Choosing an external monitor

[Shamino (David C.)]

Continuing the discussion from USB-C Hub for MacBook:

@sf.ross

I would consider a Mac mini but choosing a monitor is more than I can handle. Too many choices & I don’t know enough about monitors.

Although you said this is more than you can handle, I’m starting this thread, so people can share their experience and wisdom. I’ll start it off with my own high-level observations and will post followups with more details.

Size and resolution

When shopping for any display, the most important things are going to be the panel’s (physical) size, the resolution, the type of display panel and its refresh rate.

Size is usually presented as a diagonal measurement, in inches or cm. But panels also come in a variety of aspect ratios, so both must be considered together. And because pixels on modern displays are always square, the pixel-aspect ratio will equal the size-aspect.

The most common aspect is 16:9 (1.78:1), because that is the aspect used by digital TV programming. Typical resolutions for 16:9 are:

• 1920 x 1080, also called “1080p”
• 2560 x 1440, sometimes called “1440p”
• 3840 x 2160, also called “4K”
• 5120 x 2880, also called “5K”

A less-common, but (to many) very useful aspect is 16:10 (1.6:1). These were popular for computer displays before digital TVs became very popular. They give you a bit more vertical space to work with, but with the same desk-footprint of a 16:9 display. The are especially useful for video editing, because you can display 16:9 video at full-width and still have some room above and below for your editor’s menu-bar and tool-bars. Typical resolutions for 16:10 are:

• 1920 x 1200, sometimes called “1200p”
• 2560 x 1600, sometimes called “1600p”
• 3840 x 2400, (I don’t know of any common names for this)

And then there are so-called ultra-wide aspects, that some people really like. These typically have the same number of rows as a 16:9 display, but are much wider. Some common ultra-wide aspects and resolutions are:

• Approximate 21:9 (2.3:1) aspect:
  • 2560 x 1080
  • 3440 x 1440
  • 5120 x 2160, sometimes called “5K2K”
• Approximate 32:9 (3.5:1) aspect:
  • 3840 x 1080
  • 5120 x 1440
  • 7680 x 2160

When selecting the physical size of any display, the most important thing (to me, anyway) is its vertical size. If your display is too short to be comfortable, you won’t like it, no matter what the resolution/aspect might be. I find that a vertical size between 11.5" and 14" is most comfortable, but you may prefer something else.

The specifications for a display should tell you the vertical size. If they don’t, you can use the Pythagorean theorem to compute it from the display’s diagonal size and its aspect ratio. Compute the diagonal-size for the aspect:

• 16:9: √(16² + 9²) = 18.36
• 16:10: √(16² + 10²) = 18.87
• 21:9: √(21² + 9²) = 22.85
• 32:9: √(32² + 9²) = 33.24

Then divide your display’s diagonal size by the aspect’s diagonal size and multiply by the aspect’s vertical size. So, for example, some common vertical sizes:

• 16:9 24": 24 / 18.36 * 9 = 11.76"
• 16:10 24": 24 / 18.36 * 10 = 13.07"
• 16:9 27": 27 / 18.36 * 9 = 13.24"
• 21:9 34": 34 / 22.85 * 9 = 13.39"
• 32:9 45": 45 / 33.24 * 9 = 12.2"

One key takeaway is that as the monitor gets wider, you are going to need much larger diagonal sizes to still have a comfortable vertical size.

If you are considering an ultra-wide display, you should also get the product’s width, so ensure it will fit on your desk. Although you can do the math, I’d recommend looking at the product specifications, because display curvature and bezel sizes take up space in addition to the size of the display panel itself.

Panel type

Once you’ve decided on the size/aspect you want, you need to consider the type of panel. Common types include:

• IPS. IPS panels tend to have better color accuracy and viewing angles (less distortion when viewed from off-center), but they tend to have worse contrast and response times (how fast a pixel can change color) compared to a VA panel.

  IPS panels are generally preferred for graphic design and other creative work. They tend to be a bit more expensive than VA panels.

• VA. VA panels cost less than IPS panels. They tend to have higher contrast and faster response times, making them preferable for gaming, but they tend to have worse color accuracy and viewing angles, compared to IPS panels.

• OLED. OLED displays give you much better contrast, response times and no off-axis viewing angle issues, but they tend to be much more expensive than IPS and VA panels, especially at large sizes. They can also suffer from burn-in and image-retention for things that never change on your screen (e.g. your menu-bar).

These days, I recommend that gamers get VA panels, while creative professionals get IPS panels. But for casual users, a good quality panel of either type will work just fine, so get whatever looks best and fits within your budget.

Note also that there are cheap-junk panels of all kinds. A junk-quality OLED panel can easily look worse than a good quality VA panel. So you still need to read reviews or try it out yourself.

Refresh rate

All displays work along the same principles as TVs - the signal is constantly redrawing the entire screen. If the signal stops, the image quickly fades to black, usually in a fraction of a second.

The rate at which the image is redrawn is the refresh rate and is usually measured in units of frames-per-second (FPS) or Hz, which is the number of times per second that the entire screen is redrawn.

All modern monitors should support, at minimum a 60 Hz refresh rate (although I’ve seen some cheap ones that require lower refresh rates). Some monitors, especially those sold for gaming, can support much higher rates, some supporting over 300 Hz.

Some people (not me) can notice flickering at 60 Hz and prefer a higher refresh rate. If you are such a person, then you should look for a display that supports higher refresh rates. If you aren’t playing fast-action games and don’t notice flicker, there’s nothing wrong with 60 Hz.

Mac Compatibility

All monitors sold today support one or more of the following inputs:

• HDMI
• DisplayPort (or mini DisplayPort)
• USB-C

All modern Macs either include these interfaces or can connect to them using simple adapter cables. So there’s no need to worry about being able to physically connect them together.

But every Mac has a limit to the video signal it can create. Look at your Mac’s specifications and you’ll see the maximum resolution and refresh rate. If your monitor’s native resolution is beyond your Mac’s capabilities, you won’t get an image (or you’ll get a sub-standard resolution that the monitor scales to full screen - which won’t look good).

If your monitor’s native resolution is supported, but your Mac can’t put out your preferred refresh rate (e.g. maybe it can only output 60Hz when you would prefer 120 Hz), you’ll get an image, but you won’t be able to configure your preferred refresh rate.

And also note that if you plan on using more than one display, your Mac’s limits may vary depending on the resolution and refresh rate of what you’ve connected. For example an M4 Mac mini can drive three displays if they are all 4K resolution and 60 Hz, but will be limited to two if you have a 6K display or if you are driving one at faster than 60 Hz.

[Shamino (David C.)]

More stuff to consider…

Color gamut

If you are using your display for content creation, then you will want to pay close attention to this. The color gamut is a description of the range of colors the display is capable of reproducing.

If you don’t know what this is or why it should matter, then you probably aren’t doing anything for which it matters.

Built-in conferencing features

Many displays, especially those sold for business use, have built-in cameras, microphones and/or speakers. These are great if you do a lot of video conferencing.

There is typically a USB cable that connects such a display to your computer in order to support these additional devices. If your display is getting its video signal over a USB-C or Thunderbolt cable, then the data for these devices may be carried over the same cable.

If you don’t need these devices (maybe you don’t do conferencing, or maybe you already have separate ones and don’t want to replace them), then don’t bother paying extra for them. But they are convenient.

Other USB and Thunderbolt features

Many displays include built-in USB hubs. If your video signal is carried over HDMI or DisplayPort, there will be a separate USB cable to support these. If it is USB-C or Thunderbolt, then support may be provided over the same cable.

Depending on your display, these may be just basic USB 2.0 ports, suitable for connecting a thumb drive or your keyboard/mouse, but not much else. Or they may support higher-bandwidth devices, like a downstream Thunderbolt port, for daisy-chaining additional TB devices.

Note, however, that if your video signal is carried by a USB-C or Thunderbolt cable, the video data is going to consume most of that cable’s available bandwidth, so there might not be much left for a high-bandwidth peripheral to use.

Power Delivery

If your display uses a USB-C or Thunderbolt interface, it may be able to deliver power to your computer. This can be convenient if you’re connecting a laptop, because you won’t need a separate connection for its charger.

Just pay attention to the maximum amount of power the display can deliver and make sure it is at least as large as what your computer requires. And make sure you use a cable capable of carrying that much power (the one bundled with the display might not).

Fit and finish

Although this is purely cosmetic, it may be something you care about. For example, Apple’s displays are mounted in beautiful metal enclosures, while most others are mounted in black or white plastic enclosures.

And the stand may or may not be adjustable enough for you.

Some include stands that allow rotation into portrait mode, which some people like, while others do not.

And if you think you may want to mount the display onto a swing-arm, be sure to get one that includes support for VESA-style mounting. (Apple’s monitors only support VESA mounting if your order them that way from the factory, and then you don’t get a desk stand.)

[sf.ross (Sheri)]

Very helpful; thank you!

[josehill]

Bookmarked. Thank you.

[jonathan2 (Jonathan Duke)]

@Shamino Excellent write up regarding the details one should look at for a monitor. Thank you.

My 2¢ on this is that the Apple Studio displays and their LG cousin feature excellent image and build quality. The LG is less expensive due to the plastic case, but you get rotation and height-adjustability as well as the option for VESA (monitor arm) mounting as part of the deal.

I am an IT department-of-one and field all the requests for screens. Sometimes it’s the size of the display (how large the contents need to be) that dictates which screen someone needs. I’ve installed 32” 1440p screens so the monitor can use its native (and sharpest) resolution rather than running a 4k or 5k monitor at a larger non-native but fuzzier resolution.

I think David did an excellent job of taking the large number of often conflicting needs and putting the items you need to consider when evaluating your wants and needs.

[david_blanchard]

Thank you for an excellent overview of modern display devices.

I have been reviewing displays to pair with my M2 Studio. Currently I am using a legacy 20" Apple Cinema Display. It works quite well…except when it does not wake from sleep.

What I want is a 24" display with 16:10 aspect ratio that has a ppi of 109 (or 218 for Retina). It also must have color accuracy because I do a lot of photo editing. I don’t think that display exists although this one from BenQ comes close (it has 125 ppi which might make text too small).

I am also considering the Apple Studio Display. I only wish they had a smaller version in the same way that the Apple Cinema Display had several sizes.

[Shamino (David C.)]

Without getting into specific models, we can do a bit of math to see what can be purchased…

A 24" display with a 16:10 aspect will have the following horizontal and vertical sizes:

• Height = 24 / 18.87 * 10 = 12.72"
• Width = 24 / 18.87 * 16 = 20.35"

At 109 ppi (that seems oddly specific), that translates to a resolution of: 2218x1386. And at double that resolution, it would be 4436x2772.

Of course, that isn’t anything close to a standard resolution. The closest standard 16:10 resolutions to that would be either 1600p (2560x1600) or a double-size resolution of 5120x3200.

The PPI for a 24" panel of these resolutions would be:

• width: 2560/20.35 = 126 (or doubled to 252)
• height: 1600/12.72 = 126 (or doubled to 252)

Which pretty much matches the specs of that BenQ.

Since you aren’t going to be able to get a non-standard resolution, if you find 126 ppi to be too dense, you should consider a larger screen.

2560x1600 at 109 ppi would translate to a screen size of:

• width: 2560/109 = 23.5"
• height: 1600/109 = 14.7"
• diagonal: √(23.5² + 14.7²) = 27.7.

So, ideally, you would want a 27" screen. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that BenQ makes such a display - their 27" displays are all 16:9 aspect, not 16:10. Their 27" screens are available at either 4K or 1440p resolutions. 1440p would be almost exactly the ppi you’re looking for, but at 16:9 aspect.

So, nothing perfect from BenQ, but a few options that may come close enough. Or you can take the specs generated from the above math to see if maybe you can find acceptable quality (especially color accuracy) and price from another brand.

Update: I did some web searching, to see if anybody makes a 27" 2560x1600 display. I couldn’t find anything, so I don’t think they are being made. So I would recommend you look for a 27" 1440p display or get the 24" BenQ and accept the fact that you may have to put up with small text or configure non-integer display scaling, which may or may not be acceptable to you.

[david_blanchard]

Thanks. You have confirmed my own research and math.

@Shamino

At 109 ppi (that seems oddly specific),

It’s the ppi (109/218) from both the 27" Apple Studio Display and the 24" M3 iMac.

My 20" Apple Cinema Display has 98 ppi for comparison.

[Shamino (David C.)]

@david_blanchard

the 27" Apple Studio Display

Which is a 5K (pixel-doubled 1440p) display.

1440p is not hard to find, but, as we all know, 5K displays are only available from a small number of vendors.

@david_blanchard

and the 24" M3 iMac.

Ah. And there’s that non-standard resolution.

The 24" iMacs (2021, 2023 and 2024 models) are all 16:9 displays with a resolution of 4480x2520 (which is double 2240x1260) - a very non-standard resolution.

But when you’re Apple and can guarantee large bulk-purchases of display panels, you can convince LG (or Samsung, or whoever makes their panels) to design and build it for you.

There are very few other companies that could promise enough sales to make it possible to contract for such a panel, and I suspect none of them would think it’s important enough to even consider.

[glenthompson]

Excellent write up, lots of good info. My M1 iMac’s 24” display is the perfect size for my needs. I also like the single cable for power and Ethernet.

[TonyTownsend]

And then there’s the “it just feels right”. That’s how I wound up with the Apple Studio Display after trying several other monitors that were listed as decent competitors online and in reviews. This is hooked to an M4 Mac Mini.

[Shamino (David C.)]

@TonyTownsend

And then there’s the “it just feels right”

100% correct. Ultimately, what matters is if the primary user (yourself or maybe someone else) is comfortable and can be productive with it.

Anything else is just assumptions based on specifications. Useful if you don’t have anything else to go on, but it should all take a back seat to your own real-world usability.

[mpainesyd (Michael Paine)]

There are discussions on monitors here

Apple Confirms No More 27-inch iMacs

First off, is there a problem using a separate webcam? On my Mac mini, I’m using a (pretty old) 720p Logitech USB web camera. Nothing to write home about but works great for FaceTime and Zoom calls. That having been said, I know Dell makes a few displays with integrated speakers, microphone and camera. I have one, a Dell UZ2315H, sold in 2016 as “made for Microsoft Teams”. Ironically, I had (and still have) no use for its camera, since I use it with a laptop that already has a good camera.…

and here

Monitor for new M4 Mac mini

Please explain: What “scaling” is and then Why scaling 5K over 27” is better than scaling 4K over the same sized monitor. I have an iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015) that is stuck at macOS 12 Monterey and it’d like to replace it with an M4 Mac mini. I’ve put this off for a long time because i was hoping that Apple would release a bigger iMac, in part because I’m really intimidated by choosing a monitor. For what it’s worth, I also have an 2022 M2 MacBook Air. Thank you.

plus other threads. It would be good to consolidate the helpful advice into one article (a job for Take Control?)

[FlyHighandGoDeep (SteveWalter)]

Much thanx for an excellent write-up, on a topic that’ll be of a lot of interest to others!
FYI – I’m running a MBPro M1 Max with a 2x2 grid of 32" TV/Monitors sitting above it … I love the screen space and flexibility it gives me for having different things available all at the same time. But, I have to concede, the 2 RCA TV resolutions are lower than the newer Samsung Monitors, and to my surprise – the latter frequently alter the color shading in the Excel spreadsheets I use a lot (or, perhaps, my eyes are not holding up as well as I think). [And, yes, to support the 4 monitors, I need an external (Kensington) hub to distribute the signals everywhere.]

[Shamino (David C.)]

@FlyHighandGoDeep

the 2 RCA TV resolutions are lower than the newer Samsung Monitors, and to my surprise – the latter frequently alter the color shading in the Excel spreadsheets I use a lot

Two possibilities to consider:

1. Off-axis color distortion. Some LCD panels show significant color changes when you view them from an angle. Depending on where the screen is physically located relative to your eyes, that may have an impact.

2. Calibration. All monitors needs calibration in order to produce accurate colors. If you’re not doing anything where it matters (e.g. photo editing), the specific colors may not matter, but when you have two displays next to each other, you will notice the differences, even if you’re not sure which is “right” and which is “wrong”.

Assuming the latter, here’s what I recommend you try (if you haven’t already):

• Configure macOS for a generic color profile for each display. Go to System Settings → Displays. Select each display and set the color profile to something generic. Maybe one of:

  • Generic RGB Profile
  • Display
  • sRGB IEC61966-2.1

  Or if these are HDR displays, maybe one of:

  • Wide Gamut RGB
  • Display P3
  • SMPTE RP 431-2-2007 DCI (P3)

  You won’t be working with these settings, but you want the signal going to all the displays to be identical for the next step:

• On each display, use its configuration buttons to select the same hardware color profile, if you can. For general desktop use, I’d recommend using “sRGB” or (if it exists), “P3”. The computer monitors (the Samsungs) should have settings for this. The TVs probably don’t, but they may have alternately-named settings that come close. Look for something like “computer” or “gaming” and avoid settings like “theater” and “warm”, that deliberately alter the color balance in order to improve TV and movie content. Pick one that looks closest to the (probably sRGB) setting you selected for the computer monitors.

• Once that’s done, now calibrate the displays for real. If you have a hardware color calibration tool, use it on each display. How to do that is beyond my experience, so see its instructions or ask if someone here as experience with your specific tool.

• If you don’t have a hardware color calibration tool (and you probably don’t if you’re not a professional media editor), you can use Apple’s built-in calibration tool and your eyes. This won’t be as a good as a hardware calibration tool, but it’s definitely better than not using it.

  To do this, go to System Settings → Displays. For each display:

  • Click on a display to select it
  • Click on the “Color profile” item and select “Customize” from the menu.
  • Select a color profile to use as a starting point. I recommend one in the “for this display” set, but any one whose description comes close to your display’s configuration (e.g. sRGB or P3) should also be fine.
  • Option-click the “+” button at the bottom of the list of color profiles to start the Display Calibrator Assistant tool:
    
    
  • Be sure to check the box for expert mode, since that will give you more control over the calibration. If you don’t see that box, then you weren’t holding Option when you clicked the “+” button - close the Calibrator Assistant and try again.
    
    
  • Follow the instructions in the Display Calibrator Assistant. When you’re done, it will have created a new calibration profile. Save it. The default name will be (or was the last time I did this) the name of your starting-point profile, followed by the date you ran the calibration. But feel free to pick any name meaningful to you (e.g. “Upper-left LG TV 2025-02-24”)
  • Now back in the Settings → Display window, select the monitor and set its color profile to the calibration profile you just created (I think that will be done automatically, it never hurts to double-check.)

  Repeat the above for all four of your displays.

Finally, some casual advice:

• Don’t assume that two displays of the same model will use identical calibrations. Although they should be close, manufacturing differences may cause them to require slightly different calibrations.
• If you move a display to a different kind of interface (e.g. USB-C to/from HDMI), you should re-run its calibration, because DisplayPort (embedded in USB-C and Thunderbolt video) and HDMI are not identical protocols. I’m not an expert here, but I would assume that these differences could result in (hopefully small) differences in color calibration that you might notice.
• Room lighting will affect how you perceive the image, and it may affect different displays differently. If this bothers you, you can re-run the calibration a few times, creating profiles for different lighting conditions (e.g. morning sunlight, afternoon sun, interior lighting, dark room, etc.). You can then select the profile(s) appropriate for your ambient lighting, changing them as necessary. (Since you have four displays, you might find it useful to write a script that can change all four together, if you find yourself doing this a lot.)
• I’ve found that sometimes (especially after a system software upgrade), the display calibration will revert to a factory-default setting. If this happens, go to System Settings → Displays, and select your (saved) calibrated profile for each display. It’s been my experience that the chosen setting will persist across reboots, so in the worst case, you should only have to do this after macOS upgrades.

[nut4wine (Tad Taylor)]

I think many people spend much too much time thinking about the “perfect” monitor. While you don’t want to be cavalier about it, you can definitely overthink it. If you really need to agonize over monitor selection, you probably know who you are (photography, gaming, video production, whatever). For myself, I do a little of all of that but strictly at a hobby level (or less). I typically go to Costco (or look on-line), look at some reviews and basic specs to make sure I’m not buying a dud but then I just get it. If I don’t like it, I can take it back to Costco (within 90-days). Costco usually has a good selection and good prices on monitors, at least on sale. My $.02.

[a.kevin.reinhart]

Odd that with all the discussion of the variable tasks (gaming, photos etc) there is no discussion of what most of us use the monitor for, namely TEXT. How sharp is the text? It’s not just a feature of resolution or color, in my experience. The poster who mentioned Excel is sort of in the ballpark. Color of the spreadsheets (background) matters too. Any input on which of the specs is most helpful for determining what monitor will work best with text? I have two Dells, sort of generic 24”. Like most things Dell they are OK, not great. I’d love to upgrade (for a MBP M3) but don’t want to drop some serious money and then be disappointed. Any suggestions welcome.

[mvheim (Mark Heim)]

On my Mac Studio, I am using an Apple Studio Display, and an Asus PA278QV as a second display. The ASUS is 2560x1440, so it’s precisely 1/2 the resolution of the Studio Display, at exactly the same physical size — this means when I drag objects from one display to the other, they do not change size (this can drive you crazy with mismatched monitors). The ASUS is very good quality and checks a lot of the boxes mentioned.

[walter (Walter Piovesan)]

so would this monitor be good with a Mac Mini for a generals computer user who occasionally uses Photo for image editing and Publish for magazine layout.

ASUS ProArt Display 27" Monitor PA278CV - WQHD (2560 x 1440),

[mvheim (Mark Heim)]

Yes, I would recommend it for that. It is not the cheapest display in this size category, but it is only a fraction of the cost of the Apple Studio Display. Side by side, the color fidelity is very close.