Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Are there any monitors for Windows that has about 218 ppi like the 5k iMac?
- Thread starter levmc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How much was the Thunderbolt Dock?
I guess if you can get a Windows laptop to work, you could also get a Windows PC to work with the 5k display?
I have a small stack of HP Z27q's, I guess they discontinued it since it needs two DP connections (I have zero issues with it tho). I've been surprised there hasn't been a successor though - I guess the idea is that packing in 5K into one monitor isn't actually all that productive when you look at it against multiple 4K, and that Apple's choice was for marketing reasons more than anything else. But again, I'm surprised there isn't more parties playing the numbers game.
I use dual 4K monitors along with all of my iMac / Pros and I can't say there's a particular issue with scaling or 'lack of retina'. MacOS's idiotic multimonitor window handling is a far bigger issue in everyday use - but that's not the monitor's fault.
I use dual 4K monitors along with all of my iMac / Pros and I can't say there's a particular issue with scaling or 'lack of retina'. MacOS's idiotic multimonitor window handling is a far bigger issue in everyday use - but that's not the monitor's fault.
It's not just numbers game. For instance, LG 5K is 27". But I get 2560x1440 'looks like' resolution. But text is ultra sharp, and as someone who stares at text all day long, that makes a huge difference to me. In order to get that sort of sharp text on 4K monitors, I would need to use 1920x1080 'looks like' resolution. Way less space to work with.
I'm rather surprised that 5K isn't more popular. LG is making them for quite some time. Dell made one back in the day. And since then almost nothing has changed.
Try To look at one. I can’t really tell the difference to the dpi of a 5k screen at normal viewing distance.
27” are a different story, it’s easier to see the 20ppi less
my biggest problem isn’t the ppi though, it’s the fact that you can’t use integer based scaling, which would be the best option. I had to give up Linux because of that and I’m using Windows now on my new ThinkPad ? It’s such a tragedy that we can’t buy 5k screens for PCs
I just wrote a review of a 24 inch 4K affordable monitor which may be of interest now that the P2415Q is no longer available:
forums.macrumors.com
A 4K 24 inch matte "Retina" Display does exist, and I just bought one! [Review]
I have been on the hunt for a 4K 24 inch monitor, and finally I found one! The Electriq Eiq-244kMHDR. It has a light matte AG coating, 10 bit IPS panel, 300 nits, and costs £140 ($190). Text looks ultra-smooth like a printed page on this screen! It works perfectly with my Mac and is detected...
forums.macrumors.com
Last edited:
This is another spec racer. No one will ever notice 20 ppi difference, as no one will ever notice 20 "nits" brighter or darker. It's all numbers just to sell products. Companies know that most people will just things by fancy tag words like "retina" or numbers like this monitor has 20ppi more than x brand.
Actually to cover the vision limit of most people you need 80 pixels per degree.
At a viewing distance of 20": a 24 inch 4K has 70 ppd, a 21.5 inch 4K+ has 82 ppd, a 27 inch 4K has 63 ppd, and a 27 inch 5K has 84 ppd.
So Apple actually has it right here!
I can absolutely see the difference between my 24" 4k and the 34" 5k2k Ultrawide, which is a wider 27" 4k screen.
Best is the 27" 5K, of course.
Does it matter? Not really imo. Everything is better than low dpi screens. What's really worse compared to Apple's screens is the need of non integer based scaling.
Best is the 27" 5K, of course.
Does it matter? Not really imo. Everything is better than low dpi screens. What's really worse compared to Apple's screens is the need of non integer based scaling.
The difference between a 24 inch 4K (185 dpi) and 27 inch 5K (218 dpi) is not that great in my eyes. 185 dpi is enough to get that feel that text looks like a printed page!
However 27 inch 4K (163 dpi) is too low, and you see many people remarking on this. Sadly this means I am stuck on 4K because I do not want a glossy ultrafine.
However 27 inch 4K (163 dpi) is too low, and you see many people remarking on this. Sadly this means I am stuck on 4K because I do not want a glossy ultrafine.
But people definitely do notice a different in real life, which ties in with human vision.
I've read many reviews of users with various 4K+ monitors side by side, and for the most commonly sold version, 27 inch 4K, people are saying that they wish it was a bit sharper compared to an iMac, or just a bit sharper in general.
You will not notice a 20 ppi difference...a 100 yes, a 20 no. There are many other variables than the ppi if you notice a 20ppi difference. Until I put my NOSE on my iphone 11 i cannot see individual pixels.
PPI hasn't been an issue relative to other things like blooming, black level, uniformity, etc.
But none of those issues matter to me, except perhaps black level to some extent. I am not a photographer, designer, or gamer.
I'm in that rare niche of being somebody who codes, writes, reads all day, and wants high dpi just for the "printed paper" like text quality.
Also, I feel like Apple has made a limiting move in terms of font rendering. Because the entire desktop is upscaled, and then downscaled, fonts only truly look sharp at 200% scaling. So, not only do I need to hunt out a Retina display, but then I can only use it in one mode.
Whereas Linux and Windows render fonts completely separately to the rest of the desktop. So you could have 169.56% scaling, and your fonts would look equally sharp to 200%. In fact, because of cleartype even my QHD 120 dpi display at work is decent.
Apple's displays for their high end devices have always been high quality regardless of what stupid marketing name they use. I just look at 3 things to judge a display the resolution and brightness and PPI.
I really don't care what names Apple comes with regarding their displays, in the end I want it to look good.
Retina is useful though, as you know that the display will be sharp without any noticeable pixels at normal viewing distance. Something no other label for display managed to achieve yet. 4K means nothing without the size, and DPI are almost always hidden in some spec details
Exactly my point. people calling a display "retina" is silly. It's a nothing term that apple uses to push their displays. It's not a measure of anything. just a term. So when people say, I am looking for another display that's not an apple display but that is "retina" is down right laughable.
But with 4K / 2 at 27" everything is way too big, so they use the correct resolution of 5k, which is double of the non retina 27" iMacs. I hope the new MacBooks get a resolution bump, too, so you don't have to scale them anymore for move space.
Everyone I know and who normally doesn't give a damn about tech knows that Retina means high resolution screen. Now that everything Apple produces is Retina they could maybe start dropping it from the product names. The names become a little long these days lol
But this is uniquely a problem of OS X. With Linux and Windows I can set the scaling to 169.345% to suit my exact preferences of menus/window control sizes, and the fonts remain sharp as they are rendered separately and can be set to a suitable size.
On OS-X the entire desktop is upscaled and then downscaled. so if you're not on 200% you get a sub-par experience. I don't have a 4K 27" but for non-Mac users I'm sure it works great and still gives that "text looks like it's been printed on paper" experience.
Scaling in Linux is a complete disaster. It's already buggy with integer based scaling and totally broken with fractional scaling.
I also like the scaling in Windows best, in theory. It's buggy and support by many apps is still not there. Beside that I would always take the 27" 5K screen over a 4K one, just because it's visibly sharper