Display war: Dell 2K (un)scaled vs Dell 4K scaled vs ASD for crisp text

[maccity]

Hello community!

Had already purchased an ASD on Black Friday but it's temporarily out of stock and I am considering cancelling to save (a lot of money) after I just found out about the HiDPI setting (scaling to half the resolution for crispier text) and BetterDisplay app.

So here are my options;

1. Dell 2K monitor: Currently I am the owner of a MacBook Air M2 15" and a Dell P2720DC 27" 2650x1440 (2K) monitor that I use it as an extended display. When I use the HiDPI setting 1280 x 720 from the system settings I get crispier text on the 27" monitor but the menus/cursor/icons are too big and I don't have enough real estate. If I zoom out on Safari to get smaller text on the 27" monitor then if I move the Safari window to the MacBook screen the text is tiny! Things get better (smaller text etc) if I set the 27" resolution to 1920 x 1080 using BetterDisplay app.

2. Dell 4K monitor: Now If I buy a Dell UltraSharp U2723QE 27" 3840 x 2160 (4Κ) monitor (650€ compared to 2200€ of ASD, plus it provides ethernet port and USB-C/A/audio out) and I use the BetterDisplay app to scale to 2650x1440 will I get the same menu/cursor/icons size like when I am using the Dell 27" 2K monitor but unscaled? If yes, will I get a significant performance hit (I have a M2 8/512 MacBook) now or maybe in the couple of years when future OS versions and Browsers/Applications become heavier? Is 8GB of RAM a problem for 4K --> 2K scaling? Will I have to scale down again to 1920 x 1080 (using system settings "official" HiPDI) so I will have practically the same menu/cursor/icons/ like my current 2K monitor?

3. Apple Studio Display: just suck it up and get the very, very expensive ASD and have the same text size on both screens, crispy and clear worries-free?

Thank you for reading and helping

 

[DennisdeWit]

Stay with the ASD. I have even bought a Pro Display XDR because I wanted a big screen and the the lack of crisp text on other displays drove me mad.

 

[naught@home]

Stick with the ASD.

If you're an pessimist the price of the ASD is on the low side of unreasonable.
If you're an optimist the price is on the high side of reasonable.
If you value your eyesight the ASD would be cheap at twice the price…

I have two of them…

 

[maccity]

I see. The only thing left is to connect my MacBook to a 27" 4K to get my final doubts out of the way.
Thank you for your replies!

 

[tstafford]

If you are even considering this, just buy the ASD. The only reason not to is $$$ but you already got over that hump. They simply work, look good and provide great text clarity. I have two plus the Dell 6K (which has its own pluses/minuses).

FWIW - I tried a Dell 4K before my first ASD in an effort to save a ton of money. It went back to Amazon like 30 minutes after I hooked it up. Just didn't look good at all to me.

 

[dotzero123]

Your display will likely outlive your computer, phones and other devices. It works perfectly and makes using your Mac so much more enjoyable. You can also have Apple fix it if anything goes wrong. If you go with something else opt for a store with a good return policy to make sure it works well for you

 

[Ensar]

Hello community!

Had already purchased an ASD on Black Friday but it's temporarily out of stock and I am considering cancelling to save (a lot of money) after I just found out about the HiDPI setting (scaling to half the resolution for crispier text) and BetterDisplay app.

So here are my options;

1. Dell 2K monitor: Currently I am the owner of a MacBook Air M2 15" and a Dell P2720DC 27" 2650x1440 (2K) monitor that I use it as an extended display. When I use the HiDPI setting 1280 x 720 from the system settings I get crispier text on the 27" monitor but the menus/cursor/icons are too big and I don't have enough real estate. If I zoom out on Safari to get smaller text on the 27" monitor then if I move the Safari window to the MacBook screen the text is tiny! Things get better (smaller text etc) if I set the 27" resolution to 1920 x 1080 using BetterDisplay app.

2. Dell 4K monitor: Now If I buy a Dell UltraSharp U2723QE 27" 3840 x 2160 (4Κ) monitor (650€ compared to 2200€ of ASD, plus it provides ethernet port and USB-C/A/audio out) and I use the BetterDisplay app to scale to 2650x1440 will I get the same menu/cursor/icons size like when I am using the Dell 27" 2K monitor but unscaled? If yes, will I get a significant performance hit (I have a M2 8/512 MacBook) now or maybe in the couple of years when future OS versions and Browsers/Applications become heavier? Is 8GB of RAM a problem for 4K --> 2K scaling? Will I have to scale down again to 1920 x 1080 (using system settings "official" HiPDI) so I will have practically the same menu/cursor/icons/ like my current 2K monitor?

3. Apple Studio Display: just suck it up and get the very, very expensive ASD and have the same text size on both screens, crispy and clear worries-free?

Thank you for reading and helping

I'm thinking about purchasing a 27-inch 2K monitor, and I'd appreciate your feedback on its quality when used without scaling. (I do not expect it to be as sharp as retina ofc but is it good enough? And let me tell you that I usually zoom in to read text on my 13-inch MacBook Air M1 screen.)

My friend who has been using 27-inch 2k for programming told me that the text is clear and he had no issues so far. But I have read controversial comments/recommendations in choosing monitor for macOS and I am confused.

PS: I am planning to use the 27-inch 2K monitor for both Windows and macOS.

 

[Fishrrman]

Back when I was using my previous 27" 1080p display (Viewsonic, now 10 years old), I wasn't sure if going to 27" 4k would make that much of a difference.

But for my "old eyes", text IS somewhat more "readable" at the same font sizes.
So... it was a worthwhile jump for me.

 

[sdante]

2. Dell 4K monitor: Now If I buy a Dell UltraSharp U2723QE 27" 3840 x 2160 (4Κ) monitor (650€ compared to 2200€ of ASD, plus it provides ethernet port and USB-C/A/audio out) and I use the BetterDisplay app to scale to 2650x1440 will I get the same menu/cursor/icons size like when I am using the Dell 27" 2K monitor but unscaled?

Yes.

If yes, will I get a significant performance hit (I have a M2 8/512 MacBook) now or maybe in the couple of years when future OS versions and Browsers/Applications become heavier? Is 8GB of RAM a problem for 4K --> 2K scaling?

I don't think you need to worry about this with Apple Silicon based CPUs since M1. It was more of an issue with previous Intel CPUs. I'm using my MBP 14" (M1 Pro base model) with 32" 4K monitor at 3008x1692, I see no performance issues and fonts look fine. Obviously not as good as in 5K monitor but I prefer large 32" screen and this resolution would be too small text in 27" plus it would not be using exact 2x scaling so it evens up the score. Only if you use ASD at 2560x1440 looks like resolution you would have the best looking fonts, if you want the same 2x scaling on 4K monitor you would have to use much lower 1920x1080 looks like resolution.

Will I have to scale down again to 1920 x 1080 (using system settings "official" HiPDI) so I will have practically the same menu/cursor/icons/ like my current 2K monitor?

No, unless you want exact 2x scaling for best possible fonts. IMHO fractional scaling is fine on Mac, so no need to use impractical resolutions for that reason alone.

For me ASD was out of the question not only due to small size but the fact that it does not have inputs for other computers at the same time. I need to connect several Windows computers to it too, so I need HDMI and Display Port inputs.

 

[Basic75]

I'm thinking about purchasing a 27-inch 2K monitor, and I'd appreciate your feedback on its quality when used without scaling. And let me tell you that I usually zoom in to read text on my 13-inch MacBook Air M1 screen.

Please avoid using the term "2K monitor" because it is not clear whether you mean 1920x1080 or 2560x1440.

Now your M1 MacBook Air has 226ppi physical density which is 113ppi layout pixels when run at its native resolution.

If that makes everything too small for you then you might be better off choosing something with a lower pixel density in order to have things larger at native resolution.

If you get a standard 27" with 2560x1440, something that I am quite happy with even though it's not super smooth, you get 109ppi which makes things marginally larger than on your MacBook Air, and that size advantage is probably negated by the larger viewing distance of the larger screen, so this might not be the best solution for you.

The previous standard large display with 30" and 2560x1600 gives you 100ppi which is a bit better but they have become hard to find even though the aspect ration of 16:10 is much better than 16:9 unless you are just watching movies or gaming but why would you need a Mac for that?

You could look into 24" with 1920x1080 if that amount of screen real estate is enough for you, that's 92ppi which might make everything large enough for you. If that's too small you should be able to find 32" with 2560x1440 which works out to the same pixel density.

I'll assume that your eyes are not so bad that I need to recommend even lower pixel densities.

Now some people will tell you that all of these suggestions look terrible because they are not "retina", other people like myself will tell you that we can work well with 110ppi.

If 1920x1080 is enough screen real estate for you, and you want cheap, high quality and large you could of course go for a 27" with 3840x2160 UHD resolution and run it in "looks like 1920x1080" retina mode.

The point is, only you can know what is "acceptable" to you, what looks "good enough", what is "terrible", what is "fine", as these are not objective measures. They depend on your eyes, your viewing distance, your viewing habits, and how picky you are.

 

[Aggedor]

This thread is too long for what is a simple question:

1. In macOS, you need 4K minimum. Anything less will look like trash.
2. If you can afford the ASD, get it.
3. If you want a cheaper option, get a 4K display. It'll look crisp, don't worry. RGB 4:4:4 and you'll love it.

 

[Basic75]

1. In macOS, you need 4K minimum. Anything less will look like trash.

No, because that's a subjective measure. I'm happy with my 27" at 2560x1440 native resolution. And yes, it's even connected to a Mac that doesn't do sub-pixel anti-aliasing anymore. I don't care. Looks good to me.

No, because there are 16" displays with 2560x1600, which translates to 189ppi. Surely they'd be fine in "looks like 1280x800" even though falling short of having "4K".

And don't get me started on running 40+ inch UHD displays at native resolution.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe what you were trying to say is "in macOS you need at least 160ppi so that even scaled retina resolutions will look nice".

Or is your personal low bar at 140ppi? We don't know because you only gave a number of pixels even though your intention, as I understand it, was to speak about pixel density.

 

[Basic75]

Your display will likely outlive your computer, phones and other devices.

Sometimes I wonder whether displays like the ASD with it's own processor and camera and whatnot will exhibit the same longevity that we have come to expect from classical "dumb" displays. Only time will tell.

 

[Ensar]

Please avoid using the term "2K monitor" because it is not clear whether you mean 1920x1080 or 2560x1440.

Now your M1 MacBook Air has 226ppi physical density which is 113ppi layout pixels when run at its native resolution.

If that makes everything too small for you then you might be better off choosing something with a lower pixel density in order to have things larger at native resolution.

If you get a standard 27" with 2560x1440, something that I am quite happy with even though it's not super smooth, you get 109ppi which makes things marginally larger than on your MacBook Air, and that size advantage is probably negated by the larger viewing distance of the larger screen, so this might not be the best solution for you.

The previous standard large display with 30" and 2560x1600 gives you 100ppi which is a bit better but they have become hard to find even though the aspect ration of 16:10 is much better than 16:9 unless you are just watching movies or gaming but why would you need a Mac for that?

You could look into 24" with 1920x1080 if that amount of screen real estate is enough for you, that's 92ppi which might make everything large enough for you. If that's too small you should be able to find 32" with 2560x1440 which works out to the same pixel density.

I'll assume that your eyes are not so bad that I need to recommend even lower pixel densities.

Now some people will tell you that all of these suggestions look terrible because they are not "retina", other people like myself will tell you that we can work well with 110ppi.

If 1920x1080 is enough screen real estate for you, and you want cheap, high quality and large you could of course go for a 27" with 3840x2160 UHD resolution and run it in "looks like 1920x1080" retina mode.

The point is, only you can know what is "acceptable" to you, what looks "good enough", what is "terrible", what is "fine", as these are not objective measures. They depend on your eyes, your viewing distance, your viewing habits, and how picky you are.

Thank you very much I appreciate it.

 

[Aggedor]

No, because that's a subjective measure. I'm happy with my 27" at 2560x1440 native resolution. And yes, it's even connected to a Mac that doesn't do sub-pixel anti-aliasing anymore. I don't care. Looks good to me.

No, because there are 16" displays with 2560x1600, which translates to 189ppi. Surely they'd be fine in "looks like 1280x800" even though falling short of having "4K".

And don't get me started on running 40+ inch UHD displays at native resolution.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe what you were trying to say is "in macOS you need at least 160ppi so that even scaled retina resolutions will look nice".

Or is your personal low bar at 140ppi? We don't know because you only gave a number of pixels even though your intention, as I understand it, was to speak about pixel density.

I don't quite understand how you can talk about ppi when you're using the cheese-grater-on-your-eyeballs 1440p res on a Mac without sub-pixel anti-aliasing.

 

[Basic75]

I don't quite understand how you can talk about ppi when you're using the cheese-grater-on-your-eyeballs 1440p res on a Mac without sub-pixel anti-aliasing.

Which part don't you understand? That not all people are equal? That I find 109ppi a satisfactory resolution?

 

[xraydoc]

For me, 5K>4K>1440p