Hacker News Reader

Comment by DIVx0 | Hacker News Reader

Since you have a Macbook Pro and you want a premium experience your only real options right now are new Studio Displays, Apple XDR or LG5k.

For whatever reasons MacOS or the hardware does not perform well unless you using screens that are near or the same PPI as laptop display. Using a 4k monitor will result in some scaling artifacts.

With that said, I know a lot of people who use 4k monitors with their MBPs with no complaint however I also know the reverse who can't stand it. I'm with the latter camp and use a LG5k which is just an OK monitor but everything is crystal clear.

View on HN

The scaling artifacts are no different at 4k compared to running an MBP at "non-native" retina resolutions - its the same problem/issue, if you are sensitive.

For what its worth, Apple have shipped many MacBook Pros at "non-native" resolutions by default for years, so... The 15 inch for years was a 2880 x 1800 panel, which is only Retina native at an equivalent of 1440x900. Apple shipped them in the non-2x 1680x1050 mode by default.

The same is also true of the current 13inch M1 MacBooks 2560 x 1600 (1280x800 at 2x), but apple run them out of the box at non-2x 1440x900.

All of this is to say not even Apple themselves stick to "2x retina" only resolutions on their own laptop hardware - running a 4k monitor at non-2x retina scales isn't that much different, and most people will be perfectly happy with scaled resolutions on a 4k 27 inch panel or similar in my experience on macOS.

Yeah but pixel density makes this non-issue on Apple panels. 4K on 27" or more is a whole another story.

* 2560x1440 at 27 inch: 109 ppi

* 4k at 27 inch: 163 ppi

* 5k at 27 inch: 218 ppi

I've ran both 5k and 4k monitors on a variety of macOS machines in the 27inch size class - its not nearly as bad "a whole another story". Its almost exactly the same story - especially as demonstrated Apple don't stick to the "only 2x is retina" plan either.

Yes 5k is better, but 4k is still well above the industry standard of 100ppi for non-retina displays, and will look just fine for most people in macOS rendering the same usable 2560x1440 desktop.

Well no, text looks blurry. I know it's a SW limitation, but it does. I'm sitting in front of it right now (27" 4K display connected to a Mac).

Windows look crispy clear with this display.

All of those are 60Hz max.

In fairness, the connectivity standards that can support the data overhead of 5k/120hz aren't all that wide spread yet. Even thunderbolt 4 doesn't have the bandwidth for uncompressed 5k at 120hz. It's only just possible in certain circumstances on the latest HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0 specs really. If you want 5k, it's going to be 60hz for now.

Given OP thinks his MacBook spoiled him with "high refresh" (its just a standard 60hz panel...), I'm not sure the OP really understands refresh rates in modern monitors! The Dell they already have is almost certainly 60hz too, despite claims the MacBook is faster.

The new MacBook Pros support what Apple calls "ProMotion" and can crank up the display up to 120Hz, similarly to iPad Pros.

https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro-14-and-16/specs

Reply on news.ycombinator.com