I've tried, but for me limiting myself to the default/whole integer scaling is more of a pain than the bugs I encounter with it.
With 4k, at 1:1 I basically have two choices of resolution : either 3840x2160 native (which results in tiny text, even on a 32") or 1920x1080 HiDPI (which is way too small of an effective resolution, especially at 32").
With 1:1.5 scaling, I can get 2560x1440p HiDPI, which seems to be more stable (and renders text more crisply), but still a tad too small for what I need.
A 5k display would fix those issues, but the price difference between 4k & 5k is way too steep to me for the marginal improvement I would get out of it.
However, I've never had an issue with 4k video playback, even on non integer scaled resolutions. What's more, they virtually never drop frames, even with the system under load. My bet is that their hardware video decoding pipeline is significantly better that what's present on Intel CPUs, and is able to better delegate video decoding to the hardware decoders.
With 4k, at 1:1 I basically have two choices of resolution : either 3840x2160 native (which results in tiny text, even on a 32") or 1920x1080 HiDPI (which is way too small of an effective resolution, especially at 32").
With 1:1.5 scaling, I can get 2560x1440p HiDPI, which seems to be more stable (and renders text more crisply), but still a tad too small for what I need.
A 5k display would fix those issues, but the price difference between 4k & 5k is way too steep to me for the marginal improvement I would get out of it.
However, I've never had an issue with 4k video playback, even on non integer scaled resolutions. What's more, they virtually never drop frames, even with the system under load. My bet is that their hardware video decoding pipeline is significantly better that what's present on Intel CPUs, and is able to better delegate video decoding to the hardware decoders.