4K on a 43” is a pretty low PPI. If you had something worse than that for a screen of the same size, you would be missing out.

It gives a ridiculously large amount of screen real estate, though.

For example, on one of those, one can have a side-by-side diff with 120+ character lines and still have half of the screen width remaining for documentation or terminals.

It feels like too much screen for me, I’m happy with a single 5K 27”. I could never get used to the unfocus or having multiple things on multiple screens all at once.

4k@43" is close to PPI of "standard" 1440p@27" or 1080p@22". Considering that the viewing distance probably is bit longer, it sounds pretty appropriate for 100% scaling

You're not reaping the benefits of high pixel density at that size. It's a shame 5K 27" monitors aren't more prevalent. That perfect 2x pixel density increase from 1440p is incredibly sharp.

Writing code on 27” 5k with 2x scaling is incredible. It’s the sweet spot of sharpness to screen real estate and I agree that manufacturers should focus more on this format.

It's not that I don't acknowledge that it's better it just doesn't seem worth it unless specifically buying the 5k iMac. TB3 as a display standard + costs double what a 4k monitor does + lack of guarantee of long term vendor support for either TB3 as an input or 5k.

I also think there are just such economies of scale around 4k as well.

The problem with that resolution is that neither hdmi 2.0 nor the equivalent DisplayPort revision supports it. Therefore it is currently a thunderbolt 3 only thing - which has its own set of issues.

I’m looking forward to see more 5k+ screens once those standards evolve