What resolution do you run your 13" rMBP at?

[mok749]

Before I got my 13" rMBP, I assumed that 2560x1600 wouldn't be usable because everyone said it was impossibly small.

As soon as I got it, I went to 1680x1050. It was great! But I needed MORE. I got switchresx and bumped it to 1920x1200. Even better.

Then I tried 2560x1600. I can't go back. It's amazing:

1. I can fit an insane amount on the screen. I basically have 4 non-retina macbook pro screens.

2. At first it seemed to small, but the more I use it the easier it gets. When I want to leisurely read something, I just double right click to zoom in browser. When I need to see a detail, I just ctrl-scroll to quick zoom in on it.

3. The framerate is super smooth. Mission control feels like 30fps. If I run at 1920x1200 hidpi i can literally count the frames. It ranges from 2-5.

Does anyone else do this too?

 

[PDFierro]

You're probably going to be the only one running it at that resolution. If you needed that much screen space, why didn't you go for a 15-inch or an external monitor?

Kind of defeats the purpose of Retina. Even 1680x1050 is too small for most of us.

 

[matmont1305]

I took both the 13" and 15" for a test drive at the Apple store today, they both looked great set at "More Space", whatever resolution that is?

 

[ka-spot]

Always best for retina

 

[covertash]

I've been alternating between 1920x1200 and 2560x1600. Right now I'm at 1600p, but I do have to switch back every so often as it is easier to read at 1200p. With that said, I am starting to get used to it, and you are right it is amazing!

It's like having my Mac Mini's screen (a 1440p 27" monitor) in a portable solution, which is precisely why I chose this over a MBA!

I took both the 13" and 15" for a test drive at the Apple store today, they both looked great set at "More Space", whatever resolution that is?

The "More Space" resolution is only 1680x1050. It gets even better, the higher you go, but you will need a third party app to access the other resolutions.

 

[T-Bob]

So 2560 x 1600 performs better than 1650, and 1920 x 1200 the worst?

 

[mok749]

So 2560 x 1600 performs better than 1650, and 1920 x 1200 the worst?

I just tried all the resolutions and compared the smoothness when going to mission control

2560 (non hidpi) >> 1280 > 1440 > 1680 > 1920

2048 (non hidpi) is about the same as 2560 (non hi dpi). I can't tell the difference.

2048 is actually a pretty good option too. It just slightly blurrier than 1920 hidpi, but WAY smoother, and you get slightly more space too.

----------

Kind of defeats the purpose of Retina. Even 1680x1050 is too small for most of us.

Isn't the purpose of Retina hi dpi? So I'm using the Retina display to do something that would be impossible without it. Seems to me that I'm making full use of the purpose of the Retina display.

----------

I've been alternating between 1920x1200 and 2560x1600. Right now I'm at 1600p, but I do have to switch back every so often as it is easier to read at 1200p. With that said, I am starting to get used to it, and you are right it is amazing!

It's like having my Mac Mini's screen (a 1440p 27" monitor) in a portable solution, which is precisely why I chose this over a MBA!



The "More Space" resolution is only 1680x1050. It gets even better, the higher you go, but you will need a third party app to access the other resolutions.

Totally agree! I still switch between the two resolutions too. I used to be on 1200p 95% of the time. Now I'm on 1600p 80% of the time.

 

[PDFierro]

I just tried all the resolutions and compared the smoothness when going to mission control

2560 (non hidpi) >> 1280 > 1440 > 1680 > 1920

2048 (non hidpi) is about the same as 2560 (non hi dpi). I can't tell the difference.

2048 is actually a pretty good option too. It just slightly blurrier than 1920 hidpi, but WAY smoother, and you get slightly more space too.

----------



Isn't the purpose of Retina hi dpi? So I'm using the Retina display to do something that would be impossible without it. Seems to me that I'm making full use of the purpose of the Retina display.

----------



Totally agree! I still switch between the two resolutions too. I used to be on 1200p 95% of the time. Now I'm on 1600p 80% of the time.

The main purpose of Retina is to give you the same screen real estate but clearer pixels. I honestly don't see how you're able to read everything. Like I said, if you're running 2560x1600 100% the time, then why not get a monitor?

I would have a hard time with 1680x1050, and my eyesight is awesome.

 

[Gadger Snr]

Spel

 

[mingoglia]

This shows that each person is different. I honestly couldn't imagine running anything but 2560x1600 on the 13". The lower native resolution looks too kids leap frog "computer" to me. 2560x1600 is plenty big enough for me to see everything perfectly and anything less just seems like VGA-size graphics to me. I guess my $3,400 LASIK surgery from several years ago is still paying off for me.

 

[PDFierro]

This shows that each person is different. I honestly couldn't imagine running anything but 2560x1600 on the 13". The lower native resolution looks too kids leap frog "computer" to me. 2560x1600 is plenty big enough for me to see everything perfectly and anything less just seems like VGA-size graphics to me. I guess my $3,400 LASIK surgery from several years ago is still paying off for me.

Super Retina.

 

[tmiw]

1680x1050. I briefly booted into Ubuntu and used the maximum resolution, and it was pretty much tiring to read.

 

[osxyz]

Most of the time I'm running 1440x900, because 1680x1050 is lagging too much. Anyone here with the same issue? It not real bad when there's just a safari window opened, but especially with multiple fullscreen windows the switching gets laggy....

Just registered here because I want to make sure it's not a defect

Late 2013 13" (Core i5 2.4Ghz, 8GB, 256GB)

 

[Texxy]

What app are you using to get to 2048x1280 & 2560x1600? The display options only go up to 1920x1200. How are you going higher please let us know

 

[ayeying]

Most of the time I'm running 1440x900, because 1680x1050 is lagging too much. Anyone here with the same issue? It not real bad when there's just a safari window opened, but especially with multiple fullscreen windows the switching gets laggy....

Just registered here because I want to make sure it's not a defect

Late 2013 13" (Core i5 2.4Ghz, 8GB, 256GB)

I don't have any lag at 1680x1050. That's what I run it as. I always had this resolution on my previous system and I love the size. It's just perfect for me.

What app are you using to get to 2048x1280 & 2560x1600? The display options only go up to 1920x1200. How are you going higher please let us know

It only go to 1680x1050 on the 13" unless you use something like SetResX