Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 31, 2013, 05:20 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Mac Pro/OS X 4K Display Compatibility 'Like the Wild West', Some 4K Monitors Unsupported




In its lengthy review of the new Mac Pro, AnandTech discovered that the Mac Pro's current support for 4K monitors leaves something to be desired. The reviewer connected the Sharp 32" 4K display that Apple currently offers on the Apple Online Store, expecting that OS X work the same way on that panel as Apple's current Retina MacBook Pro models do.

On those machines, Apple renders the screen at full resolution but then renders text, menu and UI elements at 4x their normal resolution so they are the appropriate physical size for the user. It also offers multiple options to scale UI elements up or down as the user prefers. Instead, using the Sharp panel with the Mac Pro makes text and other on-screen elements -- aside from photos and video -- very small and difficult to read.

Quote:
I was fully expecting all of this to be available on the Mac Pro when connected to a 32" 4K display. By default, there's only a single supported scaled resolution: 2560 x 1440. Unfortunately it doesn't look like Apple is running the same supersampling routines when you pick this resolution, instead you get a 2560 x 1440 desktop scaled up to 3840 x 2160 (rather than a 5120 x 2880 screen scaled down). The result is a bit of a blurry mess.

You can use tools like SwitchResX (or Quartz Debug or the necessary Terminal command) to enable a 1080p HiDPI mode, but then you end up with insanely low point density of around 68 PPI. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be possible to define your own HiDPI modes in OS X, you have to rely on those that Apple officially supports. I tried creating a 5120 x 2880 (2560 x 1440 HiDPI) mode but I couldn't get it working under Mavericks. I'm not sure if I was limited by the OS or if Sharp's EDID-specified max resolution of 3840 x 2160 prevented OS X from accepting what I was trying to do.
AnandTech also tried the new Dell UltraSharp 24 Ultra HD display but found that the display is not properly supported by the Mac Pro.

The reviewer calls OS X's 4K display support "a bit like the wild west at this point", though he anticipates Apple will fix things with both software updates and its own displays in the future -- but urges early adopters to be aware of what they're getting into.
Quote:
I am disappointed that Apple didn't enable any HiDPI modes on the 32" Sharp display. While I found 3840 x 2160 a great resolution for video work, for everything else it made on-screen menus and text a bit too small. I would love to see a 2560 x 1440 HiDPI option (rendering offscreen at 5120 x 2880 and but scaling down to 3840 x 2160 for display) but it looks like I may have to wait for Apple's own display before I get something like that.
It's been two years since Apple has updated its standalone display lineup, and the company is expected to come out with new models sooner rather than later. However, there are no concrete rumors suggesting when such an update might happen.

Article Link: Mac Pro/OS X 4K Display Compatibility 'Like the Wild West', Some 4K Monitors Unsupported
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 05:32 PM   #2
Not That Future
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chicago
Let's hope this means Apple comes out with a proper 4K display sooner rather than later...
__________________
15" Haswell rMBP – 2.3/Iris Pro/750M/16GB/1TB
Not That Future is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 05:38 PM   #3
luba6a
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not That Future View Post
Let's hope this means Apple comes out with a proper 4K display sooner rather than later...
Let's hope...what else?!?!Mac Pro...hehehhee
luba6a is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 05:41 PM   #4
LordVic
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Stouffville, Ontario
this is more an issue with OSx and it's handling of displays than the Mac Pro.

I have similar issues on my myriad of displays at home. from 1600x1200 monitor, 1620x1050, 1080p, 720p, 1024x768, 1280x1024 and the like, OSx seems to have problems using many of these displays natively without weird impressions in each.

heck. it doesn't even seem to want to handle 720p identically accross displays even though they're both on HDMI! my 720p projector comes through as crystal clear. my 720p 27" TV is fuzzy and skewed.

swap over to Windows 7 via boot camp and all these displays work perfectly.

seems that Apple doesn't have good support for displays that aren't either theirs or directly sold by them. Something I hoped would be fixed in Mavericks that doesn't seem to be.
__________________
“We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win.”
― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything
LordVic is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 05:51 PM   #5
JM-Prod
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
This is really bad... how much effort would it have taken Apple to get this right for their most high-paying customers. Shame.
JM-Prod is offline   27 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 05:58 PM   #6
cable
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
What's terrible is that Apple presents this monitor as if it's fully functional. What's worse, is I signed up for the Dell financing and bought their 32inch screen and apparently it doesn't work either?

Not happy. Really crossing my fingers that a software update will rectify this before everything arrives in the mail.
cable is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:03 PM   #7
sammich
macrumors 601
 
sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sarcasmville.
I like how Anand points out that 5120x2880 could be an upcoming resolution in a 27" display size. The only question that leaves us with is how to drive it. A true thunderbolt v2? Two TB2 cables?
sammich is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:08 PM   #8
Exhale
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammich View Post
The only question that leaves us with is how to drive it. A true thunderbolt v2? Two TB2 cables?
Displayport 1.3.
Alternatively, Displayport 1.2 in 50hz or 30hz mode.

With NVIDIA's G-sync, there should be more interest and development in non-traditional refresh rates; G-sync itself after all is all about dynamic refresh rates.
Exhale is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:11 PM   #9
tigerintank
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Wonder if the RDM app would have helped...it shows upto 3840x2160 on my rMBP 13" though it's obviously not possible to read text at that res much less judge the quality.

Last edited by tigerintank; Dec 31, 2013 at 06:19 PM.
tigerintank is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:15 PM   #10
MacDarcy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Apple has been slacking on their displays for awhile now. I mean the current Cinema Display is thicker than the year old iMacs!

I'm sure Apple will update them eventually, perhaps when they release their Apple Television and retina display iMacs. Apple may move slooooowly....but when they do it, they do it right. Too bad we have to wait for it tho. :-)
MacDarcy is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:41 PM   #11
sammich
macrumors 601
 
sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sarcasmville.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhale View Post
Displayport 1.3.
Alternatively, Displayport 1.2 in 50hz or 30hz mode.

With NVIDIA's G-sync, there should be more interest and development in non-traditional refresh rates; G-sync itself after all is all about dynamic refresh rates.
Apple is pushing Thunderbolt w/DP. If Thunderbolt itself doesn't support more than 20Gb/s of bandwidth, it can't drive any display that requires more bandwidth than that, and a 2880p screen needs just a tad over 20Gb/s to drive it. So you can't just stuff a higher DisplayPort Rev into TB.

And G-sync is about making displays refresh when they're needed, instead of every tick of their clock. It doesn't reduce peak bandwidth required.
__________________
Official MR IRC
Slow news day? Never fear, Digitimes is here. Serving up free hits for techblogs everywhere.
sammich is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:44 PM   #12
manu chao
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhale View Post
Displayport 1.3.
Alternatively, Displayport 1.2 in 50hz or 30hz mode.
But DP 1.3 won't be able to be delivered through TB 2 (33.2 Gbit/s for DP 1.3 vs. 20 Gbit/s for TB 2).
manu chao is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:44 PM   #13
iomar
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Send a message via AIM to iomar
Apple should come out with their own 4K monitors.
__________________
Visit BJJ Products - For High Quality BJJ Gears and Apparels:

http://www.bjjproducts.com
iomar is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:46 PM   #14
keysofanxiety
macrumors 6502a
 
keysofanxiety's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In a house that defies physics by being colder than absolute zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iomar View Post
Apple should come out with their own 4K monitors.
Most likely costing £5 per pixel

Happy New Year by the way!
keysofanxiety is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:51 PM   #15
petsounds
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
This is pretty embarrassing considering that the Sharp display is suggested as a companion to the Mac Pro during the configuration process. Slightly less embarrassing is that Apple didn't get a 4k display out with the introduction of the MP. But combine the two together, and Apple is presenting a very difficult situation for Mac Pro buyers wishing to take advantage of the much-promoted 4k support. Historically, Mac OS has always had best-in-class support and user experience for displays, and this is certainly a blemish on that record.

IMO this is a rare drop of the ball for Tim Cook, in addition to the extremely tight production constraints pushing nMP wait times into February.
petsounds is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:52 PM   #16
dumastudetto
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
I don't think this is an issue at all. Of course Apple can't guarantee every monitor will support OS X Retina technologies but I'm sure the best displays will make a conscious effort to do so. With this in mind, it doesn't surprise me the Dell cannot do OS X Retina.
dumastudetto is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:55 PM   #17
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Amazing Maze of Maize (Corn Labyrinth)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dumastudetto View Post
I don't think this is an issue at all. Of course Apple can't guarantee every monitor will support OS X Retina technologies but I'm sure the best displays will make a conscious effort to do so. With this in mind, it doesn't surprise me the Dell cannot do OS X Retina.
No, this is more of a failing of OSX than Dell. If the monitor's built to display 3840x2160, then it's capable of displaying 3840x2160. Period. There should be no reason why it can't display that same resolution in Windows, but not in OSX due to it's...er..."Retina Technologies".

The only problem here is that Apple probably hasn't included the device IDs for all these new monitors yet, so OSX itself likely treats it as a generic display.
Renzatic is offline   22 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 06:59 PM   #18
Exhale
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammich View Post
If Thunderbolt itself doesn't support more than 20Gb/s of bandwidth, it can't drive any display that requires more bandwidth than that, and a 2880p screen needs just a tad over 20Gb/s to drive it. So you can't just stuff a higher DisplayPort Rev into TB.
Which is exactly why I said DP1.3.

Quote:
And G-sync is about making displays refresh when they're needed, instead of every tick of their clock.
Exactly, currently displays only handle at very specific clock intervals - which means you cannot always take full advantage of the entire bandwidth. Specifically, 30hz mode, which normally will be supported, would leave a significant chunk of capacity unused. But 30hz is not particularly stellar for motion.

The reason I mention it is because the existence of G-sync should encourage manufacturers to handle 'unusual' refresh rates better - which in turn would permit getting closer to the bandwidth capability. 50hz doesn't always play nice on current monitors, but you would be required to handle such a refresh rate with g-sync.
Exhale is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 07:01 PM   #19
patent10021
macrumors 68000
 
patent10021's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Speaking of the wild, Apple needs Ashton Kutcher as CEO and get some real Apple Thunderbolt displays and 128GB iDevices in the wild.
__________________
I love the smell of 1080p in the morning.
patent10021 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 07:12 PM   #20
phoenixsan
macrumors 65816
 
phoenixsan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
I suppose.....

early adopters in the photo and video fields must be dissapointed......... Hopefully Apple will be working in some kind of fix. Or even better, to release own 4k displays fully supported......



__________________
Mac Pro 2012 3.06 Westmere version, 12 Core 64 GB RAM, 4 TB , iPhone 5 (black)
phoenixsan is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 07:23 PM   #21
pgiguere1
macrumors 68000
 
pgiguere1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
With this kind of resolution/size combo, whether you'd want HiDPI turned on or off is really subjective.

With it on, you'd only get the real estate of 1080p (21.5" iMac) on a 32" display...

I'm not sure why everyone is acting like this is some kind of bug.

You can manually activate it with a utility like SwitchResX anyway can't you?
pgiguere1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 07:30 PM   #22
REM314
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
OS X has horrid monitor support. Almost anything I connect via HDMI to my rMBP looks like **** until I search for a workaround. Fix it Apple.
__________________
Custom Desktop PC (Win7); Late 2013 15'' rMBP 2.3GHz; Samsung Galaxy SIII 32GB; iPad 2 32GB Black
REM314 is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 07:33 PM   #23
N64
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Lost Woods
Quote:
Originally Posted by REM314 View Post
OS X has horrid monitor support. Almost anything I connect via HDMI to my rMBP looks like **** until I search for a workaround. Fix it Apple.
This. It was fine until Mountain Lion, then they messed it up.
N64 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 07:37 PM   #24
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Seiki

Anybody tried the 39" Seiki 3840 x 2160 yet?
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2013, 08:01 PM   #25
manu chao
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by REM314 View Post
OS X has horrid monitor support. Almost anything I connect via HDMI to my rMBP looks like **** until I search for a workaround. Fix it Apple.
Almost everything I plug into DP or DVI (or VGA) looks exactly like it should. Maybe HDMI is a ****** protocol or devices having only HDMI input aren't too smart.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
No, this is more of a failing of OSX than Dell. If the monitor's built to display 3840x2160, then it's capable of displaying 3840x2160. Period. There should be no reason why it can't display that same resolution in Windows, but not in OSX due to it's...er..."Retina Technologies".

The only problem here is that Apple probably hasn't included the device IDs for all these new monitors yet, so OSX itself likely treats it as a generic display.
And there is the problem that the 60 Hz 4K support in current 4K monitors is created by splitting the signal into two 1920 x 2160 tiles (which isn't Apple's fault):

"To support 4K at 60Hz, you need to properly enable support for DisplayPort 1.2’s Multi-Stream Transport (MST) feature. Originally conceived as a way of daisy chaining multiple displays together off of a single DP output, the current crop of 4K displays use MST to drive a single display. By sending two tiles, each behaving like a 1920 x 2160 display (one half of 3840 x 2160), you can get around the bandwidth limitations of the current crop of display hardware. Note that it is possible to drive a 4K display at 60Hz using a single DisplayPort 1.2 stream, the limitation today appears to be entirely on the monitor side. The first generation of 4K displays appear to be a bit of a hack."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/m...w-late-2013/11
manu chao is offline   7 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC