[jibberia]

I'm interested in replacing my 27" 2560x1440 display with something of a higher resolution and larger, but I haven't found anything I like. You can get 30" 2560x1600 displays, but while I like the taller aspect ratio, there isn't that much more usable space and the DPI is too low. It's old tech, I had one 10+ years ago. There are also the new 34" widescreens, optionally curved, which at 3440x1440 are just wider versions of my 27". That could be neat, but I'd like to have more height to work with.

Another option is the 27" 5120x2880 LG display that Apple sells. That's like a "retina" version of my screen. I could run it at a higher effective resolution than 2560x1440 when I need more space, but this feels like a tradeoff -- my eyes aren't so great. I don't like tiny text. I'd also have to buy a newer Macbook to drive it... meh.

I'd like to get something that runs at the DPI my 27" display provides, but larger on all sides. I stare at a monitor for most of my waking hours so price isn't much of a concern, but as far as I can tell, nobody makes something like this.

I thought about two 27" displays rotated 90˚, but subpixel rendering goes away when the panel rotates and it looks horrible. I also wouldn't like a big seam down the center of my monitor.

Any tips?

[bryanlarsen]

32" UHD is about perfect, IMO. It's about the same height as those 30" 2560x1600 displays (which I thought was about perfect) and then gives a couple inches extra of width. The PPI is "almost retina", so if you very occasionally have to use one of those legacy apps that don't work well on retina you can. You'll have to squint but you can.

[jibberia]

That would be 3840x2160, right? What effective resolution do you use?

[jsz0]

> I don't like tiny text

This is something Apple really needs to address on macOS. The font sizes, many of which cannot be changed, are a bad mix of too small and too big. I can't find a comfortable resolution that works well for all apps. Things like tab bar titles are the worst. Can anyone actually read them comfortably anymore?

[leonroy]

The Dell UP3216Q should be good. I had it's predecessor at work which provides 4K at 32". I have poor eye sight so the extra size helped and for photo editing the extra resolution was very welcome.

I can also recommend an Ultrawide. Any of the LG 34" 3440x1440 are great, and almost like having two 27" 256x1440 monitors. I in fact went from three Apple 27" displays to just one ultrawide on my home setup with no regrets.

The lack of cable clutter and smaller desk foot print was very welcome.

If you really need that extra vertical real estate then there is the new LG 38" monster 38UC99 which does 3840x1600. Might be a bit too big but never know - some folk love it and it has USB-C making it a little more future proof.

[jibberia]

Do you run the 32" 4K display at native resolution, or are you scaling? What effective resolution do you get?

[leonroy]

At native, 3840x2160 most of the time. If I have a little eye strain then I'll drop it down a notch (Mac) which scales to 3008x1692 I think.

[wmf]

Check out 38" 3840x1600 or 40" 3840x2160.