Thinking about changing displays for my Mac Mini 2018.

[hawk_941]

Hello,

I have an LG 32MP58HQ connected to my Mac Mini via HDMI. It is running at the native 1080p 60Hz. While it is great for video, everything is just too large to view comfortably to the point where I back off my browser to 80%.

I am thinking that I would be better off with a native 2560x1440 monitor—looking at the Dell S3219D— but I want to make sure I am choosing wisely. Am I correct in thinking that the switch will give me smaller, sharper text and mimic a pre-retina iMac display?

Also, what type of cable would be the best choice to run the monitor? I run my cable through the wall, so I need about 6'. Would HDMI work? Or if I went with USB-C, would it have to be 3.1, or would 2.0 or 3.0 work? How about USB-C to HDMI?

Thanks,
hawk

 

[Fishrrman]

I'll reckon that 1440p will be much more to your liking than the current 32" 1080p.

I don't have the Dell S3219d, but I recall reading (amazon reviews) where some complained it wasn't "bright enough". It's probably fine... unless you use it in a normally "very brightly lit" room. Check the "nit rating" for it.

A friend of mine has the Dell 1440p and likes it.

Another one to consider might be the HP "Omen" 32" 1440.

Cable:
If HDMI, make sure the cable is rated HDMI 2.0 high speed.
or
USBc (mini end) to displayport (display end).

 

[Krevnik]

Am I correct in thinking that the switch will give me smaller, sharper text and mimic a pre-retina iMac display?

Not quite. The iMac is 2560x1440 @ 27”.

Also, what type of cable would be the best choice to run the monitor? I run my cable through the wall, so I need about 6'. Would HDMI work? Or if I went with USB-C, would it have to be 3.1, or would 2.0 or 3.0 work? How about USB-C to HDMI?

USB-C to DisplayPort is probably what you want. These can be passive cables, unlike USB-C to HDMI.

Something like this is useful.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075V27G2R/

 

[sergioarista]

Hello,



I am thinking that I would be better off with a native 2560x1440 monitor—looking at the Dell S3219D— but I want to make sure I am choosing wisely. Am I correct in thinking that the switch will give me smaller, sharper text and mimic a pre-retina iMac display?



Thanks,
hawk

At 32" 4k (3480 X 2160) would give you sharper smaller text than 27" 2560 X 1440, but you will need to setup your Mac mini to disable HiDPI.

 

[D.T.]

What you're looking to do is to increase the PPI, so sure, going from a 32" @1920x1080 to a 32" @2560x1440 is an improvement, ~69 vs. ~92 PPI, like someone pointed out, the 27" pre-4/5K iMac displays are ~109.

It's one reason I'm running 25" displays (Dell UltraSharp 2518D), QHD on a 25" is ~117, it's pretty nice, much better vs. an HD at 27" (noticeable improvement vs. HD on 25").

I think there's a really perceptible improvement - especially at desktop viewing distances - when you cross that 110-115 PPI mark. Clearly not 4K, but also clearly better vs. the sub 100 PPI options. FWIW, I also figured driving two QHD displays would be no sweat for the '18 Mini iGPU, and that's definitely the case, everything is snappy, at least for my use (general computing, development, some light graphic work, running Windows VMs).

I will very likely eventually go to a pair of 4K 27" displays (~163 PPI), probably Dell U2718Q (I prefer two vs. one larger), but only in conjunction with an eGPU

 

[hawk_941]

Thanks, everyone. This has been very helpful

 

[EightyTwenty]

I’d really go with a 4K monitor if I were you. Especially if you plan to stay at 32”.

The main benefit of owning a 2018 Mac Mini is that it can output 4K @ 60Hz, in my opinion.

 

[Fishrrman]

A 32" display @4k will be terrible:
- in HiDPI mode ("looks like" 1080p), everything will be too big
but
- at full resolution (pixel-for-pixel), things like text will now become too small.

32" @ 1440p will be a much better choice.

My opinion only
Others will disagree
Some will disagree vehemently.

 

[Spectrum]

You can easily scale a 32 inch 4K display so that it looks like 2560x1440.
For many people, this provides a more detailed, and a more flexible route than a dedicated 32 inch 2560x1440 display. Not everyone agrees, but you cannot argue that it is 50% more pixels in each direction. That means, per square area, you get three 9 pixels to render what would normally be rendered by every 4 pixels on a regular display. Fonts should always be sharper as a result.

 

[TinHead88]

I'd like to throw in another option for consideration... I'm running a 2018 Mac mini with an LG 43UD79-B. I'm running the full 3840 x 2160 resolution and at that monitor size at the right distance it's much like pre retina 27" iMac screens. Of course you get a lot more desktop space and I'm liking not having multiple monitors anymore.

Be warned that running at any scaled resolutions that are not integer ratios is not a great experience on Mac Minis. You either want to run them at full res or HiDPI mode.

 

[Krevnik]

Be warned that running at any scaled resolutions that are not integer ratios is not a great experience on Mac Minis. You either want to run them at full res or HiDPI mode.

Agree.

An eGPU also works, but I don’t really recommend it unless you have another need for one.