Mac Hardware - 5k Supremacy - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Mac Hardware - 5k Supremacy

The Lord Bude: May 23, 2007; ASK ME ABOUT MY SHITTY, BOUGIE INTERIOR DECORATING ADVICE

what's the deal with Macs and display scaling? I'm reading that in order for everything to look crisp and correct the display has to either be at native res or scaled to a 'looks like' of exactly half the resolution, is that correct?

so a 5k display will look good at a 'looks like' of 1440p but if I was to get a 4k display, I'd need to either stick with native res, or have a 'looks like' of 1080p?

95% certain I'm gonna be buying a mac studio (it's going to be my first mac) but I really, really don't want to spend 2500 AUD on that display as stylish as it is. I was looking at a 27" 4k screen but now I'm wondering if I should buy a 32" instead and maybe the extra size will enable me to stick with native res.

edit: or just keep my existing 27" 1440p monitor, and use that for a while till better monitor options present themselves

# ? Mar 17, 2022 18:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 06:40

xgalaxy: Jan 27, 2004; i write code

The Lord Bude posted:

what's the deal with Macs and display scaling? I'm reading that in order for everything to look crisp and correct the display has to either be at native res or scaled to a 'looks like' of exactly half the resolution, is that correct?

so a 5k display will look good at a 'looks like' of 1440p but if I was to get a 4k display, I'd need to either stick with native res, or have a 'looks like' of 1080p?

95% certain I'm gonna be buying a mac studio (it's going to be my first mac) but I really, really don't want to spend 2500 AUD on that display as stylish as it is. I was looking at a 27" 4k screen but now I'm wondering if I should buy a 32" instead and maybe the extra size will enable me to stick with native res.

edit: or just keep my existing 27" 1440p monitor, and use that for a while till better monitor options present themselves

If you have a 4k display at 27" or 32" for examples it would just use fractional scaling. So it won't be pixel perfect like a 5k would at 27" or 6k would at 32".
There is no "must be" this or that. You can still choose your scaling option.
Some people claim using fractional scaling causes the computer to run slower. I don't think thats true for anything released in the last couple of years though. Or at least, isn't noticeable.

# ? Mar 17, 2022 18:43

doingitwrong: Jul 27, 2013

I'm using a BenQ EW3270U https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/benq/ew3270u and I am scaling it to "looks like" 1440p and it's fine. But also maybe my eyes are terrible because I do not see the mice trails or bloom or whatever that apparently makes the 16" MBP screen unusable for some goons.

# ? Mar 17, 2022 18:51

Apex Rogers: Jun 12, 2006; disturbingly functional

I�ve got that same BenQ monitor, but run it at native 4K. I use BetterSnapTool to snap windows to each corner and use it like four 1080p workspaces in one. It works pretty well and gives flexibility to make a window bigger when needed, like when referring to schematics or whatever (embedded dev here).

# ? Mar 17, 2022 19:05

japtor: Oct 28, 2005

If you want perfect scaled 2x 1440p, then yeah 5K. On a 4K you can get the same 1440p space and better detail than just 1440p, but imperfect scaling. Technically it'll be rendering the same 5120x2880 then scaling down to fit the 4K panel. So you're missing pixels, but it's still resolving more detail than just scaling 1440p up to 4K.

It's just kind of a matter of whether you notice the imperfections. On Apple's displays at ~220+ PPI, I run at the higher resolution settings and don't notice. Most other displays out there like 4K 27" or that one "5K2K" ultrawide are about 160 PPI, which is like the pre retina iPhone and iPad mini if you ever had those. Low enough that you could maybe run tiny 1x (like the poster above) but still a good amount denser than a regular 1440p 27" (~110 PPI) so scaled resolutions may be viable.

xgalaxy posted:

Some people claim using fractional scaling causes the computer to run slower. I don't think thats true for anything released in the last couple of years though. Or at least, isn't noticeable.

I think it's just the matter of needing to render more than your panel's pixels (and then scaling down) but not sure how much of a hit that is these days. But like above, natively you'd just be rendering 4K, while scaled you're doing 5K. On a 5K panel, for the biggest scaled resolution it's something like 6400 pixels wide.

japtor fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Mar 17, 2022

# ? Mar 17, 2022 19:10

uiruki: Aug 6, 2003; blah blah blah

If you run a 4K monitor at �looks like 1440p� then it doubles that, renders at 5K and scales down to 4K. You can tell, especially around text as there are minor sharpening artefacts but it looks very good in general, certainly much better than trying to use Windows scaling. With M1 macs you don�t have to worry much about rendering all those pixels either.

# ? Mar 17, 2022 19:11

LionArcher: Mar 29, 2010

uiruki posted:

If you run a 4K monitor at �looks like 1440p� then it doubles that, renders at 5K and scales down to 4K. You can tell, especially around text as there are minor sharpening artefacts but it looks very good in general, certainly much better than trying to use Windows scaling. With M1 macs you don�t have to worry much about rendering all those pixels either.

this is why 5K iMacs are so great for writers. Text does legit look crisper when you're in word docs (or a better program like Scrivener) all day. The laptop screens (everything Retina) also are great for this, but if I'm doing this all day (and I am,) it's why I have a desktop i'm sitting at.

# ? Mar 17, 2022 20:48

Bob Morales: Aug 18, 2006; ~~Just wear the fucking mask, Bob~~

I don't care how many people I probably infected with COVID-19 while refusing to wear a mask, my comfort is far more important than the health and safety of everyone around me!

xgalaxy posted:

If you have a 4k display at 27" or 32" for examples it would just use fractional scaling. So it won't be pixel perfect like a 5k would at 27" or 6k would at 32".
There is no "must be" this or that. You can still choose your scaling option.
Some people claim using fractional scaling causes the computer to run slower. I don't think thats true for anything released in the last couple of years though. Or at least, isn't noticeable.

It will look just slightly off if you're not at an integer

And it will run ever so slightly slower because it's working with a 8000x6000 image instead of a 6000x4000 or whatever

But they come out of the box non-fractional. At least they did for the 16 and 13 models

# ? Mar 17, 2022 21:04

LODGE NORTH: Jul 30, 2007

Ok Comboomer posted:

do you have the Apple Store app?

Indeed I do -- would the app show information that the site wouldn't?

# ? Mar 17, 2022 21:06

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

Data Graham posted:

At the risk of sounding all "golden ratio photo composition lol", I think there is a sweet spot of thinness for a laptop with 14-16" dimensions, and the current ones are right at that sweet spot. It feels perfectly "right" in two hands, and it's rigid enough to be held in one hand without flexing, and I don't for a minute think it's too chonky.

The previous generation (which I have one next to me) seems a little freakish in how thin it is. Just kind of unsettling, like "there can't be anything substantial in here".

The goofy part is that the redesign really isn't perceptibly thicker. The difference is half a millimeter (for the 16-inch, the 14-inch is the same thickness as the smaller model it replaced), so all the "macbook so thicc" takes are really a testament to the effectiveness of the optical illusion created by the old design's tapered corners.

Baronash fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Mar 17, 2022

# ? Mar 17, 2022 21:08

hatty: Feb 28, 2011; Pork Pro

Hated the taper

hatty fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 17, 2022

# ? Mar 17, 2022 21:47

Comfy Fleece Sweater: Apr 2, 2013; You see, but you do not observe.

I have a 2016 15-inch MacBook Pro, and I�m upgrading to a 14-inch M1�

I�ve not fully switched, setting it up, but everything looks so tiny, how is this possible with a 1 inch difference :ohdear:

I�m a bit worried about my eyesight now

I guess I�ll check what settings I had in the old one, but it definitely feels much more cramped.

I just got tired of lugging the larger one around, and the new one is much lighter so that�s a win at least

# ? Mar 17, 2022 21:55

Splinter: Jul 4, 2003; Cowabunga!

With all the reports of how chonky the new MBPs are, you'd think they're bricks, but as best I can tell the 16" is almost exactly the same size as the original 15" rMBP form factor (2012-2015), and most people were plenty happy with how compact those laptops were. We're talking 14.13 x 9.73 x 0.71 for the rMBP verses 14.01 x 9.77 x 0.66 for the M1 MBP. The biggest difference is the M1s are 0.24 lbs heavier (4.7 vs 4.46), but even that isn't too significant (believe it works out to around 5% heavier).

# ? Mar 17, 2022 22:05

Mercurius: May 4, 2004; Amp it up.

Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:

I have a 2016 15-inch MacBook Pro, and I�m upgrading to a 14-inch M1�

I�ve not fully switched, setting it up, but everything looks so tiny, how is this possible with a 1 inch difference

I�m a bit worried about my eyesight now

I guess I�ll check what settings I had in the old one, but it definitely feels much more cramped.

I just got tired of lugging the larger one around, and the new one is much lighter so that�s a win at least

The screen sizes are quite different. The 16� is the upgrade of the older 15� MacBooks and has a similar display size:pixels ratio whereas your new 14� is the equivalent of the older 13�.

You can use one of the scaling options (e.g. �looks like 1680x1050�) if you want it to look like your old 15�.

# ? Mar 17, 2022 22:07

hatty: Feb 28, 2011; Pork Pro

It�s thinner but the 14� feels like the same shape as the 2009 white polyurethane MacBook and I love it

# ? Mar 17, 2022 22:09

nitsuga: Jan 1, 2007

LODGE NORTH posted:

Indeed I do -- would the app show information that the site wouldn't?

I thought it did, but I can�t tell you how or where to find that. This might only apply to released products, but I wasn�t able to find that functionality for an M1 MacBook Pro either.

E: Ah, I think it might just say if you can in the cart. I Googled �how to see whats in stock at Apple stores�.

nitsuga fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 17, 2022

# ? Mar 17, 2022 22:17

trilobite terror: Oct 20, 2007; BUT MY LIVELIHOOD DEPENDS ON THE FORUMS!

LODGE NORTH posted:

Indeed I do -- would the app show information that the site wouldn't?

no, I don�t think so. But on release day you�ll have an easier time of checking stock locally, I think

# ? Mar 17, 2022 23:04

Comfy Fleece Sweater: Apr 2, 2013; You see, but you do not observe.

Mercurius posted:

The screen sizes are quite different. The 16� is the upgrade of the older 15� MacBooks and has a similar display size:pixels ratio whereas your new 14� is the equivalent of the older 13�.

You can use one of the scaling options (e.g. �looks like 1680x1050�) if you want it to look like your old 15�.

Gonna try this when I have them side by side

I had no idea the new M1 was equivalent to the old 13" :thunk:

So it does have a slightly larger screen, but the pixel aspect makes it looks smaller? I'd still trade it for the lighter weight, it's pretty great.

I'll give it a few months and if I don't get used to it maybe I can resell and get the next version :shrug:

# ? Mar 17, 2022 23:22

Beve Stuscemi: Jun 6, 2001

I have a project that I�m working on right now of taking two MBP�s that each have issues and making one good one.

I have:

A 2018 i7 MBP 15� with a dead battery but good everything else.

And

A 2019 i9 MBP 15� with a stripe of dead pixels on screen. The pixels change and get better/worse when you press on the bezel so I�m thinking it�s a screen issue and not a GPU issue. Everything else is good on it

My thought is to take the screen from the i7 and put it on the i9 and make one working machine and one i7 with a dead battery and a bad screen

My research on the internet suggests the screens are exactly the same (they are the same resolution for starters) and should swap over without any issues that I don�t cause myself.

Anyone know of any big issues with this plan?

# ? Mar 17, 2022 23:39

trilobite terror: Oct 20, 2007; BUT MY LIVELIHOOD DEPENDS ON THE FORUMS!

Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:

I had no idea the new M1 was equivalent to the old 13" So it does have a slightly larger screen, but the pixel aspect makes it looks smaller? I'd still trade it for the lighter weight, it's pretty great.

no, they made the screen an inch bigger diagonally

it�s equivalent to the old 13� within the product stack, and the chassis is roughly the same size because they shrunk the bezels

# ? Mar 18, 2022 00:31

BobHoward: Feb 13, 2012; The only thing white people deserve is a bullet to their empty skull

Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:

I had no idea the new M1 was equivalent to the old 13" So it does have a slightly larger screen, but the pixel aspect makes it looks smaller? I'd still trade it for the lighter weight, it's pretty great.

The M1 14" has a 3024x1964 display at 254 ppi, the old 13" models all have 2560x1600 @ 227 ppi. If both are configured for a non-scaled resolution, objects will look a bit smaller on the 14" (because it's higher PPI) and the 14" will display more stuff (more pixels).

However, the 13" out-of-the-box display setting is different. It defaults to a scaled resolution, while the 14" defaults to native resolution. That means on the 13" everything is drawn into a 3360x2100 buffer, then that image is downsampled to 2560x1600 for the display. Objects are physically scaled as if the display is 298 ppi, but the downsampling to 227 ppi makes them lose detail. Sometimes things will look slightly fuzzy. Your mileage will vary on how much you notice this.

So: Out of the box, the 14" will look sharper, but objects will look bigger on its screen and less of them will fit. If you configure the 13" to its native panel resolution, they'll both be sharp, objects will look smaller on the 14", and more will fit on the 14". And if you leave the 13" at its default and configure the 14" to its scaled-down resolution for more space, objects will still be smaller on the 14", and more will fit.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 00:40

The Lord Bude: May 23, 2007; ASK ME ABOUT MY SHITTY, BOUGIE INTERIOR DECORATING ADVICE

uiruki posted:

If you run a 4K monitor at �looks like 1440p� then it doubles that, renders at 5K and scales down to 4K. You can tell, especially around text as there are minor sharpening artefacts but it looks very good in general, certainly much better than trying to use Windows scaling. With M1 macs you don�t have to worry much about rendering all those pixels either.

So if I�m accustomed to 125% scaling setting in windows it should look as good or better?

That being said I use 125% scaling on my existing 27� 1440p screen so 2x on a 27� 4K screen might end up looking just right to me.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 02:30

Comfy Fleece Sweater: Apr 2, 2013; You see, but you do not observe.

So basically, fiddle with the screen size options until I find one that I like

That�s a pretty in-depth answer, thanks !

:cheersbird:

BobHoward posted:

The M1 14" has a 3024x1964 display at 254 ppi, the old 13" models all have 2560x1600 @ 227 ppi. If both are configured for a non-scaled resolution, objects will look a bit smaller on the 14" (because it's higher PPI) and the 14" will display more stuff (more pixels).

However, the 13" out-of-the-box display setting is different. It defaults to a scaled resolution, while the 14" defaults to native resolution. That means on the 13" everything is drawn into a 3360x2100 buffer, then that image is downsampled to 2560x1600 for the display. Objects are physically scaled as if the display is 298 ppi, but the downsampling to 227 ppi makes them lose detail. Sometimes things will look slightly fuzzy. Your mileage will vary on how much you notice this.

So: Out of the box, the 14" will look sharper, but objects will look bigger on its screen and less of them will fit. If you configure the 13" to its native panel resolution, they'll both be sharp, objects will look smaller on the 14", and more will fit on the 14". And if you leave the 13" at its default and configure the 14" to its scaled-down resolution for more space, objects will still be smaller on the 14", and more will fit.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 02:31

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

I honestly thought there was some EU ergonomics law regarding monitor height adjustment, it�s kind of gross they�d make something like that cost so much extra. I guess people still have piles of books they can stick under their screens instead 🤷🏻

# ? Mar 18, 2022 02:53

FCKGW: May 21, 2006

Or they use their own vesa mounts

# ? Mar 18, 2022 03:02

The Lord Bude: May 23, 2007; ASK ME ABOUT MY SHITTY, BOUGIE INTERIOR DECORATING ADVICE

There are plenty of monitors out there with no height adjustment; though granted they don�t usually cost several metric Buttloads. At the price Apple is charging it�s inexcusable.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 03:19

Comfy Fleece Sweater: Apr 2, 2013; You see, but you do not observe.

The Lord Bude posted:

There are plenty of monitors out there with no height adjustment; though granted they don�t usually cost several metric Buttloads. At the price Apple is charging it�s inexcusable.

Didn't they charge like 400 dollars for computer wheels (1piece)

# ? Mar 18, 2022 03:30

The Lord Bude: May 23, 2007; ASK ME ABOUT MY SHITTY, BOUGIE INTERIOR DECORATING ADVICE

Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:

Didn't they charge like 400 dollars for computer wheels (1piece)

That�s wheels for your Mac Pro. But you do get a set of 4.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 03:49

Escape Goat: Jan 30, 2009

Data Graham posted:

It feels perfectly "right" in two hands, and it's rigid enough to be held in one hand without flexing, and I don't for a minute think it's too chonky.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 05:06

Escape Goat: Jan 30, 2009

I got a new job and work provided a 16" M1 Max. :stoked:

I got a loaner for my first week which was a 2019 with the butterfly keyboard. Had that loving thing 10 days and one of the keys is almost toast. Also disliked the touchbar even after 10 days of trying to get used to it. It's a neat idea but probably should never have left Cupertino.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 05:13

Ultimate Mango: Jan 18, 2005

Escape Goat posted:

I got a new job and work provided a 16" M1 Max.

I got a loaner for my first week which was a 2019 with the butterfly keyboard. Had that loving thing 10 days and one of the keys is almost toast. Also disliked the touchbar even after 10 days of trying to get used to it. It's a neat idea but probably should never have left Cupertino.

I got a new job and was asked what spec I wanted. The Max are all like end of May delivery but the �middle� 16� Pro option seemed available during my start week so I asked for that.

Coming from a three year old 16� Intel MBP I�m sure this thing will be amazing.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 05:18

Beve Stuscemi: Jun 6, 2001

Jim Silly-Balls posted:

I have a project that I�m working on right now of taking two MBP�s that each have issues and making one good one.

I have:

A 2018 i7 MBP 15� with a dead battery but good everything else.

And

A 2019 i9 MBP 15� with a stripe of dead pixels on screen. The pixels change and get better/worse when you press on the bezel so I�m thinking it�s a screen issue and not a GPU issue. Everything else is good on it

My thought is to take the screen from the i7 and put it on the i9 and make one working machine and one i7 with a dead battery and a bad screen

My research on the internet suggests the screens are exactly the same (they are the same resolution for starters) and should swap over without any issues that I don�t cause myself.

Anyone know of any big issues with this plan?

Well, I did it. No issues, both machines came back to life and the i9 now has a good screen

# ? Mar 18, 2022 05:31

mediaphage: Mar 22, 2007; Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

Jim Silly-Balls posted:

Well, I did it. No issues, both machines came back to life and the i9 now has a good screen

hey good job

gonna use the other machine as a server or desktop or something?

# ? Mar 18, 2022 05:49

Beve Stuscemi: Jun 6, 2001

I hadn�t thought about it but I suppose I do have essentially a Mac desktop now. Maybe I�ll replace my old HP desktop at home with it :hmmyes:

# ? Mar 18, 2022 06:15

Wheres Wallace: May 5, 2009; keep on keepin' on

Ok Comboomer posted:

Consider the following:

How much do you make/intend to make in content creation? Does the MBP�s lack of power affect your income/quality of life/how you spend your time?

Would you make a lot more content, or make higher quality content, etc if you had that extra power?

Do you think the added power of the Mac Studio would scale appropriately vs the added power of a Mac Mini? In other words, is the Mac Studio with ostensibly Xeon-beating power going to enable you to work in a way/medium/on simultaneous projects/etc that an M1 Mini, or even your current Mac, won�t?

If you had your current 2015 MacBook Pro hooked up to an external display, would that solve the majority of your complaints?

My 2c is this: there�s nothing that you have described that leads me to believe that an M1 Mini wouldn�t already be a major, �definitive night and day difference� for you.

If you feel like you�re being economically/creatively hamstrung by working on an old computer, then absolutely you should upgrade.

If it were me, and I didn�t have like a specific plan for the extra horsepower in the Studio (mind you, a specific plan can be something as stupid as �I make Apple-related content and I want something beefy that I can hack/emulate Windows games to work on while simultaneously streaming on Twitch�) I�d start with an M1 Mini.

If you find yourself hitting the wall within the first two weeks of using it, you can easily give it back to Apple for a full refund. If it happens after, you can always sell it on the used market or trade it in for a Studio or whatever down the road.

If you�re making any income at all from this (or making a provably good faith effort to do so, at least in terms of how your country�s tax authority qualifies �business� vs �hobby�) then you should be writing off your computer.

Pulled the trigger and ordered the M1 Mac Mini.

# ? Mar 18, 2022 08:15

trilobite terror: Oct 20, 2007; BUT MY LIVELIHOOD DEPENDS ON THE FORUMS!

Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:

Didn't they charge like 400 dollars for computer wheels (1piece)

The Lord Bude posted:

That�s wheels for your Mac Pro. But you do get a set of 4.

lol if you aren�t writing off your Mac Pro wheels

# ? Mar 18, 2022 12:14

trilobite terror: Oct 20, 2007; BUT MY LIVELIHOOD DEPENDS ON THE FORUMS!

Wheres Wallace posted:

Pulled the trigger and ordered the M1 Mac Mini.

https://youtu.be/z5U9QRiY46I

let us know how it goes!

# ? Mar 18, 2022 12:20

Walked: Apr 14, 2003

For those trying I was just able to make an apple store app purchase of a base studio for pickup around lunch.

Seems to have just gone live locally at least

# ? Mar 18, 2022 12:50

Bob Morales: Aug 18, 2006; ~~Just wear the fucking mask, Bob~~

I don't care how many people I probably infected with COVID-19 while refusing to wear a mask, my comfort is far more important than the health and safety of everyone around me!

Jim Silly-Balls posted:

I hadn�t thought about it but I suppose I do have essentially a Mac desktop now. Maybe I�ll replace my old HP desktop at home with it

# ? Mar 18, 2022 12:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 06:40

Beve Stuscemi: Jun 6, 2001

That�s��.not a terrible idea, I can get the screen off in a couple minutes by now

# ? Mar 18, 2022 13:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Mac Hardware - 5k Supremacy

«‹›1734 »