I have a 720p 60hz TV, so that caps what the Mac Mini M2 I have shows.
According to Zwiftalizer, it does put out the High profile.
I imagine that a 1440p monitor would greatly imporove the Zwift experience.
Would a 120Hz or 180Hz monitor make a huge difference, or should I just go with a monitor at 1440p or 2160p at 60Hz?
Doubtful you need to go for 120hz or higher.
Just get a 4K screen (or even a 4K TV screen, what I use). I can use that with an M2 Macbook Air on Zwift without bother, I just need the USB-C to HDMI dongle because the M2 Air has only very few ports on it.
You should even be able to run a 5120x2880 screen without problem if you needed to use that computer for things other than Zwift (ie, work). It wonât do Zwift a lot of good but other for applications those screens are great (really sharp).
Resolution: As you increase resolution, thereâs a noticeable but marginal improvement when transitioning from lower resolutions. After you mentioned this, I retested some lower-end resolutions versus my usual 2160p. If youâre not breaking the bank, why not? Technology always gets better. Gamers will probably notice the difference more than fitness enthusiasts.
Refresh Rate: Zwift is a relatively low-intensity, visually simple environment compared to fast-paced games, so I donât perceive a huge difference switching between 30Hz, 60Hz, and 120Hz, and you pay more as you increase refresh rate. I run it at 120Hz because itâs the native refresh rate of my screen. By the way, I use a multi 50 inches screen setup for work, and I leverage one of those screens while training -otherwise, probably, I would be happy with much less. For me, reliability is the key!
My bias is that Zwift was designed with a stronger emphasis on functionality and accessibility rather than creating a photorealistic, high-definition world. As a result, there are limits to how much you can improve the graphics, even with top-notch hardware.
Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts.
Iâll probably stick with my 32" 720p 60Hz monitor for a while.
It does the job, and I get the High graphics profile from Zwift with the Mac Mini M2.
Great post and comparison.
It would be great if Zwift would just let us know what their intentions for future development is like on iOS/Android. Iâm sure many others like me would use it to influence our next tablet/PC upgrade. It does nothing for the Zwift âcommunityâ if weâre treated like an afterthought.
Dan you can get such a nice experience by just upgrading to a 4k display. You already have the M2 to drive it 4k
Go up to 4K, if anything the extra resolution will make macOS a little nicer and sharper to use.
720P is pretty low these days.
Macbook Pro M1 16GB here ⌠Running on an external Monitor in 4K UHD, perfectly smooth ⌠Donât see the problem here.
Only hiccup is that at this time all Macs are assigned the High graphics profile. Ultra is reserved for PCâs.
Not to confuse Ultra graphics profile with Ultra resolution (4K)
For the current M series true, but excludes some of the Intel powered ones with dedicated GPUs.
I canât say exactly all the ones get Ultra, but I know at least these types on Macs do get Ultra profile because Iâve tested these four and verified them myself:
Radeon Pro W6800X 32GB (I requested for this one to be added, and it was)
Radeon RX6600XT 8GB
Radeon RX580 8GB (probably also the Radeon Pro 580X, itâs almost the same card)
AMD Firepro D700 3GB (yes, oddly enough - I have tested it and it does get Ultra, but it barely manages)
I would guess the 2020 Intel iMacs should also get it, they had usually 5500 or 5700XT Radeons. They also had up to i9 processors and lots of RAM.
The RX 6400 also gets UltraâŚI asked for itâŚ9 months later received notification that it was added. I have not tested. I cannot be bothered with the Drivers (PITA compared to nVidia) and I had already moved on to the 4060 Low Profile card.
Itâs really ridiculous that you canât do it. I think Iâll soon switch to MyWhoosh⌠itâs free and as a Gamer I find the graphics more appealing.
They can do it, theyâre just choosing not toâŚâŚ.
I have an M4 Pro Mac mini now. 12 core CPU and 16 core GPU and 24gb ram.
Itâs not giving quite as sharp graphics as the old Mac Pro with RX6600XT but itâs fairly close.
The big difference is machine is so small. 600g weight versus 10kg+.
Smart Bike Trainers shows âHighâ settings on a base M4 Mac mini in his YouTube video. So we know M4 can produce good graphics on a device without cooling fans. I wonder if has to do with dedicated power. Obviously the Mac mini has dedicated power. But many users might not use the M4 iPad with a power source. The experience of âHighâ or âUltraâ graphics on an iPad might be lousy without power. I wonder if thatâs been the issue with the M series iPads.
The iPad benchmarks just as highly on battery power as it does on dedicated power. Likewise, the MacBook is not relegated to Basic graphics. Power source doesnât seem relevant.
Weâre talking about use with Zwift. My smart trainer requires dedicated power. Whatâs the big deal if my iPad did require it? Plenty of slots in the power strip.
Hey all - please note these changes coming in this weekâs phased release of game version 1.83.
Thank you very much! Very glad to hear it.
