I have the same Mini you are looking at. It was running well under Mojave, but there are a few bugs in Catalina still. I'd expect a more polished OS within a month or so. Some of that will rely on developers (like Adobe) updating to fix app bugs.
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.
Officially giving up on the Mac Mini 2018 + 4K monitor dream
- Thread starter Tigerman82
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ye, I'm not working with graphics that much. Only programming, so emulators / simulators and from time to time adobe XD / Figma.
To be honest I'm a bit afraid of getting $1.300 hardware that may cause so much trouble to me
I would wait for the new macbook with scissor keyboard but 16" is waaay to much for me, and 13/14" probably won't be launched for next one year. Who knows..
Damm, this is tought.
To be honest I'm a bit afraid of getting $1.300 hardware that may cause so much trouble to me
I would wait for the new macbook with scissor keyboard but 16" is waaay to much for me, and 13/14" probably won't be launched for next one year. Who knows..
Damm, this is tought.
I have the 24” LG UltraFine 4K set at 2304x1296 and pretty much love it. UI / text is very readable and sharp to my eyes. But then I’m coming from a ten year old 23” ACD.
This is the sweet spot IMO, if you have graphics grunt to run it.
Intel GPU uses some of the system RAM for graphics.
I would expect the bandwidth of system RAM bandwidth to be the bottleneck for integrated graphics, not capacity. In that regard, all configurations people are using are dual-channel PC4-21333.
That is why the tiny little 128MB eDRAM which is on CPUs with Intel Iris Plus makes all the difference, because it has like 5x the bandwidth of system RAM.
That is why the tiny little 128MB eDRAM which is on CPUs with Intel Iris Plus makes all the difference, because it has like 5x the bandwidth of system RAM.
Last edited:
That doesn't reflect reality. 4K displays on 8GB RAM systems apparently perform very poorly. On 16GB+ its fine for a single display (even using a "scaled" resolution).
There were a number of reports when mini first came out (see earlier in this thread probably): It appears that macOS is temporarily paging out system RAM to the onboard SSD in order for complex GUI animations. The paging is temporary - but causes jerkiness on things like Launchpad. >16Gb RAM and the problem seems to go away.
I have a packed pixels 9.7” 2048x1536 and ultrafine 4k 21.5” 4096x2304 connected to a mini running hidpi nonscaled and it works great - no lag.
i7/32gb
usb/wifiand bluetooth interference is rare but it happens.
I know this is dragging up a dormant thread, but does anyone know if theses scaling/processing issues occur with the new 2019 Mac Minis?
I am thinking of moving to a Mac Mini and three 21"/24" screens or something similar as my new iMac is causing me serious grief.
I am thinking of moving to a Mac Mini and three 21"/24" screens or something similar as my new iMac is causing me serious grief.
I've just looked on the Mac Website -- and I probably didn't explain myself clearly enough. Mac are presenting a 'new' Mac Mini (which I assumed was the 2019) with a slightly different output size to regular screen scaling (I think):
I was going to amp up the RAM -- but I need 3 screens of 4K or over. I am, frankly, awfully confused but wondered if the new display output of 4096 x 2304 was more standard for 24" monitors....
I am currently running 3 iMacs (two slaves in Display-Port setting),
but the iMac I have is driving me nuts and I need to restart it every couple of days to get it to run properly -- so I am thinking of switching out to a less complicated set up. I had thought a new Mac Mini would be the way forwards, but after reading this thread I am more confused than I was before!
I have one of these https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27UL600-W-4k-uhd-led-monitor
that works well on integrated graphics. Also connected to eGPU. The eGPU use is more flaky for a display but fine for GPU processing when using integrated graphics for display.
that works well on integrated graphics. Also connected to eGPU. The eGPU use is more flaky for a display but fine for GPU processing when using integrated graphics for display.
That answers that question, then! So there's still no solution
There is: Use the proper 2x scaling. Again, it's unfortunate that 4k rather than 5k resolutions have become the default on 27 inch displays, but I've actually come to terms with this slightly larger 2x scaling of 4k on 27" since I sit relatively far away from my displays and my eyes benefit from it. If this seems too large for you use the few 4k / 24" options or, if you're feeling generous, expensive 5k / 27" displays.
For me everything is fine at 2x scaling. Don't use non-integer scaling and you should be good - it's a waste of hardware resources.
And to clarify: The Mac Mini 2019 is still the 2018 version with an overdue price and configuration adjustment.
Does this not reduce the benefit of the 4K's crispness, though? Scaling anything merely doubles (or quadruples) the blur by reducing the pixels on point, though? No?
I am searching for high pixel-density to help reduce the blur on letters (I read a lot of documents and mount them on many screens). The 4K I have on my iMac is significantly superior to those on my older iMac screens.
It doesn't help that I have a slight stigmatism that cannot be properly corrected in differing focal depths (such as distance and then close up for computer work). But I spend about 20 hours a day in front of my computer -- so these slight blurs matter!
No, he's talking about exactly the same method as your 4K iMac uses (although I think they use DCI 4K not UHD 4K, so it's a slightly higher 'looks like' resolution).
If you want 4K on a Mac personally I'd recommend a 24" 4K (or one of the LG 21.5" if you can find one still).
I am doing the 2x 4k scaling on my 32" monitor. But honestly, I can't see the difference between 1x and 2x at that resolution. 2x 1080p or 2x 1440p is noticeable though.
IF you want three 4k screens (even without scaling) you'll probably need an eGPU. A lowish end one such as a RX 570 would be plenty.
I continue to get good service from my twice-upgraded 2009 27" iMac, but when it finally goes south I'm planning to get a Mini and run either two 27" or two 24" monitors (I like real estate). I'm getting a sense from various discussions on this topic that two 24" 4Ks would be best, with two 27" 4Ks less good but not by a whole lot. I don't do any gaming, and very little video, so I don't really see a need for an eGPU. Does this sound about right?
By the time you actually come to buy, the Mini should be on a newer generation Intel processor (which have significantly stronger integrated graphics) so the relative merits will be different to now.
It depends a bit on you. Your eyesight, your work environment, the type of thing you work on.
As mentioned, I use 2x 24" 4K's with a 2080 mini (no eGPU yet), mostly looking at text all day. If the mini would run them smoothly, I'd run them both at a slightly
Don't get me wrong - it's very usable: I've had this setup since about December 2018 and haven't caved on an eGPU yet, but it's not "perfect" IMO.
Given this experience, I wouldn't even contemplate a 27" 4K display without a dGPU/eGPU to run it/them, using a non-evenly scaled size.
I wasn't aware there is any newer replacement yet for the 8{7,5,1}00B ?