Mac Pro (Late 2013) and Three 4K Display Setup

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by jeffreyk, Jun 25, 2016.

  1. jeffreyk macrumors regular

    jeffreyk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
    #1
    I will be upgrading to three 32-inch 4K displays for my Mac Pro (Late 2013) very soon and I had a set up/configuration question.

    For the three 4K displays, can I use three DisplayPort 1.2 cables utilizing the three individual busses or do I need to use two DisplayPort 1.2 cables for two of the busses along with an HDMI cable for the third bus?

    And, a bonus question...for anyone currently using a 4K monitor, which one have you found to be the best display for the Mac Pro (Late 2013)?

    Thank you!
     
  2. AdamJD, Jun 25, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2016

    AdamJD macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    #2
    Hi Jeffrey,

    Looks like you may have a bigger budget, but the AOC 28" 4K U2879VF can be found for a ridiculously low $300.

    I'm on a 2014 MBP. I actually disconnected my other monitors because one is now sufficient. HDMI will not likely give you the full gamut of resolutions because it can't access the 60hz spectrum. I'm not sure about the minidisplayport limitations on your machine. the Thunderbolt connection along with this cable did the trick for me and is very inexpensive. I think you must have Thunderbolt 2 compatibility. You do NOT want to be at 30hz on a 4K 32" monitor. The cable enabled the scaled resolutions similar to 5K iMac.

    I have not tried 2 cables simultaneously. You may find it taxes your system quite a bit.

    Hope this helps.
     
  3. jeffreyk thread starter macrumors regular

    jeffreyk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
    #3
    AdamJD, thanks for the reply. I have been used to using a three 30-inch monitor set up but, in your opinion, will a 32-inch 4K display pretty much cover the space of three 30-inch monitors pretty well?
     
  4. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #4
    I'd guess that a pair of 32-inch 4K would be close.

    Note that 4K implies really small pixels, so you'll probably want to scale things up to make it readable. (I have a couple of Windows systems with triple-head 27" 4K setups, and I run the monitors at 150% (effectively 2560x1440 per monitor). ) This is quite satisfactory for me, especially because Windows scales vector graphics (icons and TrueType fonts) in the OS so that you get really crisp images and text - nothing like old-time issues with running an LCD screen at a non-native resolution.

    Be sure to factor scaling and the effective resolution into your decision. Unless you have excellent vision (or you get some +4 reading glasses) the raw pixel counts are not a good measure. The scaled pixel counts are what count.
     
  5. jeffreyk thread starter macrumors regular

    jeffreyk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
    #5
    AidenShaw, thanks. I have more to think about, it seems, before making the leap into 4K. Plus, just saw a thread about a possible lag issue with OS X with multiple 4K displays.
     
  6. ixxx69 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Location:
    United States
    #6
    I don't have first hand knowledge (I only have two 4K displays :(;)), but have you seen this Apple support page? It states 2 via the TB ports and 1 via HDMI, however, I think the 4K HDMI will be limited to 30Hz, which is quite noticeable if you actively use that display.

    There might be an unsupported way to get all three 4K displays at 60Hz, but I don't know the particulars or whether that's a good idea long term for the hardware.

    Enjoy 4K!
     
  7. jeffreyk thread starter macrumors regular

    jeffreyk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
    #7
    ixxx69, yeah, I saw the page but didn't know if there was a workaround not having to use the HDMI. Thanks.
     

Share This Page