4K @ 60Hz is 12Gbps. 5K on the other hand is around 22 Gbps, TB2 won't be enough. But if TB3 arrives next year, then Apple may wait and ship a 5K display without doing any 4K one. I doubt they would offer a 4K and a 5K together and I don't think they really want to mess up the UI scaling at this point.
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.
Apple Details Expanded 4K Display Support Included in OS X 10.9.3
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
4K @ 60Hz is 12Gbps. 5K on the other hand is around 22 Gbps, TB2 won't be enough. But if TB3 arrives next year, then Apple may wait and ship a 5K display without doing any 4K one. I doubt they would offer a 4K and a 5K together and I don't think they really want to mess up the UI scaling at this point.
These kinds of numbers are oft-quoted but vary wildly from person to person and are typically blown way out of proportion.
And yes, I've seen the little graphic you can google that says otherwise. I would hope you don't need internet statistics to tell you what your eyes can and cannot see.
It seems to be a dilemma for apple.
Either rewrite osx for resolution independence, or wait for 5k panels, 5k gpus and tb3.
If they do the last thing, it will probably be the more elegant solution, but we will have to wait for it as long as we waited for USB 3 on macs I guess... I sure don't hope they go this route.
Either rewrite osx for resolution independence, or wait for 5k panels, 5k gpus and tb3.
If they do the last thing, it will probably be the more elegant solution, but we will have to wait for it as long as we waited for USB 3 on macs I guess... I sure don't hope they go this route.
Here it is in 7025 x 4008
http://i.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/f...nge_imaging/The_road_to_Glenorchy_is_epic.jpg
Where are font size changes?
My 4k monitor in Windows 8 let's me keep the same 4k resolution and lets me increase the size of the fonts system wide.
With this 10.9.3 version I was expecting the same thing without having to go to 1920x1200 to make it look readable.
How hard is it to add that feature?
My 4k monitor in Windows 8 let's me keep the same 4k resolution and lets me increase the size of the fonts system wide.
With this 10.9.3 version I was expecting the same thing without having to go to 1920x1200 to make it look readable.
How hard is it to add that feature?
Most of the 4K displays on the market at the moment can be driven at 60 Hz by using multiple inputs. OG Thunderbolt can carry two DisplayPort 1.1a main links, each capable of driving one of the 1920 x 2160 tiles in the current crop of tiled displays. This is kludgey at best with the Dell displays (it only works in Picture by Picture mode) and not possible with the ASUS PQ321QE (the EMEA version of the PQ321Q which only has a single input). If you have two Thunderbolt ports, you can use a pair of relatively inexpensive mini DisplayPort to high-speed HDMI adapters and two high-speed HDMI cables. If you only have a single available Thunderbolt port, the cheapest way thus far to break out both display streams is to daisy chain a couple Thunderbolt docks with high-speed HDMI outputs, which is none to cheap starting at $392, but does additionally provide 6x USB 3.0 and 2x GbE ports at least.
As you pointed out though, the GPU [edit: and even moreso the drivers] are often the limiting factor right now.
Thunderbolt controllers also have DisplayPort sink and source connections as well; DisplayPort packets are never transported over PCIe. OG Thunderbolt can transport up to two DisplayPort 1.1a HBR1 main links, which top out at 8.64 Gbit/s, since it provides 2x 10 Gbit/s channels per port. Thunderbolt 2 supports up to two DP 1.2 sink connections, and can transport either 2x HBR1 main links or 1x HBR2 main link over a pair of bonded 10 Gbit/s channels.
While you can only drive up to 2 external displays using OG Thunderbolt, there's a good chance you can also drive a built in panel (or an HDMI connected display on some Mac minis) for 3, or use the HDMI port on a MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch) with discrete graphics for 4. I think many of the people complaining about the issues with 10.9.3 and more than 2 displays are using Mac Pros (Late 2013), and most of them appear to be using multiple DP to other adapters (this is merely an observation of correlation and may have nothing to do with the cause of the problem).
Thunderbolt is just a transport layer used to carry DisplayPort and PCIe packets and has no bearing on display connectivity standards. Any display requiring more than 17.28 Gbit/s (the limit of DisplayPort 1.2 HBR2) will require multiple links or DisplayPort 1.3. Since virtually all of the 4K panels on the market at the moment use TCONs with LVDS, V-by-One, or HBR1 eDP interfaces, they all present the display surface as two tiles, each requiring its own input. The only way to drive the whole shebang at 60 Hz with a single cable is to use DisplayPort 1.2 Multi Stream Transport along with an MST hub embedded in the display which separates the streams for each tile and passes them to the TCON. A tiled 5K display can be driven today, but would require two links using DP HBR2 or 4 with conventional TCONs. For the panels built into the iMacs, that really wouldn't be a problem, as long as the GPU can support a sufficient number of display streams (Intel HD Graphics currently only supports 3, NVIDIA can manage 4, and AMD bumps it up to 6).
AUO has a 27" 3840 x 2160 panel with an eDP interface due to ramp in Q3 of this year. That sounds to me like a likely candidate for an Apple 4K Thunderbolt Display, but I don't see a clear path for the iMacs at this point.
That STANDARD is VESA DisplayID 1.3, which was only finalized less than 2 weeks before Mavericks was released and well after the majority of the currently available 4K, 60 Hz displays began shipping. I'm sure we'll get there, but at the moment, people just want to know if display "x" is supported. By my count there are only 8 4K displays capable of 60 Hz operation available for less than $15K, so Apple's approach isn't entirely unreasonable. Once the displays are are actually standardized, Apple can try to make sure their drivers support that standard.
Additional info:
Comparison of known 4K LCD panels
Comparison of 4K displays that support 60 Hz operation
List of display bandwidth requirements based on CVT-R
Last edited:
Freedom is slavery.
I wish the the effective resolutions were stated in System Preferences below each notch on the sliders for 4K/Retina displays though.
Here it is in 7025 x 4008
http://i.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/f...nge_imaging/The_road_to_Glenorchy_is_epic.jpg
Awesome! Thank you!!!
If it doesn't get the scaling options then you can add them manually with Quartz Debug.app and SwitchResX. I do this for my Apple Cinema Display to test HiDPI display modes since I don't have a Retina display.
Does the HDMI port of the 2012 rMBP support HDMI 1.0 (165 MHz) or HDMI 1.3/1.4 (340 MHz) speeds? The Apple tech specs don't make that clear. You'll need 300 MHz for 4K@30 Hz display. The DisplayPort will definitely be fast enough for 4K @30 Hz since it supports the Dual-link DVI adaptor.
Besides supporting the speed, you need to know if your hardware can support the size. Test your graphics hardware with a regular external display (an HD TV will do) by testing that you can create the frame buffer sizes that you would want to use on a 4K display.
The sizes are listed at:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8023/apple-releases-osx-10-9-3-improved-4k-display
You'll want to test 4K native resolution 3840 x 2160 and the largest scaled resolution 6016 x 3384. Create scaled resolutions using SwitchResX.
It will be hard to see what you're clicking on if you try 6016 x 3384 on a 1920 x 1080 display, so use the Accessibility zoom feature.
What does Apple need to do to support new 4K 60Hz displays?
What 4K 60Hz displays are not supported that could be supported given a working DisplayPort 1.2?
I think some people mentioned that old Mac Pros won't do 60Hz even if they have 10.9.3 and a card with DisplayPort 1.2 (GTX 680 or Radeon 7950)?
I compared the /System/Library/Displays/Overrides/ folders between 10.9.2 and 10.9.3.
Modified:
SHP PN-K321
New:
DEL DELL UP2414Q
DEL DELL UP3214Q
ACI PQ321 (ASUS)
SNY SONY TV *07
The override files only override the EDID of the displays. I don't think there's any DisplayID info in them. I can't find anything in the overridden EDID that mentions tiling or MST.
Does Apple use DisplayID or does it hardcode a list of displays for using MST? Why did they need to override the EDID of these displays? Perhaps comparing the overridden EDID with the original from the displays might give a clue.
I used the following commands to examine the EDID in the override files:
Code:
alias edid-decode="\"/Volumes/Updates/Docs/Video/DVI EDID DDC stuff/gist641549-e18955d469c8e10833bc5bc80a37001fb533fe9a/edid-decode\""
alias parse-edid="\"/Volumes/Updates/Docs/Video/DVI EDID DDC stuff/read-edid-3.0.1/parse-edid/parse-edid\""
plutil -p /System/Library/Displays/Overrides/DisplayVendorID-4d10/DisplayProductID-21dd | perl -lne '/^.*?IODisplayEDID[^0-9a-f]+([0-9a-f ]+).*$/ && print "$1"' | xxd -p -r > /tmp/edid
edid-decode /tmp/edid > DisplayProductID-21dd.edid.txt
cat /tmp/edid | parse-edid > DisplayProductID-21dd.parseedid.txt 2>&1I think parse-edid is broken and should be ignored. edid-decode needs to be changed to accept characters >= ' ' in the extract_string function instead of just alphanumeric (isalnum). Maybe there's better EDID parsers around that you can compile for Mac OS X.
The commands are just for the changed override file for SHP PN-K321. The new override files are:
/System/Library/Displays/Overrides/DisplayVendorID-4dd9/DisplayProductID-2503
/System/Library/Displays/Overrides/DisplayVendorID-469/DisplayProductID-32a3
/System/Library/Displays/Overrides/DisplayVendorID-10ac/DisplayProductID-4093
/System/Library/Displays/Overrides/DisplayVendorID-10ac/DisplayProductID-409c
Apple; is this a Pro or Consumer OS?
There are still plenty of issues with Mavericks - WiFi reconnections from sleep; poor enterprise support.
TBH, I have no interest in 4K support - NLE Editors might and boys with toys; but there are SO many more issues which need addressing.
I'm hoping, no; BEGGING 10.10 isn't released this year - or rather if it has to be; it's more of a fix OS than anything.
There are still plenty of issues with Mavericks - WiFi reconnections from sleep; poor enterprise support.
TBH, I have no interest in 4K support - NLE Editors might and boys with toys; but there are SO many more issues which need addressing.
I'm hoping, no; BEGGING 10.10 isn't released this year - or rather if it has to be; it's more of a fix OS than anything.
My Seiki Ultra HD display has always worked.
I;ve had no trouble running my Seiki 39" Ultra HD display on my old Mac Pro running 10.9 or my 17" MacBook Pr running 10.8.. It has no 60 Hz capabilities so 30 Hz @ 3840 X 2160 is all that it can do. But for 500 & using it to run Excel & some tax prep programs why would I need more?
No new Mac Pro or glued together MacBook Pro for me. So no new Macs in my future. So it depends on how long this last group of Macs will run. 30 years with Macs sould run for at least another 5 years, But do I really need anything new. My old Ma runs USB3, SATA III 5 or 6 internal ssds or hdds. My MacBook Pro small 17" screen willll always be small but at least not as small as the to glued together 13" & 15" MacBook Pros are. After my 39" Ultra HD screen my 30" displays sre looking very small.
I;ve had no trouble running my Seiki 39" Ultra HD display on my old Mac Pro running 10.9 or my 17" MacBook Pr running 10.8.. It has no 60 Hz capabilities so 30 Hz @ 3840 X 2160 is all that it can do. But for 500 & using it to run Excel & some tax prep programs why would I need more?
No new Mac Pro or glued together MacBook Pro for me. So no new Macs in my future. So it depends on how long this last group of Macs will run. 30 years with Macs sould run for at least another 5 years, But do I really need anything new. My old Ma runs USB3, SATA III 5 or 6 internal ssds or hdds. My MacBook Pro small 17" screen willll always be small but at least not as small as the to glued together 13" & 15" MacBook Pros are. After my 39" Ultra HD screen my 30" displays sre looking very small.
What about 4k televisions? Are you including those? I just saw a 55" 4K Tv on the Price Is Right the other day and it was only $995, I believe. I don't know about you, but I think a 55" 4K TV as a monitor would be pretty sweet for only $995.
It depends on cost and required volume. I don't see anything wrong with eDP for an imac.
Apple needs to end the annual OS X release cycle (emulating iOS isn't a smart decision with so many Mac variants, etc), and frankly I dislike Federighi's work as SVP of Engineering. I'm sure he's a great engineer/programmer, but since he took over a lot of long standing OS X users have been disappointed with quality and features. We get it, Apple is more "consumer" driven since 2007 and iOS, however you can be both consumer and enterprise oriented - Apple was before. Keep OS X and iOS development separate and treat them as such. Otherwise, this may worsen (I'm looking at you, iTunes 11.2).