Mac Mini M2 Pro Monitor

[Mac2004]

I’m purchasing a new Mac Mini M2 Pro and I’m just not sure what monitor to buy. I’ve already decided to get the Keychron C2 mechanical keyboard (or maybe Logitech MX Mechanical), and the Logitech MXS mouse. I want a wired keyboard. I just don’t trust the wireless stability. I haven’t made my decision on a monitor. I really love the Apple monitor but that’s just way out of my price range. My sister got the Dell Ultrasharp U2723QE for her mini M2 and she likes it. I’ve looked at ASUS, Philips, Samsung, and LG. I want a brand whose monitor and software works very well with Mac computers and the new M chipset. Ease of set up is important to. I’m either looking at a 27” or 32”. Can anyone help me make my decision today???

 

[mr_jomo]

A bit late, on my part, but the LG Ergo 32" plays very well with my m1 mac mini .

Did you get anything nice?

 

[sevoneone]

The various versions of the LG 27" 85U monitor are solid choices at around $300. The 27BN85UN is the current version with a 3-Year warranty. I have the 27BL85U which is basically the same just from 2020.

Just be aware 4K on any 27" display is kind of awkward. 2x HiDPI is only 1080p and the UI feels a bit too large. Most people end up running a "looks like" 1440p scaled resolution. The UI looks the right size, but not everyone likes the hit to the image quality. I personally think it is fine, but some people actually prefer the look of a 27" screen with a native 1440p resolution to the 1.5x scaling on 4k...

 

[theluggage]

2x HiDPI is only 1080p and the UI feels a bit too large.

Let's clarify that "2x HiDPI" on a "4k" UHD display is full 3840x2160. True, the UI is a bit large but (unless you are using ancient pre-retina software) The "looks like 1920x1080" only refers to the physical size of th UI - it is rendered at full 4k resolution. You lose a bit of "real estate" because of the large UI - the impact depends on what software you're using, whether you're using it full screen etc. Most applications will let you zoom out, or reduce the font size, so you can still fit a lot of content at full 4k sharpness. You will still get significantly more detail than on a real 1080p, or even 1440p display - and it is still rendered to single-pixel accuracy.

Likewise "looks like 2560x1440" gives you the same physical UI size you'd get on a 27" iMac, and displays significantly more detail than you would see on an actual 1440p display. It is effectively a 5k image downsampled to 3840x2160. YMMV, but for my money you only notice the difference if you do a side-by-side comparison with a true 5k display, or go hunting for artefacts by getting nose prints on the screen while looking at 1x1 checkerboards or single-pixel scrolling lines. The YouTube videos on the subject use simulated and/or magnified images to illustrate the effects (the good articles are up-front about that).

If you spend the majority of your screen-time tweaking single pixels (without zooming) - or if you're running 3D software or games on a lower-end M series that can't quite hack the render-at-5k-and-resample thing - then it may make sense to stick with a 1440p display. However, only a 4k screen can display full-screen 4k content, and if you occasionally need a pixel-accurate display it takes seconds to switch to 2x mode. There's also the issue that text quality on non-retina screens took a hit when Apple removed sub-pixel anti-aliasing. Unless you are really on a budget or have one of the aforementioned specific needs, I really wouldn't recommend getting a 1440p or lower display today.

Yes, 4k is a compromise c.f. 5k - but the price difference is huge and the choice limited.

 

[olekzap]

I'm very happy with a single U3223QE for my M2 Pro. It's a huge improvement over the dual U2719DX I had before. A single 32" is perfect for my needs. If I had $5k sitting around I'd have an XDR but 4k is more than good enough.