4K at 60 hz?

Discussion in 'OS X Mavericks (10.9)' started by arsimoun, May 17, 2014.

  1. arsimoun macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #1
    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
     
  2. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #2
    2013 only.
     
  3. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #3
    2012 rMBPs don't even support 4K at all.

    Only Macs with Thunderbolt 2 can support 4K.
     
  4. FreakinEurekan macrumors 68040

    FreakinEurekan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    #4
    [​IMG]
     
  5. h9826790, May 17, 2014
    Last edited: May 17, 2014

    h9826790 macrumors 604

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #5
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #6
    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.
     
  7. h9826790, May 17, 2014
    Last edited: May 17, 2014

    h9826790 macrumors 604

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #7
    In fact, it is render at 5120x2880 and scale down to 2560x1440.

    This is the screen capture, which is actually at 5120x1440.
    Screen Shot 2014-05-18 at 12.09.50.jpg

    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.
     
  8. icanhazapple macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    #8
    interesting! thank you for sharing that.
     
  9. arsimoun thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #9
    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
     
  10. h9826790 macrumors 604

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #10
    No worries, sharing is caring :D
     
  11. 3282868, May 18, 2014
    Last edited: May 18, 2014

    3282868 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #11
    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!
     
  12. h9826790 macrumors 604

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #12
    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
     
  13. 3282868 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #13
    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!)
     

    Attached Files:

  14. h9826790 macrumors 604

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #14
    OK, Let's try another simple trick.

    Hold down the "option" key, and then click "scaled".

    This should unlock all the resolutions like this.
    Screen Shot 2014-05-19 at 5.08.59.jpg Screen Shot 2014-05-19 at 5.09.08.jpg
     
  15. 3282868 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #15
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. h9826790 macrumors 604

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #16
    I really have no idea why, technically the D700 is the HD7970, and able to do everything that my HD7950 can do.:confused:

    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.:cool:

    At least we know that 10.9.3 can do that, and your nMP is completely capable to do that as well.
     
  17. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #17
    The D700 is actually a W9000.
     
  18. h9826790 macrumors 604

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #18
    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. :confused:
     
  19. m4v3r1ck macrumors 68020

    m4v3r1ck

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #19
    Phone# or e-mail? :D
     
  20. Draeconis macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #20
    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.
     
  21. 3282868 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #21
    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. :eek:
     
  22. h9826790, May 19, 2014
    Last edited: May 19, 2014

    h9826790 macrumors 604

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #22
    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 Terminal shows that the graphic card running at 5120x2880

    Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 13.34.21.jpg Launchpad under 4K resolution.

    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 I do all these on my 27" Apple cinema display (not thunderbolt)

    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.:confused:
     
  23. Fangio, May 20, 2014
    Last edited: May 20, 2014

    Fangio macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    #23
    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

    [​IMG]

    And with Quartz Debug installed, lots of HiDPI modes became available.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Really tempted to order an LG 34UM95 and see what happens.
     
  24. 3282868 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #24
    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?
     
  25. h9826790 macrumors 604

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #25
    No worries, my English is not good either. :p

    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.
     

Share This Page