Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
mini paired with Hauwei's new 4.5K 3:2 monitor = iMac killer?
- Thread starter tornado99
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Usually around 95-96% I disconnect the mac from the power, but the monitor loads it up to 100% and I have noticed that it bounces the battery from 96% to 100% bypassing the optimized battery. Today I got a hdmi to try not to use battery charging. it's my first monitor so I'm not sure how the management works with the mac, I haven't found an app for battery management or to block charging from the monitor 🤔
HDMI 2.0 limits you to 50 Hz on the MateView. Better to get a USB-C to DisplayPort cable so you get the full 60 Hz.
Last edited:
50Hz is not too bad. I run an old windows laptop at 55Hz on a 1440p monitor (due to iGPU limitations) and to be honest don't notice much difference.
Remember that unlike CRTs, LCDs don't refresh, so if you have a stationary window of text it will look identical to 60Hz. Try moving the cursor around/scrolling and see if it's more jerky at 50Hz than 60Hz. Some people are more sensitive to this than others.
Remember that unlike CRTs, LCDs don't refresh, so if you have a stationary window of text it will look identical to 60Hz. Try moving the cursor around/scrolling and see if it's more jerky at 50Hz than 60Hz. Some people are more sensitive to this than others.
I can see a difference between 48 and 60 Hz but not between 55 and 60 Hz.
This is what I mean. Moving windows and scrolling is visibly jerkier at 48 Hz than at 60 for me, but not at 55 compared to 60.
Last edited:
unfortunately with the hdmi I can't activate hidpi, does anyone have any ideas? ..With the type-c it doesn't give me any problems, but without hidpi it's really painful for my eyes 😭😢....I chose the hdmi because the matedock 2 was available in the huawei bundle
I hope it will be useful for some or have info on this app, I downloaded alDante in order to take advantage of the type-c and enable the hidpi and I turned off the 30% re-charge so that you can use the mac without always keeping it in charge, do you think it is a good method?
no
. matedock port specs are hdmi 2.0, 4k 30hz 2k-60hz, unfortunately I don't have the original AV to check if it's the dock problem .. i tried with some terminal guides but i had no luck 😶🌫️Another 3:2 (4200×2800) monitor - not exactly for home use.
www.eizoglobal.com
RadiForce RX1270 | EIZO
12MP, 78.4 cm, 10-bit simultaneous display, self calibrating, multi-modality color LCD monitor ideal for viewing multiple applications on the same screen.
FYI:
I've just tested hooking up the MateView directly to a "Late 2015" 21.5" iMac 4K (Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200). This GPU does not allow a vertical resolution higher than 2400 pixels and the pixel clock is limited to 540 MHz for external monitors, so 3840×2560 isn't possible at all (I tested on macOS Mojave.)
Thus, older Macs that may have a vertical resolution limit of less than 2560 pixels, and/or don't support the 631.75 MHz pixel clock required for 3840×2560 at 60 Hz, will need an eGPU in order to drive the MateView. Some quick checks suggest this applies to Macs introduced before 2016. Intel Macs introduced in 2016 or later have AMD or Intel GPUs that should meet the MateView's requirements. M1 Macs, as we have seen, have no issue driving the monitor either.
I've just tested hooking up the MateView directly to a "Late 2015" 21.5" iMac 4K (Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200). This GPU does not allow a vertical resolution higher than 2400 pixels and the pixel clock is limited to 540 MHz for external monitors, so 3840×2560 isn't possible at all (I tested on macOS Mojave.)
Thus, older Macs that may have a vertical resolution limit of less than 2560 pixels, and/or don't support the 631.75 MHz pixel clock required for 3840×2560 at 60 Hz, will need an eGPU in order to drive the MateView. Some quick checks suggest this applies to Macs introduced before 2016. Intel Macs introduced in 2016 or later have AMD or Intel GPUs that should meet the MateView's requirements. M1 Macs, as we have seen, have no issue driving the monitor either.
Last edited:
as it is specified at apple.com, it's no surprise
iMac (Retina 4K, 21.5-inch, Late 2015) "Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to 4096 by 2304 pixels on an external display"
For the laughs:
- My 2011 13" MacBook Pro with Intel HD Graphics 3000 can drive the MateView at full 3840×2560… if I reduce the refresh rate to 26.5 Hz as macOS imposes an artificial 270 MHz pixel clock limit via DisplayPort.
- Same result on my 2012 13" MacBook Pro with Intel HD Graphics 4000.
Last edited:
I know you've already said that you can see the ppi difference between MateView and that iMac, but I'm just curious - is the difference really noticeable?
I mean also considering that the sitting distance from MateView is obviously greater since it is a bigger screen. Do you have any complaints to MateView in this sense, or is it just a minor flaw?)It’s not so much the difference in the actual pixel density that I notice from my viewing distance; it’s the difference between the pixel-perfect 2048×1152 HiDPI mode I use on the iMac and the scaled 2560×1707 HiDPI mode I use on the MateView so that both give me the equivalent of approximately 110 ppi. The scaled mode is definitely not as sharp.I know you've already said that you can see the ppi difference between MateView and that iMac, but I'm just curious - is the difference really noticeable?
I try to maintain the same viewing distance so that I can use the same emulated ppi setting on all my monitors.
The 3:2 aspect ratio is such a big deal to me - even though I also have a 16:10 4K (3840×2400) monitor which was replaced by the MateView - that I’m more than willing to accept this as a minor flaw due to how non-integer scaling is currently handled by macOS. It would have been just perfect if the MateView had a physical 5120×3414 resolution to enable a pixel-perfect 2560×1707 HiDPI mode, but... you can't have everything I guess.
Last edited:
@Amethyst1 , if you choose the exact pixel-doubled mode on the Mateview (1920x1280 HiDPI), and then display a document with the font size choosen to be the same as on the iMac, is the text equally sharp?
(So I guess you might have to choose 10 pt font to match the physical size of 12 pt font on the iMac)
(So I guess you might have to choose 10 pt font to match the physical size of 12 pt font on the iMac)
I see! No doubt pixel-perfect hidpi options are awesome in terms of sharpness and general aesthetics but imho not in terms of screen real state! My sis also still works on a 2015 27" 5k iMac and it natively runs at pixel-perfect hidpi qhd (2560x1440) resolution, which is just the same as on my 10 year old 27" Samsung S27A850 and the same as on legacy Apple Cinema & Thunderbolt displays.
Of course iMac true-hidpi screens look perfect, but for my use cases I'd definitely prefer more screen real estate offered by non-integer hidpi scaling (which still looks very nice and which is perfect for most of use cases) than that pixel-perfect hidpi, but just a little qhd screen real estate which I'm done with because it’s just not enough. I guess that if I chose to buy an iMac the first thing I would do after pushing the power button is setting a non-integer hidpi scaling to get normal screen real estate
This is why in my case if I want to get a pixel-perfect hidpi display and maintain good screen real estate, I have only a few and crazy expensive options like the 6k Pro display xdr or 8k Viewsonic VP3286-8K (both are just 16:9).
But as for now I’m absolutely satisfied with non-integer hidpi scaling and 3:2 ratio of MateView
I'd say yes - no difference in perceived sharpness from my viewing distance.
Yes, that's the point - there's usually no way around scaling. I'm using three monitors, so "only" 2560×1440 estate on the 5K screen and "only" 2048×1152 estate on the iMac's screen doesn't bother me. If I had to get by with one or two monitors, I'd definitely use non-integer scaling in order to have "enough" real estate.
Two reasons. The iMac/ultrafine 5K panel has a lot of quality control problems in production, so was always hard to sell at a consumer-friendly price. Secondly, 5K is very hard to drive (14 MP vs 8 or 9MP). It's only in the past few years that the majority of external GPUs can handle that. I have a mid-range laptop bought in 2020 that can only do 4K. So you'd be selling it to a very limited market of mostly desktop users.
The original 21 inch ultrafine (4096x2304) and the Mateview work because they push the boundaries of what the majority of consumer hardware is capable of, but still stay within it.
I think with 8K the sheer pixel density means any concerns about fractional scaling disappear. So hopefully when 8K drops to reasonable prices, and you have the hardware to drive it, you could use any HiDPI mode you liked with no sharpness penalty.
The original 21 inch ultrafine (4096x2304) and the Mateview work because they push the boundaries of what the majority of consumer hardware is capable of, but still stay within it.
I think with 8K the sheer pixel density means any concerns about fractional scaling disappear. So hopefully when 8K drops to reasonable prices, and you have the hardware to drive it, you could use any HiDPI mode you liked with no sharpness penalty.