Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Suggest a monitor for Mac mini M4 under 250$
- Thread starter imzsam
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini m4 monitor
- Sort by reaction score
How about this?
I don't own one. Sounds hard to beat at your price point.
Richard.
acer 27 Inch 4k IPS Monitor for Home, Office & Creators | 99% sRGB Color Accuracy | 90w USB-C Port Charges and Connects | Adjustable Height, Tilt, Swivel, Pivot | USB-C, DP & HDMI | CB272K
27", 4K, USB-C, reputable brand, rated 4.4/5 Stars with 3,542 ratings. $249.99 New.I don't own one. Sounds hard to beat at your price point.
Richard.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
thanks a lot
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Video editing is towards as demanding as games. If me, I work on raising my budget for the part of the computer I look at the most. We fall all over ourselves to scratch up about a thousand dollars every couple of years to replace "the precious." Maybe stretch the version of that thing you already have for a whole replacement cycle and put that $1000 towards a monitor you'll enjoy looking at for all that coding and editing. I know for certain that high resolution will be better than low price for those activities. Low resolution will just wear out your eyes in those long coding/editing sessions.
For both coding and video editing, an ultra-wide may be preferable to the usual near-square options. Video editor screen greatly benefits from abundant width and coding can be simpler with coding window(s) left and renders of new code right (instead of all of the switching). Both of your main uses would benefit from plenty of width of screen.
Unless you are only coding for Mac, you should probably seek a monitor with at least TWO inputs so that you can also direct connect another platform(s) on which you want to run your code (or for testing purposes). Multiple inputs will be preferable to having to get back there and switch cables regularly. I chose one with FOUR inputs to which I currently have a Mac and a PC attached with 2 other video inputs to spare. The monitor I chose will let me split screen it so that I could simultaneously test some code in both Mac and Windows views at the same time.
If at least some of the above makes sense, I'd enter some searches for "best ultra wide monitors 2025" and then start digging into the lists of them. I'd be seeking pretty good size, high resolution and at least 2 inputs. Those options will bust a $250 budget, but I'd sacrifice that target (unless I have absolutely no choice and no way to delay and save up some more money) to put towards perhaps the most important part of my computer setup for those tasks.
I might even want one with an easy option to rotate it to portrait layout so that I could have an extended length (height) of screen for when I might benefit from looking at a larger amount of code on screen without having to scroll up and & down. Many will have these features, so invest the time to zoom in on the one that does it all best.
If money is tight, buy the winner with some same-as-cash time and make payments. Buying a great monitor instead of a cheap monitor is probably going to be a purchase you can enjoy for the next 10-15 years. This is a much more important purchase that will (literally) meet the eyes. In those hours & hours-long coding/editing sessions for many years to come, your eyes will thank you if you get this right. You'll probably recoup a chunk of a bigger price on the eye-strain, headache medicine savings alone.
For both coding and video editing, an ultra-wide may be preferable to the usual near-square options. Video editor screen greatly benefits from abundant width and coding can be simpler with coding window(s) left and renders of new code right (instead of all of the switching). Both of your main uses would benefit from plenty of width of screen.
Unless you are only coding for Mac, you should probably seek a monitor with at least TWO inputs so that you can also direct connect another platform(s) on which you want to run your code (or for testing purposes). Multiple inputs will be preferable to having to get back there and switch cables regularly. I chose one with FOUR inputs to which I currently have a Mac and a PC attached with 2 other video inputs to spare. The monitor I chose will let me split screen it so that I could simultaneously test some code in both Mac and Windows views at the same time.
If at least some of the above makes sense, I'd enter some searches for "best ultra wide monitors 2025" and then start digging into the lists of them. I'd be seeking pretty good size, high resolution and at least 2 inputs. Those options will bust a $250 budget, but I'd sacrifice that target (unless I have absolutely no choice and no way to delay and save up some more money) to put towards perhaps the most important part of my computer setup for those tasks.
I might even want one with an easy option to rotate it to portrait layout so that I could have an extended length (height) of screen for when I might benefit from looking at a larger amount of code on screen without having to scroll up and & down. Many will have these features, so invest the time to zoom in on the one that does it all best.
If money is tight, buy the winner with some same-as-cash time and make payments. Buying a great monitor instead of a cheap monitor is probably going to be a purchase you can enjoy for the next 10-15 years. This is a much more important purchase that will (literally) meet the eyes. In those hours & hours-long coding/editing sessions for many years to come, your eyes will thank you if you get this right. You'll probably recoup a chunk of a bigger price on the eye-strain, headache medicine savings alone.
Last edited:
Games are irellevant.
I'm sick of people living in this fantasy world where high refresh rates are seen as being beneficial for only users who play games. It's a fallacy.
There's a reason Dell have moved their line to 120hz minimum for their office monitors, it increases comfort measurably in use and makes interacting with everything in the OS more responsive.
60hz is archaic and needs to die. It's an embarrassment to the entire tech industry that Apple are still producing anything at all with 60hz screens still.
Also OP, I would try and find a nice 3440x1440p ultrawide, the likes of Xiaomi produce them within your budget and also have 165hz refresh rates to boot.
You can then use BetterDisplay to run the monitor in HiDPI mode to make everything look crisp and smooth.
4k isn't the be all-end all that many on here make it out to be. Even a 24" 1080p screen looks good with HiDPI enabled.
You can then use BetterDisplay to run the monitor in HiDPI mode to make everything look crisp and smooth.
4k isn't the be all-end all that many on here make it out to be. Even a 24" 1080p screen looks good with HiDPI enabled.
Disagree with everything you say.
I don't think higher than 60 Hz frequency makes the display a lot more comfortable to use and I value sharpness instead, which your 1440p ultra-wide won't provide.
What resolution do you get with 1080p HiDPI? That must be a joke.
I don't think higher than 60 Hz frequency makes the display a lot more comfortable to use and I value sharpness instead, which your 1440p ultra-wide won't provide.
What resolution do you get with 1080p HiDPI? That must be a joke.
I imagine it would make watching scrolling content (like this forum thread) a bit smoother. Is that the main benefit you see, things like when you use your mouse to grab an app. window and move it across the screen, the motion looks smoother?
I imagine people's sensitivity to this difference varies from 'don't see it' to 'at last!' Like the big 4K vs. 5K resolution at 27" display size debate - knowledgable people honestly comes to shockingly incompatible conclusions.
I wish it was more common to be able to walk into a retail store and see each type of monitor, hooked to a Mac, and play with it awhile to get a sense of whether you the individual can tell much difference. Even then, I wonder if discernment improves with experience over time (like the ability to discern 'noise' in digital photos).
Part of that might be marketing pressure to differentiate their offering from competitors'. The good brand name 4" 27" display space seems pretty saturated (it's a headache just trying to learn about and contrast all the BenQ 27 and 32" displays against one another, never mind throwing in Dell, ASUS, Viewsonic, LG and Samsung).
Plus at least if your display is 120-Hz, you know that if you ever do decide to game on it, you might benefit.
Oh, got a big question. With the 4K vs. 5K debate, people claim the difference is worse on Macs due to not supporting subpixel anti-aliasing; Macs are made for 110 or 220 dpi and otherwise there's compromise, whereas Windows' performance across resolutions is more consistent. I'm guessing with 60 vs. 120-Hz resolution it doesn't matter whether you're using a Mac or Windows, I don't see how it could, but can someone confirm that?
At least then if you see a 120-Hz display at the store, it doesn't need to be hooked to a Mac.