Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac mini M1 external display scaling option (HDMI/TB3)

L

lancastor

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 25, 2011
848
346
When I use the HDMI Port I have different scaling options than using the Thunderbolt 3 Port (connected Mac mini M1 to an LG 32uL950-W)

HDMI Port - pssobible scaling options:
1252x648
1504x846
1920x1080
2540x1440
3840x2160

Thunderbolt 3 - possible scaling options:
1504x846
1920x1080
2560x1440
3008x1692 - best setting for me
3840x2160

The 3008x1692 option is the best setting for me but I cannot use this scaling option on the HDMI Port.

Can someone tell me why 3008x1692 is only available on TB3 but not on HDMI?
 
  • Like
Reactions: foliovision and adib
L

lancastor

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 25, 2011
848
346
No ideas how to set scaling resolution to 3008x1692 when connecting Mac mini M1 over HDMI cable?
 
Mistercharlie

Mistercharlie

macrumors regular
Nov 27, 2020
150
60
I have the same problem on a Dell u3219q. The second-last scaling option is missing over HDMI.
 
C

chabig

macrumors G4
Sep 6, 2002
11,450
9,321
Perhaps HDMI doesn't support that resolution. Your solution is to connect through the Thunderbolt connector.
 
S

Sanderr

macrumors regular
Jun 14, 2007
127
8
Everyone that’s using 3360×1890 now with their current setup (I was doing this on my 15” MBP), please beware that the M1 doesn’t offer this option. 3008x1692 will be the last option before going to full native.
 
L

lancastor

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 25, 2011
848
346
So. Is it a software limitation which can be changed with some tweaks or is it a hardware limitation?

But why is

3840x2160 possible over HDMI
3008x1692 not possible over HDMI (resolution can only be used when the display is connected via TB->TB or TB->HDMI)

?
 
Last edited:
Mistercharlie

Mistercharlie

macrumors regular
Nov 27, 2020
150
60
lancastor said:
So. Is it a software limitation which can be changed with some tweaks or is it a hardware limitation?

But why is

3840x2160 possible over HDMI
3008x1692 not possible over HDMI (resolution can only be used when the display is connected via TB->TB or TB->HDMI)

?
Click to expand...
I checked further, and you can use EasyRes to set 3008x1692 60Hz via HDMI, on the Dell U3219Q. It's listed in the 1xStandard (non-retina) section. It looks bad though. Same size, but fuzzy fonts.
 
P

Philstuman

macrumors member
Nov 26, 2020
30
10
Sydney, Australia
lancastor said:
So. Is it a software limitation which can be changed with some tweaks or is it a hardware limitation?

But why is

3840x2160 possible over HDMI
3008x1692 not possible over HDMI (resolution can only be used when the display is connected via TB->TB or TB->HDMI)

?
Click to expand...
My hunch is that this is related to the problem affecting the LG widescreens. To get a "retina" 3008x1692 the M1 has to double it leading to 6016x3384. That width of 6016 seems to max out the capabilities as the next step up is the native display resolution width of 3840. I don't know why there's the difference in HDMI vs DP(TB) though...

I'm also trying to figure out if this "max" applies to the apple displays (6K or LG Ultrafine 5K) as that should let us know if it's hardware or software.
 
E

exmophie

macrumors member
Oct 23, 2019
32
170
lancastor said:
When I use the HDMI Port I have different scaling options than using the Thunderbolt 3 Port (connected Mac mini M1 to an LG 32uL950-W)

HDMI Port - pssobible scaling options:
1252x648
1504x846
1920x1080
2540x1440
3840x2160

Thunderbolt 3 - possible scaling options:
1504x846
1920x1080
2560x1440
3008x1692 - best setting for me
3840x2160

The 3008x1692 option is the best setting for me but I cannot use this scaling option on the HDMI Port.

Can someone tell me why 3008x1692 is only available on TB3 but not on HDMI?
Click to expand...
OP are you having any issues with this display behaving strange after waking from sleep?
Does the screen run at 60hz?
Do hard drives on the back ports remain connected when the screen is not lit?

I have this same monitor and keep reading mixed performance issues with M1 MacBooks, but nothing about use with the M1 Mac mini.
 
M1gelo

M1gelo

macrumors newbie
Dec 7, 2020
7
2
Belgium
Mini M1 here with dual LG 27UL850 (4k) monitors.
I can confirm that the monitor connected via USB-C can do 3008 x 1692 in HiDPI and the other one connected via HDMI can not.
I can force the 3008 x 1692 resolution via SwitchResX or Easyres but text will be less sharp as it can not force HiDPI.

I think this is because of the way MacOS handles scaling. To use a 3008 x 1692 resolution in HiDPI it needs to use a resolution of 6016 x 3384 and then scale that down. This is too much for HDMI, that's probably why it doesn't work.

Solution? Let us connect two monitors via USB-C? Seems easy but I guess it isn't?
 
  • Like
Reactions: foliovision and lancastor
nightkiller

nightkiller

macrumors newbie
Nov 7, 2018
16
36
Hi guys, not sure if this is the right thread to ask.

I have a MBP M1 connected to a Dell 24inch FHD through HDMI. The MBP M1 feels sluggish when I use it with external monitor, even more so when I use my Bluetooth Logitech mouse.

May I know if the problem lies with HDMI cable or external monitor?
 
A

Akme

macrumors member
Jun 5, 2008
84
4
Received my M1 yesterday. Paired with an LG 32UL950-W.

On my 16" MBP, the display shows a maximum resolution of 6720 x 3780. I was using it at 3360 x 1890 at 60 Hz.

On the M1 Mini (16GB), it shows a maximum resolution of 6016 x 3384. I'm using it at 3008 x 1692 at 60 Hz.

It looks good, but obviously less real estate than the MBP-driven experience. And I'd prefer the space (and a little smaller text).

I tried SwitchResX yesterday and was able to select 3360 x 1890, but it was fuzzy/unusable. (Likely a function of the max resolution being off.)

Are we thinking this is a software problem? Has anyone tried the 11.1 beta to see if the options have expanded at all?
 
P

Philstuman

macrumors member
Nov 26, 2020
30
10
Sydney, Australia
Akme said:
Received my M1 yesterday. Paired with an LG 32UL950-W.

On my 16" MBP, the display shows a maximum resolution of 6720 x 3780. I was using it at 3360 x 1890 at 60 Hz.

On the M1 Mini (16GB), it shows a maximum resolution of 6016 x 3384. I'm using it at 3008 x 1692 at 60 Hz.

It looks good, but obviously less real estate than the MBP-driven experience. And I'd prefer the space (and a little smaller text).

I tried SwitchResX yesterday and was able to select 3360 x 1890, but it was fuzzy/unusable. (Likely a function of the max resolution being off.)

Are we thinking this is a software problem? Has anyone tried the 11.1 beta to see if the options have expanded at all?
Click to expand...
It's unlikely to be software as this happens in both the LG 5k Ultrafine and the Apple 6K display where you would assume they would have spent lots of time testing and refining. Instead it seems like 3008 horizontal is the max the M1 can handle. That's why I cancelled my order and am waiting for whatever the next chip is :(
 
A

Akme

macrumors member
Jun 5, 2008
84
4
Philstuman said:
It's unlikely to be software as this happens in both the LG 5k Ultrafine and the Apple 6K display where you would assume they would have spent lots of time testing and refining. Instead it seems like 3008 horizontal is the max the M1 can handle. That's why I cancelled my order and am waiting for whatever the next chip is :(
Click to expand...
Well, having said that, I am able to set mine to 3840 x 2160. So, it is capable of going wider than 3008. It's the monitor as being read to have a 6016 ceiling that seems to be the problem.

I wonder if the testing was primarily done with the XDR, for which it measures 6016 x 3384, and did not contemplate (somehow?) other displays.

I suppose the other argument would be that Apple simply has no interest in supporting non-HiDPI setups looking ahead, so they put some limits in place to ensure, in their eyes, the best MacOS experience. But I'm hardly a monitor pixel density expert to speak to the topic.

For it all, I suppose I'm just hopeful it was either an opinion that somehow shipped and could be undone or, simply, an oversight. But it does seem that a hardware barrier could also be the case.

Regardless, I suppose we'll have to see. I tried to live chat with Apple today and failed. (They dropped off while researching and the chat was deemed inactive.) I'll try to call over the next few days, I suppose.
 
P

Philstuman

macrumors member
Nov 26, 2020
30
10
Sydney, Australia
Akme said:
Well, having said that, I am able to set mine to 3840 x 2160. So, it is capable of going wider than 3008. It's the monitor as being read to have a 6016 ceiling that seems to be the problem.

I wonder if the testing was primarily done with the XDR, for which it measures 6016 x 3384, and did not contemplate (somehow?) other displays.

I suppose the other argument would be that Apple simply has no interest in supporting non-HiDPI setups looking ahead, so they put some limits in place to ensure, in their eyes, the best MacOS experience. But I'm hardly a monitor pixel density expert to speak to the topic.

For it all, I suppose I'm just hopeful it was either an opinion that somehow shipped and could be undone or, simply, an oversight. But it does seem that a hardware barrier could also be the case.

Regardless, I suppose we'll have to see. I tried to live chat with Apple today and failed. (They dropped off while researching and the chat was deemed inactive.) I'll try to call over the next few days, I suppose.
Click to expand...
To clarify, the total cap is 6016, the XDR resolution as you said. When you're saying the monitor has a ceiling thats not exactly true as the monitor you're using has a hard resolution of 3840 x 2160. Its the scaled resolution the frame buffer (I think this is right, but others can correct if I'm mistaken) which doubles the "appears like" resolution that you're seeing. So for your 3360 x 1890 it hits the limit (6720), but for the lower one (3008 x 1692) it's fine. All of these are then downsampled to fit the monitor resolution of 3840 x 2160.

You can set your monitor to a non HDPI resolution anywhere up to the 6016 cap where it's possible on the XDR for instance, but the monitor is doing the upscaling and therefore it looks jagged.

There are definitely more experts on here, but this is my understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom