If they limit a M1 Max beast with so an OS Limitation after they support it in newer macOS, i will leave Apple forever....
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac mini: 4k @ 120hz?
- Thread starter Flow91
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So 4k/120/444 will work only with hdmi 2.1 ports on M2 mac mini and m2 macbook pros?
How is this possible?
So with this announcement. Any type C -> HDMI 2.1 Adapters AND hdmi 2.1 -> hdmi 2.1 (6000 Series AMD Cards) should support 4k/120/444/HDR.
But i dont see any OS updates to support this?
I am on Ventura 13.1.
How is this possible?
So with this announcement. Any type C -> HDMI 2.1 Adapters AND hdmi 2.1 -> hdmi 2.1 (6000 Series AMD Cards) should support 4k/120/444/HDR.
But i dont see any OS updates to support this?
I am on Ventura 13.1.
Last edited:
I'm on Ventura 13.2 (M1 Max) and also had no luck getting my Cable Matters adapter to offer me anything other than 3840x2160 at 60Hz on my 42" C2.
That's odd. because 13.2 was release just last week. That means hdmi 2.1 support should have been in that update since they announed hdmi 2.1 today.
Usually the software is updated for their upcoming hardware.
I don't understand how this is possible.
Even if someone orders the new M2 mac mini. How are they going to get full hdmi 2.1 bandwidth if they connect it to a HDMI 2.1 TV or Monitor?
I also don't see any mention of HDMI 2.1 in the beta release notes.
New update is due in the next week i guess or hdmi 2.1 on new M2 Mac mini wont work.
Only the new Macbook Pro's with the M2 Pro have hdmi 2.1. The M2 Mac mini doesn't. I would not expect this to change the OS (driver) support for usb-c or thunderbolt to hdmi 2.1 dongles. Most likely it will continue only working with a new MBP with an actual 2.1 port.
But the M2 Mac mini page says and i quote "
HDMI display video output
- Support for one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K resolution at 240Hz
How is 8K@60Hz or 4K@240hz possible with hdmi 2.0?
Only the M2 Pro Mac mini supports hdmi 2.1 though. Another bad segmentation.
What about Mac pros with AMD 6000 Series cards and e-egpu owners with AMD 6000 Cards. They have hdmi 2.1 port.
will they also not get hdmi 2.1 support?
I mean this is ridiculous to say the least.
Last edited:
There were rumors before that the new Macs was testing under Ventura 13.3.
So maybe we need to test dongles on 13.3
So maybe we need to test dongles on 13.3
13.3 must have hdmi 2.1 support then. It has to.
No point testing hdmi 2.1 on 13.2 , since this a big update there has to be a mention of it in the release notes.
So when is 13.3 out then? any release date?
No point testing hdmi 2.1 on 13.2 , since this a big update there has to be a mention of it in the release notes.
So when is 13.3 out then? any release date?
If there are changes I don’t imagine you’d see them until the next macOS 13.2 beta at the earliest as beta 2 was released last week (before the announcements today).
I‘m waiting before I purchase. If the regular M2 Mac Mini is not capable of 4k 120 Hz then I buy the M2 Pro version. It‘s 400€ more, but I don‘t want to use a display anymore that has less then 120 Hz. I don‘t need the power of the Pro chip. I only want to be able to use my high refresh monitor.
Sorry the spec page is confusing on a phone since it uses tables. It seems you’re right, but only the M2 Pro, which means you would have to spend more than double the base model just to get the 2.1 port. A real bummer. Still, it coming to Macs at all is a good thing.
well, the joke will be on them if the type c -> hdmi 2.1 works the same as hdmi 2.1 port.
--edit: talkin about hdmi 2.1 usb-c/thunderbolt alt mode. Not the 2.0 physical ports on m1 devices.
Isn't this as simple as:
Apple didn't pay HDMI 2.1 licensing fee for m1 family hardware.
Now they will do it for some skews of m2 (hopefully all).
I don't actually know how this works. If you sell a device capable of hdmi 2.1 signal transmission, you pay 1 time fee per device. Or is it actually being managed at the software/driver level ? Like you can retrofit/enable this support on older devices ? Because if not, I don't see how its legally possible for Apple to just enable this feature even if it was possible on older hardware, if they didn't license it.
Changing hdmi major version requires addendum to current license. I could not find if this is the case for minor versions, albait 2.0 -> 2.xx could be considered a generational leap, but what do I know xD..
I just would not get my hopes up as a m1 user, if the 2.1 hdmi support requires apple to shell out any money.
Isn't this as simple as:
Apple didn't pay HDMI 2.1 licensing fee for m1 family hardware.
Now they will do it for some skews of m2 (hopefully all).
I don't actually know how this works. If you sell a device capable of hdmi 2.1 signal transmission, you pay 1 time fee per device. Or is it actually being managed at the software/driver level ? Like you can retrofit/enable this support on older devices ? Because if not, I don't see how its legally possible for Apple to just enable this feature even if it was possible on older hardware, if they didn't license it.
Changing hdmi major version requires addendum to current license. I could not find if this is the case for minor versions, albait 2.0 -> 2.xx could be considered a generational leap, but what do I know xD..
I just would not get my hopes up as a m1 user, if the 2.1 hdmi support requires apple to shell out any money.
Last edited:
You guys are weird.
Apple releases new Macs with NATIVE hardware support for HDMI 2.1 ——> “so I bet now DP-to-HDMI 2.1 adapters will work with my old Mac, it’s just a software update away”.
How on Earth did some of you made that connection is beyond me.
Apple releases new Macs with NATIVE hardware support for HDMI 2.1 ——> “so I bet now DP-to-HDMI 2.1 adapters will work with my old Mac, it’s just a software update away”.
How on Earth did some of you made that connection is beyond me.
Is there any proof of this?
Anyway it’s in no way related to newer Macs getting all the necessary hardware (GPU + hardware video switch + HDMI controller) to allow for native HDMI 2.1 resolutions.
Honestly the Mac getting suppport for HDMI 2.1 was the most exciting part of the M2 Pro/Max reveal.
Especially given Apple's "port minimalism," and general enthusiasm for dongles, the idea that macOS would somehow ONLY support HDMI 2.1 via physical ports, which a lot of Mac's (like the MacBook Air) aren't going to have going forward is... insane?
Unless Apple did something really screwy with the way they implemented Thunderbolt / USB 4 on every other Mac, once Apple implements proper HDMI 2.1 support adaptors should just work.
Because that's... generally how external device protocol support has worked on macOS (and most other operating systems) in the past???
Especially given Apple's "port minimalism," and general enthusiasm for dongles, the idea that macOS would somehow ONLY support HDMI 2.1 via physical ports, which a lot of Mac's (like the MacBook Air) aren't going to have going forward is... insane?
Unless Apple did something really screwy with the way they implemented Thunderbolt / USB 4 on every other Mac, once Apple implements proper HDMI 2.1 support adaptors should just work.
Nope, video output capabilities of Macs are a combination of
1) GPU hw
2) internal video switching hw
3) port controller hw and the port itself
4) OS support (sw)
All of these need to be in place, not just one or two.
It’s “insane” to make assumptions based on just one or two of those checkboxes. Or just wishful thinking, I get it.
The proof lies within the extensive amount of testing within this thread. Many of us have confirmed that our adapters work with thunderbolt ports on different computers. I even tested personally within windows on my intel iMac, yet macOS doesn't work on the same machine. Also, I think its confirmed that if you have a monitor with display port input, you can get 120hz to work.