Mac mini (2018) Intel UHD Graphics 630 :: Pros and Cons

[schmoofee]

Today's - Oct 2018 - Mac minis regardless of other tech specifications are all equipped with the Intel UHD Graphics 630.

What do folks think about the Intel UHD Graphics 630 Graphics card choice...

• For basic home use?
• For byte and pixel crunching Pro users?

 

[Cave Man]

What do folks think about the Intel UHD Graphics 630 Graphics card choice...

• For basic home use?
• For byte and pixel crunching Pro users?

As usual, the answer is "it depends."

• If you want to use photo editing software (e.g., Photoshop) it's really irrelevant since PS doesn't use the gpu for much of anything. Pixelmator Pro, on the other hand, does use the gpu and it performs very nicely with the UHD630.
• If you want to decode 4k video movies (e.g. 4k Blu-ray rips) it does fantastic, provided you use software that leverages the h.265 (HEVC) hardware decoding of the UHD630 (e.g., IINA or VLC 3). The problem, though, is that OS X does not support HDR nor passthrough of Dolby Atmos or DTS-X audio. (Lame, Apple. Lame.)
• If you want to edit 1080p or 4k video, no problem. Just keep in mind that decompression and compression of video takes time. The UHD630 has hardware encoding of h.264 and h.265 so if the software you use for editing supports offloading of encoding then you should be ok. Just don't plan on making any feature-length films.

How do I know all this? I've been using a Coffee Lake 6-core i7 hackintosh for several months now. Almost certain the new Mac mini will behave nearly the same.

 

[MisterAndrew]

2018 Mac mini vs 2014 Mac mini (Iris) graphics. About 59% faster.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compa...Iris-Pro-HD-5100-Mobile-11-GHz/m356797vsm8813

2018 Mac mini vs 2014 Mac mini (HD 5000) graphics. About 87% faster.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compa...-Intel-HD-5000-Mobile-1011-GHz/m356797vsm8536

2018 Mac mini vs 2012 Mac mini (HD 4000) graphics. About 149% faster.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compa...s-Intel-HD-4000-Mobile-125-GHz/m356797vsm7653

2018 Mac mini vs 2011 Mac mini (Radeon HD 6630M discrete) graphics. About 80% faster.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compa...e-i5-i7-vs-AMD-Radeon-HD-6630M/m356797vsm9654

2018 Mac mini vs 2011 Mac mini (HD 3000) graphics. About 295% faster.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compa...Intel-HD-3000-Mobile-V2-13-GHz/m356797vsm7647

2018 Mac mini vs 2010 Mac mini (Nvidia GeForce 320M) graphics. About 353% faster.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compa...e-i5-i7-vs-Nvidia-GeForce-320M/m356797vsm9153

We can see the 2018 Mac mini has the fastest graphics ever, but a very small performance difference over the last 4 years compared to the previous 4 years. So I agree it could have been better. Perhaps one of those Intel/AMD combo chips should have been offered as an option.

 

[Merode]

I'm looking at the 6 core model with 512 GB RAM. It all seems a very decent spec but I know nothing about the Intel UHD 630 graphics card and I'm wondering if it's too underpowered for my needs. I'm not editing big files but simple 4k videos of 5 - 15 minutes.. I know it can output to a 4k monitor but does anyone know if will be able to edit 4k video in Final Cut or Adobe Premiere Pro?

Also, if Apple are making a computer with a reasonable processor than why put a crap graphics card in it?

I think they still want to differentiate their line-up and Mac Mini had to suffer. If Mini was on par with rMBP it wouldn't be Apple style. They don't only put tiers for each product but each of their products is tier of its own.

UHD 630 is very weak GPU. In old line-up it would MBA tier. It's funny because this time MBA gets even worse GPU. It only sounded semi-decent in Keynote because they compared it to Mac Mini base model from 2014 which came with HD 5000. If they compared it to rMBP, it is 25% slower than current 13.3".

I really wanted to get this Mini but it would honestly be downgrade for me. My Intel NUC Skull Canyon is smaller, has 60% faster GPU, 4 core 8 threads Core i7, 16GB DDR4 RAM at 800$ (that's with Windows 10 and post 23% tax). And the best part, it was released two years ago. I can get Intel NUC Hades Canyon which has same volume as Mac Mini but packs VR ready AMD Vega M GH which is 478% faster than new Mini for only 1250$ (also with W10 and post 23% tax).

Why am I so obsessed with GPUs? I like from time to time to play SC2 which is 8 years old game that will struggle to run at FHD and medium preset on Mini from 2018. It might be silly, but I'd have to get 1100$ mini wiht 700$ eGPU (and 50$ active TB3 cable that isn't 50cm long) and then add 23% tax to it not to downgrade my current setup.

macOS isn't worth this much for me.

EDIT: If anybody looks up coputers I mentioned, both come with interchangeable covers without edgy skulls (aka. just blank black plastic).

 

[StellarVixen]

I'd like to know whether it supports 10-bit color, i.e. 1 billion of colors rather than (16.7) millions of colors.
[doublepost=1540983424][/doublepost]

Yes, they c/should have used the 28W i5-8259u with Iris Plus 655 in the base model.

They decided to go with the desktop CPUs, and desktop CPUs do not offer anything more than UHD 630. This is Intel's fault, because Intel thinks that everyone who is using their desktop CPUs will probably use dedicated GPU, so it's not a big deal.

If Apple went to use the mobile CPUs, then you would complain why don't they use desktop CPUs.

Still, this is not an excuse for not implementing dedicated mobile gpu, like on MacBook Pro.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

I'm looking at the 6 core model with 512 GB RAM...

512 GB RAM? Welcome in 2030!

 

[MisterAndrew]

I think lack of a discrete GPU in the Mac mini helps Apple achieve a price point and also has to do with the space and thermal limitations of the small case. The upcoming MacBook Pro with Vega graphics is going to have a much higher base price than the Mac mini and Apple considered what the most common uses for the Mac mini are when designing it. For music and server usage a discrete GPU makes no sense. With the addition of TB3, it also makes no sense to put a powerful GPU in the Mac mini since an eGPU can be easily added.

 

[Spankey]

Well, the no dGPU & no eGPU available that matches the chassis design & footprint of the new SG mini kills it for me...

The SG mini is a sleek little desktop package, and having a hulking eGPU & external storage next to it just ruins the whole aesthetic...

Going to an iMac or iMac Pro would give a decent dGPU solution; but when the monitor goes wonky, or the GPU is sadly out of date, I am stuck with an all-in-one that is no bueno...

At this point, I can only hope the (forthcoming) base modular Mac Pro can meet my needs (in regards to end-user upgradability & 3D power...

You can get VERY good egpu's that are hardly behemoths. I am never going back to iMac's based on gpu's alone. The higher end iMac pro is running a Vega 64. A card that is already close to being outdated and is still handily beaten by a 1080 ti. Sure it's "good enough" for most but for how much longer? With an egpu, I can update the card.

I'm glad Apple is finally giving customers the flexibility to use these machines the way we see fit. The solution may not be as elegant as an iMac but its much more practical.

 

[Minxy]

Not even a dGPU. I was hoping for at least Iris Plus graphics like in rMBP (which is still 10-20% slower than Intel GPU from my 500$ Intel NUC from 2016), but 630 UHD is a joke. It's over 60% slower than my Skull Canyon which I consider bare minimum.

I'm looking at the 6 core model with 512 GB RAM. It all seems a very decent spec but I know nothing about the Intel UHD 630 graphics card and I'm wondering if it's too underpowered for my needs. I'm not editing big files but simple 4k videos of 5 - 15 minutes.. I know it can output to a 4k monitor but does anyone know if will be able to edit 4k video in Final Cut or Adobe Premiere Pro?

Also, if Apple are making a computer with a reasonable processor than why put a crap graphics card in it?

 

[StellarVixen]

UHD 630 is bad when compared with the dedicated graphics card. But for a integrated GPU, it is actually very good:

This is gaming wise, however, I do not have experience with video editing, I do not do that.

 

[Minxy]

I highly doubt it will be able to handle big 4k video edits...will need to pair with an eGPU

I know that will be okay for some people, but for most the whole point of a Mac mini is a relatively cheap and compact all in one unit. To then spend another £600 for an extra box seems counterintuitive to its reason for being

I might get one, see how it performs and if it doesn't fulfil the promise send it back. Apple are promoting it as having 4K output then there is the implied meaning that it can handle 4k.

 

[trifid]

I just got my 3.2 i7 Mac Mini and I'm doing some Illustrator/Photoshop work on two 4k displays and I'm really impressed with how well it's performing. This setup is FAR better than the Mac Pro 2013 I tried a while ago. The Mac Pro 2013 with its dedicated GPU felt so much more sluggish in general use. Just to show you it's hard to tell the story from benchmarks alone.

 

[smetvid]

The thing is I don’t have a monitor or eGPU+enclosure so buying all of this would make the mini almost or the same price as the high-end 27” 2019 iMac. I’m eyeing a $300 monitor which I think it’s a decent price but with the eGPU it might be best to just buy the iMac. I know it’s a pain to disassemble but the GPU is way better, for now.

3 years ago I made the mistake of buying a 21.5 iMac with 8GB of RAM and 1TB, because I didn’t know better, now that I sort of understand what the processor, RAM and everything else is for i don’t want to make the same mistake.

Sorry for the long post, I was also thinking that I could buy the eGPU later on when I feel the mini is not doing enough. Aaah, not sure what to do, but thank you so much for your reply! I only find reviews with the eGPU so it’s been a hard decision.

The Mini was never about paying less for a Mac. It is about choosing what your system has and what can change in the future. The iMac is an amazing computer but that nice $1,200 display is forever stuck on that computer. If the computer dies then so does that great display.

Some of us like to choose our own GPU, display, ram, storage, keyboard and mouse. It allows us to change any of that stuff at any point in the future. It creates a truly modular setup.

With that said I have a 2018 Mac mini 6 core i7, 32GB ram, Vega 56 eGPU and a new LG 10bit factory color calibrated 27" 4k 100% sRGB monitor all for $2180. That GPU out performs any iMac GPU and that CPU out performs all the i5 based iMacs. You have to move up to the 21" i7 or the 27" i9 to beat the CPU on the Mini. No way the 27" with i9 and Vega 48 GPU costs less than the $2160 I paid. The 21" iMac cannot add RAM so you are forced to buy it from Apple which puts the 21" iMac of much lower specs way more expensive than my Mac mini setup. In fact that top 27" iMac is $1,000 more than my Mac mini and that's without adding the extra $200 later for the 32GB of ram. That extra $1,000 pays for a second 27" display plus a few external SSD drives for storage and moving up to 64GB of RAM.

You have to be very careful with that base model of the 27" iMac. The i5 CPU has no hyper threading so it is much slower than the i7 or i9. While the Mini may not turbo boost as well due to cooling it is still a i7. The base also comes with a RX570 GPU which is only a notch up from the RX560 found in some MBP models. A decent GPU but definitely far from a Vega 56 or better. The 1TB Fusion drive also only uses 32GB of SSD space vs the 128GB of SSD space with the larger options so you need to at least move up to the 2TB Fusion. The 256GB SSD is only $100 more which does put the system $280 less than my Mac mini setup but once you add the $200 for 32GB of ram that iMac is only $80 less and a slower machine overall.

 

[Kurri]

For iMovie video editing at 1080P would this be enough? Might consider going all the way to 4k on final cut in the future

best video I have seen as far as video editing goes. I think you should be fine with 1080p, but 4K will need an eGPU or work in proxies.

 

[Boil]

i really, Really, REALLY think Apple could move a TON more SG minis if they would only have a matching eGPU chassis that could stack under the mini & would have either RX5xx-series or Vega 56 GPUs, in the MXM format...

Same for storage expansion, give us a chassis housing four m.2 NVMe slots & a RAID controller...

Either Apple or third-party (come on OWC, expand that miniStack line-up) could do this, but Apple could probably get a much better deal on the MXM GPU cards...

 

[Sustainerplayer]

Huh? I thought T2 is a "security chip" that handles encryption/decryptions? I doubt it will do any video encoding for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple-designed_processors#Apple_T2

There is hvec-encoding on the T2 chip.

 

[Appleaker]

This is irrelevant due to eGPUs, which is Apples vision for high end graphics on the Mac mini.
Some people seem to be ignoring or dismissing eGPUs, however they enable desktop cards and upgradeability, so it actually becomes good value (obviously excluding the Blackmagic and other non-upgradeable eGPUs).

In reality, many of the users that need a good GPU would be doing this anyway as the graphics options they would be able to offer are sub-par and GPU technology advances quickly.

So this wasn't unexpected and isn't unjustified, however offering a variation with a dGPU would be good for customers that want everything contained within the Mac mini casing.

 

[LancesUK]

I think lack of a discrete GPU in the Mac mini helps Apple achieve a price point and also has to do with the space and thermal limitations of the small case. The upcoming MacBook Pro with Vega graphics is going to have a much higher base price than the Mac mini and Apple considered what the most common uses for the Mac mini are when designing it. For music and server usage a discrete GPU makes no sense. With the addition of TB3, it also makes no sense to put a powerful GPU in the Mac mini since an eGPU can be easily added.

Exactly. For MUSIC (hey, we audio folks do exist), the dedicated graphics are an extra expense we can live without gladly. And, as stated several times before, an eGPU is always a possibility later on for those who can’t live without one.

I’m glad Apple chose desktop chips. Will make a difference for plugins and track count in large projects or higher sample rates.

 

[rmdeluca]

I vaguely remember an Apple document stating that integrated GPUs use up to 1.5G in macOS, without specifying individual models.

I'm honestly not sure if more memory dedicated to it would "help" anyway, would it?

Not really. Most of the speed advantage we get from having larger VRAM pools is the ability to cache large assets (such as textures) so that they are not constantly swapped in and out of RAM while rendering frames. The UHD's texture rate is on the order of 10x slower than that of, say a GTX 1080, its instruction throughput is about 20x slower and pixel fill rate is ~30x slower. It just has no way to utilize extra RAM (of any type) dedicated to large assets beyond a certain level dictated by its physical limitations.

Put another way, ironically, the UHD630 is too slow to benefit from more RAM

 

[theluggage]

Ah. So at native 4K it is OK? Hmmm... that really suggests that either 5K is too much for the iGPU...or the scaling from 5K onto a 4K screen is too much for it. Or does it actually need to render higher than 5K to do this...I don't recall exactly how it works.

Effectively, "looks like 2560x1440" mode on a 4k display renders to 5k (5120x2880) internally and then does a non-integer (but high quality) downsampling of that to 4k. If you take a screen shot in that mode you'll get a 5k image. I don't know that its literally rendering to an internal, full-screen 5k buffer and then downsampling the whole thing - I'd assume its doing something rather more efficient. Still, the likely problems are the GPU power needed for downsampling and an increased demand on video RAM for the buffering.

Thing is, there's really no reason to expect the Intel 630 graphics to do this smoothly: we're talking about the lowest common denominator iGPU designed so that basic Windows business desktops can skip the cost of a dGPU, whereas more powerful machines will be fitted with PCIe GPUs. Typically, those machines won't be coming with 4k displays and - even if they do - Windows uses a dynamically resizable UI that makes icons and system fonts a usable size in regular, 1:1 4k mode (as does Linux). That has its problems - the Mac "scaled modes" approach may be better, but - like most of MacOS - assumes a half-decent GPU.

So, I guess the message is, if you're getting a Mac Mini, either get:

• A 2560x1440 display (a bit 2010, but really not bad)
• A 21" 4k display that looks OK in basic "Looks like 1920x1080" pixel-doubled mode
• A 40"+ 4k display that is usable in "raw" 4k mode (your eyesight may vary).
• An eGPU that costs $700 for a $200-$300 GPU (when all you need is a $100 GPU) - might not be such a bad idea if you need a $1000 GPU, although it still defeats the object of having a tiny, self-contained computer.

I guess it's Apple's way of saying that you should get an iMac....

 

[theluggage]

I'm a little confused. Can anyone with the new mini (base model) tell me if it can handle 4K smoothly?

Yeah, you're a little confused because its a little confusing, don't worry!

Basically (subject to new Mini owners reporting back) its about the available sizes for system text, icons, menus etc. with respect to the physical size of display you choose. The Mac gives you three choices - standard size, double size (4x the pixels) and "scaled mode" which offers a range of sizes between - and its the scaled mode that really hammers the GPU.

On a 27-30" 4k display one of the "scaled modes" usually provides the "Goldilocks" option for most people - so if the GPU can't handle it you might want to settle for either a standard def display (we all managed 5 years ago, somehow), a smaller 4k display (which will look fine with the double-size setting) or a really huge 4k display that makes the "standard size" text/icons big enough to use.

 

[Neodym]

Agree. But ‘requiring adding another ‘box’ to the desktop to get the minimum GPU performance required by all pro and most non-pro users’ is ‘very unApple’ when Apple is all about clean-ness, minimum space, etc...

... only that it isn’t! Most non pro users are perfectly fine with the UHD630 for daily work. Even some pro users are fine with it (see posting above mine). And if you need more grunt, simply get the GPU you like and put it into an external housing. If any, THIS is very in-Apple, because you have choice and are not dependent on what Apple deemed suitable for you.

All the fans of “dedicated GPU inside Mac mini” or “make the housing bigger” seem to forget that it would have raised the cost significantly. Be it an additional GPU or the necessary retooling if the mini had grown. People already complain about mini prices as they are - imagine the outcry if the entry price(!) would have been north of $1000

And then there is the thermal aspect: Apple has had several bad experiences with dGPU’s and now have a desktop-class CPU to cool. Not to forget the SSD: This performance class most probably also generates quite some heat by itself.

And eventually there will be the modular MacPro: If they want to distinguish the mini from that and save their healthy margins on the official Pro desktop, they can’t let the mini grow too far into MP territory. As it is, it already has reached a performance class you needed to have a cheese grater MP for, only some years ago.

If (and to me that is a big “if”) there would be sufficient demand for a proper dGPU in a bigger (taller) housing, I’m sure it won’t take long before some 3rd party vendor offers some stacking solution, matching the mini housing. Perhaps some DIY folks will hack an old Mac mini to put an external GPU is there (though I have no idea, if and how a decent GPU of today could be cooled in such an anorexic housing with relatively little airflow).
[doublepost=1542305127][/doublepost]

I'd like to see a lower priced, lower spec eGPU than the black magic. Something with same form factor as the mini, for around £300 would be ideal.

Probably can’t have both. Either diy with e.g. an Akitio Node and a GPU of your choice or matching form factor with pre-installed GPU, but probably more than your limit.

 

[Stephen.R]

Scaled, 2304x1296 to be precise.
[doublepost=1542383695][/doublepost]

8GB, but I'm planning to upgrade to 32gb soon. I don't think full native 4k or scaled mode makes much difference though, it's still driving 4k pixels in either case right?

Using a "looks like" hi-DPI resolution besides straight 2x means the OS uses a framebuffer twice (in both axis) the size of the requested resolution (so 4608x2592 for you) to draw the OS, then scales it down to the display's native size. And for you, it does that twice.

The other user reported that increasing system RAM resolved the choppiness with 2x4k (also scaled). This makes sense, as the VRAM allocation is dynamic, and will depend on the amount installed (and potentially the amount needed by apps/OS)

 

[macdos]

I'm not convinced System Report shows how much is allocated - it says "VRAM (Dynamic, Max): 1536 MB" on my MacBook Pro - makes me think it will always show max theoretical amount of memory consumed and not what is currently consumed.

Yes. From Apple's support page: Mac computers using Intel UHD Graphics as the primary GPU dynamically allocate up to 1.5GB of system memory.

MacOS doesn't reserve 1.5 GB, but uses as much as needed. Which means that if you are low on RAM, you are also low on VRAM, and you will experience lag when the system swaps.

 

[MisterAndrew]

It's not that great, but fine for basic things. Pair it with an eGPU for demanding uses.

You can compare its relative performance against other GPUs here:
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/356797/IntelR-UHD-Graphics-630