I know it sounds like a little thing but consider the question this way:
Would you rely on this machine for your job/income?
I have no issue if people want to go the “hack” route, but I don’t think it’s reliable enough to depend on for a business.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac mini (2018) Intel UHD Graphics 630 :: Pros and Cons
- Thread starter schmoofee
- Start date
-
- Tags
- graphic card mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
I know it sounds like a little thing but consider the question this way:
Would you rely on this machine for your job/income?
I have no issue if people want to go the “hack” route, but I don’t think it’s reliable enough to depend on for a business.
Meh. It's stable enough that I have not had problems with it. So, yes, even if it were business-related I'd use it.
I think we have different definitions for either 'stable' or 'business-related'. But, to each their own. Good luck with it.
I have both GPUs enabled but don't have my displays connected to the 630. Maybe I'll check it out and see how the 630 performs with all of my DAW software and Adobe suite. I'm running Cubase, PT 2018, Logic, Live, pretty much all of them.
Please do, it'd be really interesting to see how that performs like a Mac mini
I have a follow up question! I’ve been reading that this UHD 630 (maybe this applies to other integrated cards too) will draw from built in RAM. Does that suggest that upgrading the new Mac mini’s 8GB to 16GB or even 32GB (expensive for me right now) would improve the mini’s graphics performance?
As far as games go, the Myst series - cyan.com - are what most interest me. Requirements are here https://obduction.com/support/#faq-macrecommendedrequirements 1
I found this article which goes deeper https://www.techcenturion.com/intel-uhd-graphics-630
I am leaning towards starting at 16GB, testing that out and - maybe 1-2 years from now - take on a self upgrade to 32GB.
Looking forward to hearing other thoughts and experiences.
As far as games go, the Myst series - cyan.com - are what most interest me. Requirements are here https://obduction.com/support/#faq-macrecommendedrequirements 1
I found this article which goes deeper https://www.techcenturion.com/intel-uhd-graphics-630
I am leaning towards starting at 16GB, testing that out and - maybe 1-2 years from now - take on a self upgrade to 32GB.
Looking forward to hearing other thoughts and experiences.
Yes this is always the case with integrated graphics, but it is more the speed than the size of ram which will help here. Intel chips sometimes accept higher speed ram than their specification suggests, so for example if the MM ships with 2666 and you were able to get 3000 working with it, then you would see a graphics boost. This is certainly the case with the similar NUC machines that benefit from faster RAM for graphics performance, not sure if it has worked in past MMs with upgradeable RAM though.
What exactly does an eGPU do?
I just ordered my mac mini and should have it in few days.
- 3.2GHz 6-core Core i7
- 8GB 2666MHz DDR4
- 512GB SSD
- Intel UHD Graphics 630
- 1GB Ethernet Port
You really don't need a dGPU for amateur 4K video editing, especially if you're going to use FCPX.
I don't think it matters as much. With discrete graphics cards, the memory is dedicated to the video card, while with an integrated video card contention to the RAM is shared.
Thank you kevink2. What you said helps me better understand. So on these new Mac Minis, how much RAM will be shared? Used up by the UHD 630 card?
If it has RAM of 8GB? Or 16GB? or 32GB?
Well, that is what Apple had to choose from as Intel has not included Iris Pro Graphics in a Desktop (S-Series) CPU since Broadwell. Either that or move down to 45w H-Series which are more expensive than the 65w S-Series CPU. They could have moved down to the 28w U-Series, which would have made no one happy or they could have gone with Kaby Lake-G w/Radeon Pro WX Vega GL, which top out at 4-cores and a 65w TDP. No thanks.
None of those options is as satisfying as a 65w desktop CPU that lets me skip a dGPU
I might not want or need, but yet I can add one later, of pretty much any flavor I want when I want. I will take that flexibility any day of the week.
[doublepost=1541895007][/doublepost]
Max is 1.5GB of system DRAM.
I think the 16gb should be the base to start off with. I have been running many apps, doing minor video editing at the same time streaming 4k video with 2 monitors setup and running GarageBand, and the system is using 10-12GB of Ram - so 8gb is just too small, and 16GB is handling a pretty heavy load, while the GPU under activity monitor has never gotten higher than 50% usage, so no need for an eGPU just yet. But go with 16GB and upgrade a year or 2 later - this machine is doing everything I hoped it would, without having to go in and upgrade immediately.
Is it a Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB? If it is, it might be feasible to move that GPU to a third-party eGPU chassis and get it to work with one of them. I did not see formal support on Sonnet Technologies for the card, but eGPU.io might have some helpful information.
I’m going to have to return my mini, I got the i7 with 16gigs but using it on a 4K monitor in scaled mode with Photoshop is significantly slower that my MBP 2016 15”. Zoom is lagging like crazy and every pixel manipulation tool is slow as hell.
Just a warning for the people looking to use it in photoshop.
Just a warning for the people looking to use it in photoshop.
2560x1440, the classic 5K scaling but with a lower ratio ofc. I tried the second to highest too but no luck. I guess when the GPU has to downscale on each frame it just can’t cope, I actually think it’s the lack of GPU memory causing it, not the native performance of the chip itself.
If you don’t mind, does the slowness affect other apps or just photoshop?
Does the slowness go away if you set it to the 2x exact scaled resolution (which may be specified as “default” by display prefs)?
Thanks!
That's a shame. You're right, it must be the downscaling from 5K to 4K, unless performance on a native 5K monitor is the same (ie. subpar), but you have no way to compare I guess. I tried the mini on LG 5K in Apple Store and it seemed fine to me (I haven't tried Photoshop though).
I’ve only noticed it in Photoshop (and animations between spaces could be a tiny bit choppy), a 3000x2000 image, nothing special at all.
2x on 4K is 1920 and that’s way too low for everything else even if it would work.
That is concerning. Are you sure there aren't just a lot of background processes going on like indexing?
But the most important thing to check is how it behaves at different resolutions. Running it in the way you are, I think, means it is rendering and 5120x2880 and then scaling to 4K. This, I guess will be a little bit more taxing than driving a native 5K panel - depending on how efficient the scaling part is.
By contrast if you run at 1920x1080 (equivalent) which would be native 2x for your display, the initial rendering will be less demanding (3840x2190), plus no scaling will be required. If that is also poor, then it sounds, to me, as if something else is hogging Photoshop resources.
A real test would be to plug into a native 2560x1440 (or lower) display to see what affect that has.
I currently run a 2011 quad mini with HD3000 plugged in to both a 2560x1440 and 1920 x 1200 displays. The UI animations are a little choppy, but i don't believe it to actually slow down the responsiveness of apps. I am hoping, of course that the 2018 mini will be a lot better...but you have me concerned in case I upgrade to a 4K or 5K display in the future. It seems it may require an eGPU.
Another point. A colleague has a 2017 MBPro connected to a 2560x1440 display and that also lags a lot with UI animations on the external screen. And that has a dGPU...I'm not sure why.
[doublepost=1541931855][/doublepost]
The question is: does running at a lower res improve the response? If it doesn't then it suggests the problem is something else, not (just) the GPU.
It doesn’t matter, 2560 is the lowest I would go anyway, if it can’t do that while my 2016 MBP can do it I can’t justify the cost. 1920x1080 desktop equivalent on a 32 monitor is a compete waste
As for background processing the CPU was idle, so was the disk.
If you’re going to run it in native resolution everything is fine, Photoshop runs smooth in native 4K, but everything becomes extremely tiny at that resolution.
I would guess it would run better on a 5K monitor with 2x scaling since it’s an easier calculation, but I can’t test.
It doesn’t matter, 2560 is the lowest I would go anyway, if it can’t do that while my 2016 MBP can do it I can’t justify the cost. 1920x1080 desktop equivalent on a 32 monitor is a compete waste
As for background processing the CPU was idle, so was the disk.
If you’re going to run it in native resolution everything is fine, Photoshop runs smooth in native 4K, but everything becomes extremely tiny at that resolution.
I would guess it would run better on a 5K monitor with 2x scaling since it’s an easier calculation, but I can’t test.
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.