Intel Graphics and 5120x1440 testing in Big Sur

[dbankmann]

Thanks for starting this thread! -- the info about Big Sur enabling higher resolutions made me install the public beta.

I can confirm that MacOS Big Sur Public beta enabled the 5120x1440 resolution for me. Runs reliably 70Hz on a Philips 499P9H, connected via its USB-C port. My device is a "MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2017, Two Thunderbolt 3 ports)" according to "About my Mac".

The requested info is attached.

 

[RobotDot]

screenshots

 

[joevt]

screenshots

Thanks. Please also post the results of the following commands (I would like to see how the results differ from my Mac mini):

kextstat | grep Intel | egrep "Graphics|Framebuffer"
ioreg -lw0 | grep "AAPL,ig-platform-id"
ioreg -lw0 | grep '<"Mac'
system_profiler SPHardwareDataType SPDisplaysDataType | sed '/.*Serial.*/d;/.*UUID.*/d'
system_profiler SPSoftwareDataType | grep System

 

[RobotDot]

system_profiler SPHardwareDataType SPDisplaysDataType | sed '/.*Serial.*/d;/.*UUID.*/d'


system_profiler SPSoftwareDataType | grep System


130 0 0xffffff7f9cd39000 0xc0000 0xc0000 com.apple.driver.AppleIntelCFLGraphicsFramebuffer (16.0.0) B8DCCE64-067F-39AF-937D-3549202AB70B <129 128 120 39 14 13 8 7 6 5 3 1>


157 0 0xffffff7f9d6b9000 0xb8000 0xb8000 com.apple.driver.AppleIntelKBLGraphics (16.0.0) 60CE633A-4D76-3F7D-AAA0-E1E3A78F90D2 <129 120 95 14 8 7 6 5 3 1>


| | | | "AAPL,ig-platform-id" = <07009b3e>


| "target-type" = <"Mac">


| "compatible" = <"Macmini8,1">


| "product-name" = <"Macmini8,1">


| "model" = <"Macmini8,1">


| "board-id" = <"Mac-7BA5B2DFE22DDD8C">


Hardware:





Hardware Overview:





Model Name: Mac mini


Model Identifier: Macmini8,1


Processor Name: 6-Core Intel Core i7


Processor Speed: 3.2 GHz


Number of Processors: 1


Total Number of Cores: 6


L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB


L3 Cache: 12 MB


Hyper-Threading Technology: Enabled


Memory: 16 GB


Boot ROM Version: 1554.0.0.141.1 (iBridge: 18.16.10347.5.3,0)


Activation Lock Status: Enabled





Graphics/Displays:





Intel UHD Graphics 630:





Chipset Model: Intel UHD Graphics 630


Type: GPU


Bus: Built-In


VRAM (Dynamic, Max): 1536 MB


Vendor: Intel


Device ID: 0x3e9b


Revision ID: 0x0000


Metal: Supported, feature set macOS GPUFamily2 v1


Displays:


PHL 499P9:


Resolution: 5120 x 1440


UI Looks like: 5120 x 1440 @ 70 Hz


Framebuffer Depth: 30-Bit Color (ARGB2101010)


Main Display: Yes


Mirror: Off


Online: Yes


Rotation: Supported


Automatically Adjust Brightness: No


Connection Type: DisplayPort


Television: Yes





System Software Overview:


System Version: macOS 11.0 (20A5343j)


System Integrity Protection: Enabled

 

[joevt]

system_profiler SPHardwareDataType SPDisplaysDataType | sed '/.*Serial.*/d;/.*UUID.*/d'
system_profiler SPSoftwareDataType | grep System
130 0 0xffffff7f9cd39000 0xc0000 0xc0000 com.apple.driver.AppleIntelCFLGraphicsFramebuffer (16.0.0) B8DCCE64-067F-39AF-937D-3549202AB70B <129 128 120 39 14 13 8 7 6 5 3 1>
157 0 0xffffff7f9d6b9000 0xb8000 0xb8000 com.apple.driver.AppleIntelKBLGraphics (16.0.0) 60CE633A-4D76-3F7D-AAA0-E1E3A78F90D2 <129 120 95 14 8 7 6 5 3 1>
| | | | "AAPL,ig-platform-id" = <07009b3e>
| "target-type" = <"Mac">
| "compatible" = <"Macmini8,1">
| "product-name" = <"Macmini8,1">
| "model" = <"Macmini8,1">
| "board-id" = <"Mac-7BA5B2DFE22DDD8C">
Hardware:

Hardware Overview:

Model Name: Mac mini
Model Identifier: Macmini8,1
Processor Name: 6-Core Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 3.2 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 6
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 12 MB
Hyper-Threading Technology: Enabled
Memory: 16 GB
Boot ROM Version: 1554.0.0.141.1 (iBridge: 18.16.10347.5.3,0)
Activation Lock Status: Enabled

Graphics/Displays:

Intel UHD Graphics 630:

Chipset Model: Intel UHD Graphics 630
Type: GPU
Bus: Built-In
VRAM (Dynamic, Max): 1536 MB
Vendor: Intel
Device ID: 0x3e9b
Revision ID: 0x0000
Metal: Supported, feature set macOS GPUFamily2 v1
Displays:
PHL 499P9:
Resolution: 5120 x 1440
UI Looks like: 5120 x 1440 @ 70 Hz
Framebuffer Depth: 30-Bit Color (ARGB2101010)
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Rotation: Supported
Automatically Adjust Brightness: No
Connection Type: DisplayPort
Television: Yes

System Software Overview:
System Version: macOS 11.0 (20A5343j)
System Integrity Protection: Enabled

Thanks for that. Seems to be very little difference between your Mac mini (i7) and mine (i3) in terms of iGPU related info. I suppose that means it could be easy to patch the driver to allow 5120 for my i3.

 

[RobotDot]

How much ram do you have on yours ?

 

[joevt]

How much ram do you have on yours ?

I have 64 GB of RAM.

Your info has prompted me to look at the code of the AppleIntelCFLGraphicsFramebuffer.kext driver.

It appears that 5K SST mode is only enabled for displays that have a timing in their actual EDID that is wider than 4096. My display is only 4K (but it does have the ability to accept a 5K signal).

The code that enables 5K SST mode does not check the stored EDID override in macOS that has the 5120x1440 70Hz and 5120x2880 30 Hz timings that I want to test with my display. What's the point of having an EDID override if it's not going to be used everywhere?

I think it should be pretty easy to make Whatevergreen + Lilu patch that. I'll try that later this week.

The code that enables 5K SST will not do that if the boot-args contains a -Disable5KSST flag.
[automerge]1597754670[/automerge]
The only other driver with similar 5K SST support is AppleIntelKBLGraphicsFramebuffer.kext

 

[joevt]

AppleIntelICLLPGraphicsFramebuffer.kext probably has 5K enabled all the time (it supports DisplayPort 1.4).

 

[indymatt]

Posting back to say my HDMI solution quit working this morning. The monitor indicated a timing issue on the HDMI 1 input from my 2018 MBP running Big Sur Beta 4. It's been working fine since my last post. No amount of rebooting or unplug/replug worked. Now I'm running a direct USB-C to Display Port from the Mac itself (not an adapter). This allowed me to get the full resolution back and bump the refresh rate to 60hz. Using HDMI only, the option wasn't present to raise the refresh rate from 30hz.

 

[anderlop]

Posting back to say my HDMI solution quit working this morning. The monitor indicated a timing issue on the HDMI 1 input from my 2018 MBP running Big Sur Beta 4. It's been working fine since my last post. No amount of rebooting or unplug/replug worked. Now I'm running a direct USB-C to Display Port from the Mac itself (not an adapter). This allowed me to get the full resolution back and bump the refresh rate to 60hz. Using HDMI only, the option wasn't present to raise the refresh rate from 30hz.

Hey indymatt, quick one as I am looking at one of those 49”.
How sharp is the text on it? Not comparable to the MacBook but I am afraid the resolution will be a bit blurry and give headaches for coding, and a lot of word reading... (I have experience with a 32” qhd which was very bad with fonts, and a 4K 27” which is super sharp)
Thanks so much!

 

[indymatt]

Hey indymatt, quick one as I am looking at one of those 49”.
How sharp is the text on it? Not comparable to the MacBook but I am afraid the resolution will be a bit blurry and give headaches for coding, and a lot of word reading... (I have experience with a 32” qhd which was very bad with fonts, and a 4K 27” which is super sharp)
Thanks so much!

It's great. I run an IT company and have setup the screen into five zones with my Mac (using BetterSnapTool). Two browsers, Mail, chat and notes, leaving my calendar up on my MBP screen. I see no difference in text or resolution between the monitor and my MBP. I also have the 34" version of the monitor and was using that until I upgraded to the 49. I sit about 32" from the screen and it's at eye level. Some day I'll try connecting both monitors at the same time to accelerate my departure from human contact.

 

[anderlop]

It's great. I run an IT company and have setup the screen into five zones with my Mac (using BetterSnapTool). Two browsers, Mail, chat and notes, leaving my calendar up on my MBP screen. I see no difference in text or resolution between the monitor and my MBP. I also have the 34" version of the monitor and was using that until I upgraded to the 49. I sit about 32" from the screen and it's at eye level. Some day I'll try connecting both monitors at the same time to accelerate my departure from human contact.

You just made my day that was the only thing missing for me to confirm as I know Max is very picky with screen resolution

 

[joevt]

(I have experience with a 32” qhd which was very bad with fonts, and a 4K 27” which is super sharp)

A 49" widescreen is just two QHD displays side by side so you might not like it. These widescreen displays are not retina/HiDPI. Think about the displays that existed before retina/HiDPI (like my Apple 30 inch Cinema Display).

 

[petterihiisila]

A 49" widescreen is just two QHD displays side by side so you might not like it. These widescreen displays are not retina/HiDPI. Think about the displays that existed before retina/HiDPI (like my Apple 30 inch Cinema Display).

I'm curious about how this "dual QHD" scales. Because I've got two physical 24" QHD monitors. With RDM.app I can set them to 2048x1152, which is a good balance between real estate and UI widget size. But internally macOS actually runs them at double resolution, 4096x2304 HiDPI, downscaled to 2048x1152. This is what System Information > Graphics reports.

The result is a surprisingly sharp image through pixel anti-aliasing or some other wizards, which ends up using all of the QHD pixels. If I set it to regular 2048x1152, the image is not as sharp to look at.

So this raises the question: Are you able to use RDM or some other tool to set the widescreen in such a way that macOS renders it internally as 8192x2304 HiDPI, resulting in 4096x1152 resolution on the monitor, with the rest of the pixels still in use for anti-aliasing?

Because if you can, then I presume the image quality might be quite OK. Not retina sharp, but better than the old 32" at its native DPI. And that would make a widescreen a possible option for me in the future.

Right now I'm using 3 separate displays. QHDs on the side, and LG 5k in the middle. This setup has both pros and cons, one of them being high GPU wattage with the 16" Macbook. It's 5 W with the LG alone, but 20 W if I connect the QHDs.

 

[joevt]

I'm curious about how this "dual QHD" scales. Because I've got two physical 24" QHD monitors. With RDM.app I can set them to 2048x1152, which is a good balance between real estate and UI widget size. But internally macOS actually runs them at double resolution, 4096x2304 HiDPI, downscaled to 2048x1152. This is what System Information > Graphics reports.

The result is a surprisingly sharp image through pixel anti-aliasing or some other wizards, which ends up using all of the QHD pixels. If I set it to regular 2048x1152, the image is not as sharp to look at.

You mean you can set them to 2048x1152 HiDPI which uses a frame buffer of 4096x2304 pixels (everything is drawn with four times as many pixels). macOS reports those numbers in the UI (it says "Looks like 2048x1152"). It doesn't show that it scales 4096x2304 down to 2560x1440. To see that you would need to look at the timing info reported by SwitchResX, or the onscreen menu of your display.

So this raises the question: Are you able to use RDM or some other tool to set the widescreen in such a way that macOS renders it internally as 8192x2304 HiDPI, resulting in 4096x1152 resolution on the monitor, with the rest of the pixels still in use for anti-aliasing?

With a 49" screen, to achieve a similar HiDPI mode as with your 24" QHD displays, you would choose a 4096x1152 HiDPI mode (frame buffer size of 8192x2304). To rephrase your question, if Intel graphics in Big Sur allows width of 5120, then does it allow width 8192? If not, then you would be stuck with a max HiDPI mode of 2560x720 unless the driver can be patched to allow 8192.

I think AMD graphics has a max width of 8192 unless you use a display that uses two DisplayPort signals such as the LG UltraFine 5K then you could go as high as 14K or something like that (I haven't tested that recently).

 

[petterihiisila]

You mean you can set them to 2048x1152 HiDPI which uses a frame buffer of 4096x2304 pixels (everything is drawn with four times as many pixels). macOS reports those numbers in the UI (it says "Looks like 2048x1152"). It doesn't show that it scales 4096x2304 down to 2560x1440. To see that you would need to look at the timing info reported by SwitchResX, or the onscreen menu of your display.

With a 49" screen, to achieve a similar HiDPI mode as with your 24" QHD displays, you would choose a 4096x1152 HiDPI mode (frame buffer size of 8192x2304). To rephrase your question, if Intel graphics in Big Sur allows width of 5120, then does it allow width 8192? If not, then you would be stuck with a max HiDPI mode of 2560x720 unless the driver can be patched to allow 8192.

I think AMD graphics has a max width of 8192 unless you use a display that uses two DisplayPort signals such as the LG UltraFine 5K then you could go as high as 14K or something like that (I haven't tested that recently).

You understood my meaning correctly - sorry about the loose language. On LG 5k the largest HiDPI mode I could find with RDM is this, and of course it's only barely usable. System Information snippet:

Resolution: 7680 x 4320 (4320p/8K UHD 2 - 8K Ultra High Definition)
UI Looks like: 3840 x 2160

(Physical pixels: 5120x2880. Don't know how to enable an even more wicked HiDPI mode, so the 14k horizontal buffer (?) remains a question, and also semi-off-topic, perhaps.)

My main point is that non-retina 24" QHD displays can look quite decent, if such modes can be enabled to take use of the full DPI of the panel, while re-scaling the UI widgets to a friendly-sized "looks like" resolution.

So, the curiosity remains, whether a "two-in-one QHD" like the 49 inch widescreen can do the same, set to 8192x2304 HiDPI that "looks like" 4096x1152. This would be straightforward to test with Big Sur, RDM.app, System Information and the 49er, if someone or the OP has them all available.

 

[joevt]

You understood my meaning correctly - sorry about the loose language. On LG 5k the largest HiDPI mode I could find with RDM is this, and of course it's only barely usable. System Information snippet:

Resolution: 7680 x 4320 (4320p/8K UHD 2 - 8K Ultra High Definition)
UI Looks like: 3840 x 2160

(Physical pixels: 5120x2880. Don't know how to enable an even more wicked HiDPI mode, so the 14k horizontal buffer (?) remains a question, and also semi-off-topic, perhaps.)

Is that with Intel graphics or AMD?
To try something larger, like 6016x3384, 8192x4608, 10240x5760, 14K, ..., use SwitchResX to create a scaled resolution.

In Catalina 10.15.6:
1) Intel graphics (Coffee Lake) allows max scaled resolution of 6720x6720. This might be an arbitrary limit. Height and Width appear to both be limited to 6720. Height needs to be even. There are some other restrictions (like certain aspect ratios or ranges might not be allowed - it's weird).

2) AMD graphics (RX 580) allows scaled resolution of 10240x5760 but it's weird because only one timing is created - it uses the max refresh rate of the base resolution instead of all the refresh rates of the base resolution and the screen is black if I try to use it. 8192x4608 is the max that can be used properly, unless you have a two connection display like the LG UltraFine 5K or Dell UP2715K.

My main point is that non-retina 24" QHD displays can look quite decent, if such modes can be enabled to take use of the full DPI of the panel, while re-scaling the UI widgets to a friendly-sized "looks like" resolution.

So, the curiosity remains, whether a "two-in-one QHD" like the 49 inch widescreen can do the same, set to 8192x2304 HiDPI that "looks like" 4096x1152. This would be straightforward to test with Big Sur, RDM.app, System Information and the 49er, if someone or the OP has them all available.

I can't properly do the test until I get the 5120x1440 timing working (I'll try on the weekend).
If Big Sur has a scaled resolution limit of 6720 like Catalina, then the max frame buffer size would be 6720x1890 which gives 3360x945 HiDPI ("Looks like").

 

[petterihiisila]

Is that with Intel graphics or AMD?
To try something larger, like 6016x3384, 8192x4608, 10240x5760, 14K, ..., use SwitchResX to create a scaled resolution.

This is with AMD 5500M. I tried to create various profiles with SwitchResX earlier this Summer, for a different reason, but have been unsuccessful with them. They didn't become available or get activated even after reboot, and it was asking reboots constantly. I eventually gave up with that, because it seemed it wasn't going to help with my original issue (hot 16" MBP with certain monitor configurations and refresh rates).

Might try again at some later point, but frankly, figuring out SwitchResX values is quite tricky. I've never fully understood how the different values interact, and have messed up my screen more often than not. Not my area of expertise.

 

[joevt]

Creating custom timing or scaled resolutions in the Custom Resolutions tab, type Command-S to save, then click the "Activate immediately" button. It should cause all the screen to reinitialize, it will automatically leave the Custom Resolutions tab, so go back there to see the status.

 

[petterihiisila]

Creating custom timing or scaled resolutions in the Custom Resolutions tab, type Command-S to save, then click the "Activate immediately" button. It should cause all the screen to reinitialize, it will automatically leave the Custom Resolutions tab, so go back there to see the status.

I just tried, but unfortunately it was too late. The trial from June/July had already expired and I don't have an urgent/significant reason to license it beyond trial right now...

 

[joevt]

I just tried, but unfortunately it was too late. The trial from June/July had already expired and I don't have an urgent/significant reason to license it beyond trial right now...

Other option is to created scaled resolutions manually in an override file. There are various guides:

GitHub - bbhardin/A-Guide-to-MacOS-Scaled-Resolutions: A guide to adding scaled resolutions in MacOS without losing pixel density.

A guide to adding scaled resolutions in MacOS without losing pixel density. - bbhardin/A-Guide-to-MacOS-Scaled-Resolutions

github.com

You may want to check for existing override file from Apple in /System/Library/Displays/Contents/Resources/Overrides/
If one exists for your display, then copy it.
Your new override should go into /Library/Displays/Contents/Resources/Overrides/
instead of /System/...
SwitchResX might already have an override in /Library/Displays/Contents/Resources/Overrides/ (using the manufacture date instead of the product id). In that case, modify that file.

I don't think you need to reboot to test changes. You should be able to just disconnect the display from your Mac, then reconnect it for the override to be used.

Creating a custom timing (instead of scaled resolution) requires editing the EDID and placing the result in the override file.

 

[Yves Bazin]

On my late ´16 two TB3 beta 6 no changes I have tried to add the display files. The mac crashes. But my mac proposes the 5120x2880 resolution

 

[joevt]

On my late ´16 two TB3 beta 6 no changes I have tried to add the display files. The mac crashes. But my mac proposes the 5120x2880 resolution

The 2016 MacBook Pro has Skylake CPU. As I stated in my post at #32 it appears that Apple has added 5K SST support in Big Sur only for Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake CPUs.

 

[joevt]

Updated the original post with some new info (search for Update: )

 

[HiVolt]

I'm looking forward to Big Sur supporting the 5120x1440 res on my 49" Dell via USB-C on my 2018 mini. I use the monitor as a KVM switch with my PC, which runs on displayport.