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

M1 display issues

I

iandk

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 10, 2019
162
65
Hi,

I just received my new M1 Mac mini but I have some strange issues with my monitors.
Since I have two LG 4k displays, I have to run one over USB C -> Displayport and one via HDMI.


Somehow it's showing a different resolution on both of them.
I'd like them to be in scaled 3008 x 1692 mode, but It's only visible on the second screen, which is plugged in to a USB C to Displayport cable.
And the system report shows a completely different resolution for them as well.

Does anyone have an idea?


1606247370549.png

1606247370888.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 1606247335967.png
    1606247335967.png
    1 MB · Views: 494
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
iandk said:
yep, it's high speed capable.
Click to expand...

I have the same resolution with my 4k LG display via HDMI. Max 2560x1440 in HiDPI.
Meanwhile via thunderbolt/usb-c I can have 3008x1692.
I think it depends by the limit of the HDMI port of the Mac Mini M1, it is HDMI 2.0 and not 2.1.
 
JoshVic said:
I have the same resolution with my 4k LG display via HDMI. Max 2560x1440 in HiDPI.
Meanwhile via thunderbolt/usb-c I can have 3008x1692.
I think it depends by the limit of the HDMI port of the Mac Mini M1, it is HDMI 2.0 and not 2.1.
Click to expand...
But the physical resolution is the same, so I don't think it's related to HDMI 2.0 vs 2.1
 
iandk said:
But the physical resolution is the same, so I don't think it's related to HDMI 2.0 vs 2.1
Click to expand...
it is correct but as you well know to get the resolution of 3008x1692 in HiDIP what apple does is to scale to 6016x3384 and then divide it by 2. So this scaled resolution in my opinion exceeds that supported by HDMI 2.0.
I know it's strange because even the 2560x1440 HiDPI resolution exceeds but at the moment it's the only reason I've found reading the other posts.
 
I hope there is a way to fix this, since 2560x1440 is too large for me, I'd prefer having more space
 
I have the same problem. Two 4K monitors: one LG, one Philips. Both of them can't go 3008x1692 on HDMI port of Mac mini M1. On USB-C no problem to get 3008x1692.

This is sad, because it is the best scaling (3008x1692)

With ResXtreme, i could set it to 3008x1692, but it is not as clean&sharp
 
I have a 2018 Mini running 5220x1440 using a single DP cable on a Samsung ultra wide C49

Tomorrow I pick up my Mini M1. I’ll post my findings here. I’m 99% sure it will work because I’ve read other posts of people having success.

1E49AB8D-B715-41F6-9BCD-C712F4757DCD.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colonel Panik
Pagemakers said:
I have a 2018 Mini running 5220x1440 using a single DP cable on a Samsung ultra wide C49

Tomorrow I pick up my Mini M1. I’ll post my findings here. I’m 99% sure it will work because I’ve read other posts of people having success.

View attachment 1679638
Click to expand...
Useless post. Picture of your screen? what is the point?

Different machine, different resolution. Useless answer
 
  • Like
Reactions: ItWasNotMe, EPO75 and pldelisle
Today my M1 Mini arrived. I unplugged my 2018 Mini and plugged the same cables into the M1. It took me over an hour just to get any picture at all!

I have a Samsung 49” ultrawide.

To fix the issue I set the DisplayPort settings on the monitor to V1.2 and changed the refresh rate to 60. Now I get 5220x1440 on a M1 Mini with 1 DisplayPort cable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivanwi11iams
Pagemakers said:
Today my M1 Mini arrived. I unplugged my 2018 Mini and plugged the same cables into the M1. It took me over an hour just to get any picture at all!

I have a Samsung 49” ultrawide.

To fix the issue I set the DisplayPort settings on the monitor to V1.2 and changed the refresh rate to 60. Now I get 5220x1440 on a M1 Mini with 1 DisplayPort cable.
Click to expand...

Does it look equal to your 2018 setup? Fonts?
 
IngerMan said:
Does it look equal to your 2018 setup? Fonts?
Click to expand...
Identical.

A couple of abnormalities though - I try and sort them over the coming days....
  1. On the M1 the resolution shows as “5220x1440 low resolution”. On the intel it shows as “5220x1440”. I can see absolutely no difference whatsoever.
  2. After switching users or after a reboot the display settings page shows as lower resolution although it clearly isn’t. It’s still 5220x1440. Pressing CTRL on the display page shows the “detect displays” menu and sometimes it’s shows 5220x1440 and sometimes it doesn’t but as I’ve said before it is definitely in 5220x1440 all the time.
My question is what is the difference between “5220x1440” and “5220x1440 low resolution”. They look identical to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T'hain Esh Kelch and IngerMan
Pagemakers said:
Identical.

A couple of abnormalities though - I try and sort them over the coming days....
  1. On the M1 the resolution shows as “5220x1440 low resolution”. On the intel it shows as “5220x1440”. I can see absolutely no difference whatsoever.
  2. After switching users or after a reboot the display settings page shows as lower resolution although it clearly isn’t. It’s still 5220x1440. Pressing CTRL on the display page shows the “detect displays” menu and sometimes it’s shows 5220x1440 and sometimes it doesn’t but as I’ve said before it is definitely in 5220x1440 all the time.
My question is what is the difference between “5220x1440” and “5220x1440 low resolution”. They look identical to me.
Click to expand...

Is the Intel Mac mini running Big Sur as well? Wondering if this is new terminology for Big Sur to indicate when the machine is not connected to a 'retina' display?

Related question, I find that Ctrl-Shift-Eject on my apple magic keyboard no longer sends the display to sleep... do you find this as well?
 
Colonel Panik said:
Is the Intel Mac mini running Big Sur as well? Wondering if this is new terminology for Big Sur to indicate when the machine is not connected to a 'retina' display?

Related question, I find that Ctrl-Shift-Eject on my apple magic keyboard no longer sends the display to sleep... do you find this as well?
Click to expand...
1- Both running 11.0.1

2- I’ll test tomorrow. It’s 1am here at the moment
 
I'm running an LG 27" 5k, and when I click between the 2560x1440 and 2560x1440 (low resolution), I definitely see a difference in the quality.
it's the pixel density that's been referred to. The 5k LG has a ppi of 217.57, whereas the Samsung C49 has 88 (from Toms Hardware site).
If you don't see a difference, then send the data to your screen in low resolution mode. That'll save processor cycles.
 

Attachments

  • 1440.jpg
    1440.jpg
    554.8 KB · Views: 200
Colonel Panik said:
I'm running an LG 27" 5k, and when I click between the 2560x1440 and 2560x1440 (low resolution), I definitely see a difference in the quality.
it's the pixel density that's been referred to. The 5k LG has a ppi of 217.57, whereas the Samsung C49 has 88 (from Toms Hardware site).
If you don't see a difference, then send the data to your screen in low resolution mode. That'll save processor cycles.
Click to expand...
Wonder if I’m not seeing a difference because my ultra wide is not a full HD display like yours?

It’s odd intel shows 5220x1440 and the M adds “low resolution” to the name yet I see no difference at all.

edit: this seems to answer my questions above. https://www.alphr.com/custom-resolution-mac-osx/
 
Last edited:
Sounds like they have moved the explanation from adding "HiDPI" to the hi-dpi-option, to instead add low resolution to the "non-hi-dpi". This is probably because Apple wants to see the HiDPI mode as "standard" and the low-res-variant as "the old thing that should be moved away from".
 
So basically, running two 4K display at 3840 x 2160, one over USB-C and the other over HDMI, seems impossible at the moment? Or is it only when scaled to make writings bigger?
 
both 4K monitor @ 3840 x 2160 is working.

But the monitor on HDMI port wont have the 3008x1692 scaling option.

next available scaling option on HDMI is 2560x1440
 
fizzz71 said:
both 4K monitor @ 3840 x 2160 is working.

But the monitor on HDMI port wont have the 3008x1692 scaling option.

next available scaling option on HDMI is 2560x1440
Click to expand...
Ok I understand. This is the resolution I’m targetting. Just wondering if I take two 27’’ 4k displays to scale them to 1440p or go directly with 2 25’’ 2560x1440 displays.

Pixel pitch is way higher on the 4k, making it easier to read no ? (I’m programmer).
 
pldelisle said:
Ok I understand. This is the resolution I’m targetting. Just wondering if I take two 27’’ 4k displays to scale them to 1440p or go directly with 2 25’’ 2560x1440 displays.

Pixel pitch is way higher on the 4k, making it easier to read no ? (I’m programmer).
Click to expand...
yes, the crispness of hidpi is a one-way street. You just don't want to go back after you tried it :) 27" 4k is slightly suboptimal though, since OS X is "intended" for 5k on 27". But it works ok, and it is probably mostly a "getting used to"-thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pldelisle
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