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.
New MacBook Pro Models Feature HDMI 2.1 Port Instead of HDMI 2.0
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You don’t need an 8K monitor to benefit from HDMI 2.1. It will be a benefit for anyone who wants to run 120Hz 4K HDMI displays, which have been available since 2019.
As Max Tech always says, Apple should stop charging premium for regular features.
I'm typing this from a 2019 15" macbook pro with 4k 120hz external display (via 5700 XT eGPU). So, Intel Macs can do 4K 120hz since at least 2018, or maybe earlier.
By the way, macOS interface is great in a big 4k 120hz screen.
I'm typing this from a 2019 15" macbook pro with 4k 120hz external display (via 5700 XT eGPU). So, Intel Macs can do 4K 120hz since at least 2018, or maybe earlier.
By the way, macOS interface is great in a big 4k 120hz screen.
Attachments
Just about every time I upgrade, I'm able to sell my old one for about half of the new one's price.
What are you telling us Apple? 4k 24" display, 27" 6k display, 32" 8k display? (and EVENTUALLY microLED)
We need answers!
To be fair, this is probably more about 3rd party support since it's HDMI.
Apple will move forward when Thunderbolt standards support all the display stuff (resolution, refresh, color, etc.)
We need answers!
To be fair, this is probably more about 3rd party support since it's HDMI.
Apple will move forward when Thunderbolt standards support all the display stuff (resolution, refresh, color, etc.)
Sounds like 8k @60Hz will be limited to 4.2.0. Hopefully 2024 Macs will come with Thunderbolt 5 for full 4.4.4 uncompressed glory!
8kassociation.com
USB4 to Double Output - USB-C & Thunderbolt 5 to Support Dual 8K Monitors
A few weeks ago, the USB Implementors' Forum (USB-IF) made the surprising announcement that they had been able to double the effective speed of USB4 interfaces from a maximum of 40Gbps to 80Gbps using existing cables although new transmitters and receivers will be needed. There will also be a...
8kassociation.com
Last edited:
There’s exactly one 8k HDMI 2.1 monitor (32”) on the market. It’s made by Sharp and costs $20k.
I wonder why Apple even bothered to upgrade to HDMI 2.1 considering there is no GPU in any of their products, nor are any GPUs supported externally on any Mac or ARM processor in general. Probably they don't want to look bad on a spec sheet or seem pointless to use a 6K apple screen on. What a sham.
That is one large feature request, most had, that is now fixed. Hopefully, that stops all the HDMI complaints (I'm sure they will move on to something else, in normal fashion).
Crazy that the starting price for the 16 inch was the max’d out spec 10 years when I bought my max’d out (bto) 15 inch MacBook Pro. 2.8/16/512 …a 768GB SSD pushed it from $2000–>$2400 (roughly)
Maybe it's a ploy to make the Apple Pro Display XDR look cheap. https://www.sharp.eu/sharp-8k-displays/sharp-8m-b32c1
Sharp to Offer 32” 8K (Almost Reference) Monitor
Sharp has shown a 32” 8K monitor for several years but now appears ready to go into mass production with the 8M-B32C1. The company says they will start production in June at 150 units per month. We reached out to Sharp in Japan to get some more technical details as well as the estimated street […]
8kassociation.com
just buy a cheaper computer and get an HDMI 2.1 adapter (if your chip is fast enough to support the standard)
much better spending of the moneys
much better spending of the moneys
THE best reply to any post complaining about Apple's prices, choices or hardware spec, and why Windows is supposed to be better at all things just because, well, trolls love to keep trying to convert
What are you talking about, there is a few dozens of 8k displays, at 55" 8k has 164 PPI, same as four 4k 27 screens, very usable.
I use Samsung 65qn900b, PPI is 137, and so far I was using it with 4k output from my macbook, now it will be full 33 milion pixels, default HiDPI resolution will be 'looks like 3840 x 2160"
I would pay +1000$ for hdmi 2.1, and we are getting it for the same price as before, I'm satisfied
Thanks. I was thinking about monitors, but I agree that there are more and more 8K televisions out there (although the early models did not take 8K signals and were only doing upscaling of 2k/4k signals). A few dozens, I don't know, though. The Qn900 starts at 65" (not sure which model you had in mind that starts at 55"?). That's indeed 136ppi, which is the resolution of a 2007 iPhone, very far from retina! The largest acceptable size for a 8k retina display would be around 37", I think.What are you talking about, there is a few dozens of 8k displays, at 55" 8k has 164 PPI, same as four 4k 27 screens, very usable.
I use Samsung 65qn900b, PPI is 137, and so far I was using it with 4k output from my macbook, now it will be full 33 milion pixels, default HiDPI resolution will be 'looks like 3840 x 2160"
I would pay +1000$ for hdmi 2.1, and we are getting it for the same price as before, I'm satisfied
qn900b has 55" size in europe, I'm in europe.
Mine is 65, but to be able to see the whole screen you have to sit far enough, and from that distance no way to see individual pixels.
But that's not the point, I have a studio display for serious work, I know this is a tv, and apple also didn't say hdmi 2,1 is for monitors. 8k for large screens will become standard, and why not to have 4 times more pixels when using mac on tv, showing photos to friends, videos from my sony A1 camera .. and everything just looks nicer with more pixels..
I can't understand why people complain they included hdmi 2.1 inside the same price as previous model. If someone don't need it or don't understand what is it actually used for, just ignore it
Mine is 65, but to be able to see the whole screen you have to sit far enough, and from that distance no way to see individual pixels.
But that's not the point, I have a studio display for serious work, I know this is a tv, and apple also didn't say hdmi 2,1 is for monitors. 8k for large screens will become standard, and why not to have 4 times more pixels when using mac on tv, showing photos to friends, videos from my sony A1 camera .. and everything just looks nicer with more pixels..
I can't understand why people complain they included hdmi 2.1 inside the same price as previous model. If someone don't need it or don't understand what is it actually used for, just ignore it
The Sharp monitor is special in that the single HDMI 2.1 will only drive the display at YCbCr 4:2:0. It takes four HDMI 2.0 connections for YCbCr 4:4:4.
People who did not buy in the meantime have no losses at all. If you need a laptop, you’d buy one. If you can wait, then you can obviously wait.
Trade-in prices have apparently gone into the realm of "shameful"...
Honestly I think Apple should cut-out trade-in middleman companies and offer slightly higher value to trade-ins, at least close to a grey market value, a base line. It would help more brand loyalty.
Apple would get the products first hand with better assessment directly and internally and avoid backlogs shipping and recycling inefficiences and fraud.
Ideally, yes, but they would then have to acrually <- that’s an “Autocorrect”
Apple would have to actually establish their own infrastructure for materials reclamation and resale. That’s a lot.
They’ve built a few concept disassembly systems, and their own take on shredders, but I don’t get the impression that they’re motivated to really go all in on yet another related but different industry.
It could be interesting if they made that particular industry into an actual proper materials reclamation business, but they still seem to only be dabbling in it. I don’t particularly like Apple as a company that keeps diversifying anyway, so I can’t say I’m eager to see them get into yet another different type of business.
And yet Apple have still failed to support one of the most basic functions of HDMI - CEC. So, if you're using a TV as a display you'll be lucky if the display will wake or power on with the computer. More often than not, it won't. Over the last five plus years I have had four 43" 4K 60Hz TVs attached to my MacBook Pro. All of them running at native 4K 60Hz, with macOS scalable UIs and audio output, no problem. But of the four TVs I've had (two of them were pretty old models, neither of which were smart TVs and my two new ones are smart TVs) only one of them has been able to consistently work correctly and power on when the Mac wakes from sleep or powers up. But all of them have supported HDMI CEC.
Apple even say they support using TVs as displays, through HDMI:
And yet a fundamental function of a display still doesn't work correctly.
My testing also suggests that their support of EDID is also well below what it should be to support the use of TVs as displays because in the case of all four displays I have had to disable Auto EDID and manually select a version of EDID that macOS seems to be happy with, before I am able to see the displays as saleable from within the OS. Without EDID working correctly we are only able to select native resolutions and not scale the UI in the OS. Once you get the EDID working correctly, by changing the settings on the TVs the OS becomes saleable. So, I am now able to run my displays at 4K 60Hx 3840 x 2160 and scale the OS UI to run at 1920 x 1200. Which is much kinder to my eyesight (both short and long sighted and only getting worse as I passed 50 - lucky me).
This is false advertising and a product that is not fit for purpose.
Apple even say they support using TVs as displays, through HDMI:
Use your TV as a display with Mac
To set up your TV as a display with your Mac, connect the TV with the correct video cable.
support.apple.com
And yet a fundamental function of a display still doesn't work correctly.
My testing also suggests that their support of EDID is also well below what it should be to support the use of TVs as displays because in the case of all four displays I have had to disable Auto EDID and manually select a version of EDID that macOS seems to be happy with, before I am able to see the displays as saleable from within the OS. Without EDID working correctly we are only able to select native resolutions and not scale the UI in the OS. Once you get the EDID working correctly, by changing the settings on the TVs the OS becomes saleable. So, I am now able to run my displays at 4K 60Hx 3840 x 2160 and scale the OS UI to run at 1920 x 1200. Which is much kinder to my eyesight (both short and long sighted and only getting worse as I passed 50 - lucky me).
This is false advertising and a product that is not fit for purpose.
Last edited: