220PPI with glossy coating is superior, simply the best display quality ever. Once you've worked with it, you won't want the 165 PPI that your 32” displays have.
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.
The *COMPLETE* list of 27" 5K Displays?
- Thread starter i486dx2-66
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Those displays are 138 ppi not 165 ppi..
BTW, I went from a 218 ppi glossy iMac to a matte 163 ppi 28" monitor, and I am fine with it. Even better would be 184 ppi though, which is why that 32" 5K coming out this year seems interesting. However, my holy grail is 200 ppi. I would much prefer that over 218 ppi, and would probably prefer matte although I'm good with glossy too, but there are no 200 ppi screens on the horizon so I will consider the Asus and LG 32" 6K 218 ppi monitors too.
Again, it all has to do with seating distance. I agree in general 138 ppi is too low, but for some people like @CWallace, it's OK because they sit far back. 138 ppi monitors become Retina at greater than 25" seating distance, and s/he sits at 30".
For me, I would like 184 ppi or above, preferably 200 ppi, whereas 218 is a touch too high for me because at my seating distance all the screen elements and default font sizes are a bit smaller than I prefer. However, I can adjust with 218 ppi, by zooming the text size a bit in Safari, etc.
I think based just on aesthetics and specs, my first choice will be the LG 32" 6K, but it depends upon price. If it is very high priced, I may go for the cheaper Asus 32" 6K or Acer 5K.
My M4 Mac mini is ready.
I don't have Thunderbolt 5, but that's OK. It should work fine with Thunderbolt 4, assuming 60 Hz.I went from the 27" ProArt to a 32", both 4k (PA279CV to PS329CRV specifically).
The PPI change is drastic, I maintain a rather short sitting distance (probably less than 2' / 24"), the monitors are on hydraulic arms and sometimes I pull them close enough to be above the keyboard.
IMO the PPI on the 27" is "fine", it is not retina but very rarely do I find text or smaller UI elements rough to see. But on the 32" the issue is apparent. I guess to my eyes the sweetspot threshold is somewhere between 130-170PPI. But I still stick to using the 32" because the extra real estate can enable a larger UI res, I am currently using 3360x1890 UI in macOS display settings, which allows 3 vertical windows side by side without each being too narrow. Using this UI scaling on a 27" would be too small.
To me, a 32" 5k if not 6k will be the holy grail / end game.
The PPI change is drastic, I maintain a rather short sitting distance (probably less than 2' / 24"), the monitors are on hydraulic arms and sometimes I pull them close enough to be above the keyboard.
IMO the PPI on the 27" is "fine", it is not retina but very rarely do I find text or smaller UI elements rough to see. But on the 32" the issue is apparent. I guess to my eyes the sweetspot threshold is somewhere between 130-170PPI. But I still stick to using the 32" because the extra real estate can enable a larger UI res, I am currently using 3360x1890 UI in macOS display settings, which allows 3 vertical windows side by side without each being too narrow. Using this UI scaling on a 27" would be too small.
To me, a 32" 5k if not 6k will be the holy grail / end game.
Yep, a good combo of physical screen area and high pixel density.
In 2025, I'm looking forward to new desktop displays even more than I am to new Macs and iDevices.
Sometimes a de facto practice comes into play in hardware design, though it's not always clear why. There were 2K displays, then 4K, but not 3K (far as I know). The 5K displays centered on Mac users and have stayed niche with a rather small group of offerings. It seems like 6K at the 32" size may be the next display horizon (well, along with OLED and other advances).
Do any of you think 5K 32" displays are likely to be common? Do you expect them to be much cheaper to produce or otherwise have some compelling market advantage?
While at 27" 5K is better than 4K, 4K has been seen as quite good by many and evidently is good enough for most, so 4K is very dominant and 5K niche.
Is there any credible likelihood we'll see the same scenario unfold at the 32" screen size with 5K and 6K?
I owned four iMac 5Ks and multiple MacBook Pros so I am very familiar with 220ppi displays.
I bought these two 4K displays in part because they are very highly-rated for text quality and while they are not as sharp as my iMacs nor my M1 MacBook Pro, I have no issues looking at them all day.
To be clear, people survived just fine for decades with ~70 PPI displays.
It has only been in the last ~15 years or so that we have had retina displays for desktop and laptop computers.
Being able to "see pixels" is obviously undesirable but certainly not unacceptable.
True.
However, I will note that at least with previous versions of macOS, there was sub-pixel anti-aliasing. Apple removed this several macOS generations ago, so those low ppi screens actually look worse now than they did a decade ago.
Yeah. Although, depends on who you ask. I have always been able to notice the colored fringing on sub-pixel anti-aliased text and it always drove me crazy. First thing I turned off whenever I sat down at a new computer.
Also, the resolution we're talking about is still 138 PPI, so you could say that everything is subpixel antialiased if you compare it to 72 PPI...
I've been debating moving down to a 27" 4k or 5k from a 32" 4k. I'm curious on why you decided to upsize. Do you prefer the large screen size even though it's the same information density? I kinda feel like 32" is too big, I have to move my head a lot more, so I'm in a bit of a dilemma if I should downsize or not. I wish we had a 30" option in between the sizes.
Not the OP but...
When I had a 24" monitor and smaller, I would not move my head around to look at different things on the monitor. I would mostly just look at the monitor from a certain location and use my computer that way.
When I got a 27" monitor it was big enough, and the content on it was small enough, that I had to get used to the idea of moving my head around to look at different things on the monitor.
Now that I'm used to moving my head, I'm looking forward to a 32" monitor in the future just so I can have more stuff on the screen. I understand that I will have to move my head around more but I'm guessing I'm already used to it enough that I will barely notice the difference.
I get higher “information density” on 32” vs on 27”, since I picked 3360x1890 as the UI res on the 32”, this becomes way too small on the 27” if I use the same UI res, have to go down to 3008 or even 2560.
Then with using window tiling apps (I use Moom), almost all times I have 3 way vertical windows tiled side by side, rarely do I maximize an app full screen unless the app needs it. So not much head movement usually.
I see, yeah I really dislike 115% (3360) scaling on the 4k. I'm not sure why, but everything is so blurry. So I always select 125% on both 32" or 27" monitors.
Oh yeah. I can't remember the last time I maximized a window. Maybe by accident, and it was awful.
Delayed?here in the UK
Benq PD2730S due 14th Feb. £1000
BenQ 27" PD2730S 5K Designer Monitor
Buy from Scan - 27" BenQ PD2730S Monitor, 5K, IPS, 5120x2880, 60Hz, 98% P3, 100% sRGB/Rec.709, HDR10/HDR400www.scan.co.uk
Like virtually all other non Studio Display models. We are getting a raw deal in the UK. The Asus 5K model is nowhere to be found in stock, this one delayed, and so forth. The Studio Display is the only actually available model of the bunch...
Do people avoid the studio display only because of its price, or is there some other reason?
Maybe not even the absolute price, but the relative price. It's a bitter pill to swallow that Apple was selling an entire iMac with the same display for only $200 more than the Studio Display costs now.
Also, the Studio Display seems unnecessarily complicated to me. It has the same processor as my cell phone, for god's sake. I understand the engineering rationale, but, ugh.
The Studio Display also has two fans. The fans may be inaudible (not sure) but I still don't want fans in my monitor. Other monitors don't have fans. They just seem like two more things that can break.
Also, my desktop computer speakers are much better than the speakers in the Studio Display. I'm annoyed at the idea of buying a Studio Display because the speakers would go unused.
Yeah, I think the studio display doesn't make a lot of sense for most people. It's excessively expensive, but it's got a few niceties you currently can't find anywhere else.
I value the bright and crispy 5K, great color accuracy out of the box, and aluminum build with zero wobble stand.
Looks nice on desk....most monitors just look like ass.
Also the grey uniformity is fantastic on mine, no dirty screen effect as found on most monitors.
I haven't seen any of the newer 5K monitors on the market like the Samsung and new Asus + benQ, but I have strong reason to believe they don't look as sharp with their matte finishes.... kinda defeating the advantage of the high resolution.
the ASD camera is pretty bad
speakers sound totally decent, considering physics
I mostly just want the same display with much better contrast ratio. MiniLED revision can't come soon enough!
I value the bright and crispy 5K, great color accuracy out of the box, and aluminum build with zero wobble stand.
Looks nice on desk....most monitors just look like ass.
Also the grey uniformity is fantastic on mine, no dirty screen effect as found on most monitors.
I haven't seen any of the newer 5K monitors on the market like the Samsung and new Asus + benQ, but I have strong reason to believe they don't look as sharp with their matte finishes.... kinda defeating the advantage of the high resolution.
the ASD camera is pretty bad
speakers sound totally decent, considering physics
I mostly just want the same display with much better contrast ratio. MiniLED revision can't come soon enough!
TLDR: Does the Studio Display collect dust behind the front glass?! Due to the fans and processor, I have concerns that it will do so in under 2 years.
What I have been wondering, and can’t find any mention of anywhere on the web or here is: due to the presence of these fans, will the monitor screen gather DUST behind the front glass like my TWO past iMacs did (2010 and 2014 models)?
Believe it or not, my 2014 iMac (27”) is still very functional, though I’ve replaced it with an M3 Pro MBP 16” with 48GB RAM (so should last a while).
I really want to have a nice 5K monitor to plug my MBP into so that I’m not limited to my 16” screen…which is small for daily desktop use when you’re accustomed to a 27” display for over 15 years.
But BOTH of those iMacs developed visible dust ‘streams’ (making the airflow behind the glass visible by looking at the dust patterns) at the corners of the display (moreso at the bottom corners) within 1.5 years for each model. They then stabilize, like the 2014 model hasn’t gotten any worse in the past 11 years. But there’s no fix other than dissasembling the entire iMac to remove the cover glass and clean the interior. Which I didn’t want to do when it was under 2 yrs! I’ll be really unhappy if I shell out for the Studio Display and then find this problem. Never had this happen with any other display or laptop or tv or anything. Just the iMacs.
Sorry to go on so long!
It’s running a A15 for cam and centerstage, powering 6 way speakers likely the 600 nit output generates some heat also. So yes they took some of iMac such as fan layout and implemented that.
So what desktop speakers are much better, certainly isn’t iMac or MBP which is equivalent except the placement sounds like more bass but same sized speakers. Or is this something else?
Like I said, I understand the engineering rationale. (BTW I think it's an A13?)
That being said... why doesn't Apple just run the Center Stage software on whatever Mac is plugged into the monitor? And if you're plugging a PC into the monitor, you wouldn't get Center Stage, another reason to buy a Mac, win-win for Apple...
Confusing question, because neither the iMac nor the MBP have "desktop speakers." I'm talking about independent, separate speakers that you put on a desk(top).
The ASD has down-firing speakers, meaning that output above ~300 Hz is crap. If the ASD is anything like the 5K iMac then I'm sure Apple has done a good job with the bass, meaning that it will sound rich and full and impressive if you just listen to some music casually for a minute or two, or compare it to laptop speakers, etc.
But pretty much any speakers you can buy that you can actually point at your ears are going to sound more crisp and clear.
Personally I have a pair of nice passive bookshelf speakers connected to a USB mini-amp. I'm sure most people would think it's overkill. But for under $200 there are some great options for near-field listening these days. If anybody asked me for a recommendation... search Amazon for "HiVi-Swans OS-10".