I am looking for an external display that will match my MBP M1 display in the clarity (resolution) of mostly Word texts for writing.
I own an LG Ultrafine 21.5 4K display (love it) but need another display for a different location (either 24 or 27"). It runs on usb-c, not HDMI (no complaints)
Is there an advantage to having HDMI or Usb-c?
MacBook Pro 14″, macOS 26.1
with an M1, your direct HDMI output is limited to 4K at 60 Hz and HDR=OFF.
USB-C or a USB-C cable/adapter to DisplayPort has slightly higher limits, and can run with HDR=ON. (That's 10 bits/color vs 8/bits/color).
A Thunderbolt Display, or a ThunderBolt Dock, can run Higher speeds, such as a Higher speed DisplayPort, and higher resolutions and refresh rates.
Adapting a USB-C port TO HDMI for an HDMI-only display is a losing proposition and should generally not be attempted. You need a DIRECT HDMI output (with more capability than your M1 Mac has) to go higher HDMI-only.
This is quite helpful. Thanks.
I am trying to understand this technology and thinking about future-proofing as well.
Would the current MBP model with an M5 chip be capable of higher speeds and resolutions than the M1 version, either with the native display and/or with a Thunderbolt capable external display? It is hard to imagine a display that is crisper than my MBP M1, which my LG display appears to match, at least for still texts and images.
jinet wrote:
Is there an advantage to having HDMI or Usb-c?
USB-C is a physical connector, it has nothing to do with video per se. It's merely a way to connect things to your MBPro.
Exactly which model M1 MBPro do you have? The 14" & 16" M1 models have a native HDMI port but the 13" model did not. If you have the 13" model you can use a USB-C adapter like the Apple USB-C Digital AV Multiport Adapter to connect your MBPro to an external HDMI display. There are similar third-party adapters as well as adapters that support DisplayPort video.
If you are indeed looking for a display that "matches" the MDP M1 display then look for displays whose specs match those of your MBPro. Here are the specs for the various models. Note that the display specs for each model are different:
MacBook Pro (13-inch, M1, 2020) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
MacBook Pro (14-inch, 2021) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2021) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
The M5 MBPro (14") has a native HDMI port and supports the following external display types:
That said, you would not be running an external 24" or 27" display in 4K or 8K mode anyway because all the text would be far too small to see comfortably. Keep that in mind.
One of the reasons that your Mac’s screen and your LG’s screen look so good is that they have very high pixel density (PPI). It’s not just the total number of pixels, but how small they are, and how closely they are packed together. Thst depends both on resolution and on physical size.
Unfortunately, screens with high PPIs tend to be few and expensive. Apple has the 27” 5K (5120x2880 pixel) Studio Display for $1599+. There are now a few competing 27” 5K displays, but they are also priced much higher than 27” 4K ones.
27” 4K screens have higher pixel density than 27” 2.5K (1440p) ones, but it’s probably easy to tell that there is a difference between them and the screens that you have now.
I believe that there are a couple of 24” 4K screens on the market. One is by LG and costs only $300, but its specifications say nothing about coverage of sRGB - raising questions about basic color accuracy. The other is by Asus and is loaded with color accuracy features for professional photographers, but also costs a fortune. I don’t know why there seem to be no screens in the middle,
HDMI was invented for HD TV sets.
When they needed to stretch it to higher resolution Monitors, that what they did -- stretch it to as high as it could go without a major re-working. That is what in included in early M1 Apple-silicon Macs, and it is HDMI 2.0. it can do data rates about 3/4 of a USB-C bus top speed, or about 14.4 G bits/sec.
The HDMI standards setters did not anticipate that display technology would eventually include Hi Dynamic Range (HDR) (more colors) or higher resolutions. To go any higher, they needed to make a technology change. They stuck with the old connector, and re-arranged the signals and changed the way data were transmitted. that meant the HDMI 2.1 interface could run at 42 G bits/sec, but unfortunately, that is faster than a Thunderbolt Bus.
in Apple-silicon Macs, M2 Pro and later included DIRECT HDMI port that is also faster than a Thunderbolt Bus, and can run at the required 42 G Bits/sec speeds required by HDMI 2.1. Those limits are 4K at 240 HZ, or if you need higher resolution, up to 8K at 60 Hz.
In every case, the cables required are subtly different at each level, and it is important to obtain certified cables that are labeled PREMIUM for uses up through HDMI 2.0, and ULTRA for cables for HDMI 2.1
Apple talks about these steps in HDMI capability in four brackets, highest to lowest:
Connect to HDMI from your Mac - Apple Support
It's a 14" MBP M1.
What you say in the last line is scary. My goal is to replicate the resolution (clarity) of what I currently have. It's perfect for working with long texts over long hours. Anything less would be unacceptable.
I do plan to buy next year's MBP model if it is a significant upgrade to my machine (and if my machine lasts that long). I don't imagine that the newer models have or will have a better native display.
I may decide, in that case, to go all in on a 27" Studio Display. I owned a 2015 27" iMac before this and it was just fine.
One fact not always discussed is that the larger displays have more vertical acreage, which allows you to see a full page of text (and two texts side by side with a 27" display) comfortably. That matters.
My 21.5" display gives me more vertical room than my native display but not as much as my iMac did. I probably should have bought the larger LG display when I bought my current display. It's very hard to assess these things by reading about them and few brick and mortars have them available to test in person.
jinet wrote:
One fact not always discussed is that the larger displays have more vertical acreage, which allows you to see a full page of text (and two texts side by side with a 27" display) comfortably. That matters.
If you can find a high-PPI display that can rotate 90 degrees into portrait orientation, that might be another way to get vertical acreage.
E.g., if you had a 24" 4K display which could be rotated 90 degrees, you would have a display 2160 pixels wide, by 3840 pixels tall, that you could run in Retina "like 1080x1920" mode.
Thanks. the point about cable specifications is news to me and helpful. To connect to my current display I use the cable that came with it; it must be USB-C only, and it powers my MBP.
HDMI vs USB-C for external displays
