Monitor recommendations?
I'm in the market for an external monitor for my Macbook M1 and wanted some advice on what I should get. I pretty much only code, read pdfs and webpages, and watch videos (not movies really) on my laptop, so these would be the use cases. I'm trying not to break the bank here so I was looking at some budget options. The Macbook has USB-C so I would be looking for a monitor with that, but my main question is regarding resolution. Do I really need a 4K monitor for my use cases? I'd be interested in hearing people's experiences with 4K versus without — I've never had one but I'm wondering if now is the time to splurge and get it? Will the difference be very noticeable if I'm primarily looking at text?
My first place option right now is this one from Asus, so I'm curious if the brand is reliable as well. I don't think I've ever had an Asus product. If I were to splurge and get a 4K monitor I would probably get this Dell, but at $400 its a bit more than I was hoping to spend. But I also don't want to get a monitor that I immediately want to upgrade. Curious what other people's thoughts and experiences have been.
EDIT: See my comment for some updates. I've backed away from the 1080p options!
I don't have any specific monitor recommendations for you, but I highly suggest you check out Rtings. I trust their judgment wholeheartedly whatever they review, but they're experts in monitors and TVs. They have up-to-date detailed reviews and recommendations based on your use cases.
As a final update, I just wanted to let people know that I am currently reading this from my brand new Dell S2721QS, and it is awesome - image quality is great to my eye. Thanks to everyone who weighed in and thanks to @eve for finding such a great deal on a monitor.
I've had very good luck with Asus, but I've heard other people who have not had good luck with them.
I personally would recommend a 4k monitor - personally, I have a 5k monitor with my M1 macbook, and if it could support more than one I'd have more than one. I use it almost entirely for coding. I have one big screen (the 5k) that typically has three browsers open and the laptop screen has my IDE or terminal.
I would say it depends on your workflow, but I have a hard time switching to a lower resolution monitor now - my desktop computer has a 2k and a 4k monitor and I don't like looking at anything on the 2k monitor except for video games. Every document is on the 4k.
Edit: We've had 16 ASUS 4k Monitors over the last 10 years, and all are either still working, or sold with no complaints. Compared to some other monitors - 4 LG Ultrafines - one has needed to be refurbished. 4 other LGs that were cheap, one has a dead pixel. 4 Samsungs, one of which just stopped working. Six Acers, all of which also are working fine. Five AOC monitors, also great, all still working. A couple of Dells, no issues with the monitors, but one had a problem with the power cord. (these are stats across our whole company, per our inventory spreadsheet)
Asus is also really good with their RMA process. They were cool with me buying a new one from their store, then refunding the cost after they received the bad one.
I have 3x ASUS VE246 24" 1080P monitors, and they have been going strong for over 10 years now. A lot may have changed at ASUS in that time, but I don't think much has, since their monitors still gets decent reviews. But no matter what, every brand has the occasional lemon, and dead pixel though. So getting a good monitor often comes down to a bit of luck, and a good warranty + return policy should there be issues.
I am going to recommend not getting that 27" 4K monitor though. At that size, there is almost no point in going above 1440p. 30" and above is when 4K starts to be more noticeably beneficial due to the pixel density.
And IMO, when it comes to productivity, multiple 1080p or 1440p monitors is better than a single more expensive 4K one... Unless you do serious graphic design work or video editing. So if @gpl can only afford to spend $300-400, it's probably better for them to get 2 of the ASUS' 24" 1080p monitors instead the 4K.
Oh, I hadn't looked at the specific monitor, and I should have. I agree, do not get the linked monitor.
@gpl I have had a lot of luck with the VG28UQL1A - we've had ~12 of them (or their predecessor) and never had an issue. I don't necessarily agree with going to 30" or above; there's a very noticeable difference at 27 or 28 inches as well. I tend to shrink text a lot though, so YMMV.
No 1080 or 1440 monitor looks good hooked up to an M1, in my opinion, and I've tried about 6 of them.
Yeah, I mean, no matter the size of the monitor 4K is going to be noticeable... but again, I think whether it's worth it really depends on what the person is doing with their computer. IMO, for graphic design and video editing, 4K is a necessity. For gaming, higher refresh rate is probably more important. For productivity, more screens more better.
And on such a tight budget, which I think far too many people in this topic are completely ignoring, I don't think going to 4K is worth it for OP. E.g. You pointed them towards a $650 USD monitor when they said $400 was already more than they wanted to spend.
Depending on what version of 4K macbook @gpl has, they may not be able to use two monitors at all. Or at least, not without some trickery. I cannot have two external displays with mine, for example. I also have a strong preference anyways for one 4k screen over 2 1080p screens as a developer; I realize that I'm spoilt by the 4k / 5k screens that I've been using for a while, but there's more screen real estate in one 4k than in two 1080p monitors.
And you are correct, I handwaved the budget, and I should not have done so. I should note that my current monitor cost $1700 when I got it, so my opinion on monitors and budgets are maybe not super utilitarian.
If I had a budget of under $400 for a second screen for my M1, I would either buy an inexpensive 4k (there are some Samsung, LG, or Dell options which are all pretty acceptable) or opt to not buy a second screen, and instead just use desktop switching; I already use this for a lot of things, and I would have a really hard time using the second monitor when the primary monitor was so much better than the secondary one. I would also (ie. I do) use a tiling manager like yabai to optimize the space that I have.
2x 1080p monitors may have fewer pixels than a 4K one, but unless you sit really f'n close to the monitor and have really good eyes, you're likely going to have to use scaling on the 4K anyways, which means there is actually going to be less functional screen space. IMO, overall screen dimensions matters more than pixel count when it comes to productivity.
But to each their own. If a single 4K works for you, then it works for you. And that might also work for @gpl too. But given how much of this is personal preference, they're probably better off going to BestBuy or something, to see working examples and form their own opinions about 4K and screen sizes, rather than listening to all our opinions on that. ;)
p.s. I think this pic of my setup shows which way my own personal preference leans. :P
I have text scaling down as small as possible ("more space" on OSX) and in Windows, set my text to 100%. I do effectively run the monitor as if it is two separate spaces.
I agree about it being personal preference, but I think the first step for OP is going to be to check if they can even run two external monitors at all, which seems like a silly thing to have to check for in 2023, but here we are.
LOL. Yeah, this is a bit of a pointless debate if they can't even run multiple monitors. :P
It's a real frustration - when I got this laptop, I was super excited, and didn't even think to check if it could run multiple monitors. It's such a misstep from Apple, because otherwise this is a fantastic machine - probably the second best laptop I've ever had, with the best being, unfortunately, the one that this one replaced - and I think they recognized that it was a misstep, because I don't think the later M1 or the M2 Macbook Pros have the issue.
I've gotten around it in a variety of ways when needed - I can use my iPad as a third monitor, and I've got an apple TV that I can use as a third monitor - but I mostly made the adjustment to just one external monitor, and leaned into tiling and multiple desktops. I've always used multiple desktops, but now I use them even more, and coupled with decent windows management, it's pretty palatable.
I use window tiling, multiple desktops, and all that jazz too... but I still prefer everything being immediately visible at a glance, arranged around my multiple monitors, rather than having to fiddle with hotkeys to switch between everything on just one screen. I find that to be much much faster, especially when working with multiple complementary applications (or photoshop, with its main panels detached), while also having my browser open for looking up references.
And yeah, that sucks. I don't think I would ever be happy with a laptop that could only handle one monitor, especially if it was my daily driver. I would have to get a pretty massive 4K, or maybe even 8k, to compensate if that was the case.
I thought I wouldn't be happy with it, but I'm quite happy with it. Of course, having a 5k monitor helps, because I do effectively use it as three screens.
I am considering getting an 8K ultrawide at some point.
I splurged on a 4k 120hz monitor, and it is very, very nice. A completely unnecessary luxury, but I thoroughly appreciate having it, and plan to stick to monitors with at least that refresh rate and pixel density in the future. Effect of 120hz is subtler, but very much there—nicer mouse movement, lower input latency, and smooth scrolling that actually looks smooth—I would probably prioritise resolution over frequency if you decide to pick one.
Certainly, unless you use bitmap fonts. Some people like the aesthetic, and if you do, more resolution is probably not worth much; otherwise, I might even say it matters more for text than for, say, images. Text has sharp edges, which if smudged will be very visible, whereas real-world objects tend to have softer and fuzzier boundaries.
Just for $.02 more-
I have an aoc 4k monitor 24” and it’s awesome. HiDPI font smoothing is so much easier on my eyes for reading lots and lots of text, it’s really hard to go back when circumstances force using 96 dpi or so.
I wish Apple sold the display they use in the iMacs. It is the most amazing monitor experience I have ever had.
They sell the studio display. Some people have apparently gotten it to work with non-mac computers.
Its ports aren’t proprietary, it uses Thunderbolt 3, there should be no difficulty using it with non-mac computers.
macOS has a few hurdles to jump when considering monitor options because of the emphasis on HiDPI (Retina) scaling. Luckily Bjango has written an excellent writeup on these issues with some choice advice.
TLDR: If you're going for 1440p, make sure to get a monitor that's 27 inches. The Apple Studio Display, overpriced as it is, is currently the best bang for your buck for macOS displays.
I have a 1440p monitor and it looks like trash with my M1 work laptop. It works just fine with my windows gaming computer, but for some reason, macOS doesn't play nice with 1440p. It's a known issue that I researched when I plugged in my laptop and text was fuzzy. Start searching for "m1 fuzzy text on external monitor" and you'll find evidence. I definitely recommend going with 4k.
That's super weird, I have a 1440p monitor with an M1 Mac for work and a Linux desktop for personal and I've never noticed this. My screen is 27" and I use it over HDMI for the Mac, is that similar to your setup? Either way, seems like this could be a deal breaker or a complete non issue for OP depending on them as an individual.
I actually have 2 and I just learned something new! 1 is connected USB c, the other HDMI. The HDMI one is much better. I can move a window between the 2 and see the difference.
Unfortunately I have the usb-c one as my main because it has a built in kvm switch and vrr for gaming. I'll have to think about how I could make this better.
A couple years ago or so, I went 4k, and I don't look back. I would be disappointed having to use "just" 1080p for my daily driver. Regarding your question: Text is actually where the main improvement is for me, rather than images or video. The letters are noticeably smoother and less "pixel-y" (and therefore better looking, IMO).
There might be some drawbacks. Even though I consider my 4k monitor the best hardware purchase I've made in my life (a BenQ PD3200U PD), it was pricey relative to what I'd usually budget for hardware. Also, it's four times as many pixels, so that means your graphics card has to work harder to get satisfactory frame rates. If triple-digit FPS is a must-have for you, then 4k is not for you, or be prepared to spend even more money on a very powerful GPU. Also, a few applications or websites won't have been tested on and made responsive up to 4k resolution, so I occasionally have to contend with tiny text and tiny UI elements. This is relatively rare, but it's still something. This is probably a Linux problem, and would be less of an issue on Windows and Mac, where system-wide settings could hedge against it.
That all said, if you're on a tighter budget, 4k may not be worth it. You'll have to decide whether you'd be satisfied with plain HD. Perhaps go to a store where you can see 4k and HD side by side for the same source.
Another thing to consider: A poorly-made budget 4k would probably be worse-looking than a decently-made HD monitor.
I suppose I'm similarly situated to you, in that I mostly use my monitor (attached to my M1 mac mini) for writing code/reading papers. Since you aren't using your monitor for watching videos or playing games, there's really no need to splurge on the best looking screen you can find. Rather, I would recommend prioritizing real estate. A 2K (1440p) monitor of basically any quality will be more useful than the nicest HD monitor (1080p), since that will give you approximately 33% extra width, enough to have your IDE and papers side-by-side.
On the other hand, a 4K 27" monitor yields diminishing returns since you wouldn't be able to comfortably use the screen at native resolution. Sure, your text would look a little sharper when the monitor's set to emulated 2K mode, but this isn't necessarily worth the extra cost depending on your budget.
Another option would be to buy a 4K ~43" TV, equivalent to 4 HD, bezel-less monitors stacked in a grid. Personally I think this is the ideal set up, and as the price of 4K TVs have really come down over the past decade, this might be a relatively affordable option compared to buying a 4K monitor. However, you should bear in mind that not all TVs are optimized to be used as monitors. I would recommend checking rtings recommendations for using TVs as PC monitors, paying particular attention to chroma 4:4:4 subsampling support and input latency.
There are a few potentially non-obvious things to think about here, which might help you figure out what's best for what you need. I'm hoping this isn't too opaque, but feel free to tell me it made no sense at all!
We normally quote linear resolutions, but pixel count increases as the square of that, so it's easy to underestimate how big the difference really is. Moving from 1080p to 1440p (at a given aspect ratio) gives you close to double the pixels, for example, not just 40% more as it might look like.
To complicate things further, when we moved to 4k suddenly the measurement standard changed from vertical to horizontal for whatever reason, so 4K is indeed 4x 1080p. But then 5k is almost double 4k, and more than seven times 1080p.
Pixel density is what primarily drives how sharp things look, so it's worth keeping both resolution and physical dimensions in mind when you're comparing across different displays. Useful calculator if you want to compare numbers.
"Good" is heavily subjective and depends on how far you are from the display, so the easiest point of reference here is Apple, which is what you're used to: they target 220 DPI for their desktop and laptop displays. That's very high compared to almost all standalone monitors.
Apple's default 2x scaling uses four physical pixels (two horizontal, two vertical) for every one logical pixel presented to the software - so basically the software lays things out it as if it were 110 DPI and then the OS renders everything at double that for "retina" sharpness.
If you get a 4K 27", that's physically 163 DPI - a bit less sharp than the 220 you're used to, but not massively. However there's a big drawback: you can use 2x scaling for reasonably good sharpness but an effective 80 DPI, meaning any given screen element will physically be a lot larger than on the internal display at an effective 110 DPI, or you can use 1x scaling for the native 163 DPI which means everything is physically much smaller than the internal display.
If you get 1080p at 24" it'll be 92 DPI. That's way less sharp than your current display, and everything will still look a bit zoomed in as well because even at 1x scaling it's still less than the 110 DPI logical you're running at.
24" 1440p is 122 DPI - so at 1x scaling much closer to the logical 110 you're used to than either of the other two options, if you're happy with the loss in sharpness that comes with going down from four physical pixels per logical pixel to just one.
24" 4K is also an option: 184 physical DPI, so 92 logical DPI at 2x scaling. Still a little bit of a "zoom in" effect, but far, far sharper than the 1080p running the same at 1x scaling. But 4K 24" panels aren't common - the only option I'm aware of in your price range is the LG 24UD58-B at ~$300, which I haven't seen in person.
Echoing what a few others have said: text/web/productivity use is where high resolution (per inch) really shines. A lot of reviews you see will be for gaming displays, which focus more on refresh rate and brightness, and resolution can take something of a back seat there - so be aware of the use case they're testing for if you're researching.
Subjectively, I hate lower DPI screens for work, and I find it extremely noticeable. Other people in the thread have pretty much shrugged on that one, so it clearly varies quite a lot. I will say to bear in mind that you're used to using a laptop which has one of the best, highest DPI displays out there. If I were you, on specs alone, I'd go for the LG I mentioned above.
Worth noting that this isn't necessarily worth limiting your search for. The physical connection doesn't really matter, it's the signal that goes over the connection that defines what'll be compatible (and that does sometimes get complex, so worth searching/asking when you've got something in mind) - may well end up that you can save yourself $100 on panel that only has Displayport and just buy a $10 cable.
Slightly cheaper and similar model to the one you posted. I picked this one from rtings.com, and usually refer to them for most of my electronic and related products first and foremost. I like my display and it was quite an upgrade from the one I had so maybe it was more exaggerated on my part but so far it's been great!
Edit: womp womp I glanced over your USB requirement, sorry about that! Might be worth it to get a cheaper monitor and then a decent dock?
The USB requirement is a soft one! Thanks for the recommendation!
I've been reading through all the replies here and have found them very helpful. I think the surprisingly close to unanimous opinion that I should go for a higher resolution monitor has talked me off the 1080p ledge, so to speak, and I think I will no longer be getting that. I am going to look around for a "cheaper" 4k, maybe between $300 and $400 dollars, that I will splurge on. I have a 2021 Macbook with the M1 Pro, so I believe I can natively support at least one external monitor (thanks @aphoenix for pointing out that I need to check!).
I am still attracted to the Dell option I linked in the OP, but compiling some info I have learned from the posts here I think my criteria are:
One reasonably priced monitor I have found which seemingly matches this criteria is this Phillips one. I generally trust Philips as a brand, but this price seems almost too good to be true. Furthermore, @eve has found this likewise appealing Dell. Any red flags about either of these jumping out to people? Thanks for all the extremely helpful comments so far.
You are set! You can do two monitors:
source 16" source 14"
So you could go with multiple less expensive monitors if that's your desire.
With regards to those specific models, I have never had a Phillips monitor, but I have had a couple of Dells, and they have been fine. The Dell writeup on rtings says it would likely be a good choice- tl;dr good budget 4k that's great for office work (has an 8.7 rating).
Out of interest, are you planning on using 1x or 2x scaling? Matter of taste, obviously, but if it were me and 4K 24” were off the table for whatever reason, I’d be seriously considering 1440p 24” (or even 1440p 27”). Some sharpness sacrificed compared to 4K 27”, but they’re both much closer to the scaling sweet spot - IMO potentially worth it in exchange for avoiding the “anything fixed size is now too big / too small” problem.
Although if you really do just care about text and not the fixed UI elements, that’s easily zoomable in most software, so YMMV.
(Also, absolutely seconding what @cfabbro about keeping using the laptop display at the same time - I’d just assumed you were planning to, and it’s totally worth doing! You get an extra, high quality, high DPI screen for almost free.)
Since you’re set on 4k now, and can only afford one monitor at the moment, might I suggest also budgeting for a laptop+monitor stand/mount, if you don’t have one already? That way you can keep using the laptop screen along with the new monitor.
E.g Side by side or a taller one for more positional flexability
And if at some point in the future, since your laptop supports it, you can always get a second monitor and buy another stand to accommodate all three.
p.s. I highly recommend VIVO stands/mounts. They make high quality, solid, and heavy (which is important for stability) stuff. All 4 of mine are VIVOs.