Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Best Monitor for New Mini

thirdsun said:
Display size is meaningless without resolution. Despite 1280 x 1024 at 19" serving you well, it's very limited screen real estate compared to most modern displays. With 2560x1440 you'll fit much more content into the frame, but at 24" it will be rendered smaller than before. Personally, I think 24" is too small and such a resolution is ideal on a 27" display.
Click to expand...

thirdsun, much appreciative of your reply. Question (and yes I am a noob). If on the 24" the content will be rendered smaller than the 19in, why is a 27" display ideal? Why wouldn't the content be even smaller on a 27" ?

Clearly, I am not understanding something. Thanks again.
 
I’d say that the ideal is to use the monitor’s native resolution or half, if I am right on the term. Example, on my i3 mac mini with a 28” 4k Samsung monitor, from the 5 options of resolution offered on display settings (system preferences), just the 4k itself 3840x2160 and the scaled 1920x1080 work without performance issues. All in between, is a bit laggy, eg. 2560x1440 (which is the one I’d use if it worked normally).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElectronGuru and Dezlboy
F-Train said:
The "Mojave text" is a typeface called San Francisco. It has apparently been in use since El Capitan, and it has been lauded for improving accessibility. There are probably millions of people reading it on non-Retina screens. Against that, there are a very small number of people who have written posts on the internet alleging that it looks horrible on a non-Retina screen, including at least one person who suggested that Apple deliberately introduced San Francisco to push people to purchase Retina displays. Which just goes to show that if there's a way to dream up a nefarious explanation, someone will find it.
Click to expand...

It’s not about the San Francisco font family which has indeed been used for a while in macOS. However with Mojave Apple disabled subpixel antialiasing, which leads to noticeably different font rendering.

That said, I’d agree that this doesn’t suddenly make 5k a requirement, but it’s certainly another argument in favor of high PPI displays.
[doublepost=1544257815][/doublepost]
Dezlboy said:
thirdsun, much appreciative of your reply. Question (and yes I am a noob). If on the 24" the content will be rendered smaller than the 19in, why is a 27" display ideal? Why wouldn't the content be even smaller on a 27" ?

Clearly, I am not understanding something. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

It’s not he screen size alone - you always have to consider screen size and resolution. Think about it. The higher the pixel density (or pixels per inch) the smaller the content will be displayed (at least for non-scaled resolutions, but that’s a different discussion).

Now if we compare the same resolution of 2560x1440 pixel in a 24” frame and in a 27” frame, the former will look smaller (and sharper) due to the same pixel count in a smaller frame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElectronGuru and Dezlboy
Also looking for a monitor for my Mac Mini 2018. I’ve read that an IPS type monitor is a better choice over one which is a TN type. What is the reason for this preference? The only brand I’ve seen officially Apple recommended is LG in their store, but those were 5k and more expensive than the actual Mini itself.

My System Specifications:
Processor: 3.6 GHz Intel Core i3
RAM: 8GB 2667 MHz DDR4
Graphics: Intel UHD 630 1536 MB
macOS Mojave Version 10.14.2
 
I have a late 2014 Mini, with plans for a 2018 model in the next 2-3 months. In anticipation I just bougt a new monitor on Amazon, the Viewsonic VP2768 pro. I'm running it at 2560 x 1440 as per System Report. I have to say I like it..very much...anyone else have it ?? Opinions ??
 
bigcletus123 said:
I have a late 2014 Mini, with plans for a 2018 model in the next 2-3 months. In anticipation I just bougt a new monitor on Amazon, the Viewsonic VP2768 pro. I'm running it at 2560 x 1440 as per System Report. I have to say I like it..very much...anyone else have it ?? Opinions ??
Click to expand...

I don't have that monitor but after buying my 2018 mini I ordered the VP2771 and I liked it so much I ordered another! I went through a couple of other monitors(LG and Samsung) and wasn't happy with them. I took a chance without seeing the Viewsonic in person and ordered it online.
 
there's some users that said Ultrafine 4K works laggy on the new Mini... can anyone confirm?
 
MiniMacDonald said:
Also looking for a monitor for my Mac Mini 2018. I’ve read that an IPS type monitor is a better choice over one which is a TN type. What is the reason for this preference? The only brand I’ve seen officially Apple recommended is LG in their store, but those were 5k and more expensive than the actual Mini itself.

My System Specifications:
Processor: 3.6 GHz Intel Core i3
RAM: 8GB 2667 MHz DDR4
Graphics: Intel UHD 630 1536 MB
macOS Mojave Version 10.14.2
Click to expand...


I am certainly no expert, but in general, there are several types of flat screen monitors. TN (twisted nematic) was the first LCD technology. They tend to be cheap and can have good refresh rates (good for gaming), but suffer from poor viewing angles, uneven backlighting, and color reproduction. IPS (in plane switching) monitors have better viewing angles and color reproduction, generally at the expense of a higher cost and lower refresh rates. PLS (Plane to Line switching) is a Samsung technology which is said to improve upon IPS. VA (Vertical alignment) falls generally between TN and IPS and is kind of a compromise between the two.

Ultimately, it depends on what you use the monitor for. I use IPS monitors as I don't game much on my Mac and I like the better viewing angles and color that IPS provides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElectronGuru and Dezlboy
Two-monitor setup working just fine on my new 2018 Mac mini. Just received the nice new slim Dell UltraSharp 27" USB-C Monitor U2719DC, QHD 2560x1440 at 60 Hz, IPS LED. 16:9. 5-8 ms, HDMI 1.4, DisplayPort 1.4. Got it in one of Dell Canada's periodic "sales". Works great on the mini on USB-C. I am using it as the primary. Have not tried the built-in USB dock yet, powered by the USB-C input from the mini: handy feature. The secondary monitor is my older 27” BenQ GW2765 Wide QuadHD 2560x1440 at 60 Hz, connected to the mini by HDMI. All good.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SackJabbit
I am happy with my LG ultra-wide 3440x1440 monitor (LG 34UM88C-P). I like the 1:1 scaling PPI that ~matches my old 2560x1440 iMac screen (but wider!). I am also happy with the flat (vs curved) screen for the type of work I do.

At first, using HDMI, my desktop windows would resize smaller and "pile up" in the upper left corner when I re-powered the monitor. I switched to a Displayport cable and now all is good.
 
For the type of work I do I'm not fussed with 4K or 5k displays. A few months ago I got an Apple 30" Cinema Display in mint condition, it works like a dream with the new mini. I only regret it's not Space Grey...
 
Perhaps a dumb q, but I'll ask anyway: would a 32" 1440 monitor with the same PPI as a 24" 1080 monitor nevertheless look "sharper" (text especially)?

Or would they essentially look the same?
 
oldtime said:
Perhaps a dumb q, but I'll ask anyway: would a 32" 1440 monitor with the same PPI as a 24" 1080 monitor nevertheless look "sharper" (text especially)?

Or would they essentially look the same?
Click to expand...

Given that the PPI count is identical in both setups (I assume it‘s 1440p with a width of 2560?), the picture will look equally sharp on both displays - you‘ll just see more content in the same sharpness on the 32“ display.
However I wouldn’t describe 92 PPI as sharp at all. In my opinion you‘d be much better off with a 27“ 1440p display. They are affordable and while still not anywhere near high PPI sharpness at least workable. If you want 32“ anything below 4k is ridiculous in my opinion. Another option that will be much sharper and provide ample screen real estate is two 24“ 4K displays - Dell‘s P2415Q is cheap and will provide higher pixel density than anything but a true 5k display. Plus, 4k at 24“ allows you to use 2x scaling which is preferable to non-integer based scaling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElectronGuru and Dezlboy
thirdsun said:
Dell‘s P2415Q is cheap and will provide higher pixel density than anything but a true 5k display. Plus, 4k at 24“ allows you to use 2x scaling which is preferable to non-integer based scaling.
Click to expand...

thirds, all: FYI: Newegg has the Dell P2415Q at only $300 and free shipping. Any one with hands on experience with 18 Mini? Specs: 4K UHD (2160p) 3840 x 2160

Dell P2415Q at https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/accessories/apd/210-agnk

Question: Could I use an HP L1950, 1920X1080, DVA and VGA connections as second monitor? It would be used sparingly. For instance, a WORD Doc on the L1950 to read some data, which to type in on a spreadsheet on the Dell monitor.
 
Last edited:
Dezlboy said:
Any one with hands on experience with 18 Mini?
Click to expand...
I have two of them with my mini. Used both in “looks like 2560x1440” scaling. Intermittently trying regular 2x (1920x1080) scaling to see if I notice a differnence in responsiveness/text.

I sometimes have issues with the displays not detecting any signal after a reboot, but not sure if that’s a mini issue or tb3>dp issue or display issue.
 
Tomguin said:
Just wanted to check - is 16GB needed for the 4K Dell P2415Q or just the Ultrafine 4K?
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of which display: it's about how you use it.

At pure 4K (i.e. no scaling at all) or at the "default" 2x (i.e. 2K, 1920x1080 for a 4k) you might be OK, but even then I imagine you'll get some non-optimal experiences (usually slow UI animations).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back