This won’t work. BetterDisplay is not the issue. Apple is the issue.
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.
5K2K at 120Hz with Mac Mini M4
- Thread starter Newgoblin49
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've just read this entire thread 
and I'm still not sure I know the answer to my question:
I'm thinking of upgrading from my Intel Mac(s), so I don't have an M4/M4 Pro/M4 Max-based Mac yet but I do have an LG 34BK95U-W UltraFine 34" 5K2K display.
Do I take it from this thread that if I were to buy any M4 (base/Pro/Max) based Mac, that I cannot select 3840x1620 HiDPI because my LG monitor cannot do 120 Hz at that rate? Because currently Apple only supports that resolution at that refresh rate (on M4)? (I noticed upstream that one Dell 40" model can do it.) But an M1/M2/M3 Pro/Max based Mac could?
I'd really like to not have to buy an 'old' Mac ... (yes I know, upstream someone posted that Apple is working on a fix)
and I'm still not sure I know the answer to my question:I'm thinking of upgrading from my Intel Mac(s), so I don't have an M4/M4 Pro/M4 Max-based Mac yet but I do have an LG 34BK95U-W UltraFine 34" 5K2K display.
Do I take it from this thread that if I were to buy any M4 (base/Pro/Max) based Mac, that I cannot select 3840x1620 HiDPI because my LG monitor cannot do 120 Hz at that rate? Because currently Apple only supports that resolution at that refresh rate (on M4)? (I noticed upstream that one Dell 40" model can do it.) But an M1/M2/M3 Pro/Max based Mac could?
I'd really like to not have to buy an 'old' Mac ... (yes I know, upstream someone posted that Apple is working on a fix)
Yes, only the - expensive - Dell U4025QW can do 3840x1620 HiDPI OOB (Out Of the Box, no better display add on) with the M4 Mini.I've just read this entire thread
I'm thinking of upgrading from my Intel Mac(s), so I don't have an M4/M4 Pro/M4 Max-based Mac yet but I do have an LG 34BK95U-W UltraFine 34" 5K2K display.
Do I take it from this thread that if I were to buy any M4 (base/Pro/Max) based Mac, that I cannot select 3840x1620 HiDPI because my LG monitor cannot do 120 Hz at that rate? Because currently Apple only supports that resolution at that refresh rate (on M4)? (I noticed upstream that one Dell 40" model can do it.) But an M1/M2/M3 Pro/Max based Mac could?
I'd really like to not have to buy an 'old' Mac ... (yes I know, upstream someone posted that Apple is working on a fix)
Can you wait for an M4 Studio? - CORRECTED. (See comments below). As of Jan 2nd this is widespread across ALL M4 models, to date. We have no evidence that the M4 Studio will correct this.
Apple appear to segment, HiDPI features, by class/type*
*Even though there's more than enough performance in the M4 base or pro GPU, Apple seem to be blocking HiDPI options.
Attachments
Last edited:
This is not a “Mini” problem. This is an M4 series problem. The M4 Max is also impacted.
What drives me nuts about the virtual screen is that my cursor locks up as I drag across from one display to the other.
I believe your assumption is correct.I've just read this entire thread
I'm thinking of upgrading from my Intel Mac(s), so I don't have an M4/M4 Pro/M4 Max-based Mac yet but I do have an LG 34BK95U-W UltraFine 34" 5K2K display.
Do I take it from this thread that if I were to buy any M4 (base/Pro/Max) based Mac, that I cannot select 3840x1620 HiDPI because my LG monitor cannot do 120 Hz at that rate? Because currently Apple only supports that resolution at that refresh rate (on M4)? (I noticed upstream that one Dell 40" model can do it.) But an M1/M2/M3 Pro/Max based Mac could?
I'd really like to not have to buy an 'old' Mac ... (yes I know, upstream someone posted that Apple is working on a fix)
Cheers. I made a corrected note to my prior comment, that the precedent of the "Studio" line's HiDPI options may not solve this with the M4 Studio variant.
(Been a while since I read whole thread from beginning)
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for confirming my suspicions. Unbelievably frustrating. I've been champing at the bit to buy a new M4-based Mac for awhile now (couldn't make up my mind whether to get a Mac mini or a MacBook Pro) and this will drive me nuts if it's not fixed 😖
First, Happy New Year, everyone! Hope the new year started off well for you.
Regarding the issue at hand, let me just say I came here to explore the possible options that might be available and as I stated, comping from a 5k display, I really wasn’t interested in going to something larger with significantly less resolution *and* something that is less pixel-dense. In other words I was under the (wrongful) assumption that there were other HiDPI options available. How could there not be? It’s been over a decade, and we know a single year in the tech sector is an eternity. Needless to say, I was shocked and a little annoyed at the absolute dearth of pixel-dense options; especially at this point in time. After all, I bought a new M4 Pro Mac mini to get the *most* out of it, and not to get an experience less than that, and a great display is what allows us to see and use the device and it’s capabilities, not the other way around.
No, I don’t consider them to be HiDPI per se. HiDPI should mean “retina-class” or simply displays with a high resolution in a relatively small format (high ppi). In other words, consumers should be paying attention to the ppi/pixel density at least when it comes to computer displays. MMV
For example, the Dell U4025QW has a resolution of: 5120×2160 but only has a ppi of 140 on a panel that is about 15.5” tall and 36.5” wide (give or take). That's not retina-class for computer terminal work. It isn’t going to look as sharp as an Apple Studio Display. And ppi is what’s important; especially when coming from a 5k display.
Display companies know darn well that image quality mostly depends on ppi. As such, it’s my belief that the ppi specification is what consumers should be paying attention to when it comes to sharpness and clarity. Instead these companies rely on marketing trickery. They’ll off what they’ll call “high resolution” while also increasing the diagonal size of their units. However, keeping the “resolution” the same while increasing the size of the display only increases the size of the physical display pixels and lowers the ppi. This is why people must sit further away to “get the same effect” as a smaller format, more pixel-dense display.
For me, the display isn’t merely akin to the aesthetic (and subjective) “look” of say certain wheels paired to a particular car; the display also provides functionality and usefulness beyond that. No way was I looking for a “good enough” experience when it comes to a display and text clarity—something that I’ll be spending significant time behind. I wasn’t “display shopping” and wondering if the Mac would allow me to get the most out of the display (especially a lowDPI display), I wanted a display that would allow me to get the most out of what the M4 could offer (5k at the minimum). A Large screen, with lower resolution that is also less pixel-dense is not something I’m interested in. Which is why after discovering the severe lack of options, I was a bit disappointed. Needless to say I opted for an Apple Studio Display and it’s absolutely stellar for my needs at the moment. I’ll wait to see if CES drops any goodies.
Again, I loathe car analogies, yet it’s crystal clear that I still I can’t bring the newish Michelins I purchased for the Mustang and expect them to work on the new Vette. The SO can’t bring her steering wheel cover or the Weathertech car liners from her Honda we just sold either.
Everyone is so quick to criticize Apple for not supporting what is clearly becoming aging and legacy tech that’s on it’s way out, rather than hammer the display manufacturers continuing to peddle the same LowDPI schlock with new and fancy-sounding marketing being used for the new “software trickery” they’re implementing in an effort to continue the soak their customers.
Clearly HiDPI computer panels with pixel-dense displays will put them in a bind because people will then have less of a need to upgrade as often as they do. Oh and how lucky for the display OEMs. . . Strange how the pixel density of the screens never seem to increase! Who needs retina-class when there’s approaches like sub-pixel AA to cover up the shortcomings?
To be clear, we should have had tons of inexpensive options for HiDPI/pixel-dense panels and displays for computer use by now—all the way up to 40” —including the ultrawides with their weird aspects. I mention 40” as probably the largest display size anyone might consider using for computer/desktop productivity work.
Presumably, 8K TVs will be mainstream soon enough, but consider that a TV has a very different purpose and not something built for use as a desktop display, though some people use them for that purpose Everything about a TV is geared toward video and motion, not static images and certainly not text or design/photo work. Also consider that the ppi of a 65″ 8K TV is only 135 ppi with a recommended viewing distance between 7 and 9 feet! That 8k 40” computer display? 220 ppi—definitely retina class and these are the hiDPI computer displays people should be clamoring for. Suddenly much of this antialiasing and other trickery can go away, because it won’t be needed or needed as much to get results that will be more than just “good enough”.
Long story short, pixel dense computer displays with diagonal sizes of between 24 and 40” with minimum 120Hz. Refresh rate for computer work should have been mainstream by now. Where are they? It’s been over a decade already. Dell has an 8K 32” for about $4 Grand. Seriously?
https://machow2.com/best-8k-monitors-for-macs/
LOL I’m pretty sure that Apple has the resources to write the finest of code as they’ve had sub-pixel AA (likely via Quartz) and other tricks for scaling the display and rendering text running just fine up until Mojave when they disabled some of those implementations. There’s an Ars Technica article out there that touches on probably the main reason they disabled AA. I’m sure you can do a web search for it. But again, those were techniques used to make up for the LowDPI and shortcomings of the display tech—at the time. Forget TVs, they’re a different beast with a different use case. Again, where are the pixel-dense, retina-class displays for desktop computer use—sizes between 24” to 42”? The same can be said for the Ultrawide and SuperWide panels. Oh, and I did a simple web search and Windows has had PLENTY of display issues simply because of the various combinations of GPU/System and Display configurations. Windows isn’t immune to scaling issues. I guess thats why there’s folks on the steam community steering people to: https://flawlesswidescreen.org when they want support for things like 64:27 aspect.
I didn’t come here to argue. I actually came looking to see if there were any other affordable display options besides the ASD. I was skimming through some of the posts and noticed folks were having some issues. I noticed that some folks as in the past, found BetterDisplay a good solution, or at least a stopgap until Apple addresses the issue. I wasn’t looking to irritate anyone.
Regarding the issue at hand, let me just say I came here to explore the possible options that might be available and as I stated, comping from a 5k display, I really wasn’t interested in going to something larger with significantly less resolution *and* something that is less pixel-dense. In other words I was under the (wrongful) assumption that there were other HiDPI options available. How could there not be? It’s been over a decade, and we know a single year in the tech sector is an eternity. Needless to say, I was shocked and a little annoyed at the absolute dearth of pixel-dense options; especially at this point in time. After all, I bought a new M4 Pro Mac mini to get the *most* out of it, and not to get an experience less than that, and a great display is what allows us to see and use the device and it’s capabilities, not the other way around.
They’re the display specialists, not the other way around! And they’re more concerned with pushing new television tech, rather than new computer display tech. They are two very distinct markets with the hardware geared toward different use cases. My contention is that Computer displays should be well into pixel-dense offerings by now. It isn’t 2014 anymore.
No, I don’t consider them to be HiDPI per se. HiDPI should mean “retina-class” or simply displays with a high resolution in a relatively small format (high ppi). In other words, consumers should be paying attention to the ppi/pixel density at least when it comes to computer displays. MMV
For example, the Dell U4025QW has a resolution of: 5120×2160 but only has a ppi of 140 on a panel that is about 15.5” tall and 36.5” wide (give or take). That's not retina-class for computer terminal work. It isn’t going to look as sharp as an Apple Studio Display. And ppi is what’s important; especially when coming from a 5k display.
Display companies know darn well that image quality mostly depends on ppi. As such, it’s my belief that the ppi specification is what consumers should be paying attention to when it comes to sharpness and clarity. Instead these companies rely on marketing trickery. They’ll off what they’ll call “high resolution” while also increasing the diagonal size of their units. However, keeping the “resolution” the same while increasing the size of the display only increases the size of the physical display pixels and lowers the ppi. This is why people must sit further away to “get the same effect” as a smaller format, more pixel-dense display.
For me, the display isn’t merely akin to the aesthetic (and subjective) “look” of say certain wheels paired to a particular car; the display also provides functionality and usefulness beyond that. No way was I looking for a “good enough” experience when it comes to a display and text clarity—something that I’ll be spending significant time behind. I wasn’t “display shopping” and wondering if the Mac would allow me to get the most out of the display (especially a lowDPI display), I wanted a display that would allow me to get the most out of what the M4 could offer (5k at the minimum). A Large screen, with lower resolution that is also less pixel-dense is not something I’m interested in. Which is why after discovering the severe lack of options, I was a bit disappointed. Needless to say I opted for an Apple Studio Display and it’s absolutely stellar for my needs at the moment. I’ll wait to see if CES drops any goodies.
Again, I loathe car analogies, yet it’s crystal clear that I still I can’t bring the newish Michelins I purchased for the Mustang and expect them to work on the new Vette. The SO can’t bring her steering wheel cover or the Weathertech car liners from her Honda we just sold either.
Everyone is so quick to criticize Apple for not supporting what is clearly becoming aging and legacy tech that’s on it’s way out, rather than hammer the display manufacturers continuing to peddle the same LowDPI schlock with new and fancy-sounding marketing being used for the new “software trickery” they’re implementing in an effort to continue the soak their customers.
Clearly HiDPI computer panels with pixel-dense displays will put them in a bind because people will then have less of a need to upgrade as often as they do. Oh and how lucky for the display OEMs. . . Strange how the pixel density of the screens never seem to increase! Who needs retina-class when there’s approaches like sub-pixel AA to cover up the shortcomings?
To be clear, we should have had tons of inexpensive options for HiDPI/pixel-dense panels and displays for computer use by now—all the way up to 40” —including the ultrawides with their weird aspects. I mention 40” as probably the largest display size anyone might consider using for computer/desktop productivity work.
Presumably, 8K TVs will be mainstream soon enough, but consider that a TV has a very different purpose and not something built for use as a desktop display, though some people use them for that purpose Everything about a TV is geared toward video and motion, not static images and certainly not text or design/photo work. Also consider that the ppi of a 65″ 8K TV is only 135 ppi with a recommended viewing distance between 7 and 9 feet! That 8k 40” computer display? 220 ppi—definitely retina class and these are the hiDPI computer displays people should be clamoring for. Suddenly much of this antialiasing and other trickery can go away, because it won’t be needed or needed as much to get results that will be more than just “good enough”.
Long story short, pixel dense computer displays with diagonal sizes of between 24 and 40” with minimum 120Hz. Refresh rate for computer work should have been mainstream by now. Where are they? It’s been over a decade already. Dell has an 8K 32” for about $4 Grand. Seriously?
https://machow2.com/best-8k-monitors-for-macs/
LOL I’m pretty sure that Apple has the resources to write the finest of code as they’ve had sub-pixel AA (likely via Quartz) and other tricks for scaling the display and rendering text running just fine up until Mojave when they disabled some of those implementations. There’s an Ars Technica article out there that touches on probably the main reason they disabled AA. I’m sure you can do a web search for it. But again, those were techniques used to make up for the LowDPI and shortcomings of the display tech—at the time. Forget TVs, they’re a different beast with a different use case. Again, where are the pixel-dense, retina-class displays for desktop computer use—sizes between 24” to 42”? The same can be said for the Ultrawide and SuperWide panels. Oh, and I did a simple web search and Windows has had PLENTY of display issues simply because of the various combinations of GPU/System and Display configurations. Windows isn’t immune to scaling issues. I guess thats why there’s folks on the steam community steering people to: https://flawlesswidescreen.org when they want support for things like 64:27 aspect.
I'm well aware of the history of the licensing deal, but I can't remember if it included any newly developed technology that came after 1997, which ClearType certainly was. However, I did find this gem. It might be that Apple never implemented ClearType.
I didn’t come here to argue. I actually came looking to see if there were any other affordable display options besides the ASD. I was skimming through some of the posts and noticed folks were having some issues. I noticed that some folks as in the past, found BetterDisplay a good solution, or at least a stopgap until Apple addresses the issue. I wasn’t looking to irritate anyone.
Perhaps you misunderstood what was meant by "market dictates what panels are made": there are literally more customer that want "lower DPI" screen, therefore the manufacturers make them instead.
There are obvious problems to use panels with unnecessarily high resolution:
harder to make, priced higher
less bright (if LCD, filter is too dense for backlight to shine through; if OLED, WHITE leds are too small)
higher rendered resolution needs more GPU power (a critical issue for gaming PC since framerate is probably of higher priority)
The market decides how much PPI they want for the moment, then the manufacturers make the panels for them. Very rarely is there a customer like Apple with this much vertical integration to decide from the blue print so they can aim for a custom resolution that only they want.
Traditionally, anything higher than the old days 1:1 72DPI web standard, or more conservatively the 96DPI, was considered HiDPI. The goal post have obviously been pushed a few times since then, but this is the same deal like I mentioned, back when 720p DVD was considered "high definition" and was marketed as such. After that you don't just re-use the term, but instead change or add words to indicated a further ahead standard, like true HD in 1080, Ultra HD in 2160, etc.
So yeah I'd prefer to say "retina-class PPI" since Apple's approach is more focused on angular resolution.
The licensing deal surrounding OS X AA was never made public, it was all speculation, but the timing of Mojave dropping it is too coincidental for other scenarios. Regardless, where the tech is from is probably not important, but that Apple at that point decided to no longer properly implement AA, on top of limiting UI scaling to only be optimal when "retina-class PPI", these two factors together is the core of the issue.
I’m actually happy with 140PPI. Never felt the need for the studio display because I value the additional screen size of a 40”.
Meanwhile, in a new plot twist … I wonder what will happen with an M4 Pro Mac mini and this new LG 6K beast?
I wonder when would they release it? It very much resembles the Pro Display XDR, specially the stand. It might also be a new display from apple is around the corner.
The original XDR panel was also made by LG, but this time with their own monitor it is not using miniLED backlight, just regular LED and then uses Nano IPS black film. It seems to me LG is re-purposing the tech and tooling for the Apple XDR panel into a cheaper, "consumer tier" product. The panel resolution is undisclosed as yet but can be safe to assume it is the same 31.5" 6016*3384.
In the context of this thread, this will probably behave exactly like how the XDR behaves for various Macs, in how limited the HiDPI frame buffer width.
I have the Dell
That's what is so frustrating about the 5K2K situation. Even the M1 Air can drive a Dell 6K monitor just fine up to 2x scaling. We just need our pixels in a differently shaped box.
Finally seem to be making progress. If this is priced right it’ll sell like crazy.
www.macrumors.com
LG Unveils UltraFine 6K Display With Thunderbolt 5 Support
LG has shown off a new Ultrafine 6K monitor at CES 2025. The 32-inch display is the first of its kind to support Thunderbolt 5, which Apple...
www.macrumors.com
My guess would be an MSRP of around 2.399$. The dell came out at 3.199$ originally, and is down to around 2.500$ now.Finally seem to be making progress. If this is priced right it’ll sell like crazy.
LG Unveils UltraFine 6K Display With Thunderbolt 5 Support
LG has shown off a new Ultrafine 6K monitor at CES 2025. The 32-inch display is the first of its kind to support Thunderbolt 5, which Apple...
Finally seem to be making progress. If this is priced right it’ll sell like crazy.
LG Unveils UltraFine 6K Display With Thunderbolt 5 Support
LG has shown off a new Ultrafine 6K monitor at CES 2025. The 32-inch display is the first of its kind to support Thunderbolt 5, which Apple...
priced right *insert historically laughing emoji*
I've been extremely happy with the Asus 5K monitor.
Thank you. Just odd cause I have people with the pro version saying its not an issue for them.
3200px UI needs 6400px frame buffer width, which is more than what the M1 M2 M3 supports (limit is 6144px).
With the M4 the limit is supposed to have matched the Pro/Max/Ultra chips in 7680px, as evident by the M4 mini having it on that one Dell 5k2k, but oddly it doesn't show for other displays. Still a mystery.
It works on all M pro or Max chips prior to M4. Maybe it even works on all chips prior to M4.
This is a M4 problem. There is not any M4 chip where it currently works properly. We have no idea if/when Apple will fix.
sorry I truly dont know what this means lol. does this mean I shouldn't see the resolution I expect to see, and the list I have is OK? here is the list of resolutions I have