Computer Monitor Recommendations
Discussion
Can get 4K monitors (3840 x 2160) if your computer can drive them, many at 28" or 32" (or bigger) but there are some down to 24".
Windows scaling generally works well these days so you get very nice sharp text at whatever size works for your eyes. I have a 40" 4K but still scale at 125%.
Windows scaling generally works well these days so you get very nice sharp text at whatever size works for your eyes. I have a 40" 4K but still scale at 125%.
I have a 27" 2k (1440p) Acer Predator and I'd have to be about a foot away to see the individual pixels. To run 4k you need a reasonable graphics card if you plan to play any games. Web browsing or office work are way less demanding but check your computer can output that high a resolution as some older machines can't.
This is the ultimate guide on the matter: https://tonsky.me/blog/monitors/
I have the Acer X27P monitor it recommends, but it isn't available anymore. This a good alternative and half the price https://www.overclockers.co.uk/gigabyte-28-m28u-ek...
I have the Acer X27P monitor it recommends, but it isn't available anymore. This a good alternative and half the price https://www.overclockers.co.uk/gigabyte-28-m28u-ek...
shopper150 said:
It’s very interesting that after all these years, there is still no competitor or equivalent to Apple Displays (in particular, the ‘Retina’ aspect
It's because the pixel density at 5k and the sort of monitor sizes people use is far higher than the eye can see, basically it's a waste of money, but Apple are serving a customer base that will say 5 is bigger than 4, so I'll pay extra for that. You're better off spending the money on a 4k display, or several 4k displays and going for higher refresh rates than more pixels.
I would disagree that there is no gain on 5k @ 27” vs 4k. It is visible. However the cost is significant. Personally I run 2x28” 4k. It’s definitely not retinal quality. The difference in sharpness between that and the MBP built in panel is easy to see. But for me it’s fine and I’ll trade the panel size and cost off against the sharpness
shopper150 said:
It’s very interesting that after all these years, there is still no competitor or equivalent to Apple Displays (in particular, the ‘Retina’ aspect
What are you talking about?
There are, as mentioned, 5K monitors with the exact same panel.
The industry standard however is 4K, as it's plenty.
As mentioned as well, you need a sufficiently powerful machine to do anything meaningful on it.
ZesPak said:
What are you talking about?
There are, as mentioned, 5K monitors with the exact same panel.
The industry standard however is 4K, as it's plenty.
As mentioned as well, you need a sufficiently powerful machine to do anything meaningful on it.
I can't see that any of the mentioned monitors are available to purchase. There are, as mentioned, 5K monitors with the exact same panel.
The industry standard however is 4K, as it's plenty.
As mentioned as well, you need a sufficiently powerful machine to do anything meaningful on it.
Also, I do think it's interesting that Apple have this display standard dominated so many years and the rest of the market 'doesn't need it' or machines aren't powerful enough to run. Surely Apple have has this for a decade now, and that's a long time in technology. They've bascially dominated the market.
shopper150 said:
Also, I do think it's interesting that Apple have this display standard dominated so many years and the rest of the market 'doesn't need it' or machines aren't powerful enough to run. Surely Apple have has this for a decade now, and that's a long time in technology. They've bascially dominated the market.
I like MacOS, but this is bunk. Until Apple Silicon there was no Apple hardware aspect to display technology. They sold very high PPI panels made by other companies and driven by GPUs also available from Intel (integrated graphics in laptops, iMacs and Mac Minis) and AMD discrete graphics in larger laptop and higher end iMac and MacPros.As best I can work out, part of the drive for Apple to offer higher pixel displays was due to decisions about font scaling when running scaled display resolutions, but I don't know the details/background well, simply that MacOS doesn't look as good as Windows when run at around 125% or 150% scaling.
shopper150 said:
I can't see that any of the mentioned monitors are available to purchase.
Also, I do think it's interesting that Apple have this display standard dominated so many years and the rest of the market 'doesn't need it' or machines aren't powerful enough to run. Surely Apple have has this for a decade now, and that's a long time in technology. They've bascially dominated the market.
"display standard"?Also, I do think it's interesting that Apple have this display standard dominated so many years and the rest of the market 'doesn't need it' or machines aren't powerful enough to run. Surely Apple have has this for a decade now, and that's a long time in technology. They've bascially dominated the market.
4K is the display standard. 4K displays have been around for a long time as well, and there are literally hundreds of them available.
In the same sense you could say Apple is very much behind Samsung, as their iPhone 13 has a lower screen resolution than the Galaxy S6 released in 2015. In reality someone probably said: this is plenty, we'll leave it at that for now.
In theory it's a nice increase in PPI, in practice it really doesn't do much other than giving your computer another 6 million pixels to calculate.
xeny said:
As best I can work out, part of the drive for Apple to offer higher pixel displays was due to decisions about font scaling when running scaled display resolutions, but I don't know the details/background well, simply that MacOS doesn't look as good as Windows when run at around 125% or 150% scaling.
I know this was the case with the iPhone 4, where they went from 320x480 to 640x960, because they had no way of scaling the apps back then.Edited by ZesPak on Wednesday 2nd February 14:51
ZesPak said:
"display standard"?
4K is the display standard. 4K displays have been around for a long time as well, and there are literally hundreds of them available.
In the same sense you could say Apple is very much behind Samsung, as their iPhone 13 has a lower screen resolution than the Galaxy S6 released in 2015. In reality someone probably said: this is plenty, we'll leave it at that for now.
In theory it's a nice increase in PPI, in practice it really doesn't do much other than giving your computer another 6 million pixels to calculate.
Horses for courses. I want a display with a pixel density such that I can’t see the pixels, like Apple displays.4K is the display standard. 4K displays have been around for a long time as well, and there are literally hundreds of them available.
In the same sense you could say Apple is very much behind Samsung, as their iPhone 13 has a lower screen resolution than the Galaxy S6 released in 2015. In reality someone probably said: this is plenty, we'll leave it at that for now.
In theory it's a nice increase in PPI, in practice it really doesn't do much other than giving your computer another 6 million pixels to calculate.
Are you suggesting that using the terminology ‘display standard’ specifically excludes pixel density?
shopper150 said:
Horses for courses. I want a display with a pixel density such that I can’t see the pixels, like Apple displays.
Are you suggesting that using the terminology ‘display standard’ specifically excludes pixel density?
No, I'm saying that "retina" is a marketing term and I challenge anyone to try and discern the difference in pixel density between an iPhone 13 and a Galaxy S6, or a 4k and a 5k 27" display.Are you suggesting that using the terminology ‘display standard’ specifically excludes pixel density?
If you were to make a list of phones by pixel density, there's a good chance the iPhone won't make it in the top 20. That doesn't mean the screen isn't good enough, or do you own a Sony Xperia Pro?
As above, it's very possible that Apple chose 5K because it is 4x 4x HD (1280x720), which solves a lot of scaling issues in their OS.
As Windows (as Android) has always needed to run on many different devices, some of these scaling features were already built in so it could scale to 4K (4x full hd/1080p)
Edited by ZesPak on Wednesday 2nd February 15:04
shopper150 said:
Horses for courses. I want a display with a pixel density such that I can’t see the pixels, like Apple displays.
Just buy an Apple Pro XDR display then?As mentioned above you can get an 8K monitor from Dell if you really want the ultimate PPI.
Edited by 130R on Wednesday 2nd February 15:22
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff