I am sorry, but this is a very bad advise! Anyone who wants to combine an Apple computer with non-apple screen has in fact a very limited number of choices. And as a first step, one should always look at what resolutions and physical dimensions Apple selects for their own screens. You will discover that for desktop computers, Apple has a very consistent policy with regard to DPI - that is the number of physicals pixel per inch - it is either 109 for non-retina and double of it - 218 dpi - for retina displays. Why is this important? Because unlike windows or linux, OSX doesn't employ UI scaling depending on resolution - all UI elements are designed to look and work best on either 109 DPI or 218 DPI in retina displays. One should notice, that windows is usually designed for 96 DPI - for instance, Apple has put full HD screen in 21' monitors for iMacs, while in Windows full HD is most suitable for 24 inch screens. There is actually only one combination, at present, that is common to Windows computers and was used by Apple - that is the 27 inch display with 1440p resolution. This combination was used in non-retina 27 inch iMacs - and, in my view, is the most suitable screen choice for anyone that cannot afford Apple screen at present. So why not 27 inch 4k monitors? Because you simply waste screen real-estate. If you use Apple software (Logic or FinalCut) you will discover that the bigger screen doesn't offer you any advantage - all UI elements are huge. You will have less real estate than 24 inch new iMac which has more pixels. You will, in fact, have the same experience as working on 21 inch retina iMac... I would only recommend this combination if you have eyesight difficulties and normally bring magnifying glass to your computer.

To hit the correct pixel density on a Mac you need either a 27 inch Display @ 1440p (110 PPI / non-retina) or 27 inch Display @ 5k (220 PPI / retina). You can, in theory, use a 40inch monitor @ 4k (110 PPI, non-retina), but one would need a 20-inch 4k display for the right retina pixel density (same screen real state as 20-inch @ 1080). Anything else will either look too big, too small or require suboptimal scaling techniques. So, IMO, 27inch @ 1440p is still the practical budget option for a Mac.

A very useful and informative video tutorial today! Great information given today with great clarity! Thank you, Gary! 👏🏻❤️

What!! Sorry but some of your comments miss the mark. 1440P is not 1/2 the resolution of 4K but rather 1/2 the resolution of 5K, 5120x2880 vs 2560x1440. Apple chooses non-standard 5k and 4.5k resolutions for a reason. That reason is to reach a Retina resolution of ~220dpi and the native DPI of the 27in, 5k iMac is 218. I haven't specifically looked but I'm sure the 24in iMac will be close to the same. They get the sharp display by doubling/combining pixels as you mention to get that sharpness and it works very well. 110dpi is an appropriate non-Retina resolution and corresponds well to 1440p and keeps Apple hardware from breathing too hard. Hover over the default resolution under the "Scaled" display settings and what does it show? Exactly, 2560x1440 and Apple will work their display magic on this to get the sharp display. 220dpi and 110dpi are the only resolutions that Apple builds their software to natively work with. If you choose any of the other resolutions, you are warned that they could impact performance and they will for anyone who does a lot of video and possibly photo editing because the display software has to work harder to calculate and then display these non-Retina standard DPI resolutions. This is definitely true on the 5K iMacs and I've personally experienced it. Also, if you "Option - Click" on the "Scaled" button you will see a list of all possible resolutions if someone is looking for more granularity and choices. This is very useful since you can't just change the scaling like you can in Windows. Your point showing the problem with downscaling from a native 1440p to 1080p is valid but a nonsensical thing to do. If you plan on using 1080p then a native 1080p display will be sharper. The problem with choosing a display for a Mac product is complicated due to the way Apple's display subsystem works. 4K and other resolutions will certainly work but anything that uses a resolution very far away from 110 or 220dpi is going to strain the display performance. 6K, 5K, 4.5K and 1440p are the best current choices for maximum graphics performance and sharp display. Search for "Hunter King"'s video from 4 months ago regarding MAC resolutions for a good explanation of the issue and a link includes an article with a calculator so you can compare various sizes and resolutions for an appropriate DPI. Users performing simple tasks such as browsing the internet or streaming will probably not notice a problem but for the more demanding users it's important to know.

My test shows that text is certainly more clear when operating at 1920x1080 rather than at 2560x1440 (2K, QHD) on a 4K monitor for the same font size. However, on a 27 inch monitor, operating at 1920 x 1080 results in the text still being too large - say for menus, sidebars, etc. It is more appropriate to run in this mode on a smaller monitor - say 24 inches. For example, the LG 24 inch monitor that is made for Mac operates in this mode.

Thanks for this video. As a mac and pc user I am torn between a 1440p and 4k display. I’m more confident on now getting the 4k display for future proofing as 4k will become the new standard soon with so many powerful GPUs coming out in the next year or two and now due to your explanation for mac users. Thanks!

This is a good video, but it misses some key points. About 1-2 months ago, I went through this exercise to get an external display for my MBA M2. I opted for high quality 1440P 27" Dell U2722DE screen. I had multiple 27" iMac's - 1440p and 5K and also had 1080P 27" displays, and I think, unless you go with a 5K display, 1440P seems like the best compromise. 4K display only gets you effective 1080P resolution which is way too low for 27" screen. I believe 1080P is acceptable for 22-24", but not for 27". Ever wonder why Apple's 27" screens are 5K? They are 5K to give people the 1440P effective HiDPI screen estate, not 1080P. I would rather have a slightly less sharp 1440P than 1080P HiDPI with significantly less screen to work. Also, saying that 1440P is small on 27" is a bit of a stretch since that is what Studio Display is and all 5K iMac's - 4K native on 27" is small, but not 1440P.

Thank you. One of the most clear explanations I’ve seen on this topic.

I used a 2560x1440 display with my late 2012 Mac mini. It worked great. At the time I bought it Apple was still selling their Thunderbolt 27-inch displays, which used the same resolution. Because my display was 25 inches instead of 27, the pixel density was better on my 25-inch display. My cheaper display was actually better for viewing content. I had to use DisplayPort. Using the normal HDMI at the time would only give me 1920x1080. 4K displays were still new at the time and they wouldn't have worked on my Mac mini anyway.

problem is nobody (professional at least) gets a 4k display to have it in retina @HD, but to have a more space for UI. So 2k becomes the best solution since you have more room but the UI is still usable, while in 4k becomes really tiny especially on a 27.

I have had the 27" Apple Thunderbolt display with my Mac mini for like 3 years and the resolution is great, I love how much space I have for my windows and text is just the right size.

Thanks, Gary. I have a Macbook Pro 16 (2019) that I view on a 27" 4K monitor. Not sure if what I do works with all Macs - but - I prefer to run at a resolution of 2304x1296 which I get to thru SYSTEM SETTINGS > DISPLAYS > hold down the OPTION key while clicking on SCALED. This brings up a Resolutions Menu to choose from which I turn on the All Resolutions button and then choose. Some resolutions are offered at "low resolution" - which I avoid. Also to prevent flickering I ensure my display is set to 60 Hz and not the other offering of 45-60 Hz variable.

I do not completely agree. MacOS works internally with 110ppi (non-Retina) or 220ppi (Retina). For Monitors with other resolutions scaling of the ui is necessary, which can lead to artifacts. So I personally prefer for 27" the 2k resolution (which matches the non-Retina resolution without scaling), it's more comfortable for my eyes while e.g. scrolling. The optimum would be 5k, which matches with 218ppi Retina-UI.

My experience: 1440p on 32” (@ default) for over 5 years, “upgraded” to 4k for like a month. Then went back to 1440p. With a 32” monitor it really is the sweet spot for macs for me (adobe cc).

My m1 mini is the main 'box' for my 65" 4K tv, and I absolutely love it. It is great for computer tasks, and 4k video. (And I set my display for the larger 'virtual' pixels as well, and it looks great w/ texts).

1440p looks fine. Apple's Studio Display is 5k (5120x2880) AKA 1440p*2, with double the pixel density for the "retina" effect. Otherwise, a regular 27" 1440p at 1x pixel density would look the same. The sizes of all the windows and text and apps would be the exact same, just non-retina.

The most amazing explanation on various display resolutions particularly for Macs.. i was searching for a lots of display option but this video clarified everything. THanks a lot Gary !! 😇

Thanks for the video, makes sense. FYI, I'm running 13.4.1 (Ventura) and noticed there is a toggle button to "Show all resolutions" in Display Preferences - HOW-TO - (1) Go to the Advanced settings and turn on "Show resolutions as list". (2) Then click Done to close the pop-up modal and click the "Show all resolutions" toggle button. This will give you access to more of the in-between resolutions (with option for "low resolution" and regular (OS scaled)). Hope this helps others in setting up their monitors and testing the various resolutions!

Personally I love the native 1440p resolution on my 49 inch Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 (equivalent to two 27 inch 1440p displays side by side) in my Mac. The windows and menu bar are very comfortably sized for my needs.

Mac Pro. 5.1.. Radeon 580 XFX MVP flashed... Running a 24" 1920 x 1200 + a Q29 5120 x 1440.. Lovin' it.

You explained very well, thumbs up! I have a 2k 32inch 165hz LG display. I used HDMI cable and it sucked, I now using USB-C to DP. Running at 2k with 144hz! 🎉😊😊

5:52 the main reason why I choose 1440p instead of 4k is that it is way better than 1k with just enough details (not too les) while having half the pixel count as the 4k screen. this allows game to run at native resolution while achieving more frames when compared with an 4k screen.

In the case of a macbook pro m1 with 32 GB memory will performance be affected by having connected 1 or 2 27" 4K display scaled to 1920x1080?

What a wonderfully detailed but simple explanation!

Thank you very much for information.

The bottom line here is this is only really an issue if you need to scale to hd ui because native 1440 is too small for you. 4k will obviously still offer superior clarity compared to 1440p, but the fuzziness is specifically related to the hd scaling and not an inherent problem of the 1440p resolution.

Gary, you really do go the extra mile with your content. Translating the technical details in to simple language and visuals helps to cover a wide demographic of viewers. It’s great to see. Thanks for another great video!

Nice video Gary! I've got a 1440 dell 27" and use it in hidpi 720p. Everything's Ok, but I would like more real estate in a 4K monitor in hidpi 1080p mode with about the same size fonts I've got in my current situation. I suppose I would have to choice a bigger display. So what size would you recommend?

I was a bit bummed learning about this AFTER purchasing my Dell 4K monitor. As far as screen real estate, I like 1440p scaling, but after switching to the default 1080p I can definitely see the difference in clarity. Now, I wish I had just spent the extra $$ on the Studio Display. 🥺

For me, the best part of the video was the tip at the end, that a DisplayPort cable works better than HDMI. Thank you very much for explaining this, Gary! Based on what you said, I replaced my HDMI cable with a DisplayPort one and it's so much better! I use a 1440 monitor for Windows and love it. Occasionally I want to use it as a secondary display for my MacBook Air, and just have to make do with what I have. The smaller font size doesn't bother me too much, the upside is that the display has a lot of screen real estate in this native mode.

For a "2K" display, use BetterDisplay (or some such, as you suggest) to render a HiDPI 1920x1080 mode, which will not look blocky and jagged, but rather nice, as macOS will internally render 1920x1080 at 3840x2160 internally, then scale it down to the native 2560x1440 resolution of the display 60 times per second. And no, on modern Mac hardware, this is not a heavy lift. Do not directly display 1920x1080 to the 2560x1440 display without macOS scaling. Though not a 100% perfectly analogous situation, I am doing this with my 2880x2560 28-inch LG DualUp display to find the right resolution and it looks _superb_, and I came to this config directly from a 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display, to give perspective as to where I'm coming from. (I've detailed my process and experience in this in a blog post out there on the web.)

I was actually working on this just the other day. I learned that actually your Mac doesn't expose high DPI mode on 1440p by default. The way to force it is actually to rotate the screen and then rotate it back. Then you get an option to scale in high DPI mode at 720. One thing I was thinking about during the video was ... can't the mac be smart enough to turn off a few columns on the side or rows at the top in order to make it scale perfectly at any resolution?

The video explains the resolutions very well and the part about using odd resolutions on displays. However the biggest omission is the relationship between the physical size of the display and the resolution (i.e pixel density). It's true that text and UI elements on a 1440p display can be too small too view, but only if you use a smaller display (And that would apply to any resolution). 1440p works very well on a 27inch and above (I have a 25inch 1440p monitor and it's borderline, but I solved it buy moving the monitor a bit closer to me, but should have gone for a 27inch instead.). That also brings in the another factor, which is the distance at which the monitor is placed from the user. Finally to add, 1440P works fine on Mac, Windows and Linux, I use the same 25inch 1440P display on all of them and never had any issue (unless you start scaling the display)

What an informative video you are awesome

Superb video, thank you :)

Speaking of 1440p, I have a question: Your videos show up on KZfaq in my Safari browser at 1440p, which is between what's usually called "Full HD" (1080p) and "Ultra HD" (2160p or 4K.) Your videos are the only ones (that I subscribe to) that have that in-between setting. I was just curious why you chose that setting instead of 1080p or 4K.

Still a little confused: I have a Mac Studio and the Studio Display: The Default resolution is 2560 x 1440. Why is this less than the default for 4K monitors which you enumerated in your (as usual) excellent presentation?

Great video!!! Would you recommend me one Monitor to be able to edit photo, watch film, but no so expensive? I am going to use it with a Mac Mini M2...

This is some serious misinformation from a dude who does not understand that Mac does not support GPU scaling for non-integer scales.

I am Very confuse about what monitor should I buy haha. Can you recommend something?

I used the Mac SCALE option to make the print larger. However, dialog boxes from applications then get cut off and I cannot access the buttons that are at the bottom and I can no longer see. Is there a way to see those buttons and use that dialog box without returning to Retina when using an app with that situation.

This was very educational. You always seem to understand what your viewers want to learn. Question for you: How can a viewer like myself understand if I can watch your videos in 1080 or 1440 with my MacBook Air or Pro or iMac, etc..?

Interesting! So if anything to do with image editing and text then 4K is good. BUT... what to buy when one is using a MBPro M1 Max for Blender / Cinema 4d? 1440 is better option right? Thank you.

This is great. I have been a Mac user for a long time using a HD Dell screen. It has worked well for what I use it for. Now I want to upgrade to a 27” screen.

Question. Have 27inch 4k display set resolution to Default for Display but when i got to scaled its same as 1920 x 1080. If i got and put it to 3840 x 2160 everything becomes really small. What resolution should i be running ? and if its running on 1080 but then i play a 4k youtube will i see 4k video ?

Thanks so much for the video, I have currently a Sceptre F27 (is not a super pro 4k display, just use it for regular work purposes nothing fancy or complex) as my secondary monitor of my MBP M1 Max, is there a video or an almost exact instructions to leave my monitor as close as possible to the real colors I guess I'm seeing currently on my Mac? Thanks!

Thanks for the video. You have a new subscriber.

I went and bought a displayport to USB C for my 2020 MBP and replaced that HDMI....and it is like night and day!!!....Thanks for the info Gary!!.......

Yet on a 27" retina iMac the default resolution for the 5120 x 2880 display is the 2560 x 1440 resolution you think is a bad idea? Doesn't the GPU have to do a lot of work to scale a monitor to anything other than 110 or 220 dpi? And before retina the 2560 x 1440 was the actual resolution on iMac 27" screens.

Problem is not with 1440p. It's with Apple as always. 1440p is a universal ratio, but Apple want you to invest in their own overpriced monitors. This could easily be achieved with a software tweak(pixel align with expense of gpu, which I don't mind). My 5 year old windows perfectly connect and scales with my 2 external 4k monitor. But for my brand new mac m1, I had to buy an adapter to support both monitors, and I use 4k in 1080p resolution with mac, because in 4k resolution text is too small and 2k scaling text is blurry. Look reddit everyone have same problem. Apple knows and ingore users. BetterDummy couldn't help. I might buy their paid version to solve this. Apple has good products but too greedy to allow 3rd party devices.

Hi Gary, Recently infound out that in Ventura some resolutions are not available anymore. In Monterey I used to use 3200x1800 on my 4k monitors but now the only resolutions left are 4k and 1920. Any idea why In Ventura there are less resolutions supported? I also use essyRes which was able to switch to a resolution that system preferences did not offer, but now even 3rd party apps are clueless. Any idea? Thank you

I just bought the M1 Mac mini base model (faster ssd than the M2). And I had the G9 since 2022. Can you tell me which cable is best for displayport to thunderbolt?

Dear Macmost, Thanks for your excellent video. What about DPI and Screen size? Should I go 4K 27" or24"? I was told that the best DPI for MAC is around 110 or 220? And I have m1 MacBook pro 16" the DPI is around 250, should I follow this rule?

Really nice video. You explained and covered up most of the things that I found out hardly from various places. I have 1080p monitor with mac, its blurry but now I don't feel 'that' uncomfortable compared to when I first started using it. I was thinking 1440p 24"/27" might be better than this depending on monitor size but 4k is in options too.

Please Sir. Could you advise me with your recommendations in the video, one 24 inch display (brand, model) for a mac mini? No gaming, no video editing or photo editing. For computer and internet use only. Thank you and scuse me, I am not expert.

Thanks for another interesting video. I was surprised by your comment about connecting displays by HDMI cables and preferring USB-C/Thunderport to DPI. I have the new 16" MacBook Pro M1 Max which has an HDMI connector on the side in addition to 2 Thunderbolt/USB-C outputs (plus others). It has 64Gb RAM tho I am not sure this relevant to graphics. I connect to 4K 28" Samsung monitors, one via the HDMI port and one on the other side via a Thunderport port, both using cables connecting to the monitors' HDMI port using 4K UHD cables. The monitors work fine with my MacBook in the middle as a third screen. They run at 60Hz (UI looks like 1920 x 1080) with resolution at 3840 x 2160 (2160p/4K UHD 1 Ultra High Definition). The Macbook's 16" screen has a resolution of 3456 x 2234. Am I misunderstanding something? Or are your comments simply precautionary?

im using mac studio m1 max with lg27qn880 . for two days it was perfect with typc c cable. then suddenly all the crispiness gone and it looks like a ordinary display with 1440 regulation. i tried typec c to dp port cable also tried HDMI to HDMI but nothing is happening. help :(

I always ran my 2013 iMac with 1440 even tho my second display was a 4K so they looked t the same. Now I run two 4k screens with my new 16" MacBook pro with the Max chip and don't use the laptop screen at all for home use.

Does running 4K external monitor affect to MacBook performance in idle task? For example if a I’m working in Affinity softwares or any other app on a built in MacBook Pro 16 M1/2 display vs running that externally on any other 4K monitor Would I see some kind of resources compsuption in “Monitor view” application Memory, cpu, gpu ? Etc

I have a iMac 27 inch 5k and a external 27 inch at 1440 and its pixel perfect. I have no idea what the problem is. 4K at 27 inch is problematic

Thank you so much, i faced the same issue with my new 1440 display, as I didn't have the budget to go up to 4k, but then I installed the Betterdisplay, and notched down my res to 1152 with HiDPi and now the screen looks exactly how I wanted it.

Great informative video, if a bit biased :-) I do not agree with your statement, as I dont see a problem with 1440p on 27” monitors running non scaled native resolution, and not all who would use a 27” monitor with 1440p are gamers. As an architect there is a lot of software which makes use of 3d accelerated graphics, and this is still easier to run on lower resolutions like 1440p as opposed to 4K. It was Apple who introduced me to 2560x1440p resolution on their big 27” iMac back in 2009, and it was a great machine with a fantastic display, and Im not aware of anybody needing to scale the user interface in OSX back then, because text was hard to read or things looked fuzzy. Im actually not sure if this was a even possibly. And as others have also pointed out, Apples new Studio Display uses a 5k retina display where they in their adds run it at a 2x scaling effectively making it 1440p size with the exact same ratio as a native 1440p 27” display. If you do scale the image, I think you have a valid point, but it is a matter of taste, and I would encourage all to try a 27" monitor with 2560x1440p running it non scaled, before they use their hard earned cash for a 4k 27" monitor, if they only want to run a scaled image anyway. I work on a 27" 1440p monitor 8 hours a day, and I sit at a distance of about 75 cm (29 inches) from my eyes to my screen, and for me, everything looks nice and crisp and I have no problems with reading anything on screen or viewing anything in my CAD modelling software.

my current monitor is a 34" ultrawide 1440p ips monitor bc it's specs overall were better for the price than a 4k with more compromises in the refresh rate, as I also use it for my PC for gaming. It has only one display port but has a USB c 3.1 port as well. is it possible to use this to connect my MacBook pro (2023) to the monitor? I don't have a cable that is USB c to USB c that can be used for display, so if it is possible to use this to connect it to the monitor, do you have any recommendations?

Wow Gary!! Thank you for this video! I will definitely stay away from 1440..... I'm currently looking for a 4K or 5k monitor anywhere from a 27" to Ultrawide for my 16" Late 2021 MacBook Pro M1 Max 64GB. I want it for FCPX video editing along with ON1 Photo Raw as well as being able to scale properly for text documents, web, etc.. I'm finding it very difficult to find one with great specs. I've also seen a few displays which are 5k2k, not exactly sure what that's all about. Do you have any suggestions? As always, I sincerely appreciate all of your hard work! Thanks again! 👍😊

Excellent as always, Gary. For almost a year I had my M1 Mac Mini running on a 4K Samsung monitor. It looked good but not great. Finally splurged and bought the 5K Mac Studio Display and it looks stunning using the Default settings. You explained why.

Gary, I recently bought a new monitor for my 14” MacBook Pro (my first Mac). Truthfully, it drove me nuts. I really wanted to get a 120hz 4K display to take advantage of all my MacBook offers, but they are insanely expensive! I finally opted for a 60hz 4K display because I’m not a gamer, and don’t do video editing (it was still expensive, but not insanely 😊). I’m using a USB-C cable to connect my monitor to the MacBook, but I don’t think it’s a Thunderbolt cable, should It be? Thank you for your helpful videos.

Wishing for 16:10 aspect ratio monitors with high-res resolutions to come to market with more workable screen real estate. Recently my "old" Apple Cinema HD 23 inch display (1920x1200 (16:10) instead of full HD 1920x1080 (16:9)) died after 12 years. The difference might sound insignificant but in reality it's not, you gain the real estate from the top menu bars for document or browser page viewing. Unfortunately 16:9 aspect ratio won the race and it's virtually impossible to find 16:10 monitor these days with a 4K-ish resolution and modern specs.

Great video. Although it didn't talk about the issue that for a lot of people a 27inch 4k display scaled to 1080p or 4k is too big or small respectively.

If we get the 4k like you suggest for 27 inch. you have to put up with blurry text and poorer performance just for the right size?

Just subscribed! Question : I have an m1 2021 macbook pro. I have dual m27Q 1440p monitors but text is blurry and image quality is a little soft. Should I switch to dual 27 inch 4 monitors and if so, what resolution would I have to change them to for it to fit properly? I've seen people have issues with 4k monitors on mac.

Thank you! Buying a usb c to display port lead right now

for m1 max studio which you recomend 2k or 4k monitor.

hi sorry the off topic but i red some coments and you guys are better than me . i want to daisy chain 2x27 monitors on mac. but there are not many thunderbolt screens. is there somo options to do that with display ports but without dock or hub? e found this asus PA27AC (have thunderbolt) and it is QHD. can you guys help-? because 4k with thunderbolt are expencive so i drop to QHD but less options.

Is asus pro art PA348CGV a good monitor for mac for video creating, editing and color grading? Plz do reply to this.

Thanks a lot !!

Wait. My M1 MacBook Air system profiler says I have a 1440 display on it. So I should get a 1440 display for an external monitor so I don’t get the obverse of some of the problems you are saying?

What is the perfect resolution for a 27inc 4k monitor to get sharp text. (When paired with m1 pro)

I will save this tutorial so that when I upgrade my external display I'll meet all of the qualifications for the better screen output. Thank you so very much

I agree with your conclusion here-that 4K displays will usually offer a better experience for users than 1440 displays-but I don’t think that I quite agree with all of your reasoning. Yes, a 4K will offer greater pixel density than a 1440p display, and that’s definitely a good thing. But I think that your illustration showing the 1440p’s “mismatched” pixel grid when it’s scaled might be ever so slightly misleading? For instance, you mention that text and photos will look sharper on a 4K display (and I agree with that), but I think that the reason that text and photos will look sharper is because you a 4K screen offers greater pixel density-not because of a “mismatched” pixel grid. Take photos, for example. If you were to be looking at a 25 megapixel photo on your monitor, you wouldn’t be able to view that photo at 100% zoom (showing every pixel) whether you’re on a 1440p display or on a 4K display-so you’re going to have scaling either way. Or take text as another example. Modern fonts are vector based, so they don’t have trouble scaling either. And if you might worry that the “mismatched” pixel grid might inherently make things look terrible, you might try this experiment: 1. On your 5K studio display, take a full-screen screenshot. 2. Then, using Photoshop or another image editor, scale that screenshot to 4K and then save that as a PNG (or another lossless image format). 3. Then open that PNG and view it at 100% scale. (At this point, the scaled screenshot should only fill a portion of your screen.) At this point, the image will be smaller, and I’ll grant you that it won’t be as sharp as the original screenshot. But I’ll venture that the image won’t look inherently terrible-because when Photoshop or other image editors scale down high-res images, they’re are enough pixels to go around to calculate average pixel values when needed. I bring up this experiment because-as far as I’m aware-macOS does its scaling in the same way (by rendering the screen at an internal virtual resolution that’s higher than the physical display, and then scaling that down before it’s sent to the monitor). And while that sort of scaling might ostensibly have to make compromises if the original image were to have, say, a line within the UI that were to be 1 physical pixel wide, I’m not aware of macOS having any UI elements that are only 1 physical pixel wide. I love your videos, Gary, my slight disagreement with some of your reasoning here doesn’t change that. And I definitely agree with you that Mac folks will be waaay better off with a 4K display than a 1440p display; I just happen to feel that way because of the difference in pixel densities rather than because of concerns about a “mismatched” pixel grid. PS If by any chance you had wanted to, Gary, if you were to potentially update the video’s title from referring to “1440” to “1440p”, my Spidey-sense is that the latter, being more specific, might offer slightly better SEO?

If i switch 27inch 4k monitor to 2k scaling..will refresh rate also drop to 30hz?

My m2 Max has screen flickering issues on dark gray colors, I see it’s a common issue, would you happen to know how to fix it? 😢

Excellent review and explanation! I do day trading on a 43” UHD/4K monitor, and the desktop real estate is AWESOME! Add the ability to have multiple screens, perfection.

How come the thunderbolt display is 1440p? On my macbook m2 my thunderbolt display if I dont use 720p it looks really bad and blurry! :(

I'm using a 55" LG C1 4K 120hz OLED TV as my monitor connected to my M1 Mac Mini. My TV doesn't have display ports, but 4 HDMI 2.1 ports. Should I try Thunderbolt to HDMI?

So please someone tell me what is good monitor for Mac? I don't really need 4k or 5k res, I can go 1440p but which size will be best? What do you recommend?

Can I know, can we update monitor firmaware using mac. I use m1 mac mini. I have another issue, when i turn off my monitor or if it going to sleep mode. it won't turn on again, I search that issue and it show we need to update firmaware of monitor. But it not support to Mac. What I do now? My monitor is Dell P2412H . Please help

Would HDMI 2.1 work better than HDMI from my macbook pro? I have a converter and it works fine and well from what I can tell on my 4K monitor... but if a DP will be even better, i may just get another converter and see whats up.

Well Apple external displays are 5120x2880 which is exactly 2x 1440p, with that wouldn't 1440p display be the next best thing after 5K with just halved resolution instead of scaling everything to 4K? I don't understand the arguments in this video.

Does this also affect 32 inch 4k monitors? All i see is 27 inch

What would you recommend for Ultra Wide 34 inch monitors that are 3440x1440?

Gary looking fwd for the apple event tmrw. My choice iphone 14 pro or iphone 14 plus.

Is it true that using 4k scaled is using GPU for this slowing down the mac?

I have found that using a 34" WQHD ultrawide monitor with Magnet is a great way to overcome the one external monitor limitation on the MBA. At that size, using the native resolution of 3440 x 1440 isn't too small for me and text is crisp. I use a thunderbolt dock to connect my monitor and everything else to my base M1 MBA with one cable. Use a USB-C port with DisplayPort alt mode to get the best results. Magnet allows me to be super-efficient moving everything around with shortcut commands. Most often, I break the ultrawide into two screens as my main work area and use the MBA screen for Outlook or MS Teams. i don't even realize I have a monitor limitation.

I've been using a Dell 1440p 27" screen for 3 years with the "default" setting and it looks perfect. I would love 5K of course but the damned things cost too much and there's not much to choose from. So I don't know why you say 1440 makes everything too small. It absolutely doesn't, at least not on my screen (Dell U2719DC).

Also, the Mac UI uses numbers like 5120x 2180 for 27 inch screens so that the ppi is suitable for the scaling of the Mac's software with retina. Why aren't other companies pushing that accurate resolution so that the UI for Mac users is fitted correctly for our uses when plugging in Mac products to monitors? It's very frustrating. Do you know any monitors that have the same dimensions which correlate properly for Mac's interface to be projected on the screen or are there just simply no options out there other than 4K monitors at 27 inches, which then mess with the scaling size. I've been looking for suitable comprises for so long. Please respond if you have a chance. Thanks for your channel. Appreciate your content.

I have 2 1440 25" from dell. And they are not bad at all. Under Windows you are able to scale the font and interface to allmost any in fine increments. Now I bought an m1 Mac mini and I'm still shocked there is now way under macOS to at least scale the fonts systemwide. Guess there are two ways of locking at it: MacOs sucks in that regard or as apple would say "you have the wrong displays". Don't know what I will doe. I'm not going back to windows! For now I use some reading glasses in the native apps. They are the worst. Adobe lets you tweet to somehow usable.

That for another great video. I rock a 27" 4k at 1920x1080. Absolutely brilliant!

I can tell that there's no visual difference between HDMI 1.4 through (LIKELY) passive adapter Kingston Nucleum and using Displayport through Dell passive adapter to thunderbolt. Using HDMI Display starts longer, but display quality and refresh rate appear the same.

Hi there. Nice Video. Am old software guy retired but still use xCode for iOS playing and fly X-Plane Flight Sim which is really graphic intensive. I am looking at buying Mac Studio (trading in my late 2015 iMac 5G Retina) but will need to get two monitors. I think I understand that we are shooting for resolutions around 110 or 220 since MacOS handles them without scaling. I have been on this 27" iMac and Dell 27" P2715Q monitor for awhile and want to still have 2 - 27" monitors with my Mac Studio. The 5K screens look like they are expensive (above $1000 each) and 4K monitors are well priced but I will have to come down in resolution to 2560 X 1440 to get that 108 PPI. Not retina obviously but also not utilizing what the monitor is capable of doing. For even a little less money, I think one can get a 1440 27" monitor and run it at its max resolution. SO... Running xCode, Browse and big Flight Sim as my game... Is it better to go 4K and just scale it down to eliminate the performance hit or go 2560 X 1440 (I think 2K or Quad HD) and run at default (max resolution)? I wonder how different they will look. Again, thanks for educating us... Scott

It is not the resolution but the pixel per inch (ppi) mac operates best and multiples of around 100 ppi, so 27"@1440p or 27"@5k...