I got my M1 Mini hooked up to a new LG 32UK50T 4k Monitor I bought from Sams Club for $299. It looked great in the store, but once I got it home and hooked it up to my new Mini it hurts my eyes tremendously. There seems to be like a washed out look to the entire picture. I messed with all the settings and couldn't get it to improve. I tried all the scaled resolutions too. I'm using a new USB-C to HDMI cable. My old 27" Dell U2713 1440p monitor looked better. The viewing angles are terrible too. If I stand at my desk and look downward at the screen it is really bad. Even sitting eye level it's still a little off. Is it because this is a cheap budget monitor? Are the more expensive ones like this too? Thinking about returning it and getting something better quality if that's the case. Thanks
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac mini M1 w/ LG 32UK50T - Bad Viewing Angles
- Thread starter SteelBlueTJ
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If a monitor has DisplayPort, then you should use it. But I don't think that's the problem.
The display is VA. Maybe you would prefer IPS.
TN vs. IPS vs. VA: What's the Best Display Panel Technology?
The most influential decision you can make when you buy a new monitor is the panel type. So, what's the difference between TN, VA, and IPS, and which one is right for you?
www.howtogeek.com
I recently dressed up my old Mac Pro with Dell U2720Q. Viewing angle is good, not too cheap, but not too expensive too around $600 for productivity monitor.
Computer Accessories and Peripherals
Shop Dell’s high-quality computer accessories like keyboards, mice, webcams, batteries and more. Enjoy great deals and build your ideal PC setup for home or business.
www.dell.com
It also have USB-C connections, so it's perfectly suitable for your M1 mini. But for me because it was XDR looking when looking in person from front side.
Dell Ultrasharp always had IPS displays. Much, much better than what you bought. Ultrasharp is the summum of displays. You should really get another Ultrasharp. I only swear by these monitors. Sorry, but you bought something really cheap. Your U2713 was a highly recommended display back then, one of the best overall performer. You are comparing a 800$ monitor to a 300$, of course it will look disgusting ahah !
I tried to connect my dell ultrasharp to my mini and it’s a 2560x1440 display. I only get a max resolution of 1080p with the mini via hdmi. I went out and bought a thunderbolt 2 to USB-c adapter which didn’t work at all. I was trying to run usb-c out of mini to thunderbolt 2 adapter to DisplayPort (monitor end). The display doesn’t detect anything. Which is usb-c port on the m1 mini is for display. I tried them both and nothing. Thanks
Last edited:
A straight good quality HDMI to HDMI cable should give you the native 1440p resolution. I don’t see why it doesn’t offer it.
Maybe try this :
Under the ‘Display’ tab in System Preference, hold down the OPTION / ALT key while you press on the ‘Scaled’ button alongside Resolution to reveal all available screen resolution options for the display.
Btw, the mac mini has Thunderbolt 3, not 2. Thunderbolt 2 uses a mini-DisplayPort connectors, physically incompatible with the thunderbolt 3 USB-C connector.
A straight USB-C to USB-C specifically for displays should work too. A USB-C to DisplayPort should make it too if your display has DisplayPort.
I found a hdmi to display port cable and tried that and can’t get the display to recognize the mini. I’m stuck with a mini I can’t use because none of my displays I own will recognize it. This is an absolute nightmare. I wish I would have waited for the new M1 iMac. This should not be this hard.
I found a hdmi to display port cable and tried that and can’t get the display to recognize the mini. I’m stuck with a mini I can’t use because none of my displays I own will recognize it. This is an absolute nightmare. I wish I would have waited for the new M1 iMac. This should not be this hard
Plenty of people here have a M1 mini and almost none of them have problem with displays... Either your cables are junk or there is something wrong with the Mini itself.
I got it to work finally. I don’t know exactly why but it must be picky on what hdmi cable you’re using. I tried a few different hdmi cables from my box and some worked and some didn’t. I previously had an older 2013 iMac that has Mini DisplayPort outputs for additional monitors. I had this Dell connected to that via Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort. I bought a usb-c to Mini DisplayPort adapter thinking I could use the same cable but it didn’t work at all. I guess Mini DisplayPort (thunderbolt 2) isn’t compatible at all even with an adapter?
I think your adapter is useless, sorry lol. A USB-C to full DisplayPort should be a lot better Since DisplayPort can be carried over USB-C (actually, USB-C monitors are in fact using DisplayPort stream if I remember well).
HDMI cables does have quality. I prefer to pay a bit more for certified HDMI 2.0 cables from Audioquest than having to deal with your kind of issues.
The Apple Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2 Adapter is only for Thunderbolt devices. It cannot be used to output a DisplayPort signal unless there's a Thunderbolt device between the adapter and the display. Did you mean a USB-C to Mini DisplayPort adapter?
Yes, the USB-C ports use DisplayPort. DisplayPort 1.2 has more bandwidth (supports 4K 60Hz 10bpc) than HDMI 2.0 (supports 4K 60Hz 8 bpc - 10 bpc requires 4:2:2 chroma sub sampling). The M1 Macs support DisplayPort 1.4 which has 50% more bandwidth than DisplayPort 1.2. However, if the display is only 1440p, then HDMI 2.0 or even HDMI 1.4 should be sufficient.
Interesting. Didn’t know this. So connecting a 4K 60Hz with 1.07B colors results in chroma subsampling on HDMI 2.0? So a loss of image quality compared to DisplayPort 1.4?
Correct. There is no other way to get 10 bpc with HDMI 2.0 for 4K 60Hz.
Also, there's no guarantee that the framebuffer pixel format (1.07B) matches the output pixel format.
Apple does not show the output pixel format (bpc, RGB or YCbCr, HDR or SDR, color space, chroma sub sampling, DSC, etc) and it doesn't show output link rate (HDMI or DisplayPort, DisplayPort lanes and link width). The AGDCDiagnose command for Intel Macs can give some of that info. The ioreg on M1 Macs has some of that info.
If you have the HDR option set in the Displays control panel, then you can be reasonably sure that it's using 10 bpc.
i returned those two 32’s. Now I am looking at the 43” LG 43UN700-B. I’m thinking one display could replace 2. Does anyone have any experience with this display and the M1 Mini? It’s IPS so I would think it should look better than those other VA 32” ones I had. What do you think?
I‘m really affraid about the pixel pitch on the 43 inch... And 43 inch on a desk is a hell of a display ahaha ! I‘m in the same boat. Is one bigger display could replace two.. Even ask Reddit about it, but got next to nothing...
Yes, you get real estate with a 4K 43 inch, but will text be clearer ? I doubt. As a programmer, I was the text to look as sharp as my Retina display (or as close too since it‘s impossible without LG Ultrafine displays). I was looking at the Dell U4320Q. Superb 43 inch, but that’s really, really big. I still think I‘m going to go with two U2720Q, my original idea. U2720Q is also flicker free, a really important point for me.
IPS will always be better than VA. Always.
Yes, you get real estate with a 4K 43 inch, but will text be clearer ? I doubt. As a programmer, I was the text to look as sharp as my Retina display (or as close too since it‘s impossible without LG Ultrafine displays). I was looking at the Dell U4320Q. Superb 43 inch, but that’s really, really big. I still think I‘m going to go with two U2720Q, my original idea. U2720Q is also flicker free, a really important point for me.
IPS will always be better than VA. Always.
That’s completely the opposite. At this size you can fully use the display at 4K 100% non-scaled.
The smaller the display is at 4K, the more you need to upscale to be able to read. The bigger it is, the closer to native 4K you can run it.
At 43 inch, you can perfectly read. It’s like having a 1080p 24 inch. It is 103 ppi while a 24 inch 1080p is around 98. Almost the exact same thing.
To really be beautiful, a 43 inch display should be 8K.
pld wrote:
"At 43 inch, you can perfectly read. It’s like having a 1080p 24 inch. It is 103 ppi while a 24 inch 1080p is around 98. Almost the exact same thing."
24" @ 1080p = pixel size of .277mm
43" @ 4k = pixel size of .248mm
NOT "the same thing".
See this page:
"At 43 inch, you can perfectly read. It’s like having a 1080p 24 inch. It is 103 ppi while a 24 inch 1080p is around 98. Almost the exact same thing."
24" @ 1080p = pixel size of .277mm
43" @ 4k = pixel size of .248mm
NOT "the same thing".
See this page:
Lol it’s not very far. It’s almost the same. It really looks almost like the same. Not a big difference. Do you want more synonyms ?
Compared, for example, a 4K 27inch, the pixel size is 0.1557mm (163 PPI). This is a big, non-negligeable difference. Or Pro XDR at 0.1159mm (218 PPI)
Last edited:
