3 x 6k displays is impressive, since that's what the highest-end single GPU chips in the Mac Pro can do. However, it's too bad that 8k support wasn't mentioned. Maybe Apple doesn't want to offer 8k support because that would give customers the option of purchasing the less-expensive Dell 8k in place of the 6k Pro Display XDR.
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 Supports Up to Two External Displays With M1 Pro Chip, Up to Four With M1 Max Chip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You know i am just impressed Apple delivered three ground breaking CPU's in almost a year while in the middle of a Global Pandemic. Also when M1 cameout Intel was already laying bricks, I wouldnt be surprised they go nuclear after the benchmarks on this. 😁
Lack of HDMI 2.1 seems just crazy, Monterey probably could have supported VRR / 120Hz with no trouble given the internal display can.
Everything else is amazing on these machines though.
Would have loved to see a near black model - I’d bet that’s a next year thing.
Everything else is amazing on these machines though.
Would have loved to see a near black model - I’d bet that’s a next year thing.
What is scary is that their marketing is often the truth or even an underestimate...
HDMI 2.1 would need to run of the same PCIe lane as TB4 so I would assume it can manage it.
Use three of their screens or any combination that results in the same number of pixels per TB4 port. If the Dell just needs one TB3 port then I am sure it’ll work.
When M1 came out they said M1 beats top of the line laptops what they didnt say that it can do that without the fan ever starting.
Last edited:
This depends on how serious developers get. The GPU is faster than most desktop gaming GPUs.
It's a shame that the M1 can't support more than 1 external, even if low resolution like 1080p or 1440p.
While this is super impressive, it's ridiculous to limit more than 2 monitors to only people willing to spend £3k+. Or maybe that's by design.
A basic £500 windows PC could output to 2 or 3 monitors fine.
While this is super impressive, it's ridiculous to limit more than 2 monitors to only people willing to spend £3k+. Or maybe that's by design.
A basic £500 windows PC could output to 2 or 3 monitors fine.
Yeah, but why even have the HDMI port if it's going to be the old and slow version ffs. Why?! Why, Timmy, why?
I think it’s very clear from today that the engineering philosophy for the MBP is based around actual work and not gaming. That said, it’s going to be fun to see people put these things through gaming paces 🤷♂️
Sorry, I'm not following. TB4 has a bandwidth of 40 Gb/s, while HDMI 2.1 offers 48 Gb/s. I don't see how you can get 48 Gb/s from a connector that can only do 40 Gb/s.
Last edited:
It actually just comes across like a grumpy kid losing an argument "ok, you want HDMI, here you go then" [throws HDMI 2.0 on the floor]
Actually, it needs two DP connectors. The current Macs have those, but still can't drive the Dell. So it appears to be an OS issue rather than a connectivity issue. I imagine the next gen of 8k monitors will take advantage of the fact that TB4/HDMI 2.1 can drive 8k with a single connector.
I need clarification.
(TB=Thunderbolt)
M1Pro = 2 TB + 1 HDMI for a total of 3 monitors, or 1 TB + 1 HDMI for a total of 2?
M1Max = 4 TB + 1 HDMI for a total of 5 monitors, or 3 TB + 1 HDMI for a total of 4?
The specs are listed kind of ambiguously & don't clarify.
Currently, my 2013 Pro runs 2 TB (2560x1440) & 1 HDMI (1920x1080) and was also listed a bit ambiguously that way too, so I'm inclined to think it might be the larger amount of monitors.
(TB=Thunderbolt)
M1Pro = 2 TB + 1 HDMI for a total of 3 monitors, or 1 TB + 1 HDMI for a total of 2?
M1Max = 4 TB + 1 HDMI for a total of 5 monitors, or 3 TB + 1 HDMI for a total of 4?
The specs are listed kind of ambiguously & don't clarify.
Currently, my 2013 Pro runs 2 TB (2560x1440) & 1 HDMI (1920x1080) and was also listed a bit ambiguously that way too, so I'm inclined to think it might be the larger amount of monitors.
PCIe has nothing to do with display output.
In an Intel Mac with discrete Thunderbolt controllers, the Thunderbolt controller has two separate DisplayPort 1.4 inputs.
It is similar for Macs with integrated Thunderbolt, such as the Intel Ice Lake MacBook Pro, or the Apple Silicon Macs.
HDMI 2.0 has max data rate of 14.4 Gbps.
30 bpp: 480 Mhz
24 bpp: 600 MHz (4K60 is 594 MHz)
20 bpp: 720 MHz (4:2:2 10 bpc)
18 bpp: 800 MHz (4:2:0 12 bpc)
16 bpp: 900 MHz (4:2:2 8 bpc)
15 bpp: 960 MHz (4:2:0 10 bpc)
12 bpp: 1200 MHz (4:2:0 8 bpc)
Apple usually uses DisplayPort HBR2 link rate, 12 bpp DSC, 12 bpc for the XDR (17.28 Gbps with 3:1 compression ratio so it's like 51.84 Gbps allowing a pixel clock of 1440 MHz).
30 bpp: 576 MHz (4K60 is 533MHz with HDR)
24 bpp: 720 MHz (4K80)
12 bpp: 1440 MHz (DSC for XDR display 1286 MHz)
8 bpp: 2160 MHz
DisplayPort 1.4 max link rate is HBR3 which is 25.92 Gbps.
30 bpp: 864 MHz (for HDR 4K95 is ≈858 MHz)
24 bpp: 1080 MHz (4K120 is ≈1075 MHz)
12 bpp: 2160 MHz (DSC)
8 bpp: 3240 MHz (DSC)
HDMI 2.1 max data rate is 42.67 Gbps (12 Gbps per lane but some displays may be limited to 10 Gbps per lane)
30 bpp: 1422 MHz (for HDR)
24 bpp: 1778 MHz
12 bpp: 3556 MHz (DSC)
8 bpp: 5333 MHz (DSC)
Notes:
- Gbps is data, not bits on the wire; we are ignoring 8b/10b encoding (or 16b/18b in the case of HDMI 2.1)
- DisplayPort 1.2 can support 4:2:2 while DisplayPort 1.4 and HDMI 2.1 can also support 4:2:0 but I skipped those since DSC is superior but I think DSC can work with 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 to allow even more pixels.
- Subtract 3% for FEC when DSC is being used.
4K30 = 257 - 297 MHz
4K60 = 522 - 594 MHz
4K120, 8K30 = 1019 - 1188 MHz
4K240, 8K60 = 2068 - 2376 MHz
8K120 = 4258 - 4752 MHz (not possible with DisplayPort 1.4 except if you combine DSC with either 4:2:2 for 8bpc or 4:2:0 for 10bpc)
The M1 in previous Macs is incredibly powerful, and I can't understand why Apple limits the monitor output to 1. It obviously can't be a hardware limitation, since older (and less powerful) intel macs could run more than one monitor. I mean, I don't expect to be able to run four 8k monitors, but at least two 4k, or like four 1080p, that would be super doable for these machines.
Does this prove it can do it?
Attachments
No. Each LG UltraFine 5K display counts as two displays because it uses one DisplayPort connection for each 2560x2880 half of the display.
It may work with the M1Max though.
For M1Pro, I think it says 2 external displays plus internal display. I think that means 2 TB or 1 TB and 1 HDMI.
For M1Max, I think it says 4 external displays plus internal display. I think that means 4TB or 3 TB and 1 HDMI (you can connect two displays to a single Thunderbolt port).
You are referring to the Cable Matters 201388. It might work for 4K120. Or it might not. It depends on Apple's drivers.
A similar adapter is the Club 3D CAC-1586 (or CAC-1085) which uses a different chip.
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ransfers-recommendation.2278473/post-29466205
https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1368-122-usb-c-to-8k-hdmi-adapter.aspx
https://www.club-3d.com/en/detail/2...k120hz_hdr10_with_dsc_1.2_active_adapter_m-f/
https://www.club-3d.com/en/detail/2496/displayport_1.4_to_hdmi_4k120hz_hdr_active_adapter_m-f/
The store says:
But then also lists the HDMI output separately:
Which to me sounds like M1Pro = 2, 6k TB displays + 1, 4k HDMI & the M1Max = 3, 6k TB + 1, 4k TB + 1, 4k HDMI
I say it's ambiguous because the Pro says 2 6k but the HDMI is only 4k, so it has to mean 3 monitors, right?
Then the Max says 3 6k + 1 4k, but is the 4k meaning the HDMI, and if so, why didn't it include the HDMI for the pro there?
The old 2013 pro that i have also listed the monitors like that as 2 externals, but didn't count the HDMI in that, so I am running 3 monitors on my old one, 2 TB and 1 HDMI