Officially giving up on the Mac Mini 2018 + 4K monitor dream

[ixxx69]

Of course, as mentioned before 4k at 27” is a bad combination since at 2x scaling elements are rendered a bit too large. 27” needs 5k.

You seem to be posting this sort of thing a lot... speak for yourself.

I love 4K 27" @ scaled 1080. Lots of people do. Lots of people even prefer it. It's great for general productivity apps.

And scaled 1440 works well too... not as sharp as a 5K 27" of course, but still better than a standard 27" @ 1440 IMO. But 1440 on a 27" display is too small for my eyes, so I stick with scaled 1080.

 

[thirdsun]

You seem to be posting this sort of thing a lot... speak for yourself.

I love 4K 27" @ scaled 1080. Lots of people do. Lots of people even prefer it. It's great for general productivity apps.

And scaled 1440 works well too... not as sharp as a 5K 27" of course, but still better than a standard 27" @ 1440 IMO. But 1440 on a 27" display is too small for my eyes, so I stick with scaled 1080.

It’s great that this works for you. If you need a slightly larger UI it’s indeed preferable.

Yes, I keep repeating myself. I mention the issue a lot since quite a lot of people aren’t aware of the drawbacks of a 4K @ 27” setup. And yes, admittedly I’m rather disappointed with and surprised by the lack of proper 5k @ 27” monitors - it’s the only thing preventing me from buying a Mac Mini, which I’ve been lookin forward to.

 

[bigdrunk92037]

I just picked up my 2018 two days ago along with a 4K 32" 32UK50T Costco special. Weird thing, it appears the Mac thinks its a 27"

Is this something that I can fix? Also weirdly enough when streaming 4K youtube or Amazon Prime videos I can only get 1080P? Is that ok?

 

[StellarVixen]

Mac OS definitely needs better scaling functionality. Windoze gives you much more choice. Mac OS seems only to allow this functionality on in-built screens, such as on Retina MBP and Retina iMac.

 

[Stephen.R]

Mac OS definitely needs better scaling functionality. Windoze gives you much more choice. Mac OS seems only to allow this functionality on in-built screens, such as on Retina MBP and Retina iMac.

I see the same options on my mbp’s builtin display as the 24” 4K plugged in via DisplayPort.

I think the scaling options only show up for high dpi displays though?

 

[thirdsun]

Mac OS definitely needs better scaling functionality. Windoze gives you much more choice. Mac OS seems only to allow this functionality on in-built screens, such as on Retina MBP and Retina iMac.

I see the same options on my mbp’s builtin display as the 24” 4K plugged in via DisplayPort.

I think the scaling options only show up for high dpi displays though?

That's right - scaling is of course available for external and third-party displays but there's hardly a point in offering it for low DPI monitors.

 

[Fishrrman]

bigd asks in #78 above:
"I just picked up my 2018 two days ago along with a 4K 32" 32UK50T Costco special. Weird thing, it appears the Mac thinks its a 27"
Is this something that I can fix? Also weirdly enough when streaming 4K youtube or Amazon Prime videos I can only get 1080P? Is that ok?"

There's probably nothing you can or even need to "fix".
It shows the right pixel count and the right amount of RAM used "for graphics".
Perhaps the OS (or the integrated GPU) is coded to "interpret" that 3840x2160 is supposed to be 27", and not 32". And then reports it as such.
I wouldn't worry about this at all. Just use it.

Having said that...

The reason you can't get 4k from YouTube is that you're probably using Safari to do this, right?

If so, try viewing the same videos using Firefox, Opera, or iCab. The results may be very different!
(I -do not- recommend Chrome).

 

[bigdrunk92037]

Thanks a ton. I will give Firefox a go.

bigd asks in #78 above:
"I just picked up my 2018 two days ago along with a 4K 32" 32UK50T Costco special. Weird thing, it appears the Mac thinks its a 27"
Is this something that I can fix? Also weirdly enough when streaming 4K youtube or Amazon Prime videos I can only get 1080P? Is that ok?"

There's probably nothing you can or even need to "fix".
It shows the right pixel count and the right amount of RAM used "for graphics".
Perhaps the OS (or the integrated GPU) is coded to "interpret" that 3840x2160 is supposed to be 27", and not 32". And then reports it as such.
I wouldn't worry about this at all. Just use it.

Having said that...

The reason you can't get 4k from YouTube is that you're probably using Safari to do this, right?

If so, try viewing the same videos using Firefox, Opera, or iCab. The results may be very different!
(I -do not- recommend Chrome).

 

[kidwei]

Been lurking on this thread.

Started off with an i7/8GB/1TB mac mini hooked up via USB-C to an LG 27UK850-W 4k monitor. At 2x scaling, the system ran smoothly, but 1080p effective resolution didn't feel good at all. At native 4k, everything felt smoother, but it was too small to use practically . I then scaled to 3008x1692 effective resolution, which looks great, but everything started to chug and felt choppy. And YouTube 4k fullscreen playback would hitch every 5 seconds.

Activity monitor showed physical RAM usage at over 7GB, and it felt like the GPU had no RAM to work with.

Ordered a 32gb RAM kit from Amazon and did the install today. It was a pretty easy process, with the right tools (highly recommend the iFixit essentials toolkit).

Funnily enough, I first installed the RAM improperly, and didn't push in one of the SODIMMs fully. So the system booted up detecting just 16GB of RAM. I still wanted to see how it performed, and to my dismay, still sluggish and hitches with YouTube 4k videos on full screen.

I opened up the mini again and re-seated the memory and got all 32GB set up properly. Now, with ample memory headroom, everything is running smooth like I'd expect. The UI is responsive and YouTube 4k videos play without issue. Just noticed that physical memory usage is >15GB, thanks to Chrome's memory hogging.

So yikes, it really seems the integrated GPU needs ample RAM headroom to push a scaled 4k resolution. It's really disappointing that even at 16GB RAM, the GPU is choking.

TL;DR you need 32GB of RAM to drive a 4k monitor with the mac mini

 

[philipma1957]

it is complex as to what each of us needs. I have 2 implants in my eyes due to 2x cataract surgery. I eye is set to be about 20-15 the other set to be about 20-80 the brain evens out the image final results are pretty good for me . Now this make monitors really difficult for me. Frankly no apple os is that good for me with monitors both linux and windows work better.

I just spent 3 weeks prepping to get the new mini. I got a 4k acer 28 inch screen.
I got a dell optiplex micro with 32bg ram an i7 8700t and a 256gb m2 toshiba ssd. I added an intel 512gb ssd to it. I moved my base 2014 mac mini to my pc room I moved my 2012 mac mini to my ht.

I now have the optiplex hooked up to the acer it does 4k and 60hz with a display to display cable.

the 2014 base mini has 5000 intel and it does 4k with a mini displayport to cdmi -dvi cable.
I got the acer even though it is a tn not an its beside it has a side by side pip. So the mini image can sit right aside the dell image and I can compare them. the dell with the better cpu and integrated graphics is the righter image . but the 2014 base mini actually is good for blogging and surfing. So I slapped a 2tb micron ssd in an external case and I am running that dirt cheap base mini for easy tasks and the windows 10 dell for hard tasks.

spent.
603 dell optiplex
175 acer 28 inch 4k
83 intel 512gb ssd
229 micron 2 tb ssd

around 1100 and don't need the new mini yet.

 

[tthkbw]

Been lurking on this thread.

Started off with an i7/8GB/1TB mac mini hooked up via USB-C to an LG 27UK850-W 4k monitor. At 2x scaling, the system ran smoothly, but 1080p effective resolution didn't feel good at all. At native 4k, everything felt smoother, but it was too small to use practically . I then scaled to 3008x1692 effective resolution, which looks great, but everything started to chug and felt choppy. And YouTube 4k fullscreen playback would hitch every 5 seconds.

Activity monitor showed physical RAM usage at over 7GB, and it felt like the GPU had no RAM to work with.

Ordered a 32gb RAM kit from Amazon and did the install today. It was a pretty easy process, with the right tools (highly recommend the iFixit essentials toolkit).

Funnily enough, I first installed the RAM improperly, and didn't push in one of the SODIMMs fully. So the system booted up detecting just 16GB of RAM. I still wanted to see how it performed, and to my dismay, still sluggish and hitches with YouTube 4k videos on full screen.

I opened up the mini again and re-seated the memory and got all 32GB set up properly. Now, with ample memory headroom, everything is running smooth like I'd expect. The UI is responsive and YouTube 4k videos play without issue. Just noticed that physical memory usage is >15GB, thanks to Chrome's memory hogging.

So yikes, it really seems the integrated GPU needs ample RAM headroom to push a scaled 4k resolution. It's really disappointing that even at 16GB RAM, the GPU is choking.

TL;DR you need 32GB of RAM to drive a 4k monitor with the mac mini

My experience is quite different. I have an i7/16GB/512GB machine with a 4KUHD Dell P2415Q monitor and it runs without lag using 3008x1692 effective resolution, as well as with all the scaled or non-scaled resolutions listed in the standard Displays preference sheet. I have a lot of apps open and my memory usage is normally around 12GB. I do not use Chrome. Even when hammering the machine with ffmpeg encoding jobs that make it turn the fan on, I have not seen UI lag.

Maybe it is Chrome and its memory usage, but remember, with one 16GB DIMM, you have compromised memory performance, although I am not sure by how much.

 

[thirdsun]

Been lurking on this thread.

Started off with an i7/8GB/1TB mac mini hooked up via USB-C to an LG 27UK850-W 4k monitor. At 2x scaling, the system ran smoothly, but 1080p effective resolution didn't feel good at all. At native 4k, everything felt smoother, but it was too small to use practically . I then scaled to 3008x1692 effective resolution, which looks great, but everything started to chug and felt choppy. And YouTube 4k fullscreen playback would hitch every 5 seconds.

Activity monitor showed physical RAM usage at over 7GB, and it felt like the GPU had no RAM to work with.

Ordered a 32gb RAM kit from Amazon and did the install today. It was a pretty easy process, with the right tools (highly recommend the iFixit essentials toolkit).

Funnily enough, I first installed the RAM improperly, and didn't push in one of the SODIMMs fully. So the system booted up detecting just 16GB of RAM. I still wanted to see how it performed, and to my dismay, still sluggish and hitches with YouTube 4k videos on full screen.

I opened up the mini again and re-seated the memory and got all 32GB set up properly. Now, with ample memory headroom, everything is running smooth like I'd expect. The UI is responsive and YouTube 4k videos play without issue. Just noticed that physical memory usage is >15GB, thanks to Chrome's memory hogging.

So yikes, it really seems the integrated GPU needs ample RAM headroom to push a scaled 4k resolution. It's really disappointing that even at 16GB RAM, the GPU is choking.

TL;DR you need 32GB of RAM to drive a 4k monitor with the mac mini

Thanks for your testing. I'm not doubting your observations and I could imagine that 8 GB RAM could be a bottleneck, but I have a hard time believing that 32 GB are a requirement for a smooth, scaled experience. Furthermore as far as I know the GPU can only claim a maximum of 1.5 GB RAM regardless of your total RAM.
Another thing to remember is that applications should make use of available memory so I'm not shocked to see >15 GB usage.

Again, I'm not questioning your observations but I'm hesitant to come to the conclusion that 32 GB are actually needed to have a smooth experience. It seems so unlikely - even for Intel's mediocre GPUs.

 

[Juggar]

Been lurking on this thread.

Started off with an i7/8GB/1TB mac mini hooked up via USB-C to an LG 27UK850-W 4k monitor. At 2x scaling, the system ran smoothly, but 1080p effective resolution didn't feel good at all. At native 4k, everything felt smoother, but it was too small to use practically . I then scaled to 3008x1692 effective resolution, which looks great, but everything started to chug and felt choppy. And YouTube 4k fullscreen playback would hitch every 5 seconds.

Activity monitor showed physical RAM usage at over 7GB, and it felt like the GPU had no RAM to work with.

Ordered a 32gb RAM kit from Amazon and did the install today. It was a pretty easy process, with the right tools (highly recommend the iFixit essentials toolkit).

Funnily enough, I first installed the RAM improperly, and didn't push in one of the SODIMMs fully. So the system booted up detecting just 16GB of RAM. I still wanted to see how it performed, and to my dismay, still sluggish and hitches with YouTube 4k videos on full screen.

I opened up the mini again and re-seated the memory and got all 32GB set up properly. Now, with ample memory headroom, everything is running smooth like I'd expect. The UI is responsive and YouTube 4k videos play without issue. Just noticed that physical memory usage is >15GB, thanks to Chrome's memory hogging.

So yikes, it really seems the integrated GPU needs ample RAM headroom to push a scaled 4k resolution. It's really disappointing that even at 16GB RAM, the GPU is choking.

TL;DR you need 32GB of RAM to drive a 4k monitor with the mac mini

You DO NOT need 32GB ram to run 4K, good lord guys. Thats insane.

What likely happened was that you did need more than 8GB RAM, BUT you had 16GB installed in single channel mode (less memory bandwidth, effectively half) so you still had issues. You installed the other 16GB and had 32GB in dual channel mode (double the bandwidth of single channel).

I see why Apple installs 4GB x 2 for the base models, for dual channel mode, not them cheaping out.

UHD 630 graphics in dual channel is roughly 50% faster than single channel in almost all scenarios. Single channel = 64 Bit memory bus, dual = 128 bit.

I am not sure if custom scaling requires more bandwidth, but if it does, well, you'd want dual channel ram. I plan to run native 4K, as I do at work with my 28 inch monitor. My young 26 year old eyes are still good for it so might as well while I can.

 

[Spectrum]

You DO NOT need 32GB ram to run 4K, good lord guys. Thats insane.

What likely happened was that you did need more than 8GB RAM, BUT you had 16GB installed in single channel mode (less memory bandwidth, effectively half) so you still had issues. You installed the other 16GB and had 32GB in dual channel mode (double the bandwidth of single channel).

I see why Apple installs 4GB x 2 for the base models, for dual channel mode, not them cheaping out.

UHD 630 graphics in dual channel is roughly 50% faster than single channel in almost all scenarios. Single channel = 64 Bit memory bus, dual = 128 bit.

I am not sure if custom scaling requires more bandwidth, but if it does, well, you'd want dual channel ram. I plan to run native 4K, as I do at work with my 28 inch monitor. My young 26 year old eyes are still good for it so might as well while I can.

Great example vid. Cheers.

 

[kidwei]

You DO NOT need 32GB ram to run 4K, good lord guys. Thats insane.

What likely happened was that you did need more than 8GB RAM, BUT you had 16GB installed in single channel mode (less memory bandwidth, effectively half) so you still had issues. You installed the other 16GB and had 32GB in dual channel mode (double the bandwidth of single channel).

I see why Apple installs 4GB x 2 for the base models, for dual channel mode, not them cheaping out.

UHD 630 graphics in dual channel is roughly 50% faster than single channel in almost all scenarios. Single channel = 64 Bit memory bus, dual = 128 bit.

I am not sure if custom scaling requires more bandwidth, but if it does, well, you'd want dual channel ram. I plan to run native 4K, as I do at work with my 28 inch monitor. My young 26 year old eyes are still good for it so might as well while I can.

Thanks for the insight. I do acknowledge my accidental testing of one 16GB DIMM was not really scientific. So good to know. Even with 32GB installed, I don't feel that 4k60fps content is completely smooth. It may not completely stutter and stop the way it did with less memory onboard, but I'm pretty sure it drops frames or frame-timing isn't consistent. It's all usable now, but I'm still really disappointed in what a terrible choice of GPU Apple chose for the mini.

Edit: I'd also add that it's really unacceptable that Apple claims you can drive 3 4k displays with the mini when the base config of 8GB can't even drive one smoothly.

 

[philipma1957]

Thanks for the insight. I do acknowledge my accidental testing of one 16GB DIMM was not really scientific. So good to know. Even with 32GB installed, I don't feel that 4k60fps content is completely smooth. It may not completely stutter and stop the way it did with less memory onboard, but I'm pretty sure it drops frames or frame-timing isn't consistent. It's all usable now, but I'm still really disappointed in what a terrible choice of GPU Apple chose for the mini.

Edit: I'd also add that it's really unacceptable that Apple claims you can drive 3 4k displays with the mini when the base config of 8GB can't even drive one smoothly.

A lot depends on what you ask of the images.
I have no issue with the base 2014 and 4gb ram using an external 3.0 usb 2tb micron ssd as booter drive.. It is Driving the 4k acer 28 inch screen. But I don't game I don't really do any high speed work I blog I do some lite coding for mining coins. I am actually impressed that the base POS 2014 mini drives the screen this well granted it is 30hz but I am happy enough that I won't be buying a 2018 mini.

I am sure looking to watch 4k streaming movie/video it won't be so good. But I have the basement den using quality pc with a good gpu and it works nicely.

 

[sauria]

Wold faster RAM benefit the mac Mini graphic performance? On the old Broadwell CPU with iGPU it certainly does.

 

[Juggar]

Wold faster RAM benefit the mac Mini graphic performance? On the old Broadwell CPU with iGPU it certainly does.

Pretty sure there is no way to overclock the memory, so you'd be stuck at 2666MHz. As a PC guy, this is my understanding, you cant overclock memory on any mac.

 

[sauria]

Pretty sure there is no way to overclock the memory, so you'd be stuck at 2666MHz. As a PC guy, this is my understanding, you cant overclock memory on any mac.

Pretty sure there is no way to overclock the memory, so you'd be stuck at 2666MHz. As a PC guy, this is my understanding, you cant overclock memory on any mac.

Yes, but what if you put in 3200 MHz. Would it run at rated speed?
[doublepost=1543852666][/doublepost]https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/03/mini-review-intels-powered-up-core-i7-broadwell-mini-pc/

 

[Juggar]

Yes, but what if you put in 3200 MHz. Would it run at rated speed?

No, because as far as im aware, Mac does not support XMP profiles or at least, none above the rated speed (2666) of the CPU.

We're honestly lucky that we got 2666 on the i3, thats supposed to be 2400Mhz. But it looks like Apple wanted it to be the same across the board so they made it happen.

 

[sauria]

Might be worth a test? It's the same CPU that is in a PC.

 

[Juggar]

Might be worth a test? It's the same CPU that is in a PC.

Doesn't matter, motherboard has to support overclocking the memory. Memory overclocking is only supported on Z series chipsets (Z370/Z390). I have no idea what apple runs but I seriously doubt you can OC the memory.

 

[sauria]

Doesn't matter, motherboard has to support overclocking the memory. Memory overclocking is only supported on Z series chipsets (Z370/Z390). I have no idea what apple runs but I seriously doubt you can OC the memory.

Okay, but the memory controller is onboard the CPU. I would like to see data though. Thank you..

 

[Juggar]

Okay, but the memory controller is onboard the CPU. I would like to see data though. Thank you..

Like I said, motherboard has to support it. Memory controller may be on the CPU but go buy an H310 motherboard and tell me how overlocking the memory works out for you.

 

[EightyTwenty]

Pick your poison: UI lag on a 4K or blurry as hell text on 1440p.

I'll take the lag 10 times out of 10. You couldn't pay me to use Mojave on anything less than 4K.