using a non-retina mode (2160p) and too big when using an unscaled retina mode (1080p HiDPI). So I suggested the third kind of green zone where the framebuffer is using a HiDPI mode (2880p HiDPI) that is scaled down from 5K for output at the native resolution of the 4K display. Then the UI objects are the correct size and you get an image that is a bit better than the non-retina green zone version (but might be a little blurry around the edges? but the blurriness is less than the size of a non-retina pixel would be).

 

[dafi]

There is a very good article that I read via a YouTube video on displays suitable for Macs.

The upshot is the below graphic. Basically, the sweet spot for Mac to display properly is 217-218 for retina display and 109-110 for non-retina.
Some info from the article.

The graph is useful but now I am again very confused , I want to buy the DELL U3023E, 30" WQXGA 2560 x 1600 at 60 Hz, so may I use it without scaling?

 

[Quu]

The green zones in the original picture are two ranges of ppi where the display at a certain distance will have comfortably sized text and buttons when drawn unscaled. The first range is for non-retina modes and the second range is for retina (HiDPI) modes.

Your comment about 4K doesn't make sense. If you run a 4K 27 inch display at native resolution (using an unscaled 2160p mode), then the UI objects are too small when using a non-retina mode (2160p) and too big when using an unscaled retina mode (1080p HiDPI). So I suggested the third kind of green zone where the framebuffer is using a HiDPI mode (2880p HiDPI) that is scaled down from 5K for output at the native resolution of the 4K display. Then the UI objects are the correct size and you get an image that is a bit better than the non-retina green zone version (but might be a little blurry around the edges? but the blurriness is less than the size of a non-retina pixel would be).

Just to expand on the point you've made here in support of what you're saying:

I have both a 1440p 27" and a 4K 27" side by side. And I can confirm 100% that the 4K looks better and it's not even close. Both running a desktop size (physically) of a 1440p workspace.

It's not even a "I can't really tell, I have to get closer to notice it" difference. It is night and day, instantly noticeable even with my eyes 1.5 meters from the display surface. Especially apparent in even basic things like the icons along the left side of a Finder window look way more detailed on the 4K.

So I would never ever go back to 1440p for use on my Mac over a 4K if both are 27" in size. It is a serious downgrade in image clarity in my opinion and I also wouldn't say to someone, forgo getting a 4K and get a 1440p instead because the 4K isn't in some goldylocks zone for Retina, it's still a major upgrade over 1440p.

Now having said that, sure 5K should become the norm so we get perfect pixel scaling for a 1440p desktop work area. I'm not saying 4K is better than 5K just that it's way better than 1440p.

 

[Quu]

The graph is useful but now I am again very confused , I want to buy the DELL U3023E, 30" WQXGA 2560 x 1600 at 60 Hz, so may I use it without scaling?

Yes you can use that monitor at its native 2560x1600 without any scaling.

 

[Lucagfc]

There is a very good article that I read via a YouTube video on displays suitable for Macs.

The upshot is the below graphic. Basically, the sweet spot for Mac to display properly is 217-218 for retina display and 109-110 for non-retina.

Some info from the article.



And more.

Mac external displays for designers and developers

If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.

bjango.com

I found that article some days ago and I think that is absolutely true. I think that there are no doubts that, for the best result, you need to be above 200ppi to have the "Apple Retina" feeling. The system is optimized for that and for personal experience with iMac, MacBooks etc this is game changer....BUT....the real question is: Using a scaled 4k display with 160ppi how much worse the experience is? if I had the opportunity to spend that money with no problem I would have no doubts and I would take a 5k monitor.
In real life you have to deal with budget so I decided try a 4k 27" myself and see how much worse is for me. I don't go with the Dell because its price is too high for me (850 € is only 400 € less than the lg 5k) and I try to buy a 400 € LG monitor just to see if the compromise is acceptable for me. in an ideal world I would have 2 xdr displays on my desk!

 

[dafi]

in an ideal world I would have 2 xdr displays on my desk!

not necessarily, I need a KVM and a power delivery monitor so no apple choice fits my needs
Honestly I can't afford a ASD purchase but for the care of my eyes I would do it but Apple monitor lacks other requirements

Obviously external accessories can be used but my desk space is limited and having everything on the monitor is a great space saver

 

[Lucagfc]

not necessarily, I need a KVM and a power delivery monitor so no apple choice fits my needs
Honestly I can't afford a ASD purchase but for the care of my eyes I would do it but Apple monitor lacks other requirements

Obviously external accessories can be used but my desk space is limited and having everything on the monitor is a great space saver

I love good display and for me image quality is the most important priority in a monitor. if I had the money I would take the XDRs