Mac mini M4 Pro Display Resolutions

I have a MacBook Pro M1, and a 5k LG monitor with 5120 x 2160 res. When I use it I can use the "default" setting which is 3840 x 1620 and it is perfect for me.


I just got a new Mac mini M4 pro. Its default for the same monitor is 3360 x 1418, and the resolution kinda sucks. But there is only one high res option at 5120 x 2160 which is way too small to see things.


Is there a way around this that I am not aware of? would the same issue be on the studio? I do not understand where the limitation comes from unless it has something to do with the MacBook Pro m1 having a certain res on the built in display. But that would make me think the mini should be able to do that res no matter what because there is no built in display.


both are using same thunderbolt cable.


Also both are using same OS version.


here is the options :



Thanks,

Brandon





Posted on Nov 14, 2024 6:58 PM

Reply
Question marked as Top-ranking reply

Posted on Nov 29, 2024 2:27 PM

Same here. Utterly annoying.


My M1 MBP works well with the 5k LG Ultrawide, and 3840x1620 is a splendid resolution (72Hz).

BTW, it shows HiDPI on my tool (BetterDisplay), it looks crisp.


While I can select the same resolution on my Mac Mini M4, it doesn't show HiDPI, and it (indeed) looks worse. De HiDPI settings available are 5120 x 2160 (way too small) and 3008 x 1270 (too big imho).


I'm glad I'm not the only one, so it isn't an issue on my device.

On the other hand, I'd rather have a DOA as I could return and switch.


It's quite odd that the latest and fastest (M4) processor and the same OSX version) isn't able to use my monitor as should be. And that it beats the M1 (??)



45 replies
Sort By: 

Dec 30, 2024 10:39 PM in response to MatNeh

MatNeh wrote:

Good point, we aren’t being totally accurate when we say that we want “3840 x 1620.” What we’re asking for is to use the “looks like” 3840x1620, but MacOS actually uses the full 5120 x 2160 res and smooths the fonts really cleanly with all those extra pixels.


In Retina "looks like 3840x1620" mode,

  • The Displays Settings, or "UI looks like" resolution of 3840x1620 would be what applications use when sizing text and objects.
  • The internal drawing canvas would have 7680x3240 pixels. As wide, though not as tall, as native resolution of the panel on an 8K (7680x4320) display.
  • The Mac would downscale the 7680x3240 pixel canvas to get 5120x2160 pixels worth of data for the display.


In "3840x1620 (low resolution)" mode

  • The internal drawing canvas would have 3840x1620 pixels.
  • The Mac would upscale the 3840x1620 pixel canvas to get 5120x2160 pixels worth of data for the display. Like with expanding a MP3 file to a full-size uncompressed CD-Audio-quality file, this would increase the total volume of data, but would not add any information to the signal beyond the 3840x1620 pixels' worth present in the canvas.


If your Mac supported both modes, and you switched back and forth between them quickly, you'd see the text becoming cleaner when you switched to the Retina mode, and less-well-defined when you switched to the "low resolution" one.

Reply

Nov 16, 2024 3:51 AM in response to Servant of Cats

Servant of Cats wrote:

For what it's worth, "like 3840x1620" would imply the use of an internal canvas that had 7680x3240 pixels. A 32" Apple 6K Pro Display XDR has a native resolution of 6016x3384 pixels. So the mode which you want to use would require a canvas with about 22% more pixels than the total number of pixels on a 32" 6K display.


On the other hand, as long as you limit yourself to two displays, the Technical Specifications for the M4 Pro Mac mini seem to say that one of them can have "up to 8K resolution at 60 Hz … over Thunderbolt or HDMI."


I would think that an 8K output would have the ability to handle the internal canvas for Retina "like 3840x1620" mode. But maybe I'm wrong …

Reply

Dec 13, 2024 11:37 AM in response to brandonfromsaint charles

I'm in the same boat, I had a 3424 x 1926 120hz setup on my MBP M1 Pro.


On my M4 Pro, I can only do 3840 x 2160 or drop down to 3360 x 1890.


It might not sound drastically different but on a 27k display it's rather noticeable, and weird that Apple (it seems) either had oversight or intentionally gimped it

Reply

Dec 19, 2024 2:16 PM in response to foxxx

I was eventually able to get BetterDisplay to work if I created a Virtual screen with 3840x1620 resolution and then mirror it to my actual display. However, my mouse keeps getting stuck and using a corner of the screen to enter sleep mode doesn't work so it's not a good solution.

Reply

Dec 30, 2024 5:37 PM in response to brandonfromsaint charles

As someone who also has the LG 34" 34BK95U-W UltraFine display (but no M4 Mac), I have to ask - if you think 5120x2160 is "too small", then why did you buy a 5K2K display? You could've just bought a smaller 30" WQXGA 2560x1600 display or something and use the full resolution rather than upscaling.


Not saying that Apple shouldn't fix this of course, but I'm curious. 🤷🏼


Also, everyone has said the M1-based Macs are fine - what about M2 or M3? No one out there in thread-land with any of those who can chime in?

Reply

Dec 30, 2024 10:09 PM in response to Greg Earle

Good point, we aren’t being totally accurate when we say that we want “3840 x 1620.” What we’re asking for is to use the “looks like” 3840x1620, but MacOS actually uses the full 5120 x 2160 res and smooths the fonts really cleanly with all those extra pixels.


Another way to state this:

5120x2160 on 40” 21:9 display is 139 dpi

3840x1620 on 40” 21:9 display is 104 dpi

3360x1418 on 40” 21:9 is 91 dpi


what we want is to use 139 pixels to represent a 104 pixel inch-sized object, which means it can have smooth edges.


The alternative currently being offered is 3360x1418 (91 dpi) which is clean but too big (most lower res monitors are scaled for 96 dpi)


Also if I have a second monitor at 96-100 dpi, fonts will look similar on both if we can use this setting

Reply

Dec 31, 2024 1:28 PM in response to Greg Earle

Greg Earle wrote:

As someone who also has the LG 34" 34BK95U-W UltraFine display (but no M4 Mac), I have to ask - if you think 5120x2160 is "too small", then why did you buy a 5K2K display? You could've just bought a smaller 30" WQXGA 2560x1600 display or something and use the full resolution rather than upscaling.

Not saying that Apple shouldn't fix this of course, but I'm curious. 🤷🏼

Speaking for myself, because 3840x1620 is a lot more screen real estate than 2560x1600. The highest available scaled option on the M4 with the current macOS is 3360x1418, which is noticeably (to me) less than 3840x1620.


Also, WQXGA is a 16:10 aspect ratio and that would completely defeat the purpose of choosing an ultrawide monitor like the ones under discussion that have a 21:9 aspect ratio. 5K:2K is like a 4K display that’s 1/3 wider.


Also, everyone has said the M1-based Macs are fine - what about M2 or M3? No one out there in thread-land with any of those who can chime in?

Reports elsewhere indicate M2 and M3 Macs support 3840x1620 (I haven’t tried myself but could connect my wife’s 14” M3 Pro MBP). Seems this issue is specific to M4 chips.

Reply

Jan 1, 2025 8:06 AM in response to brandonfromsaint charles

I have a 34" Samsung QWHD Widescreen Curved Monitor and I can't activate HiDPI, even using BetterDisplay. When I try to activate HiDPI with BetterDisplay, the resolution goes to 2048x858. When I go to 3440x1440 it deactivates HiDPI. This is happening with a Mac mini M4.

Reply

Mac mini M4 Pro Display Resolutions

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.