The best 4K USB-C monitors for MacBook Air and MacBook Pro

9 thoughts on “The Best 4K USB-C Monitors for MacBook Air and MacBook Pro”

1. 

   Dancing Ballmer

   August 1, 2023 at 16:01 pm

   USB hubs and monitors, more precisely their scaling - two tiresome topics with Macs that have kept me busy lately and which is why I'm now "briefly" letting go of a wall of text to overcome frustration.

   Background: I am currently struggling with my i-Tec USB HUB on my MacBook Air M1. The hub often gets hot and causes problems (USB devices are no longer recognized or ejected, the monitor does not wake up or the display flickers, etc.). A larger display would also be nice, which is why I've been more or less dealing with the topic of displays with hubs and power delivery for some time now, and this has led me to the next minefield, namely Apple and its ideal display resolutions.

   Technical background: The PPI value (pixels per inch, pixel density) is relevant for the exact, uniformly sized display of the image, simplifies how many pixels are used on a surface for display. To put it simply, different values ​​lead to different sizes and thus sharpness of the image. A 32″ 4k display, for example, has a pixel density of 140, 27″ 4k of 163. If you want to calculate the pixel density of your current monitor, I wish you a lot of fun and I welcome you down the rabbit hole, there are some calculators online for this, e.g http://www.retracked.net/pixeldichte/

   Old Apple displays had a PPI of 110 and retina displays twice that, i.e. 220. With retina displays, half the resolution is set, the display remains the same size, twice the number of pixels is used, which makes the image appear sharper. So 110 and 220 PPI are Apple's ideal values ​​- the old 27″ iMacs had a PPI of 110, for example, the 5k iMacs 27″ or the 27″ 5k Apple Studio had a PPI of 220.

   If you look at the list now, you will only see a few displays that achieve these PPI values, namely the 27k displays for 5″ and the 32k displays for 6″. However, most monitors only have 4k, which means that with the native 4k resolution (3840×2160) the image looks damn small even at 32″ and with the retina setting (half, i.e. 1920×1080) the image looks huge. It must therefore be scaled differently, ie an intermediate resolution must be set and calculated. Since MacOS renders the whole screen when scaling, which is easy to calculate at native and half resolution and is not a problem, the intermediate resolutions on 4k displays have a heavy impact on the GPU. MacOS also warns about this in the display settings. Anyone who only rarely performs intensive graphic processing such as image processing with filters, animation or video editing will hardly notice this, but this is clearly noticeable in computationally intensive stories such as Blender - 27″ 4k display with intermediate resolution should lead to noticeable jerking when rotating objects, standard resolution should don't make a problem about it.

   Don't get me wrong, 4k works well for standard image processing and simple video editing, I know that from my circle of acquaintances with an M1 Pro and an MSI 32″ 4k display. For most users, that's completely sufficient and a good one. But my fanless MacBook Air M1 (in itself a great device) worries me, where I notice the lack of ventilation in more computationally intensive stories (e.g. Handbrake always corrects the required time significantly backwards after a few minutes). I would like to avoid additional losses in performance due to scaling. I myself had zeroed in on the Dell UltraSharp 32″ 4k display, but the whole story made me think whether I should wait for cheaper 5k or 6k displays. However, the latter should not be realistic, since the few displays so far are mainly aimed at Apple Pro users because of the above story and the prices are therefore too.

   In short, the ideal displays (5k and 6k) for Macs are unfortunately ridiculously expensive. However, most users should be fine with 4k. But it's not ideal. If you need the full computing power, you should definitely deal with the topic of MacOS and scaling and maybe, if your wallet allows it, bite the bullet and grab the expensive 5k/6k displays.

   Reply
   1. 

      Jen Kleinholz

      August 1, 2023 at 17:53 pm

      Hello! Thank you for your long comment. Which 6K monitor would you recommend for the Mac? I've had trouble finding 5K monitors...

      Reply
      1. 

         Dancing Ballmer

         August 1, 2023 at 23:53 pm

         Unfortunately, I can't recommend any, because 5k 27″ is already out of my wallet and I would actually like to have 32″. If I filter by PPI at Geizhals (min 200, max 225), I get 12 hits for actually 5 displays, three times 27″ 5k (from €1000) and two times 32″6k (from €2600):
         – Apple Studio Display 5k 27″
         – LG Ultrafine 5k 27″
         – Samsung Viewfinity S9 5k 27″
         – Apple Pro Display XDR 6k 32″
         – Dell UltraSharp 6k 31.5″

         https://geizhals.de/?cat=monlcd19wide&xf=12018_200%7E12019_225

         I don't think much will happen in the near future as long as there is no need for higher resolutions for Windows users, including in terms of prices. It's really just a problem for the Apple Pro clientele or people who really want the ideal.

         Given the price difference between 4k (a good MSI 31,5″ display was on sale at Saturn last week for €400, currently around €500) and 6k (from €2600) for 32″ displays, it would be more worthwhile for me to buy my Macbook Selling the Air M1, switching to a Macbook Pro 14″ M2 (from €2400) and forgetting about the scaling losses.

         Reply
         1. 

            Jen Kleinholz

            August 4, 2023 at 18:31 pm

            I'm also hoping for a larger display from Apple, which might not be as crazy expensive as the XDR. But chances are I'll buy another 5K display first. 😂 But hey, the Dell 6k is also quite expensive. I mean, of course, he currently has a niche that not many fill, but 2600 EUR. phew

            Reply
         2. 

            g0d0t

            January 1, 2024 at 23:44 am

            I bought a MacBook Pro M2 16″ and am now deciding on a monitor. Apple Studio Display is actually too expensive for me and I have my eye on a 32″ 4k monitor. The performance losses when “cutting a little video” are pretty negligible with the machine mentioned above, right? Thank you and best regards

            Reply
            1. 

               Jen Kleinholz

               January 2, 2024 at 12:05 am

               Hello g0d0t! Yes, the Studio Display is expensive, but it also has 5K and not just 4K. I've had it for a few months now, replacing my LG 34 inch ultrawide. The image quality is great and after some getting used to it, I'm now very happy with it. The Apple display is way ahead, especially when it comes to video editing, because it is ultra-sharp and has a much higher pixel density.
               But what do you mean by “performance loss”? You mean because you “only” have an M2 and not an M3? Or what exactly was the question? LG, Jens
            2. 

               g0d0t

               January 7, 2024 at 09:26 am

               No, I'm talking about the oft-cited performance hit when scaling with the MacBook at 4k. With such a powerful machine, the mmn should be more neglected
            3. 

               Jen Kleinholz

               January 7, 2024 at 11:24 am

               Hello! I've never heard of it... but I've probably always missed it because it's often quoted. From the feel of it, you shouldn't notice this on the newer Macs. VG, Jens
2. 

   bhal

   August 1, 2023 at 18:10 pm

   Thanks for the overview. After a few mistakes in the last 10 years, I have only bought DELL or Apple monitors for the Macs.
   Last 2 pieces of this:
   DELL P2723QE 68,6cm (27″) 4K UHD IPS Office Monitor DP/HDMI/USB-C 5ms Pivot HV; approx. € 450 gross
   Make a very good impression and work without any problems on MacBooks, including the power supply and integrated Ethernet (without extra drivers).

   Reply