Copyright © 2023, Quiller Media, Inc.
A MacBook connected to an external monitor. 11x17 Inkjet Printer
AppleInsider may earn an affiliate commission on purchases made through links on our site.
Display scaling makes the size of your Mac's interface more comfortable on non-Retina monitors but incurs some visual and performance penalties. We explain these effects and how much they matter. In a world where Apple's idea of display resolution is different from that of the PC monitor industry, it's time to make sense of how these two standards meet and meld on your Mac's desktop. A little Mac-ground... Apple introduced the Retina display to the Mac with the 13-inch MacBook Pro on the 23rd of October 2012, packing in four times the pixel density. From that point onward, Apple gradually brought the Retina display to all its Macs with integrated screens. This was great, but it appeared Apple had abandoned making its standalone monitors, leaving that task to LG in 2016. So, if you needed a standalone or a second monitor, going officially Retina wasn't an option. However, now Apple has re-entered the external monitor market, and you have to decide whether to pair your Mac with either a Retina display, such as the Pro Display XDR or Studio Display, or some other non-Retina option. And part of that decision depends on whether you're concerned about matching macOS's resolution standard. Enter display scaling Increasing a display's pixel density by four times presents a problem: if you don't adjust anything, all of the elements in the user interface will be four times smaller. This makes for uncomfortably tiny viewing. So, when Apple introduced the Retina standard, it also scaled up the user interface by four times. The result is that macOS is designed for a pixel density of 218 ppi, which Apple's Retina monitors provide. And if you deviate from this, you run into compromises. For example, take the Apple Studio Display, which is 27 inches in size. It has a resolution of 5120 x 2880, so macOS will double the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the UI, thus rendering your desktop at the equivalent of 2560 x 1440. Since macOS has been designed for this, everything appears at its intended size. Then consider connecting a 27-inch 4K monitor to the same Mac. This has a resolution of 3840 x 2160, so the same 2 x scaling factor will result in an interface size the equivalent of 1920 x 1080. Since both 5K and 4K screens are physically the same size with the same scaling factor, the lower pixel density of the 4K one means that everything will appear bigger. For many, this makes for uncomfortably large viewing. The difference between native scaling and display scaling on a 4K monitor. If you go to System Settings — > Displays, you can change the scaling factor. However, if you reduce it to the equivalent of 2560 x 1440 on a 4K monitor, macOS calculates scaling differently because 3840 x 2160 divided by 2560 x 1440 is 1.5, not 2. In this case, macOS renders the screen at 5120 x 2880 to a virtual buffer, then scales it down by 2 x to achieve 2560 x 1440. Display scaling — this method of rendering the screen at a higher resolution and then scaling down by 2 x — is how macOS can render smoothly at many different display resolutions. But it does come with a couple of caveats. Mac(ular) degeneration Applying a 2 x scaling factor to the respective native resolutions of both a 5K and a 4K monitor will result in a pixel-perfect image. But display scaling will render a 2560 x 1440 image onto a 3840 x 2160 display. This will naturally produce visual artifacts, since it's no longer a 1:1 pixel mapping. Therefore, display scaling results in deformities in image quality, including blurriness, moire patterns, and shimmering while scrolling. It also removes dithering, so gradients may appear less smooth. An example of a Moire pattern with two superimposed grids. Although these visual artifacts are undoubtedly present, the principle of non-resolvable pixels still applies. By rearranging the formula, angular resolution = 2dr tan(0.5 degrees) becomes d = angular resolution / 2r tan (0.5 degrees). Then we can calculate the viewing distance at which this happens. For example, at the Retina angular resolution of 63 ppd, and the pixel density of 163 ppi for a 4K monitor, the result is about 22 inches. This means a person with average eyesight won't see individual pixels on a 4K screen when viewed at this distance and farther. So, you may not notice any deformities, depending on the viewing distance, your eyesight, and the quality of the display panel. (If your nose is pressed against the screen while you look for visual artifacts, you may be looking too closely.) He ain't heavy, he's my buffer The other caveat of display scaling is performance. If your device renders the screen at a higher resolution than the display into a buffer and then scales it down, it needs to use some extra computational resources. But, again, this may not have as significant an impact as you might think. For example, Geekbench tests on an M2 MacBook Air showed a drop in performance of less than 3 % at a scaled resolution, compared with the native one, when using OpenCL, and less than 1 % when using Metal. On the same machine, Blender performance dropped by about 1.1 %. How significant this is depends on your usage. If you need to squeeze every last processor cycle out of your Mac, you'd be better off choosing your monitor's native resolution or switching to a Retina display. However, most users won't even notice. The overall takeaway from display scaling is that it's designed to make rendering on your non-Retina monitor better, not worse. For example, suppose you do detailed visual work where a 1:1 pixel mapping is essential or long video exports where a 1 % time saving is critical. In that case, chances are that you already own a standalone Retina display or two. Otherwise, you can use display scaling on a non-Retina monitor without noticing any difference.
In a world where Apple's idea of display resolution is different from that of the PC monitor industry, it's time to make sense of how these two standards meet and meld on your Mac's desktop.
Apple introduced the Retina display to the Mac with the 13-inch MacBook Pro on the 23rd of October 2012, packing in four times the pixel density. From that point onward, Apple gradually brought the Retina display to all its Macs with integrated screens.
This was great, but it appeared Apple had abandoned making its standalone monitors, leaving that task to LG in 2016. So, if you needed a standalone or a second monitor, going officially Retina wasn't an option.
However, now Apple has re-entered the external monitor market, and you have to decide whether to pair your Mac with either a Retina display, such as the Pro Display XDR or Studio Display, or some other non-Retina option.
And part of that decision depends on whether you're concerned about matching macOS's resolution standard.
Increasing a display's pixel density by four times presents a problem: if you don't adjust anything, all of the elements in the user interface will be four times smaller. This makes for uncomfortably tiny viewing. So, when Apple introduced the Retina standard, it also scaled up the user interface by four times.
The result is that macOS is designed for a pixel density of 218 ppi, which Apple's Retina monitors provide. And if you deviate from this, you run into compromises.
For example, take the Apple Studio Display, which is 27 inches in size. It has a resolution of 5120 x 2880, so macOS will double the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the UI, thus rendering your desktop at the equivalent of 2560 x 1440. Since macOS has been designed for this, everything appears at its intended size.
Then consider connecting a 27-inch 4K monitor to the same Mac. This has a resolution of 3840 x 2160, so the same 2 x scaling factor will result in an interface size the equivalent of 1920 x 1080.
Since both 5K and 4K screens are physically the same size with the same scaling factor, the lower pixel density of the 4K one means that everything will appear bigger. For many, this makes for uncomfortably large viewing.
If you go to System Settings — > Displays, you can change the scaling factor. However, if you reduce it to the equivalent of 2560 x 1440 on a 4K monitor, macOS calculates scaling differently because 3840 x 2160 divided by 2560 x 1440 is 1.5, not 2. In this case, macOS renders the screen at 5120 x 2880 to a virtual buffer, then scales it down by 2 x to achieve 2560 x 1440.
Display scaling — this method of rendering the screen at a higher resolution and then scaling down by 2 x — is how macOS can render smoothly at many different display resolutions. But it does come with a couple of caveats.
Applying a 2 x scaling factor to the respective native resolutions of both a 5K and a 4K monitor will result in a pixel-perfect image. But display scaling will render a 2560 x 1440 image onto a 3840 x 2160 display. This will naturally produce visual artifacts, since it's no longer a 1:1 pixel mapping.
Therefore, display scaling results in deformities in image quality, including blurriness, moire patterns, and shimmering while scrolling. It also removes dithering, so gradients may appear less smooth.
Although these visual artifacts are undoubtedly present, the principle of non-resolvable pixels still applies.
By rearranging the formula, angular resolution = 2dr tan(0.5 degrees) becomes d = angular resolution / 2r tan (0.5 degrees). Then we can calculate the viewing distance at which this happens. For example, at the Retina angular resolution of 63 ppd, and the pixel density of 163 ppi for a 4K monitor, the result is about 22 inches.
This means a person with average eyesight won't see individual pixels on a 4K screen when viewed at this distance and farther.
So, you may not notice any deformities, depending on the viewing distance, your eyesight, and the quality of the display panel. (If your nose is pressed against the screen while you look for visual artifacts, you may be looking too closely.)
The other caveat of display scaling is performance. If your device renders the screen at a higher resolution than the display into a buffer and then scales it down, it needs to use some extra computational resources. But, again, this may not have as significant an impact as you might think.
For example, Geekbench tests on an M2 MacBook Air showed a drop in performance of less than 3 % at a scaled resolution, compared with the native one, when using OpenCL, and less than 1 % when using Metal. On the same machine, Blender performance dropped by about 1.1 %.
How significant this is depends on your usage. If you need to squeeze every last processor cycle out of your Mac, you'd be better off choosing your monitor's native resolution or switching to a Retina display. However, most users won't even notice.
The overall takeaway from display scaling is that it's designed to make rendering on your non-Retina monitor better, not worse. For example, suppose you do detailed visual work where a 1:1 pixel mapping is essential or long video exports where a 1 % time saving is critical. In that case, chances are that you already own a standalone Retina display or two. Otherwise, you can use display scaling on a non-Retina monitor without noticing any difference.
Very good article. You may get some grumbling because of the math, but that doesn’t bother me. Very informative. This gets to be especially tricky for me because of the weird lopsided configuration I am using. I have a 21 iMac, driving an external 28” 4k display. It took a bit of fiddling to get both looking good and to avoid having things on one much bigger than the other. I’m not worried about the performance hit though. It’s a 2016 iMac, it’s dog slow no matter what I do.
Uh . . . How about a good simplified paragraph to summarize?
"Since both 5K and 4K screens are physically the same size with the same scaling factor, the lower pixel density of the 4K one means that everything will appear bigger. For many, this makes for uncomfortably large viewing. " makes me think the graphic right below has the labels reversed.
I thought the application from Adobe was for scaling, NOT the Operating System. Why would the Operating System want to scale, let the coder figure it out - seriously.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood display scaling affects UI elements only. Content elements (photos, pdfs, cad, etc) are (or can be) displayed at native resolution. The lines in Autocad on my 27" 5K iMac look about as sharp as a laser print hardcopy.
Apple released the beta for macOS Ventura 13.3, which primarily focuses on bug fixes.
Apple has released the first developer beta for macOS Ventura 13.3 with the usual bug fixes and performance improvements.
Apple devices have been running HiDPI screens smoothly for years, while Windows and Android still struggle at times to make it work. Here's a look at what "Retina" means and why it's still important.
Apple has added powerful new M2 Pro and M2 Max chips to the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro. Here's how they stack up versus the M1 Max and M1 Pro models.
Samsung's February notebook launches include the Galaxy Book3 Pro 14, featuring a Dynamic AMOLED display and a 13th-gen Intel processor. This is how it stacks up against Apple's counterpart, the new M2-based 14-inch MacBook Pro.
Samsung has released its answer to the iPhone 14 Pro and other smartphones. Here's how the Galaxy S23 compares against the iPhone 14 Pro.
The Mac Pro is still available as the Mac to switch to Apple Silicon. The powerful M2 Pro Mac mini is now out, and it gives the tower a run for its money.
Apple added powerful new M2 Pro and M2 Max chips to the 14-inch MacBook Pro. Here's how it compares to the 2022 13-inch MacBook Pro with M2.
Twitter's text-based two-factor authentication becomes a paid-only feature
Planny 7.5 review: Boost productivity with predictive AI
Apple issues beta firmware update for Studio Display
Daily deals Feb. 18: 31% off Apple Pencil Gen 2, $70 off Razer Ornata Keyboard, $100 off 34-inch Dell Curved Monitor, more
Apple seeds public beta for macOS Ventura 13.3
Apple making the case that Apple Silicon Mac & iPhone are great gaming machines
First public betas for iOS 16.4, iPadOS 16.4, tvOS 16.4, watchOS 9.4 arrive
Deals: get a free $30 gift card with a Costco membership
Apple released the beta for macOS Ventura 13.3, which primarily focuses on bug fixes.
Apple has released the first developer beta for macOS Ventura 13.3 with the usual bug fixes and performance improvements.
Apple devices have been running HiDPI screens smoothly for years, while Windows and Android still struggle at times to make it work. Here's a look at what "Retina" means and why it's still important.
Apple has added powerful new M2 Pro and M2 Max chips to the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro. Here's how they stack up versus the M1 Max and M1 Pro models.
Apple's update to the 16-inch MacBook Pro adds the M2 Max to an already fantastic notebook, a change to satisfy creators and power users.
If you're looking for Thunderbolt 4-compatible hubs and docks so that you can add more connectivity to your Mac, we've curated some of the best docking and port-expanding accessories currently on the market.
The just-released Mac mini looks unexciting from the exterior with its years-old design — but don't let that fool you. This unassuming Mac is a steal with surprising performance.
At the 2023 CES, we went hands on with some of the best smart home products to launch outside of Apple's HomeKit ecosystem.
Planny has predictive AI features on top of being a to-do list, calendar, and reminders app all rolled into one, but it will take time to see if it's useful or irritating.
The Creality Ender-3 Max Neo is a great starter 3D printer for those who want to produce much bigger plastic creations than you'd normally get on an entry-level printer.
There are cases to put on your iPhone, and then there are cases to put your iPhone in. Bellroy's All-Conditions Phone Pocket is the second one meant to protect it from falls, water, and dirt.
The concept of saving time with an automation service using IFTTT is enticing, but it could waste more time in reality instead of saving it.
The Audio Technica ATH-M50x is a now-classic, well-performing set of over-the-ear, studio-wired headphones that come in under $200.
AppleInsider is one of the few truly independent online publications left. If you love what we do, please consider a small donation to help us keep the lights on.
If you love AppleInsider and want to support independent publications, please consider a small donation.
Marker Machine Follow us on Social Media: