Salve a tutti sono nuovo del forum (che trovo fantastico) e chiedo scusa in anticipo se avessi dovuto sbagliare sezione.
Sto rinnovando il mio "setup" e avrei bisogno di comprare un nuovo monitor, però non ne so quasi nulla e quindi mi rivolgo a voi :)
Attualmente ho un MacBook Pro 13" 2017 per università e lavoro e una PS4 per giocare.
Mi servirebbe un monitor adatto a sfruttare il Mac (quindi obbligatoriamente con porta USB-C che faccia sia da ricarica che da audio-video) e adatto però anche al gaming (se così si può chiamare), quindi ero un po' dubbioso sul refresh rate.
Ho letto di alcuni monitor che pur essendo 4K e USB-C non sono ottimali per Mac, non so esattamente il perché quindi vi incollo qui una recensione in inglese di un monitor a cui ero interessato e che sembra spiegare la cosa, magari ci capite qualcosa voi. La parte interessante l'ho messa in grassetto.
Ricapitolando:
-Budget: 200-600€
-Risoluzione: 4K o 2560x1440
-USB-C adatto a Mac
-Adatto a "gaming"
Ringrazio per il tempo e mi scuso per l'ignoranza,
Alessandro
Sto rinnovando il mio "setup" e avrei bisogno di comprare un nuovo monitor, però non ne so quasi nulla e quindi mi rivolgo a voi :)
Attualmente ho un MacBook Pro 13" 2017 per università e lavoro e una PS4 per giocare.
Mi servirebbe un monitor adatto a sfruttare il Mac (quindi obbligatoriamente con porta USB-C che faccia sia da ricarica che da audio-video) e adatto però anche al gaming (se così si può chiamare), quindi ero un po' dubbioso sul refresh rate.
Ho letto di alcuni monitor che pur essendo 4K e USB-C non sono ottimali per Mac, non so esattamente il perché quindi vi incollo qui una recensione in inglese di un monitor a cui ero interessato e che sembra spiegare la cosa, magari ci capite qualcosa voi. La parte interessante l'ho messa in grassetto.
Mostly good, but not suitable for Mac OS.
Let's start by saying that I paid $600 for this. Prices seem to fluctuate wildly, so bear in mind that I am using that price as a reference for what to expect, not the outrageous $800 that Amazon is asking at the time of writing this.
The main problem with this monitor is its resolution. 4K on a 27" screen size is a very unfriendly resolution for Mac users. This is because Mac OS is designed to work well in the 100 dpi range or, as a "retina", in the 200 dpi range. This monitor falls right in between those values, as indeed do all the 4K 27" monitors out there. It seems that manufacturers have found it convenient to make 4K 27" panels and are trying to shove them to consumers, even though it is not what works best for consumers.
This monitor is UHD, which means that it can be used as a native 4K monitor (the "more space" option in the Mac settings) and in that case everything on the screen is so small that you cannot read it unless your face is 10 inches from the screen. Or you can use it natively as a 1080p "retina" option, that is as 4xFHD resolution - the "default for this display" in the Mac settings. That gives you lovely crisp text, but it is also way too big: you have to sit much further away from the display than most people would want to.
Most users will instead choose an in-between resolution: 2560x1440, or 1440p, because at that resolution, with the Mac OS interface, a 27" canvas looks just right. The problem is, if you set your resolution to "looks like 2560x1440" you lose all the advantage of having purchased a 4k monitor, force your graphics card to do nasty scaling, and may see some artifacts or blurry fonts. I cannot stress this enough: if you are running a 4k monitor as a 2560x1440, you are wasting your money. You should have bought a (good quality) 2560x1440 monitor instead.
Let's say it plainly: for a Mac, the "correct" resolution for a 27"-32" monitor is 2560x1440, or 4x that for 'retina', which is a 5K display: 5120x2880.
The correct resolution for a 20-24" monitor is 1980x1080, or 4x that for 'retina'. That is a 4K display.
So for the best experience on a Mac, you should skip this monitor and get a 4K monitor in the 20-24" range, or visit your bank manager and then order a 5K monitor.
This is a serious usability problem for Mac users that not many people talk about (and the industry is trying to 'hush'). I suspect many of the users of this monitor set the 'wrong' 2560x1440 resolution and then are unimpressed with the display's quality. But the display is excellent when used at its native resolution! It's just a Mac unfriendly model. Do you think it is a coincidence that now that LG released two monitors in partnership with Apple, they went for a 21.5" 4K and a 27" 5K? Those are the same sizes and resolutions as the iMac. That is what works best on a Mac.
Like many others, I decided to ignore this problem, even though I knew about it, because I wanted to see if it was all an exaggeration made up by some pedantic resolution freaks. It's not. This is the reason I will ultimately be returning this monitor and I will buy a 24" 4K monitor with USB-C...when someone makes it!
Apart from that, this seems to me a good monitor.
Yes, it is annoying that you cannot control brightness and volume via the Mac keyboard.
Yes, the USB hub at the back works only so-and-so. In my testing, sometimes it fails to power up a standard 2.5" HDD. An iPhone will charge even if "Quick Charge" is not enabled (though very slowly), but an iPad will not charge at all. If you enable "Quick Charge", the data connection over USB stops -- this is not a fault (they say that it will be the case as you enable it) but it's nonetheless quite stupid.
I have not had any problems with the USB-C cable....except once, when it flickered a few times before coming on.
Let's start by saying that I paid $600 for this. Prices seem to fluctuate wildly, so bear in mind that I am using that price as a reference for what to expect, not the outrageous $800 that Amazon is asking at the time of writing this.
The main problem with this monitor is its resolution. 4K on a 27" screen size is a very unfriendly resolution for Mac users. This is because Mac OS is designed to work well in the 100 dpi range or, as a "retina", in the 200 dpi range. This monitor falls right in between those values, as indeed do all the 4K 27" monitors out there. It seems that manufacturers have found it convenient to make 4K 27" panels and are trying to shove them to consumers, even though it is not what works best for consumers.
This monitor is UHD, which means that it can be used as a native 4K monitor (the "more space" option in the Mac settings) and in that case everything on the screen is so small that you cannot read it unless your face is 10 inches from the screen. Or you can use it natively as a 1080p "retina" option, that is as 4xFHD resolution - the "default for this display" in the Mac settings. That gives you lovely crisp text, but it is also way too big: you have to sit much further away from the display than most people would want to.
Most users will instead choose an in-between resolution: 2560x1440, or 1440p, because at that resolution, with the Mac OS interface, a 27" canvas looks just right. The problem is, if you set your resolution to "looks like 2560x1440" you lose all the advantage of having purchased a 4k monitor, force your graphics card to do nasty scaling, and may see some artifacts or blurry fonts. I cannot stress this enough: if you are running a 4k monitor as a 2560x1440, you are wasting your money. You should have bought a (good quality) 2560x1440 monitor instead.
Let's say it plainly: for a Mac, the "correct" resolution for a 27"-32" monitor is 2560x1440, or 4x that for 'retina', which is a 5K display: 5120x2880.
The correct resolution for a 20-24" monitor is 1980x1080, or 4x that for 'retina'. That is a 4K display.
So for the best experience on a Mac, you should skip this monitor and get a 4K monitor in the 20-24" range, or visit your bank manager and then order a 5K monitor.
This is a serious usability problem for Mac users that not many people talk about (and the industry is trying to 'hush'). I suspect many of the users of this monitor set the 'wrong' 2560x1440 resolution and then are unimpressed with the display's quality. But the display is excellent when used at its native resolution! It's just a Mac unfriendly model. Do you think it is a coincidence that now that LG released two monitors in partnership with Apple, they went for a 21.5" 4K and a 27" 5K? Those are the same sizes and resolutions as the iMac. That is what works best on a Mac.
Like many others, I decided to ignore this problem, even though I knew about it, because I wanted to see if it was all an exaggeration made up by some pedantic resolution freaks. It's not. This is the reason I will ultimately be returning this monitor and I will buy a 24" 4K monitor with USB-C...when someone makes it!
Apart from that, this seems to me a good monitor.
Yes, it is annoying that you cannot control brightness and volume via the Mac keyboard.
Yes, the USB hub at the back works only so-and-so. In my testing, sometimes it fails to power up a standard 2.5" HDD. An iPhone will charge even if "Quick Charge" is not enabled (though very slowly), but an iPad will not charge at all. If you enable "Quick Charge", the data connection over USB stops -- this is not a fault (they say that it will be the case as you enable it) but it's nonetheless quite stupid.
I have not had any problems with the USB-C cable....except once, when it flickered a few times before coming on.
Ricapitolando:
-Budget: 200-600€
-Risoluzione: 4K o 2560x1440
-USB-C adatto a Mac
-Adatto a "gaming"
Ringrazio per il tempo e mi scuso per l'ignoranza,
Alessandro
