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.
How is your Mac Studio handling 4k display scaling?
- Thread starter Sharky II
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The resolution I am using is 3360 x 1890 60 Hz HiDPI. I just tried switching between the HiDPI version of this resolution and the non-HiDPI version in SwitchResX, and it made a noticeable difference. The HiDPI version is definitely sharper.
I agree; when I test the two against each other, 3360x1890 vs 3360x1890 HiDPI, the HiDPI looks bolder. However, that is NOT true for the 3840x2160 HiDPI vs no-HiDPI - they look the same, at least on my LG 32UL950-W Thunderbolt monitor. And, letters etc., are sharper with 3840x2160 than any 3360x1890 settings.
The real HiDPI option is the straight up 2x integer value.
So for 4K that is 1080p HiDPI.
3840 / 2 = 1920
2160 / 2 = 1080
The difference in sharpness should be apparent. That's also why the 5K iMac and Studio Display looks great offering by default the "Looks like 2560x1440" on the 5120 x 2880 display. The same for the Apple Pro Display XDR using "Looks like 3008 x 1692" on the 6016 x 3384 display. The Dell UP3218K is using "Looks like 3840x2160" on the 7680x4320 display.
Last edited:
I would suggest you reconsider your recommendation process. 4K looks fantastic on 27" displays. Millions of users are extremely happy with them. I haven't personally used a 32" 4K, but a lot of users seem to really like those as well.
No it doesn't, and it's not a "resolution". HiDPI infers that it's a high DPI screen, hence the name "HiDPI". There is no official DPI for HiDPI. For phones, it's typically considered 200+ DPI. For computer displays, HiDPI screens are generally considered as double the resolution of the "standard" DPI screens that HiDPI screens replaced, e.g. a 4K display vs a 2K (1080p) display.
No he's not. Native 4K is as sharp as it gets (on a 4K display).
You are obviously correct.
You and cgscotto are both obviously correct.
Display (screen) resolutions are fixed. They are lighting up 3840x2160 pixels regardless of what macOS display setting you're using. When using non-native display resolutions at non-HiDPI resolution settings at an OS level, the display is using its own internal scaling for the image output to its native screen resolution.
In your example of non-HiDPI scaled settings, macOS sends the output of the desktop at 3360x1890 to the display, and then the display scales it up to fit 3840x2160. Not only is the display's internal scaling not very sophisticated, it is simply interpolating pixels to fill-in the missing resolution. The greater the disparity between the non-HiDPI setting and the display's native resolution, the more pixelated the screen will look as it interpolates ever more pixels.
When the macOS HiDPI scaling is used, the desktop is composed as a virtual 6720x3780 desktop in the frame buffer, using high-resolution resources (icons, dialogs, text size, etc. appropriate for the scaled resolution), and then is scaled down to 3840x2160 before being sent to the display for output at its native resolution (3840x2160). A 5K display would do the same thing, but only needs to scale it down to 5180x2880 to fit its native resolution.
Scaling to the much desired 2560x1440 on a 4K display is where a lot of folks get scared off by those who claim inferior sharpness. Now compared to a 5K display, there's no argument that 5180x2880 pixels is more than 3840x2160. And if you're used to 1440p scaling on a 5K display, it's naturally going to look less sharp when viewed on a 4K display (display size being equal of course).
When macOS composes scaled 1440p on either a 4K or 5K display, they're both composing a virtual 5180x2880 desktop in the frame buffer, but only the 4K display has to do any scaling to fit its native 4K resolution. This is why there's not a performance hit for using native resolution or a half-scaled HiDPI resolution (1440p on 5K and 1080p on 4K) - no scaling is taking place (most recent Macs won't suffer a noticeable performance hit regardless of scaling).
But the 4K desktop is still comprised of a LOT more pixels than a native 1440p display. So generally, things will still look sharper on the scaled 1440p 4K display compared to a native 1440p display, especially graphics, photos, 4K video and large text. Smaller sized text may be a wash, as scaled text is more sensitive to being scaled, due to its size, delicateness and familiarity. But on a 4K display, there's still more pixels making up each letter than on a native 1440p display. Comparisons are also difficult because Apple doesn't make a comparable 4K display. Some of the perceived sharpness come from the different anti-glare screen coatings and screen coverings. For instance, Dell is much more aggressive with their anti-glare coatings on Ultrasharps compared to Apple displays. I greatly appreciate Dell's anti-glare coatings and one of the reasons I won't consider an iMac, but anyone can see that Apple displays pop more than Dell's, and that's often associated with sharpness. All that being said, HiDPI scaled 1440p still looks great on a 4K.
It's okay, there is room in the world for us to disagree 😅
Using the real resolution of the monitor is always going to produce the sharpest image which is why the straight up 2x scaling gives the best result at the expense of real estate. Using 4 times the pixels to render text and vector shapes looks great. Applications will render images using the full resolution of the display, so there is no resolution penalty there, except the user interface will start to look comically large at higher monitor sizes if sticking with only 4K all the way up to 32".
You should try 4K HiDPI on a 32" 8K (279 PPI) monitor, it's awesome.
You are correct about this. SwitchResX displays only one option for the native resolution for my monitor, which 3840 x 2160. As we have noted, at the native resolution, the text is too small, but it is sharp. At 3360 x 1890 HiDPI text and images look great and are sharper than the 3360 x 1890 non-HiDPI option.
An issue I have with going to a lower resolution than the 3840x2160 my monitor is capable of, is that I do a lot of graphics work, and my photo files are acutally RAW files in 8,288 x 5,520, and they look better at 3840x2160 than when I select any other resolutions in macOS.
If you say that's your experience, that's your experience. Use what works for you.
For 97% of folks, there's no difference.
Get an 8K display or get a the Apple 6K XDR display. 4K is 4K and it will never get any more or better than 4K.
In spite of what I said earlier about being happy in my ignorance, I am actually glad I went on this journey of discovery. At least now, when I make a resolution choice, it is an informed decision, which brings me to the quote by ixxx69.
Although I was using 3360 X 1890 HiDPI on my two 4k monitors, which looked very sharp to me, I was not completely satisfied with the size. It was just on the border of being a little too small to read, and I found myself enlarging things in most applications. I did have more screen real estate, but then more screen real estate is why I bought two monitors. After reading the above by ixxx69, I decided to try 2560 x 1440 HiDPI, even if it scored next to the lowest performance on the test I ran on my earlier post. The OP cited this resolution as being the most comfortable to work in Logic Pro, and he is right. Plus, the resolution is great for all the other application I use. Yes, I lost some screen real estate, but again that is why I bought two monitors
I can't notice any difference in sharpness between 33660 x 1890 HiDPI and 2560 x 1440 HiDPI or the native 4k resolution. I actually think I was confusing screen real estate with sharpness and convincing myself that the larger items on the screen (icons, etc.) looked less sharp then they actually were. I did a bunch of comparisons and really found no difference in sharpness. I also played a bunch of 4k videos switching screen resolutions using SwitchResX, and to my eye, which is the only thing that matters, I could not tell any difference. As I switched, I was also watching GPU usage and frame rates in iStat Menus, and the difference in performance for the two resolutions was minimal. Granted, if I was working with video editing, I might feel differently, but I don't, just audio.
I have been working for a few days now about 8 hours a day with the 2560 x 1440 HiDPI screen resolution, and I find I need to take fewer breaks and can be more productive. In any event, that is how I learned to stop worrying about screen resolution and learned to love 2560 x 1440 HiDPI on my 4k monitors.
I have seen some of that guys videos before and when it comes to Macs, he is just nuts. Nothing he says makes one bit of sense.
My guess is he is one of those people that banks on getting clicks for making stuff up.