Contribute
Register

How to build your own iMac Pro [Successful Build/Extended Guide]

Status
Not open for further replies.
well.. 5120 × 1440? that's suboptimal for 4K applications, isn't it? :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone's doing x2160 with ultrawides yet...maybe one of these days.
 
I don't think anyone's doing x2160 with ultrawides yet...maybe one of these days.

Well the LG 34 inch WUHD display we discussed along our last posts does natively support a 5120 × 2160 pix screen resolution via TB 3 and DisplayPort 1.4, isn't it?

Also squeezing 5120 × 2160 pix within 34 inch will provide a much better pixel size when compared with 5120 × 1440 pix extending to 49 inch, which will reveal huge optical performance differences..
 
Well the LG 34 inch WUHD display we discussed along our last posts does natively support a 5120 × 2160 pix screen resolution via TB 3 and DisplayPort 1.4, isn't it?

Also squeezing 5120 × 2160 pix within 34 inch will provide a much better dot or pixel size when compared with 5120 × 1440 pix extending to 49 inch, which will reveal huge optical performance differences..

yeah that is correct, the 34" does do x2160. However I was thinking about a 38" and above that does do x2160 but I don't see any.

That Phillips I posted is basically a dual 27" 1440p monitor without a bezel :thumbup:
 
yeah that is correct, the 34" does do x2160. However I was thinking about a 38" and above that does do x2160 but I don't see any.

That Phillips I posted is basically a dual 27" 1440p monitor without a bezel :thumbup:

That's absolutely true.. and that's why I am eagerly looking forward to the release of a LG 38 inch with the same properties as the LG 34 inch currently under discussion.. ;)
 
That's absolutely true.. and that's why I am eagerly looking forward to the release of a LG 38 inch with the same properties as the LG 34 inch currently under discussion.. ;)

I think I made a mistake with dual ultrawide 38s, but I guess I will see in 1 month haha.

I always saw ultrawides as a gimmick. Dual 27" or 32" 4k would be much nicer.
 
I think I made a mistake with dual ultrawide 38s, but I guess I will see in 1 month haha.

I always saw ultrawides as a gimmick. Dual 27" or 32" 4k would be much nicer.

Well I would not say that a 34 inch 5120 × 2160 WUHD is a gimmick.. I personally love WUHD displays.. but of course taste is different and also always depends on the kind of application. ;)
 
Last edited:
AOC is, C4008VU8,......https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1317281-REG/aoc_40_c4008vu8_4k_ultra.html

As an Editor, I was quite tempted, BUT, it is a VA panel, and I want IPS at a minimum or OLED (that would be just fantastic - but pricey...)

Here's my requirement for my next Monitor, from someone who works in Premiere, Resolve, and After Effects every day....
  • 5120 x 2160 (I would consider a 3840x2160)....
  • Multiple Refresh rates, equal to 60 hz and some above that level
  • 10 bit color
  • HDR
  • Curved screen
  • Greater than or equal to 35 inches
  • IPS screen OR Oled
  • Speakers (10 watt or greater)
 
  • Like
Reactions: kgp
@kgp I am running into an issue updating the SSDT with your latest updates for PCI implementation.

ORIGINAL | Implementing the SSDT device header like this works:
Code:
Scope (\_SB.PCI0.ETH0)
    {
      ...

NEW | While implementing with the expanded header as seen in the new SSDT from you, does not work:
Code:
Scope (\_SB.PCI0)
    {
        Scope (GBE1)
        {
            Name (_STA, Zero)  // _STA: Status
        }

        Device (ETH0)
        {
          ...

Any thoughts of why the newer expanded headers are not working?
Is there something different that needs to be applied before the new device headers can function?

I have attached the "Original" and "New" SSDT of a single device being implemented to see if you spot anything. The "original" works, showing ethernet in PCI, while the "new" ssdt shows no ethernet devices in PCI.

Would love to implement newer PCI items found in your latest SSDT (such as HDMI audio and thermal control) which use this new header system.

NOTE: as per your most recent example, the DTPG is found in a seperate .aml file

Thanks for this great build and your help in troubleshooting!
 

Attachments

  • SSDT-X299-iMacPro-New.aml
    744 bytes · Views: 113
  • SSDT-X299-iMacPro-Original.aml
    607 bytes · Views: 102
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top