> Most 4k monitors are 24 inches

Where are you getting this? I was looking at monitors recently and it's impossible to find ANY 24" 4K monitors. Most of them are 27", which at that screen size you really need scaling. My LG 27" 4K recently went out so I downgraded to my older 1440p 27" monitor. I'm not using scaling anymore, but the text doesn't have that buttery smooth look...

> it's impossible to find ANY 24" 4K monitors

It's even worse than I thought!

I think it's safe to say that 24 inch monitors aren't the majority of 4k monitors, but there's still a good number available.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=4k+monitor+24...

https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMUA2VC/A/lg-ultrafine-4k...

Both links go to a LG 24" 4K TB display and a bunch of 24" FHD.

There appears to be exactly one 24" 4K display being sold. Which is more a niche than a good number.

Your links only shows two (of which only one is in stock)...

I have a Dell 24" 4k, which I got about two years ago, and back then, only Dell and Asus had a 24" option. I have no idea why manufacturers are so insistent on selling 27" 4k monitors; 2x scaling looks too big, and non-integer scaling looks blurry because the resolution is too low for 27".

My theory is that most people, for all practical purposes, are blind.

It seems the only option available is the Lg $700 monitor.

So at 24” 4K does everything looks nice and smooth without scaling like a built in Retina display?

Absolutely. That was my intention when I purchased the monitor, and it definitely delivered. I bought mine for $279. However, I had to return two of them because of a pronounced moire-like pattern created by the anti-reflective coating. The third one, the one I kept, still has a slightly visible pattern.

I spend most of my day watching a screen, and I want it to be perfect. Because of this, I would be tempted to buy the new Apple display. However, buying an iMac makes much more economic sense. I have no idea why display manufacturers can't get the details right.

Windows and Gnome look gorgeous at 2x rendering. macOS does too, but that's expected.

That's why I said "DPI increase". 27" at 1440p is 108.79 PPI.

I'm sitting in front of a 4k 27" and the 160ppi is almost indistinguishable to my macbook at 227 due to the different viewing distance.

And I always had the impression most 4k displays were 27".

Well to compare devices used at similar distances... my XDR blows away my previous 27" 4k monitors and various 5k ultrawides.

I don't even use HDR, the density is just that good for looking at text all day. It takes on this milky quality that I haven't seen on any other monitor before this.

The complete lack of appreciable IPS glow or uniformity issues is also better than you might expect for text. Especially with dark backgrounds which will now present one impressively uniform block of color, improving contrast.

Same. I gave up Apple ever releasing an affordable standalone display last year and bought a 4k 27". I can't tell the difference between it and the 5k 27" panel on the iMac. It also has multiple inputs, and USB-A outputs.

Obviously there are people who need the higher PPI, but if you look at text all day I'd recommend giving 4k a try before spending 3-4x as much on a 5k. You can run the 4k display at 5k, the same way that you can run a MacBook Air at 2880x1800 even though it's really 2560x1600. Modern scaling algorithms are very good.

I use a 30" 4K monitor, and I still don't notice the DPI difference between it and my MacBook Pro or iPad.

Personally I would much rather that they made the display 4K and 120hz instead of 5k and 60hz. At that size, I don't see a big difference between 4K and 5k, but the 60hz vs. 120hz jump is very noticeable.

I'm of a different opinion. 120 Hz is nice to have, but it is not a quality of life improvement. The DPI increase of a 220+ DPI monitor is a game changer. Text on a screen becomes readable at 220+ DPI, and that's when I don't feel the need to print PDFs in order to read them at a high resolution (the cheapest $50 laser printer can achieve 600 DPI without a sweat).

To each their own I guess. I really don’t ever notice the DPI difference.

> 27" at 1440p is 108.79 PPI.

> most 4k displays were 27".

This is in the direction of lower PPI/DPI, which is worse. That is:

  4K @ 24" > 4K @ 27"

The OP chose a higher PPI/DPI than what is available for most 4K monitors.

Also, as others have noted, the Apple Studio Display is 5K, so more UI is visible than on a 4K monitor.

Indistinguishable? The difference between 160 DPI and 220 is MASSIVE. 160 DPI makes me nauseous from the blur. I say this with all due respect, but have you checked your vision lately?

The only 24 inches monitor on the market is the Ultrafine 4K for Macintosh. It's not even true 4K but UHD (3840x2160) for 184 dpi.

Two years ago I bought my 24" 4k Dell monitor, which is pretty decent. It's a shame that there are no more 24" monitors being manufactured.