Mac mini M4 Pro Display Resolutions

Just to confirm -- you are using 3840x1620 with BetterDisplay, but it's NOT HiDPI mode right? The HiDPI 3840x1620 is what's missing with the M4 chip.

Hopefully now someone at Apple will do something about it. Gotta thank Filipe at 9to5 that agreed to write about this.

M4 Mac Mini + Studio Display

Display 5120 * 2880

Default 2560 * 1440

You have a native 5120 * 2160 so a different aspect ratio. Try Show all resolutions on the Display prefs and see what is available? Failing that take a look at SwitchResX or EasyRes or etc.

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 …

same issue here with a Lenovo P40w-20 (LG panel) - works fine on a MBP 16" M1 pro with 3840x1620 - on the new Mac mini M4 Pro this resolution is missing (using BetterDisplay but with 60 Hz refreshrate as workaround) - VERY annoying

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

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.

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?

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

So I am planning to get a new Macbook Pro M4, connecting it to my Dell U4021QW over thunderbolt - with my Macbook Pro M1 I used a resolution of 3840 x 1620 - so that's for now not possible anymore. Is that right?

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.

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.

I’ve got a Dell 32” AW3225QF 4K 240 Hz monitor and I run it at 3008 x 1692 at 120 Hz and that’s perfect for me. Full 4K 3840 x 2160 without any scaling is to small for me.

The issue in this topic is mainly with larger monitors (40” widescreen here) where the perfect dpi resolution 3840x1620 disappeared on the M4 inexplicably.

That’s correct. I have the exact same monitor connected over Thunderbolt. The “looks like” 3840x1620 option is missing going from M1 to M4. You’ll get the option of 3360x1418 instead.