Who can recommend me a monitor (screen) for Mac?

[MirrorProfiles]

Ordered a Mac Mini M4 Pro, after being on an iMac for so long and essentially spoiled for a screen, I need to decide what to use with the new computer.

Annoyingly the way macOS handles retina displays and scaling means it can be quite fussy on how to best optimise the resolution you’re using. There’s a handy guide here:

Mac external displays for designers and developers

If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.

bjango.com

So, despite my preference being for something that’s 32”, they would appear to not be a good compromise according to this.

Therefore my best options are:

- get a cheapish 1440p 27”
- spend a little more for a 34” (not my preference of size but i’ll keep options open for now)
- samsung do their version of a 5k 27” for about half the price of an Apple 27” screen
- keep it Apple

As it stands I’m leaning towards the cheaper 27” 1440p ones, and hopefully one with USB-C+hub, faster refresh rate, better specs. Webcam wouldn’t be the worst extra either.

34” makes speaker positioning a bit harder, and extra width isn’t really that useful to me in a DAW. I need to measure actual sizes in case it allows me to position ns10’s horizontally above the top of the screen. I would ideally prefer the screen to not be curved, which most 34” screens seem to be.

The Samsung display is probably getting a bit pricey for what I want, but it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than what Apple offer. The Apple one would be massively overkill for what I need.

Any suggestions on a 27” monitor that’s in that cheaper range?

 

[FuzzyAce]

I bought one of these a little over 3 yrs. ago. Use it along side my iMac.
AOC U2790VQ 27", 4K. It's been very solid so far, no complaints.
Not sure how available it is in the UK though.

 

[PatF]

There are cheap 32" 1440p monitors. At work we bought dozens of the Viewsonic's for $350 +/-. I would get an IPS type screen.

 

[SymphonicDischord]

Dell 34 Curved Gaming Monitor – S3422DWG | Dell USA

Dell 34 inch WQHD curved gaming monitor with DCI-P3 90% color coverage, a 144Hz refresh rate providing a truly immersive gaming experience.

www.dell.com

I purchased the 34” ultrawide last year for my M2 Pro have been really happy with it.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Dell 34 Curved Gaming Monitor – S3422DWG | Dell USA

Dell 34 inch WQHD curved gaming monitor with DCI-P3 90% color coverage, a 144Hz refresh rate providing a truly immersive gaming experience.

www.dell.com

I purchased the 34” ultrawide last year for my M2 Pro have been really happy with it.

is it 4k or higher? or 1440p?

I’m most curious whether 4k looks worse than 1440p with macOS’s retina scaling, same goes for CPU performance which in theory should be better on a “native” resolution.

I’ve found a 4k 32” LG which ticks a lot of boxes, but is also potentially a very bad choice as far as what macOS is designed for. Seems like the CPU should be negligible on M series macs

 

[TheTrueZoltan!]

That‘s why I prefer the iMac.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

That‘s why I prefer the iMac.

I’m coming from an iMac Pro which I didn’t really want, but the options in 2017 sucked compared to now. There was a lull where there was no Mac Pro, no mac studio, and a big gulf between the rest.

The screen is awesome and Apple stuff really does work best when it’s all done to their spec. I just don’t need a screen that good, plus it makes the entire screen quite big and heavy with a lot more cables.

Having a seperate screen means the computer can be elsewhere in the room and all the associated (and necessary) hubs and hard drives are out of the way. Just one cable to the screen (which can be USB C or Thunderbolt and provide a USB hub) seems much better for me.

The other factor with iMac is 27” at the distance I have it feels a hair too small, and bringing it closer starts impeding on the flight path of the speakers (especially with the iMac Pro’s bezel etc). 32” means I can have the screen further away but with everything a bit bigger.

But yeah. Sticking to all Apple saves a LOT of option paralysis and you’ll have no doubts with the quality or performance.

 

[SymphonicDischord]

is it 4k or higher? or 1440p?

I’m most curious whether 4k looks worse than 1440p with macOS’s retina scaling, same goes for CPU performance which in theory should be better on a “native” resolution.

I’ve found a 4k 32” LG which ticks a lot of boxes, but is also potentially a very bad choice as far as what macOS is designed for. Seems like the CPU should be negligible on M series macs

1440. Because I wanted the ultrawide, I really couldn’t justify the cost for a 4K after what I spent on the M2 Pro at the specs I wanted.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

1440. Because I wanted the ultrawide, I really couldn’t justify the cost for a 4K after what I spent on the M2 Pro at the specs I wanted.

I’ve got a feeling 1440p runs and potentially even looks better, if the link in my first post is anything to go by

 

[LeftyLoungeLizard]

Whatever you get, make damn sure it does at least 120Hz refresh.

If you're going Apple brand (uhh...), I think Apple finally caught on to this after the PC world had been enjoying higher refresh rates for 10-15 years and now offers it with their monitors. Not 100% sure though, cuz I ain't a card-carrying member of the Cult.

60Hz refresh is so 1999.

BTW, that link you posted doesn't even discuss refresh rates. Stay away from any moron who blogs about monitors without discussing refresh rates; even if they use terms like "designers and developers".

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Whatever you get, make damn sure it does at least 120Hz refresh.

If you're going Apple brand (uhh...), I think Apple finally caught on to this after the PC world had been enjoying higher refresh rates for 10-15 years and now offers it with their monitors. Not 100% sure though, cuz I ain't a card-carrying member of the Cult.

60Hz refresh is so 1999.

BTW, that link you posted doesn't even discuss refresh rates. Stay away from any moron who blogs about monitors without discussing refresh rates; even if they use terms like "designers and developers".

isn’t the apple studio display still 60hz? I’ve heard 120hz and above is great for gaming but for music production tasks am I ever going to reap the benefit?

 

[LeftyLoungeLizard]

isn’t the apple studio display still 60hz? I’ve heard 120hz and above is great for gaming but for music production tasks am I ever going to reap the benefit?

A higher refresh rate equals smoother response and therefore, happier eyeballs.

Even down to watching YouTube vids.

Even down to the mouse cursor movement and windows opening/closing.

Even just static screens.

If you get the chance, try a 60Hz and a 120Hz (or higher) monitor side by side, and you'll see the difference.

60Hz is (for lack of better terms) "harsh" and kind of "flickery".

120Hz is butter smooth and easier on the eyes.

It's one of those things that until you see it, you won't "see" it.

 

[Whizzinby]

Curious how you get on with the Mini, I’ve been very itchy to upgrade my M1 16gb to the base M4 32gb. Killer pricing and the size to power is amazing.

 

[Jarick]

I have a 27” Samsung 4K I use with my MacBook Air m1. It works great and cost about $300. They have a 32” version as well, I tried that first and it was way too big on my desk so I exchanged down.

I prefer 4K at 60 hz over lower resolution at higher refresh because I don’t do gaming or video editing and I like the crisp resolution.

 

[laxu]

Do not buy anything under 4K for MacOS use.

MacOS HiDPI scaling system is a real piece of shit. The way it works is it takes the "looks like WxH" resolution, then renders at 2x that res, then downscales to your monitor resolution. What scaling levels are available depend on the screen resolution and the capabilities of the Mac, where M4 Pro/Max tend to do better.

On anything under 4K, you generally shouldn't use scaling because you lose too much desktop space. So you are left with using native resolution on e.g a 1080p or 1440p display, which is at odds with the scaling Apple intends you to use. They tend to look a bit soft and blurry compared to scaled resolutions.

Windows doesn't have any of these issues because Microsoft took the time to make a better scaling system. It just needs per-app support to function, which is why you see e.g installers that look blurry on 4K screens or some apps that look tiny because they don't scale at all.

Apple's own displays are hideously expensive for what they are. Their 5K Studio Display is basically "a bit above decent office grade" specs for 2-3x the cost of an equivalent spec 4K screen. For a similar screen with better inputs and outputs, try the new Asus Proart PA27JCV. Its cost should be far more reasonable for the specs.

Personally I can't stand anything that is only 60 Hz anymore, and 5K displays don't come in 120+ Hz varieties yet.

The 32" 4K Gigabyte M32U shouldn't be too expensive and seems like a solid option. I have also liked the Samsung 28" 4K G70A/LS28, but avoid the newer G70B because it comes with Samsung's smart TV bullshit.

Me, I run an 8Kx2K superultrawide now. It's a beast, but I can't really recommend it for MacOS use because MacOS has trouble with it in several ways. I did say the OS is a real piece of shit for external display handling and scaling for a reason. But when the display works, it's super nice to work with all that desktop space.

rtings.com and tftcentral.co.uk are your best resources for monitor reviews. Don't ignore "gaming monitors" for this as most are still fairly color accurate and will work well. Just avoid OLEDs for desktop use.

 

[Jarick]

I will say that one of the driving factors for me getting a Macbook Air M1 was because my old Mac Mini from like 2014 could not scale resolution for my 4k monitor. The M1 scales just fine for me now. It doesn't work as well as PC scaling but what can you do.

I believe my monitor is the Samsung Viewfinity UR55 or something like that. It looks really good to me for a $300 monitor. I've got both my Mac and my PC hooked up to it and toggle inputs depending on the computer.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I prefer 4K at 60 hz over lower resolution at higher refresh because I don’t do gaming or video editing and I like the crisp resolution.

This is helpful because I’m not doing gaming or video stuff.

Do not buy anything under 4K for MacOS use.

MacOS HiDPI scaling system is a real piece of shit. The way it works is it takes the "looks like WxH" resolution, then renders at 2x that res, then downscales to your monitor resolution. What scaling levels are available depend on the screen resolution and the capabilities of the Mac, where M4 Pro/Max tend to do better.

On anything under 4K, you generally shouldn't use scaling because you lose too much desktop space. So you are left with using native resolution on e.g a 1080p or 1440p display, which is at odds with the scaling Apple intends you to use. They tend to look a bit soft and blurry compared to scaled resolutions.

Windows doesn't have any of these issues because Microsoft took the time to make a better scaling system. It just needs per-app support to function, which is why you see e.g installers that look blurry on 4K screens or some apps that look tiny because they don't scale at all.

Apple's own displays are hideously expensive for what they are. Their 5K Studio Display is basically "a bit above decent office grade" specs for 2-3x the cost of an equivalent spec 4K screen. For a similar screen with better inputs and outputs, try the new Asus Proart PA27JCV. Its cost should be far more reasonable for the specs.

Personally I can't stand anything that is only 60 Hz anymore, and 5K displays don't come in 120+ Hz varieties yet.

The 32" 4K Gigabyte M32U shouldn't be too expensive and seems like a solid option. I have also liked the Samsung 28" 4K G70A/LS28, but avoid the newer G70B because it comes with Samsung's smart TV bullshit.

Me, I run an 8Kx2K superultrawide now. It's a beast, but I can't really recommend it for MacOS use because MacOS has trouble with it in several ways. I did say the OS is a real piece of shit for external display handling and scaling for a reason. But when the display works, it's super nice to work with all that desktop space.

rtings.com and tftcentral.co.uk are your best resources for monitor reviews. Don't ignore "gaming monitors" for this as most are still fairly color accurate and will work well. Just avoid OLEDs for desktop use.

lots of great stuff here, thanks. My main concerns were for 32” and whether I should go 4k, or 1440p (and 120/144hz refresh rate).

I grabbed a Dell P3223QE for a reasonable price - 4k but 60hz. Even up until yesterday I was wondering if I should have gone for one of the LG gaming laptops that are 1440p but 144hz, as it looked OK but significantly worse than the old iMac screen.

Mac Mini arrived today, a LOT to install still before I can really use it. But it does seem to look nicer with the mac mini than using it as an external screen with the imac pro. Won’t really know until I start scrolling around in PT though. Basically everything about the iMac screen stomps all over it, but I don’t really want to be spending anywhere close to what a 5k (or higher) screen goes for.