Why I RETURNED my 4k Monitor // MacOS Scaling Explained!
I recently bought a super nice 4K monitor...and then returned it for the lower resolution 1440p version, why?
I also take a few minutes too explain MacOS scaling on external monitors!
Follow Up Video! - • Why I RETURNED my 4K M...
Article about MacOS Scaling
________________________
bjango.com/articles/macextern...
_________________________
Music from Epidemic Sound
________________________
4K Monitor- amzn.to/3GuAvAT
1440p Monitor- amzn.to/3wUoGiR
(All links below are Affiliate Links, so I do get kickback when these are used, but you still get the same price!)
________________
My Desk Setup!
________________
Macbook Pro M1 13” - amzn.to/3NI44kS
Asus ProArt 278cv 1440p - amzn.to/3M7rQ8M
(4K Model) Asus ProArt 279cv - amzn.to/3awytnS
Logitech Master 3s - amzn.to/3wZsAZ6
Logitech POP Keys Mechanical Keyboard - amzn.to/3wVdVhv
Monitor Arm - amzn.to/3MZAsiM
Caldigit Thunderbolt Hub - amzn.to/3a4vkve
Elgato Stream Deck - amzn.to/3z3FiHB
________________
My Video Gear!
________________
Sony A7III - amzn.to/3wWHDmo
Sony 20mm 1.8 - amzn.to/3x1qSGN
Sony 90mm 2.8 - amzn.to/3NI5QCn
Peak Design CF Tripod - amzn.to/3a7szsY
Atomos Shinobi 4K Monitor - amzn.to/3wYYvsz
Godox TL60 RGB Light - amzn.to/3a6l6KO
________________
My Audio Gear!
________________
Rode Podmic - amzn.to/3N3caV4
(Alternative Higher Quality Mic) Shure SM7B - amzn.to/3N3cuDg
Scarlett Solo Interface - amzn.to/3GydDQX
Cloudlifter CL-1 - amzn.to/3x1lgwg
Tonor Boom Arm - amzn.to/3NJ8Xdn
(Higher Quality Boom Arm) Rode PSA1+ - amzn.to/38zde4c
Edifier MR4 4” Studio Monitors - amzn.to/3Guw60A
Akai MPK Mini 3 Midi Keyboard - amzn.to/3M183ra
Chapters
____________
Intro 00:00
How I got the 4K monitor 00:50
Mac Scaling Deep Dive 02:10
Destroying my RAM 06:00
Deciding to DOWNGRADE 07:30
Why APPLE uses the resolutions that they do 10:30
Conclusion 11:40
Outro 13:53
Wow, I wish more youtubers would do videos breaking down issues like this in such a good way. That made perfect sense to me and was an issue I didn't even know to look out for until now. Thanks!
Hunter, this is some really excellent information, thanks for diving in and breaking it down. I’ve been looking at the BenQ SW270C 2K monitor for photographers and will be using it with a Mac Mini but I thought I’d be missing something by not going with a 4K monitor. I do mostly photo editing but want to start doing some video and thought it would be a negative but it looks like I should be fine with both. Thanks again and man, I can’t believe no one else has hit the nail on the head on this topic in all this time the way you have.
Thank you so very much for this, KZhead suggested this to me and now I'm a lifelong subscriber. I did not know how to exactly approach this to understand what to search for during my quest to find what sort of cheaper alternative correctly scaled monitor I can use to substitute for the studio display so I was at a complete lost until I found your amazing content. No one touched this subject properly aside from just briefly mentioning 4k scaling being weird/ an issue in all of these monitor videos for the studio display.
I knew how retina worked but I never thought about the gpu rendering issue you talked about. A really small 4K screen like 24” would prolly be awesome. But I love my 27” 1440p so my next upgrade will be for a 5k monitor so I can go retina resolutions on my desktop. That crisp text is my favorite thing on the MacBook screens
I bought a 24" Lg Ultrafine 4K and at 1440p scaling it's awesome and not heavy on the gpu at all. I think 5K is definitely on the expensive side still, and not worth it for non-pro users. You should consider a 4K instead and save a few bucks.
Jeeezus this was so helpful! I'm trying to find the right monitor for my personal m1 air and intel mbp for work, and the scaling discrepancy mixed in with other factors that go into choosing a monitor were driving me crazy! Thanks Hunter!
Thanks for this. Great vid, wish I had seen this before today, it would have made me more comfortable about what I decided to do when I replaced my i7 iMac (not retina) with a Mac Studio (base model). I was not gonna pay $1600 for the Studio display and was looking at 4k monitors. Decided to buy a used Thunderbolt display. Works great.
I really appreciate the deep dive, you explained a lot to me,. Thanks a lot for this review. It was exactly what I needed to understand the scaling. I was considering a 32'" 4K monitor. But now that you explained the scaling. I'll just keep using my 27" monitor. Thank you Hunter
This helped me so much, thanks. I had been looking at 4K's for my new MB Pro M1 Pro. Great energy, Hunter.
Bro this video is gold. I have been looking into monitors trying to decide what ppi to get and none of the resources gave a proper reasoning for their suggestions except your video. Thank you
You video adresses exactly the dilemma I was facing. I need a 27" external monitor for my MacBook Air. I had a 1080p Samsung monitor but the scaling drove me nuts. I was going to get a 27" LG monitor as an upgrade but I was told the scaling would still be a problem. The sales associate suggested a 1440 monitor so I started researching and this is what brought me to your article. You have done an awesome job covering the details. In the future you might was to make a long form video on this exact subject aimed at new content creators and do a deep dive so that it can be used as a reference on the subject. Well done...
I could be wrong, but from my understanding a 5K 27" would scale correctly as opposed to a 4K 27"
@@kevin_mitchellI think you’re right. That’s why the Apple Studio Display has 5K and 27 inches.
that sales associate was knowledgeable
Which monitor you got now
Thanks for this man ;) You did a good job explaining things . I'll check the link/article up now , as well. Cheers from Portugal
Perfect video! I've been struggling with this for a long time. Thanks for clearing it up!
I currently have a PA278QV ProArt model and I just purchases a Mac Studio. I was about to purchase a 4K monitor. I am very grateful for your video, the time you put into researching, and the clear explanation. You saved me a good amount of money, thank you! Subscribed! Also have you heard of their new version PA278CGV? It's basically the same thing but with 95% DCI-P3 and 144Hz variable refresh rate! I might get one of those.
Awesome video, great explanation. Thanks for doing the leg work for us. Ps. Love the la dispute tattoo
Thanks man! glad I could help! also it makes me happy when someone notices that tattoo so thanks for that as well 😂
I have to say thank you. You answered a huge doubt that I couldn't understand. Really thank you, i work with video, ledwall, and this finally change a lot of things
It’s a very informative video with excellent quality. I learned a lot and it’s super helpful for me to select monitors ! BTW I love your setup and your room decorations.
Completely agree with you. I recently got a Benq SW240 for my MacBook Pro and it’s only 1920x1200 which is perfect for me to use in photoshop, camera raw and affinity designer. Yes, there are some pixels if I’m really peeking but I work with color and not pixels :)
Yeah, Marc Edwards at Bjango is basically the go-to guy for macOS scaling and graphic design. Good choice on the monitor! I'm using the old Thunderbolt Display which is 1440p, it's still a great monitor and 1440p on 27" is perfect.
Thanks for the great real-life description of the problem and the fix you discovered. I'll have to watch this video at least one more time to get it soaked into my head, but that won't be a problem, since I liked your "style."
This video has been so useful and well explained. I was considering a 4K monitor for my MacBook Air M2 and this is exactly what I needed to make a decision. Thank you!
Dude, this was exactly what I was looking for… I have the same MBP and I’m trying to decide which monitor to purchase as a replacement for my old dual 23” desktop setup. You just saved me $100 and probably a headache. Thanks!
did you buy one? I am also looking for a 4k monitor and after seeing this I am afraid to buy one. what options do we have then?
Great video. I will add that one could use a 4K monitor at default res, and use UI settings to enlarge small elements. For example, increase browser scaling, and adjust Finder for larger text and icons. All important content (like image & video editing viewers) should still map properly to the screen, but yes, things will be much smaller in 4K than on 1440p. The main benefit of 4K is that 4K content in full screen will be perfect pixel representation - perhaps important for video editors (to see issues like moire). This is why edit suites have client & reference output monitors calibrated to verify content playback, so the working interface is less crucial and can be whatever the artist prefers. It all depends on your needs and setup.
yeah that's what I do. It's just a problem for text editors and mails where I have to use larger fonts. having real estate is priceless.
windows has had display scaling for ages that does this way better, i dont understand for the life of me why apple can't get this right. you shouldn't have to dick around with all of these options to get the interface to scale properly so you can see it comfortably.
@@spectre3492 its fucking insane hey... I got an older macbook pro off a mate to fuck around with. And I was softening a lot to the idea of migrating from windows to mac (just for music production, everything else still on windows... probably). Anyway... the cunt can't scale?! I have a 27" 1440p monitor that looks amazing using Windows; complete dog shit on macOS. If I had actually paid good money for this, and I get it home and am at a roadblock like this first up... How the fuck is it 2022 and we can't just set shit to 125% scaling without fucking around for 3 hours?! It's amazing that no one seems to really bring that up when talking about macs... I guess cause they're mainly using self contained units (iMac, Macbook), but mac mini users are being completely shafted. It is baffling
@@spectre3492 You don’t. What he did is basically just bought a new car because his old one ran out of gas🤦🏾♂️
@@spectre3492 I'm sorry, but if you would've actually used macOS yourself, you wouldn't say this. Windows 10 still had a weird mix of styles and sizes, even in their jungle of preference panes. Mac is way more consistent in this and has been for decades. I don't understand this guy's problem either. 4K is huge compared to 2K. If you don't like that or can't get used to it, by all means, use a lower resolution monitor. Just don't pretend it is not nice to have. It's just a personal preference. I've been using a 4K monitor for years and I will never go back.
Amazing video, you have explained it so nicely. I experienced this issue but couldn't figure out what might be the problem. Thank you so much!
Good explanation. It was so difficult to find an article o video that explain this so well. Congratulations.
Thank you so much for this video. I had been running an LG 4K 27" monitor with my MacBook Pro for about 2 years and while I didn't have performance issues, I had significant overheating issues. Simple tasks like watching KZhead videos or word processing would kick the fans on full speed. Your explanation of how MacOS handles display scaling is spot on and I finally figured out the issue to be running in scaled mode and the computer essentially sending out a 5K/6K signal and downscaling to 4K, significantly taxing the GPU on my machine. I wound up purchasing the same ASUS ProArt 27" 1440p monitor you talk about here and I'm happy to say there are absolutely no performance/overheating issues and the display looks great. I will miss the retina aspect, but I'd rather take that than dealing with a hot, slow computer. Thanks again, Hunter!
Oh no, I’ll probably cancel my LG 4k purchase! Glad to have read this.
I was wondering if should get the LG 27UN880 4K display glad to have found this video and comment. I would considering getting ProArt or Lenovo's 2K QHD 27" with 70hz
Hi! I got the same asus 1440p model and I’m having issues with it. Everything looks blurry, any tips? I have a Mac mini m2.
This was hands-down the best layman's perfectly broken down description of this issue. Well done man. I don't even think like Linus Tech tips or any of those guys ever broke this down this way. Awesome!
HE IS WRONG. This is TERRIBLE advice. Please don’t listen to him. This is not how any of this works at all. There is like 2 people in the comments who understand this. He would be more accurate if he just put random sentences together. And to put out a video pretending to know anything. SMH. Please do your own research.
@@koningskeizer I mean you're right it could be wrong but you just saying he's wrong and not backing up why... your kind of also just spewing words to make a sentence as well.
@@silentdrive3243 this
If you've got all the right answers I'd love to see a video from you explaining it all!
Thanks man! That's, why I made the video, I couldn't find anybody else talking about this issue!
Thanks for explaining your personal experience with this. I wasn’t sure how big of an issue this would be.
This was a fabulous video and really informative thanks for taking the time to put it together.
Very well done. Thorough and correct coverage of most of the issues. The one that you hadn't noticed yet is that when the scaling option chosen in the Displays system pref is neither the screen's native ppi (3840 wide) or 50% of that (1920), macOS scales Photoshop bitmaps using bilinear interpolation, causing all visible pixels to be degraded and hiding their true character. This messes with the process of working out optimal sharpening. What we need for that is to have all bitmap user images to be shown as one image pixel per screen pixel when we're zoomed to "100%". And sadly, in macOS, that's only possible when we're using one of those scalings: native or half native. So it doesn't mean that screens outside of the two green zones in the good reference you cited can't work, but if a screen is outside of the green zones, then you'll be forced to choose a scaling that either makes everything much too big (e.g. ~40% too big) or much too small (~30% too small), but those percentages vary with the choice of 27" 4K or 32" 4K. One might be forced to constantly flip back and forth between scalings, and/or mess with lots of settings for font sizes and so on, but this is a major shortcoming of macOS which has been revealed by the industry trend toward 140 and 164 ppi screens, which are otherwise quite nice. Since there are only 2 5K screens at 27" in the world and only the one 6K 32" screen, we're left with way too few choices. All three of those screens have significant shortcomings but the 27" Studio Display's may be the least bothersome. Perhaps it's worst feature is that it cannot be connected to any machine except a very new one, and among Macs it requires both a new Mac and one of the latest OS's. It's color gamut is a solid, full P3 gamut, its two screen surface options are each good-looking, and it has high max brightness, and so on. This business of monitor shopping has become quite the nightmare of complexity, if you're after the best for each feature.
That is EXACTLY the issue and feature - because - only in 'native' and 'half-native' resolutions - macOS is able to display 'parts of UI' in full resolution when UI is 2x2 px. Like ... yes ... 5120x2880 is ..... 2560x1440 for UI elements, but for 'Preview window' i can be - AT THE same time - displayed as 1x1px! In other words you can have Preview in full usable pixels 'in position where the preview window is' - however the gui parts will be rendered 2x2px.
This was extremely informative Hunter, although I don't suffer directly with this issue (I'm using 1440p on 27' but I don't do anything crazy GPU wise), it's always good to know the why's on Apple because you can suffer (or benefit) from it some other time. Thanks for this!
Thank you! This is definitely an issue a lot of people suffer from without even knowing
Thank you so much for your video! The explanation I was looking for and decisive for my final choice for my new monitor.
Thanks a lot for this review. It was exactly what I needed to understand. Was not sure if I needed 4k or 2k and actually wanted more space and better pixel density compared to full hd.
This is something that people really need to know. I was always wondering why they used odd resolutions. I also knew that they upscaled 2x for their Retina displays but I never put the two together. Thanks!
Painful numbers aside, thanks for making this. Ive been a mac user for over 20 years and this one STILL throws me for a loop. Im looking for 27" right now, i dont need 4k nor 32"! this really sucks. Most importantly, the note about the performance impact is FANTASTIC- thank you for that. Ive always used scaled on my retina laptops, as the default resolution and its huge windows are annoying as heck. thanks again.
Which you got now
Dude.. this is one of the best videos on Mac monitors and resolution I've seen. Fantastic research man. Thanks for throwing this up.
Excellent video and explanation of the scaling considerations, especially the 'good zone' chart. Many thanks.
Finally a simple and easy to understand explanation! Many thanks, you've earned yourself another follower! P.S. I've been searching for a proper monitor for my MBP these past few days and I've also stumbled upon the bjango article, I just left it for a later read and it has been waiting for me to go through it, until I opened the link you shared and noticed I've got 2 of them side-by-side :) Btw, had my eye on the new line from Dell (U2723QE) but eventually I ended up with ordering U2722DE yesterday, for the same reasons you're mentioning. Can't wait to see it in action!
how're you feeling about your choice? I'm in a conundrum now, since I have an Intel MBP and a M1 Pro MBP both (one personal, one for work) and want a 27" monitor that can handle both without causing scaling performance issues :(
I fetched the u2723qe 4K 27". I love it. My m1 air loves it too. No issues. Using the scaled (second from the right) resolution.
And I ended up with dell U2722DE. It's super sharp even at "just" native 1440p, and beautiful colors, I love the panel and versatility of the powered USBC port too. Only downside of observed is that the stand is pretty wobbly but I have mostly mitigated this by stabilizing my table and putting it on a cutting board on which I put rubber feet on it 😅 atop the table
I’m surprised this is not discussed more. The other problem with scaled resolutions is that you will lose some sharpness. And as of sharpness if you sharpen your images on a high density 4k monitor it will be over sharpened on a regular low ppi monitor, which many people are still using. So with retina MacBooks 1440p monitor is really the best option for any design or photography work, because then you can check your work both on high and low pixel density monitors.
It’s discussed heavily if you follow channels that’s more dev centric but I agree mainstream reviewers should talk about these shady practices but they don’t care cuz they review best products including apple top of the line so they don’t spend enough time worrying about this
My 24” 1080p monitor with Mac Mini 2018 hurts my eyes to use very disorienting
Nobody is going to control every pixel on your images. And no web developer would care about if final result on Web will be few pixels off. Because whole idea of "pixel perfect responsive design" is huge bullshit by principle.
👏 this right here, awesome job man. I’ve been trying to figure it out as well, but you just compressed hours of research into such a concise video. Thank you!
No problem! I couldn’t find any good videos on the subject
Thanks for this video. The scaling thing was very baffling to me after getting my first Apple computer (Macbook Pro). I just couldn't get it to feel right with my BenQ 4K monitor. Thanks to your video I've decided to go for a 27" 1440p monitor for it.
Good review of this issue, I've notice the performance hit on my older Intel MBP, M1 mini not seeing it on 2x Dell 4Ks. Tangentially, people might not know you can Option click on scaled to get access to the native resolutions for your monitor (the old list of resolutions). Also with Monetary we can now adjust the refresh rate (which Macs used to be able to back in the day but Apple removed that years ago, I don't recall when but a long time ago).
I did not know you need to option click for native resolutions. Thanks for mentioning it.
I have been able to adjust my monitors refresh rate since catalina
Brilliant! You’ve nailed it! This is the explanation I was looking for. It perfectly explains why the old 27inch Thunderbolt Display was at 1440p, and the new studio display and iMacs are at 5K.
This is spot on! Great perspective, very well explained and supported. I am currently using a 4K for coding on 27 inch, and I am thinking about switching.
Good vid- thanks for the details! Very educational - I've been falling down the 4K rabbit hole coming from an LG 5K Ultrafine.
this is really informational video. as a people that using both macbook for school and pc and console for gaming, choosing 2k and 4k is really pain in the ass. i am using a 27inch 4k60hz monitor, it was quite perfect. it runs fine on consoles, for some games on pc that needed too much hardware powers, I could lower the settings, or just set the resolution in 1080p, which is a perfect scaling. and the switch only supports 1080p, so a 4k monitor is perfect. but I have been playing some fps and racing games that I would like a high refresh rate monitor. a 4k144hz is really expensive, and needs lots of power to run. while a 2k160hz-ish monitor is in a more affordable price range and it requires less hardware powers, and it is better for mac. but all consoles, none of them support 1440p. and i think many websites or old applications on windows are designed for 1080p, 1440p is just in a awkward position for someone like me that is not using the monitor for a sole purpose.
@Hunter King BTW, if you option click on "scaled" you will get resolution by the numbers AND you get a "Show all resolutions" button that will tell you which resolutions are scaled or processor intensive. Pretty much answered some of the questions you had about what resolution works best. Agreed about most of the information you presented tho.
Hahah commented the same thing. It's hidden trick. Not sure why they just show all of it by default
I have a macos (Mac Mini M1) attached to a 4K monitor and a windows 11 laptop. Macos (or iPadOS for that matter) connected to a non-Apple monitor is to laugh at. W11 is MUCH better in almost everything but on battery / code optimization (and the battery improvements don't interest me as I have no MacBook).
@@ricarmig Windows (7 to 11) uses the monitor at its original resolution (eg ... 3840x2160 for a 4K panel) and then scale the UI. MacOs imposes a high level of quality (220dpi) to smooth the UI at @2x ... Which is better ? it depends ONLY on your level of requirement. If one is satisfied with little, Windows is better. If you have a minimum quality requirement, MacOS is better. That's all
@@ricarmig Windows doesn’t give you the high quality option at all, which isn’t better. Mac OS doesn’t force you to use scaled resolutions (which look amazing on HiDPI displays). The beginning of this video says that you can use full 4K res, but UI elements appear tiny. In that case, system & app settings can be adjusted to scale-up many interfaces.
Thank you - great explanation. I was inclining to the 27" 2K and you have helped confirm this decision.
Dude, great video. Came here after watching a Tech Notice video on the Mac Studio. Thanks for the succinct explanation!
Hey, Hunter. Thanks for this very in-depth video! I have a small Macbook Air M1. I'm a writer, so I need text to show up as clearly as possible--as I'm constantly staring at text. I've read some comments that text actually shows up better on 4k displays... What was your experience with how the text showed up on 4k vs 1440p displays? Thanks!
Categorically, on a Mac, text is not sharp on a 4K. 1440p it is, but you have to contend with seeing the pixels or 5K - they are your only 2 flawless options, or a MacBook screen.
Nice summary of this issue. Only thing I would say is that, at least in my opinion, the difference in text clarity between 27 1440p and 27 4k is very noticeable on Mac. I'm currently running a 1440p display for gaming and a 4k display largely for content consumption or software development, which is much of my day job. Admittedly though I don't really use GPU intensive programs on my 4k monitor so I've never run in to the performance issues you mention.
Same here, and same on Windows 2, 1440p is usable, but 4k is another level, especially for text
@@_Digitalguy Well it isn't the same on Windows. MacOS' text rendering engine is worse than ClearType on Windows. MacOS relies more on high resolution to make the text sharp.
@@teemuvesala9575 Yes, I noticed that lower resolution on MacOS is worse, having said that even on Windows the move from 1440p to 2160p is noticeable
@@_Digitalguy Depends on the screen size. 27" is still fine, in fact ideal for 1440p from normal viewing distance. You have to use scaling if you have 4K 27" monitor which makes some programs having blurry text since they don't work with scaling too well. Above 27" yes, 4K is worth it.
Hello, what upscaling do you use for 4K 27 monitor? How much memory and power does it take?
Oh my god thank you so much for putting this information out there in a digestible manor! This was so hard to understand for me before your video.
This was the most informative video on the subject, the most informative anything on the subject, that I have come across in days of searching for guidance on what would be a good monitor for my new M2 Pro Mac Mini. This is invaluable! Thanks!
That was one of the best explanations of how the interface/scaling to non apple monitors work with Apple Mac OS. I bought two 27" 1440 Benq PD series designer monitors for my Mac M1 mini (soon to be upgraded to a Mac Studio Ultra) and couldn't be happier with them... One of the best monitors I've owned, crisp fonts like reading a well bound book. Ideal for photo & video editing too.. Thanks for sharing your video and reference article...
name you benq please, or link
I run a 32 inch 4K and it’s scaled as you’ve said. Now you’ve explained to me why it’s so much slower in graphics intense situations than 1080 or native 4K. As an office worker on spreadsheets and also in Lightroom for photo work on the weekends I think the best outcome for me performance wise is to switch to 1080p (which is massive on a 32 inch monitor) for now. Really appreciate the deep dive, explained a lot for me, thank you!
Honestly 1080p looks _extremely_ blocky at 32". Even 1440p is a little blocky at 32". I'm kinda amazed that mac's are still stumbling over scaling issues. They seem to be a victim of their own iphone "retina" marketing hype, which really doesn't apply in a 1:1 way to a monitor on a desk. And their chart with red & green zones is pretty bad. The size ranges of their categories are wider than their green zones, which makes the chart useless. On a reasonable budget, you likely want a 27-28" 1440p (no scaling), or perhaps a 32" 1440p (also no scaling) if you sit back from the screen a ways (over 30" from eye to screen). For 4k to look right at native scaling, you'd need a 40-42" monitor. At that size there's very limited options for monitors, as most panels of that size are 'monitor-ized' tv's (with some drawbacks as a result). Also 4k is a monstrous graphical workload, so it will negatively impact performance unless you have quite an enthusiast computer build. Personally, I trained for graphical productivity on iMac's in 1999/2000... and I couldn't get away from mac's fast enough once free of having to use the machines in the graphics studio at uni. They were brand new candy-translucent models, very posh, but they were just terrible platforms. Inferior in every meaningful way than my 1996 pc at home (unless desk aesthetic is meaningful I suppose). But regardless of my personal views on macs, at native resolution, you typically want 20-22" for 1080p (maybe 24/25" if you sit way back), 27-28" for 1440p (maybe 32" if you sit way back), or 38-43" for 4k (2160p) _maybe_ 32" if you typically stick your nose in the monitor, or maybe 48" if you wall-mount it for some distance. And that's all just based on eyes and distance, not brand related. The performance impact of pixel count will be drastically greater than whether scaling is turned on. 1080p is about 2m pixels, 1440p is about 3.7m pixels, and 4k is about 8.1m pixels. Graphical performance will mostly scale linearly with those pixel counts. And that's all based on graphical processing, which also isn't brand related. Scaling _should_ be an incredibly minor graphical workload in comparison to the workload of a larger resolution itself, unless there's something very seriously wrong with modern macs.
Cleared all my confusions! Bless up King!
Thank you so much for this detailed explanation! Although I didn’t follow every single detail, I got the basics and the gist.I really appreciate your help. 😃
For those who have issues with the resolution (working at 30 Hz) after connecting a macbook to it, to be able to work at 60 Hz, you will need to change the mode in System -> PC/AV Mode (monitor settings). Also change the resolution settings in the Macbook (display settings - hold option key and click over scaled, then select 60Hz). My monitor is a Samsung odyssey G7 28 4k.
28' at 4K is good? I liked the Samsung UR550 monitor but MacOS scaling is very bad
@@Moesuito 28' for macs are shit. No problems on windows though
@@gabrielsurraco2668 i swear hahahaha
Sorry, what do we need to select in monitor settings- PC or AV mode? I have a Samsung 1080p monitor and my MacBook Pro 16 inch (intel touch bar version) is unable to detect the monitor
@@abhisheka3 Find a program called SwitchResX, it will find the right resolution for you.
Got used to run my 27'' 4k display with a 200% scaling on a PC, UI & fonts size on Mac OS with standard ("like 1080p") scaling looks pretty similar, so it's not a problem personally for me.
you certainly have been through quite a bit of palaver over this monitor and I appreciate you sharing this as I am looking for a monitor and do not have a lot of experience … this is the best video I could have discovered and I think it will save me a lot of time … thanks so much
oh wow, this!! This is exactly what I've been looking for! Thank you very much!
OMG this information is GOLD. Thank you, man! I subbed!
Thanks for the sub! Glad to have ya 👏
I had the same issue with a 4k 27" Dell Ultrasharp. The text was way too small for my eyes (I'm 50yo), or a bit blurry whenever I changed the pixel density to 1440p, instead of macOS' default 1080p 4:1 pixel downscale. I replaced it with the U3223QE, it's 32" big brother. This one looks great. Only menus text stays small, since you cannot change their font size. But it's doable for all other apps: from the Finder sidebar (via cmd ,) to web browsers (cmd + or cmd - in Safari or Chrome) and of course all types of word processors. In more basic Mac native apps like Stickies, Reminder, Notes or TextEdit, you can use cmd t to summon macOS' Text Menu and adjust the font size and weight. And I don't know about your Asus ProArt, but all current Ultrasharp monitors feature an auto KVM switch, 60 or 90W recharge for your laptop when connected via USB-C, and additional ports: not only USB but also Ethernet and an audio jack (but your Mac one is surely better). No more need for an expensive Call Digit hub! I must sound like a Dell salesman, but I'm not. I just purchased their first 1440p monitor, in 2012, and it still works.
Awesome insight, thanks for sharing. I returned a $1000 BenQ design monitor recently because it was woefully dim at max brightness and I was having unexpected issues with video being choppy in full-screen mode and InDesign running slow. I thought I'd do a little more research before buying an ASUS 4K, and so glad I stumbled onto your video. Totally makes sense. Thanks buddy!
This is an awesome video. I also had a hard time finding good information about this except the occasional post here and there on the Mac forums or Reddit. Thank you for breaking this down in video form
Excellent video. I actually have 2 of the same monitors for my custom desktop and was worried 1440p would look bad at 27" in macOS. I just spent a ton on a m1pro 14" and didn't want to have to spend more money on a new monitor. Quick question what thunderbolt dock do you use? Also while it's true that these ProArt displays are factory calibrated and are pretty accurate, there are definitely panel variances. Mine had slightly different color between the two. If you can borrow a color calibrator from a friend it makes them 👌.
The thunderbolt dock that he uses is either the Caldigit TS3+ or TS4
Hi, I just bought the 14” MBP, and I’ve always wanted to buy the Asus ProArt 27” 4K. After seeing this video I understand the issue, my only concern is that I work a lot with Salesforce and spreadsheets so I’m worried the text will look blurry on the 1440p Asus ProArt 27” I also want to mention I do photo and video editing so 4k sounds better for that use. Can you tell me how it looks since you have the same configuration? Thanks!
Thanks for reminding me about that great article. I did see it years ago and totally forgot about it. And I nearly pulled the trigger on a 4K screen. Technically you should be referring to your screen as a 2.5K screen (the horizontal measure) when comparing with the doubling to 5K screens. I have a Dell 2.5K screen and like you said, it is a perfect fit and sharp. When prices eventually drop I'll grab a 5K screen one day.
wow, great video. Was doing research on that topic and couldn't find reliable info until now. Congrats!
Great video bro! I just bought a 4k 32" and was having tons of issues myself! Your a life savor!
Man, you explained it really well, not a Mac person and I finally get why Apple scales like they do. Also, as a Sound Designer, loved how you have a Lav but also your audio interface recording = 1 audio + backup. Great work, a Hi all the way from Colombia, keep on the good work
Apple scaling is really a simple way of solving something that is caused by a legacy system in the background. I dont belive apple cares to fix it in a better way - Mac's is a second citizen in apple country and all profits are from iphones today. And that shows.
Really awesome video! I've done a bunch of research on macOS scaling and monitors and came to a similar conclusion, but your video summed up my hours of research in just a few minutes! My biggest concern with getting a 1440p monitor (especially with a matte finish) is text clarity. I had the old 27" Apple Cinema Display (1440p but glossy) and sold it because it was aging, had a good resale value, and I didn't want it failing on me. So torn between getting a 4K monitor and hoping the 1080p scaling doesn't bother me too much or sticking to 1440p because I absolutely do GPU intensive work at times. Tl;Dr: How does text look to you on the matte screen? I'm coming from a 1440p monitor so I'm used to 1440p @27", but know matte finishes usually make text clarity worse...
matte finish ruins everything..not just text. its frustrating manufactures don't even provide glossy options. they straight up act like glossy coating does't exist at all.
my guess is for glossy displays they have to dial up the nits for decent viewing experience. and cowards don't want to do that.
Can’t you just independently increase the system-wide text size in MacOS if you want bigger text?
Thank you very much this is the video I was looking for, you explain in great detail about this issue.
I have a 1440p monitor as my second screen for my 5K iMac. Obviously, the scaling is perfect but I couldn't have a 1440p for my main screen. Compared to the retina screen on the iMac, it's just too low-res. However, it means that in therm of upgrading my iMac to a Studio, I only have two choices - LG Ultrafine and a Studio Display. The iMac's screen is by far the best I've ever used!
or a used Apple Thunderbolt Display maybe?
@@robgerety I wondered about those as well. However, what is the life expectancy on the Thunderbolt Monitor?
@@residenttouristprod No clue. I expect mine will likely outlive me.
@@residenttouristprod Mine works perfectly some 12 years after I’ve bought it.
Same. The difference between retina and non-retina was just too jarring for me.
I had another thought. I've been working at the scaling issue with a friend for a long time now and I think we've figured out something important regarding what you observed for the slowdown with the 4K monitor. The original theory being that it was all the work to constantly upscale and downscale frames 60X each second. Now it appears as though that's not it at all -- rather it's just a shortage of RAM. Your 13" M1 MacBook comes with either 8 or 16 Gigs of shared memory. I don't think you mentioned which one you got, but certainly all Macs start to slow down as they come close to running short. You can see how they operate if you open Activity Monitor and examine the use of compressed memory for the many running applications, and the residual free memory (in particular, among various other memory measurements). Once you see a lot of apps running with some of their data in RAM having been compressed (that portion gets compressed down to about 40 to 50% of its original size when that's happening, so it frees up more RAM) you can be sure the OS is having to work harder to keep the ball rolling. I find that when my 16 GB 2012 MacBook Pro is down to less than 2 GB "free" it's starting to get complicated and may get very slow, and if it's down to 1 GB free I'm really in trouble and the machine is very prone to becoming highly unresponsive, but intermittently, in a complex pattern. So what we did, my friend used his 2021 14" MacBook Pro M1 Max with 64 GB of RAM to run an experiment I suggested. He's got it connected to a 31.5", 4K NEC display, so it's VRAM requirement (the GPU's share of the shared memory of the SoC Mac) is essentially the same as your 4K ASUS's was. There is a feature in Activity Monitor called "Memory History" that opens a little window and creates a running bar graph of GPU activity. If you just open that little window then do some things like open a new window or scale something or whatever, you can see how much your GPU cores are working as a result. He opened up a 4K video and played it. He changed the scaling of the screen in the Displays system pref, and there was a huge spike in GPU utilization that lasted a fraction of a second, but then it fell back essentially to zero. I.e. it jumped from showing only one tiny square to around 40 tiny squares tall of utilization for just two columns of squares. Same for switching back to the other scaling option. This test shows rather conclusively that the GPU does not have to labor continuously on account of using a different scaling from the "Default", or if it does that that labor is tiny. On the other hand, we do know that gamers using a 4K display with an 8 GB discreet GPU do run into trouble with performance in some degree with some games and some frame rates. So I'm betting that your performance problem had its actual root in a shortage of RAM. E.g. the CPUs or the GPU cores, either one or both, may have been starved for memory to the point of messing with your other program. For me, this is a huge deal, that it's OK to use the scaling options without constantly burdening the GPU and wasting power too, because it means I have about 10 monitors to choose from instead of 2! (all of which are pretty good candidates, but none of which are perfect -- is there such a thing? I'd prefer to see more 5K 27" and 32" displays and/or to see macOS stop scaling user bitmaps whenever native or half native scaling are not being used. Thanks for helping work this out. More science! :-)
So on my Mac ultra with 128 gigs of RAM… I should not have any scaling problems.?? I have the Mac Studio monitor which is perfectly amazing but I’m looking for a second monitor that isn’t so expensive.
@@2424rocket Hi Allen. From what I can tell, from all the evidence I've seen (from many sources) it does appear as though you should have no problem. I too just got a Mac Studio with the Ultra and 128 GB of RAM. I am in much the same boat and have decided to go ahead and place an order for a 27" 4K monitor, the very expensive EIZO CG2700X, which won't ship until "the autumn" to replace a 9-year old Dell 30" U3014, which runs at its native 102 ppi. Opting for this pricey unit makes my bet that both scaling issues will work out fine all that much more difficult, but I went ahead and committed to that plan. So I won't see for myself what happens until those pieces are all put together in a few months. But my friend's testing with his 31.5" 4K NEC showed no hint of any slowing down and the GPU History tool is almost 100% certain to reveal any such rumored GPU labors as continuous (60X per second) scaling of the UI at any non-native ("Looks like" 3840 x 2160 or 1920 x 1080) scaling of any 4K monitor. He understood the point of our test, but when we spoke about it I didn't specifically ask him which two scalings he used when he switched from one to the other, then made a second scaling switch. The only way this 60 FPS scaling extra GPU work alleged in the theory could have been avoided if it is a real thing, was if he only used those two scalings for the test, which is highly unlikely, since he understood the point of the test. But I've just sent him an email to make sure (which two did you use?). He's traveling today but is very attentive to email. I'll add a note here with his reply. When he confirms (most likely) that one of the two scalings was one of the other ones (the ones requiring the scaling) we should be free to feel 99+% certain that the alleged 60/second slowdown is a myth. And that the most likely explanation for the often-observed slowdown is indeed instead a shortage of RAM on some systems. In case I didn't mention the other scaling issue before: At the non-native (i.e. not when choosing Looks like 3840 or 1920 wide) scalings, the OS scales all bitmaps, both UI bitmaps and user bitmaps (e.g. images we have open in Photoshop, etc.). For the user bitmaps, the scale it uses for this bilinear-interpolated scaling uses the size at 1920 wide as the anchor of the progression of scales. So when you choose 2560 wide scaling and open the same file in Photoshop at 100% zoom, the size of the image on screen will be 1920/2560 as big, i.e. exactly 75%. Zoom to 133.3% and it looks the same size, but it will then have been interpolated twice: first down 25% with bilinear (by the OS, making it quite a bit blurrier but at this point it's too tiny to tell) then up 33.3% with nearest neighbor (by Photoshop). Big mess. So for seeing what you're doing just right for sharpening files, i.e. to see your pixels more or less as they really are, you'll want to use Looks like 1920 wide (or could use Looks like 3840 wide but then all icons and text and UI stuff would be crazy tiny) in order to see the image well. It's true that the image will be way too small at the native res of the display (~140 ppi for 31.5" and ~164 ppi for 27") to see the pixels, but zooming to 200% will bring the image to a usable scale for seeing its pixels somewhat clearly, and 300% will likely be ideal for sharpening work. The pixels may not be precisely as crisp as they would look at 100% or 200% on an 102 ppi monitor at its native res, but very close, since nearest neighbor scaling keeps the data perfect that way (each pixel going from 100% to 200% in PS simply becomes a 2x2 block of pixels of identical RGB values), it's just that the sub-pixel designs of the display (visible under a 10X loupe e.g.) cause a 2x2 block of pixels at e.g. 218 ppi (e.g. on your 27" Studio Display or at 220 ppi on my 15" Retina display) to look a little less crisp than a 1x1 pixel block (as it were) on a 109 ppi display. Confusing, isn't it!
Thank you for that very very very very long reply. Lol. And congratulations on getting the Mac studio ultra… I’ve had it for a little less than a month and it is just flawless. It is the fastest most powerful computer I’ve ever owned. And I’m loving it. Again, I do have the Mac Studio monitor but what can I buy for a second monitor that’s just decent. It doesn’t have to be great but I do want 4K? I was thinking of a Dell monitor but I’ve heard it has problems and that non-reflective screen cuts down on the sharpness. That would make me crazy. And that stupid blue light protection cannot be shut off.
@@2424rocket You're quite welcome. I hope I can unravel these issues correctly for lots of people, not just myself. I just heard back from my friend, who was at an airport, waiting for a long flight. He recalls that he tried at least three and probably four scalings, and they all behaved the same way - no effect on GPU usage except for a moment during the transition to a new scaling. So that means that he had to test at least one of the scalings offered which was one that requires the UI to scale everything on the screen. So that pretty much clinches it. Glad to hear you're loving the new Mac. I'm not surprised. The era of waiting during computing will be, for me, officially over! Finally, after thirty years... And everyone says the box doesn't even get warm -- excellent! I have collected a vast amount of information on the zillions of monitors on the market, because I wanted to be certain I picked the best one for my purposes. Once I decided (finally, after long consideration) that a 4K or 5K 27" would be preferable to a 31.5" 4K, that narrowed the field to about 10 contestants. Those include 3 or 4 (if you count the alternate LG version) OLEDs (LG, LG, ASUS and Philips, only one of which is shipping now, prices ~ 3 or 4 thousand, down to just $1,100 for the Philips). Then there are the two 5K 27", the one you already have and its predecessor the LG 5K, which isn't as good as the 27" Studio Display. After that it's a range of IPS panels, varying from a minimum of about $900 (for the ones with gamuts that I'd consider OK, i.e. they must have at least 98% coverage of P3, and close to 100% of Adobe is a bonus) up to a max of about $3,500 (for the EIZO CG2700X, available in the fall). Dell has fewer 27" models of interest, mainly the... heck, I might as well just paste in my list. Here goes: My preferred among the ten have their numbers in bold face: #'s 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11
Yes, after running the computer for five hours, I put my hand on it and it’s not even warm! How is this even possible? And it goes from dead cold to up and running in about 10 seconds. It is simply amazing. I could not see the list of your monitors… I really don’t wanna spend more than five or $600 on a second monitor. I don’t know. I went to Best Buy and looked at all these monitors and they are such crap next to the Apple monitor. But I just can’t do another $1700 right now. I just spent $7000 on the computer and the monitor… That’s enough for now. And now, the hunt for the perfect mouse. So far I think the MX anywhere 3 might be the new one for me.
This was all I need to know and understand. Just like you said, I couldn't find much information about this to understand why. So HUUUUGE Thank youuuuuuuuu.
Love this insight, struggling with pixel density myself, found this very helpful!
To be more precise, your system is not scaling up anything. It's rendering natively at 5k, exactly as it would be if you were using a 5k display. Integer scaling that down to 1440p is trivial and not causing your issue. You were effectively rendering blender at 5k and expecting it to run like 1080p.
My 24” 1080p monitor with Mac Mini 2018 hurts my eyes to use very disorienting
While you are technically correct, this is not obvious unless you are very technical. This explanation did help me and I am sure it did help others. You dinging it int that way is unhelpful at best and elitist bullcrap at worst.
@@TakutoDE but I think if you're making a video about this the least you could do is research the issue and understand it better
Confidently incorrect
@@TakutoDEIt's actually kind of an important difference. If the performance on a 4k monitor scaled to look like 1440p is the same as running the 5k monitor at integer scaling, it kind of negates some of what the video was saying. It also, of course, would mean that buying the studio display would not fix this issue, while the video sort of implies it would.
DUDE! I just got the 27 in asus pro art 4K a couple weeks ago. I run an M1 base MacBook Air and I HAVE noticed the performance drop, especially when editing raw in Lightroom. This explanation was awesome, as I have been using the 1440 p scaling and this now makes perfect sense. Now I must consider - do I swap it for 1440 version?? Haha thanks a TON for this video man!
This is totally up to you! I found that editing photos I didn't see enough of a performance drop for the switch and would enjoy the 4K resolution. I swapped it out because of all of the 3D and VFX tools that I use, this is where I saw the biggest drop in performance
Great explanation! Thank you! I’m new to MAC and this video has been very helpful.
Terrific Video, I never notice this as I worked on a 32” 4k on small letters but with 32” I could see the text with no issues. Really good analysis thanks 🙏
Interesting video. I had the same thoughts in terms of downscaling 4k vs. native 1440p. I tried out both versions and ended up with triple 4k monitors (DisplayLink) downscaled to 2304x1296 on an M1 Mac Mini and I have no issues with performance. The flexibility of the 4k screens lets me pick the perfect scaling and I'm super happy with it.
I run an M1 MBP with 5120x1440 resolution (Samsung Odyssey G9 49"). This vlogger apparently doesn't know that you can use native resolutions on Macos.
@@dingdong2103 these commenters apparently also doesn’t understand natuve 4k at 27 inch make everything look so small smh
I just purchased a 4k 32 inch 144hz dell monitor to run with my m1 mac air. I'm wondering if this was the right decision now, pls advise?
@@faraztheawsum do u have any performance updates?
@@johnb5739 yeah it's perfectly fine lol. I don't notice any performance issues. I changed the text size on the display and it's very fast and clean
Thanks to Hunter for making this video. I wanted a 4K monitor but now I don't want any performance issues. After reading a bunch of comments here and its replies it seems there are two actions that may provide some solution: 1-Make sure the resolution in System Preferences is set to "Default for display" (otherwise set it that way, close and reopen System Pref), then hold down OPTION key while clicking the SCALED option, now it should show more options in the list. For a 4K monitor, choose the 5K resolution (5120*2880). This should enable the real Retina scaling but the monitor will only display what it can. Now check if the performance is affected or not. 2-the other option is to use the Betterdummy (Betterdisplay) utility to adjust and enable the HiDPI (Retina) scaling that is not enabled with some 4K monitors. Also, if you are using a MacBook (not a Mini or any other desktop model) try closing the lid so the built in display will go OFF and the whole GPU will be dedicated to the external monitor(s). Can somebody with a 4K monitor (and having issues) try these and post the findings and monitor model here??
(this was a really helpful summary as well - thank you!)
The tricky detail here is the iMac 21.5" was 4K so there should be something else activated so the system properly perform using that resolution. My conclusion is it seems MacOS also takes in account the SIZE of the monitor to determine the DPI and define if it is "worthy" of enabling Retina for it, among maybe some other things, so the performance is not affected. For Apple, the Retina reference is 220 DPI. 4K in a 27" is definitely not Retina BUT... 4K in a 22" is and 4K in a 24" is close enough. I ended up getting an "LG 24UD58-B 24-Inch 4K UHD IPS Monitor with FreeSync" with a budget price of $280. I was already using a 23" FHD and my use case has very little image editing, mostly Sys Admin stuff. 27" with Retina has to be 5K and the only mainstream models are LG and Apple, around $1300 and $1500, respectively. Not in my budget right now. I checked my needs and I didn't need more screen space but actually better image quality (Retina) for my sight. So a 24" Retina is the way to go for me.
@@jdelgadocr Have you enabled HiDPI (with BetterDummy or Betterdisplay) on your 27 inch 4k monitor? Does it look like normal? Did performance decreased? Is there any heat issue?
@@norbert-keizo After realizing the dpi for a 4K 27 is just slighty better than my 23" 1920*1080, I opt for a LG budget 24" 4K. Even I had to adjust the colors manually, the HiDPI (Retina) was enabled by default with no performance issues.
Dude great video! Hands down the best video on this subject. Problem solved on my end. Thanks man!
Thank you so much!!! So hard to find this info elsewhere
Thank you so much for your well researched video about OS scaling. I wanted to pair my new Mac Studio computer with a 32 inch 4K LG monitor, but I am so glad I chose the 27 inch 5K Mac Studio Display instead. The resolution just blows you away. It is interesting how Mac OS works in multiples of 1440 vertical. My previous iMac was a 2012 version with 2560 x1440 pixels. The new Studio Display is 5120 x2880 pixels so the formula is consistent. The 32 inch Mac Pro XDR with 6016 x 3384 pixels also renders close to 218 ppi, the same as the 27 inch. There are some 32 inch monitors with 2560 x1440 pixels but these will possibly not be as good as a 27 inch because it is the same pixels over a larger area. There is no 32 inch with 5120x2880 pixels and there is nothing that is similar to the 32 inch Mac PRO XDR which is too expensive
Windows has to scale as well. Most sized monitors are way too tiny to display 4K as 4K. Really 32” and larger is the starting point for comfortable usage. On Windows that’s why you will typically see 150% scaling for displays are more realistic to use. Now some will argue the Apple way is better because it looks better. Yes it uses more resources but it’s a cleaner retina look. Apple also has a lower quality scaled mode where it’s not retina and its 1440p. The downside to only having a 1440p monitor is that’s what you are stuck with. With my 32” I can choose what mode it uses based on the program used. If it’s not a GPU intensive task let the monitor look crystal clear. If you are rendering in Blender then drop to 1080p. Plus the scaling to 5k from a 4K monitor uses just as many resources as a 5k display does. Both are retina and rendering the screen at 5120 wide. So the 5k Apple display uses as many resources as a 4K display scaled to 5k. Apple just gives the warning because rendering the screen at 5120 60 times a second does take more resources then a 3840 at 60 times a second will. But it’s the same as the 5k display. Scaling to 6k uses the same amount of resources as the Apple 6k display. The issue is using a Mac computer for blender that already has very limited GPU power for a blender. So any extra resources will take a hit. Yes without a doubt a 1440p display will use less resources but that is also true on Windows. The same goes for a 1080p display. So basically you discovered a lower resolution display will perform better. Which has always been the case. Now most Apple users find their systems to perform perfectly fine as is and this is not an issue at all. Many designers scale their 15” and 16” MBPs to 1920x1200 or higher for example and never notice any performance loss. Without a doubt there is a big clarity difference between 1440p at 27” and 5k at 27”. I have had both resolution iMacs and it’s very clear the 5k has more clarity. It may look fine for you and yes 1440p and even 1080p is perfectly fine to work with but that is not true for everyone. 5k as 2.5k and 4K as 2k definitely have their place. It comes down to maximizing GPU for apps and having a crystal clear experience. To each their own. I however prefer to have a display where I can change that use vs being stuck with only one use. 1080p and 1440p displays Lao don’t always get the same color advancements like true 10bit, p3 color, or rec2020 color. 1440p is now largely target at the gaming market and typically not aimed at color professionals. Something to think about.
Great video Hunter, this is something I have been looking more into and wondering. I have a Studio M1 Max on the way (upgraded to the 10 core CPU, 32 core GPU, 16 core Neural Engine), I've been looking at the LG 27MD5KL-8 and other 4K options but wondering if the capabilities of the Mac Studio changes anything from a decision point. Appreciate any feedback, Thx
That was excellent! I wish these things were some how very transparent, with out so much searching! Thanks for the clear explanation!
You tackled a still hot topic here, congrats on the good presentation, Hunter. And thanks for that. My experience is this: after much of a headache i could not bring myself to pair my very nice retina macbook display with a QHD monitor, being so much inferior in resolution. So i chose the DELL Ultrasharp U2723qe ("black ips"). The display is sharp and resembles the colors and contrasts of the retina display easily, even if not the full retina resolution. I am working simultaniously on the macbook (m1 air) with open lid, sitting in front of me (using the macbook trackpad and keyboard) and the Dell resides above - continuing the display in the vertical. I was afraid, both panels would not match and would give me tears everyday when working. This is not the case: the DELL panel is as good as the apple. I use a high resolution (in contrast to the so called low resolution shown when you click "scaled" with option key) that is described as 3008x1692. That perfectily matches the finest setting ("more space") called "1680x1050" on the air retina display. Never ever would I use a QHD instead! (mostly working as a programmer with IDEs and terminals)
hey, i'm also looking for 27" 4k monitor for SD, do u met any performance issues due to non-integer scaling? how does fonts looks in IDE @ 1692p scaling?
@@johnb5739 Hey, I am using visual studio code most of the day and sometimes i vary the scaling within vs code (command +/-). No issues since the fonts are rendered by the macos. Its a dream. No performance issues either. Remember the M1 Air has no fan and would need to throttle the cpu if it gets too hot. I am using "Usage" to have temperature and core and gpu usage. Its fine. And again, anything below 4k will never be able to allow for "HiDpi" resolution in macos, resulting in less pixels per character or icon etc. with 27" 4k i cannot see pixels when at a distance of 20 cm to the display. 32" will not give you more real estate, it will only allow for greater viewing distance. Because: you will not want the highest resolution (that is 4k natively without scaling) since it is then a LowDPI mode -> which uses less pixels per font etc. Hope to be helpful.
I'd like to thank you so much for sharing. I'm almost buying a dell U2723qe, which is really expensive in my country. I have a m1 macbook pro 2021 and I work a lot with programming. May I ask you if you still have the same opinion even after this much time?
Nice video, thanks. Had the same problem, didn't want to bother with 4k so I got myself the Dell U2717D, also a very accurate 1440p panel. Couldnt be happier! 1440p on 27" looks soooooooo sharp and gives you so much room to work with. Its been over 3 years now and I I still wouldnt want a 4,5 or 6k monitor. Have a great day :-)
I’m waiting for the dell U2724d. I hope I like it also.
@@twistedillustrations Good for you. Hope you have fun with it and it does what you need it to🙂
Did you have issues with it being blurry/not sharp? I’ve got a dell 1440p monitor and it looks terrible with M1 MBA
@@greatestshowdave2266 Hi there. No, not at all, it worked flawlessly from the beginning. Have you checked the monitor settings or the settings on your Mac?
@@360clouds6 thanks for replying! I’ve tried both, as well as third party apps. I noticed yours is ultra sharp, so maybe that’s why yours had no issues (I have Dell G2724D)
Thanks, man! That was very useful for me in making my monitor buying decision.🤝
The information I was looking for. Thanks!!!
I love using my 4k monitor on my M1 MacBook Pro. The performance is buttery smooth. But I’m not doing 3D rendering - I’m using it for my software development workflow. Sounds like this won’t be an issue for most users.
What monitor are you using and how is the text clarity? I'm using a 34" 1440p with only 109 ppi, and the difference in clarity is immediately noticeable after switching from my Windows work machine to my mac. I find myself needing to adjust constantly when switching between the 2.
@@dreistheman7797 Text clarity is great. I’m using as my primary monitor the LG 27GN950. I use it for both my Mac and my Windows PC.
i went the opposite of what you did. After I got MacBook Pro M1 14, I realized PA278QV does not allow Hidpi, therefore fonts look so small in native 1440 resolution. I bought PA279CV and use the "Larger text" and everything looks good. I only use my macbook for web browsing, some light photo/video editing, so I don't notice any performance issue.
Amazing explanation buddy, I was spending a lot of time researching and reading reviews looking for the same answer I mean either buy a 27' 4k or a 27' 2k monitor and you did it buddy. Really appreciated, the best explanation I've seen ever
Thank you for sharing your experience. This helps as I am in the market for a large external monitor for my mac air... (liked)
I noticed this on my Mac MIni when I plugged in a 4k screen, and ended up going with one of the 'between' ones. I have fairly undemanding usage computationally speaking and personally haven't really noticed much performance dip in general use despite running two monitors so just keep it at the scaling that looks good to me. I can see why this might be an issue though, for those who need more GPU.
My old Dell 2408WFP monitor from 2008 was failing, and I was looking for a new monitor. I'd settled on the Dell U2720Q - a 27" 4k monitor. After seeing your video I realized I didn't want something that wasn't supported natively, and delved deep into this MacOS scaling rabbit hole. People seemed to be really divided on this issue. There are those saying 1440p looks better because it doesn't have any of the issues you mentioned, but then there are also people saying 4k still looks better, even in scaled mode, because of the high ppi. In the end I decided to get the 1440p version of the monitor I was looking to get (U2722DE). Since I'm coming from 1080p 24", it's still roughly a 20% ppi increase, and everything looks great to me. I'm very happy with my purchase and am very thankful I decided to watch your video before ordering.
Should’ve gotten the 4K, it’s just a much clearer picture overall
@@lukatsch4436 im good
Thanks for the explanation, I've been wondering why people were talking about scaling issues on MacOS and I've never noticed the issue myself... my 2 screens are 1440p (one regular ration and a widescreen 3560x1440p screen so I never had the issue 😅, thank you !
Finally straight talk with the exact info I needed. Thanks!!
This video is so insightful and helpful. Appreciate you using it. So interesting to hear re: the 5K decision for the Studio. Makes TOTAL sense now.
Definitely makes sense, and it totally explains apples monitor resolutions