Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

avz

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 7, 2018
1,831
1,899
Stalingrad, Russia
I have a 4K UHD 32 inch Samsung monitor and a couple of older MacBooks (Late 2008 unibody and Mid 2012 MacBook Pro 13 inch). I have a passive miniDisplay port/HDMI adapter which is obviously giving me only 1920X1080 on an external monitor. I recently learned that there is an "Active" adapter that can allow to go up to 2560X1440 resolution on an external monitor. I would like to hear feedback from people who went down that route with their older Macs and what was the outcome, extra CPU usage, performance etc.
 
I use a Delock 62603 miniDisplayPort 1.1 to HDMI 1.4 active adapter. Yes, it has a DVI output but it's actually a HDMI 1.4 port so a passive DVI(male)-to-HDMI(female) adapter or cable is all that's needed. It's good for about 334 MHz pixel clock IIRC, so more than enough for 2560×1440 at 60 Hz or 3840×2160 at 30 Hz.
 
I use a Delock 62603 miniDisplayPort 1.1 to HDMI 1.4 active adapter. Yes, it has a DVI output but it's actually a HDMI 1.4 port so a passive DVI(male)-to-HDMI(female) adapter or cable is all that's needed. It's good for about 334 MHz pixel clock IIRC, so more than enough for 2560×1440 at 60 Hz or 3840×2160 at 30 Hz.
Thanks. You mentioned miniDisplayPort 1.1 and your link says 1.2, probably a simple typo but is 1.4 backward compatible with 1.1? So can you use this adapter with a Late 2008 MacBook as well as with a Mac from 2014-2015 with Thunderbolt 2?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
I have a 4K UHD 32 inch Samsung monitor and a couple of older MacBooks (Late 2008 unibody and Mid 2012 MacBook Pro 13 inch). I have a passive miniDisplay port/HDMI adapter which is obviously giving me only 1920X1080 on an external monitor. I recently learned that there is an "Active" adapter that can allow to go up to 2560X1440 resolution on an external monitor. I would like to hear feedback from people who went down that route with their older Macs and what was the outcome, extra CPU usage, performance etc.
If the display has a DisplayPort connector you can use that with an inexpensive Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort cable instead of the expensive HDMI converter and you'll get whatever the maximum resolution of your computer is on that display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: avz and Amethyst1
I was in a similar situation and wanted to use a 1440p display with my 2012 Mac mini. The only problem was that the DisplayPort connection on the monitor was faulty (cutting out a few times per week and requiring the monitor to be unplugged for a few hours before functioning again) and HDMI on the Mac maxed out at 1920x1080 resolution. So I bought an active miniDP to HDMI adapter hoping that it would solve my connectivity issues. Alas, it did not. Even with the active adapter I still could not get a resolution higher that 1080p. I'm not sure why, but it was as if the adapter detected the HDMI signal from the computer and passed it through to the HDMI output, as would usually happen with a passive adapter. I found no other solution than to return the adapter and ended up buying a used display with a functioning DisplayPort connection instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: avz
You mentioned miniDisplayPort 1.1 and your link says 1.2, probably a simple typo but is 1.4 backward compatible with 1.1?
A Late 2008 MacBook features DisplayPort 1.1. It doesn't matter if the adapter is (mini)DisplayPort 1.1 or 1.2.
DisplayPort 1.1 can do 360 MHz pixel clock at 8 bpc (288 MHz at 10 bpc), but macOS' driver for the GeForce 9400M may impose a lower, arbitrary limit. I don't have a 9400M Mac anymore but I have one with a GeForce 320M and it can do the full 360 MHz.
HDMI 1.4 can only do 340 MHz pixel clock, so DisplayPort 1.1 is good enough. And even if there's an arbitrary limit to 270 MHz pixel clock, that's still good for 2560×1440 or 2560×1600 at 60 Hz... or 3840×2160 at 30 Hz.

So can you use this adapter with a Late 2008 MacBook as well as with a Mac from 2014-2015 with Thunderbolt 2?
A 2014/2015 Thunderbolt 2 Mac features DisplayPort 1.2 and, if it has an Intel Iris Pro 5200, HD/Iris 6000-series, or NVIDIA GeForce GT 600/700-series "Kepler" GPU, a pixel clock limit of 540 MHz.
If has an AMD Radeon R9 M200/M300-series GPU, the pixel clock limit might be ≈600 MHz instead.
540 MHz is just enough for 3840×2160 at 60 Hz using CVT-RB timings (which is what monitors use), but you need an active miniDisplayPort 1.2 to HDMI 2.0 adapter to attain that.
If your monitor is a TV, and maybe also if it's a monitor, it's possible that it defaults to HDMI timings for 3840×2160 at 60 Hz when using its HDMI input(s). These HDMI timings require a pixel clock of 594 MHz (because the pixel clock must be a multiple of 74.25 MHz for HDMI timings) and exceed the 540 MHz limit. So you wouldn't be able to attain 3840×2160 at 60 Hz even using the correct adapter, unless you created a custom CVT-RB timing for mode using e.g. SwitchResX and the monitor/TV accepted it via HDMI (you won't know until you test it :) ).

So I bought an active miniDP to HDMI adapter hoping that it would solve my connectivity issues. Alas, it did not. Even with the active adapter I still could not get a resolution higher that 1080p.
It's possible that the adapter only negotiated reduced bit rate (RBR) rather than high bit rate (HBR) for some reason, limiting the maximum pixel clock attainable to 216 MHz... not sufficient for 2560×1440 at 60 Hz.
I've had this happen with an active miniDisplayPort 1.2 to HDMI 2.0 (!) adapter and a slightly weird monitor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: opeter and avz
If the display has a DisplayPort connector you can use that with an inexpensive Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort cable instead of the expensive HDMI converter and you'll get whatever the maximum resolution of your computer is on that display.
I was in a similar situation and wanted to use a 1440p display with my 2012 Mac mini. The only problem was that the DisplayPort connection on the monitor was faulty (cutting out a few times per week and requiring the monitor to be unplugged for a few hours before functioning again) and HDMI on the Mac maxed out at 1920x1080 resolution. So I bought an active miniDP to HDMI adapter hoping that it would solve my connectivity issues. Alas, it did not. Even with the active adapter I still could not get a resolution higher that 1080p. I'm not sure why, but it was as if the adapter detected the HDMI signal from the computer and passed it through to the HDMI output, as would usually happen with a passive adapter. I found no other solution than to return the adapter and ended up buying a used display with a functioning DisplayPort connection instead.
My monitor only has an HDMI and USB-C ports, but yes I found early on in my research that having a monitor with a DisplayPort would be a very straightforward and inexpensive way of achieving 2560X1440 at 60Hz.
Looks like an active adapter would be a trial and error kind of thing even in a best case scenario.
At this stage I am more inclined to think that it is not really worth it.
 
It's possible that the adapter only negotiated reduced bit rate (RBR) rather than high bit rate (HBR) for some reason, limiting the maximum pixel clock attainable to 216 MHz... not sufficient for 2560×1440 at 60 Hz.
I've had this happen with an active miniDisplayPort 1.2 to HDMI 2.0 (!) adapter and a slightly weird monitor.
That could be it. The adapter had the specs that you mention, but my Asus display had some very strange behaviors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
At this stage I am more inclined to think that it is not really worth it.
You may be able to get an active MiniDisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter cheaply off e.g. eBay, so it may be worth trying. Otherwise, the passive adapter, i.e. the Mac's HDMI output, should still allow you to reach 165 MHz pixel clock which is enough for 2560×1440 at 41 Hz using a custom CVT-RB timing or 42.5 Hz using tighter CVT-RBv2 timings. These modes can be created using e.g. SwitchResX. No idea whether your monitor will accept them though, but it's worth giving a try.
 
Last edited:
Just a quick update. I've found a cable "ALOGIC Fusion 4K Mini DisplayPort to HDMI Active Cable (2m)" that works. First I tried a more expensive one "ALOGIC Ultra Mini DisplayPort 1.4 to HDMI 2.0 Active Cable (2m)" that did not work and I had to return it. I'm glad I did not give up on this project as 2560X1440 is much better than 1920X1080. For some reason my 32" monitor registers as 41" but I guess it does not matter.

Screen Shot 2022-03-17 at 12.22.04 pm.png

 
For some reason my 32" monitor registers as 41" but I guess it does not matter.
Maybe the picture's dimensions specified in the monitor's EDID are incorrect. macOS presumably uses these to determine the size of a monitor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: avz
It probably has something to do with the 4K active cable I am using right now. My old passive adapter was registering a proper 31".
You could examine the monitor's EDID using SwitchResX [using the active cable first, then the passive one] and compare the image dimensions - or provide the EDIDs here so I can have a look.

:)
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: TheShortTimer
My TV is also incorrectly described in this regard but yeah, the main thing is that it works.
I've had a look at your 50-inch Panasonic TV's EDID. The image size is given as 698 × 392 millimetres, resulting in a 31.5-inch diagonal according to the Pythagorean theorem: just what macOS reports. So, Panasonic is to blame for stuffing bogus data into the EDID, not macOS ;)

For your Polaroid TV, the image size in the EDID is given as 930 × 530 millimetres, resulting in a 42.1-inch diagonal. Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: TheShortTimer
I've had a look at your 50-inch Panasonic TV's EDID. The image size is given as 698 × 392 millimetres, resulting in a 31.5-inch diagonal according to the Pythagorean theorem: just what macOS reports. So, Panasonic is to blame for stuffing bogus data into the EDID, not macOS ;)

Naughty Panasonic. :D

For your Polaroid TV, the image size in the EDID is given as 930 × 530 millimetres, resulting in a 42.1-inch diagonal. Is this correct?

No it's not. The TV is 22 inches not 42.1. Another case of the manufacturer providing misrepresentative data. :)

Thanks for taking the time to check this out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.