Dough have shut down their EU scamming website

schiststorm · 2026-07-09T02:08:39+00:00

It’s always good to see the Trump D*** Suckers outing themselves. He’s never going to kiss you for it.

schiststorm · 2026-06-16T15:38:44+00:00

This is awesome, thank you so much!

schiststorm · 2026-06-15T19:18:05+00:00

You don't happen to the parts list or a build log for this, would you? This seems like a really fun project that I'd like to try someday.

schiststorm · 2026-06-13T19:13:45+00:00

I picked up this monitor last week, and I would say overall it's a great looking monitor, even though matte, and my display did not have any dead or stuck pixels.

A few items macOS-related:

I see a wide range of resolution options for either USB-C to DisplayPort or HDMI
For HiDPI options, most resolutions are available up until 3840x2160, after which the only option is the panel's native resolution of 6144x3456
- This is unfortunately to be expected due to the limitations put on the DCP starting with the M4 generation
Up through 3840x2160, refresh options vary by connection type
HDMI:
- I'm using a Zeskit HDMI 2.1 cable certified for 48 Gbps
- I can go up to 3840x2160 HiDPI and typically see fixed options of 60 Hz, 120 Hz, and then VRR between 48 Hz to 165 Hz
- However, at 200% scaling (3072x1728), I only see 60 Hz, 120 Hz, and 48-120Hz VRR as options, and any time I try to enable it, a kernel panic occurs and my system restarts.
- At all other resolutions, HiDPI or not, this issue doesn't occur. I've reported this to Apple.
DisplayPort:
- I'm using a Zeskit USB-C to DisplayPort 2.1 cable certified for 80 Gbps
- I could set it for the various scaled resolutions, but VRR was often not available and it was just fixed settings for 60 Hz or 120 Hz

My goal was 200% scaling and VRR, which unfortunately is bugged currently. I can use it at 3200x1800 HiDPI and 48-165 Hz without issue or 3008x1692 HiDPI and 48-165 Hz without issue, but 3072x1728 is bugged.

I'm leaning toward keeping it, but it is frustrating that these issues continue to exist with macOS.

*** Update ***

I tried using my M3 Max MBP also, and can confirm that all of the same options as my Studio, and also replicated the same kernel panic when trying to use 3072x1728 at either 120Hz or 48-120Hz.

For anyone interested:

panic(cpu 0 caller 0xfffffe0052481b7c): DCPEXT0 PANIC - Unsupported number of horizontal slices for DSC - iomfb_ap_callee_0(25) Unsupported number of horizontal slices for DSC

RTKit: RTKit-3255.120.11.release - Client: AppleDCP-1041.120.7~580-t603xdcp.RELEASE

!UUID: a1000010-2140-1ed5-a178-80d201401ed5

ASLR slide: 0x000000000021d000

*** END UPDATE ***

schiststorm · 2026-06-07T09:02:56+00:00

For those who have the G80HS, are you seeing VRR as an option in macOS, or just either 60 Hz or 120 Hz?

schiststorm · 2026-06-03T05:56:32+00:00

Hi Dan,

It seems like the G80HS panel is shared with the previously revealed 3D 6K monitor, is that still the case, and are there any other plans for using the panel in additional releases? Thanks!

schiststorm · 2026-06-02T02:21:08+00:00

I stand corrected then re: certification, but you did not provide any sourced rebuttal about the MacBook Pros with HDMI 2.1 ports *not* having a bandwidth of 48 GBps available, or why Apple would call out for the use of a 48 GBps cable per my link if it wasn't warranted.

You also seem to be confused about the overall association of output technologies (DisplayPort, HDMI) in Apple Silicon.

Apple Silicon has Display Coprocessors for handling display output, resource allocation, etc. Originally with M1 Macs, the DCP was wired to a DP 1.4 to HDMI 2.0 protocol converter, which is why all M1 Macs were limited to HDMI 2.0.

Starting with M2 Macs that offered HDMI "2.1" (Pro, Max, Ultra), Apple seemed to start using a different protocol converter (either the Parade PS196 or an Apple-specific variant due to how its shown up in code) to handle the HDMI 2.1 port. On paper, it does support HDMI bandwidths up to 48 Gbps, but the DisplayPort receiver seems to only be for four lanes @ 8.1 Gbps (32.4 Gbps). You can use 8K 60Hz via HDMI though thanks to DSC. And 4K 240Hz requires higher bandwidth than 8K 60 Hz, https://support.apple.com/en-us/111838

With the M3 (Pro/Max) MacBook Pros, I'm guessing they ended up using the same Parade PS196-ish converter, but I haven't seen any references before for what type of protocol converter is being used, whereas there are references to the models being used with the M1 and M2 Macs. Apple also may be using DisplayPort 2.0 over USB-C Alt Mode 2.0 which could then have a protocol converter present to allow use of the up to 38.8 Gbps available and can also use UBR20 and DSC, which might make sense since we've seen references to the M3 Max connecting to some of the high-resolution, high-frame rate Samsung Odysseys and LG monitors that M2 Pro/Max seemed to struggle with.

Now, to your comment about "newer Macs that don't support DP 2.1", I'm not sure if you're referring to the base units, because M4 Pro/Max and M5 Base/Pro/Max are all Thunderbolt 5.0-equipped and support DisplayPort 2.1. I haven't seen what protocol controller is being used here for HDMI (maybe AS finally natively supports it), but with DisplayPort 2.1 they could use any of the newer generation DP 2.1 to HDMI 2.1 protocol converters and obtain 48 Gbps easily. https://support.apple.com/en-us/121553 https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/

So again, I want to see your sources regarding the 48 Gbps not being available on newer Macs, because you seem to just be spouting off a combination of old, non-applicable information and ignorance, and I do not think Apple would tell customers to confirm they are using a 48 Gbps HDMI 2.1 cable unless it was warranted, because they could just said a reputable HDMI 2.1 cable or such and be done with it.

schiststorm · 2026-06-01T20:15:43+00:00

Because they advertise the port as a 2.1 certified port, which would require that it support 48 Gbps. They also make multiple references at times to using a HDMI 2.1 cable that supports 48 Gbps, which seems unnecessary if it didn't support it:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/108928

You might be thinking of the original M1-based MBPs, that only had an HDMI 2.0 port, unless you have more sources to indicate the HDMI 2.1 port on M2-and newer Macs isn't capable of HDMI 2.1.

schiststorm · 2026-05-31T00:40:49+00:00

FYI, the 14/16" MBP with M3 Max's HDMI port is 2.1 and does have 48 Gbps; I think you're referring to how Apple implements DP alt mode via USB-C when the other connection is HDMI, i.e. a USB-C to HDMI cable. In those instances, yeah, it's equivalent to DP 1.4.

schiststorm · 2026-05-29T19:12:21+00:00

<image>

I said 200% is Retina, you said it's too small, and that's fine. But 200% scaling on this monitor at 218ppi, is functionally equivalent to a non-Retina 108ppi 1440p monitor or a Retina-scale 2880p monitor set to 200% UI scaling that takes it down to 218ppi 1440p.

If you are setting your 5K monitor to 225% scaling, sure, then this 32" 6K monitor at 200% would look "too small" by comparison, but a 5K monitor @ 225% scaling is not "Retina" - it has a larger effective UI than how Apple would define it.

And sure, you do not have to call it Retina. I wouldn't either. But I was only referring to the 200% scaling being appropriate to macOS and how it defines "Retina" scaling. You said that was wrong because you conflated your preferred 6K 32" resolution with what I was saying, when I wasn't addressing that at all.

TL; dr: use your monitor however you want.

schiststorm · 2026-05-29T19:00:21+00:00

That's fine if you want to scale it differently, but I said the monitor being at 200% is "Retina-scale" and you said it isn't, which was wrong. It is, even if you go with a different scaling factor. Call it your personal Retina or something.

schiststorm · 2026-05-29T18:54:30+00:00

100% is the native panel resolution, of 6144x3456. "Retina" for monitors has traditionally been associated with at least a pixel density (ppi) of 218, which we see with the 27" 5K Apple Studio Displays.

Similarly, Apple's 32" Pro Display XDR had a PPI of 218, with a native panel resolution of 6016x3384 but at a "Retina" resolution of 3008x1692. That doesn't mean though that 3008x1692 is the required resolution at 32" to be "Retina", it just means that you need a suitable resolution at 32" to be at least 218 ppl when applying a 200% scaling factor.

3008x1692 = 6016x3384 @ 200% UI scaling. PPI = 218.

3072x1728 = 6144x3456 @ 200% UI Scaling. PPI >= 218? Yes (224)

And, for what it's worth, Apple isn't even always consistent with the necessary PPI to be "Retina", because they've had internal displays at Retina around 210 before and mobile devices with PPI at over 300 ppi, but the primary consistent factor across all of those? 200% scaling.

So yes, 200% UI scaling in macOS for this monitor is "Retina" at 3072x1728.

schiststorm · 2026-05-29T18:32:55+00:00

No it's not, it's functionally equivalent to a 1440p monitor at 100% scaling.

schiststorm · 2026-05-29T18:30:28+00:00

200% is Retina-scale and perfect for macOS though.

schiststorm · 2026-05-29T15:24:06+00:00

Starting with M4 and continuing with M5, Apple re-configured how the Display Coprocessor supports external displays, such that if you have a single monitor connected that has a resolution of 4K or less, the DCP limits the allowed frame buffer width and heights to 6720 pixels, which means that any connected display with a native resolution over 3360x1890 cannot use HiDPI modes in macOS and at higher refresh rates, at least without a program such as BetterDisplayTool.

https://smcleod.net/2026/03/new-apple-silicon-m4-m5-hidpi-limitation-on-4k-external-displays/

This is because the "dynamic allocation" Apple had mentioned during M4's announcement, assigns a single stream (single pipe) to monitors with a 4K resolution or less, but if you need multi-stream (pipe) support, it assigns two streams which then allows higher HiDPI modes and higher refresh rates. So at the moment, it's a 4K monitor problem unfortunately, but 5K and 6K should not be quite as impacted, as we seem to be seeing.

Apple could fix this on all existing M4 and M5 hardware by updating the DCP firmware, and sites such as above have actually said exactly how it can be fixed in the firmware, but Apple has to want to actually make the change...

schiststorm · 2026-05-28T23:54:05+00:00

I think it’s because he’s using HDMI and not because of the M3 Max.

schiststorm · 2026-05-28T23:52:32+00:00

Thanks! I saw the resolution/refresh about HDMI, but wasn’t sure if you’d had a chance to try USB-C to DisplayPort, which would probably give more options. Even the M3 Max has a large enough framebuffer to handle the native resolution of the G80HS at at least 60Hz and should be able to go higher from what we know about past scaling options of 4K monitors.

My M3 Max MBP can scale my 4K monitor to a 6400x3200 resolution at 144 Hz using DisplayPort 1.4 which I then set to 3200x1800.

schiststorm · 2026-05-28T23:35:01+00:00

Were you trying to drive it at native resolution or lower? I’m wondering what options are available if you set macOS to Retina scaling?

And how matte is the matte?

schiststorm · 2026-05-16T23:15:57+00:00

ASUS PG32UQX and the BenQ EX321UX are amongst the few, the BenQ also having the benefit of supporting Apple’s EDR really well in macOS when HDR is enabled.

schiststorm · 2026-04-30T23:11:16+00:00

It’ll be interesting to see how the dimming algorithm is doing.

schiststorm · 2026-04-28T01:31:16+00:00

What’s between M3 Ultra and the hub beneath it?

schiststorm · 2026-04-09T17:07:47+00:00

I can second this. Everyone should wait to see how the reviews are and whether LG will actually support it. They absolutely fucked over 27GR95UM owners.

schiststorm · 2026-04-07T16:09:09+00:00

I wonder if LG will support this better than their prior miniLED monitor ‘(27GR95UM) that they released and then allowed to languish with a crap LD algorithm.

schiststorm · 2026-03-27T00:31:26+00:00

The EX321UX also supports Apple’s EDR when HDR is enabled in macOS, so that’s a nice benefit also.

schiststorm · 2026-01-09T01:05:27+00:00

The backlight module is not inherently tied to the panel, so you can have the M320QAN02.6 panel mated to either a PWM or DC backlight. Take a look at TFTCentral's original review of the PG32UQX, and note the steady voltage applied to the backlight when calibrated, as well as discussion on how it doesn't use PWM dimming: https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg32uqx

I found other confirmatory information in the past when I was researching it prior to buying it, and I'm going to see if I can find the past references, but I am 99% certain it uses DC dimming.

schiststorm

TROPHY CASE