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.
Why base M2 Mini offers more resolutions to the same display when using USB-C to HDMI adapter vs its HDMI port?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I believe that you get upsampling and then downsampling to the target resolutions and the USB-C port supports 6K while the HDMI port only supports 5K. If you want the other resolutions, you'd need to use the M2 Pro mini or the Mac Studio. That resolution thing was really annoying on my mini and it's one of the reasons why I got a Studio.
What resolution were you looking for that wasn’t supported? I’m curious because it would be reason to go for the M2 Pro mini, but I don’t know that I have or will want a monitor that would make this important.
I just got my M2 Pro Mini Sunday and have less resolutions available than I did on my 2018 i7 model.
On the Intel, had my 32" 4K display connected via DisplayPort to a TB3 eGPU/Radeon RX 6600XT. 4K is still a little too small, and 2K (which I replaced) looks too big on the 32", so I had it set to 3008 x 1692, which was perfect. Had the same options available regardless of whether it was connected with the eGPU or HDMI/USB-C..
On the M2 Pro, connected directly via HDMI to the same monitor, I can basically do 1080p, 1440p, or 4K. There are a couple odd slightly 2K variations in between the choices, but thats about it on the M2. I've just had to deal with it at 4K so far, which actually seems to be a little bit better than it was on the Intel anyways. I didn't get to try out the USB-C connection because that cable is for the days I work from home to connect and power up my Surface from the office.
On the Intel, had my 32" 4K display connected via DisplayPort to a TB3 eGPU/Radeon RX 6600XT. 4K is still a little too small, and 2K (which I replaced) looks too big on the 32", so I had it set to 3008 x 1692, which was perfect. Had the same options available regardless of whether it was connected with the eGPU or HDMI/USB-C..
On the M2 Pro, connected directly via HDMI to the same monitor, I can basically do 1080p, 1440p, or 4K. There are a couple odd slightly 2K variations in between the choices, but thats about it on the M2. I've just had to deal with it at 4K so far, which actually seems to be a little bit better than it was on the Intel anyways. I didn't get to try out the USB-C connection because that cable is for the days I work from home to connect and power up my Surface from the office.
@spatlese44 I don't have a mini with me anymore. As I recall, the resolution two steps below 4K was not available when the HDMI 2.0 port at the back of the Mini was used.
got it. That may be worth it. Just because a resolution is supported doesn’t mean it’s going to look great.
The additional resolutions come out fuzzy.
I tried a lot of things to get the additional resolutions and upgraded from an M1 mini to a Mac Studio - which got the job done. I wanted the Studio for other reasons as well but the display resolution part was part of the decision to upgrade.
I have the same issue as well. If I use USB to DP then it's fine and I can get 3360*1890 which is just right on my 32" 4K Dell. If I use HDMI to HDMI then it's either 4K or something a lot less. USB to HDMI also seems to be ok.
Its annoying as it uses up a USB slot so its just as well I have the extra slots on the m2 pro.
Its annoying as it uses up a USB slot so its just as well I have the extra slots on the m2 pro.