The site gave it a bit of a heat based on the price of the unit, but I would like to point out that the £480 ($775-ish) price tag it commands in the United Kingdom indeed is a bit steep compared to what you’ll see in the US. At the time of writing, I see Amazon.com selling the monitor for $499.97, which is a lot less than its price in pounds.

What does this monitor offer the Samsung S27A950D doesn’t?

-It’s VESA mountable, so you can put it on monitor arms or on the wall
-It’s quite a bit cheaper than the Samsung in the US ($100 less to be precise)
- 4.4 / 5 stars user review vs. 3.5 / 5 on the Samsung.

Conclusion

The Acer seems to be a better pick for 120Hz gaming, but the mention of ghosting in 3D sure doesn’t make it sound like an optimal choice for 3D. Sources disagree on whether the Samsung or the Acer is better at color quality. I honestly believe both fall very-short on color quality when compared to $500 IPS monitors, simply because they’re TN-panel.

But that’s not what you buy them for, do you?

There are also a couple things to note before you’d give it a go-ahead and buy your monitor!

First and most important thing to consider: The Mac Mini has two video outputs. One is an HDMI port you can find on any HDTV and many computer monitors. The other is a Thunderbolt/mini-DisplayPort port, which you will not find on 3rd party monitors. There is a wide selection of available adapters that convert mini-DP to virtually anything, but it adds $15 to the final price.

Second: There is an HDMI to DVI adapter in the box of the Mac Mini. If you’ve misplaced it or never had one to begin with, there are HDMI to DVI adapters available for around $10. These adapters are compatible with monitors up to 1080p, sometimes 1200p. I don’t expect you to come across many 1200p displays in this list, but it’s always a nice tidbit of information to have.

Unlike other lists I’ve posted, this one does not throw out displays that are under 1080p. I usually recommend choosing a monitor with a 1080p resolution, because it generally costs only a couple dollars more than 1600×900 monitors. That said, in this list I don’t discriminate.

And last, in the description of every monitor in this list, you will find my recommended way of connecting it to the Mac Mini. Where extra adapter is necessary (such as mini-DP to VGA), I’ll add the cost to the final price to make the playing field even.

Oh, all prices were correct at the time of writing. Just in case anyone wonders.

Let’s see the cheapest Mac Mini monitors you can find!

1. AOC 919SW-1

Size : 19″
Resolution : 1440 x 900
Cost : $89.99 + shipping + $8.99 adapter
Connection : D-SUB VGA. mini-DP to VGA adapter necessary.
Available : here (might go out of stock soon)

This AOC monitor will not be available for too long. Its relatively low resolution and the lack of digital input will slowly but surely kill it. It’s still on sale, but no-one knows for how long.

2. Acer V193W

Size : 19″
Resolution : 1440 x 900
Cost : $90.00 + free shipping + $8.99 adapter
Connection : D-SUB VGA. mini-DP to VGA adapter necessary
Available : here (good availability)

The Acer V193W is a popular choice. The up-front cost is higher than that of the AOC monitor above, but it ships free from Amazon as I type this. You still need a mini-DisplayPort to VGA adapter to connect this display to any recent Mac computer.

3. Acer G205HV

Size : 20″
Resolution : 1600 x 900
Cost : $99.11 + shipping
Connection : Use the HDMI to DVI adapter you got with the Mac Mini, the G205 is DVI enabled.
Available : here (decent availability)

This monitor is a better fit for a Mac Mini than any of the above, simply because it accepts DVI signal. Since it lets you avoid digital->analog signal conversion, the picture quality will be better. Not to mention it’s 160 pixel columns wider than the other two displays.

4. Samsung E1920X

Size : 19″
Resolution : 1360 x 768
Cost : $96.00 + shipping
Connection : Supports DVI. Use the HDMI to DVI adapter you got with the Mac Mini.
Available : here (decent availability)

Samsung is a name you’ll surely recognize. The brand used to be the go-to budget computer monitor choice. Not so much these days (ViewSonic beats it in the $130-$150 segment). The resolution on this model reminds me of another age, where HD meant 720p. I would choose the Acer G205H above.

5. HP S2031

Size : 20″
Resolution : 1600 x 900
Cost : $99.98 + free shipping
Connection : Use HDMI to DVI adapter that came with the Mini. The S2031 supports DVI.
Available : here (good availability)

The HP S2031 is a decent budget monitor for the Mac Mini. Its availability is surprisingly stable and the fact that it supports DVI also helps tremendously. Check current pricing, at the time of writing (especially with free shipping) it seems to be the best option available.

How do you improve gaming experience, though? There’s only that many eye-candy options to enable. There’s only that quick of a processor to buy. The matter of fact is, once you have a decent configuration, additional money is better spent elsewhere. A quick SSD is a good investment to make.

Then there are 120Hz TFT monitors that take your gaming to a new level.

Why? Because 120Hz allows your PC to show 120 frames per second as opposed to the 60 you would see on any other ordinary screen.

Is there a difference? Yes there is. Quite a lot actually. While your brain might not be able to register that many frames a second, your sub-conscious processes information at these speeds.

But, enough of that. If you’re here, chances are you have an idea about what makes 120Hz monitors better for gaming than 60Hz.

Let’s see the list of the five most commonly purchased 120Hz monitors!

(Oh, word of warning: HDMI is tuned to crank frames at 60Hz, no way around that. Go for displayport or DL-DVI-D, whichever you have access to)

1. Samsung S23A950D

Samsung’s S23A950 comes up every time 120Hz monitors are mentioned for gaming purposes. It certainly isn’t cheap, clocking in at $450 at the time of writing.

Pros:

- 120Hz input at 1920×1080
- Takes 120Hz in other resolutions as well

Cons:

- Funky stand
- No VESA mounting holes (no Eyefinity)

2. Samsung S27A950D

Samsung expects you to pay $599 for this model at the time I’m typing this. Not that bad of a deal if you know that this is the monitor you are looking for. A 27″ 1080P monitor that does 120Hz. I would probably skip it if 27″ wasn’t a must.

Pros :

- 27″
- 120Hz input at lower resolutions as well as 1080p

Cons:

- Non-removable funky stand
- No VESA mounting-holes
- Users report quality issues

3. BenQ XL2420T

What BenQ usually does is not manufacturing professional monitors. This isn’t one of those, unless you were thinking about gaming professionals. Then this is one of those displays.

Pros:

- Scaling and all resolutions work with 75, 100 and 120Hz settings. (At least according to users who play Counter Strike)
- Widely available.
- Adjustable stand (height, tilt, etc)
- Nvidia 3D ready (unlike the Samsungs above)

Cons:

- Color quality down the drain
- Including crushed whites and blacks

4. Asus VG236H

This Asus monitor was released in 2010, making it one of the oldest 120Hz displays you will find. That’s not a bad thing, considering how well it stood the test of time. Plus, it’s now down to $359 when I’m writing this. Definitely one of the cheapest gamer monitors you’ll find.

Pros:

- $359 at the time of writing
- Adjustable height stand
- VESA wall-mountable

Cons:

- 3D options stuck in 2010

5. Asus VG278H 27-Inch LED Monitor

Would you rather have the VG236H in the 27″ format? This monitor is not it, but about as close as you’ll get.

Pros:

- 27″
- Adjustable height
- wall-mountable

Cons:

- Expensive
- Viewing angles
- Quality concerns
- Meh

Conclusion

Although the Asus VG236H is in it’s second year, it still packs a punch. It’s the only 3D monitor in this list below $400 making it a viable candidate. Especially if you want to use VESA monitor arms or wall-mounting.

I would also take a look at Samsung S23A750D, but it’s not as easy to find as it once was.

It’s probably best if you stay away from BenQ XL2410T, and go with the XL2420T for advanced 120Hz gaming features (aspect ratio mumbo-jumbo, lower-resolution 120/100/75 Hz).

If you’ve been paying any kind of attention to what’s going on with 3D monitors, you must’ve noticed that they don’t seem to be gaining traction as well as the manufacturers had hoped.

Hewlett-Packard gives desktop 3D technology a go, and not the most common iteration of it either: Passive 3D is probably the least common way to do it in 3D desktop monitors.

This cnet piece gives a review of the HP 2311gt.

I really don’t want eat their lunch, so if you are interested in the full review, please head over through the link above.

Below this is strictly my opinion on whether it is a good idea to buy this monitor (or any other passive 3D display) or not.

For the first point to make it across, I suggest you take a look at this PCWorld article on Passive vs. Active 3D to see what’s the difference between this HP monitor and an active 3D display (like an Asus VG236H)

As you can see, active 3D requires different technology to operate. In and of itself the technology being different is not that big of a deal; it’s what the implications are.

Passive 3D monitors contain a 60Hz panel, while active 3D panels come with a panel capable of pushing at least 120Hz.

I had to bold this, because it makes or breaks a 3D monitor for many desktop PC users. Gamers in particular.

Why is that important? Because when you don’t use your passive 3d monitor to watch 3D content, it’s just another 60Hz panel, not unlike a 24″ Viewsonic you’d get for around $180 (here are some 24″ LED display alternatives under $200). If you don’t use the monitor for 3D, you don’t benefit from it being a 3D display whatsoever.

Active 3D monitors, on the other hand, have an additional benefit most people don’t even realize until they are actively looking for it. The 120Hz panel works at 60Hz per eye in 3D, but it’s a full 120Hz 2D panel in most cases when you aren’t using it for 3D. The monitor becomes capable of showing 120 frames a second as opposed to the 60Hz the vast majority of TFT panels do. For gamers, 120Hz is huge. It’s a game changer, so to speak.

Most gamers I know at least considered a 120Hz monitor before, and not for its 3D capabilities.

Long story short, I don’t think a passive 3D monitor is worth any extra cash, unless you plan on using the 3D feature. People I talk to don’t seem to understand why they should step it up to 3D. Honestly, I’m with them. 3D content is rare enough to make up a tiny minor portion of all content most of us consume.

The HP 2311GT may be a cheap option, and the passive 3D implementation might be good, but the monitor is inherently incapable of providing anything extra when it’s in 2D mode.

As opposed to that, active 3D monitors are in high demand by gamers. Most of them can’t give a decent shrug about 3D, they’re after the technology that makes it possible.

The TN+Film panel used in Macbook Pros is of better quality than some budget displays you will see around the $130-$160 mark.

That, however, is the bare minimum of image quality you can get from an external display. E-IPS panels — available starting from $250 for 22″, $350 for 24″– have better color accuracy, contrast uniformity and viewing angles than any Macbook Pro internal display you will ever see.

Not to mention that the surface of these mobile LCDs is glossy. There is matte option available for the 15″ MBP, but it costs extra, thus isn’t the most common version. Some people I know hate glossy screens, I believe it’s up to personal preference.

If you are looking for an external TFT monitor with better image than what the Macbook Pro has by default, see Dell Ultrasharp series displays or other eIPS panels.

S and P-IPS monitors (like U2711 from Dell), beats any laptop screen by far, including those found in Mac portables.

In this article I give you the three cables/adapters with the best user feedback that turn the video output signal of a Mac Mini, Macbook Pro/Air, iMac into something a Dell Ultrasharp series semi-professional or professional monitor can use: Displayport.

You’ll also use these to connect displays to an Eyefinity AMD graphics card.

Why the highest rated items, though? Adapters and converter cables are susceptible to quality issues. If there’s one thing I’ve learned dealing with computer hardware daily, it’s that you can’t trust a cable. No matter how much it costs or who’s made it. Cables are just like that.

Going for user feedback does not guarantee anything, but it increases your chances at getting decent product for your money.

1. Accell B112B-001B

As odd as it may sound, it is a male mini-Displayport to female Displayport adapter.

The good news is that it will let you use the official male-to-male Displayport cable you got with the monitor.

The bad news is that every connection between the display and the computer can break or introduce noise to the signal. It’s an extra point of failure.

All that said, this cable seems to have worked for those who bought one. Out of 22 reviews it gathered 19 five star feedbacks and only 1-1 one and two star feedbacks. For obscure adapter cables such an average (4.6/5) is higher than usual and generally indicates that you’re unlikely to encounter any problems with it.

At the time of writing it costs $12.99, which is slightly higher than what the simplest mini-DisplayPort to DVI cables command.

Note that it officially supports resolutions up to 1080p and 1200p, so 1440p 27″ displays are not guaranteed to work properly. (Users report having had success connecting 30-Inch 2560×1600 monitors to it).

2. Accell B119B-007J

4.6 stars out of the possible 5 over 14 user feedbacks normally means the cable works more often than it doesn’t. Accell sure throws a hardball with the 119B: it costs $38.8 at the time of writing. I’ve seen it go below $20, where it’s a decent deal.

It supports resolutions up to 2560×1600 and all the colors you can imagine (then some more, 12 bits per component, according to its tech specs)

3. Altaz Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort Adapter

Although this adapter has raked in 4.9 stars out of the possible 5, I still have to rank it the third on the list, despite it being only about $20 with shipping at the time of writing.

The reason for that is the relatively low number of user feedbacks (9 to date), and possible supply shortages. Right now there is one available unit and there is one available provider on Amazon. It suggests that the supply may be intermittent.

Despite these reservations, I would recommend buying this male mini-Display to female normal-sized Displayport adapter, based on the user feedbacks alone.

The price, the average rating and the specs all suggest that this is a good product.

The +1

A popular, but not particularly high-rated solution is the StarTech 6-Feet Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort adapter (MDP2DPMM6). It only costs $9.67 as I’m writing this, making this model the cheapest of all adapters.

I still have my reservations due to its 3.8 average user rating. Some have gotten seamless connection out of it, others can’t get it to work at all. This is the kind of feedback I usually try and avoid, considering my persistent bad luck with adapters.

These are all reasonably priced HD 1080p displays, preferably LED-backlit. Anything sub-par in resolution or lacking a digital signal input is out of the question and out of the list. There simply is no reason to buy a monitor without these features in 2012.

1920 x 1080 isn’t the only pixel count you’ll find on one of the most popular monitor sizes. In fact, 1680 x 1050 still makes its rounds. The price difference is so little I no longer feel that going for the lower resolution is justified financially.

Let’s see what’s happening on the scene this month!

1. ViewSonic VX2250WM-LED

One month it’s ViewSonic VX2450WM, other months it’s VX2250WM on the top spot. These two displays seem reluctant to let go of their top positions.

It packs the ubiquitous 1080p resolution, sports a DVI and a VGA video connector, effectively hopping over both limitations I set for any modern computer monitor.

It sells for $153.00 at the time of writing, making it one of the cheaper 22″ HD displays. It isn’t the most inexpensive model in the category, but it definitely gets the job done with flying colors.

2. ViewSonic VX2453MH-LED

I don’t think I blow anyone’s cover if I tell you the guys at ViewSonic have a good idea about what most consumers want to see on their desks.

Nothing proves that better than the fact that the two most popular displays this month are made by them.

The VX2453MH-LED is a LED-backlit 24″ 1920×1080 monitor, as the name also implies.

What you’ll find interesting about it is that it doesn’t have a DVI connector unlike virtually any other 24-Incher with a digital input option. It makes up for the lack of the input by offering 2xHDMI instead, plus the mandatory D-SUB 15.

Right now it sells for $189.99, effectively competing to be the cheapest LED/1080P/HDMI 24-Inch monitor you’ll find this month. Keep an eye on its price: anything more than what it cost at the time of writing is a sign to check the alternatives.

Due to it having a native HDMI input, it also qualifies as a budget Mac Mini monitor.

Please note that this monitor can not be wall-mounted. It has no VESA mounting points. See next model for that.

3. ViewSonic VA2448M-LED

Anyone surprised? Didn’t think so.

ViewSonic continues to dominate the top 5 list with yet another 24-Inch LED monitor. This time they put a DVI and a VGA connector on it instead of HDMI, though.

Another difference is that the VA2448M-LED can be mounted on monitor arms and wall-mounting brackets.

Going for $179.99 at the time of writing makes the 2448M a good pick. For use with gaming consoles and Mac Minis, see HDMI to DVI cables.

4. Viewsonic VX2450WM-LED

The former king of the 24″ budget category, VX2450WM-LED finishes at the fourth position. Not too shabby for a display that’s supposedly superseded by the VX2453MH-LED.

Compared to its ‘successor’ the 2450WM lacks HDMI connectivity options, but makes up for it with a DVI input and VESA mounting points.

At the time of writing the display can be had for $179.99. Unless it goes up in price later on, you can make a good deal with it.

5. ViewSonic VA2231WM-LED

Yes, another ViewSonic LED Monitor. What can I do? They know what makes a decent budget computer display.

$139.99 at the time I type this, makes it the cheapest display out of the five featured. As mentioned by some customers, the monitor is sold without a DVI cable. If you were planning on connecting it to a DVI signal source, get a DVI cable as well. Or a VX2250WM-LED for roughly $10 more.

+1 Samsung B2430H

You basically have to hunt to find a Full-HD budget monitor in the top 10 not manufactured by ViewSonic.

I wanted to give other brands a fair fighting chance, which is why I included the first display that meets the requirements I set at the beginning.

It costs $199.99 when I write this.

For the sum you get a non-LED (I had to rig the rules to give it a fighting chance. I know.) monitor that’s HDMI enabled. It might not be the most economically feasible option of all six contestants, but it’s made by Samsung. A big pro for fans of the brand.

Conclusion

The list may seem like it specifically caters to Viewsonic, but it wasn’t meant to do that. Viewsonic just blows out the competition in terms of sales figures. When covering the most popular displays, I can’t argue with numbers.

If anything, I would like to recommend you also take a look at the list of sub $200 24″ monitors I compiled last month. It does mention other brands, too!

That entirely depends on what you’re going to use them, of course.

Let’s take a look at the differences in hardware and costs involved first, then we’re going to touch on a couple applications where one or the other gets you better results.

Mac Mini or Macbook pro – Basic Models

The baseline model of both the Mac Mini and the 13″ Macbook Pro are built on virtually the same hardware.

2.4 GHz i5 processor in the Pro, 2.3 GHz i5 in the Mini. As far as computing power is concerned, both machines perform very similarly. The Pro is a hair faster, but in real world tasks the difference is negligible. So small, even the trained eye would miss it.

The little desktop computer is built with 2GB DDR3 memory, whereas the least amount of RAM you can get in with your Macbook Pro is 4GB. This, on the other hand, makes a visible difference regardless what you do. 2GB of RAM shows the white of its teeth, and you don’t have to push it to the limit for it to do so. Just go around browsing and quickly you’ll see why 4GB is the bare minimum I recommend anyone puts in any computer they use for everyday tasks like reading e-mails.

That said, it doesn’t take a great deal of technical knowledge to up it to 4GB in the Mini. Nor does it cost a lot.

Graphics performance and storage space are the same on both machines, 500GB of HDD and an Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics chip. The HDD can be upgraded both through swapping the internal hard-disk with something bigger and attaching external storage drives via USB or FireWire 800. The GPU on the other hand is a constant: there’s no economically feasible way to make the computers more powerful in this section. Shouldn’t be a problem: you are unlikely to make a very good use of a stronger chip, because neither machine is meant to be a gaming powerhouse in the first place.

Peripherals

The most glaring difference between Macbook Pros and Mac Minis is that the latter comes as is, with no keyboard, display, mouse or trackpad. The Mac Mini is just a basic computer you’ll have to connect your own peripherals to. These parts add extra cost if you don’t own them already.

On the other hand, you don’t have to add anything to the Macbook Pro to begin using it. You can, but it is in no way mandatory.

This discrepancy brings us to probably the most important factor: the costs involved.

Costs

The Macbook Pro can be had for as low as $1,199 from the Apple store (or usually a couple percents off at Amazon). Usually that’s the end of it, unless you choose to add an external mouse or a sleeve for safe transportation. You do not need any of these things, but they can be added later should you decide you want to.

The Mac Mini goes for as low as $599 from the official source, a little less from other vendors. For most users that’s not as much as they’ll have to pay to get it working. If you don’t already have a monitor that works with the Mac Mini, set aside $150 for an HDMI enabled model + an HDMI cable. You will also want USB or bluetooth compatible keyboard and mouse. All three combined you are looking at an expense of somewhere under $200, putting the effective cost of owning a Mac Mini to around $750.

It’s another $45-ish to bump the RAM in the Mini up to 8GB. Conversely, that’s the same kit you would use to make the Pro have 8GB.

Applications where the Mac Mini wins

If the only thing you care about is to have a Mac that does its job, you’re going to be perfectly fine with a Mac Mini. It’s a good $400 cheaper than the MacBook Pro — with peripheral costs included –, which gives you $400 to spend on something else.

Since the performance — bar the amount of RAM — is eerily similar to that of the Pro, you’ll be able to run all apps the Pro can run, having the same experience.

It’s that you’re tied to your desk and can’t take it with you to the coffee shop.

The main appeal of the Mac Mini is the low price and that you can have virtually any HDMI display to accompany it. Better yet, if you have all the peripherals already, having a Mini costs a little more than half of having a Macbook Pro.

When the Pro wins

For work, I would buy the Macbook Pro.

The reason is dead simple: I can take it with me, wherever I go. My line of work allows me to move around and still do everything I’m supposed to do. I could just as well do everything on a Mac Mini, but I find it more comfortable to move around — in the house at least — when I’m working. A change of scenery does wonders to creative type people. At least that’s what I’ve found.

The quality of the trackpad cannot be overstated. It’s a beauty and the beast rolled into one. If you don’t grow to love it in a couple days, you will never like a trackpad. It’s how good it is. For work, that is.

Put simply, you pay around $400 — $600 if you have peripherals for the Mini — for the mobility.

What monitors are there for the Mac Mini?

Anything between $130 and $999. The Mini is inherently inexpensive. Low-cost is its schtick. The logical extension is that you get a cheap monitor for your Mac Mini so you don’t end up spending $1,600 on a tiny computer and a huge monitor. You could do that in one step with the iMac.

I usually suggest people choose HDMI enabled monitors, because there aren’t Thunderbolt enabled cheap alternatives to the Apple Thunderbolt Display.

You can have decent LED-backlit 1080p 22″ monitors for around $150, there is really no need to spend much more than that. Unless you’re a designer. Then there is. Dell U2212HM with a mini-Displayport to Displayport cable for around $260 total gets you into IPS territory.

Conclusion

The Mac Mini is the cheaper alternative, although you’ll have to have at least some rudimentary understanding of peripherals and the connectors they use.

The Macbook Pro costs a lot more — even the most basic 13″ model –, but it comes as a complete solution. What’s more, it lets you move around and still have your computer with you.

For browsing and other simple tasks, a Mac Mini does well. Also, if you are looking to spend as little as possible, the Mini is your guy.

The Pro is way more compact.

It’s the simplest of things: all you need is an adapter.

We’ll be turning the mini-Displayport to a digital input the U2212HM works off of.

DVI-D or Displayport?

Although you have the option to go with the VGA port present, I strongly suggest you don’t. VGA have had its peak of popularity. It was before 1920×1080 became the ubiquitous standard it is today. At resolutions you’ll be using your Dell at, Digital->Analog->Digital conversion does not produce image quality up to expectations. Whose expectations? Anyone’s, who took the time to choose an IPS display.

That leaves us to choose from DVI-D or Displayport, the two digital inputs Dell’s put on the U2212HM.

Which one works better?

DVI-D in this case is the option I would choose.

Reason being is that it supports 1920×1080 @ 60Hz through the cheapest single-link DVI adapters. You don’t gain much of anything by choosing the Displayport connector. Well, except for the the fact that mini-Displayport to Displayport conversion hardly takes any electronics and therefore is simpler to manufacture. Simpler to make means harder to break in most cases, but on this particular occasion I don’t think it makes a difference if you buy a decent DVI adapter.

What is Single-Link DVI and what other DVI ports are there?

Single-Link DVI is a previous digital video-standard, capable of pushing roughly 1,920 x 1,200 pixels at 60Hz under real-world circumstances. For the latest — 27″ to 30″ — professional monitors, that resolution falls short. With 2560×1440 and 2560×1600 becoming de-facto standards of the industry, Single-Link DVI is on its way out, holding the door open for Dual-Link DVI.

Dual-Link DVI can push 2,560 x 1,600 at 60Hz, which currently is the highest resolution you will find on a computer monitor. There is always a short stick in a box of matches: Dual-Link DVI adapters cost a lot, because they are actively powered from USB. They are intricate pieces of electronics as opposed to some simple wiring and a rudimentary controller they put in single-link DVI adapters. Whenever the resolution is too high for these utterly simple DVI adapters to handle, I suggest different means for transferring the video signal: native DL-DVI might be easy to come across on PC, mini-Displayport to DL-DVI adapters cost north of $85 for a Mac.

When connecting an iMac to a Dell U2212HM, you may choose any of the digital ports. There really is no insurmountable difference between them.

The Conclusion

To make the long story short: both cheap DVI adapters and mini-DP to DP cables can comfortably push 1,920 x 1,080 @ 60Hz, the native resolution of the Dell U2212HM. In this case I would go with DVI, but only because these adapters are widely available.

Mentioned in the article:

1. Dell U2212HM
2. mini-Displayport/Thunderbolt Port to DVI adapter
3. mini-DP/TB to Displayport cable

It is an external display rather well suited for the Macbook Pro. The Dell U2412M is one of the better monitors you’ll find at around $350 because it’s IPS based rather than TN.

It isn’t an S-IPS panel monitor meaning you won’t have an 8-bit per channel color rendering. It may hamper you if your work depends on the monitor you use being as accurate as technology allows at the moment.

For photographers, web designers and people who need something better than budget TN panel, it’s great.

How do you connect it to the Macbook Pro?

Let’s assume you have a MBP that was produced in the last 2-3 years. Your computer has a mini-Displayport input or a Thunderbolt port. Both are compatible with adapters and cables that turn it into full-size Displayport. The ‘big’ displayport is a native input of the U2412M. The benefit of using it is that the conversion between mini and normal Displayport is fairly straight-forward. It means that cables are simple therefore less prone to problems.

These cables cost around or under $20 and are available through Amazon.com.

You can also use a mini-Displayport to DVI adapter, though these are susceptible to quality problems as shown by a handful of reviews you can read on the product pages.

What next?

Well, you’ll need the monitor of course (available here), a mini-Displayport to Displayport cable (here) and the Macbook Pro, which you most probably already have. (if not, here).

You won’t need anything else. Go create something awesome!