Thinking about buying one of the M2 mac mini vs new imac...how would my current monitor do with the mac mini

[sch983]

Thinking about either getting the Mac Mini vs the iMac and I guess at this point it is all coming down to the display. Naturally the mac mini and studio display would be a great combo but the display itself is kinda pricey--not to say I wouldn't get it but I do have the monitor I have now. Having said that the new iMac also has a very nice display. In terms of what I do most on the computer is regular day to day stuff like youtube email etc and I do play some games on steam most recently Baldurs Gate 3 but mainly older stuff at this point since I have a PS5.

I guess my main question is how would the Mac OS look ok on my current monitor which is the

MSI - Optix G271 27" 144Hz FHD IPS FreeSync Monitor​

 

[dotzero123]

I was in the same boat. Personally loved the display and overall aesthetics of the iMac, but found that mini configurations allowed me to do more with less as long as I didn't break the bank with a high end monitor. I purchased a DellS3222DGM - very inexpensive monitor - and it works beautifully. There is usually return policy so there is no harm in trying it out if you can't get an answer here. I will save up for the studio, but for now am very happy with my new set up.

 

[BeatCrazy]

I guess my main question is how would the Mac OS look ok on my current monitor which is the

You’re gonna see some pixels with that 1080p monitor, that’s for sure. I personally can’t stand anything less than retina pixel density. But if it doesn’t bother you with Windows, it will be fine with macOS.

 

[sch983]

You’re gonna see some pixels with that 1080p monitor, that’s for sure. I personally can’t stand anything less than retina pixel density. But if it doesn’t bother you with Windows, it will be fine with macOS.

I mean I haven't been bothered by my monitor yet but I was worried that would be a problem w/ macOS

 

[BeatCrazy]

I mean I haven't been bothered by my monitor yet but I was worried that would be a problem w/ macOS

Like what kind of problem?

 

[sch983]

Like what kind of problem?

Ive read about scaling/colors being off with non-mac monitors etc

 

[dotzero123]

You can adjust your monitor and change the settings to meet your preferences. I don't think you will have any issues.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Ive read about scaling/colors being off with non-mac monitors etc

There won’t be any problems with colors.

The ideal macOS scaling is with horizontal resolutions in multiples of 1440p. So yeah, 1080p is not ideal. But neither is 4K.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/optimal-pixel-density-for-external-display.2323255/

 

[picpicmac]

Thinking about either getting the Mac Mini vs the iMac and I guess at this point it is all coming down to the display.

Many of us are in the same boat. There are some recent threads on MacRumors forums covering the trade-offs in this buying decision.

the new iMac also has a very nice display

Yes it is, and you won't find better (in that size.) This is one of the strong appeals of the iMac: gorgeous display and all the pieces built in.

You could always get the base M2 Mini ($499 in the Edu store) or the 16/512 version (costs more but may be more useful to you in playing games), try it for a couple of days with your current display and see how it works. You can always return it (within the window) and get the iMac.

Note also: the M2 Pro has the better HDMI support for displays above 60Hz, if you really want a high refresh rate monitor.

 

[Aggedor]

4K is perfectly fine, but I wouldn’t use anything less.

Edit: That chart was made by someone who has never used macOS in 4K. It renders the display as 5K internally then downscales to 4K, so you get HiDPI at “looks like 2560 x 1440” in display settings.

 

[JamesMay82]

I've recently gone ASD and using an older work laptop but plan on getting a Mac mini for my personal use and I regret this set up. I wish I bought the iMac I prefer have the all in one design.

 

[BanjoDudeAhoy]

I bought an M1 mini with a Philips 27” 4K IPS screen.
Was tempted to get an iMac as well - sometimes I still am, but more because of the sleekness of an all-in-one.

If I needed something new, I’d go with a mini + display again.
This particular display is also pretty neat. Nice color accuracy (which was important to me for photo editing) and the size is wonderful. I have it at "looks like 2560x1440" and (aside from MacBook screens) it's the nicest screen experience I've ever had

 

[Aggedor]

The iMac is a pretty small screen, though. With a Mac mini plus external display, you've got a lot more flexibility and future proofing.

Might be useful (if needed) to force your Mac to full RGB output - check your display's OSD info (if it shows color input) and try this:

Force RGB Color on M1 Mac

Force RGB Color on M1 Mac. GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

gist.github.com

I did this yesterday on my M1 MBA, which is connected to a 32" Corsair Xeneon 32UHD144, and it improved the already very good image quite a lot.

 

[dotzero123]

The iMac gets quite expensive if you factor in more ports, Ram and Memory.

 

[saintmac]

MacOS is going to look huge and pixelated on your 1080p 27" display.

For a 27" display you'd want to have:
1440p for an interface that has the best scaling and you are ok with seing pixels.
4k if you want something not pixelated but either too small or not super sharp
5k if you want the perfect scaling and sharpness.

 

[Fishrrman]

"MSI - Optix G271 27" 144Hz FHD IPS FreeSync Monitor"

That looks to be a plain-vanilla 1080p (1920x1080) display with HDMI connectivity.
Nothing wrong with that, I'm using a 27" 1080p right now with my 2018 Mini.

It should work well enough.
However, I'm wondering if you'll get 144hz from it -- you might just get 60hz.
You'll have to try to find out.

If you do go shopping for another display, I'd consider a 3rd party (non-Apple) 27" 4k. It will give you very sharp text, and you can also run it in "looks like 1440p" mode if you want. There's a Dell Ultrasharp that looks very nice.

 

[Aggedor]

MacOS is going to look huge and pixelated on your 1080p 27" display.

For a 27" display you'd want to have:
1440p for an interface that has the best scaling and you are ok with seing pixels.
4k if you want something not pixelated but either too small or not super sharp
5k if you want the perfect scaling and sharpness.

5K is the best for sure, but 4K is super sharp. I'm looking at a 32" 4K display right now, set to 2560 x 1440 scaling.

I wonder if the frequent posts about 4K not looking sharp in macOS are because these users are looking at displays set to YCbCr 4:2:0 or something? My display is RGB 4:4:4 and the text is pin sharp.

 

[theluggage]

Ive read about scaling/colors being off with non-mac monitors etc

TLDNR: 4k, 27" in scaled mode isn't as good as 5k but, given the high price of 5k displays, it is a sensible compromise and is night-and-day better than any 1080p or 1440p display. Plus, scaled mode isn't compulsory and you can switch modes in seconds if you have a job that demands pixel-for-pixel accuracy.

If you are being paid to do colour accurate graphics or video work then you might have to worry about colour gamuts and calibration - in which case the Studio Display and Pro XDR come pre calibrated for various standards (which is nice). Otherwise, you can calibrate a display yourself (and even invest in a calibration tool) if necessary. In a flabbergasting development, more expensive displays tend to have better colour and wide-gamut support.

...but that is not going to be an issue for the sort of "regular stuff" you talk about, which will look just fine. In fact, unless you are going to faff around with colour profiles and stuff, a "wide gamut" display can just make everything look over-saturated like it was shot on "Kodachrome Gold".

Scaling... again, not an issue for general use. That pesky red-and-green "no good for retina" chart keeps popping up and while the source article does give a good description of the downsides of "scaled mode" (but with hugely enlarged/exaggerated illustrations in order to explain the effects), the good/bad chart on its own is hugely misleading about the usability of 4k displays. For one thing, it only considers the scaled 'looks like 1440p' mode and ignores the fact that 2:1 'looks like 1080p' is perfectly usable on 27" or smaller 4k displays and 1:1 3840x2160 would be more suitable for the larger displays in the table. Also, remember, that 4k@27" is effectively "retina" when viewed at arms length.

I started a longer thread about scaling at: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/psa-4k-display-resolutions.2345906/

 

[Allen_Wentz]

5K is the best for sure, but 4K is super sharp. I'm looking at a 32" 4K display right now, set to 2560 x 1440 scaling.

I wonder if the frequent posts about 4K not looking sharp in macOS are because these users are looking at displays set to YCbCr 4:2:0 or something? My display is RGB 4:4:4 and the text is pin sharp.

Yes 4K is fine on a quality 4K display. Like most things dealing with imagery (cameras, lenses, etc.), you do get what you pay for. Folks who say less is good usually just have untrained eyes/brain.

 

[HiVolt]

macOS is to blame for the stupid scaling issue. That's why Apple has to always invent non standard resolutions for their various sizes of laptops/monitors.

macOS is needs a major rewrite of its underlying core functions. All they've been doing it for the past few years is turning it into iOS.

 

[Eso]

Here’s the story on scaling.

MacOS effectively has 2 useable resolutions: 1080p, 1440p, as well as their doubled counter-parts, 4K and 5K.

The larger resolution results in smaller UI elements on screen, however that is usually offset by the large screen size. People tend to prefer 1440p since you can fit more content on the screen, with the text still being legible.

However, most 3rd party monitors are 4k regardless of their size. This gives you two options:

1. Leave it at native resolution which looks pixel-perfect, but with UI similar to the “zoomed” option on the iPhone.
2. Increase resolution to (looks like) 1440p for more screen real estate. This will render a 5K image, then scale it down to 4K. This has two minor issues, but they may not even be noticeable to you. Since the image is scaled down by a fractional amount, there is a loss of visual fidelity. For example, a 5-pixel border gets scaled to 3.75 pixels, which of course isn’t possible. So it becomes 4 pixels wide with some anti-aliasing. Additionally, there is extra computing overhead for rendering a larger image and scaling it down. Benchmarks have consistently measured no more than a 3% performance reduction.

 

[zach-coleman]

I would just get an iMac. Even if you got a base model with 2 ports you could split them off. Do you really need more than a combined 80Gb/s? A hub isn't the cleanest but I find the benefits worth that downside. You just aren't gonna get a better designed computer and especially monitor than an iMac without spending far more than one. The included keyboard is pretty good, but I'd swap the mouse for a trackpad.

macOS is to blame for the stupid scaling issue. That's why Apple has to always invent non standard resolutions for their various sizes of laptops/monitors.

They probably didn't assume that monitors would stagnate for a literal decade. The 5K iMac was 2014.

 

[theluggage]

Yes 4K is fine on a quality 4K display. Like most things dealing with imagery (cameras, lenses, etc.), you do get what you pay for. Folks who say less is good usually just have untrained eyes/brain.

Sure, but "quality" 4k displays start at a fraction of the price of 5k displays - and while 4k prices do go up to infinity and beyond that's usually for "specialist" features like specific gamuts, colour calibration facilities, true HDR etc. that you won't miss unless you actually have a workflow that uses them.

Nobody is claiming that 4k is as good as 5k or 6k - just that its a sensible compromise given the sky-high cost of 5k/6k. Plus 4k displays are available in a wider range of sizes & price points. I actually used a... "non-quality" Dell SQ 4k display alongside my 5k iMac for a while, and while the colours were too washed out for serious photo/video use, it was pin-sharp and perfectly good for coding, writing, web browsing etc.

There are various valid criticisms of the Studio Display that don't involve picture quality. For me, not having additional video inputs is a deal-breaker, as is the ridiculous expense of a dual monitor setup (including 2 sets of posh speakers, when I use an external audio interface and monitors so I don't even need 1...)