![]() I use the display at its native resolution, no scaling and no weird hacks as those are prone to break with updates and have unforeseeable side-effects. Since there were no 5k 32" displays back then (and there still aren't now) I went with a 1440p, which had the added benefit of being easier to drive with my 1080ti for PC gaming. According to the math I did, I would need 5k to do 2x retina scaling at this apparent resolution.Ī 4k display would not be enough for this as it would make everything look like 1080p which is too large for a 32". I have a 32" 1440p display I bought a few years ago. I've seen posts about forcing hidpi on 1440p monitors via dummy displays, however I don't expect that this would be considered normal practice (and creates it's own issues, such as 60hz+ performance).ĭo you use a 1440p monitor? Have you done some modifications to make the text look better? I'd love to hear from you! I feel as though I must be doing something wrong or that I must be having a unique issue. What I don't understand is how a company like rtings, which presumably has plenty of monitors to set up for direct comparison, would find this to be the case. My 1440p monitor produces artifacts like this, which might be typical 1440 performance? In comparing the two side by side, unless I'm doing something terribly wrong, there's no comparison as far as text quality goes - 4K is far more clear, at native, 1440p scaled (that surprises me!), and 1080 scaled ( which is a recommended way to go on mac as well). Rtings and others suggest that at around 27", 1440p is a better bet than 4k, due to the way mac handles ppi and hidpi. Recently purchased both a M28U (4k 144hz over USB-C), and a MSI Optix MAG274QRF-QD (1440p 144hz/165hz), over HDMI 2.0), both of which are highly rated by rtings. ![]() Font smoothing off, using FF/preview for comparison.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |