Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How do you even use 5k resolution? No zoom?
- Thread starter restock3eee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you have a 5k iMac….
Apple have marketed their monitors/iMacs as 4k/5k, but in reality they are not.
Yes you can run a 24” at 4k or a 27” at 5k, but everything is microscopic.
Natively they all run in highDPI or retina mode, like an iPhone/ipad.
Which means a 4k is 1920x1080 and a 5k is 2560x1440 (half of 4 or 5k).
It will be on a 24” screen….
Post in thread 'More screen real estate with a 4.5K iMac over a standard 24" screen?'
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...er-a-standard-24-screen.2296691/post-30546036
Yes, they are: Apple have just chosen a very confusing way of describing the user interface scaling.
Nope - it's the other way around. Unless you've jumped through hoops to enable "low resolution" modes, what Apple calls "2560x1440" is actually 5210x2880, but with with fonts, icons, vector graphics etc. drawn using double the number of pixels so that they are the same physical size on a 27" 5k screen as they were on an old 27" 2560x1440 screen. Unless you're using ancient, pre-retina software that doesn't understand retina mode, those pixels are used to add detail and 5k mode shows far more detail than you'd get on an actual 2560x1440 screen.
Just take a screen shot, count the pixels and zoom into some text or graphics to see that all of those pixels are being put to good use.
Sounds like you've selected "5120x2880" mode thinking that you need that to get 5k resolution. You don't. Apple, in their infinite wisdom, decided to use names like "2560x1440" to mean different UI scales.
Go into display settings and set the screen mode to "larger text". Ignore the stupid pop-up that says "2560x1440" - you're still getting the benefits of 5k/220ppi resolution.
Its only the system/menu/dialogue fonts and buttons that get affected by this - within any application you can use the zoom or font size settings to cram in as much or as little text as you like.
Just like this:
That's with a pair of 5K displays, Studio Display from Apple and the LG Ultrafine 5K both 5120x2880 on Mac Pro 7,1.
Of course everything is small, it's only half the size (a quarter of the area) of what it's designed for!
I appreciate your correct explanation….. 👍
Being ‘old-school’ though I prefer more screen real estate with a higher resolution, so I wouldn’t feel I was getting anything more than my QHD displays, except a sharper image…🥴
There are 5k worth of pixels on an Apple 5k display.
HOWEVER...
Apple DOES NOT want you to look at the display in "full 5k mode".
(even though you can set it that way if you wish)
Rather, they intend for you to view it in "HiDPI" mode. This "halves" the resolution in both directions (width and height), so the "working resolution" is a display that "looks like 1440p".
In fact, I believe the "default" resolution in the displays settings pane will be 2560x1440.
(again, "looks like 1440p")...
HOWEVER...
Apple DOES NOT want you to look at the display in "full 5k mode".
(even though you can set it that way if you wish)
Rather, they intend for you to view it in "HiDPI" mode. This "halves" the resolution in both directions (width and height), so the "working resolution" is a display that "looks like 1440p".
In fact, I believe the "default" resolution in the displays settings pane will be 2560x1440.
(again, "looks like 1440p")...
There are a range of intermediate scales between "looks like 5120x2880" and "looks like 2560x1440" that will give you a smaller UI with more "real estate" without becoming totally unreadable - they're slightly fuzzy because they've been rendered at twice the "looks like" resolution and downsampled to 5k, but they're still more detailed than you'd get on a standard def monitor and most people won't see the fuzz unless they climb on the desk with a magnifier.
...but don't forget that all this only affects the user interface elements (which, frankly, don't need to get any smaller than they are in "looks like 2560x1440" mode) the actual content of your windows can be zoomed out further - or the font size can be set smaller - than it could on a standard def screen without loosing detail. So you can get more real estate on a 5k screen than 1440p.
No. it doesn't.
The resolution of Apple's "looks like 2560x1440" mode on a 5k,27" screen is 5120x2880 (~220ppi on a 27").
It's pretty easy to check - take a full-screen grab and notice that you get a 5120x2880 image - then zoom in and see the detail.
Or, go to Display Settings, option-click on a screen mode, select "show all resolutions" and you can toggle between "2560x1440" (which is the HiDPI mode) and "2560x1440 (low resolution)" (Or the corresponding two "1920x1080" modes on a 4k display - same principle) so you can see what 2560x1440 resolution actually looks like, vs. HiDPI "looks like 2560x1440" (it really doesn't).
Or just load up a graphics program and make some 5120x2880 grids with 1-pixel gaps, set the zoom to "actual pixels" scale (or display the image full screen) and you'll see that the resolution is 5k.
"looks like 2560x1440" is Apple's (confusing) way of saying "it's 5120x2880 but with UI elements the same size as they would be on an old 2560x1440 iMac/Cinema Display"
(Then there are the fractionally scaled modes which are even more confusing but still render more detail than would be possible at the true "looks like" resolution).
Unless you're running ancient, pre-retina software, HiDPI mode doesn't halve the resolution - it doubles the numbers of pixels (in each direction) used by fonts, icons, line plotting etc. so they are the same physical size as they would be on a 2560x1440/110ppi screen, but they can still have 220ppi worth of detail and the actual content is still rendered at 5k...
Sigh. It's been 10 years since Apple sold a non-retina screen, about time they stopped using it as the "reference" for screen scaling. Instead, a few versions ago, they dropped the "looks like" just to make the mode names more misleading...
You two appear to be actually in agreement, just using different words. Although, I guess you can argue about which words to use, I suppose.
Last edited:
Excellent video explanation….👍
I too struggle to see pixels or artefacts on my dual ultrasharp Dell 1440p monitors.
These give me a screen area of 5120x1440 and look beautiful.
Retina is just an offshoot from iPhone/iPad tech.
As mentioned in previous posts (and the video), a 5k 27” only gives you 2560x1440 anyway (unless you have bionic eyes).
It is complete common sense that a higher Rez display will use more system resources and tax your system, although people will argue this…. 🥴
I too struggle to see pixels or artefacts on my dual ultrasharp Dell 1440p monitors.
These give me a screen area of 5120x1440 and look beautiful.
Retina is just an offshoot from iPhone/iPad tech.
As mentioned in previous posts (and the video), a 5k 27” only gives you 2560x1440 anyway (unless you have bionic eyes).
It is complete common sense that a higher Rez display will use more system resources and tax your system, although people will argue this…. 🥴
Oh no, not that old video.
Guy's real problem was that he was trying to run Blender (heavy duty 3D rendering - sort of thing that would justify getting a M4 Max these days) at (effective) 5k on an original M1 Mac. I don't even know if Blender had got native Metal support at that stage... The fact that "scaled mode" then uses the GPU to re-sample the 5k to 4k is just the icing on the cake. Of course it was jerky... Since that video was made, even the base Macs have got significantly faster and gained more cores, while more applications have "gone native".
In that time & place & situation, buying a 1440p screen probably did make sense - if you're depending on a GPU-intensive program on a Mac model that is underpowered for the job - but it's really not good general advice.
(When it comes to the UI size issue, Blender is a particularly ironic example since it renders its own fully-scaleable UI, so just choose either 1:1 native or 2:1 mode in MacOS, full-screen Blender and then adjust the UI size to match your eyesight...)
The site he references:
Mac external displays for designers and developers
If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.
Is actually an excellent explanation of the various issues and artefacts you get with fractional scaling - unfortunately (IMHO) it (almost literally) blows the issue up out of all proportion thanks to it's magnified simulations of the worst-case scenarios, and those red/green "good for retina"/"not good for retina" are far too dogmatic about the issue (as all of those people out there happily running 4k screens in "looks like 1440p" will attest). 4k/27" at normal desktop viewing distance is close enough to "retina" that many people won't even notice 1-pixel 'artefacts'.
I fear a lot of people didn't notice they had a problem until that site told them they did... The site author's conclusion seemed to be pretty much that nothing was as good as a Pro XDR - probably true.
Thing is a 4k/5k/6k screen in a 1:1 or 2:1 mode will show every pixel in a 4k image at 100% scale - even if you have to put up with a less-than ideal UI scale for a while (it takes seconds to change). A 1440p screen can't do that, full stop. With a 4k screen in general use you probably won't notice any problem in "looks like 1440p" mode.
...all of which is a bit irrelevant in this thread about 5k displays, on which "looks like 1440p" gives pixel-perfect 5k resolution (with less GPU overhead than fractional-scaled modes).
Buying a 220ppi 5k/6k display for a Mac would be a no-brainer if there were more to choose from and more good, cheap options & if the Studio Display didn't cheap out on stands, extra inputs, proper mains plugs etc. It's got better since that video was made, but, still, 4k is a little bit of compromise for a huge tranche of saved money (i.e. a dual-screen setup for less than the price of a single Studio Display).
Well, yes, and if you're going to use GPU-intensive software on multiple 4k/5k/6k screens, first step is to make sure that the Mac you buy has the GPU and RAM (since that doubles as video RAM) to cope - which is probably a good reason to go for a Mx Pro or Mx Max.
If people are happy with 1440p it's fine - but I really wouldn't recommend going out and buying a new 1440p display today unless you had a particular, specialist reason for getting one.
luggage opened up the suitcase with:
"If people are happy with 1440p it's fine - but I really wouldn't recommend going out and buying a new 1440p display today unless you had a particular, specialist reason for getting one."
Would your opinion change if the display in question was 32" with 5k resolution?
So that it would "look like" 1440p, but run in HiDPI mode?
Acer has the first of this kind coming, either at the end of this year or beginning of 2026...
"If people are happy with 1440p it's fine - but I really wouldn't recommend going out and buying a new 1440p display today unless you had a particular, specialist reason for getting one."
Would your opinion change if the display in question was 32" with 5k resolution?
So that it would "look like" 1440p, but run in HiDPI mode?
Acer has the first of this kind coming, either at the end of this year or beginning of 2026...
Do you mean "5k" as in 5120x1440 ultrawide (at 32"?) or a 5120x2880 32" 16:9 screen?
The Ultrawide idea doesn't float my boat - I'd rather have dual screens as I find that easier to manage. Anything 1440p will not be able to display 4k content at full detail.
5120x2880 32" 16:9 however sounds like a nice compromise between 5k 27" and 6k 32" if the price is right.
"5120x2880 32" 16:9 however sounds like a nice compromise between 5k 27" and 6k 32" if the price is right."
That's what I meant.
See here:
www.displayninja.com
That's what I meant.
See here:
New Monitors In 2025: What To Expect [Professional, Gaming]
Find out what LG, Samsung, and AU Optronics panel manufacturers have in store for us in 2025. There are some exciting models coming up!
www.displayninja.com
I really value screen real estate - especially for CAD and large spreadsheets and fortunately my eyes are still good at 72. So I also run all my screens and workspaces at full native resolution - using Display Menu to ensure I am at the maximum resolution and frequency.
I find my Apple cinema display (219 ppi) is perfect at 5120x2880 as is my M1 Air (219 ppi ?) at 2560x1600 but admittedly the text on my main work computer screen, the 16" MBP M1 Max (256 ppi ?) is a little small at 3456x2234 but still quite readable with good reading glasses. Have to keep the screens very clean to run like this.
i thought a higher resolution means images are drawn at higher DPI making them even more clearer. I know they can be drawn same size but will be smaller, at which point there is an option to increase GUI elements sizes?
I know what the OP is saying, I saw higher resolution screens, and while you can fit more stuff in but you cant see what is going on which defeats the purpose. No body wants to squint to read menu items