4K is great but in native resolution the interface is too small. And to use it in "retina mode" you have to set the resolution to 1920x1080, where everything is too big...
The perfect resolution IMO is 2560x1440 and you have 2 options:
- Get a 2560 panel like the Dell U2520 (is USB-C) but it would look a little pixelated near to the Air retina screen; 25 inch would look sharper than the 27.
- Get a 5K screen to get the "Retina mode".
Using a 4K panel in 2560x1440 looks a little weird...
Agree completely. I bought a Dell U2518D 25" 2560x1440 monitor quite a while back (and a while later bought a 2nd one). This was later replaced in Dell's lineup with the U2520D that austyn23 mentioned.
I had crunched the numbers ahead of time to determine the "effective" PPI (pixels per inch) and/or Dot Pitch. I wanted to compare how the U2518D running in full 2560x1440 mode (to maximize the amount of windows, etc. I could fit into the screen) would compare to my 2013 MacBook Pro 13's retina display running in Scaled mode with "More Space."
My old 2013 MacBook Pro 13 had the same screen size and native resolution as your new MacBook Air's. It's a 13.3" diagonal display with a native resolution of 2560x1600, but running in the "More Space" mode gives you a pseudo-resolution of 1680x1050. What does that mean? Well, it means that things like font height, icon height, menubar height, window minimize/maximize buttons, etc. will be "sized" roughly equivalent to how a native 1680x1050 monitor back in the pre-Retina days would have sized them. If the Mac OS didn't do this extra bit of magic, these things would be super-tiny using that native 2560x1600 resolution. But they're not completely "throwing away" that extra resolution, as things like fonts and icons will be sharper, and photos will utilize all of the pixels. You can hack the OS to let you not scale at all and utilize that 2560x1600 resolution for everything, allowing you to fit more windows on your screen, for instance, but it would result in unusably small icons and super-tiny, hard-to-read text.
So here's a good online calculator you can use to calculate PPI and dot pitch:
PPI Calculator finds pixels per inch (PPI) and pixels per square inch (PPI^2). Calculate screen resolution and pixel density using width and height of display screen in pixels. Also find dot pitch and diagonal in pixels. Enter screen diagonal in inches or cm.
www.calculatorsoup.com
Let's look at some examples to find a monitor resolution/size that we can use to give us icons/widgets of a similar physical height/width to the 2020 MacBook Air's 13.3" display when using the scaled "More Space" resolution (1680x1050 equivalent):
Reference: 2020 MacBook Air (13.3" diagonal, 2560x1600 native resolution, but plugging in a resolution of 1680x1050, which is the maximum scaled resolution you can choose via the "More Space" option)
* Dot Pitch: 0.1705 mm
1) Dell U2520D (25" diagonal, 2560x1440 native resolution)
* Dot Pitch: 0.2162 mm
* ~ 127% dot pitch size (compared to the 2020 MacBook Air's 0.1705 mm dot pitch) means somewhat larger icons/fonts. But because your desktop monitor is likely to be positioned a bit farther away from your eyes, compared to the distance your MacBook Air's display would be from your eyes in typical usage, having icons/text be a little bit larger is actually desirable.
2a) LG UltraFine 4K display (23.7" diagonal, 3840x2160 native resolution)
* Dot Pitch: 0.1366 mm
* ~ 80% dot pitch size (compared to 2020 MBA) means smaller icons/fonts. When coupled with placing the monitor a bit farther away, this could be difficult to use/read.
2b) LG UltraFine 4K display (23.7" diagonal, 3840x2160 native resolution, but scaled down to the same 2560x1440 resolution as the Dell 25)
* Dot Pitch (simulated): 0.2049 mm
* ~ 95% dot pitch size (compared to 2020 MBA) means very slightly smaller icons/fonts. When coupled with placing the monitor a bit farther away, they will look smaller still, but probably perfectly usable. You'll get sharper fonts, smoother icons, and more detail in your photos compared to the Dell 25, but at a slightly longer distance away, will you be able to notice/appreciate it? Maybe. But driving that higher 3840x2160 resolution, and scaling it down to 2560x1440, will likely tax your CPU/GPU harder compared to driving the Dell 25's 2560x1440 resolution (someone feel free to jump in if you disagree). And you'll pay double the price of the Dell.
FWIW, when I got my two Dell U2518D's at different times, I was amazed at how much the prices fluctuated. I think I got my first one for around $250 from Best Buy, and by the time I got the 2nd one, I had to pay $330 for it from Dell (but I think there may have been a promo going where you would later get a Dell gift card - I forget the amount). The newer U2520D seems to be selling for about $375 right now, with no special promos going on (likely due to COVID-19 and more people buying monitors to improve their work-at-home setups).
So, those are just a couple of examples above. You can get more value out of a 4K monitor if you go bigger and can run it at its native resolution. The bigger you go, the farther away from your face you'll *need* to place it to reduce how much you'd be moving your head to see corner-to-corner.
A high-res, wider/curved display could be another (better, IMO) option if you want more screen real estate than something like the Dell U2520D. Just doing a quick check on Dell's site, they have a U3415W 34" curved display with a native resolution of 3440x1440 for about $627 right now. Running it at native resolution would give you a dot pitch of 0.2316 mm, which is in the range I'd be looking for. I know nothing about that particular monitor, and I am not a Dell employee...I'm just using that as an example.
