Early in my career I learned important lesson, there is no point buying displays from other brands than NEC or EIZO. Preferably upper tier products. The exception from this rule was Apple Cinema Display and Some Dell models. EIZO FlexScans are reliable and rarely have any issues. https://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/index.html
Unfortunately EIZO doesn't produce a single display with the ideal resolution for MacOS.
27" 5k or 22" 4k (4069 x 2304, like the first LG ultrafine was) are the unicorns I am seeking.
Unfortunately the LG ultrafine suffers from image retention/ghosting. So there's ultimately no great displays for Mac outside of the wildly expensive Pro Display XDR.
For reference, the 16” MacBook Pro has a 3072‑by‑1920 display.
This means the 27” 4K monitors that are the industry standard now for some reason at 3,840 x 2,160 are almost twice the size, yet have barely more resolution than the MacBook true retina screen.
MacOS can do scaling to adjust for this, but it uses the least amount of resources in native or pixel doubled mode. Any display that is between the resolutions I mentioned (like 27 4K) requires fractional scaling.
This is more resource intensive, and doesn’t look as good as pure retina.
Sorry but this has no sense at all. From 20 years on I work only with Apple based desktops/laptops. And I am a pixel peeper. Scaling is not a problem even on MacBook Pro from 2013. If you want to rationalise a purchase of new Apple Display XDR there are more factual reasons for this. Don't get me wrong - the new displays are very competitive for grading middle market, but most professionals are using separate proofing displays for testing.
I upgraded from a MacBook Pro with a good quality LG 4K 27” display using non integer scaling to a 5k 27” iMac with 2x scaling. Both provide the same visible screen area and not give you the same size icons and text. But the iMac with integer scaling is a better, sharper picture. The difference isn’t huge but it’s noticeable.
