11–20 of 180 posts
Wouldn't HiDPI be 1080p@2x? Is that still available?
Wouldn't HiDPI be 1080p@2x? Is that still available?
(I use my M4 Mac with 4K displays, and 5120x2880 (2560x1440@2x) buffers. That sort of thing does work, though if you sit closer than I do then you can see the non-integer scaling. Last time I tried a 3840x2160 buffer (1920x1080@2x), that worked. I am still on macOS Sequoia though.)
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 i…
As an article, it is not 100% coherent, but there is a valid data and a real problem that is clear.
How did none of the Apple devs notice this? 4k 32" inch is the industry standard for HiDPI monitors.
They’re likely all on Studio Displays.
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...
Wouldn't HiDPI be 1080p@2x? Is that still available?
Yeah if I understand it correctly, this is more like 2160p@2x which is... unusual?
You’re rendering to a framebuffer exactly 2x the size of your display and then scaling it down by exactly half to the physical display? Why not just use a 1x mode then!? The 1.75x limit of framebuffer to physical screen size makes perfect sense. Any more than that and you should just use the 1x mode, it will look better and perform way better!
The article doesn't mention it.