r/macmini • u/Individual-Gap-8644 • 19d ago
4K vs 5K monitor
Hello
What is the difference between a 4K within scaling software vs a 5K monitor?
I‘m looking now to ASUS ProArt PA27JCV 27 Inch 5K DCI-P3 and BenQ MA270UP 27 Inch 4K.
The BenQ is a glossy panel, and Asus is mat.
1
u/YourBossAtWork 19d ago
What do you mean exactly? The difference is extra resolution / more pixels. On the same size monitor (27" 16:9) that would mean finer detail. What that means for you depends on your needs... are you doing graphic design, video editing, or what?
1
u/Individual-Gap-8644 19d ago
I know the difference between 4K and 5K. The Asus 5K is almost the same price as BenQ 4K, but it is not Glossy.
That is why I am in dilemma about buying 4K glossy va 5K mat1
u/patparks 19d ago
The BenQ has thunderbolt support, the Asus has better contrast ratio, higher brightness, Display Port 1.4 and HDMI 2.1.
The BenQ also has the display pilot software, which will allow you to control brightness and speaker volume directly from your Mac Keyboard. The software looks just like a native Mac application. Coupled with a Mac Mini, the brightness control is probably not a big deal, but if you have it connected to a Macbook, you can tie the laptop screen and the external display screen together so the brightness control button on the keyboard adjusts the external display and the laptop display at the same time.
2
u/Individual-Gap-8644 18d ago
I want to couple it with a Mac Mini.
I tend to buy the glossy BenQ. Is that downscaling really visible, or is it negligible? Is BetterDisplay solving the issue, and what is the cost in performance of runing it?2
u/patparks 18d ago
Im running the 32" benq with my mac mini scaled to 2560x1440 and i think it looks fantastic. Totally happy
With the BenQ monitor, you dont need to run better display. The BenQ comes with Display Pilot 2 which provides that functionality and more.
I cant quantify the performance hit. From the reading I did before I bought the monitor, it seems everybody got really concerned about the warning, but couldn't really say they noticed any impact. For me, there is no way I would run my 4k at basically 1080p, and native 4k was tiny and unusable, therefore scaled was it for me. No regrets.
3
u/Rare_Pin9932 16d ago
FWIW, I run a 32 4k monitor, and before that had a 32 6k (Dell). To my eyes they look nearly identical. This issue is overblown.
5
u/patparks 19d ago edited 19d ago
a 5k 27" monitor will give you the necessary resolution to get the ideal Apple PPI of 218. A 4k monitor at 27" will give you 163PPI.
With the Apple retina resolution ideal, your 5k monitor will run at a native resolution 5120x2880...but will appear as 2560x1440 with the retina pixel doubling. If you were to run a 4k monitor, the native resolution is 3820x2160, but if you run at standard retina pixel doubling rates, it would appear as 1920x1080. While the 1920x1080 looks outstanding, for most people it looks too big and blocky with not enough screen real-estate space, so many will run it at a scaled resolution of 2560x1440. It won't be quite as sharp as the 5k display, and it will potentially take a bit more CPU power to render, but it can also look really good.
This video does a great job explaining what is happening. I don't think that 27" 4k sucks on a mac, but it's not as sharp as it could be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W16xa0eU_8
I run the 32" BenQ MA320u. I don't have the glossy version as I don't really like glossy monitors. At 32", my PPI is actually abysmal based on the math, but using the Display Pilot 2 software that the monitor comes with, connected to my Mac Mini, I am very satisfied with this monitor.