The Problem With Using 1440 Screens With a Mac

macmost.com/e-2781 Screens with 1440p resolution are popular, but they are not an ideal screen to use as a primary or secondary display with a Mac. The 2560x1440 resolution is either too small or too big, depending on how you have it set up. A 4K screen is a better option for most Mac users. But if you are stuck with a 1440 screen, there are a few things you can do to make it look better.
FOLLOW MACMOST FOR NEW TUTORIALS EVERY DAY
▶︎ KZbin - macmost.com/j-youtube (And hit the 🔔)
▶︎ KZbin Email Notifications - macmost.com/ytn ⭐️
▶︎ MacMost Weekly Email Newsletter - macmost.com/newsletter ✉️
SUPPORT MACMOST AT PATREON
▶︎ macmost.com/patreon ❤️
00:00 Intro
01:15 Comparing 1440 vs 4K
02:46 What You Can Fit On the Screen
04:58 Why Do Gamers Like 1440?
06:36 Screen Examples
07:13 Using 1440 Like a 4K Screen
09:30 Using a 1440 Screen Anyway
10:27 Third-Party Display Options
11:24 Resolution Isn't the Only Factor
11:51 Avoid Using HDMI
#macmost #mactutorial

[@a.accioly]

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.

[@macmost]

If you mean a 5K screen at 1440, then that does look good. That's what I use with the 5K Studio Display. But definitely not a "budget" option as 5K screens are pricey.

[@a.accioly]

5k 27 inch displays are ideal. That's what I'm running as well. My main point though is that macOS is somewhat bad at non-fractional scaling and there aren't many 4k displays sitting near the 110 DPI or 220 DPI sweetspots. As a budget option I would take a 1440p / 27 inches display over a 4k / 27 inches or 4k / 32 inches display.

[@brucestarr4438]

@@macmost Apple's 27" Thunderbolt display is 2560x1440. The next step in Apple's lineup is a 5K 5120x2880 Studio Display, which is double a 1440 display. Macs support 4K but it is not optimized for 4K.

[@macmost]

@@brucestarr4438 Apple discontinued the Thunderbolt Display 6+ years ago. Macs work best at a variety of configurations and 4K @ 1080p is definitely one of them too.

[@ajlf4523]

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.

[@michalkubicki2247]

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.

[@herefobeer]

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

[@thesamuelnam]

Went into comments to say the same thing.

[@a0um]

Can you please reference some source? I really want to understand this in more depths. Also, are we talking about the masOS UI? Or application contents? Eg, vector graphics should render to any res, right?) thanks

[@gerald1964]

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.

[@markwornom1050]

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.

[@macmost]

I never say that 1440 is half the resolution of 4K. It is half the number of pixels. 2560x1440=3,686,400 and 3840x1920=7,372,800. You get exactly twice the number of pixels with 4K as you do with 1440.

[@markwornom1050]

@@macmost Okay, fair enough on that point.

[@cumesoft]

Comentario perfecto, perfecta información sobre las resoluciones y como trabajo apple.. correcto

[@danielbe4582]

@@macmost 4k is 3840x2160, not 3840x1920. So 1440p is not half the pixels of 2160p. Obedience!

[@erikaleksandermoe1634]

One big thing is also that if you choose a 1440p size on a 4k display the Apple display subsystem first upscales the 4k to 5k and then uses that to get a 220 dpi. That is what is causing the decrease in performance. Shout out to Hunter King’s video about returning his 4k display who explained this very well.

[@saptarshihore3388]

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.

[@loisskiathitis8926]

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

[@MrJimGoddard]

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

[@eplugplay8409]

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!

[@mrwriter86]

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!

[@Kephinio]

I agree! I've been using a Mac for about two years and this topic was still a mystery to me a few months ago. Videos like this offer great value.

[@elevan2760]

I agree. Can confirm that has helped unconfuse myself with my current display issues

[@faisalxkhan007]

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 !! 😇

[@Maxfli82]

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

[@mlodyme3675]

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.

[@macmost]

Note that 1080p on a 4K is still 4K. You still see images, text and other things in 4K. It is just the interface is drawn at the SIZE of 1080p. You are still using every pixel.

[@hinokamikoko]

@@macmost i don't know much about this stuff, but watching my mac mini m1 on my Asus 27" VG27AQ(1440p) is great. and it still looks great also on my 4K 28" AOC U28P2G6B. what ive observed differently was on system preferences>display, where AOC display i have to choose the option of a scaled display, while Asus display is at default display.

[@edimarrodrigrove3377]

1440p 27" is small because is not retina like a 5K scaled at 1440p... And a 4K scaled at 1080p is way, way sharper than native 1440p.

[@user-jv9qz2bu1r]

when a 21" screen is considered small LOL

[@prasannarathnayaka5037]

didn't you get any fuzzy/blurry text on the external screen?? (1440P)

[@obstmi]

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.

[@iamdragonetta]

Yours is the first video on this topic that I actually understand. Thank you!

[@XON532]

Most detailed review, my concern was seriously answered. thx 👏

[@carolinebarlow4795]

Thanks very much, Gary, for this very interesting and helpful video!

[@AlessandroCalzaStudio]

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.

[@HowieIsaacks]

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.

[@sidrolf]

What a wonderfully detailed but simple explanation!

[@samueljohnson5423]

Awesome video! I learned some important stuff. Thank you!❤

[@Roger-xb7gg]

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.

[@justsomeguy1074]

Retina has much sharper text than 1440 non scaled!

[@cesmcmyth]

This is an awesomely informative session. Thanks so much

[@OmidNik]

well explained , thanks for clarifying this .

[@rolandgerard6064]

Thanks Gary, very clear explanation!

[@llaprad1]

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).

[@adamjones8218]

Because that's the scaling that MacOS prefers below 5K at 110 dpi. For appropriate scaling on a Mac 110dpi or 220 dpi (5K) is what Mac's prefer and scale the best with.

[@CWoodOne]

Really love the channel, informative and very fun.

[@peterwan7945]

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.

[@ppjk5203]

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.

[@guilloguzmanl]

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.

[@henryrichardson3508]

Thank you. Very informative video.

[@Mrbingles9]

Excellent advice, thanks.

[@mortalwombat8771]

Its really great information, thx for that!

[@cjc363636]

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).

[@rblossey]

I had my doubts about how the scaling would work, but the day I brought my M1 Mac Mini home (my first Mac in 29 years! 😲), the very first thing I did was hook it up to my 55" 4K TV...what an experience that was! 😁 It's not something I do much now-I have a more "specialized" dual-HP monitor setup and a big desk that works with both my Mac mini & "mini" HP ProDesk-but I'm considering getting a 30-ft HDMI cable + a cheap switcher just so I can bring that back whenever I feel like it :) It really looks great.

[@MegaMacReal]

How far away from your head is the 65"?

[@erikaleksandermoe1634]

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.

[@ramirotell]

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?

[@peterpokryvka8596]

Thanks for this video!

[@freetorunfree]

Thank you, this educated me at nick of time!

[@Rhythmattica]

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

[@FiratSekerliMBA]

Thank you very much! I was struggling with my 2K screen and now I understand what is going on. I want to ask if using any of the apps you mentioned cause performance issues? Also, which 4K Dell screen would you recommend for Dell with Macbook Air M1?

[@macmost]

You shouldn't have any performance issues because of a simple 4K screen hooked into an M1. As for recommendations, I don't have any Dell 4K screens, so I can't recommend or not. Just look through the offerings and find the one that is right for you. Make sure it has a DisplayPort input and use that, not HDMI.

[@zappa091]

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?

[@macmost]

If you have an unlimited budget, get the Apple Studio Display (5K). Otherwise, a good 4K screen is what I recommend. macmost.com/recommendations

[@ccroy2001]

I just switched the cable from my dock to the monitor from USB to HDMI to a USB to Display Port. All my problems went away! Glad you brought that up.

[@macmost]

Cool! Would love to know, for future reference, which model display you are using and which HDMI adapter you had.

[@ccroy2001]

@@macmost The monitor is a ~ 7 year old Asus 1080p monitor and the cable was a Best Buy branded usb to HDMI. Going through a Microsoft Surface Dock 2 to a Microsoft Surface. When I had a Mac I used Display Port and so thought why not try it instead of HDMI and it's made a huge improvement. With HDMI I'd say >50% of the time I had to reboot to detect the display. Now works every time.

[@macmost]

@@ccroy2001 Thanks!

[@SpartaWarriorCodeRed]

Excellent info at the best time for me!!!! Just about to buy a monitor for my macbook!

[@oskarsfreimanis8192]

Thank you very much for information.

[@reiduncrowley2156]

You are my new substitute for Netflix. I watch all your videos, sometimes twice. You are helping me keep my tenants rents lower because with your help I can manage my properties without hiring a property manager. My tenants are in their 20s and I am almost 80. ?Thank you.

[@mm0dk0ur]

Many thanks for the very useful video, I am addicted to your channel

[@horyukinen]

Best video about this subject, great job!

[@WanderingAroundAZ]

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. 🥺

[@rblossey]

Did you try using 1440p scaling on your 4K monitor? And if so, how did it go? I remember seeing another video about this exact topic, and the guy that tried this really liked it-said it wasn't really quite "Retina" (since it's like 160-ish DPI vs. 200+ DPI for the Studio Display)-but still very sharp, noticeably more than on a true 1440p display). For me, the Studio Display is a dream that's still a ways off, so I "settled" on an HP 27mq for now-I get the same exact UI scaling & space to work with as a Studio Display, great colors (I picked HP because I loved how the colors looked on my 1080p, HP 23cw--which is my second monitor now!), and slightly higher DPI than my old HP as well; so while text doesn't look "Retina" by any means, it's still nice and crisp, getting fonts just a bit closer to "Windows sharp." I've had this new dual-HP setup going for almost a month now, and just that small net gain of +13 extra pixels per inch in going from the old to the new as my "main" has really made for a nice improvement! Now, I don't know what size 4K monitor you bought, but if it's a 27", that's a *+54 DPI* (!) improvement over my 1440p screen right there! (163 vs. 108.8 dots/pixels per inch) That's a night-and-day difference in clarity. From what I understand too, if you have one of the newer M1/M2 machines, you will only take a 1-3% performance hit, using one of these non-integer-scaled resolutions w/your 4K monitor.

[@WanderingAroundAZ]

@@rblossey I am currently using the 1440p resolution on my 27" 4K monitor. Although I like the look of the default resolution (1080p), there isn't enough screen real estate for my work productivity, so I settled on 1440p. It's not bad and with the M1 chip I doubt there is much of a performance hit (if any).

[@rsr789]

@@rblossey I have two monitors connected to my Mac Studio: an Apple Studio Display as a primary screen, and an LG 4K 27" Ultrafine as a secondary screen. First of all, because the Apple 5K uses 77% more pixels than a 4K display, it will ALWAYS look smoother, it just a physical fact. My Mac Studio is a fully maxed out (no pun intended ) M1 Max, so I have enough computing power to run the LG 4K at a scale that matches the 5K's native MacOS resolution as close as possible. To give you an idea, the other day I was watching a 4K Bluray rip (i.e. full 4K quality, no compression unlike streaming), on the LG 4K while working on Adobe Illustrator with multiple tabs open, plus three browsers open with a multiplicity of tabs on the Apple Studio Display, and there was ZERO lag. For reference, I am using a DisplayPort 1.4 to USB-C cable... as HDMI is not a good idea when connecting a second monitor to a computer for several reasons, including HDCP issues.

[@rblossey]

@@rsr789 that’s amazing! This is one reason why I’m excited about the new M2 Pro Mac Mini, cause now the multi-monitor limits-both in # of monitors you can (officially) run and in resolution-are effectively gone 😁 So I might for this in-between option instead of a Studio now when it comes time to upgrade.

[@rsr789]

@@rblossey Just as aside: I used to have that same LG 4K connected to my 2015 27" iMac, connected via miniDP to DisplayPort and I never had any major issues either, while using Illustrator, InDesign, and /or AutoCAD. So an Apple Silicon chip should be a cakewalk for several 4K and/or 5K monitors.

[@TheGabriel75011]

Thanks a lot !!

[@blakespot]

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.)

[@dethroner876]

This is an easier and a better solution.

[@fayyazb]

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.

[@macmost]

Why would you want fewer pixels when doing graphics work? Seems like you would want more. You already have a MacBook Pro with a great screen. But if you want something additional and you are doing that kind of work, then I would imagine you'd want a 5K screen even, not to go all the way down to a 2K one.

[@user-ti2xi9bd4u]

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! 🎉😊😊

[@BoomerBlogging]

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.

[@frhwebmaster]

@SteveWhitley - I did this moments ago with the dual AOC (U2790VQ) that I am sporting. AMAZING! Thank You for the tip!

[@sinlokemp]

Wow! this is a secret trick. no software needed! Thank You

[@Parapsyglider]

Does this affect on the performance?

[@BoomerBlogging]

@@Parapsyglider - not sure - Gary would know this much better than I?

[@sinlokemp]

@@Parapsyglider So far it looks like performance has improved.

[@NeilVitale]

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?

[@IrrationalDelusion]

write to Apple support about scaling issues!

[@macmost]

That's one of the things you can accomplish with SwitchResX. If I need to record a tutorial with my MacBook which is 16:10, I use SwitchResX to force it into 16:9 and pixels on the top and bottom are not used.

[@IrrationalDelusion]

@@macmost or use BetterDisplay which does similar and can override default display resolution

[@IrrationalDelusion]

@@macmost but are black bars really worth it?

[@macmost]

@@IrrationalDelusion For recording tutorials? Yes, since I want to make the videos in 16:9. But I would never do actual work using this configuration.

[@firstpestcontrol276]

Superb video, thank you :)

[@valhala73]

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...

[@macmost]

macmost.com/recommendations

[@wdirex]

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.

[@mityukov]

Actually, 1440 on 27" would give you that sweet "close to 110dpi", where nothing's too big or too little. And what's more: it won't degrade your performance because of constant scaling. It's not retina's 220dpi, for sure (for this you'd need 5K), but it's one of the two resolutions that macos natively supports.

[@rherwick]

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?

[@hunterjay8331]

The option you see is likely referring to the image scaling, not the actual resolution of the monitor. The elements of the interface are presented at a size typical to 1440p, but using the extra physical resolution of the display to output the best image quality at that size.

[@macmost]

The Studio Display is a 5K (not 4K) screen. Perfect retina resolution is 2560x1440 like you have it set. In this video I'm talking about 4K and 1440 (2K) screens.

[@rblossey]

"2560 x 1440" or "2560 x 1440 (HiDPI)" ? There is a difference!

[@macmost]

@@rblossey Right. A 1440 screen would give you 2560x1440. A 5K screen would give you 2560x1440 HiDPI. Huge difference.

[@scwinget8528]

Speaking of 1440p, I have a question: Your videos show up on KZbin 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.

[@macmost]

Good question! I actually has a minute in this video about exactly that and cut it to keep the video more concise. I use that resolution for the videos because most people are watching the video in a browser which shows the video in a rectangle smaller than their screen. At 1920x1080, the menu items and buttons at just too small to be seen comfortably. It is hard to follow what I am doing. At 1280x720 (2560x1440 resolution) interface elements look better in a video. Note I never work this way in real life. I work at 1920x1080 on a 4K screen or 2560x1440 on a 5K screen (normal Mac retina resolution).

[@lawrencefung3934]

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!

[@DutchAussieProductions]

Thanks for the video. You have a new subscriber.

[@spiralofhope]

This is gold. Thanks for the final thunderbolt/displayport adapter tip.. that might have been my problem with one monitor!

[@tonywright8342]

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.

[@Mzansi74]

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

[@hansjzeller]

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.

[@sphui]

where are the improvement of using dp rather than hdmi?

[@iamdragonetta]

I just said the same thing. Nobody else mentioned using a DisplayPort cable. I just want to buy a 27" 4K monitor for my MacBook Pro, and all the other videos were so confusing. I'm so glad that I saw this video before I bought a 1440 monitor.

[@Jdb63]

@@iamdragonetta How has the 1440p monitor you got been for the M1 Pro? Is the text blurry?

[@baldfvi]

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!

[@macmost]

Use the controls for the screen itself. Not sure what those would be for that particular one. They are all a little different.

[@LucasCarvalho-hp6vq]

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

[@THE_HMRC]

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!!.......

[@justkflesh]

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?

[@macmost]

"Best" is a subjective term. If someone is telling that that 220 ppi is "best" then be skeptical. As you see, even Apple's own displays for the MacBook Pros are not 220 ppi. As for size, I don't know why anyone would go for a 24-inch display today. I suppose if you want to save a few inches of space, but why would you want a smaller screen?

[@justkflesh]

@@macmost Tanks for your reply. You are right "best" is subjective. I may go 27" 4k. I use Mac OS for programming, but I still need to use this monitor to review lots of Excel sheets in Windows OS.

[@javtimestwo]

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..?

[@sundaynightdrunk]

Go to System Preferences > Displays and see what resolution your screen is set to. If the lower number is greater than 1440, you can view it (full screen) in 1440. If it's less, then you cannot.

[@macmost]

Not sure what you are trying to do. Are you just trying to make the video bigger? Or, are you trying to view it at an ultra-precise resolution? KZbin is showing you a streaming video with compressing anyway, so what is your goal here?

[@javtimestwo]

@@macmost My goal is to view the video in the best resolution possible. The choices range from 240, 480 and all the way up to 1080, 1440 and then 4K. as a mac user how would someone know if their macbook air/pro supports 1080, 1440 or up to 4k?

[@macmost]

It doesn't matter for something like a video. The video will use all of the pixels in its rectangle on the screen no matter if you are set to 1080 or 1440. 1080 will make items like the Menu Bar and buttons look bigger, but the video will use all of the pixels regardless.

[@meherchaitanya.j1211]

What an informative video you are awesome

[@AppleBman]

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.

[@NA-qs7bg]

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?

[@macmost]

I don't really test cables or anything like that, so I can't tell you which is best. Any should do.

[@dazzarg5]

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

[@bendurandt5587]

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)

[@peite7878]

I have an MBP Retina Late 2012 and just got a used DELL U2518D 25" 1440p display and with mDP to DP cable I get 1440p in 59,98hz which works great but I'm considering getting SwitchResX to scale the UI a bit larger. But it doesn't seem to work fully on Catalina. I got a "application unsupported" message. Which screen modifier apps do you use and how did you set it up? I tried a 27" 1440p display before but thought the DPI was too bad so I wanted an 24" 1440p display but got this 25" used for cheap. I don't think Intel MBP 2012 is strong enough for 4K 60fps so there's no way I would get 4K for this one. But whenever I get a Apple Silicon Mac I would get a 4K display.

[@iangreaves933]

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.

[@macmost]

Using a 5120x2880 (5K) screen at 2560x1440 is perfect. That gives you a perfect 4-pixel match to 1 virtual pixel. Should be easiest on your eyes and also on the GPU. It is how that display is meant to be used.

[@googleuser211]

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.

[@HansKruse]

Buy an LG 5K monitor and it works perfect. Yes. Apple close pixel doubling when introducing retina displays. It has not changed, but as far as I know the have been some improvements in the scaling from 5K virtual to 4K real displays.

[@IamUzyf]

Lol a lot of windows programs have blurry scaling. Windows has same problems as Apple

[@googleuser211]

@Евгений Мокрушин nope they are not. I'm using the window and Mac side by side every day. I'm a programmer.

[@IamUzyf]

@@googleuser211 yes they are. I’m periodically seeing programs with blurry scaling (windows)

[@googleuser211]

@Евгений Мокрушин i don't care what you see. I'm sharing what I see. My 6 years old windows is super crisp when connected to my two 4k monitors, my new mac m1 doesn't even support dual desktop. I have to buy an adapter for it. And its in 1080p. Lol. Windows, no adapter, native support.

[@user-hp4ou4rb8r]

thanks buddy you saved my life

[@delakoni]

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 ?

[@macmost]

Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about in this video. Set it to 1920x1080. Yes, you will see 4K video, images, graphics. It is the interface elements that scale to 1920x1080. All pixels are still used. That's the whole idea of "retina" displays.

[@kilombazo]

Gary...amazing as always!

[@nurdinimanaliev9635]

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

[@macmost]

You should not notice any difference.

[@rapaent]

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! 👍😊

[@macmost]

A 5k2k is the width of a 5K and the height of a 4K. Kind of a specialty screen for those that want ultra-wide. A list the last 4K screen I used at macmost.com/recommendations

[@rapaent]

@@macmost Thank you Gary! Appreciate your help. Have an awesome weekend! 👍😊

[@dr.nunzio_improta]

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.

[@macmost]

I've never used a 24-inch display so I don't have any recommendations, sorry. I wouldn't get anything smaller than a 27-inch.

[@dakodawright3107]

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.

[@macmost]

Have you tried different resolutions? Try them all and see if any work better for you. A 4K screen at 27 inches looks good at 1080 (2-to-1 ratio). Also, how are you connecting to the screens? DisplayPort or HDMI?

[@dakodawright3107]

@@macmost I plugged both into a dock and that dock connect to my mackbook via dislpay port cable. I want 4k 27 inch but if i scale to 1080 wont i be losing image qaulity?

[@macmost]

@@dakodawright3107 No. You get 4K pixels in images and for text and lines. It is just the interface (menu bar, buttons, etc) that is sized for 1080. But all of the pixels are still used.

[@fbales]

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.

[@sundaynightdrunk]

Thunderbolt to Display Port is what I use, with M1 MB Air.

[@macmost]

Thunderbolt ports carry DisplayPort as one of their functions, yes. Unless you are using an HDMI converter cable, then you are now connected using DisplayPort.

[@reach_perumal]

Best video on display choice for Mac.

[@huiAPPOAJ]

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.

[@warrenwillis6477]

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

[@macmost]

That's basically the same problem as a 2560x1440, just you have more space on the left and right. The interface is going to look too big at 1720x720 and too small at 3440x1440. You are just going to have to try all of the options and pick what works best for your eyes if you want to stick with that screen.

[@frantisek_heca]

@tWhat you talking about? Why would the native 3440x1440 on 34" look too small? All people I know are working on that resolution. I am confused in the end.. so, if the native resolution would be ok for me, are there any problems based on the issues mentioned in this video, please?

[@MachetaPedro]

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

[@bartez8018]

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?

[@macmost]

"best" is subjective. What is it you need and what is your budget? Only go 1440 if you plan on using it at 1440 size (no retina) which is too small for many people. Otherwise get a 4K for more options.

[@gardriel8208]

But 1440p at 27“ is the correct intended size, right? The studio display has 1440p hiDPI at 27“ but it’s the same UI size as 1440p non retina. Did I understood it correctly?

[@peteruzek]

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

[@macmost]

Hard to say. Maybe a beta issue?

[@dennissingstock9080]

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.

[@macmost]

What scale are you using that cuts off dialog boxes? What size screen? Hard to advise without knowing the details...

[@LILEE376]

Most of the people who cant afford the extremely expensive 220ppi -s monitors, usually with 5k displays, the best option is a 110ppi solution, like 27 inch 2560x1440 or an ultrawide 34 inch 3440x1440 monitor. Another very beneficial feature is real 10 bit displays which has brilliant colours.

[@sergiostockfleth823]

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.

[@scottd1342]

Great explanation and exactly my experience too. 27" at 1440p is a native scaling for Macs and looks perfect. Not at all too small as suggested in this video.

[@Jawadagha]

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

[@macmost]

"Good" is subject. I suppose for some people it would be good. I see it is a 1440 screen which I would avoid in favor of something with more pixels.

[@ajlf4523]

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.

[@bxlbxlbxlify]

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.

[@macmost]

I know what you mean. The Dock works better in 16:10 than 16:9. Small difference makes a big difference.

[@spitsparrow]

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?

[@macmost]

If you use 4K at 1080 resolution you don't get blurry text at all. It is very sharp. That's what I'm suggesting here.

[@billboy7390]

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.

[@sososleeepy]

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?

[@macmost]

Probably not at the USB-C port is for charging or maybe a USB hub that is built in. Just get a USB-C to DisplayPort cable. They are cheap and easy to find.