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

[EugW]

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).

1080p totally defeats the point of a 32” monitor for most people. Way too little screen real estate, and text is ginormous. Better Display is unnecessary since as mentioned, intermediate HiDPI resolutions such as 2560x1440p and 3008x1692 are already offered natively in macOS for 4K monitors.

 

[maflynn]

1080p totally defeats the point of a 32” monitor for most people.

Perhaps, but my point is that's how macos handles scaling, 1080p x 2 is 4k, and 1440p x2 is 5k. Its a personal decision to determine what works best for your situation.

I have a 1440p monitor running at 1080p, and its less then ideal, so my moving up to a 32" 4k monitor is an actual upgrade without having to pay for 5k prices.

 

[EugW]

Perhaps, but my point is that's how macos handles scaling, 1080p x 2 is 4k, and 1440p x2 is 5k. Its a personal decision to determine what works best for your situation.

I have a 1440p monitor running at 1080p, and its less then ideal, so my moving up to a 32" 4k monitor is an actual upgrade without having to pay for 5k prices.

Yeah but 1080p on say a 27” 1440p monitor makes for poor text quality, so most other 4K monitor options will be better. IOW, that’s not a difficult threshold to surpass.

Have you ever tried 2304x1296 on a 4K 27” monitor? The text quality is much better than 2560x1440 on a 4K 32” monitor, and text sizing is reasonable. YMMV though for desktop space and font sizing.

 

[maflynn]

Have you ever tried 2304x1296 on a 4K 27” monitor? The text quality is much better than 2560x1440 on a 4K 32” monitor, and text sizing is reasonable. YMMV though for desktop space and font sizing.

I'm using a 1440p monitor, so no. I also have no desire to get a 27" monitor at this point, as the loss of screen real estate would be detrimental to my workflows and expectation. As I mentioned, I'm already on 1080p with my 34" monitor, so a 32" 4k (at 1080p) will be better then what I currently have.

 

[Miat]

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.

"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.

The increased sharpness/crispness of a 4K screen considerably improves the usability of the screen for me at a 1080 setting.

I usually sit quite a way from the screen (≈1.2 metres, about 4 feet), which means the system text on a 1080 setting is a good size for me. Plus I am in my 60s with some vision issues so text on a 27" running at native 4K is just not workable at any practical viewing distance, let alone 1.2m.

1152, 1296, & 1440 res are all reasonably sharp for me on the 4K 27", still better than the old native 2K 27". But 1152 only gives a marginal gain in usable screen estate, and system text on 1296 & 1440 is still too small.

I am planning to move to a 4K 32" for my next monitor, partly for a bigger movie screen, and partly to see if I can use it at native 4K res or 1296/1440 scaling.

Also might switch from the monitor mount from a stand to an arm, to help fine tune the set-up.

 

[EugW]

The increased sharpness/crispness of a 4K screen considerably improves the usability of the screen for me at a 1080 setting.

I usually sit quite a way from the screen (≈1.2 metres, about 4 feet), which means the system text on a 1080 setting is a good size for me. Plus I am in my 60s with some vision issues so text on a 27" running at native 4K is just not workable at any practical viewing distance, let alone 1.2m.

1152, 1296, & 1440 res are all reasonably sharp for me on the 4K 27", still better than the old native 2K 27". But 1152 only gives a marginal gain in usable screen estate, and system text on 1296 & 1440 is still too small.

I am planning to move to a 4K 32" for my next monitor, partly for a bigger movie screen, and partly to see if I can use it at native 4K res or 1296/1440 scaling.

Also might switch from the monitor mount from a stand to an arm, to help fine tune the set-up.

At 4 feet, why don’t you just get a 4K 40” TV?

 

[Miat]

Practical limitations of desk space, and the cost.

Plus I do sometimes sit closer to the screen, and at 40" it loses its sharpness when I do that, but at 32" it is still good.

Overall 32" is a good compromise point for me.

 

[bobhoops]

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.

I appreciate the summary, but for a very casual user about to get a m4 mac mini, I just need to know whether it is worth my while to get a 4k monitor. I currently have a 10 year old imac and would like the new monitor to look as good or better than the monitor on my current display. I can afford a 4K monitor, but not a 5 K.

 

[Bigwaff]

I just need to know whether it is worth my while to get a 4k monitor. I currently have a 10 year old imac and would like the new monitor to look as good or better than the monitor on my current display. I can afford a 4K monitor, but not a 5 K.

Unfortunately, as you discovered reading this thread, nobody can tell you whether it is “worth [your] while” to buy 4K display. Either you are comfortable with macOS scaling on 4K or you are not. Only you can make that decision after using the display. Personally, if 5K out of budget, I’d get a quality 27” 2K display, as that resolution is sweet spot on macOS.

 

[theluggage]

I currently have a 10 year old imac and would like the new monitor to look as good or better than the monitor on my current display.

If you've got a 5k iMac (late 2024 onward) then anything other than a 5k display is going to be a downgrade.
If you've got a 2560x1440p iMac (early 2024 and before) then a good 1440p display will be about the same.

If you go from 5k to 2k, you're going to notice a difference.

Personally, I wouldn't spend money on 1440p in 2025. I'd say that a 4k in "looks like 1440p" scaled mode close enough to 5k quality that you won't notice in day-to-day use and, at the end of the day, a 4k display can display 4k content, 1440p can't. With 4k you've got the choice of "looks like 1440p" (which shows far more detail than actual 1440p), 2:1, 1:1 (both, effectively, unscaled 4k) depending on what you are doing.

Apart from that - as @Bigwaff says (while making the case for 1440p) - the acceptability of scaling is subjective (and application dependent) so nobody can make the choice for you.

 

[tomekwsrod]

2k will be good, best would be 16:10 buy good luck findng that. Or if you can afford you can go for 5k. Personally I'd choose 2k. Skip 4k.

 

[MarkC426]

2k will be good, best would be 16:10 buy good luck findng that. Or if you can afford you can go for 5k. Personally I'd choose 2k. Skip 4k.

16:10 is available as 1920x1200, generally on 24” displays.
The OP indicates 27 inch options, QHD displays are readily available (2560x1440).

 

[Fishrrman]

bobhoops wonders:
"...but for a very casual user about to get a m4 mac mini, I just need to know whether it is worth my while to get a 4k monitor."

Yes.
It WILL be "worth your while".
(that's it, nothing follows)

 

[HappyIntro]

I'd also say yes, it is worth the higher price to get a 4k monitor for your Mac Mini. I have an M4 Pro Mini with a Dell 4k monitor, and I've found the display quality to be quite nice. For the past year I've been running it at 1920x1080 in an effort to get the sharpest text possible (also I have aging eyes). However recently I changed to 2560x1440 and I'm pleasantly surprised that it still looks sharp. I've owned the Apple 5k monitor and that's the gold standard for sure. But for now, I'm happy with my 4k + Mac Mini.

 

[EugW]

I'd also say yes, it is worth the higher price to get a 4k monitor for your Mac Mini. I have an M4 Pro Mini with a Dell 4k monitor, and I've found the display quality to be quite nice. For the past year I've been running it at 1920x1080 in an effort to get the sharpest text possible (also I have aging eyes). However recently I changed to 2560x1440 and I'm pleasantly surprised that it still looks sharp. I've owned the Apple 5k monitor and that's the gold standard for sure. But for now, I'm happy with my 4k + Mac Mini.

View attachment 2584044

Both 2304x1296 and 2560x1440 look pretty decent with 4K 27" monitors at 163 ppi. It should be noted that 4K 27" is considered "Retina" at ~21" seating distance.

Desktop seating distance is typically 20-25" or sometimes a bit more, so 21" can work well for a lot of people. I personally sit at 22". I can see the difference between 4K 27" matte vs 5K 27" glossy even at this slightly greater than Retina seating distance, but I too find 4K 27" matte very good, and was happy to use a monitor like this for years.

 

[EternalZone]

I recently bought a Mac mini m4.
checked 4k screens online, also in stores.

I went for a 27 inch Thunderbolt Display for €200 in very good condition.
I figured if I don't like it I can always resell it.

My experience: LOVE IT!
It's not 4k, it's 2k. But the screen is nice. It has an old sKool feel with a new touch.

The integrated form factor is amazing.
I highly recommend it.
Mac mini suits it and connecting is super easy.

- 1440 is great for scaling in MacOS.
- The speakers are great in this display, I am an audio engineer.
But for a daily driver this is perfect. And no more speakers laying around on your desk.
- build in webcam, not greatest quality but hey, gets the job done.
- 3 USB 2.0 at the back from charging random stuff or hooking up a wired keyboard. It's a free hub.

Apple Studio Display is something else. But €1400 extra? I doubt I will be more happy with it to be honest.

The Thunderbolt Display is GREAT for the value it gives and the price!

 

[Bigwaff]

The Thunderbolt Display is GREAT for the value it gives and the price!

Couldn’t agree more. Have two myself. One sitting right next to a Studio Display, which complements well.