Bad graphics on M1 Mac Mini... not sure why though

[Zoom]

I'm just not switching over to a new Mac mini M1 from a 2018 Intel Mac mini. I'm using a BenQ EW3270U display. And I'm seeing some horrible issues with some stuff (not all). I don't get it. Like, here's a sample of Audacity in a highlighted track. What's that red tinge?? I'm seeing this in Firefox around red text on white background, too.

I'm using a regular HDMI cable. I've tried using a diferent HDMI cable, but it was the same. Not sure what version of HDMI cables I have (and not sure how to tell). But again, my 2018 mini didn't have this issue.

I'm also scaling the screen because the native res is too small for my older eyes, even with glasses. Native is 4k - I'm using 3840x2160, which is the next option the Mac gives me. I can't recall what the 2018 Mac mini gave me as an option, but I think it was a step between 4k and this, because this definitely looks weird to me (widgets, text too big). I can't tell if it's happening at native resolution... it's much smaller and harder to tell.

It doesn't seem to be everywhere... only certain weird places/situations on the screen. Or maybe it's only noticable in certain color combos, etc.

This has to be something simple. What am I missing?

 

[JohnnyGo]

USBC to HDMI cable might solve your issues

 

[Quackers]

Does it have the same colour in native?

 

[Zoom]

Does it have the same colour in native?

Again, I can't see it... but it's *much* smaller in native mode.

Is there a name for this issue? Something I could search on? I'm not sure how to even describe this.

 

[Quackers]

Again, I can't see it... but it's *much* smaller in native mode.

Is there a name for this issue? Something I could search on? I'm not sure how to even describe this.

I've not heard of it being called anything specifically.
Red tinge works for me

 

[Zoom]

Do I need a special USBC cable for video on a Mac mini? I tried an Anker cable and there was "no signal".

 

[Jochheim]

@Zoom
Just in case you wanted to use a usb c to usb c cable: There are cables that only transfer power - no data. So you would need a cable that supports DisplayPort.

 

[Zoom]

@Zoom
Just in case you wanted to use a usb c to usb c cable: There are cables that only transfer power - no data. So you would need a cable that supports DisplayPort.

How can you tell what the cable supports? Pretty sure it's not power-only, but I also know that there are varying levels of USB/Thunderbolt/DP support.

 

[Jochheim]

USB C - as Great as the idea and to some extent the execution is - is a mess. To be honest I am not sure how to tell if a cable transfers data and is DisplayPort compatible - I use the cable that came with the display and another one I purchased with DisplayPort being mentioned.

 

[harrisonjr98]

I'm using 3840x2160, which is the next option the Mac gives me

Do you mean 1440? That’s what you had selected in your screenshot. I have an M1 mini with hdmi connected to a 4K display, and I’m going to try and replicate your issue.

 

[harrisonjr98]

Do you mean 1440? That’s what you had selected in your screenshot. I have an M1 mini with hdmi connected to a 4K display, and I’m going to try and replicate your issue.

Okay, looking at your original post again and reading what you said I'd bet money it's just the scaling.

 

[Zoom]

Yes, sorry... 2560x1440 is what I'm using, on a native 4K display - which you can see in the image I posted.

I'm having all sorts of weird issues. When I wake my Mac mini from sleep, Firefox is hopelessly hung. I can switch tabs and move the screen around - there's no beachball - but nothing will load, even the reload button doesn't work (or is VERY slow). I have to quit and relaunch the app, then it works. (And it doesn't show "Application Not Responding".)

 

[darngooddesign]

Again, I can't see it... but it's *much* smaller in native mode.

Take a screen shot and enlarge it.

 

[Zoom]

Yeah, good call - thanks! And it seems to be fine. See below. And I'll also say that it behaves much better at native resolution, too. The scrolling is horrible when scaled. There's massive delays when selecting segments of the waveform, too. All goes away at native resolution.

 

[Zoom]

FWIW, I just got off the phone with Apple Support. They had me reset the system controller (unplug the Mac for 10 seconds) and run first aid on the disk (it was fine). That didn't fix it.

But he did say that there are known issues with the M1 and screen resolution for some people, and Apple is working on a supplemental update.

Also, Apple has a "Zoom" feature with Accessibility that "fixes" the issue, too. You set to native resolution and enable the full screen Zoom. I don't like it because now you can't see the entire screen... you mouse to the edges and the screen shifts... but that sucks. BUT... I no longer have the issues above. But maybe others will find this acceptable. (I got this tip from a buddy, not from Apple.)

 

[Zoom]

Just out of curiosity, if anyone knows... what exactly determines the available resolutions on a monitor (as shown in the original post above)? Is it the capabilities of the monitor? The graphics card? The OS? The connection protocol (HDMI, DP, whatever USBC does)? All the above?

One reason I ask (beyond just being curious) is that I swear the Intel 2018 Mac mini offered a scaled resolution between 4K (3840x2160) and 2K (2560x1440). I'm 90% sure of that... whatever resolution I was using on the 2018 box wasn't this magnified (ie, resolution must have been higher than 2560x1440).

This whole thing has me looking at new monitors. Seems silly to have a 4K monitor when I can't use the native resolution (too small for my eyes, even with glasses). I'm looking at an ultrawide 3440x1440 like this AOC monitor. I know there are also issues with ultrawides on Mac mini M1's, too, but the Option-scale trick seems to resolve that.

 

[jdb8167]

Just out of curiosity, if anyone knows... what exactly determines the available resolutions on a monitor (as shown in the original post above)? Is it the capabilities of the monitor? The graphics card? The OS? The connection protocol (HDMI, DP, whatever USBC does)? All the above?

One reason I ask (beyond just being curious) is that I swear the Intel 2018 Mac mini offered a scaled resolution between 4K (3840x2160) and 2K (2560x1440). I'm 90% sure of that... whatever resolution I was using on the 2018 box wasn't this magnified (ie, resolution must have been higher than 2560x1440).

This whole thing has me looking at new monitors. Seems silly to have a 4K monitor when I can't use the native resolution (too small for my eyes, even with glasses). I'm looking at an ultrawide 3440x1440 like this AOC monitor. I know there are also issues with ultrawides on Mac mini M1's, too, but the Option-scale trick seems to resolve that.

I'm using a Display Port cable through a Caldigit SOHO dock and I get an extra 4K resolution of 3008x1692. I think I get the same with HDMI but I don't remember.

 

[harrisonjr98]

Just out of curiosity, if anyone knows... what exactly determines the available resolutions on a monitor (as shown in the original post above)? Is it the capabilities of the monitor? The graphics card? The OS? The connection protocol (HDMI, DP, whatever USBC does)? All the above?

One reason I ask (beyond just being curious) is that I swear the Intel 2018 Mac mini offered a scaled resolution between 4K (3840x2160) and 2K (2560x1440). I'm 90% sure of that... whatever resolution I was using on the 2018 box wasn't this magnified (ie, resolution must have been higher than 2560x1440).

This whole thing has me looking at new monitors. Seems silly to have a 4K monitor when I can't use the native resolution (too small for my eyes, even with glasses). I'm looking at an ultrawide 3440x1440 like this AOC monitor. I know there are also issues with ultrawides on Mac mini M1's, too, but the Option-scale trick seems to resolve that.

For what it's worth - I don't know if this is controlled by the connection protocol or the monitor identified by macOS or what have you - but my "scaling options" are different than yours.

If I hover over the selected in the middle, it says "looks like 1920x1080" - that middle "scaled" setting is also how it appears when I select "default for display," which is how I usually leave it. It's normal 4x scaling for 2160p, as far as I can tell. The rightmost option for "more space" says "looks like 2160x1440."

 

[Zoom]

For what it's worth - I don't know if this is controlled by the connection protocol or the monitor identified by macOS or what have you - but my "scaling options" are different than yours. View attachment 1715995
If I hover over the selected in the middle, it says "looks like 1920x1080" - that middle "scaled" setting is also how it appears when I select "default for display," which is how I usually leave it. It's normal 4x scaling for 2160p, as far as I can tell. The rightmost option for "more space" says "looks like 2160x1440."

You have to hold the Option key click clicking the scale to see the numerical choices.

 

[Ethosik]

USB C - as Great as the idea and to some extent the execution is - is a mess. To be honest I am not sure how to tell if a cable transfers data and is DisplayPort compatible - I use the cable that came with the display and another one I purchased with DisplayPort being mentioned.

I think the whole industry is a mess honestly. Hidden HDMI and DisplayPort versions makes it tricky as new customers or purchasing cables. Is it really TOO much to ask that companies put HDMI 2.1 on the cable itself? Having it on the port would help too.

 

[GiantKiwi]

I think the whole industry is a mess honestly. Hidden HDMI and DisplayPort versions makes it tricky as new customers or purchasing cables. Is it really TOO much to ask that companies put HDMI 2.1 on the cable itself? Having it on the port would help too.

That is irrelevant for HDMI and DisplayPort. They are digital cables, the port itself dictates the specific protocol version.

 

[GiantKiwi]

Just out of curiosity, if anyone knows... what exactly determines the available resolutions on a monitor (as shown in the original post above)? Is it the capabilities of the monitor? The graphics card? The OS? The connection protocol (HDMI, DP, whatever USBC does)? All the above?

One reason I ask (beyond just being curious) is that I swear the Intel 2018 Mac mini offered a scaled resolution between 4K (3840x2160) and 2K (2560x1440). I'm 90% sure of that... whatever resolution I was using on the 2018 box wasn't this magnified (ie, resolution must have been higher than 2560x1440).

This whole thing has me looking at new monitors. Seems silly to have a 4K monitor when I can't use the native resolution (too small for my eyes, even with glasses). I'm looking at an ultrawide 3440x1440 like this AOC monitor. I know there are also issues with ultrawides on Mac mini M1's, too, but the Option-scale trick seems to resolve that.

The monitor dictates what resolution is supported. Rainbow effect around anything with Macs is usually attributed to the monitor not having a profile that is supported by MacOS.

For example - i was using a Dell 4K monitor for a while which had no profile support, and thus despite being technically capable of running a 4k60 4:4:4, it couldn't do more than 4K30 4:4:2 on DisplayPort 1.4 and no higher than 1080p60 on HDMI 2.0.

 

[Ethosik]

That is irrelevant for HDMI and DisplayPort. They are digital cables, the port itself dictates the specific protocol version.

No. I can’t use an HDMI cable from 10 years ago and get HDMI 2.1 features.

 

[JeepGuy]

No. I can’t use an HDMI cable from 10 years ago and get HDMI 2.1 features.

If it's a cheap cable it probably won't work, generally speaking quality cables use a larger gauge wire and better connectors. Cables that are certified 2.1, that only means that they have been tested for compliance and can deliver 48gb signal at the specified length, an older quality cable should work as long as it's not too long (shorter is better). , the connectors and pinouts are identical. Besides the M1 only support HDMI 2.0a/b not 2.1 which is dictated by the chipset at both ends. The same applies to DP1.2 to DP1.4 cables.

 

[Ethosik]

If it's a cheap cable it probably won't work, generally speaking quality cables use a larger gauge wire and better connectors. Cables that are certified 2.1, that only means that they have been tested for compliance and can deliver 48gb signal at the specified length, an older quality cable should work as long as it's not too long (shorter is better). , the connectors and pinouts are identical. Besides the M1 only support HDMI 2.0a/b not 2.1 which is dictated by the chipset at both ends. The same applies to DP1.2 to DP1.4 cables.

I have several high quality cables from years ago that can’t do 4K 60. Let alone 2560x1440 at 144. So I need to get special HDMI cables that match a specific version number to get those higher resolutions and refresh rates. And some of my cables don’t work with M1 that are too old but the work on my game consoles.