I'm confused about the scaling versus 2800 SwitchResX

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Forkjulle, Oct 2, 2012.

  1. Forkjulle macrumors regular

    Aug 1, 2012
    So, it turns out that the rMBP's highest native resolution is scaled-up 1900 (or thereabouts), which is lower than what all the ads say (which say 2800).


    I know the pixel density is the key factor, but I'm referring to screen real estate. My desktop has 2500 resolution and a Photoshop A4 canvas (300DPI) fits onto the screen without any scrolling.

    My understanding is that the highest scaled resolution on the rMBP is 1900-odd, which means that an A4 Photoshop canvas might not fit on without the need to scroll.

    This is where SwitchResX comes in, I suppose? I hear that it can change the resolution to 2800. Is there a performance drop at this resolution?
  2. twietee macrumors 603


    Jan 24, 2012
    No, theoretially it should be even better performance wise as no scaling is necessary. Whether one can experience that or not I can't say. There is an excellent thread about that here too. I'm just too lazy to search it right now. :p
  3. jterp7 macrumors 6502a

    Oct 26, 2011
    unless you're gaming there is absolutely no performance decrease at 2880x1800. Scrolling performance is 60fps plus lol. It is actually smoother than normal retina resolution.
  4. Forkjulle thread starter macrumors regular

    Aug 1, 2012
    And, at 2800, would all apps be "retina ready", as it were? For example, would Photoshop be crystal clear?
  5. wiznet macrumors regular

    May 30, 2012
    Yes. The blurriness is caused by scaling.

    At 2880x1800 there would just be very small icons, etc.
  6. stevelam macrumors 65816

    Nov 4, 2010
    it wouldn't be 'retina ready'. you're basically just turning off retina display by switching to native 2880 res.

    it would be clear, but the photoshop UI would be miniscule and unusable, not to mention the viewport of the file you're working on would be shrunken down by a ton.

    there are some people here with apparent hawk eye vision who claim they can use it at ridiculous 2880 res just fine. i doubt those people are actually getting paid for their time.
  7. Forkjulle thread starter macrumors regular

    Aug 1, 2012
    Well, I am currently typing on a 27" screen with 2500 resolution, and I can see everything perfectly...
  8. Mal macrumors 603


    Jan 6, 2002
    A 27" screen with 2560x1600 resolution (probably what you're referring to) is a whole different beast than a 15" screen with 2880x1800 resolution. You're talking nearly half the size for most screen elements.


Share This Page