Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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

Chancha said:
We need to wait for waydabber, the BetterDisplay dev, to test and comment on this. The 7680px width pipe limit has been there for so long it almost seems hardware bound. But then the above changes didn't look like it was possible to be changed via software either, so we will see.

But personally I won't hold high hopes, this is not only low priority for Apple but likely is indeed a hardware ceiling in the SoC display engine.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However virtual screens have been possible to create without the same limitations and apart from the performance degradation from the whole "stream a virtual screen to a real display" setup it works just fine. So I can't see why every single Mac to date would require this hard 8K framebuffer limit.

I would not be surprised that this is just an area that Apple is actively ignoring because it works acceptably on their 5K and 6K 16:9 screens. Hell, even 8K 16:9 would still allow for "looks like 3840x2160" scaling because it doesn't hit the horizontal resolution limit as fast as ultrawides do.
 
I've been on the beta since the first one and it's still broken. 165Hz is now selectable on more resolutions on my mac (M5 Pro) but it really isn't in reality: "feels like" it's capped at 100Hz or something (I'm comparing to other PCs and other macs I connect via the same cable).
HDR still isn't available (only on some resolutions, not all).
I already sent feedback to Apple, but don't know if this will ever be addressed.

Still wild that a cheap random chinese notebook with linux I have on my desk can run my ultrawide at any res + 165Hz + HDR without any issue and my 3500$ Macbook Pro can't..
Used to buy Apple products because they were the "just works" ones..
 
  • Like
Reactions: kasakka, T'hain Esh Kelch and Cape Dave
andreeinprogress said:
I've been on the beta since the first one and it's still broken. 165Hz is now selectable on more resolutions on my mac (M5 Pro) but it really isn't in reality: "feels like" it's capped at 100Hz or something (I'm comparing to other PCs and other macs I connect via the same cable).
HDR still isn't available (only on some resolutions, not all).
I already sent feedback to Apple, but don't know if this will ever be addressed.

Still wild that a cheap random chinese notebook with linux I have on my desk can run my ultrawide at any res + 165Hz + HDR without any issue and my 3500$ Macbook Pro can't..
Used to buy Apple products because they were the "just works" ones..
Click to expand...
It definitely goes to 144Hz (the popular refresh rate test web page will show it) at least on an M4 mini. My monitor supports 4K@160Hz but macOS will only drive it to 144Hz, on the HDMI cable at least. Haven’t tried USB-C to DP yet. I also can’t get HDR to work even when forced.
 
QuarterSwede said:
It definitely goes to 144Hz (the popular refresh rate test web page will show it) at least on an M4 mini. My monitor supports 4K@160Hz but macOS will only drive it to 144Hz, on the HDMI cable at least. Haven’t tried USB-C to DP yet. I also can’t get HDR to work even when forced.
Click to expand...
The refresh rate issue is really weird, I can't quite explain it (therefore the "feels like" statement).

On my system (LG 5K2K ultrawide @ max 165Hz) macOS does report 165Hz (refresh rate tests too as you mentioned, the number is correct), but as soon as I plug in some other PC which can run at 165Hz the difference is really big, the 165Hz of macOS do not feel in any way as smooth as the 165Hz on linux for example.

I suspect (could be wrong, haven't got time to go deep into it) to be linked to how macOS is using (or failing to use) Display Stream Compression (DSC) right now to handle such high bandwits.
 
andreeinprogress said:
The refresh rate issue is really weird, I can't quite explain it (therefore the "feels like" statement).

On my system (LG 5K2K ultrawide @ max 165Hz) macOS does report 165Hz (refresh rate tests too as you mentioned, the number is correct), but as soon as I plug in some other PC which can run at 165Hz the difference is really big, the 165Hz of macOS do not feel in any way as smooth as the 165Hz on linux for example.

I suspect (could be wrong, haven't got time to go deep into it) to be linked to how macOS is using (or failing to use) Display Stream Compression (DSC) right now to handle such high bandwits.
Click to expand...
That does make sense. I have my monitor plugged into a Linux server as well and it is pretty smooth. It’s probably just how macOS handles buffering. The Linux box running Gnome 50 uses triple frame buffering so it’s extremely smooth.
 
I haven't tried MacOS 27 yet, but on Sequioa and Tahoe it's very clear that Displayport is better supported than HDMI. Which is insane when the only display output port found on Macs is HDMI.

I use my Samsung G95NC 7680x2160 superultrawide via my M2 Max or M5 Pro MBP's native HDMI port + USB-C -> DP 2.1 adapter in split screen mode. The display is run in Picture by Picture mode split into 21:9 + 11:9 / 5120x2160 + 2560x2160 displays.

This is what I see:
  • Displayport wakes up much, much faster than HDMI.
  • Displayport can handle oddball resolutions better. I can't get 120 Hz working on the 2560x2160 side via HDMI, but 3840x2160 or 5120x2160 works. With Displayport, 2560x2160 @ 120 Hz works fine. MacOS doesn't seem to know what to do with the odd 2560x2160 resolution.
  • Displayport is more likely to run at 10-bit RGB color. HDMI on my M5 Pro tends to default to 10-bit YCbCr 4:4:4 limited, but my M2 Max (running Sequioa) seems to pick up 10-bit RGB with the same setup. I need BetterDisplay to fix this on Tahoe.
  • Displayport is more likely to support high refresh rate + HiDPI scaling
  • For oddball resolutions, HiDPI scaling still might not work out of the box and you need to enable it with BetterDisplay.
MacOS is truly such a turd for external display handling. I really wish MacOS 27 would actually do something about all this, including removing that 8K framebuffer limit that severely hampers HiDPI scaling on ultra/superultrawides.
 
T'hain Esh Kelch said:
All Macs have Thunderbolt, which uses Displayport for video.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but my research led me to believe that when you plug a USB-C to DP cable into a "TB" port, the mac actually switches the port into a DP mode. The signalling on the cable is pure DP, as real as if the mac had big old DP jacks. So, Apple did a good job except that UHBR13.5 was not implemented on TB5 macs (only UHBR10 and 20).

Default colour depth is all over the place for me (M4 Pro mini, Tahoe) no matter DP or HDMI. I have 3 displays, and have to use BD to force RGB Full on all.
 
Beau Slim said:
So, Apple did a good job except that UHBR13.5 was not implemented on TB5 macs (only UHBR10 and 20).
Click to expand...
Guess whose display is specifically UHBR13.5... I just don't get Apple, everything display related seems to be the worst choices possible.
 
I have been waiting to see what the situation was with Golden Gate and 3840x1600 (38") ultrawides, but hadn't quite seen anything yet, so i've jumped in and installed the beta myself.

Previously with my M1 Macbook Pro, I could run HiDPI 3840x1600 full resolution no problem. Moved to an M4 Macbook Air and could no longer run higher than 3008x1253 at HiDPI, anything above that reverted down to low-res.

Now on Golden Gate I see things have improved, but still not quite there yet. If I use the monitor on it's own I have full 3840x1600 HiDPI on my Macbook Air M4 again (yay!). I'm actually running it slightly lower right now at 3600x1500 HiDPI, just for the size increase, but it's working well anyway.

The problem is since getting the M4 Air, i've also thrown another monitor in the mix. It's just a small portable 14" display but I have that next to the 38" to put things on that i'm not actively using, like task lists or video's/music etc... Now as soon as I plug in the second monitor, my main 38" drops right back to maxing out at 3008x1253 HiDPI which is a real bummer!

I'm not sure if this is just an M4 Air limitation or not, so was wondering if anyone else with the same setup has a Macbook Pro and can confirm if Golden Gate let's them run 3840x1600 HiDPI even when another screen is also plugged in?

I never had the extra screen when I had my M1 Pro so not sure if it would have been an issue on that as well or not.

Slightly happy, but still slightly bummed I can't use my second monitor now :/
 
  • Like
Reactions: kasakka and manuelf
mosbo said:
Slightly happy, but still slightly bummed I can't use my second monitor now :/
Click to expand...
If you have an iPad you could use sidecar or whatever it's called. Surprisingly it's made travel better for me as I'm not then limited to only the screen real estate on the MBP.
 
Installed Golden Gate public beta today to my MacBook Pro M5 Max and can confirm that I get back 3840x1620 on Dell U4021QW. I am really happy Apple fixed the issue, hope after official release it will be kept 🙂
1787272469081.png
 
mosbo said:
I have been waiting to see what the situation was with Golden Gate and 3840x1600 (38") ultrawides, but hadn't quite seen anything yet, so i've jumped in and installed the beta myself.

Previously with my M1 Macbook Pro, I could run HiDPI 3840x1600 full resolution no problem. Moved to an M4 Macbook Air and could no longer run higher than 3008x1253 at HiDPI, anything above that reverted down to low-res.

Now on Golden Gate I see things have improved, but still not quite there yet. If I use the monitor on it's own I have full 3840x1600 HiDPI on my Macbook Air M4 again (yay!). I'm actually running it slightly lower right now at 3600x1500 HiDPI, just for the size increase, but it's working well anyway.

The problem is since getting the M4 Air, i've also thrown another monitor in the mix. It's just a small portable 14" display but I have that next to the 38" to put things on that i'm not actively using, like task lists or video's/music etc... Now as soon as I plug in the second monitor, my main 38" drops right back to maxing out at 3008x1253 HiDPI which is a real bummer!

I'm not sure if this is just an M4 Air limitation or not, so was wondering if anyone else with the same setup has a Macbook Pro and can confirm if Golden Gate let's them run 3840x1600 HiDPI even when another screen is also plugged in?

I never had the extra screen when I had my M1 Pro so not sure if it would have been an issue on that as well or not.

Slightly happy, but still slightly bummed I can't use my second monitor now :/
Click to expand...
I have macos 27 (GoldenGate B6) running on an M5 Macbook Air. I use BetterDisplay, and it can now drive 6K at 3840 x 2160 in HiDPI mode (ProArt 32QVC). It looks great! On the M5, macos got a little sluggish with too many desktops - so limit them.

This same setup on macos 26 limits HiDPI to 3008 × 1692

It works like a champ.
 
dgdosen said:
I have macos 27 (GoldenGate B6) running on an M5 Macbook Air. I use BetterDisplay, and it can now drive 6K at 3840 x 2160 in HiDPI mode (ProArt 32QVC). It looks great! On the M5, macos got a little sluggish with too many desktops - so limit them.

This same setup on macos 26 limits HiDPI to 3008 × 1692

It works like a champ.
Click to expand...
Can you confirm what happens if you plug in another monitor at the same time?
 
Is anyone running an M4 series chip alongside Golden Gate and getting the correct 3840x1620 resolution natively again at 60hz??
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back