Which monitor should I pick for Mac mini M4? (2K vs 4K confusion)

[Nooob]

Hi everyone,

I’m planning to get a monitor for my Mac mini M4 and I’m stuck between going for a 2K or 4K option. I’ve read that macOS has some scaling issues with 4K monitors, so I’m not sure if it’s really worth stretching my budget for one, or if a good 2K display would be just as fine.

My budget is limited, but I can stretch a little if a 4K monitor would give me a noticeably better experience. On the other hand, if scaling makes things look weird and there isn’t much difference in sharpness between 2K and 4K on macOS, I’d rather save the money.

Here are the monitors I’ve shortlisted (current sale prices in India):

2K options:

BenQ GW2790Q – $170

LG 27U631A – $159


4K options (budget range):

LG Ultrafine 27US500-W – $193

Acer CB272K – $198

LG 27UP650K-W – $250

LG 27UL500 – $278

BenQ EW2790U – $284


From what I’ve read, LG and BenQ seem to be the safer picks. MSI, Acer, and Samsung budget models don’t seem to have great reviews, and Dell tends to be too expensive.

Right now I’m leaning toward BenQ because of their quality control, but I’m still undecided between the 2K and 4K route.

If anyone here has used these monitors (or similar ones) with a Mac, I’d really appreciate your advice on which way to go.

Thanks!

 

[Bigwaff]

If anyone here has used these monitors (or similar ones) with a Mac, I’d really appreciate your advice on which way to go.

I still use Apple 27” Thunderbolt 2K Display. 2K at 27” is perfect for me… but then I’m not using it for anything requiring fine detail, just general web browsing, etc.

 

[Nooob]

I still use Apple 27” Thunderbolt 2K Display. 2K at 27” is perfect for me… but then I’m not using it for anything requiring fine detail, just general web browsing, etc.

Yeah so 2k isn't too blurry from far right i mean not noticable? Right

 

[MarkC426]

Yeah so 2k isn't too blurry from far right i mean not noticable? Right

Similar to @Bigwaff I use two 27” Dell ultrasharp QHD displays.
Any 27” 4k monitor will generally be used at a lower resolution (1920x1080) than a 2k QHD display (2560x1440), but in highDPI mode, so everything looks like on an iPhone or iPad, crisp and sharp.
You don’t gain any extra screen space though.
Personally I would not benefit, as my screens looks sharp anyway.

I recommend a QHD 27” (2560x1440) over 1920x1080.
27” screens work best at 5k as it’s double (2560x1440).

There is also performance overheads to consider.
I do a lot of graphical work, so don’t want to over stress the GPU with high Rez displays.

People will say it doesn’t matter, but that’s nonsense, if your Mac has to upscale and refresh at 4k it IS working harder.

 

[Nooob]

Similar to @Bigwaff I use two 27” Dell ultrasharp QHD displays.
Any 27” 4k monitor will generally be used at the same resolution (2560x1440) as a 2k QHD display, but in highDPI mode, so everything looks like on an iPhone or iPad, crisp and sharp.
Personally I would not benefit, as my screens looks sharp anyway.

There is also performance overheads to consider.
I do a lot of graphical work, so don’t want to over stress the GPU with high Rez displays.

People will say it doesn’t matter, but that’s nonsense, if your Mac has to upscale and refresh at 4k it IS working harder.

So you dont need to change the scale I mean u keep at the default scale right? I.e 1440p

 

[MarkC426]

Apologies, see my edited post above… 🥴

A 4k will be 1920x1080 hDPI
A 5k will be 2560x1440 hDPI
A 27”’ QHD will be 2560x1440

You can run either at native 4k or 5k but everything is tiiiiiiiiny…..🤪

 

[maflynn]

So you dont need to change the scale I mean u keep at the default scale right? I.e 1440p

I have a LG ultra wide, and I need to scale it down to 1080p because the text is too small at native resolution. macOS does a poor job at scaling, so the crispness is rather poor when not running at native.

I'm considering a 27" 5k, because the way macOs handles scaling, a 27" 5k at 1440p should be crisp.

 

[Fishrrman]

These days, NOTHING LESS than 4k.
I'd consider 27" to be "the minimum" as well.

As mentioned above, the "default" setting for the MacOS with a 4k display is 1920x1080 ("1080p"). But because this is "HiDPI mode", pixels are "doubled" in each direction, and the image will be VERY sharp.

As for which display...
I have a Dell Ultrasharp, which is "mid-upper" price range for 27" 4k, but a friend also has a "non Ultrasharp" Dell 27" 4k which looks... well, nearly the same. For less money.

I know that LG products look great, but the only experience I had with an LG display-type deivce was a tv that failed about 6 months out-of-warranty, which could not be repaired (no parts available). That soured me on the LG line...

Final thought:
I'm using "BetterDisplay" with my Dell, and it runs @2048x1152 very nicely, as sharp and clean as the default 1080p setting. Gives me "just enough more" screen real estate (for old eyes...).

 

[MacCheetah3]

I came across this doing research on another thread and it does a decent job explaining HiDPI.

 

[Nooob]

Thankyou for your amazing response guys 😄
I bought dell S2725QC at 295$

 

[dade]

Could a 32-inch 4K be a good compromise compared to a 27-inch 4K where the text at native resolution is too small or is it just a gimmick?
I use a imac 27 non retina for CAD drawing with ArchiCAD.
grazie
davide

 

[MacCheetah3]

Could a 32-inch 4K be a good compromise compared to a 27-inch 4K where the text at native resolution is too small or is it just a gimmick?
I use a imac 27 non retina for CAD drawing with ArchiCAD.
grazie
davide

Some feel HiDPI, looks like 1920x1080 (FHD), makes the GUI feel too big on a >24-inch monitor. Though things seem fine for me.

 

[maflynn]

Some feel HiDPI, looks like 1920x1080 (FHD), makes the GUI feel too big on a >24-inch monitor. Though things seem fine for me.

What monitor are you running? The second picture looks too small - at least for my old eyes.

 

[MacCheetah3]

What monitor are you running?

MAG 321UP QD-OLED

MAG 321UP QD-OLED is the latest MSI QD-OLED panel, these displays exhibit the best picture quality when gaming and provide an ultimate immersive gaming experience with a super-fast 0.03ms response time.

www.msi.com

The second picture looks too small

Agreed.
Which is probably why Windows, by default, also does 2x/200% — although, it’s technically, really 4x/400% — scaling on high-resolution (e.g., UHD) displays/monitors.

 

[MarkC426]

MAG 321UP QD-OLED

MAG 321UP QD-OLED is the latest MSI QD-OLED panel, these displays exhibit the best picture quality when gaming and provide an ultimate immersive gaming experience with a super-fast 0.03ms response time.

www.msi.com

Agreed.
Which is probably why Windows, by default, also does 2x/200% — although, it’s technically, really 4x/400% — scaling on high-resolution (e.g., UHD) displays/monitors.

What resolution is the second image…?
Is it native 4k?

 

[MacCheetah3]

What resolution is the second image…?
Is it native 4k?

Yes.

 

[avkills]

Wish I could find a 7680 x 3200 monitor so I could have the same real estate as my 3840x1600 but running in HiDPI so it looked better.

Oh well.

I think I would go with the 4k and run in HiDPI at 1920x1080 for a 27", or a 5k one and run HiDPI at 2560x1440.

 

[MacCheetah3]

Wish I could find a 7680 x 3200 monitor so I could have the same real estate as my 3840x1600 but running in HiDPI so it looked better.

Oh well.

Yeah. You’d need an 8K monitor, such as the Dell UP3218K, to get UHD HiDPI.
Would that be Ultra HD Plus (UHD+) or Ultra Ultra HD (UUHD)? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

8K Monitor: Dell Ultrasharp UP3218K | Dell USA

Experience realistic images like never before on the award-wining, world’s first 31.5" 8K monitor featuring Dell PremierColor.

www.dell.com

Use an 8K display with your Mac - Apple Support

Certain Mac models support external displays with 8K resolution, higher refresh rates of up to 240Hz when using 4K resolution, and expanded support for variable refresh rate (VRR).

support.apple.com

When 8K display is within reach of $1,000 USD, not the current $4,000 USD, I’ll consider one.

What resolution is the second image…?
Is it native 4k?

I think I would go with the 4k and run in HiDPI at 1920x1080 for a 27", or a 5k one and run HiDPI at 2560x1440.

As a depiction and reminder, using resolutions that aren’t equal to or quadruple (2x vertical, 2x horizontal) the native causes an out-of-scope frame buffer, which impacts performance — how much varies, of course.

 

[Miat]

I switched from a 2K screen to a 4K (Dell S2721QS) running as a 2K a while back.

It is a noticeably crisper & better picture.

 

[EugW]

Could a 32-inch 4K be a good compromise compared to a 27-inch 4K where the text at native resolution is too small or is it just a gimmick?
I use a imac 27 non retina for CAD drawing with ArchiCAD.
grazie
davide

Using it at 3840x2160 would make text very hard to read because the font size would be too small.

4K 32” has bad text quality at 2560x1440 but if you’re used to a 1440p 27” iMac, then it may be acceptable for you. However, text would be very large.

3008x1692 would provide more screen real estate than your 27” 1440p iMac with appropriate text sizing, but again, text quality would be poor.

I switched from a 2K screen to a 4K (Dell S2721QS) running as a 2K a while back.

It is a noticeably crisper & better picture.

Running at 2K on a 27” 4K monitor will have good quality text but the text size is massive and the usable screen real estate is low. Most would use it at 2560x1440. At that setting text quality is reduced but still relatively decent.

 

[theluggage]

So you dont need to change the scale I mean u keep at the default scale right? I.e 1440p

Apple have a very confusing way of describing their screen modes on 4k/5k/6k displays. Unless you jump through hoops to enable the "low resolution modes" (which are what you'd get on a 2k display) - or unless you are running ancient, pre-retina software - they will all make good use of the full resolution of the display and display considerably more detail than you'd get on a 2k screen.

On a 4k screen "3840x2160" mode is truly "3840x2160" and everything is really sharp - but the system fonts, icons, buttons etc. are very small on a 27" screen (both in terms of eyesight and hitting them with a mouse pointer!)

"1920x1080" mode is, effectively, still "3840x2160 but with the UI elements - system fonts, icons, buttons etc. - doubled in size so you can actually read them (the same physical size as they would be on a 1080p display, but with more detail). This does make them a bit too large for a 27" screen & they cut into your "real estate" a bit - but it's perfectly usable and everything is much sharper than it would be on a 2k screen. Moreover, that only affects fixed-sized UI elements like menu bars, window frames, buttons etc. Any app with a zoom function, or a text editor that lets you choose the font size, will let you shrink the content to taste and take advantage of the full 4k resolution.

"2560x1440" mode actually renders the screen at 5120x2880 (with the double-size UI) then down-sizes it to 3840x2160 - which makes the UI elements the same size as they would be on an old 27" iMac with 2560x1440 screen (which many people seem to feel is "just right"). Because reducing 5120x2880 -> 3840x2160 isn't a nice round-number reduction, the result can't perfectly reproduce 1-pixel (at 5k) sized features so you get artefacts. It's a bit subjective but most people won't even notice unless they go looking - a 4k, 27" display at arm's length is close to "retina" in that most people can barely make out individual pixels anyway. Beware websites that show you magnified simulations of 1-pixel checkerboards and other pathological cases (using those in any media is asking for trouble).

This sort of scaling also places extra load on the GPU but that's far less of an issue with Apple Silicon than it was when many Macs had feeble Intel integrated GPUs - just don't expect 3D packages to do smooth 5k on a low-end Mac!

The thing to remember is that all these issues are indeed inferior to having a 5k/6k display - but still give you a significantly better image than you'd get on an actual 2k display. Ultimately 4k screens can accurately display 4k content, full size - 2k screens can not... and switching between screen modes to work around a scaling issue takes time.

Could a 32-inch 4K be a good compromise compared to a 27-inch 4K where the text at native resolution is too small or is it just a gimmick?

On a 32" screen you might well be happy with the UI size in "native" 3840x2160 mode and not worry about scaling. At that size (depending on viewing distance) the scaling effects in "looks like 2560x1440" mode might be a bit more noticeable. But let's be clear - your eyesight and tolerance for tiny UIs may vary. Some people with better-than-20:20 will doubtless be happy with 3840x2160 unscaled on 27". My eyesight isn't in that league but I had a 28" 4k at one point and that was just about usable at 3840x2160 unscaled.

 

[theluggage]

On the other hand, if scaling makes things look weird and there isn’t much difference in sharpness between 2K and 4K on macOS, I’d rather save the money.

After all the discussions about resolution, let's try and summarise this a bit:

5k (5120x2880) @ 27" or 6k @ 32" (220ppi/Retina) - the optimum resolution for MacOS at eye-watering prices and not a lot of choice. If that's out of your price bracket, don't loose sleep over 4k vs. 5k comparisons!

2k 2560x1440 (110ppi) - outdated - we used to think that it was the bee's knees when the 27" Cinema display and the first 27" iMac came out. These days, MacOS is increasingly designed for "Retina" displays though. If you're happy with it and haven't been ruined by using a 5k screen, fine. What it won't do is display all the detail in 4k content or get close to the resolution of modern digital cameras. With typical eyesight at normal distances you'll see pixels.

4k UHD (3840x2160) @ 27" or more (~160ppi/Nearly retina) - good compromise between the previous two. The screen modes/scaling thing is complicated and widely misunderstood/badly explained - but all the common screen modes show more detail than an actual 2k display. It takes seconds to change screen modes to choose the best for a certain job. It can display 4k content with full detail and show more detail on photos than a 2k screen could.

"Macs have to run a 4k screen in 2k resolution" - No. Apple uses confusing terms here. The standard modes offered by MacOS on a 4k or higher display aren't resolutions but instead are various ways of scaling an "internal" 220ppi image to fit a 3840x2160 screen. This is needed because MacOS only supports two fixed sizes for its user interface elements. All these modes display more detail than you'd be able to see on a 2k screen and you could use that to zoom out/reduce the font size in your applications to fit more content on the screen.

• "More Space/3840x2160" gives a pixel-perfect 4k display without scaling the user interface - but you'll probably need a 30"+ screen to use it comfortably.
• "Larger Text/1920x1080" also gives a pixel-perfect 4k display but the UI elements are doubled in size. Which, unfortunately, makes them a bit too large on a 27" screen, wasting space (still completely usable, though, and doesn't affect your ability to zoom out or use smaller fonts in most applications).
• "2560x1440" scales the screen to make the user interface elements the same physical size as on a 2k screen, but still with a lot more detail than you'd get at 2k. You effectively see a 5k image downscaled to 4k. However, because that's not an exact 1:1 or 2:1 scaling this means the result isn't quite "pixel perfect" & also takes a bit more GPU power. For most cases this is a perfectly good compromise that gets pretty close in clarity to a 5k display when seen from a normal viewing distance, if you don't go hunting for artefacts.

The GPU load isn't so much of an issue with current Apple Silicon GPUs - but if you're doing heavy graphics rendering of any sort at 4k or 5k, remember it's going to take 4x the GPU power & choose your Mac appropriately!

I wouldn't pay money for a new 2560x1440 display today unless you have a very specific use case.

 

[meson]

Could a 32-inch 4K be a good compromise compared to a 27-inch 4K where the text at native resolution is too small or is it just a gimmick?
I use a imac 27 non retina for CAD drawing with ArchiCAD.
grazie
davide

Having lived through the years of early LCD panels, I find my 32" 4k monitor to be a fantastic compromise. The resolution is way higher than the 21" 1080p and 23" 1680x1050 monitors that I had been using as external displays for years.

I've been using an LG 32" UL500 (cheap 4k monitor) for the last 3.5 years or so. Contrary to what people say, the 'native' hi dpi looks like 1920x1080 resolution looks awful on a 32" screen. I run at full native 4k and sit between 23" and 27" from the screen usually. I find that the menus are readable at my normal viewing distance. However for text heavy apps, such as email, word processing, Terminal, browsers, etc. I either bump up the default font size a couple of points or increase the zoom just a bit to make the text a little easier to read when I'm leaning back in my chair. Even though MacOS doesn't have a way to easily adjust scaling at the OS level, just about all apps have some settings that you can tweak.

Using Rectangle.app I can snap windows into 6 tiles that are 1280x1080 (and a variety of other options as well). It works great when I need reference material available while working on a project. I enjoy the fact that I can designate certain parts of the screen to certain tasks the way I used to use Spaces on my laptops years ago.

If you have the basic understanding that the pixels are not small enough to make everything look as sharp as a Retina display, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't mind the look of scaling at looks like 3008x1692 (same size elements as Pro Display XDR) or looks like 2560x1440, I just prefer the extra screen real estate native 4k provides.

 

[EugW]

^^ @meson,

I hated my 32” 4K Asus ProArt. I returned it after a few days. Text quality was poor at 2560x1440, and everything was way, way too small at native 3840x2160 resolution.

 

[maflynn]

Text quality was poor at 2560x1440, and everything was way, way too small at native 3840x2160 resolution.

That's because how macos handles scaling. For 5k you can scale down to 1440p, for 4k, you need to use 1080p. With BetterDisplay you can select a HiDPI resolution that is closer to 1440p (if you have a 4k monitor).