The ultimate Pro Display XDR info thread

[BeatCrazy]

I just want to know if M1 has DSC so my USB ports in the back can run at 3.0 speeds :-(

Can confirm. I have an M1 Mac mini connected to my XDR, and the USB-C ports on the back of the monitor do allow for full USB 3.0 speeds.

In fact, USB 3.0 drives connected to the back of the XDR actually got faster transfer speeds than when connected directly to the back of my M1 mini.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

Can confirm. I have an M1 Mac mini connected to my XDR, and the USB-C ports on the back of the monitor do allow for full USB 3.0 speeds.

In fact, USB 3.0 drives connected to the back of the XDR actually got faster transfer speeds than when connected directly to the back of my M1 mini.

I have a M1 mini as well. Lovely hooked up to the XDR

 

[joevt]

Regarding TB4 on Rocket Lake-S: I think it's integrated into the SoC. Which is how it is on Ice Lake (basis for Rocket Lake-S), so it should provide improved performance akin to what is demonstrated in this video showing TB3 support on an Ice Lake vs. Comet Lake-H. Although Intel uses the work "discrete" when referencing TB4 support on Rocket Lake-S. Color me confused!

I do have (several!) DSC-capable GPUs if there's something you'd like me to test.

I might just have to buy that TB4 motherboard and an i5-11400 just to test with my XDR.

Ice Lake and Tiger Lake are mobile CPUs with integrated Thunderbolt / USB4.

Comet Lake and Rocket Lake are desktop CPUs which don't have integrated Thunderbolt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lake

This MSI motherboard is interesting - the JHL8540 Thunderbolt controller is vertically mounted in a tiny slot and there are two DisplayPort inputs also mounted vertically (there's a couple pictures that show this):
https://www.digit.in/reviews/pc-components/msi-meg-z590-ace-gaming-motherboard-review-223347.html

I just want to know if M1 has DSC so my USB ports in the back can run at 3.0 speeds :-(

Can confirm. I have an M1 Mac mini connected to my XDR, and the USB-C ports on the back of the monitor do allow for full USB 3.0 speeds.

In fact, USB 3.0 drives connected to the back of the XDR actually got faster transfer speeds than when connected directly to the back of my M1 mini.

I have a M1 mini as well. Lovely hooked up to the XDR

The script at https://gist.github.com/joevt/e862b0088ef58b9144877d01401bcee8 should be able to tell you if the display is connected using single tile 6K (requires HBR2 + DSC) or dual tile (requires dual HBR3 leaving insufficient bandwidth for USB 3.x). While DSC may work in Big Sur for the XDR, it may be missing in other situations (I have tested the other situations on an Intel Mac but not XDR).

I don't know how to determine if DSC is enabled otherwise on an M1 Mac. Other missing info is pixel format (RGB or 4:2:2 or 4:2:0), bits per component, color space, DisplayPort link rate, DisplayPort link lanes, and EDID, all of which you can get on an Intel Mac using the AGDCDiagnose command with most modern AMD GPUs.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

Ice Lake and Tiger Lake are mobile CPUs with integrated Thunderbolt / USB4.

Comet Lake and Rocket Lake are desktop CPUs which don't have integrated Thunderbolt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lake

This MSI motherboard is interesting - the JHL8540 Thunderbolt controller is vertically mounted in a tiny slot and there are two DisplayPort inputs also mounted vertically (there's a couple pictures that show this):
https://www.digit.in/reviews/pc-components/msi-meg-z590-ace-gaming-motherboard-review-223347.html




The script at https://gist.github.com/joevt/e862b0088ef58b9144877d01401bcee8 should be able to tell you if the display is connected using single tile 6K (requires HBR2 + DSC) or dual tile (requires dual HBR3 leaving insufficient bandwidth for USB 3.x). While DSC may work in Big Sur for the XDR, it may be missing in other situations (I have tested the other situations on an Intel Mac but not XDR).

I don't know how to determine if DSC is enabled otherwise on an M1 Mac. Other missing info is pixel format (RGB or 4:2:2 or 4:2:0), bits per component, color space, DisplayPort link rate, DisplayPort link lanes, and EDID, all of which you can get on an Intel Mac using the AGDCDiagnose command with most modern AMD GPUs.

I was going to just test the drive speeds using an M1 and an Intel based back (with a lower display resolution) to see, but I got a little lazy and just asked for others to do the work I should have done on my own

I will run the script as well---thanks for everyone who assisted with this question/issue!

 

[rawweb]

--delete--

 

[twentyonekoalas]

has anyone had any luck with using the usb-c port on the 6800xt/6900xt with the Pro Display XDR?

Setting up a little gaming pc to play with my brother.

 

[naughtybehavior86]

Will the CalDigit TS3+ power the XDR Pro?

 

[ekwipt]

Say if I have a M1 MacMini and and M1 iPad, how can I switch inputs on the XDR? Is there a thunderbolt KVM switch you can use

 

[joevt]

Say if I have a M1 MacMini and and M1 iPad, how can I switch inputs on the XDR? Is there a thunderbolt KVM switch you can use

There are no Thunderbolt 3 KVMs. There are Thunderbolt 2 KVMs which might work since XDR doesn't require Thunderbolt 3 bandwidth when DSC is supported. I suppose someone here can test a 20 Gbps Thunderbolt connection by using a USB-C (non Thunderbolt) cable.

XDR doesn't require Thunderbolt to work at 6K if DSC is supported. In that case, a normal DisplayPort 1.2 + USB KVM should work (use a method to combine DisplayPort + USB 2.0 such as Belkin Charge and Sync cable to connect the display so that you have Presets and Brightness control features).

 

[ekwipt]

There are no Thunderbolt 3 KVMs. There are Thunderbolt 2 KVMs which might work since XDR doesn't require Thunderbolt 3 bandwidth when DSC is supported. I suppose someone here can test a 20 Gbps Thunderbolt connection by using a USB-C (non Thunderbolt) cable.

XDR doesn't require Thunderbolt to work at 6K if DSC is supported. In that case, a normal DisplayPort 1.2 + USB KVM should work (use a method to combine DisplayPort + USB 2.0 such as Belkin Charge and Sync cable to connect the display so that you have Presets and Brightness control features).

thanks for that, it’s crazy that Apple hasn’t come up with a more elegant solution (or 2 thunderbolt inputs!)

 

[twentyonekoalas]

will the caldigit element support two Pro Display XDR’s?

 

[joevt]

will the caldigit element support two Pro Display XDR’s?

It should if:
- the GPU supports DSC for 6K60 (Nvidia RTX, AMD Navi, Ice Lake, Tiger Lake, Rocket Lake)
- the host Thunderbolt controller has two connections to the GPU (not M1 Macs, not some PCs)
- the OS supports DSC (Windows, macOS Catalina, maybe macOS Big Sur?)

but I haven't tested it.

The same should be true for any Thunderbolt 3 dock (with Titan Ridge controller) that supports two displays (either via DisplayPort port or downstream Thunderbolt port).

If it doesn't work, then the conditions aren't met or there's a bug in the drivers. The reason it should work is because 6K60 with DSC only requires HBR2 link rate, and Thunderbolt 3 can connect two of those no problem.

 

[naughtybehavior86]

I just got an XDR Pro Display and I am running it through my CalDigit TS3+. Everything seems to work fine and I have verified that it can push the full 6K by looking at the System Report.

I am however getting an odd behavior. When running the XDR through the CalDigit TS3+ I am not given the color profile options in the Display menu as you would see when the XDR is directly connected to the Mac itself.

Any insight appreciate and I have included two screenshots one showing the full menu when the XDR is connected directly to the Mac and then the partial menu when the XDR is going through the TS3+.

Am I stuck having two cords going into my M1 Air if I want this XDR to run fully? It seems like full features only work directly connected.

Thanks!

 

[joevt]

I just got an XDR Pro Display and I am running it through my CalDigit TS3+. Everything seems to work fine and I have verified that it can push the full 6K by looking at the System Report.

I am however getting an odd behavior. When running the XDR through the CalDigit TS3+ I am not given the color profile options in the Display menu as you would see when the XDR is directly connected to the Mac itself.

Any insight appreciate and I have included two screenshots one showing the full menu when the XDR is connected directly to the Mac and then the partial menu when the XDR is going through the TS3+.

I don't see the problem. Both those screenshots show the presets options is available. The left picture has the Scaled option selected. The right picture has the Default option selected. If you want to show a problem, then show two pictures with the same option selected - one with the problem and one without the problem.

Am I stuck having two cords going into my M1 Air if I want this XDR to run fully? It seems like full features only work directly connected.

What two cords? The XDR only requires a Thunderbolt connection to the M1.
Maybe you are talking about other stuff connected to the Thunderbolt dock.

Can you verify 6K using the script at
https://gist.github.com/joevt/e862b0088ef58b9144877d01401bcee8 I have no reason to doubt 6K operation since the CalDigit should be able to pass the Thunderbolt signal from the M1 to the XDR even though the CalDigit is Alpine Ridge and the M1 is Apple Silicon and the XDR is Titan Ridge. The CalDigit cannot pass the Thunderbolt signal for old GPUs that don't support DSC because in that case 6K requires two HBR3 connections over Thunderbolt and Apple doesn't allow that with a Thunderbolt device between the source and the display.

 

[Menno87]

has anyone had any luck with using the usb-c port on the 6800xt/6900xt with the Pro Display XDR?

Setting up a little gaming pc to play with my brother.

Last I checked (december) it worked fine on a windows pc with the usb-c port (6k and bootcamp utility worked). Sadly there were no macOS drivers at the time so I sold the card. Wondering if this functionality will be available in 11.4 or just no DSC except apple cards. (More likely). I will wait/hope for an mpx module if that is the case (swapping cables for dual boot is a a pain hehe)

 

[Jon208]

Could anyone please give me an idea of the reflectivity a standard XDR gives compared to a normal iMac screen? I’m currently on a 21” 2015 iMac but will soon be moving to XDR. I see Apple state that all XDR displays are engineered for low reflectivity - does this mean the standard XDR screen is less reflective than something like my iMac?

From what I can see the nano glass version is marketed towards those working in uncontrolled lighting environments, I’m fortunate that my home office has well controlled lighting - north facing window with blind, dimable/temperature adjustable wall mounted lights located behind the monitor, no light source above or facing the monitor.

As a result I’m undecided as to whether I actually need the nano screen if the standard is already of low reflectivity. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. The application is medical imaging (mostly MRI) so I was a little concerned regarding the slight blurring effect some users report with the nano screens, it’s important I don’t sacrifice sharpness.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[Adult80HD]

Could anyone please give me an idea of the reflectivity a standard XDR gives compared to a normal iMac screen? I’m currently on a 21” 2015 iMac but will soon be moving to XDR. I see Apple state that all XDR displays are engineered for low reflectivity - does this mean the standard XDR screen is less reflective than something like my iMac?

From what I can see the nano glass version is marketed towards those working in uncontrolled lighting environments, I’m fortunate that my home office has well controlled lighting - north facing window with blind, dimable/temperature adjustable wall mounted lights located behind the monitor, no light source above or facing the monitor.

As a result I’m undecided as to whether I actually need the nano screen if the standard is already of low reflectivity. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. The application is medical imaging (mostly MRI) so I was a little concerned regarding the slight blurring effect some users report with the nano screens, it’s important I don’t sacrifice sharpness.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

It's less reflective than a normal iMac screen for sure, but it's not a huge difference. The claims of the nano screen making stuff "softer" are pretty much hyperbole; I have two nanos and one regular and you'd be challenged to say the regular screen is "sharper" in any way. I have pretty controlled lighting but I still prefer the nano screens because they have zero reflections of any kind. If you hate seeing any reflections as I do then you will like the nano. If it doesn't really bother you much then save the money and just get the regular screen.

 

[Jon208]

It's less reflective than a normal iMac screen for sure, but it's not a huge difference. The claims of the nano screen making stuff "softer" are pretty much hyperbole; I have two nanos and one regular and you'd be challenged to say the regular screen is "sharper" in any way. I have pretty controlled lighting but I still prefer the nano screens because they have zero reflections of any kind. If you hate seeing any reflections as I do then you will like the nano. If it doesn't really bother you much then save the money and just get the regular screen.

Thanks, that's really helpful. I kind of got the impression that the softening/blurring thing was probably something that existed more on internet forums and YouTube channels than it did in actual practice. I've seen some suggestion that standard may be slightly better for those dealing with lots of text while nano may be slightly better for those dealing with images. Given this screen will be used entirely for image display, I'm slightly leaning to towards nano (although have been going back and forth on this several times each day!).

As somebody who owns both standard and nano I'd really value your opinion as to whether one version was superior compared to the other at displaying true blacks? The majority on my work is grey scale and true black representation is very desirable.

When I consider all the monitors I've ever used professionally over the last 15 years (a mix of Barco and Eizo), with one exception every pair has had an antireflective coating of some sort - which is further swaying me towards the nano.

 

[Adult80HD]

Thanks, that's really helpful. I kind of got the impression that the softening/blurring thing was probably something that existed more on internet forums and YouTube channels than it did in actual practice. I've seen some suggestion that standard may be slightly better for those dealing with lots of text while nano may be slightly better for those dealing with images. Given this screen will be used entirely for image display, I'm slightly leaning to towards nano (although have been going back and forth on this several times each day!).

As somebody who owns both standard and nano I'd really value your opinion as to whether one version was superior compared to the other at displaying true blacks? The majority on my work is grey scale and true black representation is very desirable.

When I consider all the monitors I've ever used professionally over the last 15 years (a mix of Barco and Eizo), with one exception every pair has had an antireflective coating of some sort - which is further swaying me towards the nano.

There is no perceptible difference in the blacks to my eyes. I had always used anti-reflective/matte screens until I was forced by Apple to go glossy when it was the only option on the Thunderbolt display. I really enjoy being back on non-glossy displays.

All of that said...the XDR in the regular version does have less reflection than a iMac screen--it's pretty darned good, really.

 

[sparkie7]

Apple XDR Pro Display Standard vs. Nano Texture.mp4

drive.google.com

Here you go... a video I shot at the Apple store comparing both displays.

I'm assuming the display on the left is glass, and the right (without reflections) is the nano?

 

[rkuo]

Thanks, that's really helpful. I kind of got the impression that the softening/blurring thing was probably something that existed more on internet forums and YouTube channels than it did in actual practice. I've seen some suggestion that standard may be slightly better for those dealing with lots of text while nano may be slightly better for those dealing with images. Given this screen will be used entirely for image display, I'm slightly leaning to towards nano (although have been going back and forth on this several times each day!).

As somebody who owns both standard and nano I'd really value your opinion as to whether one version was superior compared to the other at displaying true blacks? The majority on my work is grey scale and true black representation is very desirable.

When I consider all the monitors I've ever used professionally over the last 15 years (a mix of Barco and Eizo), with one exception every pair has had an antireflective coating of some sort - which is further swaying me towards the nano.

I would NEVER use a monitor with local dimming for medical imaging purposes. It's impossible to discriminate shadow detail that is a result of the dimming algorithm vs the actual photo. Local dimming is not for precision work.

The XDR also has had reports of off axis viewing angle issues due to the screen being so large and close to your eyes. That is to say, the edges color shift as compared to the center of the screen when viewed head on. This may or may not be an issue for you.

Furthermore, the difference in the nano-texture glass is plainly visible to my eyes and not in a good way. I assure you it is not "overblown". It will be better for some people and not for others depending on their lighting conditions.

Take a look at this link:

Worth getting the nano Display on the New 2020 iMac?

The difference in sharpness is massive, please do not make the mistake I did and make sure you go see a display in the store before you purchase. I didn't do that because of the coronavirus situation, I judged only on people's opinions online and as many videos / photos as I could find, but the...

forums.macrumors.com

Hopefully you can work backwards from that to figure out if the loss of sharpness makes a difference to you.

 

[petardosh]

There are no Thunderbolt 3 KVMs. There are Thunderbolt 2 KVMs which might work since XDR doesn't require Thunderbolt 3 bandwidth when DSC is supported. I suppose someone here can test a 20 Gbps Thunderbolt connection by using a USB-C (non Thunderbolt) cable.

XDR doesn't require Thunderbolt to work at 6K if DSC is supported. In that case, a normal DisplayPort 1.2 + USB KVM should work (use a method to combine DisplayPort + USB 2.0 such as Belkin Charge and Sync cable to connect the display so that you have Presets and Brightness control features).

Display Port 1.2 or 1.3 does not support DSC, only 1.4 does and it is required for the XDR (tech doc). I think a switch or KVM with 1.4 Display Port including DSC support is required to drive the XDR.

 

[joevt]

Display Port 1.2 or 1.3 does not support DSC, only 1.4 does and it is required for the XDR (tech doc). I think a switch or KVM with 1.4 Display Port including DSC support is required to drive the XDR.

A switch is probably as dumb as a cable - they don't know what signal is being transmitted on it. They don't know or care if DSC is being used.

XDR requires only HBR2 link rate when DSC is used so a switch and cable that can do DisplayPort 1.2 is good enough.

Only the driver, GPU, and display needs to know about DSC.

For a DisplayPort connection from a Thunderbolt dock, the Thunderbolt dock probably needs to know about DisplayPort 1.4 so it can properly convert the tunnelled DisplayPort 1.4 HBR2 + DSC signal. This means Titan Ridge or Goshen Ridge based docks. I haven't tried getting DSC from an older dock (Alpine Ridge or earlier)...

For a Thunderbolt connection from a Thunderbolt dock, it doesn't matter what dock is used (as long as it can do at least Thunderbolt 2 speed) since the Thunderbolt controller in the XDR display (Titan Ridge) will be the one responsible for converting the tunnelled DisplayPort 1.4 HBR2 + DSC signal.

In the case of a GPU that doesn't support DSC, a direct Thunderbolt 3/4 connection is required - Apple does not allow a Thunderbolt dock (or even a Thunderbolt optical cable) between the GPU and XDR in this case in order to enable a special dual HBR3 link over Thunderbolt to get 6K.

 

[BeatCrazy]

So I've had my XDR (reg glass) for 11 months. For the most part I'm very happy with it.

The "shadow" effect near the borders from the mini-LED tech was obvious to me from Day 1, but I've learned to live with it. However, there's been a different anomaly that has really started to annoy me. I can't tell if it's getting worse over time, and it's hard to capture in photos.

Basically there's a 'anti shadow' that runs around the boarder, on all 4 sides, but most prominent on the left. It's visible in all conditions, but obviously solid areas of color make it more visible.

Have we seen this before? I'd prefer not to have to do an exchange, as this was a new/retail unit that has served me well. I'm always cautious about trading one problem for another.

I added the rectangular box in Snagit to highlight the "lighter" band:

 

[cmsj]

Is there a way I can determine if DSC is enabled for my XDR? I have a 2019 Mac Pro with the W5700X, but the machine and the XDR are far enough apart that I can't quite get the display plugged directly into the GPU - instead it's connected to one of the TB3 ports on the Apple IO card in the top PCIe slot.
I'm using a TS3+ as essentially a TB3 extender for a second display (LG UltraFine 5K), but I didn't think that was possible for the XDR because of its bandwidth requirements. This thread seems to suggest that if I put a second TS3+ under my desk, I could get the extra length I need to connect to the GPU directly and have DSC enabled.