"Now, it might be tempting to use, for example, 1.5× scaling. That would give you an equivalent of 2560×1440 logical pixels, which, you might think, is much bet

"Now, it might be tempting to use, for example, 1.5× scaling. That would give you an equivalent of 2560×1440 logical pixels, which, you might think, is much better. This is not how you should use it! The idea of a 4k monitor is NOT to get more pixels but to get the pixel-perfect, high-density UI rendering. Otherwise, a normal 1440p display would work better. A simple rule to remember: pixel alignment outweighs everything else. 1440p display is better at displaying 1440p content than 2160p display is at it." I like this idea in theory, but I disagree with it in practice. I use two vertical 4k displays (specifically: Dell U2720Q) and I use them at the native resolution. This is because I want IntelliJ to take up an entire vertical display where I can see a lot of code without having to scroll. I can also divide the other display into two halves (horizontal line, one window on top and one on bottom - I use a third party app from the macOS app store called magnet for this). I can appreciate the smooth fonts, but the screen real estate is more valuable. I guess all of this is to say that the best option for me would be an 8k display at 2x scaling. A 4k display at 1080p though isn't worth the trade-off (I'll take lower quality text for the additional space). They do say right after that that using the 4k display at native is also fine, so maybe it's not an issue?