How is your Mac Studio handling 4k display scaling?

[spacedcadet]

I’ve been using the Dell UltraSharp 32” 4k U3223QE with my Mac Studio.
It’s my first non-Apple display in 20 years and I must say I’m quite happy with it.

I understand the community despises anything with PPI below what Apple usually offers and I’ve been there, but it hasn’t been an issue at all.

The IPS Black contrast and blacks are great, it comes very decently calibrated out of the box and it’s a very useful ports hub - which would come in handy for your dual screen setup.

I run it in native 4k 3840x2160 @ 60Hz, so no scaling.

I have always ran versions of the Dell Ultrasharps at home (the IPS panel ones). Almost as good as the Eizo/NEC ones I use in the office.

 

[blakespot]

Some feedback regarding a perhaps uncommon configuration, if it helps.

I have a Mac Studio on order to replace my 2017 5K iMac, which is having a few issues emerging. To go with it, I purchased a rather non-traditional display, the LG DualUP. It's a 28-inch diagonal display with a 16:18 aspect ratio and a resolution of 2560x2880 -- basically two 2560x1440 display on top of each other, one panel.

(I don't game on this Mac, and I don't watch full movies on this mac either, but I read the web, use lots of terminals (IRC, telnet BBS), and I am a web developer so I write code. This screen seems perfect and I've long wanted a huge "square" screen.)

The Mac Studio has been on order for several weeks and in the meantime I've tested it with the M2 Air, which drives is quite well. The screen is ~140dpi.

I am using the screen rotated, in a "landscape" 18:16 orientation, so natively 2880x2560. The macOS desktop elements are much too small rendering at native res on a screen this size, so I was scaling to the (non-HiDPI) presented resolution of 2304x2048. The size of things was good -- very slightly larger than those rendering at the M2 Air's default HiDPI resolution. But for terminal text, things weren't razor sharp, so I tried SwitchResX, some other scaling app, and then finally BetterDisplay (which I love and purchased) to do some scaling.

Better Display unlocked over a hundred HiDPI (scaled) and non-HiDPI ("low resolution") modes, and I played around and ended up at HiDPI 2358x2096. Even on VERY close inspection it looks nearly "Retina" -- I'm in love with the clarity. It's amazing how sharp this thing looks with the scaled resolutions. I love this screen (and it's subtle, matte surface)!

Now, using this HiDPI 2358x2096 res means that the Mac is rendering internally at 4716x4192, which is 19.8 million pixels, and scaling it down to the panel's native 2880x2560 -- 60 times per second. I had heard people complaining about performance on Mac Studio using 4K panels and (I suppose?) going for a "looks like 2560x1440" resolution, as if it were a 5K. I don't know about all that, but I will say the M2 Air handles this fine, I can watch fullscreen 60fps scaled videos, do whatever else, and the display is butter smooth and rock solid -- and the GPU meter is not going nuts at all.

I asked the dev of BetterDisplay (on his Discord) about the load on the machine. He indicated the highest he was able to try was 3840x2160 HiDPI under Ventura ( = 7680x4320 internal rendering, 33.2 million pixels ) and a portion of what he said was,

"...M1 Pro+ macs can drive multiple 5K displays alongside a 4K display simultaneously, all with scaling involved so that can result in huge framebuffers. So I think driving a single display with a 5K-6K framebuffer with scaling is way below the limitations of these machines."

All that said, the Mac Studio I have on order should handle things rather more easily with its 24 GPU cores, 4x bandwidth, etc. vs the M2's 10 GPU config. *I look forward to the machine's arrival.



bp

(* ...not a comment that will be appreciated in this sub, I am sure, but recent rumors of the M2 mini, whenever it comes, offering a M2 Pro option which may be 12 CPU cores (8 perf, 4 efficiency) and 20 GPU cores has me wondering if I'm pulling the trigger too quickly on this base M1 Max 32GB 10 CPU / 24 GPU Studio...)

 

[Killerbob]

Wow - that is indeed an interesting configuration - love it...

I don't know about these issues with the Mac Studio with 4K panels, but I am using two 4K LG 32UL950-Ws (one landscape and one portrait), in native 4K, and I have had NO issues. I even had 3 4K panels connected at one point, and still, no problems at all.

 

[AlteMac]

I moved from a 30" Apple Cinema Display (2008) to a BenQ 32" (SW321C) for photo editing. This BenQ has built in LUTs and dedicated software for hardware color calibration and I consider that essential for photography. Other 32 BenQs would be less expensive. The ACD was 2560 x 1600 or something close to that. The full 4K on the BenQ is 3840 x 2160 and results in menu text that is too small for me. I experimented and am now running at 3200 x 1800, but this is a matter of how far you are from your monitor and how your eyes work.

 

[handheldgames]

select a resolution that's not HiDPI and you can avoid scaling all together. This is an option in SwitchResX

 

[Pressure]

I asked the dev of BetterDisplay (on his Discord) about the load on the machine. He indicated the highest he was able to try was 3840x2160 HiDPI under Ventura ( = 7680x4320 internal rendering, 33.2 million pixels ) and a portion of what he said was

I’m running 7680x4320 (4K HiDPI) on my Mac Studio in Monterey but it requires two cables.

279 PPI is amazing on a 32” monitor.

 

[Sharky II]

@Pressure - which monitor is that?!

 

[Pressure]

@Pressure - which monitor is that?!

The Dell UP3218K.

 

[mBox]

A friend is looking for wide-screen options. Does anyone have any tips?
Looking at that Samsung Neo G9 49" mentioned here.
Are any other products similar that work as low as 1440?

 

[blakespot]

I don't know what this guy is talking about. Bookmarked to 16m10s in, listen for two minutes.

As I said before, my odd, large, squarish screen (seen a few posts earlier) is HiDPI scaled (with the proper resolutions added in by BetterDisplay app) and I can watch 4K 60fps vids locally and on YT fine on my M2 Air (testing the screen while I await the arrival of the Studio). His account of 1024px wide video going to 1fps seems crazy. And the developer of BetterDisplay (I'm on his discord) agrees.

When I asked, he responded,

If we try to make sense of it, a 5K framebuffer has about 15 million pixels. so at 60fps about 900 million pixels must be processed. Let's say 1 billion pixels. If we say that scaling is done super inefficiently, let's say every pixel requires 5 floating point operations to be scaled. That is 5 billion operations per second. Now the M1 Pro can do about 5 teraflops, that is 5 trillion (5 000 billion) operations per second. That means that all the scaling stuff will consume 0.1% of the capabilities of the GPU. Even if there are additional inefficiencies and super wasteful processing, so everything requires 10x as much processing, then the desktop scaling will keep occupied the GPU 1%.

Even if somehow the 1% will turn into 10%, still 90% of the GPU is free. So surely scaling will not make a smooth video playback drop to 1fps in any circumstance. It would be such an obvious issue that I think everybody would know about it.

Has anyone seen anything like this on their Studio?



bp

 

[Killerbob]

I do video editing on my Mac Studio, and that YouTube video is simply wrong. I use 2 x 4K monitors, and scaling or no scaling, it is silky smooth operations. No stuttering, no lag, and no issues. I have a 2019 Mac Pro to compare against, and the Mac Studio is just as good, if not better.

 

[ScoobyMacs]

I don't know what this guy is talking about. Bookmarked to 16m10s in, listen for two minutes.

As I said before, my odd, large, squarish screen (seen a few posts earlier) is HiDPI scaled (with the proper resolutions added in by BetterDisplay app) and I can watch 4K 60fps vids locally and on YT fine on my M2 Air (testing the screen while I await the arrival of the Studio). His account of 1024px wide video going to 1fps seems crazy. And the developer of BetterDisplay (I'm on his discord) agrees.

When I asked, he responded,



Has anyone seen anything like this on their Studio?



bp

I think it's the same thing this person mentioned here in this video from April (almost word for word suspiciously)

And with reference to apples native PPI on Non Mac/Retina displays as pointed in the Bjango articles here

Mac external displays for designers and developers

If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.

bjango.com

Mac external displays for designers and developers, part 2

Since writing about Mac external displays in 2016, not much has changed. LG, Dell, Samsung, and other display makers have either never catered for the specs many Mac designers and developers want, or they’ve reluctantly produced products that have been short-lived or compromised.

bjango.com

Which seem to make sense for the most part but not being an expert or seeing real world tests ..🤷‍♂️

 

[ScoobyMacs]

I do video editing on my Mac Studio, and that YouTube video is simply wrong. I use 2 x 4K monitors, and scaling or no scaling, it is silky smooth operations. No stuttering, no lag, and no issues. I have a 2019 Mac Pro to compare against, and the Mac Studio is just as good, if not better.

I'm looking at getting Mac Studio, M1 Max and trying to decide on the same thing and wondering if 4K is the best for a 27inch size monitor for video editing and intensive rendering (i.e After Effects, etc)...

Have you guys done any graphics work like this and had any issues?

I'm a bit limited to screen size and budget. This was the most colour accurate one I could find for my budget;

Lenovo ThinkVision P27u-20 27" 4K​

99.5% Adobe RGB (CIE 1931)
99.1% DCI-P3 (CIE 1976)
100% sRGB (CIE 1976)
83.7% BT.2020 (CIE 1976)
100% BT.709 (CIE 1976)
and a VESA DisplayHDR 400

If there is an issue, I think I could live with a 2K monitor but I haven't found one that is this accurate for under £500/$600.

Would appreciate any experienced advice from you knowledgeable guys.

 

[Pressure]

I'm looking at getting Mac Studio, M1 Max and trying to decide on the same thing and wondering if 4K is the best for a 27inch size monitor for video editing and intensive rendering (i.e After Effects, etc)...

Have you guys done any graphics work like this and had any issues?

I'm a bit limited to screen size and budget. This was the most colour accurate one I could find for my budget;

Lenovo ThinkVision P27u-20 27" 4K​

99.5% Adobe RGB (CIE 1931)
99.1% DCI-P3 (CIE 1976)
100% sRGB (CIE 1976)
83.7% BT.2020 (CIE 1976)
100% BT.709 (CIE 1976)
and a VESA DisplayHDR 400

If there is an issue, I think I could live with a 2K monitor but I haven't found one that is this accurate for under £500/$600.

Would appreciate any experienced advice from you knowledgeable guys.

That doesn't say anything regarding color accuracy as such, just that the panel is capable of covering those color profiles.

You should calibrate the display after a month using your preferred colorimeter for the color profiles you are targeting with your workflow.

 

[Killerbob]

I'm looking at getting Mac Studio, M1 Max and trying to decide on the same thing and wondering if 4K is the best for a 27inch size monitor for video editing and intensive rendering (i.e After Effects, etc)...

What resolution you can work with on a 27", or a 32" monitor is a very personal choice. I couldn't work with 3840x2160 (4K) on a 27". I tried and it didn't work for my eyes. However, I can very happy with that on a 32" monitor. Obviously, it is great to work with these higher resolutions when doing editing, but only if your computer can handle it. My Mac Studio (M1 Max 10c/32c/16c/64GB/2TB) handles 4K beautifully on my two monitors, both 32" LG 32UL950-W monitors. These monitors are proper Thunderbolt monitors, hence I am able to daisy chain them, saving one TB port on the Mac Studio.

As for colour accuracy, I calibrate with a Datacolor SpyderX Pro.

 

[cgscotto]

Hi,

I am just curious about this scaling issue. It seems, if you do not want to get locked into a Studio Display, which would set me back around $3000 because I use two monitors, you are stuck with the balancing game of finding the right scaling.

I will freely admit that I was happy in my ignorance before reading this thread, but I got curious and now I am down the rabbit hole. I should preface my comments by stating that I am a musician, and I do not do any video or photo work other than making graphics for my articles and using score notation programs.

I like clear crisp text because I spend hours writing articles. I also like my DAW programs to be readable, so you can see fader numbers and other doodads. I use Luna, Logic Pro X, and Studio One.

I have two Dell U2718Q Displays connected to the Mac Studio via HDMI and DP to USB-C into a Thunderbolt port on a Caldigit Element 4 hub. I also use Switch ResX, and my Studio has a 32C GPU.

I was always curious about the warning in Display Preference about using scaled resolutions may affect performance. I really can't tell much difference in performance, which may be due to the 32C GPU in the studio. But I found this website asking the same question:

Using a scaled resolution may affect performance. — ChangeNode

I recently bought a Mac Studio, mainly because the M1 Max is an amazing chipset and once I got used to that level of performance on my MacBook Pro, my old iMac just seemed incredibly slow in comparison. That, in turn, meant buying a monitor. I decided the Apple Studio Display was too expensive, and

changenode.com

Using BaseMark Web Benchmark, his Samsung M8 scored the following for the scaling resolutions:

• Larger Text => Reported Resolution 3840x2160, Reported Performance 1646.26
• Large => Reported Resolution 5120x2880, Reported Performance 1567.44
• Middle Setting => Reported Resolution 6016x3384, Reported Performance 1653.09
• Space => Reported Resolution 6720x3780, Reported Performance 1582.29
• More Space => Reported Resolution 3840x2160, Reported Performance 1508.61

I performed the same tests with similar resolutions chosen in Switch ResX. Here are my scores for my Dell U2718Q:

1920 x 1080 HiDPI reported resolution (3840 X 2160), reported performance: 1900.44
2560 x 1440 HiDPI reported resolution (5120 X 2880), reported performance: 1568.79
3008 x 1692 HiDPI reported resolution (6016 X 3384), reported performance: 1338.57
3360 x 1890 HiDPI reported resolution (6720 X 3780), reported performance: 1913.93
3840 X 2160 reported resolution (3840 X 2160), reported performance: 1924.51

As everyone has noted, 3840 x 2160 is just too small. 3360 X 1890 is almost as good performance wise, and I can read things comfortably and images look sharp.

While 3008 x 1692 is probably the porridge is just right resolution, it has the poorest performance. The 1920 x 1080 looks really nice, but I feel like I am playing with my kids oversized legos.

To be honest, I really can't tell any performance differences. I may just Switch ResX's abilities to switch resolutions per app, if I feel 3360 x 1890 is too small for DAW work.

Any thoughts?

 

[chikorita157]

I tried a 27" 4K monitor and it's inferior to a 5K as the blurry text at 1440p scaling bothers me. Of course, this monitor wasn't for me as I gave it to my parents who don't mind 1080p 2x scaling. Still 1080p 2x scaling is too big. Native 4K is way too small on 27", you really need a 34" 4K display for that.

Unless you need DSC (connecting 2 5K displays to one Thunderbolt 4 hub/dock) which the Studio Display only has or 600 nits of brightness, UltraFine 5K is a viable alternative for the Mac Studio since it has 4-6 Thunderbolt ports and you might find them cheap second hand.. I use a Ultrafine 5K as a main display and a 1440p as a secondary for non-important things like extra documents, music player, Twitter timeline, etc on my base M1 Max Mac Studio. No matter the Studio Display naysayers say, macOS is not designed for 4K at 27"+ for retina. 21" is really the sweet spot for 4K, but the only option close to retina is 24" 4K, which is close, but not quite 218 DPI.

 

[Killerbob]

I performed the same tests with similar resolutions chosen in Switch ResX. Here are my scores for my Dell U2718Q:

1920 x 1080 HiDPI reported resolution (3840 X 2160), reported performance: 1900.44
2560 x 1440 HiDPI reported resolution (5120 X 2880), reported performance: 1568.79
3008 x 1692 HiDPI reported resolution (6016 X 3384), reported performance: 1338.57
3360 x 1890 HiDPI reported resolution (6720 X 3780), reported performance: 1913.93
3840 X 2160 reported resolution (3840 X 2160), reported performance: 1924.51

As everyone has noted, 3840 x 2160 is just too small. 3360 X 1890 is almost as good performance wise, and I can read things comfortably and images look sharp.

I just ran that particular test and got 2228.57 on my LG 32UL950-W Thunderbolt monitor at 3840x2160 (4K). However, as you say, the 27" monitors really are too small to run 4K on, let alone 5K.

 

[ixxx69]

I will freely admit that I was happy in my ignorance before reading this thread, but I got curious and now I am down the rabbit hole...

To be honest, I really can't tell any performance differences.

Any thoughts?

Why are you making a problem for yourself? Really, look at what you wrote, lol. Just use what looks good to you.

Much of MacRumors is people talking about stuff they really don't understand but think they do, or are just wildly misinformed about. The topic of display scaling is at the top of that list.

Whether you're a musician, graphic artist, photographer, video editor - for 97% of those users, it makes no difference what screen scaling you use. As long as it looks good to you and performs well, you're set.

Enjoy your Studio, enjoy your 4K displays - you have a great setup!

 

[cgscotto]

Why are you making a problem for yourself? Really, look at what you wrote, lol. Just use what looks good to you.

Much of MacRumors is people talking about stuff they really don't understand but think they do, or are just wildly misinformed about. The topic of display scaling is at the top of that list.

Whether you're a musician, graphic artist, photographer, video editor - for 97% of those users, it makes no difference what screen scaling you use. As long as it looks good to you and performs well, you're set.

Enjoy your Studio, enjoy your 4K displays - you have a great setup!

You are right. One thing however, by diving into the topic I found that the 3360 x 1890 HiDPI setting gave me what I was after, clear sharp images that won't tire my eyes. Once I reset some to the monitor settings (sharpness, brightness, contrast), the imaging is even better. I think one reason that this was bothering me was my experience with my Mac Pro 2013 and the 4k monitors. I started getting GPU performance issues when I had a lot of apps open for music production, which is why I switched to the Studio as soon as it came out. Also Safari started to have issues with lots of tabs open. You are correct, the Studio setup is great, especially for music production, so I will just use what looks good to me and leave it at that.

 

[Pressure]

I just ran that particular test and got 2228.57 on my LG 32UL950-W Thunderbolt monitor at 3840x2160 (4K). However, as you say, the 27" monitors really are too small to run 4K on, let alone 5K.

You would realistically run those at HiDPI resolutions but the biggest issue is the low PPI offered by a 4K resolution stretched over a 32" monitor. That isn't doing you any favours.

1920x1080 HiDPI (4K) is great at 24" though and probably the maximum size I would recommend for a 4K monitor.

 

[Killerbob]

1920x1080 HiDPI (4K) is great at 24" though and probably the maximum size I would recommend for a 4K monitor.

Why are you saying that 1920x1080 is 4K? 3840x2160 is 4K.

And you are wrong, a PPI of 137 is great for most things, and certainly better than the typical 110. A PPI of 163 (4K on 27”) with no scaling is terribly difficult to read, and I am easily reading text at 137 with no scaling.

 

[Pressure]

Why are you saying that 1920x1080 is 4K? 3840x2160 is 4K.

And you are wrong, a PPI of 137 is great for most things, and certainly better than the typical 110. A PPI of 163 (4K on 27”) with no scaling is terribly difficult to read, and I am easily reading text at 137 with no scaling.

HiDPI normally infers a scaling factor of 2x. It's the only resolution that perfectly scales to the actual amount of pixels of the display. It's also what will appear sharpest.

Like how I run 4K HiDPI (Looks like 3840x2160) on my 32" 8K display (279 PPI), which gives perfect scaling and sharpness.

Like how it was back when Apple announced the iPhone 4 with its Retina display.

 

[Killerbob]

So when I use SwitchResX and I select 3840x2160/60Hz on my horizontal monitor, and 2160x3840/60Hz on my vertical monitor, that is proper 4K with no scaling, right?

 

[Pressure]

So when I use SwitchResX and I select 3840x2160/60Hz on my horizontal monitor, and 2160x3840/60Hz on my vertical monitor, that is proper 4K with no scaling, right?

Indeed but then you are missing out on the HiDPI sharpness 😅