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...
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!
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 UA-cam 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!
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@_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.
@@_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.
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.
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.
@@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.
If you chose “looks like 1440p” at 2x retina, it renders UI at 5120x2880 (5K) and then downscales it to 3840x2160 (4K). That’s as simple as that. If you have native 5K screen, there’s no downscaling at all. If you have 4K screen and choose “look like 1080p” at 2x, then there’s also no downscaling.
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!
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
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.
"i am not the best at explaining things" - your explanation was excellent - thanks dude 🙂 This was very very insightful - since I had been hunting down performance problems for almost 3 years!!! And this is it!
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
This video is by far the best explanation of the enigmatic warning in macOS that scaling may reduce performance. Here we see a real life example of reduced performance in this specific workflow.
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??
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.
@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.
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.
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!
Sounds like a lot of folks have the same issue. I just want to add for those who are really worried about this: I’ve used a 27” 4k display for a year at 1080p scaling (default) with no problems. The text is sharp and not too big at all. MacMost has a video about why you shouldn’t buy a 1440 monitor where he discusses scaling really well. I recommend watching that video too because together with this one you’ll be able to figure out what the right choice is for you.
I don't think he understands a lot if anything about the macOS scaling. For example he claims that a 5K studio display would be somehow easier to look at than a native 1440p display. The UI and font size at 200% scaling on the 5K would be exactly the same as in the 1440p at native resolution although sharper because of more pixels.
@@Minsetti that's not what he was saying.... he was saying that at 5k the OS can scale to 1440 most efficiently, hence saving processing GPU resources. So if you buy a 5K monitor, go ahead and scale to 1440. his point is don't buy a 4K monitor and scale to 1440, you take too much of a perfrmance hit with the GPU and don't get enough ROI.
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.
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.
This is called “HiDPI” or retina mode, 4 pixels represent 1 pixel so you get perfect scaling. 4k to 1080p and 5k to 1440p. Actually in my preference I found the 4k 27’ monitor at “looks like 1080” default option is better than the 5k iMac at “looks like 1440p” default. The distance also matters. What kind of work you do also matters. As of the scaling artifacts/performance dropping, after a long time you won’t notice/bother this anymore. Most of softwares have scaling options inside, no matter what screen you use, you simply scale to your preference. So the OS scaling only affects the menus and bars and non-scalable UI elements. Now I constantly changes the scaling factor to meet my own need. Instead of stick to the perfect “retina” scaling forever and telling myself that is the best, now when I browse the web or write something, I will even use the largest setting in 5k iMac, the larger text just makes everything easier. When I do multiple window things like tweaking some techy thing, I use the smallest looking scale and don’t bother with “potential performance dropping and artifacts” anymore. I encourage you to try to just get used to the 1080p looking UI if you are GPU limited, it not so big a thing after you don’t take it seriously.
Your comment make me try to config my 4k 27" screen to 1080p and change my softwares scaling to about 80%. It still have some issue when the text size is different between screen, but the performance is better and text look shaper. thank you so much.
@@pisarus Glad it helps! If you are experiencing performance issues, just stick with either this "HiDPI" resolution or the native resolution. There's almost no performance overhead. The text size thing you can always get by with some tweaking of the scale in different window or font size if you are using code/text editor, but actually I don't think it's a issue when you work with multiple screens long enough. When you drag a document to a 60' TV even if it's at 4K native resolution, you don't need a ruler to know everything is just much much bigger than it's on a 27' screen. Distance also matters, when you place the screen further, you'll notice most of the artifacts like blurry text just disappears. And from my perspective one of the good things about high resolution display is that you can scale freely without seeing the artifacts, so you can always scale to your preference.
my 4k monitor is defaulted to looks like 1080 and i have no problem with it....maybe you have a little less real estate but for lightroom and photoshop its not an issue for me and i dont have to strain to see folders on my desktop.
Agreed, I've used my 27" 4k monitor scaled to look like 1080p with my mac for years, perfectly sharp and no issues at all. It works at native 4k as well, but that is too small for me at the roughly 2-3 foot distance.
Thank you so very much for this, UA-cam 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.
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.
Thanks so much man! That’s why I put this video together, I couldn’t find any good explanations about it! And I 100% agree that apple monitors are the way to go for this exact reason, I just found that this monitor fits my needs for a portion of the price!
true the weird thing is ... samsung, LG, etc could easily make retina monitors and sell them cheaper than Apple do. And you know what ? they could easily earn great money : apple market is great (10% of PC market), Apple users are ready to spend money for high-end products, so even they sell "less" than Apple, they would sell at a much higher price than low-cost "all-the-same" PC monitors, and the Apple market is huge, the demand is huge but... they don't do it they prefer compete on the "low-margin" 4K PC monitors
@@itshunterking Well the problem with apple monitors is that they are glossy. Even though macs are good for picture/video editing, they are great machines for software development (especially if the app needs to run on the iphone/ipad) too. Matte screens are the best option for software development. That is why I appreciate the information in your video. It helps me greatly to choose a matte LG screen for desktop software development. I can now go buy a 1440p 27 inch LG monitor.
@@tarkgundogdu8940 I prefer glossy monitors, I don't like that matte monitors. I work on software development. I don't get it why glossy can't works for s. development, code looks perfect, crisps on apple monitors.
@@JohnSmith-zl8rz There are reflections on the glossy monitors. Human eyes & brain needs to distinguish the reflections from the real image on the screen each time looking at the screen. Therefore, it puts a high strain on the eyes. It is easier to position the screen in a room when it is matte as you do not need to consider the reflections too much.
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.
Every resolution has a non-retina variant, so for example, you'll have a 2560x1440 retina version and also a 2560x1440 non-retina version which won't influence performance at all. To see all resolutions, in display settings right click and click on show list and you'll get a huge list of resolutions and to see the non-retina options turn on "show all resolutions" at the bottom. I guess you were unaware of that.
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 🙏
Thanks for this. I actually love the larger scale of the UI on 4k 27 inch & find my 5k 27 inch Studio Monitor's text too small. But I'm in my 40s & my eyes are not as fresh as they were. I'll note that although the UI scale may seem large to some, images and videos still display using all the native pixels, kind of the best of both worlds IMHO. Downsides are some apps UIs don't love being big, for example Davinci Resolve. It can feel cramped w/the OS UI scaled up & there are no options for scaling it down; that's an app by app issue tho, other apps can be adjusted to account for that-or they do it automatically.
@@gsreads there are monitors like real DCI 4K or even DCI 8K monitors(Bit pricey over 20K, but cars cost way more) from EIZO. Most people are too stupid to not notice that they are scamming themselves when saying they have a 4K TV or monitor, while they just got a UltraHD cheap crappy screen.
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.
This is such a wild problem for Apple to have designed themselves into. There are plenty of other platforms that handle scaling at many different sizes to accommodate many different pixel densities.
It's a double edged sword - fractional scaling is a mess, it always introduces inconsistencies. Some people don't mind, but for me it always sticks out, so even on Windows/Linux where I do have access to it, I always pick an integer. I prefer to have things a bit too small but consistent.
I've been browsing for ages because I wanted to be sure before investing in another monitor. The one I have does the job but I wanted an upgrade. It was so hard finding videos/sites etc that went into the detail I needed. This was/is very helpful. Thank you. Subbed 👍
Interesting video. I've been using Macs all my life. My 1st something K resolution monitor was a 4K iMac. Loved it, so I have always gone 4K displays ever since. Currently, I have an M1 Max Mac Studio with 2 LG 4K displays (model: 27BL85U-W), which I keep bouncing between setting 2560x1440 or 3008x1692. I like being able to tile up to 4 browser windows side-by-side on one display, with things such as Twitterrific, Discord, and other apps on the other display. By the way, unsure if you or other Mac users know this or not, but when in the System Settings -> Displays, if you hold the option key and click the "Scaled" resolution option, you have more options than the default 5. Holding the option key when clicking various other things provides some handy things, such as clicking the menubar wifi item showing the network security, IP address, etc. Holding the option key when clicking the date/time menu item enables/disables focus mode.
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 👌.
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!
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
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.
MacOS scales up your OS to what your UI will look like at 2x on 4K monitors. So in the case of 2560 x 1440, the GPU will output at 5120 x 2880, then downsample it to 4K (3840 x 2160) for the monitor. Most applications are optimized for working at any High DPI screen viewports (what your UI will look like). For the most part using scaled resolutions on MacOS, the performance difference is negligible in the majority of cases. At normal viewing distances for both 27" and even 32" on a 4K the DPI is still high enough for most users to perceive it as "retina". I'd be pretty comfortable using both either a 27" or 32" at 4K. It would be nice if MacOS scaled the UI instead of the OS, like Windows does.
The last sentence is the key. The way how MacOS handles the scaling is just dumb. A lot of users reported a huge performance drop when using 1440p scaling mode (including me). Even basic tasks such as browsing or maximize a window can exhibit a very noticeable stuttering. Unfortunately this is not the only problem with the dumb scaling method: My display is much-much sharper when the source is my Windows PC. I have turned off the font smoothing but the whole UI is somewhat still soft (even at native 4K with turned off scaling).
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.
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!
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.
How's your experience with your 27" inch 2k monitor? Text, picture quality, video quality, sharpness, pixel level accuracy, refresh rate, contrast etc?
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.
I was about to make a mistake but thank God I've found your video. I finally purchased two 27 inch - 1440p monitors with 144hz and it is just perfect. 110ppi, they run smooth and I have tons of space. Thanks a lot!
Can’t thank you enough for this. I have just purchased an M2 Pro Mac Mini and was having a massive problem trying to figure out where I needed to head to get a good monitor for it. There are a ton of videos out about recommended monitors but there was no explanation as to why some are good and others, not so much. I was of the understanding that as a minimum I should be looking for a 4K monitor because that is probably the current accepted standard. However, I had watched your video earlier and remembered that there was a compatibility issue with the selection of the monitor… good thing I liked your video because I just rewatched it and I think I now understand what you are saying. Although the M2 Pro has a 16 GPU chip, the less I make it work, the more efficient the computer will run. So, my search now is for a 2560 X 1440 monitor which narrows the issue immensely. Thanks again for this video. It was very easy to follow and understand. Oh, I also read the article you linked as well. Just reiterated what you were explaining.
Wait, you might have missed the point. At his SCREEN SIZE, 1440 is the way to go if you want everything rendered at its designed size. It is purely about scaling. 4K is completely ok if you have a monitor at 40” (16:9). It’s also ok in other sizes if the scaling doesn’t bother you. The problem he is identifying is ONLY if you want to rescale everything to your liking.
@@BurnAfter8 Thanks. I ended up purchasing the exact same monitor so that was why the video fit me and the way I was leaning. I was looking at doing video editing and wanting to get a good monitor at an affordable price and this ASUS fit the bill as it was on sale at the exact time I watched the video.
@@bretonpeters9768 did you get the 4k version or the 1440 , because this is my dilemma with buying a monitor , I have a M1 Max with 10 cpu 24 gpu .. I’m want a 27’ asus monitor for editing , did you get 4k and scale down or use native or straight up get a 1440
@@Tonellacam I purchased the 1440 (2K) version. I believe it’s the QV model. I have a 4K TV with an Apple TV so if I want to watch anything 4K, I just send it to my TV so the 1440 model works for what I need it for. Good luck.
@@bretonpeters9768 oh that’s great , I was just worried that the asus pro art 2k wouldn’t be good enough for editing , that I would be missing out on something , glad to know you got it and it’s working out
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.
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 :(
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
Apple seems to intentionally make 96dpi displays look bad on purpose. Literally every other OS has better font rendering at the standard 96dpi than MacOS. Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, Android, etc. That's a big part of the reason why I was perfectly happy with my 1440p monitor until the company I work for got me a MacBook. Then I had to buy a 4k monitor so MacOS would render fonts decently. And they look better even if I use 100% scaling! Meaning *MacOS actually can render fonts just fine at 96dpi*, it just choses not to so standard displays look bad :)
Agree, and I learned it the hard way, that’s the kind of thing, coming from +15 years of Windows and Linux, you don’t even start to think about… So, 5 months ago I thought “OK let me get the one of the best Macbook Pro 16 for future proofing and an Apple Care to double safety”… 3800€ later, I’ve learned that my perfect 27” 1440p screen is not good enough for Apple standards, and no fucking one gives a F. They literally got a solution and rip it off from the OS and NO. ONE. CARES. F**K APPLE FOR THIS!
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...
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.
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!
OMG! This is exactly what I needed. I'm in market for a monitor for my Mac Mini and have been struggling to find info on the best option. My head was about to explode. Thank You!!
Man, you probably just saved me a ton of disappointment on a new 4k monitor. Probably going to consider 5k if I upgrade now. THANK YOU for explaining this.
I have two 27" iMacs, a 2010 1440p (109 ppi) model, and a 2017 2880p/5K (218 ppi) model. I ran them side-by-side for years, with the 1440p model acting as a secondary display to the 2017 model. I'm not a creative pro, but did do some light photo editing. For image editing I was perfectly happy using the 1440p display. However, for text quality, the difference was completely obvious, much worse on the 1440p display, particularly with small fonts in for example Excel spreadsheets. While from normal seating distances it may be hard to resolve the individual pixels on a 27" 1440p display, the differences in the way text is rendered makes the text quality obviously inferior. It's too bad there isn't say a 29"-30" 5K Asus ProArt display. That would provide around 200 ppi, which would be perfect IMO at typical seating distances. 200 ppi is "Retina" at about 17", and Apple's ergonomic guidelines recommend a seating distance of 20" or more. I prefer to sit at about 25" away, and at that distance I find my 27" 5K iMac's default font sizing just a touch small. I could sit closer but I have older eyes than you do, so at closer seating distances I find my eyes get fatigued more quickly. OTOH, like you discovered, 4K at 27" (163 ppi) when scaled at 2X results in font sizing and screen elements that are too large for many people at typical seating distances.
This makes me feel so much better that I recently purchased a 1440p monitor to use alongside my M1 Macbook Air. Thanks for being willing to go against the status quo and do something else that works best for you at this time.
Yep its working perfectly with my Macbook Air. I highly recommend to go this route unless your willing to deal with the short-comings of using a 4k and if cost is a factor. @@shobhit3882
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.
If you use displayport cable instead of hdmi on the LGUN880 monitor, you will have more resolutions, the one I use being perfect both in icon and window size, 3360x1890 at 60Hz, it is the one I use with my mac mini M2 Pro 12c 32gb and 1Tb and I am super glad.
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?
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 :)
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.
I just ordered a 32” Asus Pro 4K (PA329CV) today. I plan on using it with my 2021 MBP M1 Pro 14” for video/photo editing. But now I’m unsure 🫤. But great video sir. I haven’t seen one other UA-camr bring this is to light. Great work.
Woah, why isn't this talked about more? This is a pretty interesting topic. I was fully ready for this to be a dumb idea, but it's essential for me since I always use 4k. I wanted to use this for editing. I didn't know you "need" apple monitors to go with Apple.
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.
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).
1440p monitors are great. What I found is that when you buy one too large the pixel density suffers. I had a good 1440p monitor that was 23 inches and I found that text and graphics looked better than on Apple's 27-inch Thunderbolt Display that ran at 2560 x 1440 pixels. The reason was because the pixel density was higher. Later I bought a 27-inch iMac with a 5K display. Its scaling made it look like 1440p though I could have also scaled it if I wanted to. I now use two 24-inch LG Ultrafine 4K displays connected to my MacBook Pro. They are awesome. The pixel density is 183ppi. I do run them scaled to look like 1440p and they work great. I see no performance issues and graphics and text look great. Color looks great. I didn't have to calibrate the color on them to match my MacBook Pro built-in display. I am super finicky about color. These are pricey monitors. They each costed $699 but they are worth it. I think the key is not to buy large 4K monitors. If you need or want a larger monitor then you should buy one that is 5K not 4K.
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."
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.
Hi there. Just wanted to say thank you for your video. I'm not related to video editing in any way but it did shed more light on display selection for programming work. I was kinda worried about the external display situation on macOS as well as it was my first attempt and I didn't want the laptop performance to degrade. I was interested in a 24 inch display as opposed to 27 inch as my table is rather small. I borrowed a Full HD/1080p Dell U2414H from a friend. It worked fine but the fonts were rather painful to look at. I started researching 2K/1440p and 4K options but I didn't want to make a blind purchase. Instead I found a slightly used Dell P2423D (a 2K/1440p) model which gives a PPI of 123. The seller was kind enough to let me plug in my laptop and play around for some time to figure out whether it would be OK. I ended up buying it with roughly a 30% discount. The fonts might not be Retina but they are definitely better on 1440p than on 1080p. The laptop (MBP 16 2019 with i7) is a little bit more warm than usual, the fans are being silent. Hope this helps more people collecting their data points.
@@n2o2co2h2o I use the default resolution of 2560x1440, looks fine to me. I'm no expert though, and you're better off trying the prospective display for yourself, at least for a couple of minutes.
@@regnam503 Thanks for the answer. I'm not an expert either. The ideal would actually be to test before buying. But it's unlikely for me to find a 24" 1440p monitor. In fact, this will be my third monitor that I will set up together with two other 24" 1080p monitors. I also think that it might be a bit confusing for me to work with as there will be monitors of the same size with different densities (1080p and 1440). I don't intend to use scale. I usually need to read texts and read graphics.
Did you not have any issues with blurry text? I got a 27inch 1440p monitor but the text still kind of gives me a headache because of how unclear it looks compared to windows. Looking to go from 1440p to 4k for this reason
You save me to upgrade my benq 2k monitor for a benq 4K, I never thought about my MacBook Air’s performance being affected by a 4K monitor but it makes sense, thank you so much!!
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 :-)
@@brewskiswiththebroskis 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)
On a mac, using a 4k 27" monitor is perfectly fine. I don't think determining that one choice is wrong and the other is right is helpful. It's subjective. When I use a 27" 5k I find myself leaning in to read emails and calendar and such. It literally strains my back, and I don't like putting my face 12" from the monitor. I love the larger UI of the 4k and the ability to not sit so close. It's more relaxing and easier on my eyes. Everything is super sharp. No performance hit. I wish someone made a 32" 5k monitor. I would upgrade in a heartbeat.
For people still hesitating, I would say the priority is to find out which resolution you intend to use and how far of your monitor you will sit. I personnally prefer bigger fonts rather than having larger workspace, plus I need a 90 cm desk to sit far away enough from the monitor. This prevents me from having to move my head left and right and from being dazzled by the monitor's light. Probably because of eye surgery that a received more than 10 years ago but which has left me more light sensitive. For all these reasons, 1440p makes texts too small for me on 27". 1080p on 27" is ideal for me and I love the sharpness offered by 27" 4K monitors. I bought an LG and a Dell, I would recommend Dell over LG for quality. Also, very good news, with the new Apple Sillicon chips, 65W of power is now enough to charge a 16" macbook pro so no need to spend more on a 90W monitor. I really recommend the Dell S2722QC.
Look into bluelight blocker glasses. I bought the dark orange ones and have never looked back. By the end of the day my eyes would be so tired and sore when I rubbed them and now I have almost no issues. Although you will need to adjust to the color difference, but your brain fixes it and you wont notice it after 5 min. I really like my DUCO glasses, but looks like they no longer make them. Id suggest Blublox, they seem to have good quality lenses.
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
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
Thank you for this. I already have a 27" 1440p Monitor and I was unsure if this monitor would be any good for the Mac Studio M1 I'm planning to buy. I was already thinking about buying a new monitor because everywhere I read about it, people wrote NOT to use a Mac with a 1440p display. You seem to be happy about it and your video made perfect sense to me. So I guess it'll be alright. Since I'm coming from Windows I have never seen full blown Retina-Screens in action so I guess I won't be missing anything.
That's why 5K is the way to go for hi-res and I was willing to spend to get it. Simulated 1440p on 4K looks decent, but nowhere near as good as scaled 1440p on 5K, but you basically end up scaling twice, almost. sTuDiO mOnItOr Is OvErPrIcEd, sure, but there's literally one other monitor that gives you Retina resolution at 27", and that one is $1300, too.
Not to mention the LG Ultrafine has an awful build quality comparatively. Paying that extra $300 is so worth it in my opinion to get the amazing build quality of the Studio Monitor. Yes, it may be slightly overpriced, but I think its priced relatively fairly when comparing it to actual editing monitors at that size and resolution. I plan on getting one eventually, especially if they come out with any other monitor options
That’s when you don’t have that 5k monitor. When you finally have it and used it everyday, you don’t feel it anymore. When you have both 4k monitors and 5k monitors at same size, use day to day, the honest answer is there’s just not that much difference, and you began to use those non-perfect scaling resolutions to meet your different demand. For almost 99.99% percent people, they just don’t do “GPU” intensive things. You just use any of those “scale resolutions” without noticing any difference. The things you don’t have always are the “best”. When you have it, it’s just it.
@@xuchenglin6256 I have the 5K monitor at home and a similarly sized 4K monitor (28") at work. To say I don't notice the difference is inaccurate. That said, it's also accurate that 5K doesn't feel amazing; it just feels normal. The 4K always looks a bit worse, rather.
@@mbvglider I have that same setup, yeah the difference is there, just like you said, that simulated 1440p looks decent but nowhere near the "native" 1440p at 5k. But my point is: 1. Is that 1440p-looking really necessary? 2. Does the difference between "decent" and "perfect" matters? My take would be, if you care about the "perfect" looking, just use the 1080p "HiDPI" mode on a 4k 28' monitor, after all with all the in-application scaling (you'll use it anyway), it's not that much different at all. If you really like/need the 1440p looking, just push the monitor a little bit further away so the artifacts are all gone. It's the overpriced 5k monitors that I'm against, especially the Apple ones. It's just not worth it. People just put too much faith in the magical 1440p and 5k. It's an evil that manufacturers and their sponsored content creators to reinforce this myth so that they can make big profit over a lot of innocent not-so-rich people.
@@xuchenglin6256 Yes, I do need 1440p. I use one monitor and I have the monitor at 2 feet from me. I'm a programmer. At simulated 1080p, I can't fit enough content on my screen to use one monitor because even if I scale things to be smaller, elements still take up a lot of space. I don't like using dual monitors because ergonomically, I like looking right down the middle (it's also why I use a small keyboard instead of a full-sized one). If I push the monitor away, I can't read text at 1440p. Everything I do is easier at 1440p. It's worth it for me. Why are you against me deciding to spend money on something that I can afford? I want there to be 5K options. I'm not saying anybody else needs to buy them, but I like them. And for that matter, 90% of content I've seen on the Studio Monitor has said 4K options are just fine because most people are content creators and they don't need that much crispness in their displays anyway. If anything, I'd imagine it's graphic designers, coders, and people doing office work that can benefit from pixel-perfect rendering, not video editors.
One of the most useful videos! I am not a Mac user, I have always used a PC and 32" now, I have never had to do much research, but my GF uses a Mac pro for work, I am looking to get her a external monitor and this video has made everything clear and easier for me! Thank you for the research and easy way to explain man!
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
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.
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!
I use a 27" 4K display with scaling set to 2560x1440, with a base 14" MacBook Pro. To be completely honest, I don't know if the performance affects me - my computer is plenty fast. I'll definitely be keeping this in mind for future upgrades, though.
I also have MBP 14'' 2021 and I want to buy external monitor. Looking through articles I understand that I need displays with ~220 PPI for native (no-scaling) interface or ~110PPI with (2x scaling) for normal UI interface size. I tried Xiaomi Redmi Display 27'' 2560x1440 (109PPI) but with "default" resolution UI interface was too small. So I set scaling to 2x but pixels started to be visible. Now I wonder if I should ignore it, buy the monitor and sit farther from the monitor or buy 4K 27'' monitor. I'm not sure that performance will be noticeable as I'm mostly writing code or consuming content on my Macbook. What are your thoughts?
@@SLAVAOSADCHII hello, I bought Dell S2721QS, 27 inch 4K monitor. I also tried 2K monitors and at first they didn't look quite right, so I installed the app "BetterDisplay" that allows you to scale the resolution. Currenlty, I'm at 120% 2304x1296 and it looks great! I think with the app (which is free by the way) you would be comfortable on any 4K or 2K monitor. Not sure about FullHD monitor.
@@SLAVAOSADCHII hi, I remember replying to you but it seems that the comment wasn't created. I bought Dell S2721QS 27 inch 4K monitor. When I tried Redmi Display 27' 2K there was some scaling issues that made the text blurry. But later I learned about amazing free app named "BetterDisplay". It allows you to set custom scaling, currently I'm at 120% or 2304x1296 resolution and the text is very clear. I also tried it with the Redmi display and the text was also clear. I think you would be better with two 2K monitors, as 2 monitors are always better than one)
Thanks man for putting this well researched information, you have hit the bull's eye in demystifying the 27''/32'' & Retina/4K comibination ! Thanks again..
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
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!
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 UA-cam 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.
@@itsjfoster how did you get the issue resolved?
@@prakhar1144had the same issue, please tag me if you find something
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.
@boredandagitated : Can you confirm how the text clarity and image quality in 27" 1440p? Is it crisp or blurry?
@@harshranjan2 text is readable and useful, but I wouldn’t call it crisp. It’s very slightly fuzzy. Images are fine.
@@boredandagitatedThat's because of the OS, not the screen.
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
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.
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.
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.
Dude.. this is one of the best videos on Mac monitors and resolution I've seen. Fantastic research man. Thanks for throwing this up.
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.
4k @27inch?
@@dreistheman7797 I am using an LG 27GN950, which is 27 inches. I also have a Gigabyte M28U now, which is 28 inches.
@@Sajib975 yes
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?
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.
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.
If you chose “looks like 1440p” at 2x retina, it renders UI at 5120x2880 (5K) and then downscales it to 3840x2160 (4K). That’s as simple as that.
If you have native 5K screen, there’s no downscaling at all.
If you have 4K screen and choose “look like 1080p” at 2x, then there’s also no downscaling.
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?
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
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.
"i am not the best at explaining things" - your explanation was excellent - thanks dude 🙂
This was very very insightful - since I had been hunting down performance problems for almost 3 years!!! And this is it!
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.
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.
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 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.
This video is by far the best explanation of the enigmatic warning in macOS that scaling may reduce performance. Here we see a real life example of reduced performance in this specific workflow.
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.
@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.
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!
Sounds like a lot of folks have the same issue. I just want to add for those who are really worried about this: I’ve used a 27” 4k display for a year at 1080p scaling (default) with no problems. The text is sharp and not too big at all. MacMost has a video about why you shouldn’t buy a 1440 monitor where he discusses scaling really well. I recommend watching that video too because together with this one you’ll be able to figure out what the right choice is for you.
Thank you!
I don't think he understands a lot if anything about the macOS scaling. For example he claims that a 5K studio display would be somehow easier to look at than a native 1440p display.
The UI and font size at 200% scaling on the 5K would be exactly the same as in the 1440p at native resolution although sharper because of more pixels.
@@Minsetti that's not what he was saying.... he was saying that at 5k the OS can scale to 1440 most efficiently, hence saving processing GPU resources. So if you buy a 5K monitor, go ahead and scale to 1440. his point is don't buy a 4K monitor and scale to 1440, you take too much of a perfrmance hit with the GPU and don't get enough ROI.
27 is too small for 4k. I wouldn't go less that 32in for 4k.
So why does my 27” Apple Studio monitor(1440p) that I bought in 2014 work well with my Mac Mini M1?
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.
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.
This is called “HiDPI” or retina mode, 4 pixels represent 1 pixel so you get perfect scaling. 4k to 1080p and 5k to 1440p. Actually in my preference I found the 4k 27’ monitor at “looks like 1080” default option is better than the 5k iMac at “looks like 1440p” default. The distance also matters. What kind of work you do also matters. As of the scaling artifacts/performance dropping, after a long time you won’t notice/bother this anymore. Most of softwares have scaling options inside, no matter what screen you use, you simply scale to your preference. So the OS scaling only affects the menus and bars and non-scalable UI elements. Now I constantly changes the scaling factor to meet my own need. Instead of stick to the perfect “retina” scaling forever and telling myself that is the best, now when I browse the web or write something, I will even use the largest setting in 5k iMac, the larger text just makes everything easier. When I do multiple window things like tweaking some techy thing, I use the smallest looking scale and don’t bother with “potential performance dropping and artifacts” anymore. I encourage you to try to just get used to the 1080p looking UI if you are GPU limited, it not so big a thing after you don’t take it seriously.
Your comment make me try to config my 4k 27" screen to 1080p and change my softwares scaling to about 80%. It still have some issue when the text size is different between screen, but the performance is better and text look shaper.
thank you so much.
@@pisarus Glad it helps! If you are experiencing performance issues, just stick with either this "HiDPI" resolution or the native resolution. There's almost no performance overhead. The text size thing you can always get by with some tweaking of the scale in different window or font size if you are using code/text editor, but actually I don't think it's a issue when you work with multiple screens long enough. When you drag a document to a 60' TV even if it's at 4K native resolution, you don't need a ruler to know everything is just much much bigger than it's on a 27' screen. Distance also matters, when you place the screen further, you'll notice most of the artifacts like blurry text just disappears. And from my perspective one of the good things about high resolution display is that you can scale freely without seeing the artifacts, so you can always scale to your preference.
my 4k monitor is defaulted to looks like 1080 and i have no problem with it....maybe you have a little less real estate but for lightroom and photoshop its not an issue for me and i dont have to strain to see folders on my desktop.
@@pisarus try option clicking in the scale tab. You'll get more resolutions dimensions to pick from
Agreed, I've used my 27" 4k monitor scaled to look like 1080p with my mac for years, perfectly sharp and no issues at all. It works at native 4k as well, but that is too small for me at the roughly 2-3 foot distance.
Thank you so very much for this, UA-cam 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.
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
I did the exact same thing. I gave my 4K to my kids, and bought a 1440. So much easier to read the screen and no more scaling issues in Linux/Windows.
Is your 1440P screen 24 or 27"?
@@n2o2co2h2o : They always give half info to keep us in confusion.
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 😂
This one the best videos on youtube about this topic and one of the reasons why the Apple Displays are the way to go, even that are expensive.
Thanks so much man! That’s why I put this video together, I couldn’t find any good explanations about it! And I 100% agree that apple monitors are the way to go for this exact reason, I just found that this monitor fits my needs for a portion of the price!
true
the weird thing is ... samsung, LG, etc could easily make retina monitors and sell them cheaper than Apple do. And you know what ? they could easily earn great money : apple market is great (10% of PC market), Apple users are ready to spend money for high-end products, so even they sell "less" than Apple, they would sell at a much higher price than low-cost "all-the-same" PC monitors, and the Apple market is huge, the demand is huge
but... they don't do it
they prefer compete on the "low-margin" 4K PC monitors
@@itshunterking Well the problem with apple monitors is that they are glossy. Even though macs are good for picture/video editing, they are great machines for software development (especially if the app needs to run on the iphone/ipad) too. Matte screens are the best option for software development. That is why I appreciate the information in your video. It helps me greatly to choose a matte LG screen for desktop software development. I can now go buy a 1440p 27 inch LG monitor.
@@tarkgundogdu8940 I prefer glossy monitors, I don't like that matte monitors. I work on software development. I don't get it why glossy can't works for s. development, code looks perfect, crisps on apple monitors.
@@JohnSmith-zl8rz There are reflections on the glossy monitors. Human eyes & brain needs to distinguish the reflections from the real image on the screen each time looking at the screen. Therefore, it puts a high strain on the eyes. It is easier to position the screen in a room when it is matte as you do not need to consider the reflections too much.
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.
Every resolution has a non-retina variant, so for example, you'll have a 2560x1440 retina version and also a 2560x1440 non-retina version which won't influence performance at all. To see all resolutions, in display settings right click and click on show list and you'll get a huge list of resolutions and to see the non-retina options turn on "show all resolutions" at the bottom. I guess you were unaware of that.
yeab but then it looks like garbage..
Source: viewing his from non retina version of 2560x1440
@@AbdullahShahidOfficial it looks like 2560x1440 nothing more nothing less
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 🙏
Thanks for this. I actually love the larger scale of the UI on 4k 27 inch & find my 5k 27 inch Studio Monitor's text too small. But I'm in my 40s & my eyes are not as fresh as they were. I'll note that although the UI scale may seem large to some, images and videos still display using all the native pixels, kind of the best of both worlds IMHO. Downsides are some apps UIs don't love being big, for example Davinci Resolve. It can feel cramped w/the OS UI scaled up & there are no options for scaling it down; that's an app by app issue tho, other apps can be adjusted to account for that-or they do it automatically.
But we gotta think about how Windows is doing it better and apple doesn't care about customers using devices that are not their brand.
@@gsreads there are monitors like real DCI 4K or even DCI 8K monitors(Bit pricey over 20K, but cars cost way more) from EIZO. Most people are too stupid to not notice that they are scamming themselves when saying they have a 4K TV or monitor, while they just got a UltraHD cheap crappy screen.
They EIZO DCI screens scale way better then the cheap stuff.
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!
This is such a wild problem for Apple to have designed themselves into. There are plenty of other platforms that handle scaling at many different sizes to accommodate many different pixel densities.
It's a double edged sword - fractional scaling is a mess, it always introduces inconsistencies. Some people don't mind, but for me it always sticks out, so even on Windows/Linux where I do have access to it, I always pick an integer. I prefer to have things a bit too small but consistent.
So helpful and easily explained - thank you! Now I can stop bothering to chase a 4k monitor to use with my MacBook.
No problem! Glad I could help out!
I've been browsing for ages because I wanted to be sure before investing in another monitor. The one I have does the job but I wanted an upgrade. It was so hard finding videos/sites etc that went into the detail I needed. This was/is very helpful. Thank you. Subbed 👍
Interesting video. I've been using Macs all my life. My 1st something K resolution monitor was a 4K iMac. Loved it, so I have always gone 4K displays ever since. Currently, I have an M1 Max Mac Studio with 2 LG 4K displays (model: 27BL85U-W), which I keep bouncing between setting 2560x1440 or 3008x1692. I like being able to tile up to 4 browser windows side-by-side on one display, with things such as Twitterrific, Discord, and other apps on the other display.
By the way, unsure if you or other Mac users know this or not, but when in the System Settings -> Displays, if you hold the option key and click the "Scaled" resolution option, you have more options than the default 5. Holding the option key when clicking various other things provides some handy things, such as clicking the menubar wifi item showing the network security, IP address, etc. Holding the option key when clicking the date/time menu item enables/disables focus mode.
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!
@@juanespana2897 : So what had you choose and how is it going with the monitor?
OMG this information is GOLD. Thank you, man! I subbed!
Thanks for the sub! Glad to have ya 👏
Excellent video and explanation of the scaling considerations, especially the 'good zone' chart. Many thanks.
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
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.
MacOS scales up your OS to what your UI will look like at 2x on 4K monitors. So in the case of 2560 x 1440, the GPU will output at 5120 x 2880, then downsample it to 4K (3840 x 2160) for the monitor. Most applications are optimized for working at any High DPI screen viewports (what your UI will look like). For the most part using scaled resolutions on MacOS, the performance difference is negligible in the majority of cases. At normal viewing distances for both 27" and even 32" on a 4K the DPI is still high enough for most users to perceive it as "retina". I'd be pretty comfortable using both either a 27" or 32" at 4K.
It would be nice if MacOS scaled the UI instead of the OS, like Windows does.
The last sentence is the key. The way how MacOS handles the scaling is just dumb. A lot of users reported a huge performance drop when using 1440p scaling mode (including me). Even basic tasks such as browsing or maximize a window can exhibit a very noticeable stuttering. Unfortunately this is not the only problem with the dumb scaling method: My display is much-much sharper when the source is my Windows PC. I have turned off the font smoothing but the whole UI is somewhat still soft (even at native 4K with turned off scaling).
@@vonPeter_ There really must be something else going on because there's simply no way that scaling is causing that much of a performance drop.
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.
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!
Great video bro! I just bought a 4k 32" and was having tons of issues myself! Your a life savor!
The video is so misleading. Just purchased 27" 4K display, and my Mac studio had absolute zero trouble with scaling.
Bc u have a super fast computer and he is running on a slower one I think that’s why.
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.
How's your experience with your 27" inch 2k monitor? Text, picture quality, video quality, sharpness, pixel level accuracy, refresh rate, contrast etc?
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
I was about to make a mistake but thank God I've found your video. I finally purchased two 27 inch - 1440p monitors with 144hz and it is just perfect. 110ppi, they run smooth and I have tons of space. Thanks a lot!
Do you find the text blurry? Thanks
@@DD-zk9hh i’m at 1.6mts from the monitor and i don’t see it blurry
@@ClaudioAguileraMunoz 160cm?! That's quite far for a 27 inch monitor
Can’t thank you enough for this. I have just purchased an M2 Pro Mac Mini and was having a massive problem trying to figure out where I needed to head to get a good monitor for it. There are a ton of videos out about recommended monitors but there was no explanation as to why some are good and others, not so much. I was of the understanding that as a minimum I should be looking for a 4K monitor because that is probably the current accepted standard. However, I had watched your video earlier and remembered that there was a compatibility issue with the selection of the monitor… good thing I liked your video because I just rewatched it and I think I now understand what you are saying. Although the M2 Pro has a 16 GPU chip, the less I make it work, the more efficient the computer will run. So, my search now is for a 2560 X 1440 monitor which narrows the issue immensely. Thanks again for this video. It was very easy to follow and understand. Oh, I also read the article you linked as well. Just reiterated what you were explaining.
Wait, you might have missed the point. At his SCREEN SIZE, 1440 is the way to go if you want everything rendered at its designed size. It is purely about scaling. 4K is completely ok if you have a monitor at 40” (16:9). It’s also ok in other sizes if the scaling doesn’t bother you. The problem he is identifying is ONLY if you want to rescale everything to your liking.
@@BurnAfter8 Thanks. I ended up purchasing the exact same monitor so that was why the video fit me and the way I was leaning. I was looking at doing video editing and wanting to get a good monitor at an affordable price and this ASUS fit the bill as it was on sale at the exact time I watched the video.
@@bretonpeters9768 did you get the 4k version or the 1440 , because this is my dilemma with buying a monitor , I have a M1 Max with 10 cpu 24 gpu .. I’m want a 27’ asus monitor for editing , did you get 4k and scale down or use native or straight up get a 1440
@@Tonellacam I purchased the 1440 (2K) version. I believe it’s the QV model. I have a 4K TV with an Apple TV so if I want to watch anything 4K, I just send it to my TV so the 1440 model works for what I need it for. Good luck.
@@bretonpeters9768 oh that’s great , I was just worried that the asus pro art 2k wouldn’t be good enough for editing , that I would be missing out on something , glad to know you got it and it’s working out
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.
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
Apple seems to intentionally make 96dpi displays look bad on purpose. Literally every other OS has better font rendering at the standard 96dpi than MacOS. Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, Android, etc.
That's a big part of the reason why I was perfectly happy with my 1440p monitor until the company I work for got me a MacBook. Then I had to buy a 4k monitor so MacOS would render fonts decently.
And they look better even if I use 100% scaling! Meaning *MacOS actually can render fonts just fine at 96dpi*, it just choses not to so standard displays look bad :)
Apparently it once was good. They removed sub pixel scaling a few years back and since then it sucks!
It's just another way to funnel more customers down by owning only an apple display
Agree, and I learned it the hard way, that’s the kind of thing, coming from +15 years of Windows and Linux, you don’t even start to think about… So, 5 months ago I thought “OK let me get the one of the best Macbook Pro 16 for future proofing and an Apple Care to double safety”… 3800€ later, I’ve learned that my perfect 27” 1440p screen is not good enough for Apple standards, and no fucking one gives a F.
They literally got a solution and rip it off from the OS and NO. ONE. CARES.
F**K APPLE FOR THIS!
Thanks for explaining your personal experience with this. I wasn’t sure how big of an issue this would be.
Amazing! Finally a video explaining this issue in a easy way. I've watched 3 millions video till I found yours!
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
It will be nice if you make a review video of your monitors and upload on your channel.
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.
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
How's been your experience with the 27 inch 1440p monitor? Picture quality, sharpness, text readability, text smoothness, eye strain etc?
oh wow, this!! This is exactly what I've been looking for! Thank you very much!
OMG! This is exactly what I needed. I'm in market for a monitor for my Mac Mini and have been struggling to find info on the best option. My head was about to explode. Thank You!!
which monitor are you going with? The AUSUS 1440p he uses?
Man, you probably just saved me a ton of disappointment on a new 4k monitor. Probably going to consider 5k if I upgrade now. THANK YOU for explaining this.
5k no issues
This helped me so much, thanks. I had been looking at 4K's for my new MB Pro M1 Pro. Great energy, Hunter.
I have two 27" iMacs, a 2010 1440p (109 ppi) model, and a 2017 2880p/5K (218 ppi) model. I ran them side-by-side for years, with the 1440p model acting as a secondary display to the 2017 model. I'm not a creative pro, but did do some light photo editing. For image editing I was perfectly happy using the 1440p display. However, for text quality, the difference was completely obvious, much worse on the 1440p display, particularly with small fonts in for example Excel spreadsheets.
While from normal seating distances it may be hard to resolve the individual pixels on a 27" 1440p display, the differences in the way text is rendered makes the text quality obviously inferior.
It's too bad there isn't say a 29"-30" 5K Asus ProArt display. That would provide around 200 ppi, which would be perfect IMO at typical seating distances. 200 ppi is "Retina" at about 17", and Apple's ergonomic guidelines recommend a seating distance of 20" or more. I prefer to sit at about 25" away, and at that distance I find my 27" 5K iMac's default font sizing just a touch small. I could sit closer but I have older eyes than you do, so at closer seating distances I find my eyes get fatigued more quickly. OTOH, like you discovered, 4K at 27" (163 ppi) when scaled at 2X results in font sizing and screen elements that are too large for many people at typical seating distances.
Did you change any new monitor? How's the result?@@richrollin4867
This makes me feel so much better that I recently purchased a 1440p monitor to use alongside my M1 Macbook Air. Thanks for being willing to go against the status quo and do something else that works best for you at this time.
does the 1440p monitor work perfectly well with ur mac??
Yep its working perfectly with my Macbook Air. I highly recommend to go this route unless your willing to deal with the short-comings of using a 4k and if cost is a factor. @@shobhit3882
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.
If you use displayport cable instead of hdmi on the LGUN880 monitor, you will have more resolutions, the one I use being perfect both in icon and window size, 3360x1890 at 60Hz, it is the one I use with my mac mini M2 Pro 12c 32gb and 1Tb and I am super glad.
right i use it to this way :)
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?
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 :)
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.
I just ordered a 32” Asus Pro 4K (PA329CV) today. I plan on using it with my 2021 MBP M1 Pro 14” for video/photo editing. But now I’m unsure 🫤. But great video sir. I haven’t seen one other UA-camr bring this is to light. Great work.
Woah, why isn't this talked about more? This is a pretty interesting topic. I was fully ready for this to be a dumb idea, but it's essential for me since I always use 4k. I wanted to use this for editing. I didn't know you "need" apple monitors to go with Apple.
probably because hes the first person i know , heard of that puts a 4k monitor into a "notebook"
@@sexyplatoon4052 everyone does that on Windows. You can also on mac with some setting change which this youtuber doesnt do
@@aliefr2984 i dont get your point. You made my brain hurt. Or you misunderstood me bro :D im using 2 moniors but not 4K.
@@aliefr2984how to do that on macOS bro?
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
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
1440p monitors are great. What I found is that when you buy one too large the pixel density suffers. I had a good 1440p monitor that was 23 inches and I found that text and graphics looked better than on Apple's 27-inch Thunderbolt Display that ran at 2560 x 1440 pixels. The reason was because the pixel density was higher. Later I bought a 27-inch iMac with a 5K display. Its scaling made it look like 1440p though I could have also scaled it if I wanted to. I now use two 24-inch LG Ultrafine 4K displays connected to my MacBook Pro. They are awesome. The pixel density is 183ppi. I do run them scaled to look like 1440p and they work great. I see no performance issues and graphics and text look great. Color looks great. I didn't have to calibrate the color on them to match my MacBook Pro built-in display. I am super finicky about color. These are pricey monitors. They each costed $699 but they are worth it. I think the key is not to buy large 4K monitors. If you need or want a larger monitor then you should buy one that is 5K not 4K.
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."
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.
Hi there. Just wanted to say thank you for your video. I'm not related to video editing in any way but it did shed more light on display selection for programming work.
I was kinda worried about the external display situation on macOS as well as it was my first attempt and I didn't want the laptop performance to degrade.
I was interested in a 24 inch display as opposed to 27 inch as my table is rather small. I borrowed a Full HD/1080p Dell U2414H from a friend. It worked fine but the fonts were rather painful to look at. I started researching 2K/1440p and 4K options but I didn't want to make a blind purchase. Instead I found a slightly used Dell P2423D (a 2K/1440p) model which gives a PPI of 123. The seller was kind enough to let me plug in my laptop and play around for some time to figure out whether it would be OK. I ended up buying it with roughly a 30% discount.
The fonts might not be Retina but they are definitely better on 1440p than on 1080p. The laptop (MBP 16 2019 with i7) is a little bit more warm than usual, the fans are being silent.
Hope this helps more people collecting their data points.
For programming on a 24”, 1440p is definitely a good option!
Didn't your 24-inch 1440P screen make the text too small to read? Or do you use scale?
@@n2o2co2h2o I use the default resolution of 2560x1440, looks fine to me. I'm no expert though, and you're better off trying the prospective display for yourself, at least for a couple of minutes.
@@regnam503 Thanks for the answer. I'm not an expert either. The ideal would actually be to test before buying. But it's unlikely for me to find a 24" 1440p monitor. In fact, this will be my third monitor that I will set up together with two other 24" 1080p monitors. I also think that it might be a bit confusing for me to work with as there will be monitors of the same size with different densities (1080p and 1440). I don't intend to use scale. I usually need to read texts and read graphics.
Did you not have any issues with blurry text? I got a 27inch 1440p monitor but the text still kind of gives me a headache because of how unclear it looks compared to windows. Looking to go from 1440p to 4k for this reason
This video was the most useful video I’ve watched this year and avoided me a lot of trouble. Now I can get the correct monitor. Thank you.
You save me to upgrade my benq 2k monitor for a benq 4K, I never thought about my MacBook Air’s performance being affected by a 4K monitor but it makes sense, thank you so much!!
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
@@brewskiswiththebroskis 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)
On a mac, using a 4k 27" monitor is perfectly fine. I don't think determining that one choice is wrong and the other is right is helpful. It's subjective. When I use a 27" 5k I find myself leaning in to read emails and calendar and such. It literally strains my back, and I don't like putting my face 12" from the monitor. I love the larger UI of the 4k and the ability to not sit so close. It's more relaxing and easier on my eyes. Everything is super sharp. No performance hit. I wish someone made a 32" 5k monitor. I would upgrade in a heartbeat.
i think LG would have something your looking for but i could be wrong. I think ive seen a 5k from LG
@@pokiblue5870 sadly LG only makes a 27” 5k..probbably the monitor op was using in his comment lol
For people still hesitating, I would say the priority is to find out which resolution you intend to use and how far of your monitor you will sit.
I personnally prefer bigger fonts rather than having larger workspace, plus I need a 90 cm desk to sit far away enough from the monitor. This prevents me from having to move my head left and right and from being dazzled by the monitor's light. Probably because of eye surgery that a received more than 10 years ago but which has left me more light sensitive. For all these reasons, 1440p makes texts too small for me on 27". 1080p on 27" is ideal for me and I love the sharpness offered by 27" 4K monitors. I bought an LG and a Dell, I would recommend Dell over LG for quality. Also, very good news, with the new Apple Sillicon chips, 65W of power is now enough to charge a 16" macbook pro so no need to spend more on a 90W monitor. I really recommend the Dell S2722QC.
that's the one I was thinking of getting, my Mac Studio is ordered but not shipped yet. Thanks for your opinion, I appreciate it.
Look into bluelight blocker glasses. I bought the dark orange ones and have never looked back. By the end of the day my eyes would be so tired and sore when I rubbed them and now I have almost no issues. Although you will need to adjust to the color difference, but your brain fixes it and you wont notice it after 5 min. I really like my DUCO glasses, but looks like they no longer make them. Id suggest Blublox, they seem to have good quality lenses.
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
Very detailed and simplified video for anyone with basic computer knowledge. I was about to buy 4K monitor but you change my mind. Thanks mate.👍
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
Thank you for this. I already have a 27" 1440p Monitor and I was unsure if this monitor would be any good for the Mac Studio M1 I'm planning to buy. I was already thinking about buying a new monitor because everywhere I read about it, people wrote NOT to use a Mac with a 1440p display. You seem to be happy about it and your video made perfect sense to me. So I guess it'll be alright. Since I'm coming from Windows I have never seen full blown Retina-Screens in action so I guess I won't be missing anything.
Can you please give me a update about it? Is the text too small or blurry on 1440p?
That's why 5K is the way to go for hi-res and I was willing to spend to get it. Simulated 1440p on 4K looks decent, but nowhere near as good as scaled 1440p on 5K, but you basically end up scaling twice, almost. sTuDiO mOnItOr Is OvErPrIcEd, sure, but there's literally one other monitor that gives you Retina resolution at 27", and that one is $1300, too.
Not to mention the LG Ultrafine has an awful build quality comparatively. Paying that extra $300 is so worth it in my opinion to get the amazing build quality of the Studio Monitor. Yes, it may be slightly overpriced, but I think its priced relatively fairly when comparing it to actual editing monitors at that size and resolution. I plan on getting one eventually, especially if they come out with any other monitor options
That’s when you don’t have that 5k monitor. When you finally have it and used it everyday, you don’t feel it anymore. When you have both 4k monitors and 5k monitors at same size, use day to day, the honest answer is there’s just not that much difference, and you began to use those non-perfect scaling resolutions to meet your different demand. For almost 99.99% percent people, they just don’t do “GPU” intensive things. You just use any of those “scale resolutions” without noticing any difference. The things you don’t have always are the “best”. When you have it, it’s just it.
@@xuchenglin6256 I have the 5K monitor at home and a similarly sized 4K monitor (28") at work. To say I don't notice the difference is inaccurate. That said, it's also accurate that 5K doesn't feel amazing; it just feels normal. The 4K always looks a bit worse, rather.
@@mbvglider I have that same setup, yeah the difference is there, just like you said, that simulated 1440p looks decent but nowhere near the "native" 1440p at 5k. But my point is: 1. Is that 1440p-looking really necessary? 2. Does the difference between "decent" and "perfect" matters?
My take would be, if you care about the "perfect" looking, just use the 1080p "HiDPI" mode on a 4k 28' monitor, after all with all the in-application scaling (you'll use it anyway), it's not that much different at all. If you really like/need the 1440p looking, just push the monitor a little bit further away so the artifacts are all gone.
It's the overpriced 5k monitors that I'm against, especially the Apple ones. It's just not worth it. People just put too much faith in the magical 1440p and 5k. It's an evil that manufacturers and their sponsored content creators to reinforce this myth so that they can make big profit over a lot of innocent not-so-rich people.
@@xuchenglin6256 Yes, I do need 1440p. I use one monitor and I have the monitor at 2 feet from me. I'm a programmer. At simulated 1080p, I can't fit enough content on my screen to use one monitor because even if I scale things to be smaller, elements still take up a lot of space. I don't like using dual monitors because ergonomically, I like looking right down the middle (it's also why I use a small keyboard instead of a full-sized one). If I push the monitor away, I can't read text at 1440p. Everything I do is easier at 1440p. It's worth it for me. Why are you against me deciding to spend money on something that I can afford? I want there to be 5K options. I'm not saying anybody else needs to buy them, but I like them. And for that matter, 90% of content I've seen on the Studio Monitor has said 4K options are just fine because most people are content creators and they don't need that much crispness in their displays anyway. If anything, I'd imagine it's graphic designers, coders, and people doing office work that can benefit from pixel-perfect rendering, not video editors.
One of the most useful videos! I am not a Mac user, I have always used a PC and 32" now, I have never had to do much research, but my GF uses a Mac pro for work, I am looking to get her a external monitor and this video has made everything clear and easier for me!
Thank you for the research and easy way to explain man!
Don't spend on GF.
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
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.
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!
I use a 27" 4K display with scaling set to 2560x1440, with a base 14" MacBook Pro. To be completely honest, I don't know if the performance affects me - my computer is plenty fast.
I'll definitely be keeping this in mind for future upgrades, though.
I also have MBP 14'' 2021 and I want to buy external monitor. Looking through articles I understand that I need displays with ~220 PPI for native (no-scaling) interface or ~110PPI with (2x scaling) for normal UI interface size. I tried Xiaomi Redmi Display 27'' 2560x1440 (109PPI) but with "default" resolution UI interface was too small. So I set scaling to 2x but pixels started to be visible. Now I wonder if I should ignore it, buy the monitor and sit farther from the monitor or buy 4K 27'' monitor. I'm not sure that performance will be noticeable as I'm mostly writing code or consuming content on my Macbook. What are your thoughts?
@@justicefreeman6598 hey, what did you decide? I also have MBP 14' with M1 Pro, my main candidate is LG 27UQ750 4K right now.
@@SLAVAOSADCHII hello, I bought Dell S2721QS, 27 inch 4K monitor. I also tried 2K monitors and at first they didn't look quite right, so I installed the app "BetterDisplay" that allows you to scale the resolution. Currenlty, I'm at 120% 2304x1296 and it looks great! I think with the app (which is free by the way) you would be comfortable on any 4K or 2K monitor. Not sure about FullHD monitor.
@@SLAVAOSADCHII hi, I remember replying to you but it seems that the comment wasn't created. I bought Dell S2721QS 27 inch 4K monitor. When I tried Redmi Display 27' 2K there was some scaling issues that made the text blurry. But later I learned about amazing free app named "BetterDisplay". It allows you to set custom scaling, currently I'm at 120% or 2304x1296 resolution and the text is very clear. I also tried it with the Redmi display and the text was also clear.
I think you would be better with two 2K monitors, as 2 monitors are always better than one)
I am actually looking for a new monitor right now so this information is super helpful, thanks.
Thanks man for putting this well researched information, you have hit the bull's eye in demystifying the 27''/32'' & Retina/4K comibination ! Thanks again..