@Sam247 Yes, between these two displays, the U2520D will deliver a slightly better experience because it spreads the same number of pixels over a slightly larger display area. But it may still be tough to use. A 27" 2560x1440 display would be a much better fit. That extra 2" may not sound like a lot, but it does make a difference, and at that point you're using a display setup that Apple itself has implemented in the past (when they had non-Retina 27" iMacs). As for text size, if you'll only be using the external display on its own, then when that display is active, macOS will use standard rendering, so that plus the fact that you're using a setup that Apple has used means things will be an exact size that Apple intended them to be. And when you use only the Retina display, macOS will switch back to Retina rendering, using "@2x" assets to compensate for the much higher pixel density of the Retina display in order to keep things a usable size and increase sharpness at the same time.
Lastly, since you're thinking about using this with a MacBook that supports charging via USB-C, you might want to think about getting a Dell display that actually has a USB-C input. That will allow your laptop to send video, receive power, and use the USB ports built into the display all over a single cable. The U2719D doesn't have USB-C, but Dell has a variety of other 27" 1440p displays I've listed below. If it helps understand how these work, the last two digits are the "model year", e.g. the U2719D is from 2019.
U2719DC. Essentially a U2719D with a USB-C input.
P2720DC. Nearly identical to the U2719DC for your use case.
U2721DE. Evolution of the U2719DC that retains the USB-C input and adds Ethernet, essentially turning the display into a full docking station for your system if you have a use for your system being able to use wired Ethernet when plugged into your display (the "E" suffix is for Ethernet, but implies USB-C).
U2722D. Evolution of the U2719D (not the DC), so it adds support for USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) rather than 3.1 Gen 1 (5 Gbps) like all other displays above -- but it does not have a USB-C input that can accept video and provide power. Its USB-C port is only for creating a USB data path.
U2722DE. Evolution of the U2721DE, i.e. it retains a full-featured USB-C port and Ethernet. Since it's a 2022 model year display, it gets the upgrade to USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps), and it also gets upgraded to being able to supply up to 90W of power via USB-C, rather than 65W like all other displays above. The 16" MBP is designed for a 96W source for optimal functionality. The 6W shortfall shouldn't make a practical difference, but dropping down to 65W instead might result in slower battery charging and/or reduced performance.
So if it wasn't already clear, I'd really suggest you go with some sort of 27" 1440p display. I use them myself, and they are excellent for productivity -- AND they are an ideal choice for a Mac.
@Sam247 Happy to help. In terms of your question, the answer is that they'll be nearly identical because the displays have the same resolution and almost the same physical size, but neither one will be an ideal pairing with any Mac system, and especially not with a Retina MacBook if you plan to use the built-in display and one of these displays simultaneously (as opposed to using the external display exclusively when it's connected). I'll try to explain why and what you might want to consider if you'd prefer something closer to ideal.
macOS is designed for two classes of displays: standard displays with densities of 100-115 ppi (pixels per inch), and Retina displays with densities of 200-230 ppi. The higher ends of those ranges are used on laptops that are designed to be viewed from a shorter distance, whereas the lower range is found on desktops. macOS when running on a Retina display like your MacBook's will be using the "@2x" art assets meant for Retina displays and their 2x pixel density compared to standard displays.
Notice that Apple's own displays use a combination of physical size and resolution that fall within the two ranges they optimize for. They used 2560x1440 on a 27" iMac (108 ppi). They also made iMacs with 21.5" displays in 1920x1080 (102 ppi) and 4K (204 ppi), as well as a 27" iMac with 5K (218 ppi). Their brand new 24" iMac uses "4.5K", i.e. 4480x2520 (218 ppi). Apple designs their hardware around their software and vice versa, so that if you pair them together, you have a solid experience. But if you try to use their software with hardware that strays farther away from the type of hardware they're designing for, things don't always go so well.
Now let's look at the two Dell displays discussed here. They are 24-25" displays with a resolution of 2560x1440, yielding a pixel density of 117-122 ppi. They would not be a good match for a system that is already running in "Retina mode" with the "@2x" art assets, since those displays are nowhere near Retina pixel density. But those displays are ALSO somewhat outside of the standard display density range, which means that even using them standalone in "standard mode" could be challenging. Yes, they're close to the upper end of the standard range, but remember that's meant to be used on laptop displays viewed from a shorter distance. When used on desktop displays, unless you have very sharp eyesight, a 24-25" display at 2560x1440 resolution being run in "standard mode", i.e. with no scaling applied, will result in text that might be too small for you to read comfortably. But using Retina mode without scaling would make things far too large.
The only option is an intermediate "Scaled" mode. macOS supports this in order to accommodate displays with intermediate pixel densities, but this is where you lose image quality, because in that case macOS will render in one of its two possible "native" modes (standard or Retina) and then apply post-render scaling to resize that rendered image to fit your intermediate display properly. That doesn't look as good as rendering in a way that's optimized for the display's pixel density in the first place, but macOS doesn't have optimizations for 117-122 ppi. And if you were running your built-in Retina display simultaneously, you'd also have to use Scaled mode even if tried to use a display actually within the standard range. Why? Because macOS can only render internally at a single scale factor at a time. You'll be able to choose which one you want to optimize for, i.e. whether macOS renders for the standard or Retina display you're using, but that means that for the other display, macOS will apply post-render scaling. So in that case even though both displays are within Apple's ranges, only one will look its best at any given time.
So where does that leave you? If you do NOT intend to use the built-in display and an external display simultaneously, I would suggest getting displays that are in or very near the standard display pixel density, such as a 24" 1080p display (94 ppi) or a 27" 1440p display (108 ppi). In that case, macOS won't have to handle a Retina and standard display simultaneously, and you'll have displays that will work well with Apple's standard display render mode, so you won't have to worry about post-render scaling.
If you DO want to use the built-in display simultaneously, then you'll need a display with pixel density closer to the Retina range, such as a 24" 4K display (183 ppi) or a 27" 5K display (218 ppi). But the former is relatively uncommon, and the latter is fairly expensive.
If you don't want to go with the Retina-type displays and but DO want dual displays, then ideally buy TWO standard displays. Using desktop and laptop displays simultaneously isn't great ergonomically anyway unless you put the laptop on a stand. But if that isn't an option either, then the best of the less-than-ideal options is to get a standard display and then choose which of your active displays, i.e. built-in Retina or external standard, you want to have macOS optimize for.
But at the end of the day, neither of the displays discussed here would be a great choice.
Thanks again for all the details. I think I understand better now. I intend to use the Dell monitor as the only monitor for the MBP (meaning the mac laptop itself will be under the desk lid closed).
So based on what I understand, it is better to be well within the standard Apple range of ppi. So seems that between these two (U2520D vs P2421DC), the U2520D is incrementally better just because it is 117 ppi (closer to the Apple range of 100-115).
And perhaps a Dell U2719D is even more incrementally better because its ppi is 109 though text will appear bigger for same MBP max scale (if I am not mistaken it is 2048x1280) if I use on the 25" or the 27".
Thank you very much for these details. VERY HELPFUL. Great idea to be able to use one USB-C cable to both power the laptop and feed video into the monitor. I will try to get either the U2719DC or the P2720DC. The ones with the Ethernet ... a bit expensive.
@Sam247 Happy to help. But again, be aware that the U2719DC and P2720DC both only supply 65W of power, whereas your system is designed for 96W. So you MIGHT end up deciding that it's worthwhile to keep your MBP's own power adapter directly connected so that it has a "full-sized" power source available. It depends on how you use your system. But if you can get by on 65W for your use case, then yes a USB-C display is quite convenient, plus it frees up your MBP's own power adapter to be used somewhere else, such as parked in another area of your home where you spend a lot of time or kept in your bag as a dedicated on-the-go charger rather than you having to unpack it and pack it back up every time you come and go from your desk.
jphughan
9 Legend
•
14K Posts
1
April 26th, 2021 17:00
@Sam247 Yes, between these two displays, the U2520D will deliver a slightly better experience because it spreads the same number of pixels over a slightly larger display area. But it may still be tough to use. A 27" 2560x1440 display would be a much better fit. That extra 2" may not sound like a lot, but it does make a difference, and at that point you're using a display setup that Apple itself has implemented in the past (when they had non-Retina 27" iMacs). As for text size, if you'll only be using the external display on its own, then when that display is active, macOS will use standard rendering, so that plus the fact that you're using a setup that Apple has used means things will be an exact size that Apple intended them to be. And when you use only the Retina display, macOS will switch back to Retina rendering, using "@2x" assets to compensate for the much higher pixel density of the Retina display in order to keep things a usable size and increase sharpness at the same time.
Lastly, since you're thinking about using this with a MacBook that supports charging via USB-C, you might want to think about getting a Dell display that actually has a USB-C input. That will allow your laptop to send video, receive power, and use the USB ports built into the display all over a single cable. The U2719D doesn't have USB-C, but Dell has a variety of other 27" 1440p displays I've listed below. If it helps understand how these work, the last two digits are the "model year", e.g. the U2719D is from 2019.
So if it wasn't already clear, I'd really suggest you go with some sort of 27" 1440p display. I use them myself, and they are excellent for productivity -- AND they are an ideal choice for a Mac.
jphughan
9 Legend
•
14K Posts
1
April 26th, 2021 15:00
@Sam247 Happy to help. In terms of your question, the answer is that they'll be nearly identical because the displays have the same resolution and almost the same physical size, but neither one will be an ideal pairing with any Mac system, and especially not with a Retina MacBook if you plan to use the built-in display and one of these displays simultaneously (as opposed to using the external display exclusively when it's connected). I'll try to explain why and what you might want to consider if you'd prefer something closer to ideal.
macOS is designed for two classes of displays: standard displays with densities of 100-115 ppi (pixels per inch), and Retina displays with densities of 200-230 ppi. The higher ends of those ranges are used on laptops that are designed to be viewed from a shorter distance, whereas the lower range is found on desktops. macOS when running on a Retina display like your MacBook's will be using the "@2x" art assets meant for Retina displays and their 2x pixel density compared to standard displays.
Notice that Apple's own displays use a combination of physical size and resolution that fall within the two ranges they optimize for. They used 2560x1440 on a 27" iMac (108 ppi). They also made iMacs with 21.5" displays in 1920x1080 (102 ppi) and 4K (204 ppi), as well as a 27" iMac with 5K (218 ppi). Their brand new 24" iMac uses "4.5K", i.e. 4480x2520 (218 ppi). Apple designs their hardware around their software and vice versa, so that if you pair them together, you have a solid experience. But if you try to use their software with hardware that strays farther away from the type of hardware they're designing for, things don't always go so well.
Now let's look at the two Dell displays discussed here. They are 24-25" displays with a resolution of 2560x1440, yielding a pixel density of 117-122 ppi. They would not be a good match for a system that is already running in "Retina mode" with the "@2x" art assets, since those displays are nowhere near Retina pixel density. But those displays are ALSO somewhat outside of the standard display density range, which means that even using them standalone in "standard mode" could be challenging. Yes, they're close to the upper end of the standard range, but remember that's meant to be used on laptop displays viewed from a shorter distance. When used on desktop displays, unless you have very sharp eyesight, a 24-25" display at 2560x1440 resolution being run in "standard mode", i.e. with no scaling applied, will result in text that might be too small for you to read comfortably. But using Retina mode without scaling would make things far too large.
The only option is an intermediate "Scaled" mode. macOS supports this in order to accommodate displays with intermediate pixel densities, but this is where you lose image quality, because in that case macOS will render in one of its two possible "native" modes (standard or Retina) and then apply post-render scaling to resize that rendered image to fit your intermediate display properly. That doesn't look as good as rendering in a way that's optimized for the display's pixel density in the first place, but macOS doesn't have optimizations for 117-122 ppi. And if you were running your built-in Retina display simultaneously, you'd also have to use Scaled mode even if tried to use a display actually within the standard range. Why? Because macOS can only render internally at a single scale factor at a time. You'll be able to choose which one you want to optimize for, i.e. whether macOS renders for the standard or Retina display you're using, but that means that for the other display, macOS will apply post-render scaling. So in that case even though both displays are within Apple's ranges, only one will look its best at any given time.
So where does that leave you? If you do NOT intend to use the built-in display and an external display simultaneously, I would suggest getting displays that are in or very near the standard display pixel density, such as a 24" 1080p display (94 ppi) or a 27" 1440p display (108 ppi). In that case, macOS won't have to handle a Retina and standard display simultaneously, and you'll have displays that will work well with Apple's standard display render mode, so you won't have to worry about post-render scaling.
If you DO want to use the built-in display simultaneously, then you'll need a display with pixel density closer to the Retina range, such as a 24" 4K display (183 ppi) or a 27" 5K display (218 ppi). But the former is relatively uncommon, and the latter is fairly expensive.
If you don't want to go with the Retina-type displays and but DO want dual displays, then ideally buy TWO standard displays. Using desktop and laptop displays simultaneously isn't great ergonomically anyway unless you put the laptop on a stand. But if that isn't an option either, then the best of the less-than-ideal options is to get a standard display and then choose which of your active displays, i.e. built-in Retina or external standard, you want to have macOS optimize for.
But at the end of the day, neither of the displays discussed here would be a great choice.
Sam247
4 Posts
0
April 26th, 2021 16:00
Thanks again for all the details. I think I understand better now. I intend to use the Dell monitor as the only monitor for the MBP (meaning the mac laptop itself will be under the desk lid closed).
So based on what I understand, it is better to be well within the standard Apple range of ppi. So seems that between these two (U2520D vs P2421DC), the U2520D is incrementally better just because it is 117 ppi (closer to the Apple range of 100-115).
And perhaps a Dell U2719D is even more incrementally better because its ppi is 109 though text will appear bigger for same MBP max scale (if I am not mistaken it is 2048x1280) if I use on the 25" or the 27".
Do I make any sense?
Thanks again!!
Sam247
4 Posts
0
April 26th, 2021 23:00
Thank you very much for these details. VERY HELPFUL. Great idea to be able to use one USB-C cable to both power the laptop and feed video into the monitor. I will try to get either the U2719DC or the P2720DC. The ones with the Ethernet ... a bit expensive.
Thanks again!!
jphughan
9 Legend
•
14K Posts
1
April 27th, 2021 07:00
@Sam247 Happy to help. But again, be aware that the U2719DC and P2720DC both only supply 65W of power, whereas your system is designed for 96W. So you MIGHT end up deciding that it's worthwhile to keep your MBP's own power adapter directly connected so that it has a "full-sized" power source available. It depends on how you use your system. But if you can get by on 65W for your use case, then yes a USB-C display is quite convenient, plus it frees up your MBP's own power adapter to be used somewhere else, such as parked in another area of your home where you spend a lot of time or kept in your bag as a dedicated on-the-go charger rather than you having to unpack it and pack it back up every time you come and go from your desk.
Sam247
4 Posts
0
April 27th, 2021 08:00
Makes complete sense!! Thank you .. this thread has been a tremendous help for me.