Fix: LG Ultrawide Monitor and MBP Resolution

GanleyGanley

macrumors newbie
Original poster
May 10, 2014
2
0
If you bought an LG Ultrawide monitor 29UM65, the "65" is a little bit of a lower quality than the "95." The "65" does not come with a Thunderbolt Port. Even with HDMI, everything will be stretched out. I have a late 2013 retina 15" MBP. You are going to have to buy two things to get the 2560 x 1080 resolution on the 65.

To use the 29" 65, You have to buy:
(1) A "DUAL-LINK" DVI-D to Thunderbolt Adapter. It's like $99 on the Apple store. It was the one used with the 30" monitors. Expensive, but it also has a usb attached to it because it takes up a USB port also (more power). There are cheaper brands, in know, but I wanted Apple quality. The only store in LA that actually had one was the Apple store at the Grove in LA/Beverly area (or online). Warning: the Apple Thunderbolt to DVI adapter that is $29 is NOT "Dual" and will not work/fix the resolution. Frys Electronics also has the Apple Dual-Link cable.

(2) A "DUAL-LINK" DVI Cable. Best buy doesn't carry them, only single link. I had to go to FRYs. I found a 6' cable in a bag for $12. They looked better quality than the ones (bent) for $22. The $54 Monster at Frys had more pins surrounding the single line part, and probably wasn't right.

Once plugged in, the Display (scaled section) in the System Preferences will finally show 2560 x 1080. NO MORE STRETCHING!!!

Finally, I did this all in one day because I wanted it "now."
While the LG screen is not an Apple screen by any means, it was only $500 out the door at Best Buy with the added 3 year no-questions-asked warranty. So I saved $500 off of the Apple 27" monitor. However, If I was really doing hardcore graphics or something, I probably would bite the bullet and go with the Apple Screen.

UPDATE: Since the 29 inch monitor was $500, plus I had to buy a $125 worth of cables to go with it, I decided to return it and get an LG Ultrawide 34" 95. It was $999. But it is 4K and works perfectly with Retina MBP. It also has Thunderbolt. So, if you want to spend $500 on the 29", you need the Dual-Link cables as mentioned. This 34" Ultrawide 4k monitor is SWEET!!!!
 
Last edited:

sirneb

macrumors newbie
May 9, 2014
26
0
I'm not familiar with the UM65 but did you try just updating to 10.9.3 beta? I'm just using a 2M Apple Thunderbolt cable on my UM95 and it works perfectly.
 

GanleyGanley

macrumors newbie
Original poster
May 10, 2014
2
0
I'm not familiar with the UM65 but did you try just updating to 10.9.3 beta? I'm just using a 2M Apple Thunderbolt cable on my UM95 and it works perfectly.
The "95s" have the Thunderbolt.
The "65s" do not.
 

DeltaMac

macrumors G3
Jul 30, 2003
9,526
2,298
Delaware
Your "65" has a DisplayPort connector, correct?
You might try a Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort cable, too.
Of course, that would not require the Dual DVI adapter, and would give you a seamless cable (without need for an adapter of some kind.)
 

dubydoo

macrumors member
Mar 29, 2014
34
2
I decided to return it and get an LG Ultrawide 34" 95. It was $999. But it is 4K and works perfectly with Retina MBP. It also has Thunderbolt. So, if you want to spend $500 on the 29", you need the Dual-Link cables as mentioned. This 34" Ultrawide 4k monitor is SWEET!!!!
It's not 4k though...
(I'm ignoring the whole 4K vs UHD part of the debate) but let's just assume you meant "4k" as in a resolution of 3840 × 2160. Your monitor is 3440 x 1440. That's 8294400 pixels vs 4953600 pixels.

I'm waiting for a 4k Imac, but it's most likely not happening until next year.

Edit: Filled in the numbers.
 
Last edited:

jamesgeorgeward

macrumors newbie
Jul 22, 2014
2
0
Can anyone help me figure this out?

I have a MBP (early 2011) and the maximum secondary resolution is 2560*1600. I recently purchased a 21:9 LG and I purchased the following cable from Amazon to go with it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00J5EIU7M/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

The trouble is that the largest resolution offered to me is 1920*1080. I checked the cable specifications and its maximum output matches the maximum resolution of my MacBook.

Is this cable crap or is there something I have to do to make it work?

Thanks in advance,
James.
 

mfram

macrumors 65816
Jan 23, 2010
1,056
138
San Diego, CA USA
HDMI on Macs will only do a max of 1920x1080. If you need higher resolution then you can't use HDMI. You either have to go dual-link DVI-D or DisplayPort.
 

jamesgeorgeward

macrumors newbie
Jul 22, 2014
2
0

Kashsystems

macrumors 6502
Jul 23, 2012
358
1
I have the acer 29inch, I just run it through the displayport to displayport adapter and get 2560 x 1080 with no issues on my 2012 rmbp 13.
 

Mr Baldman

macrumors member
Jul 7, 2008
80
3
Nottingham UK
My 29UM65 arrived yesterday and I connect it to my 15" retina mbp via one of these display port cables: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cable-Matters-Plated-DisplayPort-Thunderbolt-White/dp/B004CAGDUA/

It works, but there is a black border around the top and both sides of roughly 8mm. I am not sure why.

Under display settings it shows 2560 x 1080 and it is selected.

Would the dual link dvi give me anything I haven't got already? I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed with it.

Windows looks crisper on it via HDMI and also reports 2560 x 1080

Yet it says in the manual you can only get full HD with dual link dvi.

I am confused
 

daniel rangel

macrumors newbie
Aug 31, 2014
1
0
MBP with minidisplayport -> displayport

my mbp was displaying 2560x1080 but when i updated my mac to 10.9.4 i was unable to display the same resolution, anyone with same problem?
 

tigres

macrumors 601
Need some help.

Bought a 29" widescreen AOS on Amazon.

he has a thunderbolt port, so I need to insure I purchase the right cable.
here is the monitor I purchased.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BLZAYHC/ref=ox_ya_os_product_refresh_T1

Here are the specs.
Viewable Image Size: 29"
Aspect Ratio: 21:9
Panel: LED AH-IPS
Brightness: 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 50,000,000:1
View Angle: 178° horizontal, 178° vertical
Optimum Resolution: 2560 x 1080 @ 60Hz
Colors Supported: 16.7 Million
Input/OutputS: VGA x 1, DVI-D x 1, DP-in x 1, DP-out x 1, HDMI x 1(MHL), Audio in/out x 1
Built-in Speakers: 3 Watts x 2
Windows 8 Compatible: Yes
Wall Mountable: Yes

Will this cable work to give him the best resolution etc?

http://www.amazon.com/StarTech-6-Feet-DisplayPort-Adapter-Cable/dp/B002XVYZ82/ref=pd_tcs_compl_pc_7?ie=UTF8&refRID=1ATH9NFHFXH2N0R4R91F

I want to obviously just go from mini display port (or thunderbolt) to display port on monitor. I am getting conflicting information.

thanks all!!!
 

wwohl

macrumors regular
May 2, 2013
135
25
Right from google guys:
"The current version, DisplayPort 1.2, delivers enough bandwidth to carry video resolutions of up to 3840 by 2160 pixels at a refresh rate of 60Hz, and it supports all common 3D video formats. DisplayPort cables can also carry multichannel digital audio."

and here is one of many Mini Display port to Display port cables for $10

Mini DP and Thunderbolt utilize the same connector. Mini DP is what you want for just about any mac running higher than 1080p resolution. HDMI for the most part, has a max resolution of 1080p...There are upgraded cables but most of these machines don't have the upgraded controllers AFAIK.

Most of these high resolution and ultra wide monitors will come with DP. Actually, if they are anything other than 16:9 1080p they better come with DP or you'll be fairly screwed.

----------

See my above post. Just use mini display (same as you TB port) to DP
 

0099ff

macrumors newbie
Oct 26, 2014
1
0
I was a little pissed at the cable's description, stating that it would support that resolution. Considering one end of the cable was specifically for Apple that sort of information should be prevalent on the page.

I'm going to order one of these, http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002XVYZ82/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE, as a last try. Surely display port to display port should do the trick.
Worked the new cable with your 2011 MBP with native resolution?
 

D0N

macrumors newbie
Dec 15, 2014
1
0
LG 34UM95 & Macbook Pro Early 2011 17inch

LG 34UM95
Macbook Pro Early 2011 17inch
AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB of GDDR5
Thunderbolt
running Yosemite 10.10.1
used mini displayport cable to HDMI, which did not work
Griffin displayport adapter with Apple HDMI cable, works like a charm
shows second screen 3440x1440 just fine !


( http://store.griffintechnology.com/video-display-converter )
 

smellalot

macrumors 6502
Dec 6, 2011
277
2
LG 34UM95
Macbook Pro Early 2011 17inch
AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB of GDDR5
Thunderbolt
running Yosemite 10.10.1
used mini displayport cable to HDMI, which did not work
Griffin displayport adapter with Apple HDMI cable, works like a charm
shows second screen 3440x1440 just fine !


( http://store.griffintechnology.com/video-display-converter )
I think you are using the wrong cable. Just get a standard thunderbolt cable - it should give you full resolution plus the ability to use the integrated thunderbolt docking station (USB3+audio).
 

gooch3265

macrumors member
Sep 14, 2011
50
8
Victoria, Australia
So - I have an early 2011 MBP17 with the 1GB Radeon 6750M. Ages ago I bought a Thunderbolt --> HDMI adapter. I am now looking at buying an LG UB65 29" widescreen monitor.

Will I be able to see 2560 x 1080 using a standard HDMI cable from my Thunderbolt adapter?
 

JTToft

macrumors 68040
Apr 27, 2010
3,405
754
Aarhus, Denmark
So - I have an early 2011 MBP17 with the 1GB Radeon 6750M. Ages ago I bought a Thunderbolt --> HDMI adapter. I am now looking at buying an LG UB65 29" widescreen monitor.

Will I be able to see 2560 x 1080 using a standard HDMI cable from my Thunderbolt adapter?
- That depends on your adapter and HDMI cable. The monitor comes with an HDMI cable as far as I can see, so that part should be covered. Your adapter needs to support those resolutions, too, though, so it needs to be at least HDMI version 1.3.

Though, respectfully, I think 2560x1080 monitors are completely pointless.
You get more screen real estate with a normal 16:9 2560x1440...

Also, what you have is a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter, not Thunderbolt to HDMI.
 

gooch3265

macrumors member
Sep 14, 2011
50
8
Victoria, Australia
- That depends on your adapter and HDMI cable. The monitor comes with an HDMI cable as far as I can see, so that part should be covered. Your adapter needs to support those resolutions, too, though, so it needs to be at least HDMI version 1.3.

Though, respectfully, I think 2560x1080 monitors are completely pointless.
You get more screen real estate with a normal 16:9 2560x1440...

Also, what you have is a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter, not Thunderbolt to HDMI.
Thanks for your knowledge and consideration in relation to my query.

I have stumbled on a cheap deal for an LG 29EB73 29" UltraWide Monitor (AUD$481.80). I have purchased a Mini Display Port to Display Port cable just to make sure that I don't encounter any compatibility issues running the connection using HDMI. The adapter I had purchased (with my MBP in 2011) was a Moshi MDP --> HDMI adapter (not the current 4K version), which one would have hoped was HDMI 1.3 compliant given the date of manufacture.

Anyways, I will check both means of connection (MDP --> DP and MDP --> HDMI) to see if both work.

I run OS X Yosemite (Mail and Word principally) and an Remote Desktop Connection to a Windows server at work and I am forever flicking between the two. I am hoping that setting the two OS Windows up side by side will save me a lot of time. Hence the UltraWide.

Thanks again.
 

JTToft

macrumors 68040
Apr 27, 2010
3,405
754
Aarhus, Denmark
Thanks for your knowledge and consideration in relation to my query.
- You're very welcome.

I run OS X Yosemite (Mail and Word principally) and an Remote Desktop Connection to a Windows server at work and I am forever flicking between the two. I am hoping that setting the two OS Windows up side by side will save me a lot of time. Hence the UltraWide.
- Ultrawide won't help you do that in itself. Ultrawide just means a 21:9 aspect ratio; it doesn't say anything about how much horizontal space you have.
The monitors you're looking at are 2560x1080, meaning you'll get exactly the same horizontal resolution with a 16:9 2560x1440 monitor (and hence the same ability to have windows side by side), but more vertical screen space.

In fact, a 2560x1440 monitor gives you 33 % more space than a 2560x1080.

If you really have your heart set on a 21:9 aspect ratio, get a 3440x1440 (like LG 34UM95) for some proper space. 2560x1080 is a waste of your time.