Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iordash

macrumors newbie
Mar 2, 2020
8
1
Kinda depends on the person. Some folks think 4K scaled to 1440p looks better than straight up 1440p. Other folks think straight up 1440p is just fine. Do note that scaling does use more computer resources than just driving the display with no scaling. I also believe fractional scaling such as 1440p on 4K (1:1.5) uses more resources than integer scaling like 1080p on 4K (1:2).

Personally I like direct QHD (1440p) on 27" - and am considering an upgrade to UW-QHD which adds greater width while retaining the 1440p vertical resolution.



Not entirely relevant since external monitor resolution sweet spot also depends on your viewing distance from the monitor. That said, I find with a typical workdesk setup / monitor distance, QHD on 27" gives a familiar feel to 1440x900 on a 13" laptop display.
So for better performance i should by 27inch 1440p monitor ? thank
 

jyyz

macrumors regular
Oct 17, 2014
178
80
This thread came up in a search for me.

I’m trying to decide what‘s the best to get here as well...

Would a 4K scaled to say 1440p be better on a 27” or 32” in terms of crisp text, and system performance impact?

Be interested to hear what the OP went with, and how it’s been playing out.
 

Christopher Kim

macrumors 6502a
Nov 18, 2016
705
666
I’m trying to decide what‘s the best to get here as well...

Would a 4K scaled to say 1440p be better on a 27” or 32” in terms of crisp text, and system performance impact?

Be interested to hear what the OP went with, and how it’s been playing out.
I would think if both 4K monitors / same number of pixels, and both run at 1440p, system performance would be the same. So it's really about how it looks, and I personally think 1440p at 27" is the perfect size in terms of text, icons, etc. The fact that the iMac 27" (and the LG 27" 5K Ultrafine) shows an effective 1440p resolution supports that.

I would think "looking like 1440p" on a 32", text ad icons might look a touch too big.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jyyz

jyyz

macrumors regular
Oct 17, 2014
178
80
Thanks Christopher. So a 27” 4K scaled to 1440p should be better than a 27” native 1440p - correct?
 

Christopher Kim

macrumors 6502a
Nov 18, 2016
705
666
Thanks Christopher. So a 27” 4K scaled to 1440p should be better than a 27” native 1440p - correct?
What do you mean by "better"? I personally think it looks better, because macOS pixel doubles the "looks like" resolution (2560x1440 -> 5K 5120x2880), and then scales that down to fit the 4K 3840x2160 monitor screen. Which looks better than just a 1440p resolution on a native 1440p monitor.

But from a performance standpoint, it takes a hit, as the GPU has to do a bunch of non-integer scaling. So it sort of depends on what you'll use the monitor for on whether the "looks better" is worth the "performs a bit worse".

Personally I've loved using "looks like 1440p" on my 27" LG 4K monitor for almost 4 years now (and been using it a LOT more the last 12 months during work-from-home pandemic times), running off my integrated graphics on my 2016 13" MBP, and haven't experienced any noticeable performance issues for my use case.
 

jyyz

macrumors regular
Oct 17, 2014
178
80
You answered it thanks again: “looks better” is what I am after.
 

maxsquared

macrumors 6502a
Jun 27, 2009
609
432
London
I used have a LG Ultrafine 5k, now using a U2720Q, I also use a U2717D at work. All of these runs at 1440p

5K is definitely the best, and you can see the difference in terms of pixels, U2720Q come section, although it's not 4:1 pixel HiDPI scale like the 5K display, it's still HiDPI, and the quality is pretty good, U2717D, I can definitely see pixels on screen.

Update: I am not sure what you mean by Mac OS scaling doesn't work efficiently? I think MacBook Pro 15 inch default resolution hasn't been 1:2 retina since 2016, and it look pretty nice IMO
 

jyyz

macrumors regular
Oct 17, 2014
178
80
If the 5K 27 LG ultrafine is the best route I would be willing to do that. I just see so much negative feedback on that monitor. Aware there have been a few versions of it. It also just looks ugly with its 90s styling.
 

Erehy Dobon

Suspended
Feb 16, 2018
2,161
2,016
No service
Monitors perform best at their native resolutions.
Thanks Christopher. So a 27” 4K scaled to 1440p should be better than a 27” native 1440p - correct?
No. If that were the case, no manufacturer would sell 1440p monitors. They'd just make everything 4K and scale down.
 

jyyz

macrumors regular
Oct 17, 2014
178
80
I don’t know what to select, so much info, and difficult with stores being closed. ?‍♂️
 

Erehy Dobon

Suspended
Feb 16, 2018
2,161
2,016
No service
As a productivity monitor, the LG 27UL850-W (27" 4K UHD, 60 Hz) is a fine choice. For gaming, the Dell S3320DGF (32" 1440p QHD, 165 Hz) is also a fine performer.

Both monitors have been heavily reviewed by the regular PC sites.

Right now, the LG 4K monitor is being used by my Mac mini 2018 as well as my "daily driver" custom Windows PC. Both systems have the UI displayed at 1920x1080p which works fine for my tired old eyes.

The Dell QHD gaming monitor is paired with a Windows gaming PC.

If you want "looks better" I'd go with the LG 27UL850-W. They have other less expensive models at this size so you really need to decide whether or not other features like USB-C power delivery are important to you or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jyyz

theSeb

macrumors 604
Aug 10, 2010
7,466
1,893
none
Monitors perform best at their native resolutions.

No. If that were the case, no manufacturer would sell 1440p monitors. They'd just make everything 4K and scale down.
They dont in Mac OS with scaled resolutions though. A 4K monitor using scaled 1440p will look better than a native 1440p resolution monitor.
 

Christopher Kim

macrumors 6502a
Nov 18, 2016
705
666
Monitors perform best at their native resolutions.

No. If that were the case, no manufacturer would sell 1440p monitors. They'd just make everything 4K and scale down.

They dont in Mac OS with scaled resolutions though. A 4K monitor using scaled 1440p will look better than a native 1440p resolution monitor.
Yes, agree with @theSeb. Also would say to your second point, cost would be a factor too of course, to do native 1440p vs a 4k panel. There would always be a market for cheaper monitors without the extra pixels. Also, lot of ppl without macs where this doesn’t hold true - I think for PC’s, a 1440p at 1440p res looks better than a 4k monitor run at 1440p right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jyyz and theSeb

Chrispy

macrumors 68020
Dec 27, 2004
2,269
517
Indiana
As someone who was just issued a 16" MacBook Pro for work, I can tell you when I have it hooked up to my 1440p ultra-wide it looks terrible compared to my Windows 10 PC. MacOS is designed to be used with scaling just like the built-in retina displays in their laptops and iMacs. Fonts look blurry and everything just has a soft feeling. I have it hooked up via a Thunderbolt hub using DisplayPort so I know it's rendering the best it can (75Hz option is even available) but it just looks terrible compared to the built-in display of the laptop. I would strongly suggest against going with anything less than 4K if you plan to hook up a Mac to the display. For Windows, 1440p looks great.
 

deeddawg

macrumors G5
Jun 14, 2010
12,256
6,410
US
As someone who was just issued a 16" MacBook Pro for work, I can tell you when I have it hooked up to my 1440p ultra-wide it looks terrible compared to my Windows 10 PC. MacOS is designed to be used with scaling just like the built-in retina displays in their laptops and iMacs. Fonts look blurry and everything just has a soft feeling. I have it hooked up via a Thunderbolt hub using DisplayPort so I know it's rendering the best it can (75Hz option is even available) but it just looks terrible compared to the built-in display of the laptop. I would strongly suggest against going with anything less than 4K if you plan to hook up a Mac to the display. For Windows, 1440p looks great.

I'm guessing you didn't adjust/disable the font smoothing settings?

I regularly use a 1440p 27" with my Macbook Pro and it's great. I did have to tweak the font smoothing at first. Easier on pre-BigSur but still possible.

How to Adjust or Disable Font Smoothing in macOS Big Sur - MacRumors
 

Christopher Kim

macrumors 6502a
Nov 18, 2016
705
666
As someone who was just issued a 16" MacBook Pro for work, I can tell you when I have it hooked up to my 1440p ultra-wide it looks terrible compared to my Windows 10 PC. MacOS is designed to be used with scaling just like the built-in retina displays in their laptops and iMacs. Fonts look blurry and everything just has a soft feeling. I have it hooked up via a Thunderbolt hub using DisplayPort so I know it's rendering the best it can (75Hz option is even available) but it just looks terrible compared to the built-in display of the laptop. I would strongly suggest against going with anything less than 4K if you plan to hook up a Mac to the display. For Windows, 1440p looks great.
Unfortunately, this is a bit of a separate problem, re: macOS and Ultra-wide monitors / resolutions. There's a few threads here that talk about how terrible Ultra-wides look on macs, worse than they do in Windows (as you're pointing out).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bacabon the 3rd

cochinet

macrumors member
Jul 21, 2016
37
15
Hi there everyone, I just bought a 4k LG 27UL500 for a M1 Macbook Air. I love the 1440p scaling option, but my issue now is that the refresh rate is stuck at 30hz. With the help from EasyRes or SwitchResX I can get it to 1440p 60hz but it losses the crisp font looking (I think its HiDPI) so I was wondering if the guys here that have an LG monitor with the sacaled resolution are at 30hz or 60hz?

Don't know how to look or where to or how to figure out if it is a cable (using the HDMI cable that came with the monitor) problem, adapter problem ? ...

Also using testufo for refresh rate reference.

Thanks :)
 

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,380
11,529
Damn, that was fast, thank you very much. Ok, so I'll look for another one that supports 4k@60hz. Thanks again :)

Your monitor also has DisplayPort, so I'd look for a USB-C to DisplayPort adapter or dock that is wired to do 4K at 60 Hz (not all of them are). I use this one and it works great:

 
  • Like
Reactions: cochinet

cochinet

macrumors member
Jul 21, 2016
37
15
Your monitor also has DisplayPort, so I'd look for a USB-C to DisplayPort adapter or dock that is wired to do 4K at 60 Hz (not all of them are). I use this one and it works great:


Awesome, thanks, I'll see If I can get my hands on one of those.
 

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,380
11,529
Awesome, thanks, I'll see If I can get my hands on one of those.
The thing you need to look out for is USB 2.0 ports. USB-C docks that have these can do 4K at 60 Hz. Docks that have USB 3.0 ports (like the Satechi) can only do 4K at 30 Hz because USB-C doesn't have enough bandwidth for 4K at 60 Hz and USB 3.0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cochinet

cochinet

macrumors member
Jul 21, 2016
37
15
The thing you need to look out for is USB 2.0 ports. USB-C docks that have these can do 4K at 60 Hz. Docks that have USB 3.0 ports (like the Satechi) can only do 4K at 30 Hz because USB-C doesn't have enough bandwidth for 4K at 60 Hz and USB 3.0.

Wow, very interesting. Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1

cochinet

macrumors member
Jul 21, 2016
37
15
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.