Monitor for MacBook Pro 2014 and 2016

5
Found 29th May
Looking for a bit of help. Both myself and partner have MacBook pros (mid 2014 and late 2016 with touch bar both 15"). We are moving into a new office this week and really need to use monitors. I have never really liked using a monitor as when I use a 1080p monitor it isn't as clear as my retina screen. Will a 4k monitor change this? What monitor would you recommend? Is retina the same of Quad HD or closer to 4K? I was looking at this but don't think the quality will be good enough:

currys.co.uk/gbu…tml

Will there be any difference based on the two different macs we have? I know that one mac could be powered through USB C and video could run through that too but those monitors are expensive. Any thoughts? Only looking to spend a max of £250 per monitor size 23" - 27" but might go bigger.
Community Updates
5 Comments
hhheeeellllppppp
Reviews for that one on the Currys website look positive.

As far as I know the Retina screens on the latest Macbook Pros are not 4K.

According to this quora.com/Doe…lay the display on the MBP 2016 15 inches is just shy of 3K.

You need to check what is the max resolution for a display that the 2014 can drive. Can't remember off the top of my head. The newer Macbook won't have issues.
Edited by: "hearts22" 30th May
Thank you for the reply. According to Apple my Mid 2014 can support 4K. So would a QHD monitor be the same quality or am I better going with a 4K monitor?
Computers use resolution differently to TVs, so it is always confusing when people use the same terms to refer to both.

Normally computers use the same amount of pixels for each element on the screen and if you add more pixels you can fit more things on the screen. So the size of stuff is determined by how many pixels and the size of your screen. The more pixels you add to a screen the smaller things get. This is completely different to video use where the stuff on screen is always identical regardless of the resolution.

Retina and HiDPI is a term for the infrastructure that allows sizing and pixels to no longer be tied together, so you can increase the detail without making everything smaller. This is how smartphone operating systems were designed from the beginning and is closer to how TVs work (but still not identical).

Retina/HiDPI doesn't refer to a specific resolution but instead means using a screen with the sizing/scaling setting set at something other than 1x/100%. It's at it's most crisp at 2x sizing - this is what apple chooses for the screens that come with all their devices. This means four times the resolution (double vertical and double horizontal).

So if you were happy with the screen space and size of stuff on a 24" 1920x1080 than the Retina/HiDPI equivalent would be 24" 3840x2160. But if you wanted a really big screen like 43" then the same 3840x2160 resolution wouldn't be Retina/HiDPI.

2560x1440 @ 24"ish is kind of an in between choice. You wouldn't use it at 2x sizing as everything would be too big so it'd be a sort of in between. Probably the same size of stuff as 1920x1080 but 1.5x

Unless Apple has changed their method lately Mac OS programs are only designed to render at 1x, 2x, 3x and so on and for intermediate options the whole screen gets scaled down, which wouldn't give you optimal crispness. Windows is better in that it allows programs to render at intermediate values directly and doesn't apply the scaling, but windows programs have been slowing to adopt support.

So in short, pick which size of screen and resolution suits you and then double it. You've basically just got two optimum choices though. 3840x2160 and 5120x2880. The former around 23" at typical desktop viewing distances, the latter I believe is only available in 27" for slightly shorter than typical distances.
EndlessWaves30 m ago

Computers use resolution differently to TVs, so it is always confusing …Computers use resolution differently to TVs, so it is always confusing when people use the same terms to refer to both.Normally computers use the same amount of pixels for each element on the screen and if you add more pixels you can fit more things on the screen. So the size of stuff is determined by how many pixels and the size of your screen. The more pixels you add to a screen the smaller things get. This is completely different to video use where the stuff on screen is always identical regardless of the resolution.Retina and HiDPI is a term for the infrastructure that allows sizing and pixels to no longer be tied together, so you can increase the detail without making everything smaller. This is how smartphone operating systems were designed from the beginning and is closer to how TVs work (but still not identical).Retina/HiDPI doesn't refer to a specific resolution but instead means using a screen with the sizing/scaling setting set at something other than 1x/100%. It's at it's most crisp at 2x sizing - this is what apple chooses for the screens that come with all their devices. This means four times the resolution (double vertical and double horizontal).So if you were happy with the screen space and size of stuff on a 24" 1920x1080 than the Retina/HiDPI equivalent would be 24" 3840x2160. But if you wanted a really big screen like 43" then the same 3840x2160 resolution wouldn't be Retina/HiDPI.2560x1440 @ 24"ish is kind of an in between choice. You wouldn't use it at 2x sizing as everything would be too big so it'd be a sort of in between. Probably the same size of stuff as 1920x1080 but 1.5xUnless Apple has changed their method lately Mac OS programs are only designed to render at 1x, 2x, 3x and so on and for intermediate options the whole screen gets scaled down, which wouldn't give you optimal crispness. Windows is better in that it allows programs to render at intermediate values directly and doesn't apply the scaling, but windows programs have been slowing to adopt support.So in short, pick which size of screen and resolution suits you and then double it. You've basically just got two optimum choices though. 3840x2160 and 5120x2880. The former around 23" at typical desktop viewing distances, the latter I believe is only available in 27" for slightly shorter than typical distances.


Now that’s an answer!! Thank you!Basically the minimum I should be looking at is 3840 x 2160. My next question is... any recommendations on a good monitor for sub £250?
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions