Live data from Hacker News

New Apple Silicon M4 and M5 HiDPI Limitation on 4K External Displays

smcleod.net

1–10 of 180 posts

Re: New Apple Silicon M4 and M5 HiDPI Limitation on 4K External Displays

#5
This is not a normal retina configuration. This is a highly unusual configuration where the framebuffer is much larger than the screen resolution and gets scaled down. Obviously it sucks if it used to work and now it doesn't but almost no one wants this which probably explains why Apple doesn't care.

Re: New Apple Silicon M4 and M5 HiDPI Limitation on 4K External Displays

#6

Props to the author for putting in what looks like ton of work trying to navigate this issue, shame they have to go to these lengths to even have their case considered.

I went to hell and back trying to get PIP/PBP monitors on my 57" g9 ultrawide to work with my M2 pro. ended up having to use a powered hdmi dongle, displaylink cable, and displayport, with 3 virtual monitors via betterdisplay. Allowing resolutions outside of macs limitations setting in BD is what did the trick. I don't envy OP. Having 5120x1440 @ lodpi was the worst, just ever so slightly too fuzzy but perfect UI size but eventually got a steady 10240x2880 @ 120hz with HDR. I literally laughed out loud when I read the title of the thread. Poor guy.

Re: New Apple Silicon M4 and M5 HiDPI Limitation on 4K External Displays

#7
Send it to Tim Cook email. It worked for me fixing DisplayPort DSC bug. After Catalina, later MacOSes lost ability to drive monitors at higher than 60Hz refresh.

Apple support tortured me with all kinds of diagnostics, with WontFix few weeks later. Wrote email and it got fixed in Sonoma :)

https://egpu.io/forums/mac-setup/4k144hz-no-longer-available...

Re: New Apple Silicon M4 and M5 HiDPI Limitation on 4K External Displays

#10
Well, it sounds like a real issue, but the diagnosis is AI slop. You can see, for example, how it takes the paragraph quoted from waydabber (attributing the issue to dynamic resource allocation) and expands it into a whole section without really understanding it. The section is in fact self-contradictory: it first claims that the DCP firmware implements framebuffer allocation, then almost immediately goes on to say it's actually the GPU driver and "the DCP itself is not the bottleneck". Similar confusion throughout the rest of the post.
Post reply on HN