I have a 2012 RMBP. Will I be able to run 4K at 60 hz or am I stuck at 30 hz? All the notes in the new update refer to 2013 models. Got me worried I may have been left out of the goodness.
TIA
Adam Rodman
TIA
Adam Rodman
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
4K at 60 hz?
- Thread starter arsimoun
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2012 rMBPs don't even support 4K at all.
Only Macs with Thunderbolt 2 can support 4K.
That may be true for Macbook, but not entirely true for desktop, my 2009 Mac Pro not even have thunderbolt 1, but can run 4k or even higher (up to 5160x2880).
And it support 4k 60Hz via the mini display port.
Last edited:
The problem is, the native display of the ACD is still 2560x1440. Selecting 5120x2880 will render things at a tiny size and look mushy on the ACD. So in the end, your GPU is still driving a 2560x1440 display. Unless, the GPU renders everything at 5120x2880 and then scales back down to 2560x1440, which I doubt is likely.
In fact, it is render at 5120x2880 and scale down to 2560x1440.
This is the screen capture, which is actually at 5120x1440.
And I can plug it into my 4K TV to enjoy the real 4K output. However, since I only use HDMI when connecting the TV. Therefore, I can only get 4K 30Hz. But there is no doubt that there is no absolute relationship between 4K and thunderbolt 2 in Mac.
Last edited:
No 60 hz for me...
Thanks everyone for the help. Looks like I better start saving my pennies for that new RMBP!
Who wants to tell my wife?
Adam Rodman
Thanks everyone for the help. Looks like I better start saving my pennies for that new RMBP!
Who wants to tell my wife?Adam Rodman
No worries, sharing is caring
I have a nMP6,1 8-Core with dual 6GB FirePro cards and dual 27" Cinema Displays. Do I need 27" Thunderbolt models? You mentioned this is over Mini-DP. Why can I not get those resolutions??
Thanks!
Last edited:
I installed Quartz debug to play around with the 720 HiDPI, most likely that unlock all these resolution to me.
This link may be helpful
Yup, have had that enabled for a long time (I'm an OS X and iOS Developer, formerly Apple, Inc marketing/sales). I'm getting 60 FPS, but for both my 2012 27" LED LCD's, nothing above native resolution (2560x1440) is displayed. I have both Mini-Display Port monitors connected directly to my new 8-Core Mac Pro. Very odd. (thanks for the help!)
Attachments
Ha, nice trick, never knew it. Unfortunately, nothing beyond my native resolution. There has to be something I'm missing. Been searching online, installed "SwitchResX", created a few custom resolutions, system wouldn't take 'em.
Attachments
I really have no idea why, technically the D700 is the HD7970, and able to do everything that my HD7950 can do.
I could only assume because it is an Apple native card, so Apple easily lock out those "extra options" from your card.
Anyway, I guess once you connect your new Mac Pro to a 4K display, those options may just pop up.
At least we know that 10.9.3 can do that, and your nMP is completely capable to do that as well.
I could only assume because it is an Apple native card, so Apple easily lock out those "extra options" from your card.
Anyway, I guess once you connect your new Mac Pro to a 4K display, those options may just pop up.
At least we know that 10.9.3 can do that, and your nMP is completely capable to do that as well.
I really have no idea why, technically the D700 is the HD7970, and able to do everything that my HD7950 can do.
I could only assume because it is an Apple native card, so Apple easily lock out those "extra options" from your card.
Anyway, I guess once you connect your new Mac Pro to a 4K display, those options may just pop up.
At least we know that 10.9.3 can do that, and your nMP is completely capable to do that as well.
The D700 is actually a W9000.
Oh, thanks for pointing out that.
My mind stuck at the LuxMark wrongly recognise the HD7970 as D700. And I don't know why I believe that the D700 is HD7970.
Thanks everyone for the help. Looks like I better start saving my pennies for that new RMBP!
Adam Rodman
Phone# or e-mail?
Because the 27" Cinema Display (and the 27" Thunderbolt Display) can only do a maximum of 2560x1440.
Apple currently does not sell a 4k monitor.
Yes, but reading user h9826790 comments he claimed to have 4K resolutions on his previous gen Mac Pro5,1 with an ATI HD7970 card and mini-Display Port 27" displays. I have a current gen Mac Pro6,1 with 2 27" Cinema Displays, I know full well that 2560x1440 was the default res, which is why I asked how he got his setup to work. Now, I'm wondering if any of it was true.
Of course no need to trust me. And I don't know how to give anyone a solid proof as well. All I know is how to take screen shot.
Anyway, I've just make few more screen shots. I use terminal get the current resolution which is 2560x1440, and then select the 5120x2880. I run the terminal command again. The result changed to 5120x2880, and the screen capture size agree with that. Since the screen capture is the snap shot of the graphic card's output, but not the monitor's output. That means the graphic card is actually running at 5120x2880 at this moment. Also, I can run the Geek3D GPU test 7680x1440.
I know the ACD can only display 2560x1440, and everything on my ACD will become extremely small when running in 5120x2880. I am not recommending this setting. Just want to point out that's possible in my HD7950 (not HD7970).
Anyway, here are the screen shots.
![Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.27.00.jpg]( "Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.27.00.jpg")
Terminal shows that the graphic card running at 5120x2880
![Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.34.21.jpg]( "Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.34.21.jpg")
Launchpad under 4K resolution.
![Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.41.31.jpg]( "Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.41.31.jpg")
Running Geek3D GPU test with a 7680x1440 window.
![Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.42.03.jpg]( "Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.42.03.jpg")
I do all these on my 27" Apple cinema display (not thunderbolt)
![Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.42.06.jpg]( "Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.42.06.jpg")
The result shows the test ran at 7680x1440 windowed.
I wish you understand that I am not trying to fake anybody. This is purely for sharing. And I have no idea why the nMP 6,1 which should be more capable than my oMP 4,1 (Flashed 5,1) but do not have these option.
Anyway, I've just make few more screen shots. I use terminal get the current resolution which is 2560x1440, and then select the 5120x2880. I run the terminal command again. The result changed to 5120x2880, and the screen capture size agree with that. Since the screen capture is the snap shot of the graphic card's output, but not the monitor's output. That means the graphic card is actually running at 5120x2880 at this moment. Also, I can run the Geek3D GPU test 7680x1440.
I know the ACD can only display 2560x1440, and everything on my ACD will become extremely small when running in 5120x2880. I am not recommending this setting. Just want to point out that's possible in my HD7950 (not HD7970).
Anyway, here are the screen shots.
Terminal shows that the graphic card running at 5120x2880
Launchpad under 4K resolution.
Running Geek3D GPU test with a 7680x1440 window.
I do all these on my 27" Apple cinema display (not thunderbolt)
The result shows the test ran at 7680x1440 windowed.I wish you understand that I am not trying to fake anybody. This is purely for sharing. And I have no idea why the nMP 6,1 which should be more capable than my oMP 4,1 (Flashed 5,1) but do not have these option.
Last edited:
Same here, can confirm that. Even my 2008 LED CD 24" connected via miniDP now offers higher resolutions in 10.9.3 than the „optimal” 1900x1200. Graphics Card is R9 280X
![]()
And with Quartz Debug installed, lots of HiDPI modes became available.
![]()
![]()
Really tempted to order an LG 34UM95 and see what happens.
And with Quartz Debug installed, lots of HiDPI modes became available.
Really tempted to order an LG 34UM95 and see what happens.
Last edited:
Of course no need to trust me. And I don't know how to give anyone a solid proof as well. All I know is how to take screen shot.
I meant no offense, it was more tongue in cheek which sometimes doesn't translate well online. Apologies.
I'm just perplexed as I have a system capable of supporting resolutions natively, more so than the previous gen Mac Pro's. With the exact same Apple LED LCD's running via Mini-DP, I should absolutely have the same resolutions as you. I realize the native res on my dual 27" displays are 2560x1440, same as yours, so I do not understand how they can have resolutions higher than that. Unless Apple has restricted the dual FirePro D700's (as I recall your Mac Pro5,1 has an ATI 7950), and somehow isn't allowing the connected displays to be detected as displaying the resolutions you support, it doesn't add up. I even played with SwitchResX and nada. Seems to odd to me.
How are you connecting your displays? Are you using a conversion cable of some sort?
No worries, my English is not good either.
Anyway, I simply connect the ACD cable to my HD7950's mini display port. No adaptor in between.
In fact, I think it's very strange as well. I don't know the ACD can accept the 5120x2880 signal. Even it does, I think the screen can only display 1/4 of the picture at a time, and the "displayed area" may keep move with the mouse. However, what I get is absolutely the other way around of the 720 HiDPI.
It's fun to have this, but not useful at all. Everything looks tiny and almost unreadable.
Anyway, I simply connect the ACD cable to my HD7950's mini display port. No adaptor in between.
In fact, I think it's very strange as well. I don't know the ACD can accept the 5120x2880 signal. Even it does, I think the screen can only display 1/4 of the picture at a time, and the "displayed area" may keep move with the mouse. However, what I get is absolutely the other way around of the 720 HiDPI.
It's fun to have this, but not useful at all. Everything looks tiny and almost unreadable.