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.
Is USB-C the best way to connect a monitor to an M1 Mac Mini?
- Thread starter rhcustoms
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
USB-C will connect in DP mode including audio and also connect to any USB hub in the monitor. On MacBooks it will also supply power from the monitor to the MacBook, if the monitor supports it.
My wife uses USB-C to connect her MacBook to our 4K LG monitor (normally used for my desktop PC), and it's friggin' glorious. One cable for everything. Cleeeeean.
I have the LG 4K Thunderbolt 3 monitor and it's so nice -- one cable into my 2018 MBP and voila, everything is connected, up and running! The Thunderbolt 3 monitor charges both itself and the MBP.
I am not sure that one can use USB-C to connect a monitor to a computer; I think it has to be the more powerful Thunderbolt 3 or 4. Although the ports look the same, the controller inside is different for USB and Thunderbolt.
I am not sure that one can use USB-C to connect a monitor to a computer; I think it has to be the more powerful Thunderbolt 3 or 4. Although the ports look the same, the controller inside is different for USB and Thunderbolt.
If you like different resolutions, then USB-C (or DP) has the advantage of giving you access to 3008x1692 HiDPI on a 4K screen. You don't have that resolution over HDMI. It's a strange limitation of the M1 chip.
Am I correct in assuming that if using a USB-C to HDMI adapter (https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKQ22ZM/A/belkin-usb-c-to-hdmi-adapter) 3008x1692 is possible if the monitor supports it?
Description sound like it will support it, but just to confirm..
I am not the expert, but I think your mac will then consider this to be your Thunderbolt screen. So yes, you get the 3K HiDPI. I'm not certain what then happens if you connect another screen directly via Thunderbolt. I don't think that will work because the mac mini spec clearly says 1 screen via Thunderbolt, the second via HDMI. So it will work for a single screen setup, but if I understand it correctly, you can't use this to fool your mac into using 2 screens at 3008x1692.
I'm running two Dell monitors off my mini, a 4k and a QHD and picture quality is fine on both of them. The only problem I had was that one wasn't waking on sleep but I changed a monitor setting which fixed that a few weeks ago. So I don't see any picture quality differences between USB-C and HDMI.
Probably not. At least in the past when I tried connecting with HDMI, I wouldn't get the 3008x1692 resolution that I get with the same display when using DisplayPort.
USB-C uses a DisplayPort alt mode to carry video signals in cases where you aren't using some sort of adapter (DisplayPort -> HDMI over USB-C, DisplayLink, etc). So there is no difference. DisplayPort 2.0 even specifies USB-C as the official port.
Generally, even comparing DisplayPort and HDMI there aren't too many differences to worry about. The main difference is available bandwidth. DisplayPort 1.4 handles ~32GBps of bandwidth, while HDMI 2.0 handles ~18Gbps of bandwidth. HDMI 2.1 takes that up to ~48Gbps* of bandwidth. There's a couple other smaller differences around which spec gets a feature first, but generally it will show up in the others later.
I just did a little experiment with my mac mini M1. I usually have it connected via HDMI, giving me 2560x1440 as the highest HiDPI res. I now have a HyperDrive USB-C to DisplayPort, with a DisplayPort to HDMI converter. Because the mac mini sees it as a DP (over USB), I suddenly get the 3008x1692 resolution. I'm pretty sure that I won't be able to connect another screen in this way, as the specs say the two screens must be HDMI+TB/USB.
I'm using one 27" 4K screen on this mini M1 at work. 3008 looks a bit small for regular office work, but I'll use it today and see how it goes. At the same time, I'm considering my options for at home where I use Logic for music production. The 3008 resolution is a boon there on a 27", for sure. But I'm also thinking about getting 2x 4K 24" screens at 2560 resolution. Yeah, there's standard 2560x1440 24" screens, but seeing the difference between native and HiDPI 2560 on 27", I'm pretty sure I prefer 4K for a 24" as well. With one screen connected via TB, I can even set it to 3008 and get even more real estate, when needed. It should work fine on an M1. And currently at home, I have a 16" MBP, so even more resolutions to chose from.
I'm using one 27" 4K screen on this mini M1 at work. 3008 looks a bit small for regular office work, but I'll use it today and see how it goes. At the same time, I'm considering my options for at home where I use Logic for music production. The 3008 resolution is a boon there on a 27", for sure. But I'm also thinking about getting 2x 4K 24" screens at 2560 resolution. Yeah, there's standard 2560x1440 24" screens, but seeing the difference between native and HiDPI 2560 on 27", I'm pretty sure I prefer 4K for a 24" as well. With one screen connected via TB, I can even set it to 3008 and get even more real estate, when needed. It should work fine on an M1. And currently at home, I have a 16" MBP, so even more resolutions to chose from.
I sometimes do the 3008 on 4k and sometimes native. I go back and forth depending on how well I'm seeing things. Sometimes I have eye irritation (from pollen) and that makes it harder to go native. Apple does a good job at scaling. I don't do this with Windows - I find it's better to scale individual programs with Windows.
Having the 25" QHD also allows me to just drag a program from the native 4k to the higher resolution monitor to work on and then drag it back when I'm done. I guess the second monitor is like a magnifying glass. I wonder if Big Sur has that option - magnify one program using full-screen and then putting it back on the desktop with everything else.