Is there any point in buying a 4K display to use with the mac mini if things are too small?

[At Sea]

macOS draws a framebuffer four times the size of the specified "Looks like" resolution. If you select "Looks like 2560×1440", the resulting framebuffer is 5120×2880 pixels. The UI, text etc. is then drawn using HiDPI assets which are twice as wide and twice as high as the regular assets. Eventually, the framebuffer is scaled down to your display's actual resolution (e.g. 3840×2160). All that changes when going through these scaled options is the size of the framebuffer.

That's a lot for me to digest ?...I have achieved good display results with my Samsung 65" TV with a native resolution of 3840x2160 (I have a living room mac and PC setup) with 'looks like 1280x720'; I'm presently not concerned with the lack of space.

 

[Amethyst1]

I have achieved good display results with my Samsung 65" TV with a native resolution of 3840x2160 (I have a living room mac and PC setup) with 'looks like 1280x720'; I'm presently not concerned with the lack of space.

That draws a 2560×1440 framebuffer (the HiDPI UI elements being twice as wide and twice as high results in screen estate equivalent to 1280×720) and scales it up to your TV's 3840×2160.

(If the "looks like" resolution is less than a quarter of your native resolution - e.g. less than 1920×1080 on a 3840×2160 screen - the framebuffer needs to be scaled up instead of scaled down.)

 

[Sarah Hamilton]

I was a little worried when I decided to go 4K. Thought the fonts might be so small for me in native resolution. But that wasn't a concern, as it turned out to be a awesome experience for me.
Went from 27" QHD to 32" 4K. Best Buy this year.

Would you be cool to share a screenshot please or a picture of MacOS running on that monitor? Just so I can get an idea.. please?

 

[theluggage]

Would you be cool to share a screenshot please or a picture of MacOS running on that monitor? Just so I can get an idea.. please?

I've actually got a Dell S2817Q connected to my 5k iMac as a second display.

I mostly use it in "looks like 2560x1440" scaled mode.

It doesn't come close to the iMac 5k panel in terms of colour reproduction, but in terms of sharpness it really doesn't look too bad. In "native" unscaled mode it is pin sharp, although yes, the menus and buttons are very small. In "looks like 1440" mode the text looks slightly "soft focus" alongside the 5k display, but it is really pretty good for a display that was a fraction of the price of anything equivalent to the iMac screen - and it is far smoother and more detailed than a regular 2560x1440 screen.

...and, to re-iterate what others have said, because it is important, "looks like 2560x1440" on a Mac is not actually 2560x1440 - it is 5120x2880 (5k) slightly downsampled to 3840x2160 and makes good use of the extra resolution of a 4k screen over a regular 1440p one.

Note that any screenshot taken with the Mac's screenshot-taking tools on a 4k screen in "looks like 1440p" mode will come out at 5120x2880 and will be indistinguishable from a screenshot of a 5k screen - so it's no very helpful.

If I replaced the S2817Q it would be to get better colour for video/graphics work - I have no complaints about the resolution - 5k is only a slight improvement considering the extra cost.

 

[Amethyst1]

If I replaced the S2817Q it would be to get better colour for video/graphics work

The S2817Q uses a TN panel - colour reproduction and viewing angles leave something to be desired on these compared to IPS panels such as those in the iMacs.

 

[theluggage]

The S2817Q uses a TN panel - colour reproduction and viewing angles leave something to be desired on these compared to IPS panels such as those in the iMacs.

All true, but the S2817Q is actually pretty impressive for a TN panel, especially in terms of viewing angles (but yes, the effect is there). The colour, of course, looks feeble when you park it alongside an iMac with P3 gamut so it's not good for photo/video work, but if you just want screen estate for general use it's fine.

...anyway, that's all beside the point since it's a 4-year old model and the prices seem really variable - if it's still available at all - it's only a contender if you already have one or see a bargain!

 

[Sarah Hamilton]

I've actually got a Dell S2817Q connected to my 5k iMac as a second display.

I mostly use it in "looks like 2560x1440" scaled mode.

It doesn't come close to the iMac 5k panel in terms of colour reproduction, but in terms of sharpness it really doesn't look too bad. In "native" unscaled mode it is pin sharp, although yes, the menus and buttons are very small. In "looks like 1440" mode the text looks slightly "soft focus" alongside the 5k display, but it is really pretty good for a display that was a fraction of the price of anything equivalent to the iMac screen - and it is far smoother and more detailed than a regular 2560x1440 screen.

...and, to re-iterate what others have said, because it is important, "looks like 2560x1440" on a Mac is not actually 2560x1440 - it is 5120x2880 (5k) slightly downsampled to 3840x2160 and makes good use of the extra resolution of a 4k screen over a regular 1440p one.

Note that any screenshot taken with the Mac's screenshot-taking tools on a 4k screen in "looks like 1440p" mode will come out at 5120x2880 and will be indistinguishable from a screenshot of a 5k screen - so it's no very helpful.

If I replaced the S2817Q it would be to get better colour for video/graphics work - I have no complaints about the resolution - 5k is only a slight improvement considering the extra cost.

Dude, would you be able to connect your Mac mini M1 directly to your Dell S2817Q as it's only display and let me know how it performs? I know there's tonnes of people complaining about display flicker issues, but I just want to rule out it's not my display, please?

 

[weaztek]

I've already got a 4K display it is the Dell S2817Q and when I select the default 4K resolution, all the UI elements and font sizes are too small. I have to down scale to 2560x1440. I take it theres no point in getting a 4K display with MacOS as it doesn't work? Sorry I am new to Mac computers.

This is a good question.

I run my 32" 4k monitor at 3008x1692 for the reasons you described.

I thought the monitor was very reasonably priced (less than $400) and the color accuracy on it is really good. In my mind overspecing on components like this is worth it to future-proof your system.

It happens that I decided to buy an Xbox Series S (4k support) this year and since the monitor supports two HDMI inputs, it runs perfectly it on the monitor.

 

[Baunkjaer]

Here you are....

 

[Sarah Hamilton]

Here you are....

Is that the resolution you work with

 

[TorontoListener]

...

 

[Eduardot]

We are running 2 monitors on our M1 1TG 1gig RAM Mac mini, a LG 4k and a Samsung QHD both at 2560x1440 without any problems. The computer is used mostly for work ( teams ), email, messenger, WhatsApp, telegram, Spotify, and 5-10 webpages open simultaneously, without any glitches. Very happy with the setup. Upgraded to Monterrey No problems. Running ON and sleeping. Never OFF.

 

[Baunkjaer]

Is that the resolution you work with

It is. And I'm aware it looks pretty small in the screenshot, but it doesn't look like that irl.

 

[Amethyst1]

It is. And I'm aware it looks pretty small in the screenshot, but it doesn't look like that irl.

This is because the forum software automatically shrinks images attached to a post to a width of 2000 pixels, so your huge screenshot ends up being shrunk to 2000×1125, making everything look tiny.

Would you be cool to share a screenshot please or a picture of MacOS running on that monitor? Just so I can get an idea.. please?

Screenshots don't tell the whole story. You really need a picture of the monitor to properly judge the size of UI elements on it.

 

[Unique Visuals]

Screenshots don't tell the whole story. You really need a picture of the monitor to properly judge the size of UI elements on it.

Yes screenshots just show what the OS signal is outputting and not what is shown on your display. Only a separate camera will come close to what you see and due to its settings it may be off.

 

[Unique Visuals]

Yes go with the 4K or even 5K. I have 4 displays hooked up 24/7. Main is a 43" 4K. Right is a 27" 4K rotated to portrait. Left is a 27" 4K, Stacked above that is my old 27" 1080P. I screwed up when selecting the 43" as it has a much smaller DPI. Individual pixels are bigger. I had to scale down the two 27" 4Ks to match up the objects on screen to be close in size to the 43" 4K. With all this said, I know I take a performace hit but I sure cant see it with everthing Ive done the the last few months with this set up. I don't do any gaming so that Im sure would be much different. As said before some elements will be scaled and photos and such will render properly. Being oldman its much easier on my eyes than my old 27" 1080p is.

 

[zerozoneice]

running 2048x1152 @ 144Hz (using alt+scaled to reveal additional resolutions) on a 28" Gigabyte M28U
i find this the perfect balance for my eyes.
in default "looks like 1080" looks a bit too big and the next "looks like 1440" fonts are bit too small

 

[stillcrazyman]

If it helps out…..

I have a 32” 4K display running at the “Looks Like 2560x1440” scaled option. I’ve only increased the font sizes for my old eyes. So far, I prefer it over the default 4K resolution.

 

[Fishrrman]

stillcrazyman wrote:
"I have a 32” 4K display running at the “Looks Like 2560x1440” scaled option. I’ve only increased the font sizes for my old eyes. So far, I prefer it over the default 4K resolution."

Does running in scaled mode impact the overall performance?

Right now, I'm using a 27" 1080p display. It's ok for my "old eyes", but I'm thinking of moving up to 32" @ 1440p for more "real estate".

I'm leaning towards getting a NATIVE 1440p 32" display, because of minimal impact on graphics performance. The effective pixel size will actually be smaller than the 27" 1080p I use now.

But... if "the hit" with 4k scaled down to 1440p is not to great... that could become "an alternative".

 

[SteelBlueTJ]

I recently purchased a Dell 38" U3818DW curved ultrawide 3840x1600 and it gets the full resolution, but honestly it isn't very clear to me. I am not happy with it at all. I know it's about equal to a 1440p monitor, which is what I came from, but it looks much worse IMO. It has a "foggy" look to everything and text just isn't very crisp. It really is straining my eyes. I think it might be the matte layer with anti-glare, anti-scratch coating. Weird thing is we have the LG counterpart to this display at work and they look great, but they are running on windows machines. Thinking of selling this one and getting a 27" or 32" 4k instead.

 

[stillcrazyman]

stillcrazyman wrote:
"I have a 32” 4K display running at the “Looks Like 2560x1440” scaled option. I’ve only increased the font sizes for my old eyes. So far, I prefer it over the default 4K resolution."

Does running in scaled mode impact the overall performance?

Right now, I'm using a 27" 1080p display. It's ok for my "old eyes", but I'm thinking of moving up to 32" @ 1440p for more "real estate".

I'm leaning towards getting a NATIVE 1440p 32" display, because of minimal impact on graphics performance. The effective pixel size will actually be smaller than the 27" 1080p I use now.

But... if "the hit" with 4k scaled down to 1440p is not to great... that could become "an alternative".

Running scaled would be fine, provided you have an adequate graphics driver. On my 2018 Mini, the iGPU is not up to having smooth scrolling or smooth window movements. I did have an eGPU for a while that made all the difference, but it had it’s own set of problems. So I’m back to less than smooth but very usable 1440 on a 31.5” screen.

 

[Tagbert]

Running scaled would be fine, provided you have an adequate graphics driver. On my 2018 Mini, the iGPU is not up to having smooth scrolling or smooth window movements. I did have an eGPU for a while that made all the difference, but it had it’s own set of problems. So I’m back to less than smooth but very usable 1440 on a 31.5” screen.

If the OP is running this from an M1 Mini, then the GPU will have no performance problems handling the scaling.

I use a 27" LG 4K monitor (27UK850) over thunderbolt with an M1 Air set to 1440. Performance is good with no noticeable lag and text is crisp enough at that size. It looks much better than the older 2K Thunderbolt monitor I had before.

 

[joevt]

I recently purchased a Dell 38" U3818DW curved ultrawide 3840x1600 and it gets the full resolution, but honestly it isn't very clear to me. I am not happy with it at all. I know it's about equal to a 1440p monitor, which is what I came from, but it looks much worse IMO. It has a "foggy" look to everything and text just isn't very crisp. It really is straining my eyes. I think it might be the matte layer with anti-glare, anti-scratch coating. Weird thing is we have the LG counterpart to this display at work and they look great, but they are running on windows machines. Thinking of selling this one and getting a 27" or 32" 4k instead.

If it's foggy, use SwitchResX to make sure it's not using a 7680x3200 scaled mode ("Looks like 3840x1600" or 3840x1600 HiDPI).
Scaling 2x to 1x makes things smoother (more anti aliasing) but it makes things less sharp (less contrast).

 

[Tagbert]

If it's foggy, use SwitchResX to make sure it's not using a 7680x3200 scaled mode ("Looks like 3840x1600" or 3840x1600 HiDPI).
Scaling 2x to 1x makes things smoother (more anti aliasing) but it makes things less sharp (less contrast).

If it is doing that 2 to 1 scaling from 3200 to 1600 then the results should be pretty sharp. That’s how HiDPI retina displays work. That “foggy” look could be if it is really doing 1440 and then scaling that up to 1600.

Agree that SwitchResX would be a good investment ($16) for anyone with an oddball monitor resolution like that to get better information and control. You’ll have a lot more control.

 

[joevt]

It it is doing that 2 to 1 scaling from 3200 to 1600 then the results should be pretty sharp. That’s how HiDPI retina displays work. That “foggy” look could be if it is really doing 1440 and then scaling that up to 1600.

No, that's not how HiDPI works.

HiDPI means text and objects are drawn twice as tall and twice as wide as usual. This is usually output to a display that has 4 times as many pixels as usual.
For example, an LG UltraFine 5K display has 5120x2880 resolution which is four times as many pixels as a standard 2560x1440 display. macOS has a 2560x1440 HiDPI mode ("Looks like 2560x1440") which uses a 5120x2880 framebuffer and is output unmodified to the 5120x2880 display. All the pixels that were drawn in the framebuffer are faithfully reproduced on the display.

The problem with the situation I described is that the display does not have 4 times as many pixels as usual.
Basically, you are drawing into a 7680x3200 framebuffer and scaling it down to the display's 3840x1600 pixels. Imagine if you had a pattern of black and white vertical lines (1600 black lines on a white background the brightness of each pixel on a horizontal line will be like 100%, 0%, 100%, 0% repeating). When this gets output to the display it won't appear as vertical lines - it will just be a grey blob (50% brightness) because it will average four pixels into 1.

These four pixels:
100% 0%
100% 0%

Will be averaged ((100% + 0% + 100% + 0%) / 4) and output as a single pixel:
50%

Now imagine this happening to text. Some of the text will be grey instead of black - less contrast, less sharpness. Of course, the text will be wider than a single pixel when drawn 4 times as large so the problem is not so bad, but there is some loss in sharpness because the font drawing algorithm doesn't know about the scaling step.