Sure, a bit earlier would have been ideal, but I come here for technical details, not speed. So I would still read it, and isn't that what counts, really?
Actually, I wouldn't mind waiting until after 10.9.3 to get a proper idea of how 4k displays work with the 2013 13" rMBP.
Check the Mac Pro review for some benchmarks that include the 2013 rMBP 15" model. I agree it would have been nice to get a "full" review of the 13" and 15" models, including how the HD5100 and Iris Pro fared, and what battery life was.
I assume it will take a good 2 months for 10.9.3 to be released to all Maverick users. That puts us just before the usual time for WWDC. I also think that WWDC is a great time to introduce an expensive, professional Apple 4K (or UHD) display with a TB2 hub supporting GigE (I think 10GigE is unlikely… ever), ≥3xUSB3.0, HD FaceTime camera, microphone, speakers, additional TB2 port. MagSafe and Kensignton lock, too (the latter of which is oddly missing from the new MBPs). I would expect FW800 to go away and expect it to match the new iMac design.
I would be surprised if it's under $2k, and likely coming in at $2,999, if not more.
I think (hope?) that they'll keep an option closer to $1000 - external screens are something that you'd get with a Mac Mini or Macbook purchase and anything above $1200 or $1300 becomes really hard to justify for a lot of people. I love having an external screen and I'd definitely buy a 24" model like the Dell one with real estate equivalent to 19x12 or 19x10 for $1000. Super sharp text for coding and I like to sit close to the screen, so 27" is too big. But man, at the price range you're quoting only 2D/3D/video artists are going to buy.
No you have it backwards. So you can't magically make a 1080p movie into 4k; it's still 1080p if you play it at full screen but pixels are doubled in each direction. Shrink it to 1/4th of the screen and it's truly rendered at 1080p and every pixel is displayed. Same for images. It behaves like a 1080p display for sizing but has the pixels for 4k making it usable as a monitor and preventing very small UI elements.
I don't think so. Look at the 2560x1440 video frame in the gallery, in no resolution, not even the "native scaled" 3840x2160, is it displayed at 2560x1440 display pixels.
According to the article, it's always projected 1:1 onto the virtual resolution, and then scaled back down to the actual display resolution, leaving a 1280x720 postage stamp when using "native scaling". (which I then guess is really a 7720x4320 virtual desktop scaled down to 3840x2160)
I really have to wonder if Iʼm looking at the same thing as people reviewing/blogging about Apple hardware.
I have a 13″ Retina MacBook Pro (the highest density display Apple offer running OS X) and the scaled modes other than 2× look absolutely terrible. Text is especially bad.
I really want to see them bump up the resolution to 2880×1800 so that I can have the same workspace on a MacBook Pro as a 13″ MacBook Air.
It gets blurrier the more you scale it but yea, nothing beats the 2x mode.
Despite that, the scaled resolutions still looks better than the previous non-retina displays. IIRC, that is what the reviews are usually saying. They look bad, but not compared to the previous displays.
Nonsense. I run my rMBP at a non-2x mode and it looks just fine. The additional crispness compared to my 2012 27" iMac is obvious since I sometimes run them side by side.
The only things that look bad are Carbon apps because QuickDraw has not (and never will be) updated to retina 2x rendering. You can hardly blame Apple for this, given that they've been telling people to GTF off Carbon for over ten years.
Agreed, I've run my 2012@1080p(3840x2160 - scaled) since day one. I've no complaints about blurry text or issues of any kind with the exception 'Carbon coded' apps as well. Even Adobe blew my mind with their speed updating the CS
Seems like that's a bug in 10.9.3, all resolutions are scaled by 2x in each dimension including the lower resolution options. Updated the post/gallery.
Would love to see some tests focusing on the D300s and their ability to drive scaled 4k resolutions. In theory wouldn't one of these cards be able to run scaled 4k on a single display if they can drive 3 unscaled?
Anand, judging by the comments here there seems to be some confusion about GPU's, rendering, scaling, ratios, etc.. Might be a good time to do a user guide for monitor performance. A how-to guide so people are running their monitors at the correct resolutions for their specific workloads, eyesight, GPU's and other factors. Many times in the past I've come upon users who were running at the wrong resolutions for their setup but they were reluctant to fiddle with their settings despite monitor whine(CRT's), blurry screens, and obvious GPU wailing. Now seems like a good time to set the record straight because of the wide differences in screen technology people are encountering on a daily basis - phones to 4K panels.
So I was just doing some back of the envelope calculations to figure out how much memory you'd need to store the buffer objects for rendering at 3200 x 1800 with 4xSSAA and then scaling it down to 3840x2160 for output... It seems like it would be in the neighborhood of 1.6 GB!
Now imagine running 3 displays in that same scaled mode off of a new Mac Pro. The D700s with 6 GB of VRAM might be able to hang, but what about the D300s? Or even the poor IGP in the Retina MacBook Pros that lack a dGPU trying to drive the embedded panel as well as a single 4K display in the "Looks like 3200 x 1800" scaled mode? If the built-in display on a 15-inch MacBook Pro was also set to the 1920 x 1200 scaled resolution, it would be the equivalent of pushing 32,256,000 pixels (or the same as 8.75 2560 x 1440 displays)!
The screen shots of the scaled resolutions are irrelevant as they are not scaled but rather the output of the virtual image. The real image on those monitors looks much more fuzzy and it defenitly shows not using either the 1:1 or the 2:1 scaling.
Might be time to render the entire OS in 3D or at least make it vector graphics based. Then you can sit back and laugh at high resolutions and scaling problems. Like this. Hahahaha!
Graphics are rarely the issue, since things like text are often already scaled properly. the biggest issue is having a DPI aware application that properly scales its user interface.
Any information on updated 60Hz compatibility concerning Dell's UP 2414Q? I would be very interested to get some feedback in relation to: nMP & Dell UP 2414Q rMBP & Dell UP 2414Q
I remember in anandtech revue of nMP there have been issues concerning that specific display, while Sharp and ASUS performed just fine
I notice there is no option for screen rotation. All the 4K displays mentioned advertise that as a feature. Does 10.9.3 not support 90-degree screen rotation for retina displays? (That's a big deal for 24" displays.)
And what about iMacs? Can I use a 4k display with a 2013 iMac with 10.9.3 like with an rMBP? I suppose it should work but have anyone tried it? Thanks!
Thank you very much for this great post. I was looking exactly for something like this, to clear my mind a bit about 4K displays and latest MBP setups.
One question: is there anyone who tried a Dell p2715q or p2815q on a Mac Book Pro 15"? (Latest model, I bought it few days ago in November 2015). Are these displays managed as retina displays by the MBP?
Thank you in advance for any possible answer! Ciao. Riccardo
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
Back to Article
andy5174 - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
Are you planning to do rMBP late 2013 review?solipsism - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
I'm surprised they didn't consider many of the changes, but if they haven't at this point I wouldn't expect them to now.Zandros - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
Sure, a bit earlier would have been ideal, but I come here for technical details, not speed. So I would still read it, and isn't that what counts, really?Actually, I wouldn't mind waiting until after 10.9.3 to get a proper idea of how 4k displays work with the 2013 13" rMBP.
solipsism - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
1) I agree, but historically they tend to release their in-depth reviews within a month, not six months.2) I also agree with this, but as a mini-review of the 4K results of various displays across the Late 2013 MBP and Mac Pro.
andy5174 - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
I have no choice but wait for windows NINE laptop release then...KPOM - Monday, March 10, 2014 - link
Check the Mac Pro review for some benchmarks that include the 2013 rMBP 15" model. I agree it would have been nice to get a "full" review of the 13" and 15" models, including how the HD5100 and Iris Pro fared, and what battery life was.SignalPST - Monday, March 10, 2014 - link
I've been waiting for the late 2013 rMBP review as well. Last time I checked, Anand said he was doing a combine article with the Mac Pro...solipsism - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
I assume it will take a good 2 months for 10.9.3 to be released to all Maverick users. That puts us just before the usual time for WWDC. I also think that WWDC is a great time to introduce an expensive, professional Apple 4K (or UHD) display with a TB2 hub supporting GigE (I think 10GigE is unlikely… ever), ≥3xUSB3.0, HD FaceTime camera, microphone, speakers, additional TB2 port. MagSafe and Kensignton lock, too (the latter of which is oddly missing from the new MBPs). I would expect FW800 to go away and expect it to match the new iMac design.I would be surprised if it's under $2k, and likely coming in at $2,999, if not more.
esterhasz - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
I think (hope?) that they'll keep an option closer to $1000 - external screens are something that you'd get with a Mac Mini or Macbook purchase and anything above $1200 or $1300 becomes really hard to justify for a lot of people. I love having an external screen and I'd definitely buy a 24" model like the Dell one with real estate equivalent to 19x12 or 19x10 for $1000. Super sharp text for coding and I like to sit close to the screen, so 27" is too big. But man, at the price range you're quoting only 2D/3D/video artists are going to buy.MartinT - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
So, basically images and video are permanently scaled (err, broken), even when using the panels native resolution? Why would you do that?Devfarce - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
No you have it backwards. So you can't magically make a 1080p movie into 4k; it's still 1080p if you play it at full screen but pixels are doubled in each direction. Shrink it to 1/4th of the screen and it's truly rendered at 1080p and every pixel is displayed. Same for images. It behaves like a 1080p display for sizing but has the pixels for 4k making it usable as a monitor and preventing very small UI elements.MartinT - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
I don't think so. Look at the 2560x1440 video frame in the gallery, in no resolution, not even the "native scaled" 3840x2160, is it displayed at 2560x1440 display pixels.According to the article, it's always projected 1:1 onto the virtual resolution, and then scaled back down to the actual display resolution, leaving a 1280x720 postage stamp when using "native scaling". (which I then guess is really a 7720x4320 virtual desktop scaled down to 3840x2160)
repoman27 - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
I think if you want OS X to ignore the backing scale factor, you select the "Best for display" radio button instead of "Scaled: Native".Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
That was my fault, I've simplified the demo scene a bit - just looking at a Photoshop CS6 window with a 100% image should give a better indication.MartinT - Monday, March 10, 2014 - link
So what are my options if I want a 4K monitor to display images and videos 1:1?User.Name - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
I really have to wonder if Iʼm looking at the same thing as people reviewing/blogging about Apple hardware.I have a 13″ Retina MacBook Pro (the highest density display Apple offer running OS X) and the scaled modes other than 2× look absolutely terrible. Text is especially bad.
I really want to see them bump up the resolution to 2880×1800 so that I can have the same workspace on a MacBook Pro as a 13″ MacBook Air.
MikhailT - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
It gets blurrier the more you scale it but yea, nothing beats the 2x mode.Despite that, the scaled resolutions still looks better than the previous non-retina displays. IIRC, that is what the reviews are usually saying. They look bad, but not compared to the previous displays.
name99 - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
Nonsense. I run my rMBP at a non-2x mode and it looks just fine. The additional crispness compared to my 2012 27" iMac is obvious since I sometimes run them side by side.The only things that look bad are Carbon apps because QuickDraw has not (and never will be) updated to retina 2x rendering.
You can hardly blame Apple for this, given that they've been telling people to GTF off Carbon for over ten years.
akdj - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
Agreed, I've run my 2012@1080p(3840x2160 - scaled) since day one. I've no complaints about blurry text or issues of any kind with the exception 'Carbon coded' apps as well. Even Adobe blew my mind with their speed updating the CSrepoman27 - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
I'm confused by this: "It appears that the 720p and 1080p scaled settings both scale up to 2560 x 1440 before fitting to the panel's resolution."How and why does 1920 x 1080 scale up to 2560 x 1440 instead of just going to 3840 x 2160 and calling it a day?
Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
Seems like that's a bug in 10.9.3, all resolutions are scaled by 2x in each dimension including the lower resolution options. Updated the post/gallery.Filmgeek47 - Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - link
Would love to see some tests focusing on the D300s and their ability to drive scaled 4k resolutions. In theory wouldn't one of these cards be able to run scaled 4k on a single display if they can drive 3 unscaled?TETRONG - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
Anand, judging by the comments here there seems to be some confusion about GPU's, rendering, scaling, ratios, etc..Might be a good time to do a user guide for monitor performance. A how-to guide so people are running their monitors at the correct resolutions for their specific workloads, eyesight, GPU's and other factors.
Many times in the past I've come upon users who were running at the wrong resolutions for their setup but they were reluctant to fiddle with their settings despite monitor whine(CRT's), blurry screens, and obvious GPU wailing.
Now seems like a good time to set the record straight because of the wide differences in screen technology people are encountering on a daily basis - phones to 4K panels.
Isn't Brian an expert on Optics?
solipsism - Saturday, March 8, 2014 - link
I second this.repoman27 - Sunday, March 9, 2014 - link
So I was just doing some back of the envelope calculations to figure out how much memory you'd need to store the buffer objects for rendering at 3200 x 1800 with 4xSSAA and then scaling it down to 3840x2160 for output... It seems like it would be in the neighborhood of 1.6 GB!Now imagine running 3 displays in that same scaled mode off of a new Mac Pro. The D700s with 6 GB of VRAM might be able to hang, but what about the D300s? Or even the poor IGP in the Retina MacBook Pros that lack a dGPU trying to drive the embedded panel as well as a single 4K display in the "Looks like 3200 x 1800" scaled mode? If the built-in display on a 15-inch MacBook Pro was also set to the 1920 x 1200 scaled resolution, it would be the equivalent of pushing 32,256,000 pixels (or the same as 8.75 2560 x 1440 displays)!
jollyjinx - Sunday, March 9, 2014 - link
The screen shots of the scaled resolutions are irrelevant as they are not scaled but rather the output of the virtual image. The real image on those monitors looks much more fuzzy and it defenitly shows not using either the 1:1 or the 2:1 scaling.rm19 - Sunday, March 9, 2014 - link
Might be time to render the entire OS in 3D or at least make it vector graphics based. Then you can sit back and laugh at high resolutions and scaling problems. Like this. Hahahaha!inighthawki - Sunday, March 9, 2014 - link
Graphics are rarely the issue, since things like text are often already scaled properly. the biggest issue is having a DPI aware application that properly scales its user interface.le_jean - Monday, March 10, 2014 - link
What Display are these Screenshots being made on?Any information on updated 60Hz compatibility concerning Dell's UP 2414Q?
I would be very interested to get some feedback in relation to:
nMP & Dell UP 2414Q
rMBP & Dell UP 2414Q
I remember in anandtech revue of nMP there have been issues concerning that specific display, while Sharp and ASUS performed just fine
donius - Thursday, March 13, 2014 - link
I notice there is no option for screen rotation. All the 4K displays mentioned advertise that as a feature. Does 10.9.3 not support 90-degree screen rotation for retina displays? (That's a big deal for 24" displays.)domadoma - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link
And what about iMacs? Can I use a 4k display with a 2013 iMac with 10.9.3 like with an rMBP?I suppose it should work but have anyone tried it? Thanks!
riccardo.t - Wednesday, December 2, 2015 - link
Thank you very much for this great post.I was looking exactly for something like this, to clear my mind a bit about 4K displays and latest MBP setups.
One question: is there anyone who tried a Dell p2715q or p2815q on a Mac Book Pro 15"? (Latest model, I bought it few days ago in November 2015).
Are these displays managed as retina displays by the MBP?
Thank you in advance for any possible answer!
Ciao.
Riccardo