Macs With M3 Chip Still Officially Support Only a Single External Display

[JPack]

Correct, but most businesses will just have an external display adapter/docking station.
You plug your external monitors (and devices) into the docking station; and then dock your laptop in, for nice clean desktop.

The MacBook you can do the same - especially if you get the thunderbolt based display hub.

Go to Kensington or Satcechi webpage.

Docks rely on the computer's GPU to output to 1, 2, or more monitors.

M3 MacBook Pro doesn't support more than one monitor, so the Thunderbolt dock won't do anything.

You would need to use a software-based DisplayLink dock to bypass. Nobody wants to use those.

 

[mhurron]

Correct, but most businesses will just have an external display adapter/docking station.
You plug your external monitors (and devices) into the docking station; and then dock your laptop in, for nice clean desktop.

The MacBook you can do the same - especially if you get the thunderbolt based display hub.

Go to Kensington or Satcechi webpage.

View attachment 2306307

That dock for the Mac is required to work around limitations imposed by Apple, not just because it's easier to become mobile.

It also begins to limit features (can't unlock from a screensaver with the watch) or just not always work right (screen doesn't always wake up, windows don't stay on the right screen because the monitor didn't get the signal from the mac fast enough)

 

[UnbreakableAlex]

That’s so incredibly pathetic, I have no words to describe this. Can’t wait until Tim is leaving.

 

[Howard Brazee]

I used multiple monitors for a while with my M1 iMac until MacOS upgraded. Then it failed and it took me a while to learn from Apple that it never was compatible, even though it worked.

After research, I discovered that I could get an HDMI adaptor that supported "Display Link" which I downloaded. Now I can run my karaoke night again. But if my M1 iMac had to be replaced now, I'd go for a M2 Studio instead of a M3 iMac.

 

[smeagol]

To the folks crying "artificial limitation" for the base M3 chip only supporting one monitor, like the base M2 before it, like the base M1 before it, you are wrong. It is a hardware limitation. The base "M" chips have 2 display buffers built into the chip. For laptops, 1 buffer for the internal display, and 1 buffer for 1 external display. The Mac mini can drive 2 external displays because it doesn't have a built in monitor.

Why would Apple do this? Because the vast majority of folks buying base "M" equipped Mac laptops do not use any external display at all, and most of those who do, only use 1 external display (I know, shocker!). So apple designed the base "M" chip accordingly for the entry level, novice, everyday user. Adding a feature to a chip that most people will never use didn't make sense, and they also get the benefits of offering that chip at a cheaper price (whatever that means).

If you need multi-monitor support, congratulations, you are a power user. That feature is available in the Pro, Max and Ultra "M" chip variants... and it's gonna cost ya.

 

[Mac_The_Ripper]

hahaha...Apple is the #1 laptop seller in the world. But sure, Tim Cook is a problem.

Apple is not the #1 laptop seller in the world, Lenovo is with HP trailing by a few percentage points. Apple isn't even close.

 

[minik]

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Dual displays are becoming the norm in business.

It's half true. I rather have a large single display over dual or triple displays.

 

[TheSpiritBaby2K]

My ThinkPad T440s from 2013 supports up to 3 external displays.

This is embarassing.

I agree 100% My DELL Latitude from 2015 supports two displays...comes with HDMI and Mini DisplayPort. Apple is so embarrassing and expensive that it's ridiculous.

 

[1291030]

You know it's amazing that a Walmart clearance laptop can drive to 2K screens yet somehow it's impossible for Apple to do the same. I have a small form factor PC smaller than a Mac Mini that I can plug a single dock cable to and drive two 2K screens.

I decided a long time ago I have zero interest in anything above 2K QHD screens. That's what a productivity resolution is. Anything higher is playing games with scaling. Apple can easily drive two 2K screens but they want you to buy their ultra expensive screens. I have zero interest in something that I have to play with scaling the minute I use it to remote to another system.

I'm sure its great for artists and people who are anti anything Microsoft. It's useless to people who actually have to work on multiple systems.

I have a 6K display scaled at 800% to read text look how much money I have 🙃

You do realise the reason people run higher resolutions, scaled, is to get the higher ppi and thus, crisper reproduction. It’s dead obvious, especially on text.

Back in the day, I used to have a 4k 27inch next to a iMac 5k. It was night and day.

 

[JPack]

Apple is not the #1 laptop seller in the world, Lenovo is with HP trailing by a few percentage points.

Some posters live in their own make believe world.

Apple didn't even come close even during the height of demand and with people clamoring for M1.

 

[M5RahuL]

What’s next, a monthly monitor access subscription?

1 extra monitor 9.99 …, two for 15….step right up.

Don't give Timmy ideas..

 

[Bobby Smallwood]

You mean like speed and efficiency? Got it.

Yeah, I should get 5K MBP to work with large spreadsheets, that would really speed things up. Sorry, not going to pay 2K for the most basic of features in the 2020's

 

[jarman92]

Apple could have not supported dual monitor on Intel-based models, just as they don't support MST, if they really didn't think people used it.

But that would be an artificial software limitation for no reason. The chips had the capability so Apple didn't stand in the way. The entry-level M-series chips simply do not have the hardware to support two external displays. It's (probably) a choice on Apple's part to not include that hardware, but it isn't an artificial software limitation.

 

[Stromos]

You do realise the reason people run higher resolutions, scaled, is to get the higher ppi and thus, crisper reproduction. It’s dead obvious, especially on text.

Back in the day, I used to have a 4k 27inch next to a iMac 5k. It was night and day.

You do realize it works great on the native machine but the minute you have to work on another machine scaling and everything else goes out the window.

Try to work on a RDP session to a legacy windows server. Hope you have a magnifying glass.

 

[phillyman]

I have read a couple pages and skimmed others. I agree this is an artificial limitation. BUT having said that. Do typical iMac users need more than two screens? I consider myself an experienced user and use max two screens. One that has what I'm working on main screen and the second with messages/email and overflow... I don't see the use scenario for a typical iMac user. Again anyone with video and other needs is going to have a more powerful system (mini/studio or even an mbp) . If you update regularly you probably are better off with mini or studio and keep monitors for a longer period. I can see the differentiator being the monitor but also if you need more than two screens you probably need more capability. The imac seems like the email/family computer. Family members either go laptop or some like one desktop for everyone to share and I've never had anyone say I need a second monitor. Honestly they stick with one and don't even think about a second screen.

Again it is a money grab but also I do think the iMac fits the target audience.

Philly

 

[Mac_The_Ripper]

Oops. You're right. I read some bad data. Sorry.

No worries!

 

[jarman92]

I agree 100% My DELL Latitude from 2015 supports two displays...comes with HDMI and Mini DisplayPort. Apple is so embarrassing and expensive that it's ridiculous.

Damn, good thing you don't have to spend any money to buy a new computer then!

That is, unless you want a high-res, 1000+ nit, miniLED display with ProMotion, 22 hours of battery life (vs what I'm sure is 5-6 hours on the Dell), industry-leading performance and efficiency, industry-leading speakers, a trackpad that's second to none, a great keyboard, and/or macOS.

 

[blazerunner]

Then why even consider Apple. If the case against Apple is so obvious, why are we even having this discussion?

This is a tired, lazy argument, only meant to fan the flames of troll wars. It has nothing to do with real world purchase decisions, because we all judge our computers by many, many, many different factors.

...and this is why MacRumor is becoming increasingly tedious.

Because Apple's lazy and a lot of people are defending Apple with ridiculous excuses... and that's happening RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, IN THIS THREAD... like the guy I'm quoting RIGHT NOW.

If you're going to get annoyed with people holding Apple to some level of standards, then maybe something as basic as multi-monitor support shouldnt be the criteria of 'high standards' for a company worth 3 trillion dollars that commands the highest price tag for literally every device of their in all tech. Do you consider Apple a top tier manufacturer of tech? Rhetorical question since of course you'd say 'YES' but for some reason there's people that think tech basics dont need to apply to Apple.... which begs the question: WHY????

 

[dwaite]

I wonder if this is a technical or an artificial limitation.

Technical. It supports driving two displays, one of which is permanently attached.

I suspect this is because internally it has hardware to drive I/O and two displays over thunderbolt, but the internal display is grabbing one of those DisplayPort streams. The lack of dual display output over the cable is also supposedly why the base model ports can't be certified Thunderbolt 4.

DisplayLink on the other hand is a proprietary product line from Symantic, and is a pair of technologies:

1. 'Virtual' graphics card drivers render the display to a texture via the system GPU or via pure software, and output it over USB (with some manner of compression, deltas from the previous image, and lossiness)
2. Hardware on a USB dongle to output that image over a hardware bus like HDMI or DisplayPort.

Sometimes there is an internal connection from the USB dongle's DisplayPort output to an integrated panel, a so-called "USB Monitor"

DisplayLink works for these Macs because it is not leveraging the video output capability in the Mac hardware.

 

[canon-cinema-0r]

These couple years were a golden opportunity for apple to increase market share, with covid, M1 debuting and Intel struggling. Apple's service revenues are already more than Mac and ipad sales combined, opportunity to create the money printing machine of the coming decades. It would have only took machines with less compromises and higher base specs, slightly hurting meaningless per unit margins in exchange for higher free cash flow per share (which actually matters) and future earning potential.

But Timmy is like 100 years old, and only cares about his bonuses for the next couple years, not about long-term shareholder value. Besides the obvious benefits of better machines, higher market shares would translate to better software support, like maybe finally having game releases in meaningful numbers for Mac.

 

[gugy]

I wish I could get the XDR display. I'm a pro but I have a hard time justifying the $7k price that (stand/nano) in a four-year tech. This display should be selling at half of the current price. I remember paying $2.5k for the ACD one year after its launch. I still have it after 20 years. The natural progression for me is to get the XDR but that price is really something.

 

[seek3r]

But that would be an artificial software limitation for no reason. The chips had the capability so Apple didn't stand in the way. The entry-level M-series chips simply do not have the hardware to support two external displays. It's (probably) a choice on Apple's part to not include that hardware, but it isn't an artificial software limitation.

Fairly certain that’s why the posted you’re replying to mentioned MST, the support was there in hardware too, it works under windows and linux, just not under MacOS

 

[dwaite]

You know it's amazing that a Walmart clearance laptop can drive to 2K screens yet somehow it's impossible for Apple to do the same. I have a small form factor PC smaller than a Mac Mini that I can plug a single dock cable to and drive two 2K screens.

A M1/M2 and hypothetical M3 Mac mini can drive two external displays. The laptops and iMacs can drive one external and one internal display.

I decided a long time ago I have zero interest in anything above 2K QHD screens. That's what a productivity resolution is. Anything higher is playing games with scaling. Apple can easily drive two 2K screens but they want you to buy their ultra expensive screens. I have zero interest in something that I have to play with scaling the minute I use it to remote to another system.

You don't need to buy Apple's displays. The only benefit is that Apple has added a lot of additional hardware and software-accessible features to those displays - an integrated camera, decent speakers, volume and brightness controls, etc. They also tend to use higher quality panels and backlighting, so they do a better job of hitting P3 and showing HDR content with sufficient brightness.

AFAIK none of that is proprietary, it just isn't a drive for others who are manufacturing monitors. Which is why Apple got back into the business of selling monitors - at the end of the day, Apple engineers themselves want something like a studio display to work on, and nobody else was making anything similar.

Having two studio displays doesn't make them both work with a M1/M2/M3-based laptop. You do not have the hardware in the SoC to drive more than a single external display until you get to the Pro-line chips in the laptops, which double the display-driving hardware from 2 to 4.

This is also why AirPlay, Sidecar and Displaylink all work - they do not require hardware output that the SoC doesn't have.

 

[dwaite]

I just want a MacBook with the form factor of the MacBook Air (dimensions and weight) with the ability to connect 2 external monitors. I hope to put the M3 Pro in the MacBook Air in the future.

Unlikely - the Pro chip needs active cooling.

 

[JPack]

But that would be an artificial software limitation for no reason. The chips had the capability so Apple didn't stand in the way. The entry-level M-series chips simply do not have the hardware to support two external displays. It's (probably) a choice on Apple's part to not include that hardware, but it isn't an artificial software limitation.

• DisplayPort Multi-Stream Transport (MST)
• 32GB RAM
• Virtualization Technology
• Dual external display support

These are all hardware features available in Intel processors. Apple chose to support only dual external monitor for Intel-based MacBook Air. Why did Apple stand in the way of MST and 32GB RAM for Intel-based MacBook Air?

Anybody can clearly see Apple is picking and choosing features. Whether it's a hardware or software limitation with M3 is irrelevant. This is a leadership decision to support only one external monitor for a $1,599 MacBook Pro.