LG 31MU97 4k Display

[Ryan0751]

There's definitely a good chance it wouldn't work at all. I wonder if Apple would pursue a similar dual-connector option.

I wonder if more true 4K panels will also come out like the LG.

Hopefully people can get it working, it sure seems like a nice choice.

 

[teeck2000]

I was eyeing this monitor and then yesterday I saw it in person at Fry's. The display looked absolutely amazing in Windows 8.1 so I decided to pick it up assuming I would be able to run it fine in Yosemite. My system is a Mac Pro 2012 with the GTX 680 flashed for mac. I was surprised that the display runs in OS X 10.8.5 at 3840x2160 @ 60Hz with the Nvidia Web Driver. But not at 4096x2160. I did a test install for Yosemite on another disk to see if it would work and the best I got was 4096x2160 @50hz but a lot of issues, the monitor flashes black every minute or so, there is strange artifacts that flash often. After trying Yosemite my 10.8.5 started seeing all this artifacts as well. I think its just the 680 having issues though since this was the last floor model I picked up and it worked fine on my macbook pro retina, only at 3840x2160 @30hz though...

Looks like 4k is not ready for OS X, which is a bummer cause I was looking forward to this. Seems like a huge headache to get it to work correctly, and OS X doesn't see 17:1 aspect correctly.

At the moment looks like the Dell 32" is the sweet spot since it's 3840x2160 rez at 32" screen, but I have read the display port 1.2 is super finicky on that.

Well time to wait for better support. Let me know if anyone want's me to test anything out on the monitor before I return it.

 

[Zorn]

At the moment looks like the Dell 32" is the sweet spot since it's 3840x2160 rez at 32" screen, but I have read the display port 1.2 is super finicky on that.

Well time to wait for better support. Let me know if anyone want's me to test anything out on the monitor before I return it.

I think you got it correct with the latter - the Dell 32" has its own issues due to using MST to achieve its resolution. This display should clearly be the better choice but it has issues in OS X and who really knows when or if Apple will get around to fixing the OS with this specific monitor. Using the workaround provided by the author of SwitchResX I was able to get 4096x2160 @ 60hz but I am also getting the popping and artifact glitches like you mention. When it's behaving though, the monitor looks great.

 

[teeck2000]

I think you got it correct with the latter - the Dell 32" has its own issues due to using MST to achieve its resolution. This display should clearly be the better choice but it has issues in OS X and who really knows when or if Apple will get around to fixing the OS with this specific monitor. Using the workaround provided by the author of SwitchResX I was able to get 4096x2160 @ 60hz but I am also getting the popping and artifact glitches like you mention. When it's behaving though, the monitor looks great.

What hardware are you running it on that you noticed the artifacts? If the monitor was stable and didn't have those issues I might of kept it since 3840x2160 @ 60hz is pretty nice and eventually 4096x2160 would be supported.

 

[Zorn]

What hardware are you running it on that you noticed the artifacts? If the monitor was stable and didn't have those issues I might of kept it since 3840x2160 @ 60hz is pretty nice and eventually 4096x2160 would be supported.

nVidia GTX 980.

 

[rufous]

Let me know if anyone want's me to test anything out on the monitor before I return it.

Sorry to hear it hasn't worked out so far. Would you be able to test is out in Windows with Boot Camp? That way at least we might be able to establish that with better drivers, the hardware can actually support the resolution. At the moment it’s not clear whether it’s poor OS X support or a limitation of the GPU.

 

[teeck2000]

Sorry to hear it hasn't worked out so far. Would you be able to test is out in Windows with Boot Camp? That way at least we might be able to establish that with better drivers, the hardware can actually support the resolution. At the moment it’s not clear whether it’s poor OS X support or a limitation of the GPU.

That's one thing I can't test, unfortunately, since I don't have Windows installed and I don't really have time to do it, I have the Velocity X2 and it's a cluster to install it. The GTX680 specifications do list Max res as 4096x2160, so it's an OS X Graphics issue.

 

[Zorn]

Sorry to hear it hasn't worked out so far. Would you be able to test is out in Windows with Boot Camp? That way at least we might be able to establish that with better drivers, the hardware can actually support the resolution. At the moment it’s not clear whether it’s poor OS X support or a limitation of the GPU.

I do have boot camp installed and in Windows 10 it reports also 50hz. However, I didn't extensively screw around with Windows and from what I understand the driver CD that comes with the monitor includes special EDID files for this monitor that tell the OS that it runs at 4096x2160 @60hz, so I don't believe this is any type of issue on Windows.

 

[carchi321]

This monitor is pretty awesome, but also a pain at the same time. I've tested both on a mac and windows 7 with a GTX 780ti. I have a late model 2013 rMBP.

On the rMBP I can't get it to work on anything but 3840x2160 @30hz. Using the Switchres program as downloaded I can get it to 4096x2160 @ 50 hz, but only after unplugging the cable and plugging it back in. It will start in this mode only if I do a restart and keep the laptop lid shut.

Windows will work at full 4k and 60hz. At this speed though there still felt like a bit of a delay while gaming, more than a Dell 30inch at 59 hz. I didn't buy it for gaming.

One key thing that I learned though is that I only get these speeds when using the display port cable that came with the monitor. I have other DP cables that are longer and I do not get full speed or resolution with these. Any ideas why even if they are rated for the 1.2 spec? Is the length a factor at 15ft or did LG do something more special with these cables?

Colors, light bleed, uniformity are all good on my monitor. The non-swivel base is mildly annoying.

 

[teeck2000]

One key thing that I learned though is that I only get these speeds when using the display port cable that came with the monitor. I have other DP cables that are longer and I do not get full speed or resolution with these. Any ideas why even if they are rated for the 1.2 spec? Is the length a factor at 15ft or did LG do something more special with these cables?

I was thinking about this as well. I was using a display port cable that I had instead of the one supplied with the monitor, maybe that is causing the glitches and blacking out. I will test that cable today and report.

These are the issues that always bother me with OS X. I like trying out new things and OS X and mac hardware is always late to the game.

 

[Zorn]

I was thinking about this as well. I was using a display port cable that I had instead of the one supplied with the monitor, maybe that is causing the glitches and blacking out. I will test that cable today and report.

These are the issues that always bother me with OS X. I like trying out new things and OS X and mac hardware is always late to the game.

I doubt it since I was only using the cable that came with it.

 

[McTaste]

I've got two of these coming tomorrow. Will post a full trip report re: nMP connectivity in bootcamp and windows 8.1.

 

[teeck2000]

Good News! I have been using the monitor for the last hour with the included DisplayPort cable and have not had any visual artifacts, black screen issues at all. I don't know why I didn't use the cable before, I guess for some reason I thought no thunderbolt on my MacPro, but the screen has the mini-dp connection. All cables are not created equal or the displayport connection on the Monitor is no good...

Still only running at 4096x2160 @ 50Hz which sucks...I'm gonna try switchrez X to get 60hz.

 

[teeck2000]

I can't get Switchres X to set a custom 4096x2160 resolution. it always changes to 4095x2160 @60hz and won't install. Can someone post a screenshot with the timings? Thanks!

And if anyone is wondering, 50hz is very noticeable and stutters. I work in Visual Effects so I'm extremely sensitive, but I am sure others can feel it too, I mean its 10 less frames per second.

 

[teeck2000]

So I installed Windows 8.1 on my MacPro 2012 with the GTX 680 and I can still only do 50hz at 4096x2160...What the heck??

I got the display model at frys, they didn't have the disc, I didn't think much of it. I wonder if the cd has custom drivers/info to drive it at full res?

 

[jkg4]

I read on another forum that people with the new Mac Pro running the latest Yosemite beta (10.1.1) were able to connect the LG monitor and see it's native resolution if they opened the Displays system preference panel while holding down the Option key. If you're using an older Mac Pro, perhaps this will also work for you but it's not clear.

I'll receive my LG 31" later this week and will test it myself and report back.

 

[stmad]

I thought I may need to post some explanation about the DisplayProductID file that was provided above.

Without the file:
This display natively exposes an EDID to the video card that contains the resolution 3840x2160 in 60Hz and declares it as its native resolution. It also exposes the resolutions 4096x2160 in 50 and 60Hz as secondary resolutions.

MacOS X honors this when it starts, and shows 3840 as the native resolution. You can show the secondary resolution by using the option key in the System Preferences.
Plus, all scaled modes that you can get will be derived from thie 3840. Meaning that all modes will be 16:9 and not 17:9

I repeat: without the file, for MacOS X, this monitor has a native resolution of 3840x2160, and a secondary resolution of 4096.
Who is faulty from LG or Apple, I don't know.


In some cases, I also found that the EDID is not read correctly from the monitor, and the 4096 resolution is not there at all. Plugging out and back in the monitor sometimes forces the reading again and make the 4096 show.


With the file:
When you install this file, MacOS X will not use the EDID from the monitor, but the one in the file.
This modified EDID only removes the declaration of the 3840x2160 as native. This implies that the 4096 resolution is now seen as the native one.
MacOS X then recognizes that this monitor is 17:9 (and still can show 3840 because this one is secondary).

As such, all scaled resolutions will now be derivated from 4096 and are 17:9, and no more 16:9


Moreover, as the EDID is now in the file, it doesn't have to be read by MacOS X from the monitor, so no read error occurs.


As for 50 vs 60Hz: in the file both resolutions are declared, and both can be shown. If one is shown on your system and the other not, it's only because the driver didn't enable it. Probably the 60Hz resolution bandwidth is out of the specs of the driver. That CANNOT be corrected with this file.

 

[Zorn]

Thanks for the explanation stmad. I really wish we could get to the bottom of the issues with this display. Even with the modified file, I am not able to get the 60hz resolution natively, only by using a 3rd party utility to force it and even then it seems imperfect, as my display will occasionally crackle and go black for a second. Also anytime the system is brought back from sleep or rebooted, the 4096x2160 @ 60hz is forgotten and needs to manually be set again. I am also only using the included DP cable.

10.10.1 does not fix any of these issues, so it's an expensive gamble as to whether Apple will ever address this properly.

 

[vmacrob]

As such, all scaled resolutions will now be derivated from 4096 and are 17:9, and no more 16:9


Moreover, as the EDID is now in the file, it doesn't have to be read by MacOS X from the monitor, so no read error occurs.


As for 50 vs 60Hz: in the file both resolutions are declared, and both can be shown. If one is shown on your system and the other not, it's only because the driver didn't enable it. Probably the 60Hz resolution bandwidth is out of the specs of the driver. That CANNOT be corrected with this file.

Excellent information, thank you. My only question is whether, on the nMP, those scaled resolutions derived from 4096x2160 are also at 50hz, or if they will work at 60hz?

From comments here, 4096x2160 is too small to work at anyway, but having a scaled version at 60hz would be perfect.

 

[McTaste]

Excellent information, thank you. My only question is whether, on the nMP, those scaled resolutions derived from 4096x2160 are also at 50hz, or if they will work at 60hz?

From comments here, 4096x2160 is too small to work at anyway, but having a scaled version at 60hz would be perfect.

I think the scaled refresh rate would match the refresh rate of the actual resolution. If it starts at 4k 50hz then gets scaled by the os, it can't magically add 10 extra frames.

 

[stmad]

Excellent information, thank you. My only question is whether, on the nMP, those scaled resolutions derived from 4096x2160 are also at 50hz, or if they will work at 60hz?

Scaled resolutions aren't real "resolutions". When you chose a scaled resolution, the video signal that goes out is always the resolution found as native, but the size of the picture is scaled to match the size of this native resolution (either upscaling or downscaling).
So your monitor will see 4096 in 50Hz for all scaled resolutions, if this is the native one and you can only get 50Hz.
If you can get 50 and 60Hz (as it seems that some of you can), the scaling will probably be done on the 60Hz version

 

[teeck2000]

This was a nice monitor but I will be returning it since it won't run at full resolution @ 60Hz.

One thing is for sure after using this monitor for 2 days, I hooked up my 30" HPZR30W 2560x1600 and oh god I can't look at it after 4k.

I decided to try the Asus PQ321Q 32" 3840x2160. Looks to be the most stable of the 4k's and has a good price right now and I prefer the 16:9 ratio better.

The dell 5k seemed interesting but at 27" it's gonna be a downgrade I feel from a 30" inch screen for me. I wish someone made a 32" 16:10 aspect ratio screen at 5120x3200, then scaled 2x rez of 2560x1600 would be amazing!

 

[vmacrob]

Scaled resolutions aren't real "resolutions". When you chose a scaled resolution, the video signal that goes out is always the resolution found as native, but the size of the picture is scaled to match the size of this native resolution (either upscaling or downscaling).
So your monitor will see 4096 in 50Hz for all scaled resolutions, if this is the native one and you can only get 50Hz.
If you can get 50 and 60Hz (as it seems that some of you can), the scaling will probably be done on the 60Hz version

I see - thanks again for all the information and assistance you've provided.

 

[Zorn]

Scaled resolutions aren't real "resolutions". When you chose a scaled resolution, the video signal that goes out is always the resolution found as native, but the size of the picture is scaled to match the size of this native resolution (either upscaling or downscaling).
So your monitor will see 4096 in 50Hz for all scaled resolutions, if this is the native one and you can only get 50Hz.
If you can get 50 and 60Hz (as it seems that some of you can), the scaling will probably be done on the 60Hz version

Do you have any idea why when using your file, I am able to use a 3rd party app to set 4096x2160 @ 60hz, but it does not allow the display preferences to do so? Whereas some others are reporting they can choose this from right within preferences.

 

[McTaste]

I've connected monitor number one to my nMP using the provided DP and USB cables. After installing the LG drivers, updating to the beta ATI drivers, and rebooting, I am getting Cinema 4K resolution @ 60hz. Even running portrait mode.

Will I be so lucky when hooking up the second? Let's find out...