This was exactly why we asked if it's still slow at 'native' 4K 2x - not because we think you should use it, just trying to narrow down the scope of what is making it slow.
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
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.
Well...to begin with I'll have a pair of 2560x1440 plus 1920x1200 attached #same as for the 2011 mini.
I'll be amazed - and very disappointed if the UHD630 is not smoother.
My ideal main monitor for the future, though, would be a 32 inch 5K (which no one is building yet), or a 32inch 4K running "like 2560x1440", which sounds like that is what the OP is using.
I'm going to visit an Applestore and see for myself what the performance is like at various different scaled resolutions on a 5K and 4K display.
A 32” inch 5K would be awesome indeed, personally I find 4K to be somewhat broken for computing, except for gaming and media watching ofc.
Adobe is not known for making great software when it comes to retina stuff, Lightroom is a complete mess too.
Maybe it was naive to expect the 630 to be able to do basic desktop work in one of the most popular applications for creatives, still feels like a complete disaster when it comes to marketing and target groups though.
I had the 2017 iMac and while it was good the all in one form factor just wasn’t for me. Also I really enjoy the 32” and the ability to hook up a PC for gaming.
Yes, you'd expect it to be better than the 2011 Mini at driving 2011-era displays.
Meanwhile, in 2018, Apple have moved the rest of their range almost entirely to "retina class" displays which require the GPU to push 4x as many pixels, and use GPU (and VRAM) intensive scaling to offer a choice of "resolutions".
Its compounded by the 50% price hike on the base model (and reliance on the most expensive superfast SSD in town for local storage). If it was still a $500 box (which ought to be able to stretch to a basic 128GB SSD by now) then, OK, maybe it would be reasonable to expect people to hook up a cheap (or old) standard-def displays.
Its one thing to say "OK, this isn't meant for 3D modelling, VR or heavy OpenCL loads without an eGPU, but it has really good CPU scores" but if the GPU can't cope with 2D apps on a couple of 4k displays, that's a deal-breaker. I'd initially thought that the i5 hex Mac Mini might be a "sweet spot" for music - but thinking about it, some of those instrument plug ins, especially virtual modular synths, do quite a bit of rendering.
I can't believe that there are enough people using racks of Mac Mini servers (in these days of virtualisation and containerisation - when Macs mostly use industry standard networking and Apple have dropped their server OS) for it to have been worth Apple's while to build them their perfect Mac.
What about a 4k monitor set to the ‘looks like 1080’ mode so text etc is bigger. Should that be ok?
I'm a little confused. Can anyone with the new mini (base model) tell me if it can handle 4K smoothly? I know what Apple says, but I'd like to hear from actual users. I mean, I can't tell much difference between 4K and 1080p outside of videos, but it'd feel a little wrong to buy a desktop in 2018 that can't handle 4K without any issues.
If its a regular "UHD" 4k display (3840x2160) then that is lighter on the GPU because its exactly double size - and most MacOS Apps now come with "retina" assets at double size and twice the detail, so it looks good there's no downsampling and its much easier on the GPU. Roughly equivalent to Windows with the scale set to 200%.
Trouble is, on a 27" or larger screen, that makes everything rather big for most people. If you're just getting a 21"-24" display, its probably about right.
I would be hooking one to a Samsung 55" 4K TV. I need to know how that works. My NUC is fine.
I saw a NUC on Amazon that basically had the same specs as the mini. Said it could handle 4k with no issues. I wonder if the T2 chip gives it some extra power.
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.
at 55 inches you could run it at it's native (1x) 4K resolution! But it depends of course how close you will be to the screen.
If you are going to be at regular TV viewing distances, then you'll likely want (Looks like 1920 x 1080, or 2x scaling). I would hope that would be fine.
I'm still a bit perplexed about the report about Photoshop struggling when the display si set at a nonstandard resolution. That seems odd to me. I wouldn't have thought the display res would affect a particular app any more that any other app.
@tozz: was all the UI sluggish when set to "looks like 2560x 1440"? Or only Photoshop?
Makes sense. And like I said--I can't really even notice a huge difference between 4k and Standard Full HD. I'm just trying to keep up with the trends. Think I'll just save money and keep rocking this 24 inch IPS 1080p display. I'll have to toss in a second one too, so maybe it's better to go with a lower res for performance sake.
I have an i8700 Hackintosh build running Mojave with the UHD 630 GPU. I also have an RX 580 card feeding two 4k 27" monitors over DisplayPort. 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.
I would like a no-fuss Mini or the yet to be announced Mac Pro to compliment my 15" 2015 Macbook Pro, but it would cost me more $ for a less expandable computer. I have TB3 running a UA Apollo interface and 5 internal SSD drives including a 1TB Samsung SSD boot drive (bought refurb for less than $150). I never hear the fans kick in since I carefully picked the components and a silent case. The only issue I have with the Hackintosh is my Watch unlock isn't working, not the end of the world and can probably be resolved if I look into it.
If I do pick up a mini I'll likely just throw my RX580 into a cheap eGPU chassis (likely modded with silent fans) and be done with it. I'd also need an external solution for my internal drives. So I'm thinking this is going to quickly add up to a $3k+ setup for not much gain performance wise. Waiting for the Mac Pro is starting to make sense for me. That said, the thought of racking the i7 Mini in one of these is very appealing: https://www.sonnettech.com/product/rackmacmini.html
I'm glad we have so many options!
D
I suspect a truly modular user upgradeable next-generation Mac Pro will break most casual user's bank and will be out of reach for casual buyers.
At least any investment in eGPU case is rather nominal in price (Razer Core X about $300 and Akitio Node about $220) and will be useful until all peripherals migrate to TB4 standard in future (will be many years from now).
If you plan to use Windows either under Boot Camp or natively installed, dGPU is more of hindrance and benefit. Most of us who use eGPU with MacBook Pro are constantly trying to disable MacBook Pro dGPU under Windows to free up more PCIe lane/resource for eGPU and to avoid Error 12.
Also plenty people are already worried about thermal ceiling with i7 under heavy load (both Mac OS and Windows) even without dGPU.
For anyone planing to use eGPU, dGPU just add unnecessary costs, unnecessary thermal overhead, and etc. Problem with most Apple products is that they are streamlined for majority and production efficiency rather than individual customization.
I feel for you pain but you might be better off investing in eGPU than awaiting for next gen Mac Pro.
Depends on how efficiently the app is written, how it writes to the screen and how heavily it leans on the GPU for other things. I'd guess/hope that the "render at 5k then downsample to 4k" method need only actually be used where the application doesn't use resolution-independent OS calls and insists on doing everything pixel-by-pixel. Speculating here - I haven't done any native MacOS programming but I've programmed for Windows and other OSs where there's a choice between using "physical" coordinates (e.g. mm or points) and letting the OS handle the scaling, querying the OS to get find the correct size and resolution of temporary bitmaps, the actual size of text when rendered etc... or just kludging it with pixels and meeting the deadline.
Is that a NUCentosh running in "looks like 2560x1440" scaled mode, though? Windows and Linux don't do that and rely on every application being resolution-independent and querying the OS for the correct PPI (and it almost works...)
Plus, if its the Hades Canyon NUC, it has a semi-discrete AMD Vega M GPU.
...but theres a tendency to judge that in proportion to the level of GPU you need. If you're spending $2000 for a really high-end GPU for serious VR or something, a few hundred extra for the enclosure may feel like a drop in the ocean (and probably billable). If all you need is the most basic of discrete GPUs just to get decent 2D performance on modern screens, then the enclosure could cost more than the card (and maybe you're not using it for profit).
Yet all the new iPhones shoot 4K... you’d think a Mac mini could handle at least short clips without extras needed?
Well, even that's got "Iris Plus 640" graphics which probably outranks the "UHD 630" the new Mini.
...and the main concern here is how it copes with MacOS scaled mode - where the display is running at 3840 x 2160 but the image is effectively being rendered at a higher res and downsampled - which is more GPU intensive than garden variety 1:1 4k.
So I tried 1920x1080 and as expected it works a lot better, would say similar to native 4K. Performance also varies based on Photoshop window size so I guess there’s some frame buffer or such getting too big (Photoshop window being downscaled and the actual image area rendered at native 4K). Changing from advanced GPU features to basic in photoshop also makes things smoother.
All in all, if I would run it native on 4K it would work out, but barely. I tested with a 42mpix file which is what I would be using regularly, and it’s far from a great experience, at this cost I can’t justify it. So for me it’s back to Apple not having a viable desktop computer for people where the iMac just doesn’t make sense. Buying a laptop just to get a decent GPU and running it closed feels like a complete waste.
All in all, if I would run it native on 4K it would work out, but barely. I tested with a 42mpix file which is what I would be using regularly, and it’s far from a great experience, at this cost I can’t justify it. So for me it’s back to Apple not having a viable desktop computer for people where the iMac just doesn’t make sense. Buying a laptop just to get a decent GPU and running it closed feels like a complete waste.
Interestingly enough I am currently an iMac 5K 2017 user with an additional 2560x1440 display attached, which I find Lightroom performance really unbearable when both monitors are used. My plan is to purchase the new mini i7, use it just with the 2560x1440 display to minimize the GPU requirement, to see if it is an "improvement". (The iMac will be offloaded to another location for other usage) I hope I won't need an eGPU even for pushing just 2k resolution.
I have the same Mac, tried it with a 4k monitor and the UI is smooth even with scaling to look like 2560 x 1440. Photoshop does get really quite laggy as @tozz mentioned with the mini, but apps using Apple's standard UI are fine, including Safari and Photos.
Looking at gpu benchmarks between the Iris Pro and the UHD 630 in the i5/i7 mini, the 630 performs 7% better, which whilst small, is something.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compa...s-Pro-HD-5200-V2-Mobile-12-GHz/m356797vsm8190
If you're looking at the i3 mini, the UHD 630 is actually 12% worse than the Iris Pro
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compa...s-Pro-HD-5200-V2-Mobile-12-GHz/m359294vsm8190
All in all, this gave me enough confidence to take the plunge on an i5 mini later this week. Hopefully it all works out
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying this point, albeit with a different GPU, it seems relevant given the similar benchmark performance.