M4 Mac owners having problems with ultrawide 5K monitors

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited December 2024

An unknown number of users say that their M4 Macs are failing to show the correct resolution for their 5K ultrawide monitors, leaving displays either blurry or too small to read.

Silver square device with an apple logo on top placed on a white table, next to a plant in a brown pot and a glowing blue light.
The M4 Pro Mac mini



The problem is less dramatic than how the M4 iPad Pro was being bricked for some users when they updated to iPadOS 18. In this case, it's another M4 problem but the issue is over what resolution the display is shown at.

According to multiple users on Apple's support forums, the issue is specifically with monitors that have a resolution of 5,120 pixels by 2,160 pixels. With high-resolution monitors, Apple scales macOS using a feature it calls high-pixel density mode (HiDPI), which prevents interface elements like windows and menus becoming so small as to be unreadable.

As spotted by 9to5mac, users are predominantly reporting that HiDPI is not working on the M4 Mac mini. It is also seemingly affecting at least some M4 MacBook Pro users.

In each case, users connect their displays and find that the Mac's list of possible resolutions is different.

"I have a MacBook Pro M1, and a 5k LG monitor with 5120 x 2160 res," writes one user on Apple's forums. "When I use it I can use the 'default' setting which is 3840 x 1620 and it is perfect for me -- but there is only one high res option at 5120 x 2160 which is way too small to see things."

"In my case, it's an LG 34[inch] 34BK95U-W UltraFine (flat panel), but I see the same issue," writes another. "As one who used the 3840x1620 setting routinely and now finds it unavailable on my new 16."

How Macs recognize displays



Macs determine the list of possible resolutions on a screen by querying the monitor's DisplayID (previously EDID or Extended Display Identification Data). With the older EDID, there was a limit to how many resolutions could be reported to the Mac, but DisplayID extends this.

So the list of possible resolutions that are displayed in the Mac's System Settings are taken directly from the display itself. Users switching between Macs say that their previous machines were correctly reporting all the available resolutions, but that the M4 Mac is missing at least some.

It's not clear how that can be happening since the source of the data remains the same. However, it's possible that it is a macOS issue rather than an M4 hardware one.

Some users are reporting that the use of the third-party utility BetterDisplay has fixed the issue. Others, though, say that text on screen remains blurry.

Apple has not commented on the issue, but users are saying they understand that the company is working on a fix. In the meantime, it's not clear how widespread the problem is.

However, this is not the first time that Apple's M-series Macs have had this display problem. Back in 2021 with the M1, users reported that the Mac was not enabling its Retina-based HiDPI with certain monitors.

That issue did not appear to be confined to particular resolutions, but rather to certain manufacturers.



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    M68000m68000 Posts: 910member
    For what it’s worth.  My office has somebody using new MacBook Pro m4 and two Samsung 21:9 aspect ratio monitors.  These monitors are doing 100hz refresh.  These look great,  no reported issues.  In fact,  these monitors look so good to me, I’m tempted to get one myself and I’m not a big Samsung fan but these are nice.  And reasonable price.
    edited December 2024
    watto_cobrawilliamlondon
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 14
    dk49dk49 Posts: 287member
    I am facing a similar issue with my 28 inch 4k+ Benq Monitor (RD280U). It has aspect ratio of 1.5, but my MacBook Pro doesn't only shows resolutions with aspect ratio of 1.77 (16:9), resulting in stretched display.
    watto_cobrawilliamlondon
     0Likes 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 14
    The article says problems with 5,120 pixels by 2,160 pixels.  That is not 5K.  2160 is 4K.  5K is 5120 x 2880.  But internet searching I guess finds this marketing term:

    A resolution of 5,120 pixels by 2,160 pixels is considered a "5K" resolution, often referred to as "5K2K" or "UltraWide 5K" due to its aspect ratio, typically used for wide-screen displays with a high pixel density; it essentially provides a significantly higher level of detail compared to a standard 4K resolution (3840 x 2160 pixels). 
    Key points about 5120 x 2160 resolution:
    • Aspect ratio: 21:9
    • Commonly called: 5K, 5K2K, UltraWide 5K
    • Higher pixel count than 4K: Offers significantly more detail on screen
    So it is like a 'fake' 5K since it is 21:9?  The typical ultrawide resolution is 3440×1440 on most Ultrawide displays.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 14

    M68000 said:
    For what it’s worth.  My office has somebody using new MacBook Pro m4 and two Samsung 21:9 aspect ratio monitors.  These monitors are doing 100hz refresh.  These look great,  no reported issues.  In fact,  these monitors look so good to me, I’m tempted to get one myself and I’m not a big Samsung fan but these are nice.  And reasonable price.
    Are those Samsung ultrawide displays 5120x2160 resolution, or the more typical 3440x1440 resolution?
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 14
    When I embraced silicon, I went 5120 X 2160 40" ultra wide in the Dell version... coming from well over a decade of iMac 27" usage. I could never go back to the more squarish aspect ratio. All of that expanded horizontal space is just too useful. And to my 20:20s, resolution looks the same as the old iMac... just more of it as workspace. 

    Cost is comparable to ASD with stand option but it comes with the variety of stand options, FOUR very useful inputs (to one of which I've attached a Mac Mini-like PC for "old fashioned bootcamp"), a substantial hub of both present and "the future" ports, etc. If it conked today, I'd immediately buy another: best monitor I've ever had. 

    hidpi on it is 3840X1620 but the full 5120X2160 doesn't look "too small" (but yes smaller) on this bigger screen. That's a macOS problem instead of a monitor problem as Windows scales to any resolution and always looks right. Most of the time, I work in 3840X1620 for Mac but will up it to max for stuff like FCPX editing when I want maximum screen R.E. If you haven't tried one, you should. ASD is far from the only fish in this sea. 
    edited December 2024
    watto_cobradewme
     1Like 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 6 of 14
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,150member
    Regardless of it being either a Mac or Windows (and Linux), I'm surprised that displays work as well as they do considering the myriad of different sizes, resolutions, formats, etc... 

    I know Apple displays are expensive.  However, as I value my time among all things that's why I stick with Apple monitors.  If I had to waste my time and raise my frustration levels with 3rd-party monitors not playing nice with Macs, then I'd be throwing them across the room.  Saving a few hundred dollars on a cheaper display is offset by time wasted and reduced productivity.  No thank you.
    watto_cobraMisterKitJanNLwilliamlondon
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 14
    Next big iMac should be Ultrawide and show these montior vendors how to do ultrawide hidpi right. 

    5k x 2k is ok for a pc. But for retina, it's going to need more pixels. 

    Ultrawide done right would be an amazing selling point for a new big boy iMac. Would differentiate for the Studio/Mini people as well while allowing folks who want a PC type setup to continue with it. 
    watto_cobramacgui
     1Like 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 14
    I just got a 27” Viewsonic IPS 4K monitor to use with my 16” MacBook Pro M3 Max machine.
    I do CAD and 3D work and photography, so the extra resolution is welcome over my old 1440p monitor.

    I’ve had to do so much futzing around trying to get Finder text easier to read, it’s ridiculous .
    Menu Bar icons and text are still minuscule, even using Apple’s “Large” size.

    ”Advice” I got on Apple’s forums was to reduce the screen resolution. Brilliant.  :s

    Why hasn’t Apple solved this basic problem and made it a 2or 3 click operation to adjust UI elements for high-res monitors?
    It’s not like they started selling 5K monitors yesterday.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 14
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,866member
    If you want simple, no-fuss, plug & play monitors for a Mac, going with an Apple display will make you happy. However, Apple's displays also carry some limitations that reduce their usefulness for certain users, like me. for one, Apple monitors do not allow you to easily share the same monitor with more than one computer and/or an Apple TV.  Yeah, you can go with a KVM or some other workaround like an HDMI switch, but using just the features built into the monitor to achieve sharing is pretty damn nice, especially when using BetterDisplay so you don't have to reach around the back of your monitor to change the input source or other settings. For example, my 32" Dell 4K monitor supports 144Hz on DP and HDMI 2.1. My MacBook Air and Mini PC only support 60 Hz but I run my Mac mini at 120 Hz (I think it can go to 144 Hz). 

    I have a second dual 27" monitor setup with a Studio Display and a Dell 4K with USB-C/DP 1.4 and HDMI x 2 inputs. The Mac uses USB-C, my AV receiver with an Apple TV 4K (and other HDMI sources) uses one HDMI. I can run the second monitor as a dedicated display for my Mac, a full-screen Windows 11 ARM in VMWare, full screen Apple TV, or use the Dell's built-in dual screen or PIP mode to view two video sources on the same screen. If you go with a very large Dell 43" 4K monitor you can view 4 video sources on the same screen at the same time. Each quarter is a 1080p rendering, which may be perfect for some applications. My "standard" configuration is to use the Dell as an extended display for my Mac and put my Apple TV 4K in a small PIP window to play music or watch a movie, TV, or a video in the background. My Apple TV is my primary music player since it's pumping sound through a 5.1 KEF speaker system rather than the Studio Display speakers. 

    As far as resolution, both the 5K Studio Display and 4K Dell display are scaled to 2560 x 1440 and look virtually identical and ideal for arms-length viewing. Note that display scaling DOES NOT change your monitor's resolution. The monitor's screen hardware determines the resolution in pixels. Display scaling determines how you video drivers fit the desired display scale into those pixels. The display scaling you pick is directly related to your viewing distance and the physical size of the screen.
    muthuk_vanalingamroundaboutnow
     0Likes 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 14
    2160 is a 4K pixel dimension so these aren't actually 5K monitors. 5K width with 4K vertical. 
    edited January 2
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 14
    shaminoshamino Posts: 544member
    sflocal said:
    Regardless of it being either a Mac or Windows (and Linux), I'm surprised that displays work as well as they do considering the myriad of different sizes, resolutions, formats, etc... 
    I'm not surprised.  GPUs (and many old non-GPU video chips) have supported configurable frequency output for a very long time.  You can program the chip for the various pixel-timings needed to output any video signal, within the limits of the board's frequency generators and the amount of available video RAM.  And modern monitors provide all of the necessary parameters via EDID information.

    I have first-hand experience with this.  Back in the late 90's, I was using a Micron Pentium Pro PC running Linux.  My (4:3 aspect CRT) monitor only advertised a few standard resolutions: 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x900 (Sun Workstation standard) and 1280x1024.  Unfortunately, its highest resolution, 1280x1024 doesn't produce square pixels (it has a 1.25:1 aspect while the screen is 1.33:1).

    I could fiddle with the monitor's controls to make the pixels square (by reducing the vertical size of the image), but I instead chose to program the computer's video card (I forget the model, but it was an NVidia card) for 1360x1024, which has the same number of scan-lines, but with an almost-square pixel-aspect (1.328:1).  It took an afternoon of tweaking video timings (and referencing the Linux Video-Timings HOWTO document), to generate a custom video-timing configuration but it worked great, and I continued to use that unsupported resolution until I retired that monitor.  (Its replacement, a 1920x1200 LCD panel, advertised its native resolution, which just worked out of the box.)

    So I'm not the least bit surprised that modern ultra-wide displays with unusual resolutions generally work.  As long as the display reports the correct video timings via EDID and those timings (and the required amount of frame buffer memory) is within the minimum/maximum ranges of the GPU, it should always "just work".
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 14
    FWIW, my LG 38WN95C is clear at 3840 x 1600 attached to an M4 mini, but I have old man eyes and 2560 x 1067 is more comfortable for daily use.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 14
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,516member
    I just got a 27” Viewsonic IPS 4K monitor to use with my 16” MacBook Pro M3 Max machine.
    I do CAD and 3D work and photography, so the extra resolution is welcome over my old 1440p monitor.

    I’ve had to do so much futzing around trying to get Finder text easier to read, it’s ridiculous .
    Menu Bar icons and text are still minuscule, even using Apple’s “Large” size.

    ”Advice” I got on Apple’s forums was to reduce the screen resolution. Brilliant.  :s

    Why hasn’t Apple solved this basic problem and made it a 2or 3 click operation to adjust UI elements for high-res monitors?
    It’s not like they started selling 5K monitors yesterday.
    They did it’s called an Apple studio display…..
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.