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
Yeah mine happens with USB-C, very frustrating, not really sure how to fix it
Ok got mine replaced and the replacement is just fine, hopefully the speakers do not pop again
I'm considering a Mateview 28.2. My current monitor is a 23" LG monitor which is playing up and hence the need to soon get another one.
Wondered if my MacBook Air (13-inch, Early 2015) would be able to reach the default resolution of 3840 x 2560 at 60Hz using a mini dp to mini dp cable?
I would get an M1 Mac Mini but really want to wait a few months and see if M2 comes out, so I'd like to stick with the MacBook Air for now.
I'm also contemplating an Apple Studio Display (good interest free deals at the moment in the UK from Apple) where I'd also use my MacBook Air with an adapter and a mini dp to mini dp cable but I gather then I'd be running the ASD at 4K and I'd presume this would result in a scaling of 1920 x 1080 (so loss of real estate).
Wondered if my MacBook Air (13-inch, Early 2015) would be able to reach the default resolution of 3840 x 2560 at 60Hz using a mini dp to mini dp cable?
I would get an M1 Mac Mini but really want to wait a few months and see if M2 comes out, so I'd like to stick with the MacBook Air for now.
I'm also contemplating an Apple Studio Display (good interest free deals at the moment in the UK from Apple) where I'd also use my MacBook Air with an adapter and a mini dp to mini dp cable but I gather then I'd be running the ASD at 4K and I'd presume this would result in a scaling of 1920 x 1080 (so loss of real estate).
What MacBook Pro do you have? 13", 15", 16"? What GPU?
Please post a screenshot of SwitchResX' "Current Resolutions" tab. What mode is currently being used (that's the one that has a radio button next to it)?
Please also post a screenshot of the window that opens when you double-click on the currently used mode so we can see the actual timing the display is running at.
No, for two reasons:
Reason 1: The GPU (Intel HD Graphics 6100) may be limited to a height of 2400 lines, so the maximum resolution you'd be able to get would be 3840×2400 (WQUXGA). Where am I getting this idea from? I have an iMac with a same-generation GPU (Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200) and it is subject to this limit.
Reason 2: Even if reason 1 doesn't apply to the 6100, the GPU is hardware-constrained to a pixel clock of 540 MHz. The MateView's default 3840×2560@60Hz mode requires a pixel clock of 631.75 MHz.
So, attaining 3840×2560@60Hz on a 2015 MBA is impossible.
Last edited:
here is what i added in switchResX :
Start up resolution : 3840x2560@60Hz
Scaled resolution base : 2560x1707
And Apply immediately... I have to admit that I didn't t know if it is what I have to do (and still don't know) but now it works as I want !
I can choose the good resolution in SwitchResX or in macOS.
I don't know if I still need SwitchResX and if I have to buy it...
2560x1707 seems the best choice. Isn't it ?
(I have a macbook pro 13" 2019)
Thank you Amethyst1 for your answers
Start up resolution : 3840x2560@60Hz
Scaled resolution base : 2560x1707
And Apply immediately... I have to admit that I didn't t know if it is what I have to do (and still don't know) but now it works as I want !
I can choose the good resolution in SwitchResX or in macOS.
I don't know if I still need SwitchResX and if I have to buy it...
2560x1707 seems the best choice. Isn't it ?
(I have a macbook pro 13" 2019)
Thank you Amethyst1 for your answers
This needs to be set to 3840×2560. It means the screen is always driven at 3840×2560 (its native resolution).
You don’t need to buy it if things work fine now — unless you want to mess with it after its trial period has expired.
This is entirely subjective. 2560×1707 results in about 110 ppi, which is what macOS defaults to on e.g. iMacs. I use 3008×2005.
Can someone tell me the dimensions of the Mateview 28.2 screen (H x W X D) panel?
Also at the lowest height setting what is the height from the desk to the top of screen?
I ask as I looked at an Apple Studio Display in an Apple store and felt the fixed hinge version (the cheapest option), for me, was too high at 49cm from the bottom of the desk.
I've currently got a cheap 24" 1080p monitor so maybe going to 27" is not for me anyway (unfortunately I'm not the tallest)
Also at the lowest height setting what is the height from the desk to the top of screen?
I ask as I looked at an Apple Studio Display in an Apple store and felt the fixed hinge version (the cheapest option), for me, was too high at 49cm from the bottom of the desk.
I've currently got a cheap 24" 1080p monitor so maybe going to 27" is not for me anyway (unfortunately I'm not the tallest)
The Apple Studio display is 47.8cm with the fixed height stand, which is slightly less than you say, but still too high.
The Apple Studio display is 47.9cm with the adjustable height stand in the lowest setting, so even higher, which seems odd.
Apparently the MateView is 48.11cm tall, but does not say if that is with the stand at the lowest, highest, or median position, but the image below shows it can go quite low.
I really want to want a MateView. While I think an LPD display would be even better, the MateView would be a good option and I want to support 3:2 in the only way companies understand: through revenue. Plus, 10-bit color, which is necessary for flat panels because 8-bit color on flat panels has banding I can see with the only casually aided eye that I can't see on CRTs.
But. The fact it's $600 and is packed with features I don't have any ability to even use (e.g. wireless display, NFC Huawei phone embiggening) or just don't need (e.g. touch controls, microphone -- this one's especially a turnoff, speakers) and the honestly cartoonishly ugly stand and sluggish 60Hz refresh rate that's been out of date since 1987 make it so that the only context I can see myself buying one is if it's half off used.
These pictures of them with Minis makes me really want to get a pair to use with a 14" MBP or MBA, though, so who knows.
But. The fact it's $600 and is packed with features I don't have any ability to even use (e.g. wireless display, NFC Huawei phone embiggening) or just don't need (e.g. touch controls, microphone -- this one's especially a turnoff, speakers) and the honestly cartoonishly ugly stand and sluggish 60Hz refresh rate that's been out of date since 1987 make it so that the only context I can see myself buying one is if it's half off used.
These pictures of them with Minis makes me really want to get a pair to use with a 14" MBP or MBA, though, so who knows.
Last edited:
To elaborate a bit further, if the GPU has that 2400-line height limit, the best you can do is 3840×2400@55.9Hz using CVT-RB v2 timings. If it doesn't have that limit, the best you can do is 3840×2560@52.4Hz using CVT-RB v2 timings; both due to the 540 MHz pixel clock limit. Setting up these timings will require SwitchResX. I can walk you through setting them up though.
48.3 cm.
You can also get a non-wireless version of the MateView.
To be fair, 60 Hz is bad on CRTs because it causes noticeable flickering, and the quest for higher refresh rates was fueled by the desire to eliminate that. 60 Hz on an LCD is totally flicker-free. I agree that higher refresh rates make for a "smoother" experience on LCDs as well, but calling 60 Hz refresh "out of date since 1987" is a wee bit unfair in the context of LCDs IMHO
LCDs that can actually handle more than 60 Hz without dropping frames have only been around for so long.Well, I managed to snag one at £400 and another at £500 - they seem to have crept up in price now.
As for the specs - you'll get cheaper 1080p displays with 120Hz and cheaper displays with 4k, but good luck finding many cheaper displays with 4k - and 120Hz is only must-have for gaming. How much do you want to pay for slightly smoother-looking window scrolling?
Looks are subjective - but IMHO it's a pretty good match for a silver Mac Mini or Studio, and the base only feels plasticky if you touch it...
You also need to bear in mind that this screen has significantly more pixels than a regular 4k - the screen is the same width and pixel density as a 27" 4k but about 2 inches taller - but it's not out of the price ballpark for decent-quality 27" 4k@60Hz screens. The £900 I paid for two was a complete steal, but I don't think £500-600 is bad for something that's a half-way-house between 4k and 5k.
Also, I'm not sure if 3840x2560@120Hz is even possible with current DP1.4-based interfaces.
I agree that it's frustrating to "pay for" the speakers (waste of space) and WiFi (I have a Huawei phone, tried the 'projection' feature, works, but don't see a use for it, disconnected the screens from WiFi). However, these features will broaden the market for the display so "economies of scale" mean that a display without these features wouldn't necessarily cost much less. I've never seen the non-WiFi version on sale - and odds are it's exactly the same hardware with the WiFi knobbled.
It is using DSC — pixel clock is lower than for 3840×2160@144Hz and there’s plenty of monitors doing that using DSC.
I may have just never noticed it dropping frames, but I have a Gateway flat panel from August 2002 that does 75Hz, and see others listed online from time to time. Granted, it does so with the color rendering of a snowstorm, but it does it. I also have an Acer p191w, and its PWM-based brightness (this sentence is also applicable to the iMac G5's screen) gives me all the eyestrain of a CRT at 60, and did so even prior to me having used a CRT to compare, so despite its more accurate color gamut I ended up using the Gateway right up until grandma gave me my second CRT. I had a first one that I bought for $10 in 2013 but have no idea where it went.
I don't want 1080p, I have 1080p already due to a hand-me-down. It's as blurry as smeared-on vaseline (i.e. 96 dpi) on a 23" panel and 16:9 is the worst. Which is why I want to want the MateView. I understand the value proposition behind 3:2, it's part of the reason I daily drive a high-res PowerBook G4 as my main laptop. As for how much I want to pay for smoother scrolling, animations, and broadly a more responsive feeling system with less noticeable input lag, which really is noticeable even on the desktop? Well, my last monitor purchase was $224.81 for a Compaq MV920 that does 1600x1200 at 75Hz, or 1400x1050 at 85Hz, specifically for the refresh rate. I'm now looking for a DP to VGA adapter that has a high clock speed DAC and ideally at 10-bpc, and am fully expecting to shell out something like $30. I'd willingly pay $300 for a stripped down MateView that was just a monitor.
Isn't that how you're supposed to access the menu options? I get set and forget, but my experience with setting up technology is you aren't done until you've learned what settings you need to change going between use cases or systems in this case.
You're probably correct about 120Hz, but 85 or 90Hz would both be significant improvements, and they're both supported by UBR10. So is 120 -- it takes going up to 144 to need UBR13.5.
You're probably correct about 120Hz, but 85 or 90Hz would both be significant improvements, and they're both supported by UBR10. So is 120 -- it takes going up to 144 to need UBR13.5.
Attachments
Last edited:
Does the LCD refresh 75 times a second, or does it just accept 75 Hz timings despite only refreshing 60 times a second? Can you see a difference between 60 and 75?
Many LCDs, including older ones, accept up to 75 Hz refresh for compatibility reasons even though they max out at 60 Hz.
It's definitely 75, there is a noticeable choppiness in switching to 60. Same, actually, with Haiku on my Dell Inspiron 2200 (mfg. 03/2005) -- it lets me go up to 85Hz which noticeably smooths out the mouse cursor and tightens up the click latency.
Anyway, to get back on topic, they do look their best next to a Mac mini or Studio, I'd definitely not complain if given two and a Studio for even a second... well, besides about the microphone. I still don't see why that was necessary for any reason besides data collection.
Anyway, to get back on topic, they do look their best next to a Mac mini or Studio, I'd definitely not complain if given two and a Studio for even a second... well, besides about the microphone. I still don't see why that was necessary for any reason besides data collection.
Last edited:
https://plugable.com/products/usbc-tvga/
https://plugable.com/products/usbc-vga/
One of these (probably the first) has been tested to handle 330 MHz pixel clock. You also need a DisplayPort-to-USB-C adapter or cable then. These aren't exactly cheap though.
The MateView's touch panel is at the bottom of the LCD bezel, not the stand.
I'm also highly susceptible to low-frequency PWM. It's just terrible. But my Dell UP2715K uses PWM at such a high frequency that I don't have any issues.
Last edited:
I feel sorry for all you people suffering with issues re PWM.
Serious question not intended to offend but how did you all cope when TVs were all either 50Hz or 60Hz CRTs running an interlaced picture?
Serious question not intended to offend but how did you all cope when TVs were all either 50Hz or 60Hz CRTs running an interlaced picture?
Phosphor glow meant the screen updates happened differently.
Oh ok.
Must be a nightmare really. Probably nearly everything that's LED or backlit LED, such as illuminated switches on all manner of tech, and LED clocks, use PWM. I didn't even become aware of it until 30-ish years ago when I saw my old LED bedside clock flickering on a test-video I'd made on my then-new VHS-C camcorder to see how it coped with low light.