Rumors have it that the new M4 Mac Minis will be announced this coming week. I’m planning on finally replacing my 2017 27" iMac, and I have the desk space for a 32" monitor. Any suggestions for a 32" or 27" monitor? I’m hoping to stay under $1000.00. Thanks!
I have not spent much time looking into 32" monitors. But I keep a close eye on 27" because that is my preferred size for work and play.
IMHO the very simple bottom line here is you really want 5K over 4K, but that also means you either get very expensive (Apple) or finicky[1] (LG) or untrustworthy (“smart TV” crapware, Samsung).
You can get excellent quality 4K 27" panels for example from Dell for a little over $400, but it’s indisputable that there’s an image quality advantage from being able to scale 5K on 27" vs. 4K. And I say that as somebody who has come down on the 4K side myself since I find Apple’s Studio Display a) over-engineered, b) under-speced, and c) preposterously overpriced. But I will contend that if image quality at high res is absolutely paramount, that’s probably just the price to pay and the way to go.
I do know that there are those who claim the LG 5K has worked rock solid for them and they love it. ↩︎
2 Likes
If sticking with 4K works for you (see @Simon’s comment), I’ve been happy with a 4K 32-inch Dell monitor, now running from a 2023 M2 Pro mini (also have a Dell 24-inch side monitor). Most of the time I have the Dell’s resolution set to 2560 x 1440. I use the 4K (3860 x 2160) setting for some movies as well as graphics and mapping work. I have no connection to Dell - actually, I don’t love the company’s leadership, but I satisfied myself at the time that this was my best choice.
3 Likes
Please explain:
- What “scaling” is and then
- Why scaling 5K over 27” is better than scaling 4K over the same sized monitor.
I have an iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015) that is stuck at macOS 12 Monterey and it’d like to replace it with an M4 Mac mini.
I’ve put this off for a long time because i was hoping that Apple would release a bigger iMac, in part because I’m really intimidated by choosing a monitor.
For what it’s worth, I also have an 2022 M2 MacBook Air.
Thank you.
3 Likes
It’s all about scaling. Historically, the Mac targeted 72 ppi — in the old days that was used to ensure WYSIWYG. But in more modern times we have settled somewhere closer to 90-110 ppi.
A typically nice resolution for ~100ppi on a 27" is 2560x1440. And with 5K, i.e. 5120x2880 you can get exactly that with 2x scaling (“Retina”). So you render 218 ppi with exact 2:1 scaling. You get a nice sharp image with a high resolution since it looks like 109 ppi to you.
Contrast that with what I get on my 27" 4K. There I have 3840x2160. If I choose the same crisp 2:1 scaling I end up running effectively 1920x1080 which renders only 86 ppi. That’s too low so everything looks comically big and I don’t get to see enough screen real estate in spite of having a big 27" panel on my desk. So what I instead end up having to do is tell macOS to display for an effective 2560x1440 (same old school 27" res) which then renders 109 ppi so all good. Except nope. That scaling forces macOS to render everything to the closest pixel because instead of using just 4 pixels to draw 1 (2x scaling) I’m now using 1.5x scaling which means 1.5 pixels x 1.5 pixels to draw that same single pixel. But since you cannot draw to 2.25 pixels to show 1, macOS has to dither and the result of that, even though I have no serious complaints myself, is just never as crisp as if it could render to integer multiples of the displayed resolution.
The bottom line is: if you go 4K on a 27" you can get either a crisp image (low res) or a high res image (dithered) but not both at the same time.
If OTOH you get 5K for your 27", you can have it all at once. IMHO 5K is therefore clearly the way to go. The only problem with that is that 5K monitors are so darn expensive compared to 4K. That’s because there is much greater demand for 4K panels (TVs) than 5K (computer nerds) and hence the latter are still substantially more expensive. There’s a factor ~5 in cost between my 27" 4K Dell and a reasonably configured Apple Studio Display. 
7 Likes
I’m continuing to love my “LG 32UN880-B 32” UltraFine Display Ergo UHD 4K IPS Display with HDR 10 Compatibility" purchased about a year ago which I use with my M1 Mini. Initially I was concerned that 32" would be too large after using a 24" display but after a couple of days I was so happy I got the 32".
90% of the time the monitor remains stationary but when I need to move it or adjust its position their “Ergo Stand” (Extends/Retracts/Swivels/Height/Pivot/Tilt) is amazing. I would never want another large monitor without the features of this stand.
Currently $449.99 at Amazon and $399.99 at Costco (with free shipping).
3 Likes
Apparently, the specs for LG’s UN880-B (32" 4K UHD UltraFine™ Ergo Monitor With HDR10) indicate that its resolution is 3840 x 2160 so it will have the same scaling problem that @Simon described for 4K monitors in general.
Moreover, the brightness of this LG monitor is rated at only “350 nits (Typical),” a lot darker than other monitors, including Apple’s Studio Display’s 600 nits.
There is quite a long discussion about monitors here:
For the past year I have been using an LG 32" 4K UHD Monitor with an M2 Macbook Air and it suits my needs well. However the features I find useful for the Macbook (power, video and external hard drive via a single USB-c cable) are not really needed for a Mac Mini.
3 Likes
Especially because the dot-matrix printers (e.g. the venerable Epson MX-80) at the time were 72 dpi, so screen pixels actually did (sort of) correspond to printed pixels. Apple’s ImageWriter was a 144 dpi printer, an even multiple of that 72.
It’s also convenient for typography work if pixels=points.
As I understand it, when scaling is used, macOS renders content internally to a display buffer that is 2x the size of the apparent screen size, and then uses the GPU to scale that to your display’s native resolution.
So if you have a 4K display using 2:1 scaling (effective 1920x1080), it renders everything at 4K (using 2:1 scaling on everything to make the content bigger), and the result is scaled to the display’s native resolution - which is also 4K. Making it very efficient, since the GPU really doesn’t have to do any work.
But if you have a 4K display using 1.5:1 scaling (apparent 1440p), the system will render to a 5K/2880p (5120x2880) buffer using 2:1 scaling on the drawing. Then that 5K buffer is downscaled (by the GPU) to 4K (your display’s native resolution). This is where fuzziness is introduced and is also the reason doing so can impact the performance of GPU-intensive applications (e.g. ML work, 3D rendering or video processing).
I assume Apple does it this way (render at 2x the apparent resolution and then downscale) to preserve image quality. Had they instead rendered everything to a 1440p buffer and upscaled it to your native resolution, the fuzziness would be much worse. I suppose they could have just rendered everything to a 4K buffer using 1.5:1 scaling (I think that’s what Windows does), but they chose not to for some reason. I assume so they don’t have to scale their UI bitmaps, which are pre-rendered for 1:1 and 2:1 scaling.
Not quite. The scaling problem is a function of the physical PPI, not the resolution. 4K at 27" is not the same as 4k at 32".
A 32" 4K display is 137 ppi (vs 163 ppi for 27"). You might find that size acceptable without scaling, depending on your eyes and your personal preferences. Apple’s UI seems optimized for about 110 ppi and most people find that 100-120 ppi usually looks good. 137 is out of this range, but not by much, so I’d say it will be a matter of personal preference more than anything else.
3 Likes
The problem is that you have to know for sure you will like your 32" set that high because if not, especially as we grow older and our eye sight deteriorates, you are, as @nello assumes, once again in a bad spot.
Either you lower your 32" res to get a crisp image (1920x1080 via 2:1 scaling) but then you’re stuck with 68 ppi which (unless you want everything blown up super big) is pretty bad use of such a large panel. Or you go for something like 3072x1728 which gives you a decent ~110 ppi making good use of that large 32", but then you’re once again stuck in fuzzyland because of 1.56 pixels per pixel scaling, a situation reminiscent of 4K on 27".
When I look around our department, I’d say choice of what constitutes comfortable ppi correlates strongly with age. 
1 Like
I bought a 4K 27-inch Dell monitor on sale a year or two when the old monitor died, and once I got it home and started playing with it, went to 1920x1080 to make reading on screen more comfortable. When I just tried switching to 3840x2160 the same letters looked about 1/3 the size to my eyes, but measured half size on a ruler. My old eyes can’t see ppi, but trying to work at 3840x2160 gives me eyestrain almost instantly.
If you are going to buy from a store that has display models, see if you can bring your computer (easy if it’s a laptop) and plug it in. Then you can experiment with different resolutions and scaling factors to decide if the results are acceptable.
Of course, if your store doesn’t have display models or if you’re ordering from a web site, then you won’t be able to run this test before you buy, so it will be harder to make a good decision before your purchase.
What about the various scaled resolutions in between?
If macOS doesn’t recognize this display as a “retina” display (forcing you to pick output resolutions that the display will upscale), see if you can use a utility like SwitchResX ($16, shareware) to let you manually configure “HiDPI” mode, which should enable Retina-style scaling. So you can run the display at its native 4K resolution, but scale the content to a comfortable size.
1 Like
The intermediate sizes are better than 3840x2160, and might suffice for a short period, but as a writer I spend a lot of time working on the screen. As an old guy who has had cataract surgery and has floaters, I have found the best way to avoid eyestrain is by reading large type on a large screen. Your eyes may be better than mine.
1 Like
I’ve used Dell Ultrasharp monitors for over 15 years now, and have been very happy. They are more expensive, slightly higher end monitors, not meant to compete with basic consumer models. Not the cheapest, but the panel quality is excellent and as you can see below, they have outlasted many different computers.
I’m currently typing this on a U3223QE (connected to a MacBook Pro 14" M1), which I bough in the fall of 2022. It acts as dock/hub for me as well, powers the laptop (90W) and provides USB connections in the bottom of the monitor for static accessories like USB dock for my bike computer. Most useful feature for me (and why I upgraded) is it also passes a wired ethernet connection through the USB-C to the MacBook. They can also switch between different inputs, even doing PIP or split screen, though the only feature I use occasionally is the second input when setting up another computer or something similar.
It’s 4k, and I don’t run it at full resolution, it’s set for the middle option (says 3008 x 1692) in macOS Displays settings. It’s Vesa mounted to a wall arm next to a 27" iMac, that I occasionally use as a second monitor with a Luna display dongle. I haven’t had any problems with macOS recognizing it or it’s ports, there’s even a dell utility I believe that lets you control the monitor on macOS if you want, but I didn’t bother leaving it installed after testing it.
I also have a U3219Q (my Dell model number assumptions are U for Ultrasharp, 32 for 32", and 19 for 2019). It’s set up at my partner’s house for when I work there. See note above for why I upgraded, no problems with it.
And my original ultrasharp 2405FPW is from 2005. It was a huge desktop expanse and seemed expensive at the time ($999 iirc), but it’s still going strong as well; hooked up to an old Mac mini running a small hobby CNC.
5 Likes
I would use the Apple Studio Display if possible. I also use and happy with the Samsung S32B80P 32" display as a second display. https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-ViewFinity-Resolution-Adjustable-LS32D804UANXGO/dp/B0D1DBQGGG its not 5K but the new BenQ 27" is a quite expensive alternative
I’ve been using my Dell Ultrasharp 27" for years and years, and I usually spec Dell Ultrasharp for clients when a “computer” monitor is needed. If you’re doing high-end photo or video work that’s another story because calibration and accuracy may matter. My wife has a fancier BenQ for photo editing that is quite decent.
These days you can still find 16x10 aspect ratio monitors but not many, and possibly not in the native resolution you want. A lot of LCD panel production has moved to UHD (3840x2160) but internal scaling is usually pretty good if you want to run at a lower res to save eyestrain!
1 Like
6 posts were merged into an existing topic: More thoughts on why we aren’t seeing another 27-inch iMac
There is the option of converting your existing iMac into a monitor. It just requires a third party board to drive the display. The motherboard becomes superfluous and could be sold off to pay for the display board.
Another 5k fan here. The Studio display hangs off my;27” iMac. I love both screens. Overpriced, yes, so-so webcam yes, lovely audio though and terrific screen for photography, design. I’d buy another.
4 Likes
I also have a 27” iMac. (It’s the Retina 5K, 27-inch, Mid 2015.)
Would you please explain what you mean by “hangs off”?
Thank you.