If 16” wasn’t a problem for you in terms of portability, go ahead with the same size. If you’re needing a lot of power, 16” handles it better.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
14 v 16 - practical screen comparison
- Thread starter MrGimper
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No I mean the M series 16” is actually 16.2” but the intel 16” is actually 16”, so marginally smaller.
There's not much effective difference in reality due to the overly tall menu bar because of the notch.
One thing to note is you can go well above the settings in effective resolution. I'm running my 16" right now 2281 x 1474. Can't recall exactly what I ran my 14" at but it was like 2050 x 1370 or.
These screens have much higher actual DPI than the Intel era machines so they work that much better going further upward... if you have good eyes, you could probably eek out another 10% more desktop space at the same physical screen dimensions.
There's a great aftermarket tool that allows you to easily scale HiDPI resolutions by % adjustments on Apple silicon laptops, much better than RDM/SwitchResX.
These screens have much higher actual DPI than the Intel era machines so they work that much better going further upward... if you have good eyes, you could probably eek out another 10% more desktop space at the same physical screen dimensions.
There's a great aftermarket tool that allows you to easily scale HiDPI resolutions by % adjustments on Apple silicon laptops, much better than RDM/SwitchResX.
Last edited:
That’s good to know. I did actually see that the 14” has a very similar resolution to the intel 16” due to the higher DPI
Hah, I didn’t even realize this before ordering (still don’t have it about a month later). I never paid attention to the display resolution on the M-series MBPs, probably distracted by the mini LED, 120Hz, and the chip performance.
My old 2019 16” Intel MBP was 3072‑by‑1920 native resolution at 226 pixels per inch.
The 14” M3 Max MBP I ordered is 3024-by-1964 native resolution at 254 pixels per inch.
This makes me feel a lot better about my order. At least for now I can still see pretty well up close. Probably going to leave it at default but could probably bump it a tick and get some more screen space without noticing a sharpness change unless it’s too small. I’ve done the same thing on my 12.9” iPad Pro which has a similar PPI, though I’m not sure how scaling works on the iPad vs. the Mac? Looks pretty good to me so hopefully the Mac is the same.
My old 2019 16” Intel MBP was 3072‑by‑1920 native resolution at 226 pixels per inch.
The 14” M3 Max MBP I ordered is 3024-by-1964 native resolution at 254 pixels per inch.
This makes me feel a lot better about my order. At least for now I can still see pretty well up close. Probably going to leave it at default but could probably bump it a tick and get some more screen space without noticing a sharpness change unless it’s too small. I’ve done the same thing on my 12.9” iPad Pro which has a similar PPI, though I’m not sure how scaling works on the iPad vs. the Mac? Looks pretty good to me so hopefully the Mac is the same.
I have had the 14 M1 max since launch and love it.
Bought a 16 M3 to mainly compare screens and speed increase.
Sent the 16 back. Kept the 14 M1.
The reason why is the apps I use barely had much benefit going to the 16. not to the point where it was worth it, as I only use a laptop for an hour or 2 without external monitors [27 Studio display].
The reality is I far far prefer using the studio displays over the laptop displays so a more compact laptop is preferable to a larger one for transport, use around home and at meetings etc.
So my thoughts are always 16 if it is your only computer, 14 if you have monitors.
Bought a 16 M3 to mainly compare screens and speed increase.
Sent the 16 back. Kept the 14 M1.
The reason why is the apps I use barely had much benefit going to the 16. not to the point where it was worth it, as I only use a laptop for an hour or 2 without external monitors [27 Studio display].
The reality is I far far prefer using the studio displays over the laptop displays so a more compact laptop is preferable to a larger one for transport, use around home and at meetings etc.
So my thoughts are always 16 if it is your only computer, 14 if you have monitors.
You won't. At this level of native DPI, HiDPI resolutions will be imperceptible unless maybe someone is looking a few inches away from the screen.
I have eyes sharp enough to go well above the top setting - the 16" I'm typing on is set to 2281*1474. I can slightly tell the difference on the MBA screens.
Here's Capture One on my 16" at the resolution below its default (closest to the 14" resolution) and FCPX at below/default/above resolutions. You can see how much extra stuff is able to be seen especially in the bottom left of Capture One and right side of FCPX. Not having to scroll as much when using effects is very helpful.
I thought about the 14" for a long time and it is a nice travel size, but I don't travel much, don't take my laptop out unless I'm in a comfortable space again anyways, and my eyes will thank me down the line. It's also a lot easier to work at max resolution sometimes on a 16" than a 14" imo. Thought about the 15" Air too, but you just can't get over the contrast on the Pro after seeing it, 15" runs at a scaled resolution in default, and you don't get the reference modes which are kinda nice to have as well.