Hi, I can‘t decide whether to get an iMac or a third party 4K display like the BenQ PD3220 - is the difference in sharpness really that noticeable? Haven‘t seen them side by side. I really like the iMac sharpness of I think 218 ppi. But I‘m tempted by the bigger 4K third party options. Any opinions?
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.
iMac sharpness vs 32 inch screen
- Thread starter johnscully
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It will be extremely noticeable. 4K at 32" is a low PPI.
Speaking for myself, I would never consider anything lower than 218 PPI at this point. My eyes simply could not go back to anything less sharp.
I really recommend the refurbished 27" iMac on Apple's site. It's a touch under $1,500. Add the RAM manually later if you desire. The value is outstanding. The screen is killer. Or you can wait for the updated larger iMac, but that won't come until the fall most likely.
Last edited:
Thanks. Currently I'm using an 21.5 iMac and like the sharpness very much. But I have a second workplace and need a Mac there too. Too bad the LG displays aren't available in the Apple Store anymore. The 5K version was the only display I know which is ppi-wise on par with the 27 inch iMac. Normally I like MacBooks + external display more than iMacs (because of portability/flexibility), but since there is currently no display alternative to the iMacs available (and the XDR display is too expensive) I guess I have to buy another iMac für the second workplace – probably the new 24 inch model.
They’re still available.
LG UltraFine 5K Display
There is also the Dell U2715K (K is the 5K version, U, etc. are lower res) with a similar panel. And the Iiyama ProLite XB2779QQS. Plus, if you have the money, Dell have a 32" 8K monitor, the UP3218K.
Both the Dell and Iiyama seem to pop up second-hand in excellent condition. Considering the limited new options, I thought it worth mentioning them.
It will be very noticeable. But also the screen real estate in the iMac will be far better too. 4K at 32” is terrible in my opinion. 4K should be at 21.5” for proper scaling.
The only way to make 4K at 32” usable is use scaling to give you more real estate, but then that makes the picture quality even worse because it’s not native.
Sadly Apple is the only company that gives a crap about giving customers a good PPI for a given screen size. Other companies just throw 1080p or 3840p at every screen size and those display are crap as a result. The only decent displays PPI wise are the LG 21.5” and 27” Ultrafine displays and those were made in cooperating with Apple using the same panels as the iMacs.
Notice how when Apple released the new 24” iMac they increased the pixel size to 4.5k as well. They didn’t just stretch 4K in a bigger display. And keep in mind their previous 21.5” iMac was 4096p instead of 3840p of every other “4K” display on the market besides the LG Ultrafine. It’s a damn shame they’re the only company that cares about this.
The only way to make 4K at 32” usable is use scaling to give you more real estate, but then that makes the picture quality even worse because it’s not native.
Sadly Apple is the only company that gives a crap about giving customers a good PPI for a given screen size. Other companies just throw 1080p or 3840p at every screen size and those display are crap as a result. The only decent displays PPI wise are the LG 21.5” and 27” Ultrafine displays and those were made in cooperating with Apple using the same panels as the iMacs.
Notice how when Apple released the new 24” iMac they increased the pixel size to 4.5k as well. They didn’t just stretch 4K in a bigger display. And keep in mind their previous 21.5” iMac was 4096p instead of 3840p of every other “4K” display on the market besides the LG Ultrafine. It’s a damn shame they’re the only company that cares about this.
I've had the BenQ PD3220 but returned it after some back and forth with the customer support. The display is massive and bulky - most reviews don't show the actual thickness. Built quality was rather low and the plastic looked cheap. 4k at 32" isn't something I personally would recommend but some people seem ok with it. For CAD work it just seemed a huge step backwards coming from Retina resolution as details clearly blur out. To answer your question: Get the iMac or a used LG 5k but don't buy the BenQ.
The real problem is UI scaling. In macOS, it only works well within a narrow PPI range. Otherwise UI elements look too small or too large in the native resolution, and the scaled resolutions are always a bit blurry.
With properly designed UI scaling, the useful PPI range grows much wider. Unfortunately this is really hard to do at the OS level, so it must be done in individual apps. (Games are often very good at this.) I haven't used 32" displays, but 27" is a reasonable size for 4k resolution. Somebody with better eyesight may see the difference between 4k and 5k in normal use, but I certainly can't.
It’s not just sharpness, it’s just that everything is way too big at 27” at 1080/4K. It’s just a waste of desk space having the screen real estate that should be for a 21.5” monitor and you don’t get the extra productivity that 1440p/5k allows.
That's a limitation of the macOS approach. The pixel size of UI elements is more or less fixed, and the resolution must scale with display size, or the physical size of the UI elements changes.
The alternative is scaling the UI elements themselves. Then you can have a 4k display that looks like 1440p without any loss in sharpness. Games are often good at this, because they have to support a wide range of resolutions and screen sizes.
I’d rather the manufacturer not half ass it and just go for full retina PPI ranges. These 140-150PPI “high res” oversized (for their resolution) PC monitors just don’t compare to the 4K and 5k iMac in person. Scaling in Windows is still a mess too. Apple did the right thing by just going 2x which an app either was updated to 2x and looked good and retina or it wasn’t updated and it looked blurry and 1x… but the entire UI wasn’t the wrong size which you see in Windows.
Going for 8K will require dual cables at TB3 bandwidths - I suspect Apple are waiting for Thunderbolt 5 before they will consider an 8k panel at any size. It seems clear that third party panels at Apple retina densities aren't popular and anyone thinking of buying a Mac mini should probably make their peace with not being able to find a high density retina third party monitor.
For me, the 1440p 25" resolution is fine and I haven't gone looking for a higher density screen for cost reasons. For anyone liking the high density retina panels then an iMac is a great solution.
I would have to say that a 30" 5.5K iMac Pro would be interesting. Especially if they can get the price down.
For me, the 1440p 25" resolution is fine and I haven't gone looking for a higher density screen for cost reasons. For anyone liking the high density retina panels then an iMac is a great solution.
I would have to say that a 30" 5.5K iMac Pro would be interesting. Especially if they can get the price down.
I've gone for 2 x 1440p small panels - not retina but a lot of real estate and not a huge field of view to get used to.