Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!


macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Sep 20, 2008
Hi all,

Does anyone know if I am better of running a 2k 27" monitor in it's native resolution or a 4k scaled? Right now I am looking at the Dell UltraSharp U2717D 27-inch InfinityEdge Monitor LED-Lit Monitor. I've heard people comment that you're better off running quad hd (exactly half of 5k that apple offers on their 27" monitors) than 4k scaled.

Any help is great.




macrumors 601
Jul 9, 2012
Totally depends on what you want......lots of smaller text and images or less text and grahpics that are larger and in theory shaper. I run my Dell at 4K, not scaled.

Screen Shot 2017-03-06 at 11.50.23 AM.png
  • Like
Reactions: zachlegomaniac


macrumors 68000
Aug 31, 2009
England, UK
There's more pixels-per-inch on a 27" 4K screen than a 27" 1440p screen.

Therefore running scaled 1440p on a 4K screen will, mathematically, produce a better result than a native 1440p screen.

Running scaled 1440p on 4K is not as good as running scaled 1440p on a 5K screen (since it's exactly @2x).
  • Like
Reactions: zachlegomaniac


macrumors 6502a
Jul 18, 2002
Orange County, CA
Get a 4k or 5k monitor and run it scaled if you want 1440P. Trust me here. I have a 27" 4K monitor scaled to 1440P sitting next to a regular 27" 1440P monitor and the difference is like night and day.

This. If there was an expression stronger than "night and day" I would put that. I guess I'll put it this way: I bought a 27" 1440p display, used it for two days, then returned it and bought a 4K for more money, and run it scaled at 1440p. I've never been more happy with a purchase.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.