Does a scaled 4k monitor look better than a native 2K?

[mib01]

There has been a lot of talk about how macOS handles monitors after the release of BigSur, which lost font smoothing. Well, the table below recommends the ideal resolution and PPI for proper operation.

I currently use a Dell UP2716D, which has 1440p and 109 PPI within the rules. I have no complaints about the font. Of course, it doesn't compare to the retina display on my 2017 Macbook Pro. My question is, would a 4K monitor with its 163 PPI (bad zone) be better sized at 1440p compared to the native monitor I use?

 

[meson]

Short answer, Yes. More pixels to show the same amount of information is generally a good thing.

I use a 32” 4k at ~140ppi. While I normally run at native 4k, scaled 3008x1692 looks great, and 2560x1440 doesn’t look bad. The pixel doubled 1920x1080 starts to look too pixelated at my normal viewing distance.

I don’t currently have a 27” 2560x1440 display, but I do have a 21.5” iMac and 21.5” external 1080p display that have the same pixel density and the 4k display looks significantly sharper than the 109ppi panels (just not as sharp as 218ppi displays).

When I’ve seen images of poor looking text, they appear to come from putting the display in a gaming or other preset that favors sharpness and drops the shaded pixels used to smooth the appearance for our eyes. If Apple built similar settings into their displays, I’m sure you could make them look bad too.

4k displays are a step in the right direction. To me it’s disappointing that I have to give up the glossy screen that makes the colors pop, and reduced max brightness.

With reasonable expectations, you will be quite happy. If you want to replicate the iMac/Studio Display experience for pennies on the dollar, you will be disappointed.

 

[xraydoc]

Yes, definitely.

 

[MacGizmo]

I think "looks better" is subjective. As already stated, more pixels in the same amount of space is (in theory) better. But there are other factors that can make it look worse, such as the type of panel, any light-leaks, screen coating, matte or glossy display glass, etc.

 

[benwiggy]

The only reason that 163ppi is in the "bad zone" is that everything will be quite small at native size; and too big if scaled to 2x. When that graph was made, scaling to non-integer sizes was taxing on most GPUs, but things have improved since then.

Scaling to 1.5 (which would yield 2560 x 1440) should be perfectly fine in terms of size and clarity, and not working your GPU too hard, depending on your hardware. At the very least, you've got the same display as your old screen, but using more pixels to draw it.

 

[mib01]

The only reason that 163ppi is in the "bad zone" is that everything will be quite small at native size; and too big if scaled to 2x. When that graph was made, scaling to non-integer sizes was taxing on most GPUs, but things have improved since then.

Scaling to 1.5 (which would yield 2560 x 1440) should be perfectly fine in terms of size and clarity, and not working your GPU too hard, depending on your hardware. At the very least, you've got the same display as your old screen, but using more pixels to draw it.

As far as I know macOS scaling is 2x

 

[splifingate]

As far as I know macOS scaling is 2x

MacOS scaling is whatever you may so choose:

Though I enjoy the increased screen real-estate possible with all the above numerical options, I prefer 1080P for the expanded fidelity that my eyes easily find comfortable.

I have some great HP 1600x1200 displays stored here, but I'd never use them anymore given what I now have on-hand

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Everything's just your own personal experience here.

I don't have perfect eyesight. I use a mode where everything is "a bit bigger than someone with perfect eyesight would have it" - so scaled on a "Retina" is good. I have a 40" ultra wide (5Kx2160p) that I run in "looks like 1440p" mode, and it looks great to my eyes. Someone with absolutely perfect eyesight might find that annoying, though. (Note that "looks like 1080p" makes everything *TOO* big on that big a display, though.)

 

[mib01]

MacOS scaling is whatever you may so choose:

View attachment 2409695

Though I enjoy the increased screen real-estate possible with all the above numerical options, I prefer 1080P for the expanded fidelity that my eyes easily find comfortable.

I have some great HP 1600x1200 displays stored here, but I'd never use them anymore given what I now have on-hand

I even set it to 1080p but I didn't like it, I lost a lot of space on the screen and I didn't think it had an effect in terms of quality. 1440p native is still doing well.

 

[splifingate]

but I didn't like it

Yes; find what you do like, and use it