Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
for now I'm sticking with the stock, default resolution. So far, for my purposes, it looks just fine. I'd rather not risk a performance hit to scale it up to "more space".
 
I reduced the resolution to the 1152x720 equivalent (quarter of the native resolution) so far. I think text just looks a little crisper, but it might be my imagination. I've also been using screen sharing to log into my Mac Mini server running at 1920x1200, which is clear and legible on the screen but very tiny.

Seems like thats because its a more perfect scaling, exactly half the horizontal pixels and half the vertical pixels. Surprisingly, the default scale 1280*800 i believe would actually make the machine a little slower since its a less natural scale
 
Seems like thats because its a more perfect scaling, exactly half the horizontal pixels and half the vertical pixels. Surprisingly, the default scale 1280*800 i believe would actually make the machine a little slower since its a less natural scale

It makes no difference for performance. Scaling always happens (unless you are running at full native res, which is not possible using System Preferences), and the difference between integer scaling and non-integer scaling is negligible.
 
It makes no difference for performance. Scaling always happens (unless you are running at full native res, which is not possible using System Preferences), and the difference between integer scaling and non-integer scaling is negligible.

A small qualification that hopefully won't matter to most with the rMB. I've run the Unigine Heaven benchmark on my rMB at different resolutions and at the higher res settings the frame rate does slow down, which is not a surprise. I would guess that relatively few people are going to try to run resource-hog games with the rMB, though.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.