Late 2013 macbook pro dimensions 1080p#

So you'll have essentially have spent more money to get a worse result. The reason is that LCD displays don't look good when driven below their native resolution, and this is especially noticeable with text. In that scenario, you'll actually end up with noticeably worse image quality than you would have gotten if you'd simply bought a 27' 2560x1440 display in the first place, such as the U2719D. The proper term for that is QHD or 1440p. But chances are you'll end up worse off than that, especially if you want '2K' resolution, by which I assume you mean 2560x1440, even though calling that '2K' is a misnomer. Best case you wasted money on technology you can't properly utilize. That said, I really wouldn't recommend using a 4K 60 Hz display with a system that can't drive it properly. If you want to try to achieve that, try using SwitchResX, which gives you a lot more control over display setups in macOS.

Late 2013 macbook pro dimensions 1080p#

But it doesn't mean that the system is actually sending a 1080p signal to the display. Those options are there primarily for Retina displays so that you can choose where you want to land on the physical size vs. I suspect what's happening when you run 1080p is that macOS is still sending a 4K signal across the wire and only rendering the desktop at 1080p size. According to the Tech Specs page for that system here, the MBP 13' Late 2013 only supports up to 2560x1600 at 60 Hz, which suggests that it only supports DisplayPort 1.1 and therefore if you want 4K, it would only run that resolution at 30 Hz.