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.
Pro Display XDR - Owners Thread
- Thread starter - rob -
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That makes sense, since you're not going through the hub of the XDR display in that case:
Code:
USB 3.1 Bus (Thunderbolt controller Bus of Mac Pro top)
Logi 4K Pro (USB 3.0 port of the bus)
USB2.0 Hub (USB 2.0 hub of the XDR display)
Pro Display XDR (XDR USB device)Still, it's a very strange result - something that should be reported to Apple (unless this issue is documented somewhere?). The Thunderbolt ports of the I/O card or the Mac Pro Top should be be the same as the Thunderbolt ports of the W5700X. All 6 ports should allow Thunderbolt connection. Maybe there's a timing issue (distance between GPU and port) or a firmware issue (each Thunderbolt controller has it's own firmware).
Did you test the both the top Thunderbolt ports and the I/O card Thunderbolt ports?
I did not bother to try the ports on the top of the case, the technical documents clearly indicate those aren't connected in any way to the video card. The I/O card (mounted high on the back of the case) did not enable the USB 3.1 Hub, only the ports directly on the 5700X card. The firmware versions of the TB controllers are different (5700X is much newer).
I think that's wrong. Which technical documents say they aren't connected to the video card? The video card has two DisplayPort outputs that can go to either the top ports or the rear I/O card ports according to https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT210968
It says you can't connect one display to the top and one display to the rear. It says you can't connect two XDR displays to a single Thunderbolt Bus but I think that's wrong since an XDR display connected with DSC only requires one DisplayPort signal.
Usually there's no way to make a Thunderbolt device connect as USB-C device to a Thunderbolt port (for Thunderbolt devices that use a Titan Ridge Thunderbolt controller that supports both types of connections). Either there's a problem with the I/O card ports, or the XDR, or Apple did it on purpose (less likely). At least it works properly with the W5700X ports.
It says "internal Thunderbolt 3 controllers" (plural) which means either the top or rear I/O card Thunderbolt 3 controllers can receive the two DisplayPort signals that are sent to the MLB (Main Logic Board).
About firmware updaters:
According to https://mrmacintosh.com/list-of-mac-boardids-model-identifiers-machine-models-updated , Mac-27AD2F918AE68F61 is the board-id of the MacPro7,1 - this appears in the output of
ioreg -lw0 | grep board-idThere's a list of MacPro7,1 Thunderbolt firmwares at
/System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/MobileAccessoryUpdater.framework/XPCServices/ThunderboltAccessoryUpdaterService.xpc/Contents/Resources/Mac-27AD2F918AE68F61
(There's more Thunderbolt firmwares for other Macs in the USBCUpdater folder of the macOS installers)
The config.plist file shows what each firmware is for:
Code:
Mac-0x0010-B2_2.29.0.15-C1_49.4.bin # Apple I/O Card
Mac-0x0011-B2_2.29.0.15-C1_49.4.bin # Mac Pro Front I/O Ports
Mac-0x0012-B2_2.29.0.15-C1_49.4.bin # Mac Pro Top I/O Ports
Mac-0x0015-B2_2.29.0.15-C1_49.4.bin # Radeon Pro Vega II MPX Module #0
Mac-0x0016-B2_2.29.0.15-C1_49.4.bin # Radeon Pro Vega II MPX Module #1
Mac-0x0017-B2_2.29.0.15-C1_49.4.bin # Radeon Pro Vega II Duo MPX Module #0
Mac-0x0018-B2_2.29.0.15-C1_49.4.bin # Radeon Pro Vega II Duo MPX Module #1
Mac-0x0019-B2_2.46.0.16-C1_55.2.bin # Radeon Pro W5700X MPX Module #0
Mac-0x001A-B2_2.46.0.16-C1_55.2.bin # Radeon Pro W5700X MPX Module #1So yes, the Radeon Pro W5700X firmware is newer but we don't know if that fixes this problem with the XDR and I wouldn't try using this firmware on the other Thunderbolt controllers anyway.
They all have the same DROM info except the Device ID (0x0010) and Thunderbolt Bus/RID (0 vs 1 for second Thunderbolt controller). The Mac Pro EFI modifies the DROM slightly (assigns a UID and Thunderbolt bus number). You can compare the DROM parts of the firmwares with the DROM assigned by the Mac Pro EFI in the ioregistry using my script at https://gist.github.com/joevt/4f6d4d97b560efab9603ac509bf00122
Use Device ID to match firmware DROM with corresponding ioreg DROM.
Code:
source ThunderboltUtil.sh # use path of wherever you downloaded the script
loadioreg
mauthunderbolt=/System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/MobileAccessoryUpdater.framework/XPCServices/ThunderboltAccessoryUpdaterService.xpc/Contents/Resources
# These are the same as the files in the USBCUpdater
if [[ -d $mauthunderbolt ]]; then
IFS=$'\n'
for thebin in $(find "$mauthunderbolt" -type f -name '*.bin'); do
loadfwfile "$thebin"
done 2>&1
fi
listdroms
dumpdromall
I wondered a bit about this when it was posted but thankfully MR posted this news yesterday from the verge, written up by Juli:
Apple's Arm-Based Macs With Apple Silicon Chips Will Support Thunderbolt
Key quote:
I would have been surprised if Apple designed and released the XDR only to make it incompatible with new macs within three years, but I suppose it was possible.
I wonder if OP could add a section about the choice between the matte and glossy finish. Also for those dual screen users, which kind of arrangement is better: angled or inline, shoulder to shoulder or one vertical, one horizontal? Thanks.
Explain: as a matte XDR user, I'm planning on purchasing a second one this year. But I'm considering buying a glossy one. The answers to the two questions mentioned above will determine my decision, as I believe there will be only one screen having reflection if they are placed at an angle, so one matte is enough. Without reflection, the glossy one is clearly better than the matte one in terms of clarity and brightness.
Explain: as a matte XDR user, I'm planning on purchasing a second one this year. But I'm considering buying a glossy one. The answers to the two questions mentioned above will determine my decision, as I believe there will be only one screen having reflection if they are placed at an angle, so one matte is enough. Without reflection, the glossy one is clearly better than the matte one in terms of clarity and brightness.
Thanks for the request. I updated the experience request portion of the OP for clarity and included the two questions you posed.
I did see a post from someone in the battlestation photos thread that showed to XDR displays. I haven't reached out to them yet, but you might try finding that, pinging them by PM and asking if they would come answer your question(s) or otherwise just post a review of what its like to use two XDRs.
Nice thread and review! I'll add some of my own observations; I have three XDR's and have had the first one since December of last year. Like others here, I have always bought high end monitors and tend to keep them for years. I spend 50+ hours a week in front of the screen and high color accuracy is very important to my use. Why cut corners on something so important to my business? Speaking of which, since I use them for business the price is easier to deal with--I get a business discount and I'll be able to write them off and reduce my taxes. In addition, I bought two of them when Apple was offering 6% cash back on the Apple Card, so the overall savings were great.
My first one was a nano version. The experience the OP had with the film is not normal; that almost seems to me like it was a reboxed unit. I really hate glare and I can't totally control it in my office so having the nano version is perfect. It does just barely soften the image but quite frankly unless you have the nano and regular versions side by side you would never notice. I loved it so much that I ended buying a second one and have them side by side on my desk. Since then I have added a regular finish one as well on a second Mac Pro 7,1 I have in a dark room where there is no glare.
I have the Apple stands for all three. It's overpriced, yes, but I suspect not nearly as much as people might believe. The engineering of the thing is beautiful and it's a big chunk of machined aluminum, so the manufacturing costs on it are not inconsequential.
I hate getting my screens dirty and never touch them so I've only had to clean an occasion spot or two off in the last six months. I don't see any difference between the standard and regular screen in cleaning and the cloths that ship with the two versions appear to be identical, so I think the warnings around cleaning the nano version are more out of an abundance of caution by Apple than any inherent "delicate" nature of the nano finish that has tended to worry some.
If you are doing video editing or photo editing I will say that you really want a hard core graphics card for this screen. It takes some serious memory and processing power to push so many pixels. Adobe software in particular will struggle a little, but the last two updates to Lightroom have dramatically improved that. All three of mine are attached to Pro Vega II MPX modules.
Bottom line--these are the nicest displays I've used since the release of the original Thunderbolt Display, and love that we finally have an anti-reflective option again--the last I had that was with my 30" Cinema Display and I really missed it. That's not even taking into account the beautiful design of the screen, which is just gorgeous--it's a work of art.
My first one was a nano version. The experience the OP had with the film is not normal; that almost seems to me like it was a reboxed unit. I really hate glare and I can't totally control it in my office so having the nano version is perfect. It does just barely soften the image but quite frankly unless you have the nano and regular versions side by side you would never notice. I loved it so much that I ended buying a second one and have them side by side on my desk. Since then I have added a regular finish one as well on a second Mac Pro 7,1 I have in a dark room where there is no glare.
I have the Apple stands for all three. It's overpriced, yes, but I suspect not nearly as much as people might believe. The engineering of the thing is beautiful and it's a big chunk of machined aluminum, so the manufacturing costs on it are not inconsequential.
I hate getting my screens dirty and never touch them so I've only had to clean an occasion spot or two off in the last six months. I don't see any difference between the standard and regular screen in cleaning and the cloths that ship with the two versions appear to be identical, so I think the warnings around cleaning the nano version are more out of an abundance of caution by Apple than any inherent "delicate" nature of the nano finish that has tended to worry some.
If you are doing video editing or photo editing I will say that you really want a hard core graphics card for this screen. It takes some serious memory and processing power to push so many pixels. Adobe software in particular will struggle a little, but the last two updates to Lightroom have dramatically improved that. All three of mine are attached to Pro Vega II MPX modules.
Bottom line--these are the nicest displays I've used since the release of the original Thunderbolt Display, and love that we finally have an anti-reflective option again--the last I had that was with my 30" Cinema Display and I really missed it. That's not even taking into account the beautiful design of the screen, which is just gorgeous--it's a work of art.
The only reason I can think of the Nano need is on the field where lighting is uncontrollable. I would assume all professionals with critical imagery need have controlled lighting otherwise it doesn't make sense for a "professional". If you're a Youtuber/Content Creator and you work in open-lighting and/or by the window view, then yes the Nano makes sense.
Seeing side by side you can see a difference and that's a big deal trusting the Nano screen.
Personally Nano is for ensuring you are showing the client the great imagery that they can still expect to see despite the non-critical lighting scenario they're at (i.e. photoshoots outside of the studio) and nothing else. If you're the one doing the color critical adjustment as a professional - you should have a more professional monitor or the non-coated display in a controlled lighting.
Seeing side by side you can see a difference and that's a big deal trusting the Nano screen.
Personally Nano is for ensuring you are showing the client the great imagery that they can still expect to see despite the non-critical lighting scenario they're at (i.e. photoshoots outside of the studio) and nothing else. If you're the one doing the color critical adjustment as a professional - you should have a more professional monitor or the non-coated display in a controlled lighting.
Yes of course. The same way I disagree how people are using the Nano screen or any other monitor for that matter but in an environment that doesn't give the equipment justice.
At the end of the day it's how you are able to deliver the end product to the client. Whether you are working with a pink calibrated screen, but you are able to compensate for that and create a colour accurate rendition of what they want to see is what matters.
I really need some serious advice, please. I will spend about two months (seriously) to decide whether my second XDR to be nano or regular. My current one is nano. I cannot complain about it, as it is very effective in terms of anti-glare. However, based on my arragements of my desktop (images attached, and my window is to the left), I really don't see any reason that the screen on the left side will have reflection from the window, so my plan is to remove the 30" ACD on the right, move the nano XDR to the right, and put a regular XDR on the left. In my imagination, regular is better than nano in terms of clarity and brightness, and I don't know if it's true (but I do see some level of chromatic dispersion of the nano XDR if look at it closely enough). The local Apple Store here doesn't have nano XDR for display, so I cannot have a direct comparison.
What my desk look like in March:
And now:
Personally I wouldn't put a nano and a regular side by side as I think the difference will be very noticeable and probably not in an enjoyable way. In regular use the difference is so subtle that you soon forget about it. Even when I walk across the hall I can't really tell a big difference, other than seeing some tiny reflections on the regular one. However, side by side they do like noticeably different. If I were in your position I would get a second nano to put next to the existing nano.
I agree. You wouldn't want to mix displays especially if the client is yourself.
The only time you would want different display types is because you are mastering in your chosen display. But then checking on the output of your work on a separate display that your client will be viewing from.
In my case, I am mastering in an XDR but I have a "regular" off-the-shelf display that shows me how it may look for others that don't have the same calibrated monitor.
You began with a Nano and you would want to stick with that for visual uniformity.
The only time you would want different display types is because you are mastering in your chosen display. But then checking on the output of your work on a separate display that your client will be viewing from.
In my case, I am mastering in an XDR but I have a "regular" off-the-shelf display that shows me how it may look for others that don't have the same calibrated monitor.
You began with a Nano and you would want to stick with that for visual uniformity.
Finally I got my XDR yesterday, and having it mounted on the Ergotron 45-476-216 HX monitor arm together with my trusted Dell P2715Q I would like to share first impressions on the experience. I am going to follow your review structure as it provides some context and rationale that might be helpful for prospective buyers.
Existing System Configuration and transition from previous setup
I am typing this on a Mac Pro 7.1 with a 12core 3.3GHz configuration, the W5700X MPX module and an aftermarket 64GB RAM upgrade that adds to the 32GB stock RAM.
Coming from a 4.1/5.1 2009 classic Mac Pro with an Apple Cinema Display 30 inch and a Dell P2715Q, the idea behind my transition to the 7.1 was to get a quiet workstation with recent I/O tech and bandwidth for daily research, light audio/video and office work and the occasional windows game in Bootcamp.
With increasing working from home (using a Lenovo ThinkPad), I found the multiple input ports of the Dell P2715Q indispensable, adding to the fact that the P2715Q already is a good 4K display with a matte finish. On the other hand, the Cinema Display collected dust and was used only sporadically as an auxiliary display in a HiDPI resolution as of "looks like 1280x800" (as a tribute to my aging eyes). As I did not want to go back to a single monitor setup, I decided to sell the Cinema Display along with the old 2009 cheesegrater and go for the XDR with standard glass.
Once I realized how a monitor arm can help to de-clutter the working space (having watched Danny Wingets minimal setup video), it was a no-brainer to skip the expensive Apple Pro Stand an get the Ergotron 45-476-216 HX Dual monitor arm with the Apple VESA mount for half the price. This model supports the size and weight of up to two XDRs, and I would recommend to consider this option if possible (have a look at the attached pictures to get an idea - I like the cable management and how easy it is to change the position of the setup - even for something simple like cleaning the desk). I am not worried at all that the Display could fall off the Ergotron - the build quality of this model is really good.
For the XDR, I chose the standard glass (glossy), as I thought this would be easier to clean.
Order / Delivery
Ordered on July 1st online at the Apple Store. In Germany, the government has reduced the VAT by 3 percent points from July to December 2020, so the wait was worth around 150 EUR in saved taxes. Delivery took 10 days with the flight routed from China via South Korea. Package arrived in pristine condition.
Unboxing and Setup
Like the Mac Pro, the XDR ships in an outer delivery package that can be conveniently opened with a strip that rips the outer box apart. This means that if you like to keep the boxes for future selling, you might need some duct tape to close the ripped outer package (especially if you live in an old building with a dusty basement). It is a minor inconvenience though. The rest of the unpacking was as straightforward and rewarding as shown in many reports and videos.
I also noticed some small bubbles on the sticker sheet and having read Rob's review, I initially was alarmed, but there was no residue on the glass (Rob, I believe that the condition of your XDR was irregular and you should not have had to experience it).
Placing the VESA mount and mounting on the Ergotron was quite easy. I needed to adjust some weight screws to account for the increased weight of two displays, but this was easy as well.
Working with the XDR
After the initial start and the software update (the screen stayed dark for some time and I did not notice the update dialogue, so it felt a bit uneasy), the XDR showed its great contrast and real estate. The default setting was P3-1600 nits and a scaled resolution that "looks like 3008x1692". I switched to "looks like 2560 x 1440" for slightly bigger UI and I like that the viewport dimension almost matches the old Apple Cinema Display 30 inch (2560 x 1600), but in retina mode. Occasionally I go even down to "looks like 1920 x 1080" for content consumption (again, as my eyes are not getting better unfortunately).
Coming from all matte displays for more than 20 years, the reflectiveness of the glossy XDR is something I need to get used to - I did not thought it would turn out that much mirror-like. Even with the light coming from a window on the right hand side, I can see myself on the background of the Macrumors dark theme website. Would I go for the matte version? Probably not, as I do like the sharpness and sturdiness of the standard version. But it is something you should keep in mind if you always had matte displays too.
Overall Impressions of the XDR
So it is just 24 hours since I got the XDR but I can already say it is my new favorite display - everything looks sharper and more crispy than on the Dell 4K, and I love the minimalistic outline - no webcams, no speaker, and it feels like a component of the Mac Pro. Is it worth the price? For me, who stares at displays for hours each day, it definitely is, and having the possibility to easily mount it together with a secondary display, the setup is much cleaner and more ergonomic than having two different display stands.
I actually also would be interested to see how this setup runs (or really any setup using the 10th gen Iris graphics). I’d love to switch to a 13 inch MacBook Pro (or something smaller) once Apple moves to their own GPU’s and I feel like the current ones might give a good baseline for performance.
I primarily use the XDR with a MBP 16" but I also use it with the MBP 13" 2020 and I've tried the MBA 2020 and they all work fine with the display. The MBP 13" and MBA don't flow as smoothly from one mission control screen to the other as the 16" but they seem fluid enough for most uses.
Which one and what load? I use the MBP 13" for my work job. Lots of apps, video conferencing, but not something like video editing. Any system will lag with enough load, but for normal tasks using the XDR it's no problem.
I was referring to the Pro 13, the most intense thing I do is light 4K video editing as I do mostly development work/photo editing, if it was able to handle this, it confirms that I will be able to switch to a 13 inch pro once the ARM transition happens.
I haven't done video editing with it, but from everything else I've done, I would expect it would be fine. Although benchmarks don't show it, it seems significantly smoother and faster than the 2019 13" MBP and it handles the XDR just fine. My 16"MBP is faster (it's a maxed out model) but if I had to live with only on the new 13" it would be fine. It's certainly fine for editing in Lightroom.
What are the Default resolution and the available Scaled resolutions when running the current MacOS?
I'm not sure if the higher resolutions will be available depending on what video card you are running. In any case the resolutions I see available are:
6016 x 3384
3008 x 1692 (DEFAULT)
2560 x 1440
1920 x 1080
1504 x 846
1280 x 720
Each of these can also be selected but in low resolution mode