Looking for PC Recommendations

Hmm… Not sure. I’ll let you know what I find out.

But if 4K resolution is useless on a 27” monitor, then why are 27” monitors offered in 4K?

4k on a 27" will give you way sharper images than 1080p or even 1440p on 27".

You can scale the UI 150% to make things less small. 200% scaling is ideal, but 150% scaling looks better than 125%.

If you don't want to scale, 1440p is optimal UI size on 27".
 
4k on a 27" will give you way sharper images than 1080p or even 1440p on 27".

You can scale the UI 150% to make things less small. 200% scaling is ideal, but 150% scaling looks better than 125%.

If you don't want to scale, 1440p is optimal UI size on 27".
Why would the op even need a monitor?

Even my 22 year old 19” CRT that tops at 2048x1536 and 240hz is adequate.

Besides getting bigger I have seen very little progress on screens, especially for web surfing and basics.

Sure there is 4K but most websites even at 1080 just spread out UI elements.

Also worth noting it’s not 2004 anymore
if the op does buy “unnecessary resolution “ modern displays will scale lower resolutions using sub pixels making it look fine without block and jank.

Even my very strange resolution/aspect 2006 era widescreen 19” LCD handles an excessive horizontal resolution (not native) perfectly with everything readable. It’s such an oddity my Pc didn’t support its native resolution giving me a choice of jail or pillar bars so I just manually set the resolution higher than native which fills the screen.
This one handles interpolation perfectly and it’s an antique, newer screens do even better.

Also TVs work as monitors if video is the focus, new monitors usually are a good place to save cash if you want trade it for better “computer “ specs
 
Last edited:
Even though the spec doesn’t spell it out at lower resolutions it syncs up to 240hz
And it definitely syncs up to 2048x1536
IMG_4073.jpeg

I even have an antique 17” Compaq that syncs up manually to 1600x1280 and 144hz. I get a nag screen that my screen was not designed but it still works.

My experience is that almost all CRTs after 2000 would sync up to very high resolutions, usually exceeding what was available in lcds made before 2008
 
Last edited:
UHD 4k monitors should be 50+ inches minimum minimorum. At 27" they sell well, that's for sure. Wasted money.
Typing this on a 2007 T60 running Solaris x86.
 
UHD 4k monitors should be 50+ inches minimum minimorum. At 27" they sell well, that's for sure. Wasted money.
Typing this on a 2007 T60 running Solaris x86.

On my desk, there's a 27" 5K iMac next to an older 2K Apple Thunderbolt display.

Apple started using these super high res displays over a decade ago, but in OS X/macOS it's impossible to run them at native resolution without using a 3rd party tool. I'm typing this post on a laptop with a a native resolution is 2560x1600, and out of the box it was set to scale to exactly half this in each dimension, or 1280x800. That's not enough space for my liking, but I run it at 1680x1050. Sometimes that borders on too small for my taste, but I came from a 15" 1680x1050 laptop and didn't want to give up the working space.

Going back to my 27" iMac, though, default scaling on the 5K(5120x288) is 2560x1400. That of course is native on the 2K display, so I leave the iMac scaled there. The scaling makes the 5K display look "smoother" which is why Apple does it, although at viewing distances on desktops it doesn't really make a difference. Once nice thing is that at least Adobe software(Lightroom, Photoshop) do render images at native resolution and everything else on the screen scaled. You can lean in closer and see more detail in an image, although practically speaking most of the time I just end up zooming to 200% or so.

It's unfortunate that 4K doesn't scale as nicely to resolutions like this as 5K, and there are so few 5K displays on the market. 4K scaled 2x is 1920x1080, and I'd find 27" of 1920x1080 to just be a waste of screen. macOS will scale 4K to 2560x1440(which to me is the sweet spot of resolution on a 27") but it's computationally much heavier than just going straight to half the resolution in each dimension.

I've looked a few times at buying higher end(as in more color accurate, not response time or the like) displays and have pretty well decided that if I do get one, it will be 27" 2K
 
UHD 4k monitors should be 50+ inches minimum minimorum. At 27" they sell well, that's for sure. Wasted money.
Typing this on a 2007 T60 running Solaris x86.
Nah, but you will waste much of the extra resolution scaling up text in certain applications.

4K on a screen you sit right up against can work on 32” but only if you have good vision.

Smaller size 4K screens can be hard to read if you have meh vision and the wrong set of applications running
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y_K
Hmm… Not sure. I’ll let you know what I find out.

But if 4K resolution is useless on a 27” monitor, then why are 27” monitors offered in 4K?
I like 4k on my 28" it is borderline. most prefer it on 32" but 32" doesnt work for my setup.
QHD (1440p) is also good on the 27"/28" monitors
1080p should be 24" and smaller.

If you are doing 2 monitors I'd suggest 1440p monitors just from a workload perspective it takes abit to drive 2 4k monitors for some tasks.

or 1 4k 28" or 32" monitor.
Intel Nuc type devices are fine if you arent gaming and relatively cheap.

16GB is the true min. amount of memory for 2023.
Although 8GB is ok for basic tasks if you have a fast nvme SSD.
 
UHD 4k monitors should be 50+ inches minimum minimorum. At 27" they sell well, that's for sure. Wasted money.
Typing this on a 2007 T60 running Solaris x86.
Im running my 27 at 1080 on our 2 Mac mini's
*LOL* we may be getting older by not blind and we just dont see the reason for smaller images and type. I can see specialized applications and use I guess. Of course all a personal preference.
 
People still buy desktops??? Serious question. I still use one, but I'm old, and using one I built more then 10 years ago and it's still works great. Only thinking about getting a dual monitor card because I have too many monitors around that I'm not using.
 
People still buy desktops??? Serious question. I still use one, but I'm old, and using one I built more then 10 years ago and it's still works great. Only thinking about getting a dual monitor card because I have too many monitors around that I'm not using.
People still buy IBM 5150 PCs so sure.
.Gov/Companies buy most
Hobbiests and folks who just like a more upgradable box buy a few.

The quantities are just much smaller every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y_K
People still buy desktops??? Serious question. I still use one, but I'm old, and using one I built more then 10 years ago and it's still works great. Only thinking about getting a dual monitor card because I have too many monitors around that I'm not using.
I bought a new-to-me(second hand, but not old) desktop last year and I still use it regularly. Mine was a 2019 iMac 5K.

If you mean desktops as opposed to laptops-yes I use a laptop regularly(that's what I'm typing this from) but there are advantages to desktop format computers:

1. Ability to use the input devices of your choice. I have a mechanical keyboard, the much-maligned(but I like it) Apple mouse, and a graphics tablet(used for zoom meetings/video lectures).

2. Larger/higher resolution displays, and usually the ability to use more than one

3. Able to semi-permanently connected stationary peripherals like large external hard drives, etc

All of the above can be done with a laptop and a docking station, and I've gone that route in the past but desktops still have their advantages:

1. Desktops generally are physically larger, which actually has real world advantages for performance. For many applications, there are "laptop grade" and "desktop grade" components. Laptop components often are designed with an eye toward size and efficiency, while desktop components tend to have fewer constraints on power in particular. Even where desktops use laptop components(and Apple has really blurred the line on those with the ARM based Macs) the larger desktop cases allow bigger heatsinks and generally better airflow. That allows better sustained performance as the computer can move heat out a lot more efficiently and doesn't have to throttle(reduce performance) to manage it. Even at roughly the same level of performance, a desktop will generally do it much quieter and feel much less "strained."

2. Again, this is a moot point with ARM Macs since memory isn't expandable, but most desktops allow for more memory expansion than their laptop equivalents. It's pretty unusual to find a laptop with more than two memory slots, where many desktops will either use full size RAM DIMMs(which generally are available in larger capacities than the equivalent laptop sized ones), or if a desktop does use laptop-sized SO-DIMMs, like my iMac, it will often accept 4 of them.

3. I only barely use my Mac Pro tower anymore, but PCIe expansion slots can be a big deal to some people. The current model Mac Pro is actually kind of a joke to me as it's basically a Mac Studio with a PCIe bridge, but still the slots are there for people who need them(just as long as one of those things isn't a graphics card...). Thanks to ports like Thunderbolt, you can now attach PCIe cards to your laptop, but that's an expensive and less than perfect solution depending on exactly what you need to do.

4. In general, desktops have more ports. This is less important now with things like fast USB with lots of bandwidth for hubs as well as more general purpose ports like USB-C and Thunderbolt, but still it's nice to just have the ports there.

5. I'm not a gamer, but many people who do game want to be able to stuff the biggest, baddest, hottest graphics card they can into their computer. You can use things like eGPU boxes(external GPU) to get this with laptops, and in fact I use an eGPU with my iMac, but there are some limits to just how much performance this can offer. There are plenty of other applications that like a good GPU. I do a lot of photo work, and Adobe has gotten better about leveraging the GPU where appropriate in Photoshop and Lightroom. As an example, in the last couple of months Lightroom has added a superb "denoise" function that benefits from GPU power. This is an extreme example, but I timed it on a 40mp RAW file on my 2015 MacBook Pro and it took about 12 minutes to run. I connected a Radeon RX580 in an eGPU box(not officially supported on this computer, but can be made to work) and the same operation took a little under a minute. My iMac is even faster with the same GPU connected, but a better card installed in a 16x PCIe slot in the computer would make an even bigger difference

To revisit my laptop+docking station comment above, too, if you're buying a laptop to primarily use at a desk and will use a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, why waste the money buying them both separately and integrated into the computer?
 
If you are okay with Windows, the quality of the Dell XPS laptops are as good as Apple in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y_K
I only purchase 4K monitors now. I have multiple HD and 4K side by side in my office, and to say there is no difference is incorrect. Text is sharp and well defined on 4K.

One need only search for examples to see what I mean. Look at the 192.168...

VP2776-Text-scaled.jpg
 
Last edited:
I only purchase 4K monitors now. I have multiple HD and 4K side by side in my office, and to say there is no difference is incorrect. Text is sharp and well defined on 4K.

I would never say otherwise, although in my particular instance with 27" 2K and 27" 5K scaled to 2K side by side on my desk, the difference is subtle from my typical viewing distance. I'd gladly show photos were we not, at the moment, going on 24 hours without power.

Here's where I have an issue with 27" 4K monitors specifically:

To my eye, on a desktop, somewhere in the ~100-120pp pixel range(whether you get there with native resolution or by scaling a higher resolution display) is an optimum compromise between working space and still being big enough to see easily.

2K(2560x1440) gets you right at 100ppi in a 30" display at native resolution. On a 27" screen, you're at around 110ppi I think(don't quote me on the exact number) which is still very useable and will look a bit more crisp than a 30". I retired all my 30" Apple Cinema Displays for a few reasons, partially because the newest are ~15 years old and the fluorescent backlights are often dim, uneven and offcolor but also partially because I prefer the crispness than the 27" displays with that same resolution offer(along the more even, less power hungry, more color accurate, and less prone to drift LED backlighting I was able to get with them).

5K in a 27" monitor scales perfectly(2x) to 2560x1440, so you're getting the same working space and text size as a 2K native monitor but with the HiDPI/Retina advantages of smoother rendering as you so nicely show. Unfortunately 27" 5K(or I'm not sure any 5K resolution) is never really a resolution that seems to have caught on. Apple's made heavy use of it in the iMac in the past, and now sell the stand-alone Studio Display which I think has the same panel as the old 5K iMac and is great but expensive and you need a relatively recent Mac to make full use of the fancy webcam/sound features in it(they work in Windows and older versions of MacOS, but just as a simple webcam and speakers). I THINK there was an LG 5K monitor, but I'm not sure if it's still even being made.

Here's my specific issue with 4K 27"-

Native resolution is something like 200ppi, which to me is WAY too small to be comfortably usable on that size screen.

2x scaling of a typical 5K display lands you at 1920x1080, or good old fashioned HD. There's nothing WRONG with that, and I'm sure it's super crisp and smooth on a screen that size. For me, though, if I'm giving up desk space for a 27" display, I want a lot more working space on the screen than that. 1920x1080 is HUGE on a display that size. If your eyesight isn't the greatest or you're just more comfortable with everything bigger, it may be fine for you. If you're gaming it may be fine depending on what you're playing(and whether or not it can draw at higher resolution than that). There's even a decent market for sort of high end 27" gaming monitors that are 1920x1080 native with crazy fast refresh rates. I'd never say it's the wrong choice for everyone, I'm just saying that for me I've staked my claim on 100-120ppi desktop displays and that's where I want to be. 1080p on a 27" is about 75ppi. 1080P, for my preference, is great on 21-24" displays. BTW, maybe this is conditioning on my part and sticking to Apple products, but since the early 2000s when Apple started offering a full line of wide aspect ratio LCDs, 100ppi has been their target. The now ancient acrylic 21(1680x1050) and 23"(1920x1200) hit this mark, and the aluminum displays that came after them kept essentially the same panels and same resolutions while adding the 30" 2560x1440. The 27" 2560x1440 display, both as a stand-alone and on the iMac bucked this trend a bit, but it's sort of become their new default. The 27" iMac is 5K with a default 2560x1440 scaling, and the 24" 4K defaults to 1920x1200.

4K CAN be scaled to 2560x1440, which would put a 27" 4K right in the target ballpark. It's not a "perfect" 2x scaling though like with 5K. 2x scaling is computationally easy. Basically one actual pixel is made into 4 pixels on the screen. Going outside these ratios takes more CPU/GPU power. If your system can handle it(and an M2 Mini certainly can) it's not a huge deal but it's still not as neat and tidy as going perfectly. It can also introduce some weird artifacts. When you're working with native Apple displays their out of the box scaling(not using a 3rd party program like SwitchResX) tends to only offer resolutions that miss that, but all bets are off when you throw in 3rd party displays unless they exactly match a native Apple resolution. I run my 13" MacBook Pro at 1680x1050, and my 15" at 1920x1200, which do use more GPU power and RAM than doing the full 2x, but they avoid weird artifacts.

Once our power comes back on(hopefully soon!) I'll play a bit and try to show what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure my 5K iMac can scale to 1920x1200, so I can hopefully show the relative size of scaling a 27" display to full HD vs. 2K.
 
Back
Top