M1 MBP & LG 34 inch ultra wide 5K2K

[avonord]

Are we sure that the limit is caused by video hardware or controller bandwidths? In the support article Apple claims to they want to address the issue in an upcoming OS patch.

Now when some people say, this is Apple addressing an issue where a 5k2k native resolution isn't available and not certain scaled resolutions, this seems at odds to me with how many people are complaining about the latter. Do we actually see a lot of people not being able to run their display at native 4k/5K2k? Would many people even want to run at 5k2k? Even with 100% vision that's going to put a lot of strain on your eye sight.

I think you are missing the point.

With the 5K2K display, your Mac is always supposed to output 5K x 2K pixels to the display through usb-c. The scaled resolutions are just trickeries done within the computer, to enlarge text/graphics while maintaining crispness.

But for some people, their Macs cannot output the 5K x 2K pixels to their displays. My mini, for example, would only output 3K x 1.5K pixels to my LG when it's using DisplayPort 1.4. At that resolution, the LG basically scale the 3K resolution back to 5K, which makes everything blurry.

 

[Doubleslash]

I think you are missing the point.

With the 5K2K display, your Mac is always supposed to output 5K x 2K pixels to the display through usb-c. The scaled resolutions are just trickeries done within the computer, to enlarge text/graphics while maintaining crispness.

But for some people, their Macs cannot output the 5K x 2K pixels to their displays. My mini, for example, would only output 3K x 1.5K pixels to my LG when it's using DisplayPort 1.4. At that resolution, the LG basically scale the 3K resolution back to 5K, which makes everything blurry.

I think this one point of the discussion, but by far not the only one. The use case for a 5K2K display is for most people not to run it at the native 5k2k resolution, everything is way too small. The display was meant to be used with display scaling in mind unless you sit 1 inch away from the screen. But not all scaled resolutions are available - that's why the reproducer in the Apple knowledge base article asks you to look at the scaled resolutions by holding the option key and clicking "Scaled".

Looking at your signature it seems you have the LG 34BK95U-W. This is the business version of the 34WK95U (which is what I have), but essentially the same display, just a different SKU in their pricelist with a different warranty. The M1 Mini is definitely capable of driving that display at 5k2k, I tried it. I don't think your problem will be solved by the upcoming patch. You either have a defective unit or a cable problem. Lower resolutions are usually caused by bandwidth constraints. I always needed to set the LG in DisplayPort 1.2 mode to get reliable connection and sleep/wake cycling. The other issue could be your cable (too long for the bandwidth requirements of DP 1.2 / 5K2K). Also note that this is a Thunderbolt port on your monitor, not a USB-C port. You might be using the wrong cable after all.

To drive 5K2k at 60 Hz you need 19.91 Gb/s bandwidth. Somewhere in your setup there is a bottleneck or somehow the system thinks there is a bottleneck.

 

[mocenigo]

Are we sure that the limit is caused by video hardware or controller bandwidths? In the support article Apple claims to they want to address the issue in an upcoming OS patch.

Now when some people say, this is Apple addressing an issue where a 5k2k native resolution isn't available and not certain scaled resolutions, this seems at odds to me with how many people are complaining about the latter. Do we actually see a lot of people not being able to run their display at native 4k/5K2k? Would many people even want to run at 5k2k? Even with 100% vision that's going to put a lot of strain on your eye sight.

Yes, the physical *resolution* limit of a 6K display is in HW. This may be a bandwidth limit or a limit of the video controller component of the graphics subsystem. This subsystems usually includes also the GPU – that is just a processor for graphics tasks – although "GPU" is often used as a metonymic shorthand to refer to whole video subsystem.

The GPUs themselves however, being rather general processing units, can handle buffers of arbitrary sizes and then scale them down to a buffer that can be rendered by the video controller on screens up to 6K.

So the internal HiDPI resolution of a screen could as well be 7.5K – 7680 * 3240, for instance – with everything at double size, and then scale down to the native 5K2K resolution of the LG 34" monitor.

 

[Doubleslash]

So the internal HiDPI resolution of a screen could as well be 7.5K – 7680 * 3240, for instance – with everything at double size, and then scale down to the native 5K2K resolution of the LG 34" monitor.

Yes, this makes sense. The bug right now is that certain resolutions, like 7.5K downscaled to 5K2K aren't available on the M1 Mac Mini whereas they were before on the Intel Mac Mini. The maximum internal HiDPI resolution on the M1 seems to be 6K, which downscaled to 5K2K looks like 3008x1269.
The 6K limit seems to come from what they need to support most in order to drive the Pro XDR displays. It does not seem to come from hardware. This is what I hope them to fix in the next update.

Without, it makes the 5K2K display useless because everything is rendered way too large and you have less screen real estate that with a conventional WQHD 3400x1440 display. At native 5K2K everything is way too small on the other hand. I don't really see a market for this display in which fractional scaling isn't working correctly.

 

[avonord]

The GPUs themselves however, being rather general processing units, can handle buffers of arbitrary sizes and then scale them down to a buffer that can be rendered by the video controller on screens up to 6K.

That’s the one thing I wasnt sure about. I hope u r right though.

 

[itsphilgeorge]

Yes, this makes sense. The bug right now is that certain resolutions, like 7.5K downscaled to 5K2K aren't available on the M1 Mac Mini whereas they were before on the Intel Mac Mini. The maximum internal HiDPI resolution on the M1 seems to be 6K, which downscaled to 5K2K looks like 3008x1269.
The 6K limit seems to come from what they need to support most in order to drive the Pro XDR displays. It does not seem to come from hardware. This is what I hope them to fix in the next update.

Without, it makes the 5K2K display useless because everything is rendered way too large and you have less screen real estate that with a conventional WQHD 3400x1440 display. At native 5K2K everything is way too small on the other hand. I don't really see a market for this display in which fractional scaling isn't working correctly.

Agreed. The monitor is not ideal running at 3008x1269. After having used the LG 34" at 3840x1620 for a year it is well and truly the optimum resolution for my needs.

What is perhaps more interesting is that when searching around the megawebz for the scaling resolutions available on the Apple XDR Display and the previous LG Ultrafine 5k displays sold by Apple, the range of resolutions offered even on the Intel Mac's seems limited. Which, for a ~USD$6000 monitor would be disappointing to say the least.

Below are what appear to be the scaling options for both monitors on Intel Mac's. It would be intersting to have someone who owns the LG 5K Ultrafine confirm that they no longer have the option "Looks like 3200 x 1800" when using the Apple M1 and the LG 5K Ultrafine. This would confirm that the issue is not isolated to Ultrawide displays, but simply to displays of any kind that run at resolutions greater than 4K and require scaling options greater than 3008 pixels wide.

I've just had another follow up call from Apple who have essentially stopped troubleshooting with me on the basis that their support article has acknowledged the issue.

Additionally, I have spoken to the developer of SwitchResX who has confirmed that they are yet to find a way to insert a custom resolution in Big Sur using previously successful methods.

It would be a mistake for Apple to cripple this aspect of the system as Mac's are used so extensively across industries that care about things like colour accuracy, pixel density and screen estate.

Let's all stick with it and hope that Apple listens to the users who are purchasing their top of the range equipment and expecting to be able to use it to its full potential.

 

[Philstuman]

Agreed. The monitor is not ideal running at 3008x1269. After having used the LG 34" at 3840x1620 for a year it is well and truly the optimum resolution for my needs.

What is perhaps more interesting is that when searching around the megawebz for the scaling resolutions available on the Apple XDR Display and the previous LG Ultrafine 5k displays sold by Apple, the range of resolutions offered even on the Intel Mac's seems limited. Which, for a ~USD$6000 monitor would be disappointing to say the least.

Below are what appear to be the scaling options for both monitors on Intel Mac's. It would be intersting to have someone who owns the LG 5K Ultrafine confirm that they no longer have the option "Looks like 3200 x 1800" when using the Apple M1 and the LG 5K Ultrafine. This would confirm that the issue is not isolated to Ultrawide displays, but simply to displays of any kind that run at resolutions greater than 4K and require scaling options greater than 3008 pixels wide.

I've just had another follow up call from Apple who have essentially stopped troubleshooting with me on the basis that their support article has acknowledged the issue.

Additionally, I have spoken to the developer of SwitchResX who has confirmed that they are yet to find a way to insert a custom resolution in Big Sur using previously successful methods.

It would be a mistake for Apple to cripple this aspect of the system as Mac's are used so extensively across industries that care about things like colour accuracy, pixel density and screen estate.

Let's all stick with it and hope that Apple listens to the users who are purchasing their top of the range equipment and expecting to be able to use it to its full potential.

This is from the LG 5k Ultrafine owners thread, as you can see, no 3200x 1800.

• 5120x2880
• 2880x1620
• 2560x1440
• 2048x1152
• 1920x1090
• 1600x900
• 1440x810
• 1280x720

 

[itsphilgeorge]

This is from the LG 5k Ultrafine owners thread, as you can see, no 3200x 1800.

Perfect.

Thanks for this. Confirms that Apple has done this across the board, not just for third party or unsupported monitors.

If I was an XDR owner and couldn't choose my scaling above 50% I would be somewhat frustrated.

Does your monitor have any other issues to report?

 

[Usernotmaker]

Slightly off topic but does anyone else have an issue with using this monitor's speakers?

In Sound Preferences when I select LG HDR 5K I don't get any sound... It also says "the selected device has no output controls".

I'm connected using the TB3 cable supplied with the monitor with sound volume set at 45 on the monitor's menu.

 

[Philstuman]

Perfect.

Thanks for this. Confirms that Apple has done this across the board, not just for third party or unsupported monitors.

If I was an XDR owner and couldn't choose my scaling above 50% I would be somewhat frustrated.

Does your monitor have any other issues to report?

Sorry, I’ve got both the LG 5K2K and the LG 5K Ultrafine, but cancelled my M1 order because of these scaling issues. Same as you, I’ve just been polling owners who went through with their purchase to see if the limitations were there. You can search through the LG 5K Ultrafine owners thread though for a discussion on this topic.
I agree, it would be maddening to have a AUD$9000 monitor and have it only work at half resolution!

 

[Philstuman]

Slightly off topic but does anyone else have an issue with using this monitor's speakers?

In Sound Preferences when I select LG HDR 5K I don't get any sound... It also says "the selected device has no output controls".

I'm connected using the TB3 cable supplied with the monitor with sound volume set at 45 on the monitor's menu.

The lack of output controls is an issue with the sound running through the display port as opposed to through a seperate USB connection from the thunderbolt bus. You should still get some sound though so that’s weird...

There’s a great app I downloaded though which enables you to control the volume on the display using the standard keyboard keys. https://staticz.com/soundcontrol/. The full version costs $19 but well worth it!

 

[avonord]

Slightly off topic but does anyone else have an issue with using this monitor's speakers?

In Sound Preferences when I select LG HDR 5K I don't get any sound... It also says "the selected device has no output controls".

I'm connected using the TB3 cable supplied with the monitor with sound volume set at 45 on the monitor's menu.

I use external speakers. But when I select LG HKR 5K as the output source under sound preferences control panel, it works fine for me.

 

[Jogge]

Hey guys,

I'm using a Ultrawide Viewsonic VP3481 at 3440x1440 @ 100HZ and I just got a new MBP M1 after my old 2017 dual core couldn't keep up with my performance requirements anymore. On my intel I used the following resolutions in HiDpi mode: 5848x2448 and 5120x2160. The whole UI just appeals sharper and better to read for my eyes and 3440x1440 in native mode on a 34" monitor is just a little bit to straining for my eyes while laying back in my chair. It's still useable but not optimal.

I spent a good amount of researching online to find out how why my original HiDpi routine wouldn't work. I usually set up an edited plist file and copied it into the right folder and then use RDM to select my favored resolution as, for what ever reason, I was not able to set up a custom resolution through RDM.

As I tried to use my original terminal commands to find out my DisplayVendorID/DisplayProductID in order to tell my Mac which monitor resolution I wanna custom. I noticed that several commands aren't working anymore and that for my understanding it's mostly about access rights for several files (plist etc). Big Sur OS files seem to isolate themselves in a drastically manner which cuts of many 3rd party programs. SwitchDefRes and RDM just performed basic plist editings by terminal commands if my guess is right, in order to set up a custom resolution. Due to the isolation of the OS files this is no longer possible. So if understand the struggle in this post right it's just a matter of software accessibility. I read a post in the apple community the last weeks where a user was able to transfer its old custom resolutions from catalina through a lucky accident into BigSur. So there definitely is a way into the OS but it seems to be tricky and I didn't had time to put the puzzle together yet.

Apple further progresses to put it's OS under a sealed hood and cut themselves off from external manipulation. While this may be useful for functionality and safety for the regular user in the long-run - it's pretty f****** annoying for power users or people like use that just want to set up a pleasing resolution by themselves, on a 1,2,3,...thousand dollar device. Just let me set up my own custom resolution ffs.

I still love the macOS in general but after leaving macOS in 2012, then using 6 years of windows and coming back in late 2018 - I just have to say that apple is slowly unifying everything to the point where user can't manipulate anything without breaking seals of guarantee like all the iOS devices which just allow the settings apple decides to offer you. I really feel like we are slowly approaching the same fairway as iOS devices, which I personally don't like for a computer that has so many individual preferences to set up.

 

[Philstuman]

Hey guys,

I'm using a Ultrawide Viewsonic VP3481 at 3440x1440 @ 100HZ and I just got a new MBP M1 after my old 2017 dual core couldn't keep up with my performance requirements anymore. On my intel I used the following resolutions in HiDpi mode: 5848x2448 and 5120x2160. The whole UI just appeals sharper and better to read for my eyes and 3440x1440 in native mode on a 34" monitor is just a little bit to straining for my eyes while laying back in my chair. It's still useable but not optimal.

I spent a good amount of researching online to find out how why my original HiDpi routine wouldn't work. I usually set up an edited plist file and copied it into the right folder and then use RDM to select my favored resolution as, for what ever reason, I was not able to set up a custom resolution through RDM.

As I tried to use my original terminal commands to find out my DisplayVendorID/DisplayProductID in order to tell my Mac which monitor resolution I wanna custom. I noticed that several commands aren't working anymore and that for my understanding it's mostly about access rights for several files (plist etc). Big Sur OS files seem to isolate themselves in a drastically manner which cuts of many 3rd party programs. SwitchDefRes and RDM just performed basic plist editings by terminal commands if my guess is right, in order to set up a custom resolution. Due to the isolation of the OS files this is no longer possible. So if understand the struggle in this post right it's just a matter of software accessibility. I read a post in the apple community the last weeks where a user was able to transfer its old custom resolutions from catalina through a lucky accident into BigSur. So there definitely is a way into the OS but it seems to be tricky and I didn't had time to put the puzzle together yet.

Apple further progresses to put it's OS under a sealed hood and cut themselves off from external manipulation. While this may be useful for functionality and safety for the regular user in the long-run - it's pretty f****** annoying for power users or people like use that just want to set up a pleasing resolution by themselves, on a 1,2,3,...thousand dollar device. Just let me set up my own custom resolution ffs.

I still love the macOS in general but after leaving macOS in 2012, then using 6 years of windows and coming back in late 2018 - I just have to say that apple is slowly unifying everything to the point where user can't manipulate anything without breaking seals of guarantee like all the iOS devices which just allow the settings apple decides to offer you. I really feel like we are slowly approaching the same fairway as iOS devices, which I personally don't like for a computer that has so many individual preferences to set up.

Great analysis, but it doesn’t explain why the default apple enabled resolutions have disappeared on the M1 macs. Regardless of whether you can insert custom ones or not, in all previous versions, and on intel macs running the same version of the OS, you can control select resolutions greater than 3008 horizontally. I’m very sceptical it’s a software issue given that it only seems to occur on the M1s.

 

[Usernotmaker]

The lack of output controls is an issue with the sound running through the display port as opposed to through a seperate USB connection from the thunderbolt bus. You should still get some sound though so that’s weird...

There’s a great app I downloaded though which enables you to control the volume on the display using the standard keyboard keys. https://staticz.com/soundcontrol/. The full version costs $19 but well worth it!

Thanks for this.

I have SoundSource which I guess is similar.

Still haven't solved the lack of sound through the monitor's speakers though... Next step will be to try with a different computer!

One other thing. Moved to Big Sur after 11.1 was released. Now when I wake the computer the app windows on the monitor have all moved to the lower left hand side of the screen, effectively replicating the computer's small built in screen. Frustrating.

 

[Usernotmaker]

I use external speakers. But when I select LG HKR 5K as the output source under sound preferences control panel, it works fine for me.

Thanks but not yet for me!

I'm going to try the monitor using a different computer but I don't have another TB3 device with speakers to test this computer's output...

 

[itsphilgeorge]

Update from Apple Engineering Support:

They have responded by saying that the issue is not with the raw amount of pixels but with the 21:9 resolution. They are saying the M1 machines on Big Sur have issues identifying and driving displays that are UltraWide (which may explain their recent Support post).

This is a convenient, albeit untrue response from Apple. In this thread, we have determined that monitors that are using 16:10 16:9 aspect ratio, such as the LG UltraFine 5k 27" displays, have also lost scaling options, such as 3200x1800 which remains available on Intel Mac machines but is not accessible on the M1 (See post here).

As it stands, it appears Apple's position to those of us who have either purchased Apple's own XDR displays or another high-end consumer display such the LG Ultrafine range and wants to use it at a reasonable scaled resolution and not have the monitor failing to be recognised from sleep, flickering, resetting to incorrect resolutions, etc is "Don't get an M1".

I am aware that Apple has stated a fix is incoming for the linked Support article above, however, I am not confident this fix will be including the scaled resolutions we are all seeking.

Next Action:

I suggest anyone who cares, expect better or wants to help to post here: https://www.apple.com/feedback/

I have submitted feedback and have been told that Apple to use this to identify important fixes to their platform. I encourage everyone reading this to do so.

Cheers.

Edit: Updated 16:10 to 16:9. Thanks @turbineseaplane

 

[turbineseaplane]

This is a convenient, albeit untrue response from Apple. In this thread, we have determined that monitors that are using 16:10 aspect ratio, such as the LG UltraFine 5k 27" displays

Those are 16:9

 

[joevt]

This is a convenient, albeit untrue response from Apple.

Probably.

The LG 5K2K display has two modes:
1) single link SST HBR3
2) dual link SST HBR2 (tiled)

Either one may work over Thunderbolt.
DisplayPort can only do single link.
Maybe you'll have less problems with the DisplayPort option.

I made a script at https://gist.github.com/joevt/e862b0088ef58b9144877d01401bcee8 which will tell you all the timings and whether they are tiled or not and which timing you are currently using.

 

[Jogge]

I just issued a feedback through the link you suggested!

 

[itsphilgeorge]

Probably.

The LG 5K2K display has two modes:
1) single link SST HBR3
2) dual link SST HBR2 (tiled)

Either one may work over Thunderbolt.
DisplayPort can only do single link.
Maybe you'll have less problems with the DisplayPort option.

I made a script at https://gist.github.com/joevt/e862b0088ef58b9144877d01401bcee8 which will tell you all the timings and whether they are tiled or not and which timing you are currently using.

Thanks @joevt

I've ordered an 8K Thunderbolt 3 to DisplayPort cable for this reason, but I don't expect it will help.

Thanks for putting together that script. My results are below:

disp0:

dispext0:
640x480@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(16 64 80 -) v(3 4 13 +) (virtual)
800x600@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(32 80 112 -) v(3 4 17 +) (virtual)
1024x768@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(48 104 152 -) v(3 4 23 +) (virtual)
1280x720@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(64 128 192 -) v(3 5 20 +) (virtual)
1280x768@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(64 128 192 -) v(3 7 20 +) (virtual)
1280x1024@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(80 136 216 -) v(3 7 29 +) (virtual)
1400x1050@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(88 144 232 -) v(3 4 32 +) (virtual)
1680x1050@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(104 176 280 -) v(3 6 30 +) (virtual)
1600x1200@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(112 168 280 -) v(3 4 38 +) (virtual)
1920x1080@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(128 200 328 -) v(3 5 32 +) (virtual)
1920x1200@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(136 200 336 -) v(3 6 36 +) (virtual)
2048x1536@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(152 224 376 -) v(3 4 49 +) (virtual)
2560x1440@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(192 272 464 -) v(3 5 45 +) (virtual)
2560x1600@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(192 280 472 -) v(3 6 49 +) (virtual)
3840x2160@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(312 424 736 -) v(3 5 69 +) (virtual)
4096x2160@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(8 32 40 +) v(48 8 6 -) (virtual)
5120x2160@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(8 32 40 +) v(48 8 6 -) (virtual)
5120x2880@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(48 32 80 +) v(3 5 74 -) (virtual)
800x600@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(40 128 88 +) v(1 4 23 +)
640x480@60.000Hz 31.500kHz 25.20MHz h(16 96 48 -) v(10 2 33 -)
1024x768@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(24 136 160 -) v(3 6 29 -)
1280x1024@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(48 112 248 +) v(1 3 38 +)
1280x720@60.000Hz 45.000kHz 74.25MHz h(110 40 220 +) v(5 5 20 +) (promoted)
1600x900@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(24 80 96 +) v(1 3 96 +)
1920x1080@60.000Hz 67.500kHz 148.50MHz h(88 44 148 +) v(4 5 36 +) (preferred)
1280x800@60.000Hz 0.000kHz 0.00MHz h(48 32 80 +) v(3 6 14 -)
3440x1440@59.973Hz 88.819kHz 319.75MHz h(48 32 80 +) v(3 10 28 -) (preferred)
3440x1440@49.987Hz 73.681kHz 265.25MHz h(48 32 80 +) v(3 10 21 -) (promoted)
1920x1080@59.940Hz 67.433kHz 148.35MHz h(88 44 148 +) v(4 5 36 +) (preferred)
1280x720@59.940Hz 44.955kHz 74.18MHz h(110 40 220 +) v(5 5 20 +) (promoted)
720x480@59.940Hz 31.469kHz 27.00MHz h(16 62 60 -) v(9 6 30 -) (promoted)
720x480@60.000Hz 31.500kHz 27.03MHz h(16 62 60 -) v(9 6 30 -) (promoted)
640x480@59.940Hz 31.469kHz 25.17MHz h(16 96 48 -) v(10 2 33 -)
3840x2160@59.997Hz 133.312kHz 533.25MHz h(48 32 80 +) v(54 5 3 -) (promoted)
3840x2160@30.000Hz 66.660kHz 266.64MHz h(8 144 8 +) v(54 5 3 -)
2560x2160@59.662Hz 133.761kHz 353.13MHz h(8 32 40 +) v(1 8 73 -)
-> 5120x2160@59.662Hz 133.761kHz 706.26MHz h(16 64 80 +) v(1 8 73 -) (preferred) (tiled)

Is this listing every supported resolution on the M1 for all monitors or just this monitor?

 

[joevt]

Is this listing every supported resolution on the M1 for all monitors or just this monitor?

Just the monitor that is connected. disp0 is the built-in or HDMI display. dispext0 is the external display connected via DisplayPort through a Thunderbolt port. The timings are from ioreg. There is probably some graphics framework where more info is stored (like CoreDisplay on Intel Macs). My script doesn't show info about HiDPI modes and it doesn't show what the output pixel format is (RGB/YPbPr, bpc, DSC, 4:4:4, 4:2:2, 4:2:2, HDR/SDR, etc.). Also missing is connection info (DisplayPort version, link rate, lanes, etc.).

 

[bill-p]

Update from Apple Engineering Support:

This is a convenient, albeit untrue response from Apple.

I can't speak to Apple specifically, but in my company, when a customer escalates a problem that's mostly "cosmetic" like this one (just missing more resolutions), it's treated like a "feature request".

And for the most part, engineering treats "feature quest" like the very last thing that needs to be done in a release. If an engineer cares enough, they may get around to it eventually. But for the most part, the "feature request" can sit there for the next 2 major versions of the software, and nobody will lose sleep over it.

I'm guessing the extra resolutions are possible, but Apple won't rush to implement them.

We should be glad that at least they are acknowledging this and not just going "it's working as expected". When something is "working as expected", it won't even count as a "feature request", and nobody will look at it. Ever.

 

[itsphilgeorge]

I can't speak to Apple specifically, but in my company, when a customer escalates a problem that's mostly "cosmetic" like this one (just missing more resolutions), it's treated like a "feature request".

And for the most part, engineering treats "feature quest" like the very last thing that needs to be done in a release. If an engineer cares enough, they may get around to it eventually. But for the most part, the "feature request" can sit there for the next 2 major versions of the software, and nobody will lose sleep over it.

I'm guessing the extra resolutions are possible, but Apple won't rush to implement them.

We should be glad that at least they are acknowledging this and not just going "it's working as expected". When something is "working as expected", it won't even count as a "feature request", and nobody will look at it. Ever.

Agreed. I'm happy that they are acknowledging it, my comment was more around the fact that the issue persists with monitors that are not UltraWide monitors and therefore their fundamental reasoning is untrue.

I'm hopeful, but not holding my breath.

 

[xszuflax]

I've ordered an 8K Thunderbolt 3 to DisplayPort cable for this reason, but I don't expect it will help.

Hello @itsphilgeorge

did that cable work for you. I just bought Delock Bidirectional USB Type-C™ to DisplayPort Cable (DP Alt Mode) 8K 60 Hz 1.5 m DP 8K certified and it does not work. I tried it with 3 monitors LG 34WK95U, LG 27UK850-W and a Dell 27". M1 can't detect the screen :-/