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.
Why so much hate for 4K monitors?
- Thread starter Kaitlyn2004
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Get SwitchresX. You can get great scaling at fractional resolutions. Problem solved.
Displays simply offer so many opportunities for whining about.
It's only 60 Hz! So get a 120 Hz display, but then it's ghosting because response time is poor. And maybe the contrast is not good, so get an OLED. But now the resolution is not high enough, and everything is fuzzy. Or there's IPS glow. Or the mini-LED cause blooming. Or the colors are not quite uniform across the panel. Finally there's the issue of the enclosure, stand (or lack thereof) and not so good webcam or speakers. Also, not enough ports to connect all your gear.
And some people have no idea what you're talking about. "Looks good to my eyes!"
And it's all too expensive anyways, or only available in China.
I'm just happy with my 5K iMac, thank you very much.
It's only 60 Hz! So get a 120 Hz display, but then it's ghosting because response time is poor. And maybe the contrast is not good, so get an OLED. But now the resolution is not high enough, and everything is fuzzy. Or there's IPS glow. Or the mini-LED cause blooming. Or the colors are not quite uniform across the panel. Finally there's the issue of the enclosure, stand (or lack thereof) and not so good webcam or speakers. Also, not enough ports to connect all your gear.
And some people have no idea what you're talking about. "Looks good to my eyes!"
And it's all too expensive anyways, or only available in China.
I'm just happy with my 5K iMac, thank you very much.
Great point. It's all very individual. IPS glow doesn't bother me at all, but burn in absolutely will. Thanks to OLED, I got a steal on my gaming monitor for $385--and now it is even cheaper than that!
I can totally understand if you have one computer, why an iMac would be great!
...but MacOS doesn't support 1080i mode...
Which probably lacks target display mode so it's not useful beyond the built-in computer the display came with, leading to premature discarding of what should've been a usable display going forward and seen by some as hypocrisy given Apple's 'green' stance. And while it's not display-specific, let's reminisce about all that criticism of the iMac's 'chin' over the years. Plus it's glossy and some prefer matte...
You just thought you were happy with your crummy old 5K iMac...😁
Disclaimer: I just moved from one myself, to an M4 Pro Mac Mini. The 5K 27" iMac displays are indeed sweet. There's a very long thread on the experiences of people buying 3rd party equipment to DIY rebuild the things into usable external displays, which sounds 'not for the faint of heart.'
In fairness, for a lot of people paying for these displays is somewhat painful, it's seen as an investment for several years to come on a product they spend a great deal of time using, and making a well-informed optimal decision is serious work. It's good that we're willing to help each other with that work. Unfortunately, we sometimes have very contradictory impressions, and I don't think most display shoppers have the luxury of playing with someone else's Mac side-by-side comparing 27" 4 & 5K displays, 32" 4K displays, 60 vs. 120-Hz refresh displays and IPS vs. OLED (for text sharpness, contrast and HDR differences).
Research till sick of it, take some advice and ignore some warnings, drop hundreds of bucks (maybe over a grand) and hope to get lucky with a product you'll use intensely for years.
I know these critical analyses and debates get tedious, but I see no preferable alternative.
Your other choices are buy the Apple Studio Display because it's what Apple sells for Macs, or find a YouTube! video by a Mac influencer and buy whatever he recommends.
Again, the issue here is the use of 'your'. Just because you felt this way, doesn't mean that curnalpanic is. That individual may be happy for a decade with their 5k iMac.
Yes, and I was teasing. The problem driving a lot of angst in these discussions is people aren't sure what they'll be happy with, so on some level they're having make a partially informed leap-of-faith bet on whatever they buy, which is frustrating. My old iMac was over 7-1/2 years old when I got this new Mac Mini.
An issue such as a 5k iMac display not working with anything but the built-in, heading-for-obsolescence Intel Mac isn’t a “I”, “your” or “my” thing - it just is. Sure, you can have your own opinion as to whether that issue affects you - but only once someone has told you that issue exists.
Just saying “works for me” is pretty empty and doesn’t really help anybody except you.
On the other hand, the entire idea that there is somehow an "objective" truth here that will literally work for every person out there just because you like it that way is equally silly.
Different people care about different things. I would honestly have been more surprised in the past with target mode working. The fact that it now doesn't is exactly how I would have expected it to work. Either way it isn't empty. Express your opinion with the facts as you see them, but do it with humility and an understanding that just because you like it that way doesn't mean everyone does.
And I don't mean you as in "theluggage" but rather all those in this post that believe that their "educated view" trumps all other views just because of their perspective. If someone really likes how much of a bargain it is for a 24" 5k monitor when you combine it with a Mac, then good for them.
...but MacOS doesn't support 1080i mode...
Nor does it support 640 x 480, The One True Mode™
Just wondering if this whole discussion is getting a little bit silly...
Some threads are destined to resemble a party where the host has long gone to bed, but guests are still in the kitchen talking and finishing up all the refreshments.
I think you missed the joke in my post. I did put a smiley. It wasn't funny enough to be worth explaining
There are plenty of objective facts, that are true for everybody here. E.g.
- a 4k screen shows significantly more detail than a 1440p screen, and is the only resolution that can show 4k, 16:9 content full-screen at 1:1
- What Apple calls "2560x1440" on a 4k screen really isn't the same as a 1440p display and still contains more detail
- You can still run a 4k screen in 2:1 or 1:1 mode and avoid fractional scaling, at the expense of a slightly chunky UI in 2:1 mode, or a very small and fiddly one in 1:1. Both are usable, on the objective basis that there are people out there using them.
- 5k contains more detail and is generally sharper than 4k - especially if "looks like 2560x1440" is your preferred UI scale.
- 5k displays cost 2-3 times as much as a 4k display of comparable build quality - and Apple want silly money for options like adjustable stands and matte coatings.
- However much you love your 5k iMac, they ain't making them with Apple Silicon, and you can't use the screen with anything else without major soldering iron-fu and (for many) hard-to-find adapter boards.
The only subjective bit is whether you're prepared to pay the premium for a 5k (or even more for 6k if you want a 32" screen at "optimum" ppi), including whether your eyesight is good enough to mind.
Well, yeah, some people still believe that actual facts, knowledge and experience do count for more than "other views". Especially "views" that use hyperbole like "incredible", "terrible", "unusable" or "unacceptable" without backing. them up with reasoning.
If you're subjectively happy with your display then fine - but since a thread like this can never be a representative survey of opinions, someone's unsupported "view" doesn't really help someone trying to decide what display to buy.
If you want my "view" it is that (a) 5k is better than 4k and if you can stomach the price and only want to use it as the display for a single Mac, the Studio Display is probably going to give you the best "near iMac" experience, but (b) 4k is a small but perfectly acceptable compromise given the huge price difference - and the wider choice of models and features could leave you with something that is better all-round for your needs. Especially if you want to explore a dual display setup, alternative aspect ratios or share a display between multiple devices. That's based on my experience of having a 4k display sat side-by-side with a 5k iMac for 5 years.
Great post. The only other thing I'd add is that hearing some users say that these objective facts don't matter to them personally, might leave other users open to the possibility that a 4k display may be perfectly acceptable to them.
If you think my view is unsupported because I think 1440p looks just fine on Mac, then so be it. I believe it looks fantastic. And it looks even better on Windows.
If you have the money to spend on 5k then good for you. I don't have that money to waste on the marginal improvements to which you refer in your facts. I have facts as well but can sum them up with "good enough".
And that is what I mean. There are people (I can't imagine this but they are out there) that think 1080p looks "good enough" on their mac mini. There are literal posts on this forum saying that. Which is again what I am getting at.
And a 5k iMac isn't that much different than a 4.5k iMac--especially at 24" and that has Apple Silicon right now.
But at this point people know which category of user in this post to which they belong.
1. Money is no limit and this individual notices the most minor of details. If the display isn't exactly doubled literally perfectly, they really notice. And again, money is no object.
2. Money definitely has a limit, but man! 1080p sucks. I wonder if I can get most of the benefit while still keeping at least a little of my money. 4k 27" to 32" monitor for the win.
3. I really don't care. My 1080p monitor is fine. Glad I am not part of group 1 or 2.
You are group 1 and I am group 2.
That's exactly the type of subjective perspective that I find helpful. It isn't as simple as "it works for me".
Re the quote:
"Just saying “works for me” is pretty empty and doesn’t really help anybody except you."
Displays, and the resolutions used, ARE a personal and subjective matter.
Even moreso than are keyboards and pointing devices.
What "works" for someone may not work for someone else, or not for many others.
Particularly in the matters of good v. not-so-good eyesight and age.
What someone younger with good eyesight would complain about ("that resolution produces text too large!"), may be "just right" for someone older with older eyes.
So when I say, "I have a 27" 4k display running at looks like 1080p and it works for me"...
...I'm conveying one anecdotal point of information.
Take it or leave it.
Might be of help to some, and of none to others.
It is... what it is.
"Just saying “works for me” is pretty empty and doesn’t really help anybody except you."
Displays, and the resolutions used, ARE a personal and subjective matter.
Even moreso than are keyboards and pointing devices.
What "works" for someone may not work for someone else, or not for many others.
Particularly in the matters of good v. not-so-good eyesight and age.
What someone younger with good eyesight would complain about ("that resolution produces text too large!"), may be "just right" for someone older with older eyes.
So when I say, "I have a 27" 4k display running at looks like 1080p and it works for me"...
...I'm conveying one anecdotal point of information.
Take it or leave it.
Might be of help to some, and of none to others.
It is... what it is.
Which, for those people, is absolutely the only fact that really matters. I used to have to do the font smoothing fix back in the day. That's how sharp I need my monitors to be, and while I get that it isn't literally a pixel doubling on a 4k 1440p resolution, for me it might as well be. It looks perfectly crisp.
And now the final detail:
Something like this for $399:
ASUS TUF Gaming 28” 4K 144HZ
Or something like this for $799 (which I guess isn't terrible):
ASUS ProArt Display 27” 5K HDR Professional Monitor
ASUS ProArt Display 27” 5K HDR Professional Monitor (PA27JCV) - 5K (5120 x 2880), IPS, 99% DCI-P3, 100% sRGB, ΔE < 2, USB-C PD 96W, Calman Verified, Color Accurate, Auto KVM, LuxPixel, 3 yr Warranty
ProArt Display PA27JCV is a 27-inch 5K HDR monitor designed for professional content creators. This Calman Verified display boasts a wide gamut with 99% DCI-P3, 100% sRGB and 95% Adobe RGB coverage, and it’s factory calibrated to Delta E<2 for exceptional color accuracy. Built-in Auto KVM allows ...
www.amazon.com
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Sure… but the trouble is that “evidence” is not the plural of “anecdote”. There’s absolutely no way to know whether a thread like this is biased towards 4k fans or 5k fans, and the sad truth of human nature is that people will always defend their own choices (some people are happy using their “full HD” TVs).
So it’s really not much help if 5 people say “I love my 5k Studio Display/5k iMac” and 6 people say “4k rocks”… especially if you look back to the first post in this thread where the poster was happily with their 4K display but wanted to know what the supposed “problems” were.
Actually, I’ve got a pair of 28” 4k+ 3:2 displays running at the same scaling (it’s “looks like 1280p” at 3:2) and it certainly “works for me”. However, I’ve also switched from a 5k iMac + 4k second display so that I can quite confidently say that the 5k display is crisper and sharper (and the higher ppi will benefit you even in “larger text” mode) - the subjective bit is whether you want to pay the extra price.
…unfortunately, nobody here is in a position to do a valid, blind A/B test on 4k vs. 5k, or predict what a display is going to look like through someone else’s eyes. Posting a photo of your screen doesn’t really work (and enlarged shots of scaling artefacts exaggerate the problem) and Apple tend not to have 3rd Party 4k displays on show alongside Studio Displays (a store is a bad place to compare displays anyhow). So, really, gathering as much objective data is as much as someone can do.
I think we have both.
I get your point, but it does go to support the idea 4K is fine for a substantial portion of people, and the person researching options may some have idea how sharp their eye sight is, how discerning and appreciative they are of fine detail differences, etc... There's still some guesswork to it.
Even if they try, it can be tricky. I'm on a 27" 4K Dell monitor now, a recent move after years on a 27" 5K 'retina' iMac. I sit farther back than most, but even when I leaned in I personally didn't discern substantial different in text sharpness in casual use. I still kinda like the iMac's display better, because the white on Mac Rumor's forum site looked a bit 'purer' whereas the Dell looks to me like there is a barely perceptible hint of yellow (in other words, the iMac display's white looked like the color lighting 'temperature' was cooler and the Dell's a bit warmer).
But someone who knows what they're doing could get into color adjustments, and adjusting brightness helped. To speak to your points, had I never used the iMac, I 'wouldn't know any better.'
My point is, when you look at a 4K vs. a 5K display (if blessed with the chance to examine side-by-side), particularly if 2 different brands, you aren't comparing just 4K and 5K. You are comparing different brightnesses, contrasts, color rendition, possibly glossy vs. matte coating, etc...