27" 1080p IPS monitor vs 2560x1440?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by ZaYoOoD, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    #1
    Hey,
    I'm looking to buy a new display for my 2013 Mac Mini.
    I'm afraid if I go with the 2560x1440 it might not work, some people have issued some complaints..

    Anyone who has worked with 27" of both resolutions can tell me which one to go with?
     
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    #2
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    #3
  4. MJL
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2011
    #4
    I love my Dell U2713H. No PWM, no sore eyes, no headaches. Wide gamut, software from Dell running in the background automatically changing from wide gamut to normal etc. Easily tailored to personal preferences.
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    toughboy

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Izmir, Turkey
    #5
    if you wanted a 2013 mac with a 27" monitor, why didnt you buy an iMac?? :confused:
     
  6. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #6
    A 27" monitor using 2560x1440 will work just fine with the Mini -- so long as you connect it through the MiniDisplayPort and use the proper cable.

    There are several 1080p 27-inchers out there, including some with a recent well-received IPS panel (panel by LG). Here's one, for example (no financial interest):
    http://www.bestbuy.com/site/AOC+-+2...lver/6293177.p?id=1218726428129&skuId=6293177

    Just be aware that because they are larger than a 24" display -- but with the same resolution as is considered "normal" with 24" -- a 27" 1080p display will yield an image that looks "blown up" a bit, because the pixel size is larger (.031mm, I believe).

    If you are a younger person with good eyesight, your response to such an image might be, "it looks too grainy!".

    But for us older folks, or for people with impaired or weakening vision, it looks excellent….
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #7
    Or get the half-price sRGB version, the U2713HM.

    Be sure the display has a Display Port connector (I think they should ban sellers who sell these resolutions with dual-link DVI only in 2013). That one is easily interfaced to thunderbolt with a DP->miniDP cable.
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    RoastingPig

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Location:
    SoCal
    #8
    plus thunderbolt to DP is like 80 dollars cheaper then thunderbolt to dual-link dvi
     
  9. macrumors 601

    talmy

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Location:
    Oregon
    #9
    If you are intending to use Aperture, FCPX, Adobe CS or Lightroom, you should certainly pay the extra money for the 2560x1440. If you just want the large display to view videos, then you don't want the 2560x1440 display and a 1080P monitor will work better. Frankly, for general use I wouldn't bother with 27" 1080P but would just buy a smaller monitor if that were all the resolution I wanted. It's too grainy at that size.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    #10
    1) If you don't need the iMac's dedicated GPU, a Mac mini and a third-party 27" monitor are cheaper.

    2) Monitors typically have longer useful lifespans than computers (my 21" Samsung LCD monitor from 2001 is still going strong), so you can upgrade your mini in a few years but keep your monitor.

    3) If you have another computer, you can also connect it to most third-party monitors, which have multiple inputs. I sometimes work from home and connect my work Windows laptop to my Samsung monitor, without having to disconnect my Mac mini.

    4) It's easier to upgrade the drive in a mini.
     
  11. MJL
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2011
    #11
    - The cable comes with the more expensive model.

    - There are several who have problems with the U2713HM, one of them being an annoying sound pitch at times.

    - I needed a monitor that has no PWM backlighting.

    - The U2713HM is not wide gamut.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #12
    I would personally spend the money on 2 23- inch monitors.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2012
    #13
    I'm using this MicroCenter Auria branded WQHD 2560x1440 IPS LED monitor with my Mac mini (Late 2012). It was a steal at $399, and it's worked flawlessly at its native resolution connected via an inexpensive MDP->DP cable. I wouldn't buy a WQHD monitor at this point that didn't have a DP connection.

    Before the Auria, I was using an AOC 27" 1080p IPS LED with the mini, and I was also happy with it. I didn't think text was too bad at that size and resolution. It was larger than it needed to be, but the quality wasn't disturbing.

    The AOC has now been relegated to the family Dell, and I'm using an Acer 23" 1080p as a second monitor with my Mac mini (via HDMI). The 2560x1440 resolution is a big help working with photos.
     
  14. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    #14
    Is that Auria the cheapest option to get here In America ?
     
  15. macrumors 68040

    Giuly

    #15
    Along with the Monoprice 27" 1440p display, yes.
     
  16. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #16
    By far the cheapest that has a display port. Having native display port saves about $100 since you don't have to buy a MDP to dual dvi cable.
     
  17. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    #17
    Loving the Auria so far
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #18
    Why that? And how is the 2713H not having it?
    As far as I know is the 2713H using wide-gamut white LED's for backlight, and the only way to dim LED's is with PWM.
    Besides, nothing wrong with PWM. The problem is with wrong frequencies, and power-supplies with cheap coils that start oscillating.
    Old CCFL backlights also use PWM for dimming.
     
  19. fig
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #19
    I'm about to get a Mini and am going with a 23" AOC display with the thought of eventually adding another one.

    There's a 27" model as well, but both have the same 1080p resolution so the 27" just seems like a poor usage of space.
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    dolphin842

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    #20
    The U2713HM does not use PWM either, at least according to TFTCentral's tests.
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Location:
    not on the moon
    #21
    says the guy not using 2*E2742's.......

    it took all of 48 hours for me to have both of my 27" in use....and with a bitching background to boot
     
  22. fig
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #22
    Nope, I never claimed otherwise, though I have used a variety of displays at different resolutions and do have dual displays on my work machine.

    I've got dual 24" displays that do fine at 1080p, but IMO a 27" with the same number of pixels doesn't do anything except take up more desk space.

    Dual 27" displays at 1440 would be a different case and would offer considerably more screen area.
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #23
    I'm not sure what your point is? I don't need to own a Chevy Aveo to know its a POS do I? The 1080p 27" monitors are like cheap those super cheap giant TVs on Black Friday, you get a giant screen but that doesn't mean it looks good. I find that the 95-105 dpi range is ideal. 27" 1080p monitors are 81. That's absolutely crap. The pixels are so big at normal desk usage that you can see the jagged text. Ive done direct comparisons in stores. This is precisely why I use 23" 1080p monitors. DPI is perfect. Anything over 24", you need to increase resolution.
     
  24. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Location:
    not on the moon
    #24
    @fig & paul....

    you know, you make really good points. I never really thought about it....and now I'm a little irritated.

    I got these when I was drugged up from an injury this winter and have since gotten used to it. Not really doing anything detail oriented, other than watching 1080p video on it. At this point, it bothers me because I should have known better. Stepping up from a 17" size, I think I got screen envy.

    Oh well, gives me an excuse for 1440 goodness when it becomes the same price for what I paid for these 1080 beasts. Thank you for a good punch to the face :cool:
     
  25. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #25
    "I find that the 95-105 dpi range is ideal. 27" 1080p monitors are 81. That's absolutely crap. The pixels are so big at normal desk usage that you can see the jagged text."

    May I ask your age?
    You are obviously not older nor is your vision less than very good.

    For us older folks, _less_ resolution "is more" -- because it's simply easier to see.

    What doesn't work for you may work quite well for someone else.

    BTW -- did you know that when the first Macs were introduced, much was made of the fact that the screen was 72dpi, true "what you see is what you get" (on paper) ??
     

Share This Page