I suspect many people in this forum probably have little experience but I'm curious if anyone has any knowledge of this... Retina displays obviously look ideal at "Best for Retina" which is where everything is rendered at double resolution. In my experience, if you choose a scaled resolution on a retina display it's just as sharp. I wonder if scaled retina resolutions are sharper than native or vice-versa? For example, if you run a 24" 4K display at "best for retina" it will offer a desktop resolution equivalent to 1920x1080 but it's incredibly sharp. If you scale it to something like 3000x1600 (somewhere between "best" and native) it will still look reasonably sharp on a retina display as Apple scaling algorithim will first render the display at 6000x3200 and then downsample it to 3840x2160 resulting in very sharp output. So in effect, you're using 3840x2160 pixels to render a 3000x1600 image. Now my question is... is such a display that uses 3840x2160 pixels to render a 3000x1600 (first doubled to 6000x3200 and then down sampled to 3840x2160) image sharper than a 3000x1600 native display would be... or worse? EDIT: at the risk of answering my own question, I'm guessing the answer is that retina scaled is better than native. More pixels (with the benefit of Apple's scaling algorithm) are always better than less. My sense is that my 13" rMBP at a scaled resolution of 1680x1440 looks much better than a native 13" 1680x1440 display.