So if you try, say, 7492×4214 it doesn’t work?That was the highest one I could find with an hour of putting in resolution numbers + rebooting.
This is good stuff Allen. Would you mind posting a screen shot of your custom resolution entry into SwitchResX? I thought I tried this one but I couldn't get it to work. It's possible that I just stopped when I ran into the first one that didn't work assuming that nothing higher would work. BTW...I agree with you 100% that the BetterDummy solution is not viable...too many side effects.Made an account just to contribute to the thread here.
Also with a M1 MBP w/ XDR, and through a bunch of manual testing last night (couldn't find any documentation on what resolutions the XDR will accept, it's very finicky), I was able to find one other resolution that works in SwitchResX @ 7460 x 4196, or 3730 x 2098 HiDPI which gets *pretty* close to 4K's resolution. My sweet spot is actually somewhere between 4K and 5K but I couldn't find a number that'd work.
(I've talked with the BetterDummy dev as well, it's a good workaround but really messes up Spaces on OS sleep and I got tired of having to move my windows every time I wake up the laptop)
Yeah, here's a screenshot of what I'm using, plus the latest batch of resolutions I was trying.This is good stuff Allen. Would you mind posting a screen shot of your custom resolution entry into SwitchResX? I thought I tried this one but I couldn't get it to work. It's possible that I just stopped when I ran into the first one that didn't work assuming that nothing higher would work. BTW...I agree with you 100% that the BetterDummy solution is not viable...too many side effects.
Do you mean original M1 MBP 13 inch?
Does 7476×4205 work?Yeah, here's a screenshot of what I'm using, plus the latest batch of resolutions I was trying.
It's only another 80 px more, so in reality I don't think it's that much difference. Don't see any artifacts, though, which is nice.Excellent. How does 7460x4196 look/feel compared to the 7300x4106? I noticed that some resolutions didn't look right or had artifacts when moving windows around.
Just tried it and doesn't work. Since BetterDummy is able to go way higher than this I'd like to think there isn't so much a max resolution that we're hitting, but just the bunch of numbers that get marked as invalid through some combination of M1 + XDR checks.Does 7476×4205 work?
Maybe the max height is 4200?
The difference between BetterDummy and the SwitchResX route is that BetterDummy simulates a screen with a certain native resolution, say, "8K", so a "4K" HiDPI mode is simply pixel-doubling, with no downscaling required. On the other hand, defining a scaled resolution in SwitchResX and using the HiDPI mode that goes along with it implies downscaling a framebuffer the size of the scaled resolution to the XDR's native (6K) resolution. And the limits for both routes may well be different - in my experience (with Intel Macs), they are. I apologise if you've already known all this.Since BetterDummy is able to go way higher than this I'd like to think there isn't so much a max resolution that we're hitting, but just the bunch of numbers that get marked as invalid through some combination of M1 + XDR checks.
(I've talked with the BetterDummy dev as well, it's a good workaround but really messes up Spaces on OS sleep and I got tired of having to move my windows every time I wake up the laptop)
Ah, that's a good point—you're right in that the codepaths are almost certainly different, and that a hardware downscaling step explains why this problem is specific to the XDR itself.The difference between BetterDummy and the SwitchResX route is that BetterDummy simulates a screen with a certain native resolution, say, "8K", so a "4K" HiDPI mode is simply pixel-doubling, with no downscaling required. On the other hand, defining a scaled resolution in SwitchResX and using the HiDPI mode that goes along with it implies downscaling a framebuffer the size of the scaled resolution to the XDR's native (6K) resolution. And the limits for both routes may well be different - in my experience (with Intel Macs), they are. I apologise if you've already known all this.![]()
Hey @stevemr123, thanks for all your help so far, and yeah—I empathize that at this point, we're at the point of trying to reverse-engineer and hack around issues in the operating system, which is inherently janky and error-prone. I try to get some perspective by reminding myself that this is basically the most first world of first world problems.Hey @allenmhc - BetterDummy developer here. I am sorry about that, I tried every way I could think of to somehow get around the sleep bug in macOS regarding mirrored virtual displays but simply found no alternative to the current solution (which messes up window locations). To be fair, both the messing up and the spaces issue (which is an other macOS bug I can't do much about) happens with multiple displays only (when there is an other display alongside the mirrored set), so for ppl who use only their external displays on M1 (with their macbook with clamshell mode or their mini) the app works mostly fine. I hope for a fix for all these things in future macOS versions but I understand if it is not Apple's highest priority and I have no way of pushing it really.![]()
The downscaling occurs before the image is output to the monitor. The monitor is always driven at the native resolution. You can verify this in SwitchResX by double-clicking on any scaled mode in the "Available resolutions" tab. This reveals the timing parameters of the native resolution and at the bottom it says "Scaled" and indicates the framebuffer size. So the limit with regards to downscaled framebuffer dimensions may be irrespective of the monitor's native resolution. My tests on Intel Macs suggest this to be the case.Will keep poking around, though I think the holy grail is finding some documentation on either the monitor or the LG panel itself!
Got it. According to this then, the limitation we're running into is how much the M1s allow the resolution to get, as it's running into limits with the size of the framebuffer in just sheer numbers of pixels it'd have to render in HiDPI (which will be approx. 4x the actual UI size). Then it makes me wonder whether the # of external monitors a M1 chip supports affects the possible resolutions available; e.g., M1 vanilla vs. Pro vs. Max can support different #s of external monitors.The downscaling occurs before the image is output to the monitor. The monitor is always driven at the native resolution. You can verify this in SwitchResX by double-clicking on any scaled mode in the "Available resolutions" tab. This reveals the timing parameters of the native resolution and at the bottom it says "Scaled" and indicates the framebuffer size. So the limit with regards to downscaled framebuffer dimensions may be irrespective of the monitor's native resolution. My tests on Intel Macs suggest this to be the case.
If, on the other hand, you were trying to feed the XDR an actual "8K" mode in order to run "4K" HiDPI by simply pixel-doubling, I'd fully expect the monitor itself to be the limiting factor.
So, a height of 4206 is OK but 4214 is not.Incidentally, I found another resolution that works in SwitchResX: 7476 x 4206.
Nope, no such luck. ?So, a height of 4206 is OK but 4214 is not.
Question: since a width of 7680 is possible (7680×3240 for 3840×1620 HiDPI) - can you test if SwitchResX accepts 7680×4206? I know it's the wrong aspect ratio and would look weird on the XDR, I'm just wondering if SwitchResX allows it.
Yes it is, i test it and did not get better results at all. Only 1 pixel more does not work anymore! Apple limited the max resolution we can get here. Only with BetterDummy u can get more. I just use now 3740x2098 HiDPI and compare it with BetterDummy 4k. In 4k u have a little more space, but u only realize that when u switch between 4k and 3740x2098. In cm i see a difference around the screen about 1cm more space.Is this the highest 16:9 HiDPI mode accepted?
Cool. That's not quite a 16:9 aspect ratio and might look a little weird on the XDR. 7474×4204 is as close to 16:9 as possible given that width.After testing a little more i do get a higher resolution worked, 7474x4210 so 3737x2105 HiDPI is possible!!
Unfortunately that's to be expected because the monitor only has 110 ppi, which is far too low for macOS' HiDPI modes with their vastly better font rendering to be enabled OOTB.If I connect via Thunderbolt, HDMI or Displayport, the text is fuzzy/blurry.
You can try to enable a HiDPI mode but that will sacrifice some screen estate.What do I need to do in SwitchResX or Better Dummy with my Monitor and MacBook Pro 14 to make it workable?
Plz look here:Hi,
so I got the Mac Book Pro 14 M1 Pro now and as a Monitor the LG38WN95C-W.
If I connect via Thunderbolt, HDMI or Displayport, the text is fuzzy/blurry.
The Monitor settings:
- 3840 x 1600
- 21:9
- 144hz
I have done:
- Disabled font font smoothing
- Changed in SwitchResX to 3840x1600, 144hz without HiDPI
but not really a huge improvement. I´m reading here different methods of SwitchResX and BetterDummy Can someone help me if there is a solution to make it work with either of the methods? What do I need to do in SwitchResX or Better Dummy with my Monitor and MacBook Pro 14 to make it workable?
Thanks.Unfortunately that's to be expected because the monitor only has 110 ppi, which is far too low for macOS' HiDPI modes with their vastly better font rendering to be enabled OOTB.
You can try to enable a HiDPI mode but that will sacrifice some screen estate.
Example: For a 3072×1280 HiDPI mode (which gives you 80% of your native screen estate), add a scaled mode of 6144×2560 in SwitchResX, i.e. it has to be exactly twice as wide and twice as tall as the HiDPI mode you want to use. Once that has been successfully added (SwitchResX will need to show it as "Active"), a 3072×1280 HiDPI mode will become accessible on the "Available Resolutions" tab.
If you want to go the BetterDummy route, add a virtual monitor with a native resolution of, again, 6144×2560.
A 3840×1600 HiDPI mode? Was text rendered acceptably?I tried HiDPI with 3840x1600 before.
That would be for 3840×1600 HiDPI, i.e. the same as the monitor’s native resolution which only provides a (very) slight improvement in my experience. By going for a lower-than-native HiDPI mode, there should be a more noticeable difference.So I should not enter 7680x3200?