What's new

Can I run this amazing monitor with my MacBook Pro? (1 Viewer)

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
60,971
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Put another way, do you “upgrade” a 65” 4K TV by replacing it with an 85” HD TV?

That's a pretty harsh statement but if realistic, something I should think about.

I know I am losing height when comparing my two 27" monitors to the ultrawide

I can live with that

What I *think* I am gaining is getting rid of the bezels, having a continuous screen, and the ability to open up a row of windows/apps from one end of the screen to the other.

But if you guys think I am losing more than I am gaining then I will certainly reconsider (and feel awful in the process)

Thanks for the help, guys! I am taking all of this in, trust me.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,929
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Ron, would you currently prefer to run your setup at 1440 vertical effective res, if it looks sharp, not soft/blurry?

IF so, then that Samsung beast (or similar) run at native res should probably be ideal for you (w/ some possible caveats for viewing/editing high res images and such).

The reason your current setup would look soft/blurry at 1440 vertical effective res is it has to do scaling at some fractional multiplier. But that wouldn't happen running that Samsung beast at 1440 vertical (or your current monitors at 1080 vertical, which would be exactly 1/2 of the native 2160).

_Man_
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
60,971
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Ron, would you currently prefer to run your setup at 1440 vertical effective res, if it looks sharp, not soft/blurry?

IF so, then that Samsung beast (or similar) run at native res should probably be ideal for you (w/ some possible caveats for viewing/editing high res images and such).

The reason your current setup would look soft/blurry at 1440 vertical effective res is it has to do scaling at some fractional multiplier. But that wouldn't happen running that Samsung beast at 1440 vertical (or your current monitors at 1080 vertical, which would be exactly 1/2 of the native 2160).

_Man_

Hold my hand here as this is foreign for me.

I am assuming you mean running the resolution at: 2560x1440 @60Hz

That is actually a much easier resolution on the eyes. Everything is slightly larger but there is loss of sharpness over 3840x2160 @60Hz

But, if I can use that slightly larger 2560x1440 @60Hz on the new Samsung Ultra-Wide monitor with a great level of sharpness then that would make me very happy.

Have I gotten any closer to getting approval for that monitor over what I have now?
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,929
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
I know I am losing height when comparing my two 27" monitors to the ultrawide

I can live with that

My understanding is that Samsung beast actually has essentially identical, actual physical display height as your 2x27" setup.

The issue has to do w/ different native resolution... or individual pixel size (or pixel pitch, ie. PPI) to put it another way.

I don't think @DaveF meant for his analogy to be taken to mean there's actually a different display size in your case. He just meant there maybe be offsetting pros and cons that impact how they benefit (or not) you depending on your own uses...

_Man_
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
15,916
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Ron, this is the type of comment that makes people hate me. Here it goes. A 27” 4K monitor just isn’t a good choice for computers. All of your complaints are summarizing why. Either you run it at full res and everything is tiny, you run it in retina mode and everything is huge, or you scale and everything is blurry.
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
60,971
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Ron, this is the type of comment that makes people hate me. Here it goes. A 27” 4K monitor just isn’t a good choice for computers. All of your complaints are summarizing why. Either you run it at full res and everything is tiny, you run it in retina mode and everything is huge, or you scale and everything is blurry.

That's realistic. I can relate to that. That is the problem I am having with my 2x27" monitor setup. I actually dislike using the monitor since I can hardly read it but yet, I feel as if I am cheating myself going with a larger setting.

The question is, will it be any better or worse when it comes to moving up to the 49" ultrawide display?

I am really tired of squinting so I may have to move up to 2560x1440 @60Hz for more comfortable reading and a bit of sharpness loss.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
15,916
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
To review, the desktop you would get with that Samsung monitor would be exactly what I use myself, without a gutter in the middle. Everything is somewhat smaller than "standard", but would be much larger than what you have now. I expect you would be much happier with it than what you have now.

So, the big decision is, the cost for the way I did it was with two frameless (very narrow bezel) high quality IPS monitors for $600, or you can have it in a single monitor for $1,700. Only you can decide what's important.

HERE is the monitor I use x2. The bezel is very narrow, about 1/4", but it's still there.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,929
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Hold my hand here as this is foreign for me.

I am assuming you mean running the resolution at: 2560x1440 @60Hz

That is actually a much easier resolution on the eyes. Everything is slightly larger but there is loss of sharpness over 3840x2160 @60Hz

But, if I can use that slightly larger 2560x1440 @60Hz on the new Samsung Ultra-Wide monitor with a great level of sharpness then that would make me very happy.

Have I gotten any closer to getting approval for that monitor over what I have now?

OK, then the Samsung beast (or something else w/ same size and native resolution) should work well for you.

Again, there could still be some caveats when it comes to viewing/editing high res images (as some people do like not being able to distinguish pixels at all at least sometimes), but they may not really apply to you since you're not a photographer or the like. Even editing 4K video should be fine enough since you wouldn't be doing such professionally (let alone at some high production quality level) that might otherwise need/desire at least 2160 vertical res.

_Man_
 
Last edited:

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
60,971
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
OK, then the Samsung beast (or something else w/ same size and native resolution) should work well for you.

Again, there could still be some caveats when it comes to viewing/editing high res images, but they may not really apply to you since you're not a photographer or the like. Even editing 4K video should be fine enough since you wouldn't be doing such professionally (let alone at some high production quality level)...

_Man_


Whoo-Hoo! Okay. That made me smile. Not taking away from anything anyone else has said thus far. I'm taking it all in.

Here's a photo fo my desktop. I just don't like the look of what I had to do with these two monitors to give myself a curved desktop.

The reason why it's curved is because I was running such a tiny resolution I couldn't even read my email without having the screen closer to my eyes.

IMG_0047.jpg
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,929
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Since that Samsung beast isn't currently available anyway, maybe you could check out other less expensive competitors that might suit you best, including the previous gen(?) or next lower model Samsung, ie. C49RG9, which seems to have nearly identical specs except for lower curvature (1800R vs 1000R) and more modest, but still fairly high, gaming-oriented, refresh rate. B&H lists it for $1.3K... though it too seems unavailable til Sept due to backorder (probably because of the pandemic)...


Afterall, a lot of the cost probably went into making the C49TG9 run super-fast for gaming, which doesn't apply to you at all... And wonder how much went into the chassis aesthetics (w/ the fancy back panel RGBs)...

Hmmm... actually, if B&H's specs listing is correct, seems like the cheaper C49RG9 may actually be better for non-gamers. According to B&H's specs, the cheaper C49RG9 also has slightly higher dynamic range (or real contrast level), especially at sustained levels. Maybe that's a tradeoff Samsung made for roughly doubling the refresh rates on the C49TG9... That plus most people would probably prefer the lower curvature of the cheaper C49RG9 (at 1800R instead of 1000R)...

Whatever you end up getting though, probably wanna make sure there's acceptable levels of backlight bleeding and hotspots and such... as they all have such issues to some degree, but if you're gonna spend that kinda dough...

_Man_
 
Last edited:

DaveF

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
26,741
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
The problem I have with the two 27" monitors is that in order to run them at the recommended resolution I can hardly read the screen.

I am running it at: 3840x2160 @60Hz

That gives me the most razor-sharp image. However, the fonts are ridiculously tiny and hard to read.

I can go to this larger alternative: 2560x1440 @60Hz

The problem is, I lose sharpness at that setting but it's much easier to read text.
...
I think you will have exactly the same readability tradeoffs with the G6 monitor, and with half the screen real estate to boot.

If screen readability is an issue, which as a man of a certain age I understand, you might consider looking into physically larger 4K monitors (if they exist, i'm not up on monitors).
 

John Dirk

Premium
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2000
Messages
5,606
Location
ATL
Real Name
JOHN
Ron. Just wondering. Did you look at my current monitor linked in post #4 of this thread. Prior to this purchase I had a setup similar to yours and many of the same points of dissatisfaction led to the change. It gets rid of the bezels without sacrificing resolution or pixel area.
 

John Dirk

Premium
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2000
Messages
5,606
Location
ATL
Real Name
JOHN
I think you will have exactly the same readability tradeoffs with the G6 monitor, and with half the screen real estate to boot.

If screen readability is an issue, which as a man of a certain age I understand, you might consider looking into physically larger 4K monitors (if they exist, i'm not up on monitors).

I agree and they certainly do. That's the choice I made [see link in post #4] and I have been happy with it.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
26,741
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
I am assuming you mean running the resolution at: 2560x1440 @60Hz

That is actually a much easier resolution on the eyes. Everything is slightly larger but there is loss of sharpness over 3840x2160 @60Hz
I wrongly assumed the G6 had the same pixel size of a 27" 4k. As @ManW_TheUncool says, I see it's probably about 50% larger pixel size.
Pixel Pitch (H x V): 0.2328(H) x 0.2328(V) (G6)
vs
Pixel Pitch (H x V): 0.1554 mm x 0.1554 mm (Dell 27" 4K)

And you find it more comfortable to view your 4K running not at native resolution but running about 33% lower effective resolution, or about about 33% larger effective pixel size.

So running the the G6 at native resolution will be the same practical real estate as running your current 2x27" 4K at the lower scaled resolution you find more comrfortable to read. And you may find it crisper overall since there won't be any interpolation / scaling artifacts.

Sorry for the confusion I caused. :)
 

DaveF

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
26,741
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Ron, this is the type of comment that makes people hate me. Here it goes. A 27” 4K monitor just isn’t a good choice for computers. All of your complaints are summarizing why. Either you run it at full res and everything is tiny, you run it in retina mode and everything is huge, or you scale and everything is blurry.

As I said, 4K / Retina is a young man's game. A 27" 4K monitor would be fantastic if I were in my 20s. Back then I ran a 17" CRT (what a massive, huge, incredible monitor!!! :D ) at 1600x1200. Loved it!

I couldn't even imagine a 27" screen running 3840 x 2160. That would have been heaven when I was 25!

But presently, this 27" 5K running in "Retina" mode is gorgeous and easy to read and has pretty good screen real estate for home use. Native is much too small, of course. Unless I were 25. Then that would be how I'd use it all day long! :)
 

Thomas Newton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Messages
2,240
Real Name
Thomas Newton
But what I don't like about running two monitors side-by-side is one, the bezels. Secondly, I am always moving around open apps from one monitor to the other that don't always stay in the same place every time I plug my computer in.

Question #1: Is there a connection method that the Mac and the screen have in common that would allow you to use the full 5120x1440 pixel resolution?

I suspect that the answer is "Yes," but only if the monitor allows you to split a widescreen 5120x1440 signal over two DisplayPort v1.2 cables. This is because the monitor does not have a Thunderbolt 3 input, and the Mac probably does not support DisplayPort v1.4.

Question #2: If so, would it make the monitor look like two side-by-side monitors to the Mac? I suspect that the answer is "Yes." When a Mac drives a 5K display using a pair of DisplayPort v1.2 connections within a single Thunderbolt 3 cable, it knows that they are related. Here, it might think it was dealing with two independent monitors.

This wouldn't matter for the purposes of getting rid of bezels, but might for the purposes of getting app windows to reopen on the right screens.
 

Thomas Newton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Messages
2,240
Real Name
Thomas Newton
A 49", 5120x1440 monitor would have roughly the same pixel pitch as a 27" 2560x1440 pre-Retina display. So it would be like having two such displays side by side, minus the bezels.

A 27" 5K Retina iMac screen has pixels that are only 1/4th of the size of those on a 27" 2560x1440 monitor. So if you tell it to size everything as though you were still using a 2560x1440 screen, it can draw text more accurately (make it more readable).

The practical difference is that, if you keep everything the same physical size,
  • The 5K Retina iMac will have sharper, more readable text, and will down-sample photos less when displaying them on the screen.
  • The 49" monitor will give you twice as much "real estate" to work on documents, but only at the picture quality that you could get from a 27", 2560x1440 monitor.
A pair of 27" 5K screens will have both the quality and the real estate advantages – but will place a heavier load on your system and your wallet, and will probably have bezels.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
15,916
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I'll be the lone voice dissenting here. I think this will be a disaster. I've tried curved monitors with my PC and found them to be terrible. Make sure you have a 100% return policy in place before spending a dime on this.
To be fair, I'm pretty certain that I've been generally discouraging the idea of the widescreen monitor, if only on the basis of cost. I'm just trying to avoid telling others what to do. I have been wondering how people who use small 4K displays felt about them, because they never made sense to me. The only computer use I see for them is as an inexpensive monitor for editing 4K video. For any other use, they seemed like a bad idea, for the reasons Ron has spelled out.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,929
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
I'll be the lone voice dissenting here. I think this will be a disaster. I've tried curved monitors with my PC and found them to be terrible. Make sure you have a 100% return policy in place before spending a dime on this.

Ron, have you actually ever seen a particularly curved, ultrawide monitor in action? IF not, definitely recommend checking one out in person before buying... and even then, yeah, Sam's reservations about this whole endeavor is warranted.

For one thing, as I alluded before, this Samsung beast has 1000R curvature, which is more curved than most such monitors. 1800R to ~4000R are much more common -- in fact, this new Samsung might be the very first to be more curved than 1500R. And less (aggressive) display curvature is probably preferable for most uses other than immersive gaming.



The somewhat less expensive Samsung C49RG9 model would be 1800R.

FWIW, the 34" 21:9 Dell I bought early this year is 1900R (and it's essentially 1/3 wider than the typical 16x9, which is more common for ultrawide, instead of the 2x as wide of this Samsung 32:9).

Anyway, definitely recommend checking it out in person first before you buy. IF you're thinking to buy it from B&H, then a visit to their store seems in order -- they did reopen a short while back... though they don't seem to have this model and most other 32:9 ultrawides on display other than a Dell 3800R model (according to their site)...

_Man_
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
350,731
Messages
4,928,662
Members
142,899
Latest member
tonyrenner54
Recent bookmarks
0
Top