Pro Display XDR on my 16" MacBook Pro M1 Max

[joevt]

Hmm then maybe my custom entires into SwitchResX are triggering the More Space option to appear? Here are my entries: View attachment 1931061

Yes, that's it. You can add scaled modes for M1 Macs but you can't add custom timings.
I'm not sure if the scaled modes that you can add are the same between M1 and M1 Pro/Max.

7476x4206 gives "Looks like 3738x2103" (not exactly 16:9)
7460x4196 gives "Looks like 3730x2098" (not exactly 16:9)
7300x4106 gives "Looks like 3650x2053" (not exactly 16:9)
7200x4050 gives "Looks like 3600x2025"
6016x3384 gives "Looks like 3008x1692"
5120x2880 gives "Looks like 2560x1440"
3840x2160 gives "Looks like 1920x1080"
3650x2053 gives "Looks like 1825x1026" (not exactly 16:9)
3600x2025 gives "Looks like 1800x1012" (not exactly 16:9)
3008x1692 gives "Looks like 1504x846"
2560x1440 gives "Looks like 1280x720"
1920x1080 gives "Looks like 960x540"
1504x846 gives "Looks like 752x423"
1280x720 gives "Looks like 640x360"

For a 16:9 display like the XDR, you should choose widths that are a multiple of 32 so that the height can be an exact multiple of 18 when you multiply the width by 9/16.

You probably shouldn't have modes less than 4K unless you want small frame buffers for faster refresh rates in gaming (but the XDR can't do more than 60fps) or for developing apps for smaller displays or for taking smaller screen shots or if you want to experience how poor people live.

 

[Zorast]

On XDR there is no "more Space" feature with more that 3008px on Monterey 12.1

Only when activate with SwitchResX 3600x2025 apple show "more space" with this resolution.
For me it also works with 3738x2103

Plz can someone conform that the XDR works only with 8 bit instead of 10 bit ?
In SwitchResolutionX it shows me that the XDR does not run with 10 bit!

 

[Zorast]

Yes, that's it. You can add scaled modes for M1 Macs but you can't add custom timings.
I'm not sure if the scaled modes that you can add are the same between M1 and M1 Pro/Max.

7476x4206 gives "Looks like 3738x2103" (not exactly 16:9)
7460x4196 gives "Looks like 3730x2098" (not exactly 16:9)
7300x4106 gives "Looks like 3650x2053" (not exactly 16:9)
7200x4050 gives "Looks like 3600x2025"
6016x3384 gives "Looks like 3008x1692"
5120x2880 gives "Looks like 2560x1440"
3840x2160 gives "Looks like 1920x1080"
3650x2053 gives "Looks like 1825x1026" (not exactly 16:9)
3600x2025 gives "Looks like 1800x1012" (not exactly 16:9)
3008x1692 gives "Looks like 1504x846"
2560x1440 gives "Looks like 1280x720"
1920x1080 gives "Looks like 960x540"
1504x846 gives "Looks like 752x423"
1280x720 gives "Looks like "640x360"

For a 16:9 display like the XDR, you should choose widths that are a multiple of 32 so that the height can be an exact multiple of 18 when you multiply the width by 9/16.

You probably shouldn't have modes less than 4K unless you want small frame buffers for faster refresh rates in gaming (but the XDR can't do more than 60fps) or for developing apps for smaller displays or for taking smaller screen shots or if you want to experience how poor people live.

Yes its same for M1Max on my Side !

 

[joevt]

Some questions about scaled modes on M1 Macs. It appears that the limit might be a product of width and height. By reducing one of those, you can increase the other.
So with that in mind, what is the max height you can get with a width of 1024? 2048? 4096? 5120?
Conversely, what is the max width you can get using a height of 1000? 2000? 4000?
On an Intel Mac, the max width and height for a scaled mode is 16Kx16K using AMD graphics (W5700 connected to a Mac mini 2018).

For 16:9, find the max width that is a multiple of 32 and multiply that by 9/16 to get the height.
The max may be 7456x4194 = 3728x2097 HiDPI (16:9 exact) and the next higher option 7488x4212 = 3744x2106 HiDPI (16:9 exact) may be out of range according to tests already done in this thread (but many of those tests did not use an exact 16:9 ratio which might have its own problems).

 

[Zorast]

Some questions about scaled modes on M1 Macs. It appears that the limit might be a product of width and height. By reducing one of those, you can increase the other.
So with that in mind, what is the max height you can get with a width of 1024? 2048? 4096? 5120?
Conversely, what is the max width you can get using a height of 1000? 2000? 4000?
On an Intel Mac, the max width and height for a scaled mode is 16Kx16K using AMD graphics (W5700 connected to a Mac mini 2018).

For 16:9, find the max width that is a multiple of 32 and multiply that by 9/16 to get the height.
The max may be 7456x4194 = 3728x2097 HiDPI (16:9 exact) and the next higher option 7488x4212 = 3744x2106 HiDPI (16:9 exact) may be out of range according to tests already done in this thread (but many of those tests did not use an exact 16:9 ratio which might have its own problems).

Here's what u get:

 

[Nomad110]

Some questions about scaled modes on M1 Macs. It appears that the limit might be a product of width and height. By reducing one of those, you can increase the other.
So with that in mind, what is the max height you can get with a width of 1024? 2048? 4096? 5120?
Conversely, what is the max width you can get using a height of 1000? 2000? 4000?
On an Intel Mac, the max width and height for a scaled mode is 16Kx16K using AMD graphics (W5700 connected to a Mac mini 2018).

For 16:9, find the max width that is a multiple of 32 and multiply that by 9/16 to get the height.
The max may be 7456x4194 = 3728x2097 HiDPI (16:9 exact) and the next higher option 7488x4212 = 3744x2106 HiDPI (16:9 exact) may be out of range according to tests already done in this thread (but many of those tests did not use an exact 16:9 ratio which might have its own problems).

I see what you are saying. So if that is the case...here are the "perfect" 16:9 resolutions we should be trying. Multiple 480 is 4K in HiDPI which we know doesn't work. Anyone want to try plugging these in to see what works.

 

[Amethyst1]

So if that is the case...here are the "perfect" 16:9 resolutions we should be trying.

One thing to keep in mind is that if the height is not even, e.g. 7344×4131, the corresponding HiDPI mode's height is not an integer (e.g. 3672×2065.5). Not sure if this is a problem, but I'd stick to integer HiDPI modes for normal use. It doesn't matter for testing the limits.

 

[Nomad110]

One thing to keep in mind is that if the height is not even, e.g. 7344×4131, the corresponding HiDPI mode's height is not an integer (e.g. 3672×2065.5). Not sure if this is a problem, but I'd stick to integer HiDPI modes for normal use. It doesn't matter for testing the limits.

Ahh yes...duh! I updated the chart to remove odd multiples. Good catch!

 

[Zorast]

I see what you are saying. So if that is the case...here are the "perfect" 16:9 resolutions we should be trying. Multiple 480 is 4K in HiDPI which we know doesn't work. Anyone want to try plugging these in to see what works.

View attachment 1931977

Testing up and getting this results:

 

[Nomad110]

I too got similar results. Here is the table side by side with SwitchRes X. Green shows working resolutions. So according to this...if you care about having a "perfect resolution", the highest working resolution you can get is 7456 x 4194. Thanks to others we know that 7476 x 4206 also work but is not a "perfect resolution". Anyone else have any other ideas on what's going on here?

 

[Amethyst1]

Anyone else have any other ideas on what's going on here?

It's an “interesting” limit.

Spoiler

Other limits according to my testing:

AMD Radeon HD 7770: 8000×4032
Intel Iris Pro 5200: 8192×8190 (!)
NVIDIA Kepler GPUs: 8192×4096

 

[joevt]

Anyone else have any other ideas on what's going on here?

I said there may be a limit with the total number of pixels and to see if one dimension can be increased by decreasing the other so setting horizontal to 1024, 2048, 4096, 5120, 6016 and seeing what the max vertical would be in each case. The tests would be really stretched. The point is not to find something useable - it is to find the vertical limit for each horizontal value to see if there is an inverse relationship between x and y. Then repeat for different vertical values 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 to see what the max horizontal is in each case.

 

[Zorast]

31444056 is the max Pixel we know until now

 

[teachmelove]

I too got similar results. Here is the table side by side with SwitchRes X. Green shows working resolutions. So according to this...if you care about having a "perfect resolution", the highest working resolution you can get is 7456 x 4194. Thanks to others we know that 7476 x 4206 also work but is not a "perfect resolution". Anyone else have any other ideas on what's going on here?View attachment 1932411

Thanks @Nomad110 and everyone else for this amazing thread. I plugged in all of the green numbers yesterday and while they worked, I noticed that text and other UI elements are pixelated / way fuzzier than when in Apple’s default hidpi mode of 3008 x 1692. I also have an LG Ultrafine 5k and notice that UI is rendered perfectly even at 3200 x 1600 which is not exactly half of the native 5k resolution. if the LG Ultrafine 5k can render UI crisply at non doubling pixel scale, why can’t the XDR? Is there no known way to achieve a true hidpi resolution higher than 3008 x 1692 on this overpriced display? I‘m close to giving up and returning this thing, in hopes that Apple will release a true pro 8k monitor for v2.

 

[Nomad110]

Thanks @Nomad110 and everyone else for this amazing thread. I plugged in all of the green numbers yesterday and while they worked, I noticed that text and other UI elements are pixelated / way fuzzier than when in Apple’s default hidpi mode of 3008 x 1692. I also have an LG Ultrafine 5k and notice that UI is rendered perfectly even at 3200 x 1600 which is not exactly half of the native 5k resolution. if the LG Ultrafine 5k can render UI crisply at non doubling pixel scale, why can’t the XDR? Is there no known way to achieve a true hidpi resolution higher than 3008 x 1692 on this overpriced display? I‘m close to giving up and returning this thing, in hopes that Apple will release a true pro 8k monitor for v2.

That's odd...they should be showing up as HiDPI resolutions and look really sharp. After you input the resolutions, take a look at the Current Resolutions tab in SwitchResX.

 

[teachmelove]

That's odd...they should be showing up as HiDPI resolutions and look really sharp. After you input the resolutions, take a look at the Current Resolutions tab in SwitchResX.

View attachment 1933042

Weird! None of my custom resolutions appear as HiDPI. Are there additional steps needed to toggle that setting on?

 

[Nomad110]

Weird! None of my custom resolutions appear as HiDPI. Are there additional steps needed to toggle that setting on?

No not that I'm aware of. They should be listed as scaled under the Custom Resolution screen also.

 

[teachmelove]

No not that I'm aware of. They should be listed as scaled under the Custom Resolution screen also. View attachment 1933051
View attachment 1933053

Ok I’ll double check my settings when I’m back home later tonight. Thank you!!

 

[Amethyst1]

Weird! None of my custom resolutions appear as HiDPI.

Did you enter twice the width and twice the height of the HiDPI mode(s) you want to use? E.g. for a 3200×1800 HiDPI mode, you need a scaled mode of 6400×3600.

 

[teachmelove]

Did you enter twice the width and twice the height of the HiDPI mode(s) you want to use? E.g. for a 3200×1800 HiDPI mode, you need a scaled mode of 6400×3600.

Just did now and it’s working perfectly. Thanks! Based on this thread, it seems 7456 x 4194 is the highest 16:9 resolution available, correct?

 

[Nomad110]

Ok I’ll double check my settings when I’m back home later tonight. Thank you!!

Perhaps share a screen shot of your custom resolution page and current resolution page. I'm sure we can figure out what's going on here.

 

[Zorast]

UPDATE:

MacOS 12.2 >>> 4k HiDPI is not possible

 

[dombera]

That's not too great. Wondering what's going on as my i7 16inch 2019 can do 4k yet my m1 pro 10 core, 16 core gpu cannot

 

[allenmhc]

Dunno if I've seen this on this thread yet, from an interview from @stevemr123 back in December speculates that the limited resolutions may just be the unintended consequences of the limitations of iOS display drivers reused for M1 Macs, that Apple just never got around to building out support for additional resolutions because iPhones/iPads would never have to support the range of resolutions that Macs do.

This is why your external monitor looks awful on an M1 Mac

Q&A with the developer of BetterDummy: from macOS secrets to his motivations

www.theregister.com

 

[pen-helm]

UPDATE:

MacOS 12.2 >>> 4k HiDPI is not possible

I heard that some resolutions removed in 12.2 are back in the 12.3 beta.