I really wanted to use the most space scaling but after switching to NORMAL (middle option) I find it actually comfortable with the font sizes in apps and I have 20/20 vision. Wondering what scaling everyone is using and why
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.
what scaling do you guys use for ASD?
- Thread starter Lucas Curious
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Congrats on the ASD!
Discussed multiple times, but to sum it up:
Apple's macOS UI is designed to offer the best user experience at normal viewing distance on ~110 ppi displays. That means 2560x1440 pixels for a 27" monitor (like the old cinema display and non-Retina 27" iMac).
"Retina" means such a high pixel density, that single pixels aren't perceivable anymore. This is what all newer Apple displays use.
In case of the ASD (or iMac 5K) the "looks like 2560x1440" is what Apple intended: The UI looks the same size as 2560x1440 but Apple doubled the pixel density (~220 ppi) so text and images look sharper / more detailed. The actual resolution is therefore 5120x2880.
Every other display setting than "looks like 2560x1440" deviates from displaying the UI in 2x scale and results in degraded image quality and additional GPU computational effort (therefore the warning underneath the scaling options). The only exception would be the native resolution of 5120x2880 which is way too small for every day use.
It depends on your usage if a larger/smaller UI benefits your work. You may not even notice the mentioned drawbacks.
Discussed multiple times, but to sum it up:
Apple's macOS UI is designed to offer the best user experience at normal viewing distance on ~110 ppi displays. That means 2560x1440 pixels for a 27" monitor (like the old cinema display and non-Retina 27" iMac).
"Retina" means such a high pixel density, that single pixels aren't perceivable anymore. This is what all newer Apple displays use.
In case of the ASD (or iMac 5K) the "looks like 2560x1440" is what Apple intended: The UI looks the same size as 2560x1440 but Apple doubled the pixel density (~220 ppi) so text and images look sharper / more detailed. The actual resolution is therefore 5120x2880.
Every other display setting than "looks like 2560x1440" deviates from displaying the UI in 2x scale and results in degraded image quality and additional GPU computational effort (therefore the warning underneath the scaling options). The only exception would be the native resolution of 5120x2880 which is way too small for every day use.
It depends on your usage if a larger/smaller UI benefits your work. You may not even notice the mentioned drawbacks.
Last edited:
thank you for the detailed effort. I didnt know this stuff.
Still curious what others are using. originally I felt that the more I can fit on the screen, the better the productivity without moving around but now I'm thinking that it may have been harder to edit text with a mouse and maybe small letters aren't all that great for the brain.
I'm using the default (2x scaling on 1440p). I imagine most people use this setting as 1440p is the sweet spot for a monitor this size, but we get a super sharp version of it due to the 5k screen. Using 4k or 5k native would be difficult as everything will be tiny.
I'm using the "Looks like 2880 x 1620" option. I can't notice any performance issues.
My 2019 16" MBP uses a non-integer scaling as its default setting.
On my LG 31.5" 4k, I used "Looks like 3360 x 1890". Which is exactly the same ppi as "Looks like 2880 x 1620" on 27". Text and UI elements would be displayed at the same dimensions on both screens.
I'm totally with you. When not using Photoshop, I also use a scaled resolution on my 13" MacBook to have more "estate". That's why I said:
It is just noteworthy that depending on the application there can be significant downsides. Luckily the ASD offers enough work space at default setting that most users wont have to worry about any of this.