There is not a problem with modern Macs and "4K scaling"

[blakespot]

I have posted this information so many times now in forums and on video comments that I put together some wise words from a Mac video hardware expert (not myself) and accounts of my own, personal experience with my somewhat odd, 4K-like display (~140dpi) that needs to be scaled like a 4K display, but has ever more pixels to contend with.

I hope this is helpful to those concerned and making decisions on non-Apple displays for their new Macs.

Blog post:

"4K Scaling" Is Not a Problem on Modern Macs - Byte Cellar

I found myself posting this information so frequently on forum threads and in video comments that I wanted to put it all together in one place so that I can share my experience and what I’ve learned with a single … Continue reading →

bytecellar.com

 

[jabbr]

I think the performance issue is pretty overblown, especially since the release of apple silicon. I remember getting an M1 and being shocked at how instantly you could switch the display scaling, something that would take like 2 seconds on an intel machine.

How are you finding the text rendering of the DualUp compared to the 5K iMac? That's the one concern that has me leaning towards a 5K display. I'm been using a 116ppi 1440p 25" monitor for the past 7 years but now I can barely stand the text clarity next to the 14" MBP.

 

[Successful Sorcerer]

Performance wise I have no issues but I really prefer the 5K displays with true retina over scaled 4K. Native 4K on 32" is too small for me to use comfortably. It's a luxury thing but it just looks better.

 

[salamanderjuice]

Apple still sells the 2018 Intel Mac Mini. That absolutely cannot handle 4K scaling on resolutions that cause the internal resolution to go above 5K. Animations are noticeably slower when you do. So no it's not true of every modern mac even if they are not Apple Silicon.

 

[Zest28]

I think the performance issue is pretty overblown, especially since the release of apple silicon. I remember getting an M1 and being shocked at how instantly you could switch the display scaling, something that would take like 2 seconds on an intel machine.

How are you finding the text rendering of the DualUp compared to the 5K iMac? That's the one concern that has me leaning towards a 5K display. I'm been using a 116ppi 1440p 25" monitor for the past 7 years but now I can barely stand the text clarity next to the 14" MBP.

It is not overblown. My M2 MBA overheats and becomes slower than my 15” Intel MacBook Pro even when I tried to use it as a desktop on a 4K monitor for a day.

If the M2 MBA is used on it’s own native display, it handles these type of things much better.

There really is a performance penalty.

 

[chrfr]

It is not overblown. My M2 MBA overheats and becomes slower than my 15” Intel MacBook Pro even when I tried to use it as a desktop on a 4K monitor for a day.

If the M2 MBA is used on it’s own native display, it handles these type of things much better.

There really is a performance penalty.

My M2 Air is faster than most tasks I use it for than the 2019 16”, even with a 4k display attached.

 

[Zest28]

My M2 Air is faster than most tasks I use it for than the 2019 16”, even with a 4k display attached.

Not when it thermal throttles, it becomes slow as crap.

 

[MajorFubar]

We've had this debate before and it ends up turning into a slanging-match between those in one corner who say they don't notice any issues at all (my corner) and those in the other corner telling us we're all Mr Magoos who can't see s**t.

 

[burgman]

We've had this debate before and it ends up turning into a slanging-match between those in one corner who say they don't notice any issues at all (my corner) and those in the other corner telling us we're all Mr Magoos who can't see s**t.

Impossible to debate with those that have "Golden Eyes" Same in Audio forums and "Golden Ears", Entertaining to read however.

 

[Kgeee]

I have posted this information so many times now in forums and on video comments that I put together some wise words from a Mac video hardware expert (not myself) and accounts of my own, personal experience with my somewhat odd, 4K-like display (~140dpi) that needs to be scaled like a 4K display, but has ever more pixels to contend with.

I hope this is helpful to those concerned and making decisions on non-Apple displays for their new Macs.

Blog post:

"4K Scaling" Is Not a Problem on Modern Macs - Byte Cellar

I found myself posting this information so frequently on forum threads and in video comments that I wanted to put it all together in one place so that I can share my experience and what I’ve learned with a single … Continue reading →

bytecellar.com

I suppose it depends on your use case. As a designer scaling resolutions can definitely cause all sorts of issue. See this article with examples https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays2/

 

[theluggage]

We've had this debate before and it ends up turning into a slanging-match between those in one corner who say they don't notice any issues at all (my corner) and those in the other corner telling us we're all Mr Magoos who can't see s**t.

The problem is that - unlike most audiophile golden ear nonsense - there are some genuine compromises with 4k scaling to be aware of, and a few use cases where it could be an issue - but these have been hugely overblown by a few internet postings and, for most people any compromise will be justified by the cost savings of getting a nice 4k display or two for a lot less than the cost of even a single 5k display.

I did a spiel on it a few months ago: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/psa-4k-display-resolutions.2345906/

There's really not much doubt that ~220ppi is the optimum display resolution for MacOS - and if there were more choice, cheaper options and fewer reasons to dislike the Studio Display & Pro XDR it would be a no-brainer.

 

[Fishrrman]

"There's really not much doubt that ~220ppi is the optimum display resolution for MacOS..."

Heh.
Whatever happened to 72dpi, "WYSIWYG" ???

 

[okkibs]

I recently had a discussion with someone who did notice this 4k scaling performance impact and when I mentioned I never noticed it even with more intense editing, he said it occured with Blender. Well of course you can run into performance issues then, you are running one of the most resource intensive pieces of software that exists...

For many users the most intense task will be lightweight photo editing, they'll never see scaling performance issues with ASi. And even if they do, it's going to be for a small percentage of the time. There aren't many 5k monitors on the market and with lower-than-4k-resolution displays MacOS has the blurry font issue. So an external 4k monitor is really the only viable solution despite the possible 4k scaling performance impact. And even then these devices still run as well or better than the previous Intel Macs.

The question for me is whether someone running Blender and other intense software on a 16" M1 Max or Studio M1 Ultra can still have this issue. If not, the solution is simple - if your device is underpowered for your workflow you need to spend more money or accept performance penalties.

Let's not forget the 14" base model for 1599 and the M1 Air for 799 are among the sturdiest, fastest and cheapest Macs out there that are either similarly priced as their competition (X1 Carbon) or cheaper (Zbook). These won't have the scaling issue with Windows 11, that is true, but then they might have noisier fans, worse screens when compared to miniLED, and possibly worse battery life. Although the latest AMD gen chips are now also on a 5nm process node as well, if I am not mistaken, so those might be extremely competitive with the M1. Not sure about Intel, AFAIK they still don't use it in their latest 13th gen chips. It's 10nm or 7nm or something?

 

[theluggage]

I suppose it depends on your use case. As a designer scaling resolutions can definitely cause all sorts of issue. See this article with examples https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays2/

That's a lot of words to say that "220ppi is better than 163ppi" (you don't say! But is it worth 2-3x the price?) - and the examples are all contrived to exaggerate the problems. 4k@27" is "retina" at about arms length, so a lot of those artefacts will be barely visible at normal viewing distances. Not a lot on how it might actually disrupt your workflow - it is really playing to the "now I can't un-see it" crowd.

Plus, the unspoken presumption that "looks like 1440ppi" is the only possible option on a 27" display - yes, "looks like 1080p" is a bit chunky but it's perfectly usable and cures all the scaling problems - and "native" 4k is a bit small and fiddly, but I'd have quite happily used it when my eyeballs were a few years younger (esp. if you go for a larger ascreen than 27"). You'd also think that people spend their days staring at the MacOS desktop and system dialogs and never run actual software which has its own zoom, font size settings, full screen mode etc.

Yes - there are a few use cases where 4k 1440p scaling artefacts might interfere with your work, and if you're hitting those all the time staking a few seconds to switch screen mode could becoming tedious. In that case - assuming you're getting paid for it - it may be worth paying the extra for a 220ppi screen. Heck, I'd consider a Pro XDR (and a pile of bricks to stand it on) if I was getting paid enough to justify it.

The problem is the whole "4k will make your eyes bleed" and "if there's a better option you must have it" and "it doesn't work for me so it won't work for you" attitude of some of these articles. Yes, 4k is a compromise vs 5k/6k - at a fraction of the price it is a sensible compromise for many people.

 

[theluggage]

The question for me is whether someone running Blender and other intense software on a 16" M1 Max or Studio M1 Ultra can still have this issue.

As I pointed out, "looks like 1440p" on a 4k screen means that internal rendering is all at 5k, which is probably more significant than the subsequent downsampling to 4k. The upshot is that if your 3D software is struggling in that scenario, upgrading to a 5k display won't fix it so you'd be looking at downgrading to a 1440p or 1080p display.

I'm not a Blender user but I did have a play with it on my Mac Studio (24 core GPU) and loaded up some of the example scenes and it seemed smooth enough in 4k scaled mode - not that you necessarily need to use scaled mode because Blender has a fully scalable UI.

I'm sure there are better reviews and benchmarks out there on the interweb - but some early reports might pre-date the native Apple Silicon version and support for Metal rendering.

 

[Kgeee]

That's a lot of words to say that "220ppi is better than 163ppi" (you don't say! But is it worth 2-3x the price?) - and the examples are all contrived to exaggerate the problems. 4k@27" is "retina" at about arms length, so a lot of those artefacts will be barely visible at normal viewing distances. Not a lot on how it might actually disrupt your workflow - it is really playing to the "now I can't un-see it" crowd.

Plus, the unspoken presumption that "looks like 1440ppi" is the only possible option on a 27" display - yes, "looks like 1080p" is a bit chunky but it's perfectly usable and cures all the scaling problems - and "native" 4k is a bit small and fiddly, but I'd have quite happily used it when my eyeballs were a few years younger (esp. if you go for a larger ascreen than 27"). You'd also think that people spend their days staring at the MacOS desktop and system dialogs and never run actual software which has its own zoom, font size settings, full screen mode etc.

Yes - there are a few use cases where 4k 1440p scaling artefacts might interfere with your work, and if you're hitting those all the time staking a few seconds to switch screen mode could becoming tedious. In that case - assuming you're getting paid for it - it may be worth paying the extra for a 220ppi screen. Heck, I'd consider a Pro XDR (and a pile of bricks to stand it on) if I was getting paid enough to justify it.

The problem is the whole "4k will make your eyes bleed" and "if there's a better option you must have it" and "it doesn't work for me so it won't work for you" attitude of some of these articles. Yes, 4k is a compromise vs 5k/6k - at a fraction of the price it is a sensible compromise for many people.

For the trained eye, those artefacts are genuine. As I pointed out, it depends on your use case. If it were horrible, Apple probably wouldn't have included those resolutions as an option. But 1:1 pixel mapping is paramount when working with pixel-perfect designs like icons and UI.

 

[theluggage]

For the trained eye, those artefacts are genuine. As I pointed out, it depends on your use case. If it were horrible, Apple probably wouldn't have included those resolutions as an option. But 1:1 pixel mapping is paramount when working with pixel-perfect designs like icons and UI.

…and a 4K screen will give “pixel-perfect” images in either “looks like 1080p” or “3840x2160” mode. The resulting UI sizes may be a bit big or a bit small for your tastes but they’re perfectly usable, and it takes seconds to switch mode to suit your current task - something that articles like the one linked tend to forget: you’d be forgiven for thinking that 4K displays were locked in fractional scaling mode.

If you’re spending most of your working days doing icon/UI design then yes, it is probably worth getting a 220ppi screen - but if you’re (say) doing coding or web development as well, you could get a triple 4K display setup for the same sort of price (one for code, one for documentation, one to preview the result) - you have to offset that against sometimes having to switch mode to polish your icons.

 

[Kgeee]

…and a 4K screen will give “pixel-perfect” images in either “looks like 1080p” or “3840x2160” mode. The resulting UI sizes may be a bit big or a bit small for your tastes but they’re perfectly usable, and it takes seconds to switch mode to suit your current task - something that articles like the one linked tend to forget: you’d be forgiven for thinking that 4K displays were locked in fractional scaling mode.

If you’re spending most of your working days doing icon/UI design then yes, it is probably worth getting a 220ppi screen - but if you’re (say) doing coding or web development as well, you could get a triple 4K display setup for the same sort of price (one for code, one for documentation, one to preview the result) - you have to offset that against sometimes having to switch mode to polish your icons.

You need to design for true to size. You can’t gauge an icon if the display size is larger or smaller than the default UI. That is common knowledge in the design industry. So again; it really depends on your use case, but it’s definitely not a universal truth that scaling is not noticeable. It comes down to how much of a compromise you’re willing to go with to save a buck on your monitor.

 

[theluggage]

You need to design for true to size. You can’t gauge an icon if the display size is larger or smaller than the default UI.

...true to what size? Even Macs don't all have exactly the same PPI - and people can choose different screen modes, view from different distances etc. Some people still like 1440p displays. If you're designing for cross-platform or the web then you have zero control over what actual size and resolution it will be. If you can see unsightly artefacts in your icon design when it is scaled then you probably need to fix your icon, not the display.

Modern web and application design is all about responsive design not looks-great-on-my-Pro-XDR design. At some stage, you'll need to beg/borrow/steal a range of devices to test your design - I guarantee that most of the nasty surprises will come from systems that are worse than your daily driver.

It comes down to how much of a compromise you’re willing to go with to save a buck on your monitor.

If it were a matter of saving a buck, and if there were more than two options to choose from, getting a 220ppi display would be a no-brainer. However, it's more like saving a thousand bucks - or the different between a single display and multiple displays - from a very limited range of choices (LG Ultrafine - if you can get one, Studio display - nice picture but other flaws and Pro XDR - make that 'saving $5000').

 

[Kgeee]

...true to what size? Even Macs don't all have exactly the same PPI - and people can choose different screen modes, view from different distances etc. Some people still like 1440p displays. If you're designing for cross-platform or the web then you have zero control over what actual size and resolution it will be. If you can see unsightly artefacts in your icon design when it is scaled then you probably need to fix your icon, not the display.

Modern web and application design is all about responsive design not looks-great-on-my-Pro-XDR design. At some stage, you'll need to beg/borrow/steal a range of devices to test your design - I guarantee that most of the nasty surprises will come from systems that are worse than your daily driver.


If it were a matter of saving a buck, and if there were more than two options to choose from, getting a 220ppi display would be a no-brainer. However, it's more like saving a thousand bucks - or the different between a single display and multiple displays - from a very limited range of choices (LG Ultrafine - if you can get one, Studio display - nice picture but other flaws and Pro XDR - make that 'saving $5000').

The pixel density for macOS does vary but within a small range to compensate for the viewing distance. See the table here: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays2/
By true to size I mean the intended icon size Apple specified for its operating system. macOS does not scale the UI. Again see the red zone in the chart in the article https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays2/. The same problem does not apply to Windows, as it does scale the UI mitigating the issue of graphics not being sized correctly. So this isn't a common problem across platforms. It's specific to macOS, as it lacks proper UI scaling.

I am not sure why you keep arguing otherwise. The article I've linked to discusses all the problems with scaling or using a non-Apple PPI value, and it even provides lots of real-world examples. It's not really up to debate. It's a matter of preference, and I donøt know a single designer who can live with their design being overblown or way too tiny.

In regards to saving money, you'd be hard-pressed to find a significantly lower-priced display with the same specs as Apple. It does come with a premium, as all Apple products do, but it's not night and day all specs being equal. Or at least that was the case when ASD was launched. Lots of threads in the forums where people are comparing apples and oranges, but keep falling short of finding a comparable display with the same specs and size.

 

[theluggage]

By true to size I mean the intended icon size Apple specified for its operating system.

Again, what intended icon size?

If you look at: https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/foundations/images (or the sections on icons) you'll find references to required sizes in pixels, scale factors of 1x, 2x and 3x (new one on me - but probably about right for an 8k display when they turn up), reminders to test on different devices and a couple of recommendations to use resolution-independent SVG or PDF formats. What I don't see is any word of God that states that "1x=110ppi, 2x=220ppi" or any other commitment to how big a pixel actually is in physical terms.

Yup, recent macs have been approximately 110ppi (nonretina) 220ppi screens (iDevices not so much) but that hasn't always been true in the past and might not be true in the future (see the reference to 'x3' in the link above) plus there's always a choice of Apple supported alternative modes. Not to mention 3rd party displays.

Its not even a surprise because not hard coding assumptions about the physical size of pixels into applications - even indirectly by designing bitmap icons that degrade badly when scaled - has been best practice (where technically possible) since the 1980s (even in Windows).

Again see the red zone in the chart in the article https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays2/.

I'm going to go with Apples own UI guidelines.

People keep referring to that red & green chart (the basis of many "don't buy 4k displays for Macs" posts) as if it proves something. It doesn't - it's just re-iterating the author's opinion that only 110 or 220 ppi is good, based on the fallacy that you have to run your 4k display in fractional scaled mode. All they've done is calculate the pixel densities for a bunch of monitors based on the published specs - it doesn't seem to be based on any sort of testing (have they tried using a 4k 32" in 1:1 mode, or a 24" 4k in 2:1 mode?).

he same problem does not apply to Windows, as it does scale the UI mitigating the issue of graphics not being sized correctly.

True - Windows allows you to set the UI scaling to whatever you want and any resolution-independent vector images & fonts get rendered pixel-perfect at your selected scale (well - within limits).

If, however, you're talking about bitmapped icons - unless you provide lovingly hand-finished bitmaps for every possible scale (haven't counted, but it's a lot more than 2), even Windows will still use fractional scaling and create artefacts (possibly worse than Apple's 2x-and-downsample, depending on how the app is coded).

The Windows way is superficially better but it relies on all the applications being well behaved, correctly querying the OS to translate coordinates and getting sizes for offscreen buffers etc. My experience is that it gets flakey if you have a mix of different displays or hot-swap external displays on a laptop.

Then, of course, if you're designing for the web you have zero control of what absolute scale your bitmap assets will be displayed at on a particular browser - although you can use CSS and script to adjust the layout according to whatever display you get stuck with.

I am not sure why you keep arguing otherwise. The article I've linked to discusses all the problems with scaling or using a non-Apple PPI value, and it even provides lots of real-world examples.

And, as I already said, the effects are genuine. The article is perfectly honest that the "examples" are simulated - and they actually do a good job of explaining the effects - but there's nothing "real world" about them, they're contrived to exaggerate the effects.

You're talking about UI and icon design and the message you should be taking from the article is not "don't buy a 4k display" but rather don't use fine hatching and 1-pixel features in icons and UIs because they will look awful if they have to be scaled for any reason.

It's not really up to debate.

Except the idea that MacOS displays are supposed to be either 110ppi or 220ppi isn't backed up by Apple's own design guide and the most frequently-cited parts of the article depend on the fallacy that some displays, quote, "can't run MacOS with 1:1 pixel mapping". They can - either in 3840x2160 mode which starts to be quite usable on 30" or larger displays or in "looks like 1920x1080" mode which (unless you have ancient software) is also effectively 1:1 pixel mapping with a double-size UI and doesn't suffer from any of the fractional scaling problems. Heck, it's the same scaling ratio as the default "looks like 1440p" on an Apple 5k display.

I don't want to flame the article too much - because most of it is making reasonable points and the effects described are real - but people need to read the article critically, stop treating it as authoritative and not cherry-pick the images and tables.

 

[curnalpanic]

Sure. I got a 32 inch, 4K, using the same apparent resolution as the 6K XDR. Looks like 3008x1692. It is a bit fuzzy compared to my iMac 5K but it works.