Why so much hate for 4K monitors?

[Kaitlyn2004]

Obviously 4K are still very widely the standard hidpi monitor resolutions, and yet there is so much discussion about 4K vs 5k.

I’ve got a 27” 4K and I think it… looks fine? It’s running at “1440p” or whatever you’d call it.

As I understand it, Mac likes the half the resolution and 4K isn’t 2x1440p, so it actually mimics 5k internally then scales that to the 1440p

And back to my original point… everything seems to work/look fine? So why is everyone acting like 4K is such a problem?

I’m potentially considering a 32” monitor, so this is mainly why it’s also popping up in my mind. Add in that I might consider a different screen ratio… 16:9, 16:10, or ultra wide…

 

[salamanderjuice]

Because Apple doesn't properly support fractional scaling so you can get artifacts and issues since it's not an even integer scale. On a 4K monitor to get an even integer scale you have to use "looks like 1080p", which on a 27"+ monitor looks huge and bad. Some people also don't like that 27" 4K is only about 150 ppi and want 200+ like the Macbooks.

This blog goes a bit more in depth into why some people don't like the non-integer scale:

Mac external displays for designers and developers, part 2

Since writing about Mac external displays in 2016, not much has changed. LG, Dell, Samsung, and other display makers have either never catered for the specs many Mac designers and developers want, or they’ve reluctantly produced products that have been short-lived or compromised.

bjango.com

Personally it's not something I cared about or noticed but some people do.

 

[CharlesShaw]

On a 4K monitor to get an even integer scale you have to use "looks like 1080p", which on a 27"+ monitor looks huge and bad.

For many who use their Macs to read and fill in forms (especially with older eyes) the "looks like 1080p" text on a 27" 4K looks pretty good, especially since $400 can buy a versatile screen that also works with the Windows laptop your employer provides.

 

[eva2000]

New to MacOS coming from Windows 10 and while I read of this, I don't mind it. Using 27" Dell U2723QE 4K at 1920x1080. Maybe aging eyes like larger sizes

 

[Kaitlyn2004]

New to MacOS coming from Windows 10 and while I read of this, I don't mind it. Using 27" Dell U2723QE 4K at 1920x1080. Maybe aging eyes like larger sizes

haha I just switched to "1080" and everything is SO EASY to read lol

buttt even I would have to say it does feel a bit too zoomed in lol

 

[drrich2]

Some people report being able to readily discern the difference in sharpness between 4 & 5K on a 27" screen and dislike it...and some of us hardly notice a difference.

Due to the non-optimal scaling, from what I've been told operating a 4K 27" monitor puts some additional workload on your Mac's GPU. Again, some people think this can meaningfully reduce processing ability for some workloads, and some think it's small, trivial and of no practical impact.

Plus, some of us don't have the option to examine a 32" 4K display hooked to a Mac in person so as to see how much it might worsen sharpness vs. a 27" 4K display.

One problem with this issue is that the more you research, the more you run into contradictory opinions.

 

[G5isAlive]

Not sure I agree there is a lot of hate for 4k. I own a 5k as my main monitor and a 4k as the side. Does okay, but no question which is the better one. Boils down to what you can afford. I have never heard anyone say if they cost the same, they would choose the 4k. But you do have a lot of people rationalizing their choices. It's what people do.

 

[Chuckeee]

It much to do about nothing. While the issue is observable with a direct comparison, in reality it is just an artificial advantage promoted by a fanboy base paying homage to Apple marketing.

 

[eva2000]

Boils down to what you can afford.

Or how much desk space you have available LOL

I'm coming from Windows 10 laptop to MacOS with 4 monitor setup with 1x 27" Dell U2723QE 4K, 2x 24" Dell U2410 1080p, 1x 14" 2560x1600 portable monitor via USB-C non-thunderbolt dock. Need a new Thunderbolt 4 dock fir the other monitors.

 

[jaw04005]

And back to my original point… everything seems to work/look fine? So why is everyone acting like 4K is such a problem?

Because most of them pail in comparison to a 5k 27" iMac screen? And that's really annoying to Mac users that are used to that level of quality with the only alternative being an overpriced, almost three-year-old Apple Studio Display.

 

[CharlesShaw]

, in reality it is just an artificial advantage promoted by a fanboy base

I suppose there is a bit of truth in that, as some people do prefer belonging to an exclusive club. Compare the comments and advice found in venues discussing camera equipment or audiophile headphones and the similarities are apparent.

 

[Marbles1]

[deleted]

 

[Marbles1]

I’m potentially considering a 32” monitor, so this is mainly why it’s also popping up in my mind. Add in that I might consider a different screen ratio… 16:9, 16:10, or ultra wide…

I use a 32 inch Dell U3219Q at 3840x2160, with no scaling. 4k is good for me.

If it were a 27 inch monitor it would be too small and I'd have to use scaling. And doing looks like 1920 x 1080 would reduce the screen real estate by too much.

So I'd say 32 inch is the right size.

 

[leifp]

I do not hate 4K. I hate non-retina displays and not all of them equally. I have 32” 4K and those are not great. I imagine at 27” the differences are minimal, however I already dislike displays smaller than 32” and thus 4K is not for me. The in-laws have a 24” 4.5K iMac and that looks lovely indeed!

That said, I love my 40” 4K OLED on my WinPC but Microsoft handles dithering really well and macOS does not. I also think 4K is a perfect resolution for most television sets; 8K only becomes truly interesting if you sit too close or the display exceeds 75”…

 

[smirking]

Obviously 4K are still very widely the standard hidpi monitor resolutions, and yet there is so much discussion about 4K vs 5k.

Besides that some people are actually more sensitive to slight differences in resolution, a lot of the dislike is about not knowing what the end experience is going to be. Every time I feel inspired to move up to a display larger than my Apple Studio Display, I quickly get frustrated trying to figure out what 4K models will be ideal. Monitors are not fun to return so it's not long before I conclude that I'd rather stick to my 27" 5K.

 

[TheWraith]

It much to do about nothing. While the issue is observable with a direct comparison, in reality it is just an artificial advantage promoted by a fanboy base paying homage to Apple marketing.

Somebody is drunk.

Like every other time resolution increased, YES, it does make a big difference.

And like those other times, some people think it doesn't matter.

I use a 32 inch Dell U3219Q as well with no scaling. It works...but I can definitely tell my ASD at 5K is sharper because I am not an idiot.

That said, 32 inches is bigger than 27. Still, every time I'm upstate with the ASD at my other house, I can tell it's a better picture.

Choose what works for you, but 5K resolution is not a made up statistic. It is definitively sharper than 4K.

 

[DrCC]

On a 27" 4K screen, I find the "looks like 1080p" just perfect.
The 1440p Apple way would make the icons too small for my liking.

 

[Fishrrman]

sal wrote:
"On a 4K monitor to get an even integer scale you have to use "looks like 1080p", which on a 27"+ monitor looks huge and bad."

That's just nonsense.
I'm typing this using a 27" 4k display set to "looks like 1080p", and it looks just fine to my OLD eyes.

I have difficulty with 27" 5k because the text (at normal font sizes) is simply TOO SMALL for me to read comfortably. It's not "the clarity" of the text -- it's the absolute SIZE that matters.

I have a friend (older than me) who bought a 2017 27" 5k iMac -- and then promptly reduced the resolution to what looks like 1080p because (for him, too) the text and icons were too small (he has limited vision).

To the OP:
If you're using a 27" 4k display -- whether it be at "looks like 1080p" or scaled to 1440p -- and it pleases YOU, don't worry about what others say.

The vast majority of them simply don't know what they're talking about, or can relate to their personal experiences only.

Use whatever resolution works for you and be happy.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Really, the issue is that Apple doesn't give us the ability to scale the UI like Windows does. We are forced to pick screens based on their DPI and size, without the ability to separate them.

Some people dislike that their $4000 computer is unable to provide a proper output without performing a raster resize for every frame drawn on the screen, which does cause (even if you don't mind or can ignore it) slight blurriness.

 

[CharlesShaw]

On a 27" 4K screen, I find the "looks like 1080p" just perfect.
The 1440p Apple way would make the icons too small for my liking.

To be fair, my M4 mini defaulted to the "1080" which happens to be a really good fit for how I use it.

I paid under $400 in 2020 for my LG 4K monitor, and $500 for my base M4 mini (on sale) which has more storage than I need (iCloud), so I'm never going to be a member of the elite Mac community, but I'm pretty comfy back here in the economy seats.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

And back to my original point… everything seems to work/look fine? So why is everyone acting like 4K is such a problem?

I’m potentially considering a 32” monitor, so this is mainly why it’s also popping up in my mind. Add in that I might consider a different screen ratio… 16:9, 16:10, or ultra wide…

I first added a 24" 4K Viewsonic display to my MBP, then a 32" 4K Viewsonic then another 32" 4K Viewsonic. I have found 32" 4K is very much a sweet spot for me as far as size goes. After using the 32' displays I would never go back to 24" or 27" size. The larger size displays (such as 43") would fit well but A) have much less screen real estate and B) do not provide the ability to have different resolutions on different displays [I put images on a display set to highest resolution and text on a display set to lowest resolution].

My primary workstation is a large homebuilt stand-up desk that fit all three displays on VESA mounts plus the MBP display underneath. But even on a 3'x5' desk space that was a bit of display overload, so now I just use 2x32" displays plus the MBP display underneath. Also I found that I do not like standing all the time so I have set up a second sitting work area using the 27" 4K display with MBP underneath.

TL;DR perhaps, but the point is simply to encourage the 32" size. I may replace the 24" now on the sitting desktop with a 32" solely because I have found 32" to be such a nice size for me. If Apple made a 32" Studio Display I would buy one [I cannot afford the XDR].

 

[mansplains]

I am fine with 4K monitors at the right dimensions. I'm using an older 21" LG ultrafine 4K display, providing "retina" resolution. I personally can't stand 27" or 32" 4K displays, everything is blown up. I'm not blind. It would be nice if macOS had better scaling, and I wish windows offered scales below 100%.

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

I use a 27" monitor set to 2560x1440.

When I use a 5k monitor, like my now retired 27" iMac, and scaled to 2560x1440, it looks perfect.
However, a new 5k monitor for my Mac Mini is just a bit to pricey for me.
I tried a 4k, 3840x2160 monitor, and set it to 2560x1440. Because it wasn't a neat fractional scaling, everything looked a bit fuzzy. This has also been mentioned in various places on the Internet.
So I saved some money and bought a QHD, 2560x1440 monitor. It looks better than the more expensive monitor scaled down to 2560x1440.

As said above, it's what suits you.

If you want to use a 3840x2160 monitor, set to 3840x2160, then you will get the best setting.
If you set to it 2560x1440, it will look fuzzy. Get a native 2560x1440 monitor, you will save money and it will look better.

Anyway, some of remember when all you could get was 640x480, and we were all happy with that.

BTW, the reason I am quoting resolutions explicitly is that around here, the advertising is a bit fuzzy about what UHD, 5k, QHD, 4K, HD, 2k, etc, all mean.

 

[green_diyos]

I wish Apple would fix/update macOS to support popular 3rd party display resolution and ppi.

They aren't offering any external displays directly.

If they have difficulty providing a 32" 6K iMac why not go back to offering a 27" 5K one that starts at $1799 with a M4 16GB 256GB?

 

[ThailandToo]

Some people report being able to readily discern the difference in sharpness between 4 & 5K on a 27" screen and dislike it...and some of us hardly notice a difference.

Due to the non-optimal scaling, from what I've been told operating a 4K 27" monitor puts some additional workload on your Mac's GPU. Again, some people think this can meaningfully reduce processing ability for some workloads, and some think it's small, trivial and of no practical impact.

Plus, some of us don't have the option to examine a 32" 4K display hooked to a Mac in person so as to see how much it might worsen sharpness vs. a 27" 4K display.

One problem with this issue is that the more you research, the more you run into contradictory opinions.

It’s instantly noticeable. And this is Tim’s Apple’s intent. They want you to buy Apple products not use a good 4K monitor from some other company. 4K would look okay at 24” or great at 21” scaled down. Apple does this intentionally as it would be simple to scale all resolutions but again that just means people will buy 4K Samsung monitors at a fraction of the price of Apple’s XDR and Studio displays.