Help me choose a HiDPI monitor for work
It looks like we’re finally getting some real options in the space, so I’m interested in people’s thoughts and experiences!
I’ve been running a pair of LG 27MD5KL monitors forever, and they’ve been largely great - but they’re really showing their age at this point, and I’m being forced to upgrade either way because my new job requires using a Windows laptop (likely a Dell Pro 14, but TBC), and those old LGs use an esoteric dual link DP variant that only Apple supports. I’ll also be keeping my personal MacBook Pro, so smooth compatibility with both is a must. Use will largely be software work: lots of documentation, lots of terminal windows, lots of dark mode, but some design review work as well where decent colour accuracy helps.
Options I’m seeing at the moment are:
- Asus ProArt PA27JCV
- Asus ROG Strix XG27JCG
- LG 27GM950B
- BenQ MA270S
- Apple Studio Display
- Apple Studio Display XDR
I get the impression that Apple’s the better option where possible, but I’m concerned about compatibility, especially when I don’t directly control the choice of laptop. If anyone has real world experience on that one I’d be interested, especially the difference between “technically works on non-Apple laptops” vs “is an equivalently good experience on non-Apple laptops”.
I’m guessing just using separate inputs for each laptop will be fine on whatever I go for, but I’m open to getting a KVM if needed (L1Techs? I haven’t actually checked how hard it is to find one that supports 2x 5K yet…). Couldn’t immediately see anything that’ll take Thunderbolt input from the Mac and HDMI input from the Windows laptop and push both to Thunderbolt output, which might otherwise have been a way to bridge the Apple display question.
Probably going for 27” 5K rather than 32” 6K, unless there’s a compelling argument for the latter. I briefly tried a Dell 32” 6K a few years back and other than horrible backlight bleed, sitting that close to a 32” display ended up feeling like I was craning my neck rather than moving my eyes to see edge to edge.
So, what do people think would be best here?
Sending up a bat signal for @gary and @ButteredToast - you guys both know your stuff on this one!
Some updates, after going down a bit of a search rabbit hole:
I would strongly reconsider purchasing any LG product at this time. Their monitors and smart TVs, regardless of age, are seemingly malware infested with very concerning privacy and security issues. See this recent Gamers Nexus video for more information.
I was just about to post this as well. Definitely avoid LG.
I checked today, the adware was, entirely silently, installed on my windows 10 PC at some point from my 3 or 4 ish year old monitor.
Huh, hadn’t heard about this. Seems like I am not impacted due to use with Linux. I’ve also rooted my TV because of how annoying webOS was becoming, and that gives some tooling to tone it down a bit.
I have been telling people for years to never connect your TV to the internet
Gross. Thank you for letting me know, absolutely don’t want to spend money on that kind of behaviour, nor do I want to risk being subjected to it!
Another consideration that you may want to think about in your comparison: warranty, particularly stuck or dead pixel guarantees:
That’s a good point, thank you! Tends to be a solid signal for how much the brand actually trusts and cares about product quality too, because they largely hate handling returns if they can avoid it.
Interesting that the “cheap” (ugh, I’m spending too much here…) ProArt has the best warranty, actually. Good to see that BenQ is broadly standing behind their hardware too, since it is priced a decent bit higher for its spec.
Thunderbolt in my experience on Windows laptops can be a mixed bag. Certainly if your laptop is managed in anyway as IT departments love disabling thunderbolt in the bios for security reasons (it does expose full pci-e and all that).
So my first instinct would be to not count on thunderbolt working for your use cases. Having looked up your current monitors, as far as I can tell those do support thunderbolt 3 so if you new laptop does have a thunderbolt port I honestly would give it a go first just to double check it will not work. If you already did do that, disregard this advice ;)
Samsung also offers some monitors in the Odyssey range at the resolution you might be looking for. They are generally aimed more at gaming but given you mention refresh rate that might be something to consider anyway.
Didn’t even think of Thunderbolt potentially being disabled, that’s another really good point in favour of multiple inputs! I don’t have the new laptop in hand to check yet, bureaucracy is still doing its thing, but the possibility of a security policy change killing Thunderbolt later even if it works here and now is a meaningful one to consider if I went the Apple route, so thanks for that.
The signalling on the old LGs is actually kinda interesting, my understanding is they split the monitor into two halves for signalling purposes (even though it uses a single physical TFT layer, not two bonded ones like some ultrawides do) and use two DP 1.2 streams tunneled over TB3 directly without using DP alt mode. It’s a technically compliant workaround to drive that many pixels even though DP 1.4 wasn’t common yet when they were designed, basically, but it’s also one that almost no other monitors used so it’s not well supported in practice - there’s a deep dive on the Framework forums, but the conclusion is almost definitely don’t expect them to work properly on modern non-Mac machines. No harm in trying when I have the laptop, but hopes aren’t high!
And cheers for mentioning Samsung, I’d somehow missed those. For anyone finding this later, it looks like the G80HF is comparable to the ROG, the S80HF is comparable to the ProArt, and the S90PC was in competition with Apple’s 2022 generation Studio Display but is reaching end of life. Reviews on all three vary, similarly to the equivalents from LG and Asus.
I’m leaning towards the BenQ at this point. It’s a shame to be getting a premium monitor in current year at less than 120Hz, it really does make a difference to the overall feel of using them even for productivity work, but the faster ones seem like an even less premium overall package. Plus the BenQ has more than one input, some of which are HDMI, and the total cost for a pair of those monitors is literally half that of two Studio Displays + Thunderbolt KVM to make up for the single input on each. Which would also only be 60Hz 🤷
Just to add, Samsung is rather low quality, built to fail (as a brand). I would never consider buying any Samsung product anymore personally (except chips). Not to mention their utter contempt for personal data and privacy.
I have a benq 1440p for a couple years and it’s pretty good.
For what it's worth, my Ultrawide LG bought about 3 years ago works pretty much perfectly with Linux (intel gpu / Thunderbolt) via USB-C. Screen quality is superb at 5120x2160.
In my opinion, going above 60Hz is not useful even for gaming, and pretty much a complete waste of energy for desktop work. But you of course are the one experiencing your vision, so mileage may vary :)
Genuinely in awe of this opinion. My computer feels sluggish and "off" if my monitor is not performing at 240 or 120hz. For both use cases.
I can understand people accepting 60hz as making do, but it's clear (to me at least) that there's a large difference in experience between 60 and 240.. or even 120.
Just a testufo.com should confirm for most how much difference there is between the refresh rates.
I do primarily PC gaming and I have two ten-year-old Dell UP3017 monitors. They're not 4K, they cap out at 60Hz, the pixel response is 25ms, and 10-bit color ended up being less supported than I imagined ... but they have great color accuracy, pixel density, and port selection. More importantly for me, they're just about to hit a full decade with zero stuck or dead pixels.
During all that time, I've never had a single gamer friend come look (or borrow one for an impromptu LAN party) and remark poorly on the refresh rate. Yes, even for FPS or RTS games, and even when they have 120-240Hz stuff at home. (Those friends have almost all remarked about how great the monitor color is, though!)
I expect I'll replace them in the next year or two, sadly with 16:9 instead of 16:10 aspect ratio since that seems to be vanishing from the market. When that happens, I know that I will put color accuracy and durability far ahead of refresh rate. It just hasn't mattered to me.
I've had 60hz monitors my entire life, I know it's fine. There's no problem with them, I stumbled over the "not useful for gaming or desktop" when there is a clear difference between the frequencies.
Yes, I can just use a 60hz monitor for everything but even my mouse feels buttery at a higher rate.
It sounds to me like I should avoid checking out what 120Hz would feel like because if I like it too much, I'll be compelled to buy expensive equipment and spend way more energy in the future for all computer use. :)
Do you like the interpolation effects in televisions? You know, the thing that makes a 30Hz video stream
into a 240Hz stream? I kinda feel like I'm looking at something like that when I see a higher Hz monitor.
No. Interpolation often feels smudged because it doesn't actually change that the content was recorded at 24fps. You can see the added frames and the weird smeared look. The Soap Opera effect right.
Games don't have to worry about how many frames the recording had, it just displays itself at the framerate and frequency you have. Nowadays, VRR and similar tech keeps framerates and monitor frequencies locked to each other so it doesn't feel stuttery when you drop some frames. It simply turns motion into something that feels more natural. My guess is that you looked at DLSS-like things when you say it looks like interpolation? It similarly injects frames where there are none and it can look smudgy or unclear because of it. True 240 FPS at 240hz just looks smooth and not at all smudged.
I’m definitely way more sensitive to pixel density and general image quality, always have been, so if it comes to it that’s what I’ll prioritise (hence looking at 220dpi only, and probably going for the BenQ).
Buuuut I definitely don’t think that higher refresh is a waste either - it absolutely is noticeable to me, just as a better, smoother, higher quality overall feel when using a display. I’d be interested to know if you’ve tried daily driving a faster display for a couple of weeks, actually? I don’t explicitly notice “this is bad” on 60Hz (I absolutely do at 100dpi, for comparison), but stepping up and then back down does make it clear to me that 120Hz is worth it if it’s an option.
But yeah, 60-70Hz not a dealbreaker, more just a shame it’s not yet table stakes when we’re talking £1,000+ monitors. Like I said, I’d literally pay the baseline Studio Display price if it were 120Hz, but it feels galling to be getting into that price range and making compromises even if they’re comparatively small ones.