It happens with both the Apple cable and an OWC Thunderbolt 4 “certified” cable. I have an M2 MacBook Air and have connected that via Thunderbolt to the display without reproducing the problem, however, absence of evidence etc. so I’m not ready to point the finger at the mini. Of course, the problem only become clear after the devices were out of warranty. As the issue is infrequent I’ve chosen to live with it.
The only thing to mention is that there is no separate Ethernet controller on board. In my P2723QE, Ethernet speed is limited to what USB2 hub allows to obtain, i.e., instead of 1 gigabit/s it only runs at 450 MBit/s. I am really puzzled, why did they choose to restrict monitor’s hub to USB2, as price difference betweeen USB2 and USB3 chips could hardly be decisive. Is it the same case with your model?
The Dell U2723QE offers support for 10 Gbps USB3 down and up so if you attach your Gigabit dongle to that screen you won’t be limited. Of course the U series is a bit more expensive than the P series (~$90).
1 Like
The MacBook identifies it as a USB Gbit ethernet connection, and speeds from NAS storage are in line with my expectations, though I haven’t done comparative benchmarks.
1 Like
I decided to try the Luna Displays for a similar setup, assuming I’d probably end up returning it. I use a 2017 27" 5k iMac for running some older software and macOS VMs (Fujitsu m510 scanner for one!). I also use it as a secondary display for my MacBook (Dell 32" is primary). Connection is through gig-ethernet (central switch serving house).
I don’t use it every day, but when working on a 2-monitor project (mostly coding/website) will use it for days/weeks at a time. While loosing the Apple Watch login is an annoyance, I haven’t had any other major problems that have kept me from continuing to use it. YMMV of course.
1 Like
My system also identifies this connection as 1000baseT, however, in reality I’ve never seen speeds significantly exceeding 300MBit/ via USB-C cable. This is the limitation of USB-to-Ethernet controller used. Try something like speedtest.net or fast.com with this network interface only, and you’ll see what I mean.
Out of curiosity, I’ve googled and here it is:
https://www.dell.com/community/en/conversations/monitors/u2723qe-macbook-pro-m1-rj45-not-max-speed-network/647f9e13f4ccf8a8de29e0e8
Figures of USB3.2 theoretical throughput in the user guide or on the Dell website are not what it really provides via USB-C cable to the connected Mac. I am not sure I understand why did you mention Gigabit dongle, because my System Settings identify this interface as 1000baseT, as well as Dell’s marketing materials assure it is (see screenshots), however, in reality, speeds never exceed 450 MBit/s, in the best case. This is what USB-to-Ethernet controller may provide. Just check on your side with USB-C as the only network interface, i.e., don’t forget to disable Wi-Fi.
It’s either that display or that dongle. This $11 Gigabit dongle I have right here does this. The U2723QE is certainly not limiting it.
Why do you need a dongle at all, if a single USB-C connection from MacBook to Dell provides you with power, video signal, network interface and USB at the same time? Ethernet cable can be connected to Dell directly via RJ-45 and needs no dongle as well.
Ummmm… because you’re not getting the USB or Ethernet bandwidth you require?
USB-C offers a lot of useful features, but its bandwidth is not infinite. If you’re carrying DisplayPort video over the same cable as your USB data, that may easily consume most of the available bandwidth.
According to Wikipedia, when a USB-C port is put into DisplayPort alternate mode, 1, 2 or 4 of the USB SuperSpeed data pairs may be taken for video. If all four are used, then USB data will be forced to use the slower USB 2-compatible pins. Which, in the absence of additional information, seems to be what you’re seeing.
Which is different from, for example, a Thunderbolt display, where DisplayPort and USB data are multiplexed together and share the full 20 or 40 Gbps bandwidth, which should be enough to permit Gigabit Ethernet and video (up to a point, depending on resolution and refresh rate) at the same time.
What display properties (resolution and refresh) are you using? If you try to pick a lower resolution, does your Ethernet bandwidth improve? If so, then there’s your problem - video is consuming all of the USB SuperSpeed bandwidth.
Also, see if you can follow @Simon’s advice and try an Ethernet dongle. If that gives you gigabit speeds, then the problem is with the Ethernet port in the monitor.
1 Like
As I said, it’s clearly working at gig speed based on data transfers from my local NAS, though I never bothered benchmarking it.
I was thinking a speed test would be more limited by my internet connection, but remembered Comcast upgraded their tiers. Results below confirm I’m getting a gig ethernet connection through my U3223QE. As someone mentioned, the U series is more expensive, often “business” targeted, so that might explain the difference. It’s also why I think they have been worth it given my experiences over the years.
System Info shows it’s identified as a Realtek ethernet device on a USB3.1 bus (10Gb/s max), though I installed no additional drivers.
@fellwalker57 I’d definitely try a different cable. I installed 30+ Studio Displays in the the last few years and have had 4-5 problem cables in the batch. I just swap in a USB-4/Thunderbolt 4 cable (mostly OWC brand) and that has cured the problem every time. And sometimes the problem crops up after a few weeks (or even months) of using the Apple supplied cable.
I notice that you don’t see the issue with the Air, just the mini. I’d still try another cable-they get churned out in such large quantities that it’s quite possible that you might have two problem cables when connected to the mini.
Many thanks, I’ll try it. I made the task more complicated and expensive because I keep the mini more than 1 meter from the display.
Love my 27" iMac. Please suggest a reasonably priced monitor, comparable to the 27", for this new Mac mini. Thanks.
We have an entire thread on that.
Your closest bet in terms of affordable is likely the LG 5K 27". I’ll note that at $1280 it’s rather expensive right now. In Jan it was going for $900.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XV9NQSJ/
1 Like
I had to replace my 27" iMac and did so with a Mac Mini, with which I am happy. I did quite a bit of research looking for a 27" monitor including doing a physical check of those that fitted my requirements. I ended up with the Apple Studio. There were just things with the competing monitors that caused them to fall short when compared to the Apple Studio. So I did pay more but after a while the purchase price is forgotten. I still believe the Apple Studio is over priced, but is does simply work.
So I’ve been reading this thread, and there are so many endorsements for either third-party 5K monitors, or the Apple Studio Display, that I finally have to ask: What am I missing with my 4K monitors? Because to me, my LG 27" 4K monitors that I use with my MBP M1 Pro in clamshell mode are fantastic from a visual perspective, and only cost $260 each. Do I just have a somewhat pedestrian, underdeveloped visual perception aesthetic? Or am I actually missing some feature or capability I would have if I sprung for considerably more expensive 5K monitors?
Simple bottom line: you get a sharper image on a 5K vs. 4K without sacrificing how much you can actually display. I tried to explain above.
2 Likes
The answer is the same as the answer to this question: Why did Apple use a 5K display for the 27" iMac instead of 4K?
Which is the same as the answer to “Why is the 24” iMac 4.5K (4480x2520) instead of HD (1920 x 1080) or UHD (3840 x 2160)?"
As has been written before, a 5K 27" display gives you an effective 110 ppi (after the 2x Retina display scaling), which is the sweet spot for Apple’s UI.
A 4K 27" display requires 1.5x scaling to hit this effective size, which puts a load on your GPU (which you may or may not notice) and may add some fuzziness (which you may or may not notice). Or you drive it without scaling, which makes UI elements too small for most people. Or you drive it with 2x scaling, which makes UI elements too large for most people.
But this is all subjective and depends on what you’re doing. If you’re happy with yours, then congratulations. It works for you and I don’t think anyone should be trying to convince you otherwise.
3 Likes