4 ms·
Frankly, a 4K 32" monitor is quite crappy.. The Apple Cinema display is 2560×1440 (1440p) at 27" and plenty of people use that. That was a pretty standard reso
by acchow 10y ago
Frankly, a 4K 32" monitor is quite crappy..
The Apple Cinema display is 2560×1440 (1440p) at 27" and plenty of people use that. That was a pretty standard resolution for 27-30" screens before 4K became popular. Most people would find 2160p (i.e. 4k) at this screen size to be really nice.
- JimDabell 10y agoYou mean the Thunderbolt monitor, right? Apple didn't make a 27" Cinema.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoApple no longer makes or sales that, it is outdated tech. I'm so used to 200+ PPI now that when I had a 4K 28" monitor at work, I thought it was just not that good.
- skwirl 10y agoI just bought a P2715Q (27", 163ppi) and I really haven't noticed the difference from my 220ppi 15" MacBook Pro. I'm sure if I put them side by side and shoved my face into them I would notice, but practically speaking, 163ppi is pretty great.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoIf you are using Mac OS, font smoothing makes it really hard to tell. If you are using Windows, the difference is more apparent given a more sharp font rendering.
- atonse 10y agoThis makes sense. I've also had a P2715Q for more than a year and it looks retina to me, but I'm mostly looking at the (anti-aliased) text when determining that.
- UpDownLeftRight 10y agoMost Mac people might, but professionals doing real work want at least UHD 4K
- astrodust 10y agoI use one and while the text is pretty clear, it's not as good as a Retina-type display. The pixels are visible. This matters mostly with tiny type. The difference there is astounding.