M1 MBP & LG 34 inch ultra wide 5K2K

[nikosl7]

For

I don't know how to respond to this. The only decent displays available for Mac users that meet acceptable standards are the 2 LG Ultra Fine displays, 24" and 27". They are Thunderbolt, and 200+ ppi. That's it. The market desperately needs better displays. And no I'll settle for a 27" iMac, which is what I use. Your comment is really confusing.



You're right that it is "the best" ultra wide, which as I said, is not saying much. Yes, the market options are pitiful and woefully behind the built-in displays Apple has been creating for a long time. The 27" 5K display came out in 2014!



That's nice to hear, I just highly doubt I would feel the same. How would you feel with a display that was say 108 ppi?

Honestly 4K @ 27" or equivalent (eg 5K2K 34UW) is almost identical to 200dpi to my eyes. Of course if you stick your face next to the monitor you will see the difference, but from normal viewing position I doubt that the average person (even with 20/20 vision) can tell the difference.

The only thing I miss is the perfect 200% scaling.

 

[crevalic]

I don't know how to respond to this.

I wrote this (referring to the LG 5K2K)

This display is literally the best display available on the market in many ways and best display suitable for apple users, considering resolution and connectivity.

And you responded with this:

It most definitely is not.

I never said that the display is perfect, I just said that it is the best in many ways. Which it absolutely is. The best means better than (basically non-existant) competition, not perfect! Do you think I'm not disappointed that LG 5K2K and ultrafines weren't followed up with a worth successor? With higher res, brightness, fixed image permanence and with an improved proper TB3/4/USB4 hub with multiple TB ports? Instead, ultrafines seem to be discontinued and the successor panel to the 5K2k one is a 40" panel with the same resolution, just streched out...

However, honestly, I'm not unhappy with the resolution and the ppi on the 5K2K. I understand that you look at the specs and think it will look bad, but it looks good and I'd say I'm pretty damn sensitive to display quality and pixel density. I have no issues using my MBP16 and the LG 5K2K together and I don't find the differences in displays noticeable at all. If there's anything that bothers me is the awful blurry mess that is the touchbar. I mean, seriously, how much more could it possibly have cost to have it be on par with ppi of modern phone displays? I'm also okay with the high end 27" 4K Dells I've been using at work for a while, which incidentally also have a ppi of 163, but the panels are also rather nice overall. On another hand, I find 49" Samsung CRG9 basically unusable for longer work because of its low ppi and panel quality/properties.

 

[Lemon Olive]

However, honestly, I'm not unhappy with the resolution and the ppi on the 5K2K. I understand that you look at the specs and think it will look bad, but it looks good and I'd say I'm pretty damn sensitive to display quality and pixel density. I have no issues using my MBP16 and the LG 5K2K together and I don't find the differences in displays noticeable at all. If there's anything that bothers me is the awful blurry mess that is the touchbar. I mean, seriously, how much more could it possibly have cost to have it be on par with ppi of modern phone displays? I'm also okay with the high end 27" 4K Dells I've been using at work for a while, which incidentally also have a ppi of 163, but the panels are also rather nice overall. On another hand, I find 49" Samsung CRG9 basically unusable for longer work because of its low ppi and panel quality/properties.

You've interested me in at least seeing what that display looks like.

 

[Lemon Olive]

For


Honestly 4K @ 27" or equivalent (eg 5K2K 34UW) is almost identical to 200dpi to my eyes. Of course if you stick your face next to the monitor you will see the difference, but from normal viewing position I doubt that the average person (even with 20/20 vision) can tell the difference.

The only thing I miss is the perfect 200% scaling.

4K @ 27", aren't the assets huge? Maybe I'm used to 5K @ 27", but when I look at 4K @ 24" even that looks huge to me.

 

[itsphilgeorge]

4K @ 27", aren't the assets huge? Maybe I'm used to 5K @ 27", but when I look at 4K @ 24" even that looks huge to me.

It sounds like @bla1011 and I are both using either the native resolution or a scaled resolution for our setups. From your comment about assets looking huge on a 27" @ 4K, I can only imagine you are using Retina mode.

This, on a 4K monitor, makes the UI look like it is running at 1920x1080 whilst actually operating the screen at 3840x2160. So to answer your question, yes, if you used a 24" or 27" 4K display the way Apple defaults, then the on-screen assets would be huge.

Funnily enough, this is mostly why people in this thread are frustrated! (Aside from the constant kernel panics and power management issues)

So, for people who use the displays on their default settings on Mac, they are getting extremely crisp looking UI's but at a setting that makes it look like 1080P.

When using the Apple default Retina setting, you get a quarter of the usable resolution in exchange for an extremely crisp user interface.

If M1 users could still access the scaled resolutions they had access to on Intel machines, there would be few problems.

I have built a table below displaying the various monitor options, alongside the available resolutions on both Intel and M1 hardware

Model	Size	Native Resolution	HiDPI Retina UI	Max Scaled (Intel)	Max Scaled (M1)
Internal Display	13"	2560x1600	1440x900*	1920x1200	1680x1050**
LG 24MD4KL	24"	3840x2160	1920x1080	3360x1890	3008x1692
LG 27UL850-W	27"	3840x2160	1920x1080	3360x1890	3008x1692
Apple 5k iMac	27"	5120x2880	2560x1440	3200x1800	N/A
LG 27MD5KL	27"	5120x2880	2560x1440	3200x1800	2880x1620
Apple 6k XDR	32"	6016x3384	3008x1692	3200x1800	3008x1692
LG 34WK95U-W	34"	5120x2160	2560x1080	3840x1620	3008x1269
LG 38WK95C-W	38"	3840x1600	1920x1080	3360x1400	2560x1067
LG 40WP95C	40"	5120x2160	2560x1080	3840x1620	3008x1269

* Apple has not employed true Retina mode for the internal display. This is most likely because the UI would be too large for the average customer.
** Apple has removed the 1920x1080 scaled option which is available on Intel Macbook

As you can see from the above table, people who have "upgraded" to an M1 machine, have lost the ability to use the scaled resolutions that make many of the displays usable from a user interface perspective. Apple has limited the maximum scaled resolution on all displays to be 3008 pixels wide and no more. This is not a physical limitation to my knowledge, as the M1 can comfortably drive the internal display alongside an XDR both at maximum resolutions.

The issue with using scaled resolutions over the Retina resolution to my understanding is that it is substantially more computationally complex to compute the scaled resolutions as each operation uses a different method.

If anyone has any corrections to the above, just let me know. I am trying to provide information so everyone is on the same page about the issues so we can report them more accurately to Apple and get them resolved.

Attached:
Various Screenshots on Scaling Options from machines I use or of Scaling screenshots from the internet.

 

[crevalic]

4K @ 27", aren't the assets huge? Maybe I'm used to 5K @ 27", but when I look at 4K @ 24" even that looks huge to me.

With default settings, they are too big for me and most professionals, both on Macs and Windows computers. As @itsphilgeorge says, OSs will default to running all high-res displays scaled to generally match 1080p resolutions and just making everything way crisper because that seems to be what many casual users are comfortable with. That's really a waste in my opinion, since high-res displays enable you to make UI and text smaller while keeping things very sharp, increasing the display real estate. Thankfully, this can be changed in the settings and I'd imagine almost anybody buying niche $2k displays will change the scaling from default. I obviously do the same on my 4K 27" monitors, otherwise what's the point?
As described in the post above, that's actually what the main issue is - the "densest" M1 scaling resolution for this and other high ppi/res monitors is way less dense, with way bigger text/UI than what people are comfortable using and what worked perfectly fine on supposedly obsolete Intel Macs.

 

[suxus]

Hi

I got my new Dell U4021QW monitor yesterday. I ordered the monitor 02/23/21 directly from Dell and got it delivered yesterday morning. After the first full day of work, i'm very enthusiastic about the thing, the picture is really very good under BigSur 11.2.2 as well as Windows, which is great for my eyes (distance to the monitor approx. 70cm).

I connected my Surface Book 2 over the DisplayPort (resolution 5120 x 2160 at 150%). My Macbook Pro M1 over USB-C / Thunderbolt. I think it is cool that the monitor has a LAN port and therefore only one cable goes to my Macbook and it is connected via LAN. Under BigSur 11.2.2 I have the resolution 3008 x 1269 (60 Hz) with HiDPI active.

In any case, I'm excited for the next few days to see how things will go. So far there have been no problems though wake up from the standby and the resolution has not changed so far.

regrads

 

[theSeb]

Hi

I got my new Dell U4021QW monitor yesterday. I ordered the monitor 02/23/21 directly from Dell and got it delivered yesterday morning. After the first full day of work, i'm very enthusiastic about the thing, the picture is really very good under BigSur 11.2.2 as well as Windows, which is great for my eyes (distance to the monitor approx. 70cm).

I connected my Surface Book 2 over the DisplayPort (resolution 5120 x 2160 at 150%). My Macbook Pro M1 over USB-C / Thunderbolt. I think it is cool that the monitor has a LAN port and therefore only one cable goes to my Macbook and it is connected via LAN. Under BigSur 11.2.2 I have the resolution 3008 x 1269 (60 Hz) with HiDPI active.

In any case, I'm excited for the next few days to see how things will go. So far there have been no problems though wake up from the standby and the resolution has not changed so far.

regrads

Could you take a screenshot (not a photo) of the text with the monitor running at 3008 x 1269 and share it? A screenshot of this thread for example would be great.

 

[suxus]

Could you take a screenshot (not a photo) of the text with the monitor running at 3008 x 1269 and share it? A screenshot of this thread for example would be great.

 

[Lemon Olive]

With default settings, they are too big for me and most professionals, both on Macs and Windows computers. As @itsphilgeorge says, OSs will default to running all high-res displays scaled to generally match 1080p resolutions and just making everything way crisper because that seems to be what many casual users are comfortable with. That's really a waste in my opinion, since high-res displays enable you to make UI and text smaller while keeping things very sharp, increasing the display real estate. Thankfully, this can be changed in the settings and I'd imagine almost anybody buying niche $2k displays will change the scaling from default. I obviously do the same on my 4K 27" monitors, otherwise what's the point?
As described in the post above, that's actually what the main issue is - the "densest" M1 scaling resolution for this and other high ppi/res monitors is way less dense, with way bigger text/UI than what people are comfortable using and what worked perfectly fine on supposedly obsolete Intel Macs.

It's not "way crisper", it is pixel doubled which is literally the goal of displays this side of the year 2010. This is what a Retina display is. It is far more important than real estate. Infinitely more important. Looking at blurry displays is bad. It's not a "waste", it is the entire ballgame. If all you care about is real estate than you can get any cheap 4K display on the market and run things as a small and blurry as you want.

This is not a casual user expectation. It is the pro user expectation that in 2021 we should have pixel doubled displays that are also large enough to display more content than an iMac.

 

[JTravers]

It most definitely is not. If you wanted to qualify that by saying, "...for an ultra wide display"...then, OK. It's the least terrible ultra wide display for Mac users. That isn't saying much as all. 163 ppi is way too low for a Mac. Not when the standard for a Mac display for the last 8 years is 200 - 220 ppi.

Someone who uses a MacBook Pro display, or has used an iMac, can't realistically change to using a display such as this. It is a huge downgrade of the most noticeable kind. And that's if it even worked, which it doesn't appear to on M1 Macs, which is even more frustrating.

Seriously? Making this general a statement doesn't make much sense to me. 163ppi isn't *that* much different than 200ppi. And according to this site -- https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/ -- it is "retina" at a viewing distance of 21 inches. I've used iPhones, iPads, Retina MBPs, and 5K iMacs... and at my viewing distances, 163ppi for a desktop monitor is excellent. Of course, the 5K iMac is even better, but that doesn't make it a "huge downgrade of the most noticeable kind." LOL

 

[circa7]

It most definitely is not. If you wanted to qualify that by saying, "...for an ultra wide display"...then, OK. It's the least terrible ultra wide display for Mac users. That isn't saying much as all. 163 ppi is way too low for a Mac. Not when the standard for a Mac display for the last 8 years is 200 - 220 ppi.

Someone who uses a MacBook Pro display, or has used an iMac, can't realistically change to using a display such as this. It is a huge downgrade of the most noticeable kind. And that's if it even worked, which it doesn't appear to on M1 Macs, which is even more frustrating.

Lol what are you talking about?? I use an LG 5K and MacBook Pro and also have the 5K2K. The 34" Is awesome, only complaint is that it's not as bright. Get outta here with the "can't realistically change". I'm a professional designer and monitor quality matters. The 34Wk95U is excellent.

 

[Lemon Olive]

Seriously? Making this general a statement doesn't make much sense to me. 163ppi isn't *that* much different than 200ppi. And according to this site -- https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/ -- it is "retina" at a viewing distance of 21 inches. I've used iPhones, iPads, Retina MBPs, and 5K iMacs... and at my viewing distances, 163ppi for a desktop monitor is excellent. Of course, the 5K iMac is even better, but that doesn't make it a "huge downgrade of the most noticeable kind." LOL

21" it becomes Retina. I doubt anyone is sitting that far from their desktop display unless they're gaming. Most people sit around 18". The 5K iMac becomes Retina at 16", so its already better than Retina at 18". So yeah, a display that becomes Retina 3" past comfortable viewing distance is not Retina, and not good enough to be used with a Mac. Not for the last 8 years or so.

If you think it's good enough for you, fine. It isn't up to standard with the kinds of displays users should expect today.

 

[theSeb]

21" it becomes Retina. I doubt anyone is sitting that far from their desktop display unless they're gaming. Most people sit around 18". The 5K iMac becomes Retina at 16", so its already better than Retina at 18". So yeah, a display that becomes Retina 3" past comfortable viewing distance is not Retina, and not good enough to be used with a Mac. Not for the last 8 years or so.

If you think it's good enough for you, fine. It isn't up to standard with the kinds of displays users should expect today.

Do people really sit 18" away from a 27" or larger screen? I find this hard to fathom. I've just measured and I am sitting around 28" from my screen.

 

[JTravers]

21" it becomes Retina. I doubt anyone is sitting that far from their desktop display unless they're gaming. Most people sit around 18". The 5K iMac becomes Retina at 16", so its already better than Retina at 18". So yeah, a display that becomes Retina 3" past comfortable viewing distance is not Retina, and not good enough to be used with a Mac. Not for the last 8 years or so.

If you think it's good enough for you, fine. It isn't up to standard with the kinds of displays users should expect today.

You seriously sit less than 21" away from a 27" 5K display? Cool, if you do. But I'm not a gamer at all, and I sit... (measuring)... 24" to 28" from my display depending on what I'm doing. Like I said, your general, absolutist statements don't actually apply to as many people as you think.

 

[JTravers]

Do people really sit 18" away from a 27" or larger screen? I find this hard to fathom. I've just measured and I am sitting around 28" from my screen.

I'm sure he has irrefutable data to back up his claim that *most* people sit around 18" away, LOL. And I'm extremely saddened to learn that the monitors I've been using for several years aren't good enough to be used with a Mac. The HORROR!!! And I don't even game....

 

[crevalic]

@Lemon Olive you are embarrassing yourself. You haven't even used the monitor you are ******** all over and you literally don't understand what you are talking about. "UI is too big on a 4K 27" monitor, that's why only a 5K monitor is acceptable for me". Ridiculous and ignorant.

Not to mention completely off topic.

 

[theSeb]

Apart from not sitting at the apparently correct distance of nose stuck to monitor, I am also ashamed to admit that I regularly use non perfect scaled resolutions with a 4K monitor like 2560x1440 and 3008 x 1692, because I can see the text perfectly fine, it looks beautifully sharp, and the more stuff I see, the more productive I am.

I shall sell all my Macs with immediate effect.

 

[JTravers]

Apart from not sitting at the apparently correct distance of nose stuck to monitor, I am also ashamed to admit that I regularly use non perfect scaled resolutions with a 4K monitor like 2560x1440 and 3008 x 1692, because I can see the text perfectly fine, it looks beautifully sharp, and the more stuff I see, the more productive I am.

I shall sell all my Macs with immediate effect.

Scaled 1440p is my go to resolution on 27” 4K, as well. Ideal for me.

 

[itsphilgeorge]

Let's all stay on topic. The topic here is around having a working configuration with an LG 5K2K 34" on an M1 based machine. (and other similar monitors).

Clearly, we all have differences in preference between pixel density, effective resolution, monitor size, brightness, etc. That is why we all purchase the monitor we eventually purchase. I am indifferent to anyone else's personal preference. What we are focusing on here is the loss of functionality and stability which has occurred coming from Intel Mac's or previous versions of macOS to Big Sur on M1 machines.

As it stands, owners of displays that which to operate using scaled resolutions and were able to previously can no longer do so. This is a definitive loss in functionality and a step back. We are focused on resolving this, alongside wake/sleep issues with external displays.

When it comes to Retina, @Lemon Olive is correct. Apple differentiates Retina from Scaled resolutions as typically Retina is represented as half the numerical resolution of the physical display. This is not always the case, as can be seen on any MacBook 13". Clearly, it is not the only usable option, otherwise, Apple wouldn't provide scaled options in the first place. If it is not usable to some of you here, that is a personal preference. Your individual preference/experience does not define a universal fact.

Where I believe there lays further disagreement is in the statement that all displays this side of 2010 have had that as their goal. Essentially, only Apple themselves and LG under instruction from Apple with the 5k Ultrafine range have built their physical displays with the Retina/scaled approach in mind. It is an opinionated approach to the problem and most manufacturers over the last 11 years have built displays primarily for Windows-based use.

The LG 5K2K 34" represents an option for those seeking a higher pixel density than most displays on the market and the option of an ultrawide aspect ratio. That is all. It is just another monitor.

Update on the functional purpose of this thread:

Using BigSur 11.3 Beta 3 with a direct Thunderbolt 3 connection between the LG 5K2K 34" running in DisplayPort 1.2 to an Apple Macbook Air M1 I am having increased stability over previous versions.

I am now able to inject custom resolutions onto both the internal display and the external display using SwitchResX Beta 4.11.1a4 but am still constrained to resolutions lower than 6016 pixels wide. (See attachment!)

At this stage, I am confident Apple is working on issues in terms of severity relating to external monitors and changes are occurring. I remain doubtful that Apple will remove the 6016-pixel limit as I believe it is a resource protection decision. We will most likely see explicit 8k monitor support in the upcoming M1X and I expect Apple will make that the recommended pathway to drive monitors such as these.

Does anyone else have any other updates relating to getting things working better?

 

[Bob418]

Under BigSur 11.2.2 I have the resolution 3008 x 1269 (60 Hz) with HiDPI active.

Thanks for the info. Now I finally know U4021QW can support HiDPI mode.

 

[BusinessGuysIT]

@itsphilgeorge Thanks for all your useful info in this thread. I got an M1 MBA yesterday & amazed these issues are not sorted, hit up Google & stumbled upon this thread.

I've got 2 of the LG's 34WK95U one at home & one in the office & I can't cope with things as they are.

Found this page which is over 2 months old, Apple are aware but no ETA on a fix...

If the supported resolution isn’t available on an ultrawide or super-ultrawide external display connected to your Mac with Apple M1 chip - Apple Support

 

[itsphilgeorge]

@itsphilgeorge Thanks for all your useful info in this thread. I got an M1 MBA yesterday & amazed these issues are not sorted, hit up Google & stumbled upon this thread.

I've got 2 of the LG's 34WK95U one at home & one in the office & I can't cope with things as they are.

Found this page which is over 2 months old, Apple are aware but no ETA on a fix...

If the supported resolution isn’t available on an ultrawide or super-ultrawide external display connected to your Mac with Apple M1 chip - Apple Support

Yep. Pretty terrible really.

11.3 Beta 2 is noticeably better than previous versions. So that's progress.

 

[BusinessGuysIT]

In what regard, just installed the 11.3 Beta & still not getting the 3840 x 1620 resolution.

I only spent a few hours on the stock MacOS & had hoped the Beta would solve the resolution issue.

 

[itsphilgeorge]

In what regard, just installed the 11.3 Beta & still not getting the 3840 x 1620 resolution.

I only spent a few hours on the stock MacOS & had hoped the Beta would solve the resolution issue.

Main improvements include overall stability, wake from sleep seems to work correctly now. The laptop can reboot and display boot login using an external display that didn't work previously.

Still experiencing issues with disconnecting laptop from the external display and reconnecting. Typically I have to use the other Thunderbolt3 port and then keep alternating.

Regarding unlocking additional resolutions, I have now had success in increasing the scaled resolution on the internal display to 1920x1200 and adding an additional resolution on the LG 34" (see screenshot). Despite this, it appears that you cannot inject custom resolutions exceeding 6016 pixels.

For those interested, SwitchResX now works as of the Beta released a day ago on 11.3 Beta 3 Big Sur M1's. (Direct Download). Unfortunately, despite this, it looks like they have been unable to find a way to overcome the scaling resolution limitation.

If anyone has found anything that is related to this limitation please post. Thanks.