The *COMPLETE* list of 27" 5K Displays?

[drrich2]

I just think it's funny that I was using < 100 DPI displays starting from the lateish-80s up until the lateish-2010s (i.e., three full decades) and now there are people who think that 135 DPI is unacceptable.

Personal standards have definitely risen. Case in point - the whole 27" display resolution '4K scaled vs. 5K 'retina' debate - depending on who you ask, there's very little difference or an obvious and objectionable difference.

The Alogic Clarity 27 5K is finally showing up

The link didn't work for me, but thanks for posting, good to know. Is this the intended link? https://alogic.co/products/clarity-5k-touch-uhd-monitor-with-usb-c-power-delivery-and-touch-screen

So, if I understand correctly, still 60-Hz refresh rate, 400 typical brightness, contrast ratio 1,000:1, HDR 400, USB-C hub but not a Thunderbolt display, and it's got a touchscreen that's said to work with Mac. "Panel Finish: Gloss with Anti-Reflective Finish" - so, I take it matte?

Given that MacOS wasn't designed with a touchscreen in mind, and I don't like the idea of leaving oily fingerprints on my screen, how much of a benefit do you guys consider a touchscreen to be?

That price, no Thunderbolt, contrast doesn't sound equal to the IPS Black panels...is touch worth it to you?

Richard.

 

[theorist9]

Did you use ~70 DPI displays in the past?

Did you survive that experience?

Yes, and I did not. I am only able to post on MR by occasionally taking over the body of user theorist9.

 

[obesechess]

A new cheaper glossy 5K is now out (not sure when it was launched). Plastic case. 8 bit.

I suspect this may use a new BOE "true black" IPS panel with 2000:1 contrast ratio + custom backlight.

Double the contrast ratio of the ASD, but "only" 450 nits - perhaps better than the Kuycon 600 nit clone in terms of heat generation/reliability.

Anybody want to buy one and report back?!

G27X SE - 5K 27 inch Display

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css="" woodmart_inline="no" text_larger="no"] What’s in the Box Accessories & Cables VESA adapter 1x VESA 100x100 ada

kuycon.it

27 inch 5K display TYPE-C thunderbolt for Mac LCD Monitor Aluminum Alloy 60Hz glossy screen IPS KUYCON G27XSE WITHOUT BRACKET - AliExpress 7

Smarter Shopping, Better Living! Aliexpress.com

www.aliexpress.com

G27X SE | Kuycon US Official Website

Certified Kuycon monitors in the United States. High-end glossy and matte 4K and Retina 5K monitors. Buy Kuycon monitors in the United States. International shipping.

kuycon.us

Here is one in the wild:

View attachment 2484292


more photos - https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20240620A080F700

https://post.smzdm.com/p/axok47m3/

Almost pulled the trigger but $205 shipping plus the 25% tariff doesn't make it significantly cheaper than the Kuycon, though those appear to have increased significantly in price too.

 

[theorist9]

Almost pulled the trigger but $205 shipping plus the 25% tariff doesn't make it significantly cheaper than the Kuycon, though those appear to have increased significantly in price too.

What makes the Apple glossy displays for me is the quality of the AR coating. It gives you the sharpness of a glossy display, and at the same time does pretty good job managing reflections. [Not as good as a matte screen, but I don't need it to be.] So a key question about this one is: How good is the AR?

And it seems it's not easy to do, since even the LG Ultrafine, which uses the same panel as that on the Retina iMac, didn't have as good an AR coating (too many reflections).

And of course you want the other aspects of the display, like screen illumination uniformity and color accuracy/uniformity to be there as well. [Color uniformity was reportedly also an issue with the LG.]

So given that it seems difficult to get this right, if I wanted to save $$$ I'd be inclined to buy a used ASD rather than a new Kucyon or Aliexpress display (esp. if I could buy it locally and get it with AC+).

 

[tornado99]

What makes the Apple glossy displays for me is the quality of the AR coating. It gives you the sharpness of a glossy display, and at the same time does pretty good job managing reflections. [Not as good as a matte screen, but I don't need it to be.] So a key question about this one is: How good is the AR?

And it seems it's not easy to do, since even the LG Ultrafine, which uses the same panel as that on the Retina iMac, didn't have as good an AR coating (too many reflections).

And of course you want the other aspects of the display, like screen illumination uniformity and color accuracy/uniformity to be there as well. [Color uniformity was reportedly also an issue with the LG.]

So given that it seems difficult to get this right, if I wanted to save $$$ I'd be inclined to buy a used ASD rather than a new Kucyon or Aliexpress display (esp. if I could buy it locally and get it with AC+).

To be clear, this is also made by Kuycon. If they have the ability to fully laminate a 27 inch lcd panel (far from trivial) they are probably able to make the AR coating decent too. I mean some of these Aliexpress items are literally from the same factory, using the same equipment.

I believe the 27 and 21.5 Ultrafines were very reflective, and the 24 a bit better.

A used ASD where I am is $1500. This is $800.

 

[theorist9]

To be clear, this is also made by Kuycon. If they have the ability to fully laminate a 27 inch lcd panel (far from trivial) they are probably able to make the AR coating decent too. I mean some of these Aliexpress items are literally from the same factory, using the same equipment.

How good is the AR on the Kucyon?

The LG Ultrafine shows that even if a panel comes from a high-end manufacturer, and is on a high-end product (which the Ultrafine was), that's no guarantee it will have an excellent coating.

A used ASD where I am is $1500. This is $800.

Understood. A used ASD with AC+ where I am is $800, which significantly changes my calculation vs. yours.

 

[tornado99]

The LG Ultrafine shows that even if a panel comes from a high-end manufacturer, and is on a high-end product (which the Ultrafine was), that's no guarantee it will have an excellent coating.

The Ultrafine went through several revisions. I have a 24 inch version with 1250:1 contrast and 615 nits brightness (measured). I don't have a way of quantitatively measuring reflections but I find no difference in eye comfort between this and my 21.5 inch Retina iMac. The iMac has the same plasma-deposited silicon dioxide and niobium pentoxide micron-thick AR coating as the ASD.

Also worth noting that Kuycon use the BOE 5K panel which has 2000:1 contrast compared to the 1000:1 of the LG 5K panel. It's essentially BOE's version of IPS Black technology. So it's not just an ASD clone.

 

[motrek]

What makes the Apple glossy displays for me is the quality of the AR coating. It gives you the sharpness of a glossy display, and at the same time does pretty good job managing reflections. [Not as good as a matte screen, but I don't need it to be.] So a key question about this one is: How good is the AR?
...

Do Apple displays have any AR coating?

They laminate their screens, i.e., they glue the LCD panel directly to the front glass. That means there's no air gap between the two, which means that light doesn't reflect/refract funny (twice) through an air/glass interface.

I assume almost all of the displays' anti-reflective properties are due to this lamination. It wouldn't surprise me if there's no AR coating on the glass at all. But I don't know.

 

[marko232]

I'm going to throw out to new options which are not 5k, but offer an interesting comprise

Dell U2725QE 27" variant
Dell U3225QE. 32" variant

Key selling points:
Black IPS
Contrast 3,000:1
Refresh rate: 120Hz
Brightness

• 450 cd/m2
• 600 cd/m2

Color Gamut

• DCI-P3 99%
• Display P3 99%
• sRGB 100%
• BT.709 100%
• Delta E < 1.5

Now, I'm currently using the U3223QE (the previous year's edition). It's a good work monitor (no gaming). I was debating getting an ASUS 5k monitor,

However, it has a 1500:1 constrast ratio (worse), 400 -500 nits brightness (worse), Delta E <2


I'm not sure now what would be a better option. Is refresh rate, contrast, and brightness more important than pixel density? Alas, why can't we have both?

I'm going to downsize from 32 " to 27". I feel like my head has to move too much to see everything on the screen. I always have my display scaling set to 125%, regardless of whether it's 4 K 32" or 4 K 27", so I won't lose screen real estate.

Very conflicted.

 

[tornado99]

Do Apple displays have any AR coating?

They laminate their screens, i.e., they glue the LCD panel directly to the front glass. That means there's no air gap between the two, which means that light doesn't reflect/refract funny (twice) through an air/glass interface.

I assume almost all of the displays' anti-reflective properties are due to this lamination. It wouldn't surprise me if there's no AR coating on the glass at all. But I don't know.

No, the AR coating is different, it's a very thin layer of material applied on the front glass.

Full lamination is not that exotic these days. Any random company can laminate a laptop sized display with ease. Desktop displays are trickier due to getting the optical adhesive to spread nicely over a larger panel and apply enough pressure to adhere the layers together without anything breaking (as the Eve Spectrum guys noted on their blog), but there are definitely machines in various chinese factories which do this. All Kuycon displays are full laminated.

 

[ls1dreams]

Long thread, what's the cheapest 4-5k monitor compatible with macbooks that won't have any weird scaling issues?

Use case is just excel spreadsheets and work / no refresh/gaming etc needs.

 

[drrich2]

Long thread, what's the cheapest 4-5k monitor compatible with macbooks that won't have any weird scaling issues?

The roughly $800 Asus ProArt Display 5K PA27JCV would be high on my list. In the U.S., I'd sign up for B&H Photo & Video's 'Payboo' credit card, no annual fee, and basically get instantly refunded the sales tax. It's USB-C, not Thunderbolt. Gets strong reviews.

A problem, though, is you've got 2 very different questions rolled in together. The cheapest 4K and 5K 27" displays are very different animals.

Another problem is some people consider 4K scaling issues way overblown, and some think using a 5K display of obviously superior. You can find arguments to support whichever side you want to believe, unfortunately.

If money's not tight, and you really like to avoid FUD (fear, uncertainty & doubt that somehow you're missing out), that Asus should be a good display for you.

 

[drrich2]

Long thread, what's the cheapest 4-5k monitor compatible with macbooks that won't have any weird scaling issues?

Use case is just excel spreadsheets and work / no refresh/gaming etc needs.

Quick follow up. Back in November 2024, I was display-shopping. You can read about my exploration of the market options here. Of course, late year holiday pricing is over, and newer models have come out, but it should give you some idea.

I'm linking you that because it delves into 4K vs. 5K 27" displays and various features. I was going to buy the Asus I recommended till an open-box 'like new' type sale offering from Woot knocked the Dell U2723QE 27" 4K, well-reviewed, so low that with sales tax and all I got it for $320.50. And I like it fine. The Asus is so new I haven't seen big sales with it. Anyway, hope that thread helps.

 

[theorist9]

I just think it's funny that I was using < 100 DPI displays starting from the lateish-80s up until the lateish-2010s (i.e., three full decades) and now there are people who think that 135 DPI is unacceptable. Undesirable, compared to more modern technology? Sure. But such displays still work fine and can be used for things.

Those aren't quite directly comparable, because Apple's font rendering has changed significantly since then. In the early days it was designed for the PPI available at the time. Now it's designed for Retina displays. [I'm not referring to scaling and UI display size, which has also changed. I'm referring to how the text itself is rendered.]

With the current OS's, I personally have found I can only use lower-PPI for my side-displays. I need my central monitor, which I look at most, to be Retina (≈220 PPI) to avoid eye fatigue. And I'd prefer it my side-displays were Retina as well. As ususal, YMMV, etc. etc.

The analogy I'd made is to skiing equipment. I grew up skiing with leather boots, cable bindings with non-releasable heels, and straight skis, clearly indicating you can ski on such gear. But given we have plastic boots, modern bindings, and shaped skis, why would you want to (except maybe for a day, for nostalgic reasons)?

 

[motrek]

Long thread, what's the cheapest 4-5k monitor compatible with macbooks that won't have any weird scaling issues?
...

Macs don't have weird scaling issues.

MacOS has been rendering content internally at twice the logical resolution for about a decade now. All the scaling bugs have been worked out by now.

That content is scaled to the physical resolution of the display as necessary, and I don't think there were ever any issues or bugs with that process.

If the physical resolution of your display is less than twice the logical resolution you've chosen, then the image won't be as sharp, but, how could it be. Lower resolution is not as sharp as higher resolution.

 

[tornado99]

A very acceptable hack which works for 24"/4K 185 ppi displays, but wouldn't for 27"/4K 163 ppi, is to set the resolution to exact pixel doubled i.e. 1920x1080 working space. Then simply make all the font sizes smaller using Accessibility --> Display, or in the apps themselves. Set web browser global zoom to 80%.

For me this gives very close sharpness to 220 ppi, with the only downside that UI elements are slightly large. I can easily read 11pt and even 10pt text, so can fit a lot on the screen.

 

[motrek]

...
The analogy I'd made is to skiing equipment. I grew up skiing with leather boots, cable bindings with non-releasable heels, and straight skis, clearly indicating you can ski on such gear. But given we have plastic boots, modern bindings, and shaped skis, why would you want to (except maybe for a day, for nostalgic reasons)?

Please re-read the small amount of my post that you quoted and replied to. I said that using lower resolution displays was undesirable. So, you're asking, why would I want to? I wouldn't.

 

[theorist9]

Another problem is some people consider 4K scaling issues way overblown, and some think using a 5K display of obviously superior. You can find arguments to support whichever side you want to believe, unfortunately.

I'd say this is actually a case in which both sides are right. For those who don't see a significant difference between 4k & 5k, and between integer and non-integer scaling, the difference is indeed not significant. And visa versa.

It's not surprising to find variance on this, given individual variation in eyesight and usage.

So the bottom line is that, if possible, each person needs to check for themselves.

 

[motrek]

I'd say this is actually a case in which both sides are right. For those who don't see a significant difference between 4k & 5k, and between integer and non-integer scaling, the difference is indeed not significant. And visa versa.

It's not surprising to find variance on this, given individual variation in eyesight and usage.

So the bottom line is that, if possible, each person needs to check for themselves.

Something dumb about this debate is that people find out about non-integer scaling and then blame it for images not being as sharp.

"Oh yes, 4K is not as sharp as 5K because some content is sometimes not rendered on pixel boundaries when it otherwise would be!"

How about, 4K is not as sharp as 5K because it has 645,000 fewer pixels...

 

[theorist9]

Please re-read the small amount of my post that you quoted and replied to. I said that using lower resolution displays was undesirable. So, you're asking, why would I want to? I wouldn't.

Sorry, I did see that, and should probably have added this to make my reply clearer:

"I understand your position is that lower-PPI displays are, while undesirable, still acceptable. That's certainly valid for you. My experience is that, for my main usage (my central display), I've personally found that language isn't strong enough. The eye fatigue I experience renders anything below Retina pixel density unacceptable for sustained use for any MacOS after High Sierra (the last one with native subpixel text rendering).

Or course, that doesn't mean others will have the same view; this is a very personal thing. I have no objection to someone insisting that the low PPI displays are fine for them or "undesirable but not unacceptable" for them. After all, why would I?

My objection is instead to folks making blanket statements as if their view applies generally. There certainly are blanket statements one can make that do apply generally to nearly everyone (e.g., 'chronic sleep deprivation is bad for your health'). But this is not one of those categories."

 

[motrek]

Sorry, I did see that, and should probably have added this to make my reply clearer:

"I understand your position is that lower-PPI displays are, while undesirable, still acceptable. My experience is that, for my main usage (my central display), I've personally found that language isn't strong enough. The eye fatigue I experience renders anything below Retina pixel density unacceptable for sustained use for any MacOS after High Sierra (the last one with native subpixel text rendering).

Or course, that doesn't mean others will have the same view; this is a very personal thing. I have no objection to someone insisting that the low PPI displays are fine for them. After all, why would I?

My objection is instead to blanket statements that purport to apply to everyone. They do not."

I think if somebody forced you to choose between using a 135 PPI display and not using a computer at all, you would find a way to make do.

 

[theorist9]

Something dumb about this debate is that people find out about non-integer scaling and then blame it for images not being as sharp.

"Oh yes, 4K is not as sharp as 5K because some content is sometimes not rendered on pixel boundaries when it otherwise would be!"

How about, 4K is not as sharp as 5K because it has 645,000 fewer pixels...

Yes, though I would frame it as: 5k@27" is sharper than 4k@27" because its linear pixel density is 218/163=> 34% higher—since it's the linear pixel density, rather than the total pixel number, that determines resolution.

 

[tornado99]

@theorist9 , but it's not the PPI at fault. Using the pixel doubled mode on my 185 ppi display, text is as sharp as my 220 ppi iMac. This is a unique problem of fractional scaling on OS X being bad on any display regardless of ppi.

Or in other words, no you do not need 220 ppi for sharp text, you need 220 ppi for sharp text + a normal sized UI.

A user with 4K@27 could do the same trick I do and get razor sharp text, at the cost of rather large UI elements.

 

[motrek]

Yes, though I would frame it as: 5k@27" is sharper than 4k@27" because its linear pixel density is 218/163=> 34% higher—since it's the linear pixel density, rather than the total pixel number, that determines resolution.

Yes, but I wanted to write a bigger number in my post to drive the point home.

 

[motrek]

@theorist9 , but it's not the PPI at fault. Using the pixel doubled mode on my 185 ppi display, text is as sharp as my 220 ppi iMac. This is a unique problem of fractional scaling on OS X being bad on any display regardless of ppi.

Or in other words, no you do not need 220 ppi for sharp text, you need 220 ppi for sharp text + a normal sized UI.

A user with 4K@27 could do the same trick I do and get razor sharp text, at the cost of rather large UI elements.

Not really. This exercise is instructive:

- Open TextEdit and type in a bunch of text at some font size, let's say 15 point text to make the numbers work nicely.
- Take a screen shot of the text.
- Now increase the text size so it's 33% bigger, i.e., to 20 point text.
- Take another screen shot.
- Open some photo editing software and scale down the second screen shot so it's 75% original size. Save the changes.
- Now open both screen shots side by side, magnified and scrolled so you can easily pixel-peep the differences.

The first screen shot (of 15 point text) is how text that size would look ideally if MacOS was rendering to a 4K monitor at native resolution.

The second screen shot (of 20 point text scaled down) is how the same size text would look if MacOS rendered to it a virtual retina resolution of 2560x1440 and then scaled it down to a 4K physical resolution.

I think you'll find that there really isn't that much of a difference.

Meaning that the fractional-scaled text you're complaining about on a 4K monitor isn't razor sharp NOT because it's fractional-scaled but rather because 4K is not as high of a resolution as 5K.