4K Monitor to use my Macbook Pro

Stinky

Stinky

Stinky

Soldato
Joined
28 Mar 2005
Posts
9,250
Hi all,

i am looking at getting a monitor that i can use, with my rMBP. I was going to look at getting the apple cinema display, but for the money I'm now thinking that a 4k monitor would be abetter investment.

Any ideas on what works well? i was looking at maybe the Dell Ultra range?

really am not sure. budget will be up to as much as a cinema display for £899
 
Out of the 3 cheaper 28" 4k monitors announced at CES, the Dell is only 30hz (also the cheapest), the Asus and Lenovo are both 60hz (not yet released though).

There is also the Dell 24" 4K, the UP2414 which should come in at around £1000.
 
The options have already been pointed out. If its now its the dell @ £1999, which is above what you say you want to spend. If you wait till April there are two options.

Other option would be looking at some 1440p monitors.
 
TallPaul_S said:
Out of the 3 cheaper 28" 4k monitors announced at CES, the Dell is only 30hz (also the cheapest), the Asus and Lenovo are both 60hz (not yet released though).

There is also the Dell 24" 4K, the UP2414 which should come in at around £1000.
Click to expand...

There is also the Philips 288P6 to consider (refresh rate not confirmed) and the 60Hz Samsung U28D590D which looks to have the most interesting design.
 
They use TN panels, have matte screen surfaces and a 4K resolution. So yes they are entirely different. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily make bad companions though.
 
I'm After something that will give me a second larger display to MacBook Pro, when at work, I need a split screen to make life easier! And kinda thinking to go for 4k so it's slightly more future proof
 
Avoid the Dell monitors if you want to use them with Apple computers. They don't support MST( on Apple ) so if later you upgrade to a new MacBook or other Apple device you'll always be limited to 30Hz. Even if the Monitor supports higher refresh rates.

At the moment the only displays that will do 4K at 60Hz on Apple devices are the Sharp and Asus ones.

I'm in a similar situation. I've always preferred a single large monitor with lots of work space, but until many of these newly announced monitors are out it's hard to decide.

I also heard that the folks at CES didn't realise the new Asus 28" didn't use IPS. They apparently didn't see a difference, which I hope implies at least a VA panel.

At the moment I'm kind of leaning towards a decent 1440p IPS panel, but I might hold off.
 
Rossi~ said:
Do you want UHD or 4K? If 4K keep an eye out for the LG 31MU95, looks to be a good'n.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/17/lg-4k-ultra-widescreen-monitors/
Click to expand...

For the purposes of 99.9% of people, 4k IS UHD. As in 3840x2160.

"Proper" 4k (4096x2160) is a digital cinema standard, and practically no monitors/tvs will use this resolution. The same as none used the cinema 2k resolution (2048x1080).

UHD includes both 8k UHD and 4k UHD, so saying "do you want UHD or 4k" is meaningless.

Anyway, rant over :D he means 4k UHD.
 
Last edited:
TallPaul_S said:
For the purposes of 99.9% of people, 4k IS UHD. As in 3840x2160.

"Proper" 4k (4096x2160) is a digital cinema standard, and practically no monitors/tvs will use this resolution. The same as none used the cinema 2k resolution (2048x1080).

UHD includes both 8k UHD and 4k UHD, so saying "do you want UHD or 4k" is meaningless.

Anyway, rant over :D he means 4k UHD.
Click to expand...

But UHD isn't 4k at all. Just seems UHD is marketed as 4K for some bizarre reason. I mean, why isn't FullHD marketed as 2K?
UHD = 2x FullHD not 4K, it's ridiculous as same with 8K UHD.

4K spans from Cinema as a standard spec for the production and digital projection, as does 2K. 4K for just breaching the 4000 wide pixel mark (4096×2160) and 2K for the 2000 mark (2048×1080).

Marketing (and calling) UHD as 4K is like calling a VW an Audi. Both higher than average quality but actually quite a lot of difference in themselves. It's just wrong and whoever thought of it first needs a slap, then a medal for making Joe Public think they're getting 4K and then a slap again.

I can't be the only one who gets annoyed by this surely?: http://www.avsforum.com/a/the-not-so-subtle-distinction-between-uhd-and-4k
 
Last edited:
N19h7m4r3 said:
Avoid the Dell monitors if you want to use them with Apple computers. They don't support MST( on Apple ) so if later you upgrade to a new MacBook or other Apple device you'll always be limited to 30Hz. Even if the Monitor supports higher refresh rates.

At the moment the only displays that will do 4K at 60Hz on Apple devices are the Sharp and Asus ones.

I'm in a similar situation. I've always preferred a single large monitor with lots of work space, but until many of these newly announced monitors are out it's hard to decide.

I also heard that the folks at CES didn't realise the new Asus 28" didn't use IPS. They apparently didn't see a difference, which I hope implies at least a VA panel.

At the moment I'm kind of leaning towards a decent 1440p IPS panel, but I might hold off.
Click to expand...

These are definitely TN panels (made by CMO - the M280DGJ-L30 specifically). The fact that people at CES didn't realise they didn't use IPS panels is a good sign and I don't think most consumers should be put off by the fact TN is being used rather than IPS. Yes of course IPS has its advantages, but so does TN. In this case cost and peripheral contrast.

@ Rossi

I know it's frustrating seeing UHD being marketed as '4K'. It's like when '720p' TVs are marketed as 'HD Ready' just to get those pesky two letters in there and confuse some consumers into thinking it's better than it actually is.
 
Last edited:
Things are moving fast in the 4k market. I was thinking may be 5 years from now if I were to be a buyer of a 4k monitor, but it`s looking like a lot sooner now. I would still wait it out for the time being say 12 months or more add to that the 27" /30" monitors will be dropping in price over the coming year.
 
Rossi~ said:
But UHD isn't 4k at all. Just seems UHD is marketed as 4K for some bizarre reason. I mean, why isn't FullHD marketed as 2K?
UHD = 2x FullHD not 4K, it's ridiculous as same with 8K UHD.

4K spans from Cinema as a standard spec for the production and digital projection, as does 2K. 4K for just breaching the 4000 wide pixel mark (4096×2160) and 2K for the 2000 mark (2048×1080).

Marketing (and calling) UHD as 4K is like calling a VW an Audi. Both higher than average quality but actually quite a lot of difference in themselves. It's just wrong and whoever thought of it first needs a slap, then a medal for making Joe Public think they're getting 4K and then a slap again.

I can't be the only one who gets annoyed by this surely?: http://www.avsforum.com/a/the-not-so-subtle-distinction-between-uhd-and-4k
Click to expand...


Quoted from the Consumer Electronics Association website (who came up with the name UHD):
What is the difference between the terms “Ultra HD” and “4K”?

They are two sides of the same coin. Ultra HD is used to describe a television set capable of displaying an image that is 3,840 pixels horizontal x 2,160 pixels vertical. “4K” is a term used by movie and television producers to describe content that matches Ultra HD resolution. You will sometimes see them used together, as in “4K Ultra HD,” to describe this match.
Click to expand...

As far as most people are concerned, 4k and Ultra HD are the same thing.

Yes, I agree that true 4k is a different resolution and set of standards from UHD, but unless you're talking to cinema enthusiasts or about projectors, when someone says 4k, they mean 4k UHD.

Technically, carrying on the trend of 720p, 1080p, UHD should be called 2160p. But good luck getting people to call it that when every manufacturer of TVs/blurays/monitors etc will be calling it 4k or 4k UHD until it gets replaced by 8k UHD.

So again, yes 4k is technically the DCI standard of 4096x2160. But to all bar 1% of the population, 4k is 3840x2160, and is what they'll ask for when they go into a high street shop looking for a new TV, or ask on a forum about which new 4k monitor to buy.

Get used to it, it's not changing.
 
PCM2 said:
These are definitely TN panels (made by CMO - the M280DGJ-L30 specifically). The fact that people at CES didn't realise they didn't use IPS panels is a good sign and I don't think most consumers should be put off by the fact TN is being used rather than IPS. Yes of course IPS has its advantages, but so does TN. In this case cost and peripheral contrast.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I sit straight in front to my monitor, although I spend most of my time in FCPX. So I wouldn't want a normal TN panel. If these are as good as the folks made it out ( also depending on reviews ), I'll most likely wait and pick up the Asus 4K monitor.
 
this is all making no sense to me :( guess ill just wait for now, its another month or so until i need one anyway. hopefully i will understand a little more by then and a few will be released
 
This is new territory. Support will improve for 4K in games (and drivers) in the future no doubt. For 60Hz you currently need to run the monitor 2 displays due to the controller limitations mentioned by PanMaster. You run the monitor as an Eyefinity or Surround group so it acts as a single display. There were some flickering issues in BF4 but they have apparently been fixed. Still, you have to remember that you need a fairly hefty system to make a good go of that resolution with lots of eyecandy in your games.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom