4K Support in Yosemite... Am I Missing Something?

spetznatz

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 5, 2006
180
11
Just put in a 7950 (Mac Pro 5,1) to drive a Dell P2815Q 4K monitor... choosing the 4K res. (3840 x 2160), all the interface elements are tiny... and unusable. I thought the idea of adding support for 4K in Yosemite was to make it act like the 5K iMac, where all the interface elements (menu bar, fonts, title bars, etc.) are the same size at 5K as they are at standard res... what am I not getting? Is there some setting / set-up that needs to be done?
 

Psyfuzz

macrumors 6502
Dec 5, 2014
296
196
Go into display settings and scale the resolution.

You can choose the size of the UI elements you want until it becomes readable. The 5K iMac also does this which is why the text is larger than you're experiencing.
 
Comment

pastrychef

macrumors 601
Sep 15, 2006
4,520
1,025
New York City, NY
Psyfuzz is correct. I use a Dell P2715Q with my Mac Pro 5,1 and I think the resolution you are looking for is either 2560x1440 or 3008x1692. Personally, I use 3200x1800 for the extra screen real estate but everyone's eyesight and comfort level are different...
 
Comment

spetznatz

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 5, 2006
180
11
Errrr... I used to own a 5K iMac and, with that Mac, the UI elements are the same size at 5K resolution (5120 x 2880) as they are on a standard resolution iMac (2560 x 1440). If I choose a useable resolution (one where I don't need binoculars to read what's in the menu bar) it comes out to... 2560 x 1440... so what's the point of a 4K display?
 
Comment

SlCKB0Y

macrumors 68040
Feb 25, 2012
3,139
203
Sydney, Australia
Errrr... I used to own a 5K iMac and, with that Mac, the UI elements are the same size at 5K resolution (5120 x 2880) as they are on a standard resolution iMac (2560 x 1440). If I choose a useable resolution (one where I don't need binoculars to read what's in the menu bar) it comes out to... 2560 x 1440... so what's the point of a 4K display?
If you want those guys above to help you, you should probably try to explain yourself more clearly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABC5S
Comment

pastrychef

macrumors 601
Sep 15, 2006
4,520
1,025
New York City, NY
Errrr... I used to own a 5K iMac and, with that Mac, the UI elements are the same size at 5K resolution (5120 x 2880) as they are on a standard resolution iMac (2560 x 1440). If I choose a useable resolution (one where I don't need binoculars to read what's in the menu bar) it comes out to... 2560 x 1440... so what's the point of a 4K display?
Didn't you realize that, by default, the 5K iMacs are set to 2560x1440 resolution?

If you've ever compared an iPad 1 or 2 vs an iPad with retina display, you would understand the point of having a 4K display.

If you want to use 4K at native resolution and have the UI elements at a larger size, you should consider a physically larger display. Perhaps a 31" monitor would suit your needs better.

If you put two 27" screens next to each other, one running at 2560x1440 native and one running at 5120x2880 native, everything on the 2560x1440 screen will look 4x bigger. It's common sense.

To have the UI elements look the same size as a 2560x1440 27" display at native resolution, you would need a 54" monitor.
 
Comment

TheralSadurns

macrumors 6502a
Jul 8, 2010
699
940
A 4k display... is basically (if you disregarding all the other possible scaling options) a 1080p display that is twice as sharp.

The Thunderbolt Display... is a 2560x1440 display. Everything on it is the same size as on the
5k iMac that renders at 2560x1440 (times 2) by default. Just that everything is way sharper.

Same goes for a 4k display.
They should generally NOT be used at their 'default' resolution of 3840x2160.
They are... as I stated above... the 'new' 1080p displays... that are just a lot sharper.




Like on the 5k iMac and all the rMBPs, however, you can also scale that resolution further... to make interface elements smaller or bigger. The Desktop will then be rendered at double the resolution and scaled back to fit the display. This does introduce a certain amount of fuzziness... is in most cases still usable though due to the high pixel count of the display.

One well documented example of such rendering is the iPhone 6 Plus. It ships with a 1920x1080p display... but internally renders the desktop at 2208x1242 (or 736x414 @ times 3). The internally rendered 2208x1242 are, because they naturally don't fit on the display downsampled to 1080p.



Two things I can recommend though:
Download this free utility: rdm from here Retina DisplayMenu v0.2 (DropBox)
It is a bit old... but still works wonders... (see screenshot from my 17" MBP)

And... if Sys Prefs for whatever reason don't give you the option... select 1920 x 1080 (HiDPI) as the resolution!
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: VAGDesign
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.