I use two LG 5K Ultrafine models. The quality is fantastic.
Only two things to watch out for.
The first is burn-in. I now move windows about when I can, and also tend to use Dark mode for everything. I also set up BetterTouchTool to give me 10%, 20%, 30% etc brightness mapped to Cmd plus the numeric keypad. I use a comfortable level of brightness, and only bump it up for a short while when I need to examine something. I also have some anti burn-in videos downloaded with yt-dlp to clear burn-in when I find a ghost of it on the screen.
The other problem is screen activation. There is no power button on the LG displays. I like to keep the Macbook Pro in sleep mode when not in use, so I can resume with my app windows in the same state from the previous session. My whole desk setup is behind a smart switch. Often, when resuming from sleep, one of the displays would not wake and the only workaround was to unplug and replug the thunderbolt cable at the Macbook side. I work around this by having the Macbook continuously powered by my Orico dock when in use or sleeping, and this seems to address the problem. There is also an occasional issue of a single display switching off when I am using it, and this just means a thunderbolt unplug and replug at the Macbook side. But fortunately this has been fairly rare.
So, visually great hardware that I’m thankful for, but Apple’s “it just works” doesn’t really apply here. Just mentioning these in case someone is experiencing similar issues.
> 120Hz refresh rate would be nice to have, but there is no display I’m aware of that meets the macOS pixel density requirement while also providing faster refresh rates.
Is this still true, meaning, is the new Studio Display XDR the only option that is also Retina/HiDPI and also 120Hz? I've seen a lot of commentary dumping on the price, but if they're really the only option then they can charge whatever Apple Tax they want.
Several 5K 27" 120hz+ monitors were announced at CES earlier this year, likely all using the same panel as the new Studio Display. Apparently MSI is shooting for about $900.
It doesn't help the way that Apple is using "internal" resolution and scaling versus how Windows does it. If you aren't within the density of "retina" display [1.] then there's solid chance the image you're looking at will be blurry. Even though you might have high quality display (whatever the size and resolution are) if you don't play by the rules Apple had imagined you're in tough spot.
I normally use 1440p Retina mode on a 2160p display (internally rendered at 5120x2880, scaled to 3840x2160) on my 2013 Mac Pro running Sequoia, and almost everything looks great.
Caveats:
1. Non-Retina aware VM hosts, remote control clients, and emulators that try to render anywhere near the native resolution look bad, as there's no way to render individual pixels. Retina-aware remote control clients like Microsoft Remote Desktop look great, as do emulators running low resolutions like VGA.
2. Images can't be displayed pixel-perfectly, which is rarely a problem when viewing or editing photos, and obviously not a problem when viewing or editing vector artwork, but can be an issue when viewing or editing native resolution screenshots and other non-photographic images, as shown in the article (but see the first "nice benefit" below).
3. X11 applications displayed in Xquartz don't look great.
4. Video decoding and processing is considerably more resource intensive, as video, like everything else, is rendered at the full internal resolution. On my system (12-core 2013 Mac Pro with D300 GPUs), the only practical problem I've had, aside from relatively high CPU/GPU utilization, is frame drops when playing back 60 FPS video in MPV with some of the higher-quality GPU scaling and postprocessing algorithms enabled.
Nice benefits of the implementation:
1. Screenshots are saved at the full internal resolution, so they look accurate when opened in an image viewer, and even better when viewed on a display that supports the full internal resolution.
2. You can zoom in to see the full internal resolution in real time using the OS's Accessibility Zoom feature.
Final note: I've rarely had problems more serious than window rearrangement when switching between 2160p60 native, 1440p60 Retina, 1080p60 Retina, and 1080p120 native, so switching resolutions in the rare cases where I need a native or integer scaled resolution is only a minor inconvenience (e.g., I occasionally run Mac OS 9 under QEMU for fun or to copy data from an older Mac filesystem that current OS versions don't support; incidentally, I seem to recall QEMU is one of the few examples I've found of Mac software that has trouble with resolution changing at runtime).
My screen is 4k and it looks as sharp as it gets with the 1080p scaling. As far as I understand it only gets blurry when using the 1440p setting as that changes the render resolution to 5k which doesn't scale cleanly to a 4k screen.
Which means the UI & text is a bit larger than usual but it's the right size for me.
You're correct but also Apple had to choose some sort of sweet spot. They chose one that's high ppi (~240) which means that regular monitors will not do but Apple wanted to make sure they were satisfying pro users who in fact do need that high of a ppi.
>macOS has been designed to be legible and usable with a pixel density of about 218PPI (pixels per inch) for “Retina” class desktop displays. If a display’s PPI is higher, text and the macOS user interface will be smaller. If a display’s PPI is lower, text and the macOS user interface will be larger. Stray too far from 218PPI and macOS becomes unusable.
I some ways I wish I'd never seen a Retina display. I'm cursed to buy expensive monitors for the rest of my life.
It would be nice if these comments were used to discuss this specific article rather than becoming a general dumping ground for unannotated brief announcements about what monitor somebody uses. What’s particularly frustrating is when a commenter posts their setup, it goes against the advice given in the article, but then there is no acknowledgement that the poster has even read the article or wants to justify their choice!
Actual display recommendations aside I would have loved this article years ago when trying to explain to designers why a font on one device may not look the same on another device, even if it's the same font-family and pixel height, especially when they're all using Macs.
It’s clear that even in 2026 most people still don’t get the pixel density (PPI) argument. Or perhaps they get it but they don’t appreciate it. For me, any monitor that is not HIDPI (218 ppi) is a non starter. Maybe my eyesight is better than the average but looking at a non-retina display seems atrocious after having spent time working on a retina display.
Ironically I find this even more true for text. It's not just photographers that need the HiDPI - it's people reading and writing text who benefit as well.
Yeah I've always ascribed to the idea that the monitor is the most important part of the computer. Everything else is secondary because you can workaround a lot of other problems with a computer but there's no overcoming a low quality display.
My work monitor is a 4K 27" from LG in 2015. I run it at 2x density, so everything's a bit larger than it would be on an Apple, but it's not as bad as this article's graphs would lead to to believe. I'd certainly rather have it than a less dense display.
I too have this one. It is a great monitor, but mine has some coil whine unfortunately. And the coil whine is more noticeable when running the monitor at 120Hz. Before getting the U40 I tried 2x U2725QE but both had coil whine that was absolutely unbearable. Either I’ve been very unlucky or the 25 series monitors just all suffer from the same issue.
I have this, extremely satisfied with the picture, size, look and connectivity. Only thing that really lets it down are the speakers are weirdly quiet in a lot of frequencies, wont matter for a lot of people but it's more annoying because everything else about it is great.
Just make sure to test it out before the return window expires because the macOS is infamous, as you are probably aware, for struggling with monitor resolutions.
I personally use a 32:9 ultrawide scaled to 2560x720 to get it to look crisp. Don't forget to look into BetterDisplay as well, neat application
no worries. also i double checked and I actually run it at 3840x1080 through BetterDisplay. Good balance of large text and screen real estate on my macs
Oh man I hated that monitor. It's the only one I've ever bothered to go through the return process for. I was excited about the aspect ratio but the pixel density was just terrible for me.
I love my LG UltraFines though. I'm tempted by the upgrade though because my displays are dual 24" and I wouldn't mind just going to a single 27" display so I can focus better.
The first sentence doesn’t: “ Since writing about Mac external displays in 2016, not much has changed.”
Quite a few Mac-oriented 5K and 6K displays have been released in the last few years. LG, Asus, Dell, Samsung, Benq, Viewsonic. Maybe some others as well.
I use two LG 5K Ultrafine models. The quality is fantastic. Only two things to watch out for.
The first is burn-in. I now move windows about when I can, and also tend to use Dark mode for everything. I also set up BetterTouchTool to give me 10%, 20%, 30% etc brightness mapped to Cmd plus the numeric keypad. I use a comfortable level of brightness, and only bump it up for a short while when I need to examine something. I also have some anti burn-in videos downloaded with yt-dlp to clear burn-in when I find a ghost of it on the screen.
The other problem is screen activation. There is no power button on the LG displays. I like to keep the Macbook Pro in sleep mode when not in use, so I can resume with my app windows in the same state from the previous session. My whole desk setup is behind a smart switch. Often, when resuming from sleep, one of the displays would not wake and the only workaround was to unplug and replug the thunderbolt cable at the Macbook side. I work around this by having the Macbook continuously powered by my Orico dock when in use or sleeping, and this seems to address the problem. There is also an occasional issue of a single display switching off when I am using it, and this just means a thunderbolt unplug and replug at the Macbook side. But fortunately this has been fairly rare.
So, visually great hardware that I’m thankful for, but Apple’s “it just works” doesn’t really apply here. Just mentioning these in case someone is experiencing similar issues.
> 120Hz refresh rate would be nice to have, but there is no display I’m aware of that meets the macOS pixel density requirement while also providing faster refresh rates.
Is this still true, meaning, is the new Studio Display XDR the only option that is also Retina/HiDPI and also 120Hz? I've seen a lot of commentary dumping on the price, but if they're really the only option then they can charge whatever Apple Tax they want.
Several 5K 27" 120hz+ monitors were announced at CES earlier this year, likely all using the same panel as the new Studio Display. Apparently MSI is shooting for about $900.
https://youtu.be/r6VT5bEeKWw?t=197
Other displays with Mac-compatible PPI densities that have come out since 2022:
- BenQ PD2730S (5K)
- BenQ MA270S (5K, Thunderbolt 4)
- Asus PA27JCV (5K)
- Acer ProCreator PE270XT (5K)
- Asus PA32QCV (6K)
- Acer ProCreator PE320QXT (6K)
Announced at CES, not yet for sale:
- MSI MPG 271KRAW16 (5K)
- MSI MAG 271KPD7 (5K)
- Dell U3224KB (6K)
- LG UltraFine evo 32U990A (6K, Thunderbolt 5)
- Viewsonic VP2788 (5K, Thunderbolt 4)
It doesn't help the way that Apple is using "internal" resolution and scaling versus how Windows does it. If you aren't within the density of "retina" display [1.] then there's solid chance the image you're looking at will be blurry. Even though you might have high quality display (whatever the size and resolution are) if you don't play by the rules Apple had imagined you're in tough spot.
[1.] https://www.caseyliss.com/images/2017/5/marc-edwards-display...
I normally use 1440p Retina mode on a 2160p display (internally rendered at 5120x2880, scaled to 3840x2160) on my 2013 Mac Pro running Sequoia, and almost everything looks great.
Caveats:
1. Non-Retina aware VM hosts, remote control clients, and emulators that try to render anywhere near the native resolution look bad, as there's no way to render individual pixels. Retina-aware remote control clients like Microsoft Remote Desktop look great, as do emulators running low resolutions like VGA.
2. Images can't be displayed pixel-perfectly, which is rarely a problem when viewing or editing photos, and obviously not a problem when viewing or editing vector artwork, but can be an issue when viewing or editing native resolution screenshots and other non-photographic images, as shown in the article (but see the first "nice benefit" below).
3. X11 applications displayed in Xquartz don't look great.
4. Video decoding and processing is considerably more resource intensive, as video, like everything else, is rendered at the full internal resolution. On my system (12-core 2013 Mac Pro with D300 GPUs), the only practical problem I've had, aside from relatively high CPU/GPU utilization, is frame drops when playing back 60 FPS video in MPV with some of the higher-quality GPU scaling and postprocessing algorithms enabled.
Nice benefits of the implementation:
1. Screenshots are saved at the full internal resolution, so they look accurate when opened in an image viewer, and even better when viewed on a display that supports the full internal resolution.
2. You can zoom in to see the full internal resolution in real time using the OS's Accessibility Zoom feature.
Final note: I've rarely had problems more serious than window rearrangement when switching between 2160p60 native, 1440p60 Retina, 1080p60 Retina, and 1080p120 native, so switching resolutions in the rare cases where I need a native or integer scaled resolution is only a minor inconvenience (e.g., I occasionally run Mac OS 9 under QEMU for fun or to copy data from an older Mac filesystem that current OS versions don't support; incidentally, I seem to recall QEMU is one of the few examples I've found of Mac software that has trouble with resolution changing at runtime).
My screen is 4k and it looks as sharp as it gets with the 1080p scaling. As far as I understand it only gets blurry when using the 1440p setting as that changes the render resolution to 5k which doesn't scale cleanly to a 4k screen.
Which means the UI & text is a bit larger than usual but it's the right size for me.
You're correct but also Apple had to choose some sort of sweet spot. They chose one that's high ppi (~240) which means that regular monitors will not do but Apple wanted to make sure they were satisfying pro users who in fact do need that high of a ppi.
>macOS has been designed to be legible and usable with a pixel density of about 218PPI (pixels per inch) for “Retina” class desktop displays. If a display’s PPI is higher, text and the macOS user interface will be smaller. If a display’s PPI is lower, text and the macOS user interface will be larger. Stray too far from 218PPI and macOS becomes unusable.
I some ways I wish I'd never seen a Retina display. I'm cursed to buy expensive monitors for the rest of my life.
It would be nice if these comments were used to discuss this specific article rather than becoming a general dumping ground for unannotated brief announcements about what monitor somebody uses. What’s particularly frustrating is when a commenter posts their setup, it goes against the advice given in the article, but then there is no acknowledgement that the poster has even read the article or wants to justify their choice!
Actual display recommendations aside I would have loved this article years ago when trying to explain to designers why a font on one device may not look the same on another device, even if it's the same font-family and pixel height, especially when they're all using Macs.
It’s clear that even in 2026 most people still don’t get the pixel density (PPI) argument. Or perhaps they get it but they don’t appreciate it. For me, any monitor that is not HIDPI (218 ppi) is a non starter. Maybe my eyesight is better than the average but looking at a non-retina display seems atrocious after having spent time working on a retina display.
Ironically I find this even more true for text. It's not just photographers that need the HiDPI - it's people reading and writing text who benefit as well.
I come from the text angle as well. I stare the whole day at terminals and IDEs.
Yeah I've always ascribed to the idea that the monitor is the most important part of the computer. Everything else is secondary because you can workaround a lot of other problems with a computer but there's no overcoming a low quality display.
Which monitor is recommended for work + gaming these days? Been on the fence for a new one but couldn't find any that is within my price range.
The requirement I have is that it has to be 120Hz, probably OLED and it must have built in speakers.
Any recommendations?
Not a recommendation as such, but I recently purchased this for one of kids gaming monitors:
> ASUS XG27UCDMG ROG Strix 27" 4K QD-OLED 240Hz G-SYNC Gaming
> https://rog.asus.com/au/monitors/27-to-31-5-inches/rog-strix...
Doesn’t have built in speakers, and can’t comment on what it’s like for work.
However it does look absolutely amazing!
Jaw dropping gorgeous. The colours are just so rich. I was genuinely not expecting to as impressed by it as I was!
My work monitor is a 4K 27" from LG in 2015. I run it at 2x density, so everything's a bit larger than it would be on an Apple, but it's not as bad as this article's graphs would lead to to believe. I'd certainly rather have it than a less dense display.
Dell U4025QW. 40" Ultrawide 5k2k@120hz with Thunderbolt 4 built-in and 2.5Gbe.
I too have this one. It is a great monitor, but mine has some coil whine unfortunately. And the coil whine is more noticeable when running the monitor at 120Hz. Before getting the U40 I tried 2x U2725QE but both had coil whine that was absolutely unbearable. Either I’ve been very unlucky or the 25 series monitors just all suffer from the same issue.
I have this, extremely satisfied with the picture, size, look and connectivity. Only thing that really lets it down are the speakers are weirdly quiet in a lot of frequencies, wont matter for a lot of people but it's more annoying because everything else about it is great.
Hah! I just ordered that today. ~$2200. Going to use it with a new Mac Studio.
Just make sure to test it out before the return window expires because the macOS is infamous, as you are probably aware, for struggling with monitor resolutions. I personally use a 32:9 ultrawide scaled to 2560x720 to get it to look crisp. Don't forget to look into BetterDisplay as well, neat application
Thank you. Very good points. I already know that it (Mac Studio) can’t/won’t reliably do 2560x1440. I will look at BetterDisplay.
no worries. also i double checked and I actually run it at 3840x1080 through BetterDisplay. Good balance of large text and screen real estate on my macs
I am looking for an OLED display that fits Mac's aluminium design, but I still have no luck.
Just yesterday, I saw this 16- inch portable display mentioned in another HN thread.
I don't think it's OLED. But I thought it was an interesting design that might fit in with an Apple display collection.
SOTSU
https://www.sotsu.com/products/flipaction-elite-16?variant=4...
These also aren't OLED but are clearly trying to make you feel a way: https://kuycon.us/monitors
Wild.
For the 6K displays, I'd go with the Asus ProArt 6K - Thunderbolt 4 support.
These Kuycon monitors might be your choice if you want dual HDMI.
I mean for that kinda money you can have someone vinyl wrap a monitor case to match
The new Mac monitor supports 120hz.
I have a 5k2k 44" OLED monitor from LG. Looks great on my Mac Studio.
LG DualUp monitor is a great monitor for developers. Vertical and wide enough to show all the toolbars and the code.
Sadly they were not produced since 2024, but they are very good.
BTW, if someone is selling, I'm buying to have more spares.
Oh man I hated that monitor. It's the only one I've ever bothered to go through the return process for. I was excited about the aspect ratio but the pixel density was just terrible for me.
I love my LG UltraFines though. I'm tempted by the upgrade though because my displays are dual 24" and I wouldn't mind just going to a single 27" display so I can focus better.
It's not a retina display for sure. However it's good enough for me, since it's just text and the code reading is much easier because of the ratio.
I'm selling one! Email in profile, get in touch.
This is an older article: Published 1 April 2022.
Not about the new Apple Displays.
To be fair, the new Apple displays use the same panel so much of this still applies.
The first sentence doesn’t: “ Since writing about Mac external displays in 2016, not much has changed.”
Quite a few Mac-oriented 5K and 6K displays have been released in the last few years. LG, Asus, Dell, Samsung, Benq, Viewsonic. Maybe some others as well.
Do they? The new Apple monitor supports 120 Hz.
The price however, isn't indicative of a 2022 product...
I am using a Dell 4K monitor.https://www.amazon.in/dp/B0F29RSLHP?th=1 Works fairly well.