Display Scaled Resolution?

Jetcat3

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
May 3, 2015
619
352
Hey y'all, I just had a quick question about scaled resolution. Are there any drawbacks to setting the scaled resolution to 1400 X 900? I really like this scaled resolution but would I incur any more performance hit by the computer rendering internally at 2800 X 1800? Would it also reduce battery life? I have transparency reduced and I can see a difference when I switch from 1280 X 800. It lags a little bit more with 1400 X 900. Thanks!
 

bcaslis

macrumors 68020
Mar 11, 2008
2,174
200
As you said there is more CPU power used in this mode. But keep in mind even 1280x800 is a scaled mode, so it's not like that resolution is the most efficient. But use whatever mode provides you the best experience.
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,241
593
Cascadia
As bcaslis says, you will see a performance degredation at any scaled resolution other than a two-to-one to native resolution. The native resolution of the MacBook is 2304x1440, which means it's "best" scaled resolution equivalent is 1152x720 - a low effective resolution. (Some applications will have problems with that resolution.)

Any effective resolution other than 1152x720 will have similar "initial performance hit" penalties, although higher resolutions will then increase that penalty slightly. (Doing the 2-to-1 calculation is easy on the CPU/GPU, any other resolution will cause a hit up front, even LOWER effective resolutions, as those with Retina iMacs and MacBook Pros have found. Then the higher effective resolution you use, you tack on slightly higher performance penalties as it has to render even more pixels before scaling back down to native panel size.)
 

Young Turk

macrumors 6502
Jul 9, 2002
398
26
As bcaslis says, you will see a performance degredation at any scaled resolution other than a two-to-one to native resolution. The native resolution of the MacBook is 2304x1440, which means it's "best" scaled resolution equivalent is 1152x720 - a low effective resolution. (Some applications will have problems with that resolution.)

Any effective resolution other than 1152x720 will have similar "initial performance hit" penalties, although higher resolutions will then increase that penalty slightly. (Doing the 2-to-1 calculation is easy on the CPU/GPU, any other resolution will cause a hit up front, even LOWER effective resolutions, as those with Retina iMacs and MacBook Pros have found. Then the higher effective resolution you use, you tack on slightly higher performance penalties as it has to render even more pixels before scaling back down to native panel size.)
Greater screen resolution is probably the single most important reason to me (slightly ahead of design) that I would consider upgrading to the new MacBook from my late 2012 rMBP. I want to make sure I understand.

As a trial attorney, I need the highest resolution possible to see my SAS (software as service). Native resolution in my rMBP is 1280x100, which is far too cramped. I usually run at 1440x900, a pre-set scaled resolution in the
Displays preference pane, but even at that resolution I can't see all the columns of info Left to Right, that I'd like to in my SAS. I see the new rMB has a higher resolution that is native. Please explain how that will help me with what I'm trying to do.
 

Queen6

macrumors G3
Am running 13" rMBP & 12" rMB @ 1440x900, so far I am not observing any discernible difference in UI performance. I use my Mac`s in an engineering environment and similar I require a greater workspace to be effective and run proprietary applications correctly.

You can also look at this thread to see how to expand the resolution options

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/scale-1680x1050-on-rmb-without-an-app.1873910/

Q-6
 

Young Turk

macrumors 6502
Jul 9, 2002
398
26
Am running 13" rMBP & 12" rMB @ 1440x900, so far I am not observing any discernible difference in UI performance. I use my Mac`s in an engineering environment and similar I require a greater workspace to be effective and run proprietary applications correctly.

You can also look at this thread to see how to expand the resolution options

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/scale-1680x1050-on-rmb-without-an-app.1873910/

Q-6
Does the 12" rMB give you greater screen workspace than the 13" rMBP?
 

Young Turk

macrumors 6502
Jul 9, 2002
398
26
No, same if you use same resolutions. As the 13" is physically larger you may be able to live with, higher resolutions and smaller text.

Q-6
Thanks for clarifying. In need of more screen workspace, last night I switched from 1440 x 900 resolution on my rMBP 13" to 1680 x 1050. We'll see if my eyes can take it. Good so far.
 

elithrar

macrumors 6502
May 31, 2007
372
3
Hey y'all, I just had a quick question about scaled resolution. Are there any drawbacks to setting the scaled resolution to 1400 X 900? I really like this scaled resolution but would I incur any more performance hit by the computer rendering internally at 2800 X 1800? Would it also reduce battery life? I have transparency reduced and I can see a difference when I switch from 1280 X 800. It lags a little bit more with 1400 X 900. Thanks!
The performance difference is negligible (i.e. bordering on imperceptible) between 1280x800, 1440x900, 1536x960 & 1680x1050 for most tasks.
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,241
593
Cascadia
Greater screen resolution is probably the single most important reason to me (slightly ahead of design) that I would consider upgrading to the new MacBook from my late 2012 rMBP. I want to make sure I understand.

As a trial attorney, I need the highest resolution possible to see my SAS (software as service). Native resolution in my rMBP is 1280x100, which is far too cramped. I usually run at 1440x900, a pre-set scaled resolution in the
Displays preference pane, but even at that resolution I can't see all the columns of info Left to Right, that I'd like to in my SAS. I see the new rMB has a higher resolution that is native. Please explain how that will help me with what I'm trying to do.
Your rMBP has a native resolution higher than the new MacBook. Thus, it's "2:1 best effective resolution" is likewise higher. In addition, Apple also sets the "highest effective resolution" higher on it than on the new MacBook. BUT - the integrated GPU on the new MacBook will run circles around your older MacBook Pro.

So at the "non-optimal" resolutions, the new MacBook will probably be faster than your older one at the optimal resolution. If you don't mind the fact that the same "effective resolution" will produce smaller text and icons on the MacBook than on your MacBook Pro, then go for it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.