2012 Mini + 3,5K, UHD, 4K, 5K.. Have you tried?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by Wahlstrm, May 20, 2015.

  1. Wahlstrm macrumors 6502a

    Wahlstrm

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    #1
    I need a new monitor and I don´t think that buying a new 1600p/1440p monitor is a great deal right now. I will hate it from day one since it´s not what I really want. I can´t really afford both a new Mac and a new 4K-ish monitor right now so it would be nice to hear from someone who have tried to connect a 2012 mini to a 4k-ish screen and if it worked _at all_.

    The 2012 Mac mini officially don't support anything above 2560*1600 according to :apple:. But what´s officially supported and what actually works are not always the same. :)

    What have you tried?

    4096*2160
    3880*2160
    3440*1440

    hz?

    Better in Windows?
     
  2. campyguy macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Location:
    Portland / Seattle
    #2
    I have two Dell P2715Q 4k displays on my desk, to which I connect a late-2013 rMBP via quality DP 1.2 2160p mDP>DP cables. One of those displays is connected to my 2012 i7/16GB Mini Server via a quality DP 1.2 2160p mDP>mDP cable. I use either StarTech or Lindy cables.

    For the Mini, the best readable maximum resolution I see is 2560x1440 or 1440x2560, which is sufficient for my needs with the Mini. Both of my displays are on arms so I have more freedom of movement with them, including pivoting. With an HDMI cable or low-end mDP cable, the best I'd seen was HD - 1920x1080. Of course, the maxed-out RAM is key - less RAM will get you fewer pixels!

    I also use SwitchResX, which allows for the creation of custom resolutions, but I haven't tried it out on my Mini. Yet.

    I'm really happy with the displays, and I'd buy them again
     
  3. Wahlstrm thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Wahlstrm

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    #3
    Ok, so it´s fully usable you just don´t get the full resolution of the screen?
    If I run my current monitor at 1/4 of the res it don´t look all that beautiful.
    Is it still sharp on your screen even thou you use a much lower resolution?

    I have the 2,6 with 16GB so it´s maxed out. I really don't need a faster computer I just ned a new screen and want to put that money in something I can keep for the next 5 years or so.
     
  4. The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #4
    I can get a max of 2560x1600 with my 2012. This is when connected to a 30" ACD. When connected to my 85" UHD tv it scales to 2560x1440 (16:9), but it actually looks better in 1920x1080.
    My newest mac mini supports the full 4k resolution.
     
  5. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #5
    This is inaccurate. You may get less system RAM allocated to VRAM, but you will not get "less pixels"..... You will also max out the allocation at any RAM configuration at 8GB or above.
     
  6. campyguy macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Location:
    Portland / Seattle
    #6
    Fine, I was trying to be cute - it's hard being cute when I'm 6'7" 260#. :eek: FWIW, I couldn't get more than HD on all 4 of our Minis @8GB and a quality mDP cable, but can get up to 2560x1440 with 16GB so however that's put.
     
  7. campyguy macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Location:
    Portland / Seattle
    #7
    I do get the full use of the Dell at up to the 2560x1440 - at a lower resolution than what my rMBP is capable of, of course. But, it's very much readable - I have no problems with using iTunes, and I did not need to change the stock System Interface - while I do have SwitchResX installed, I don't use it on my Mini because I don't need to as the Displays Preference Pane gets me that resolution. While not "retina", my set up is sharp enough to be happy with it and be productive - it is a Server version, but surfing/network admin/media management/etc., yes, I could use it as a daily driver and be happy with it (see my below comment about my friend's setup too - I got to check it out yesterday).

    Keep in mind, FYI, that the Dell it's connected to is a 16:9 display - you might actually see more pixels on a 16:10 display, so with the right display you could see the full 2560x1600.

    I bought the two Dells for the same reason you're offering - a bit of future-proofing. One of my friends bought a different display, an ASUS 4k display (a PA279Q, I think) that has HDMI, DVI-D, and DP to connect to his Mini (2012 i7/16GB), and he's using an active (that's the key) mDP>DVI adapter (not the passive ones like Apple's) and connecting to the DVI-D port on the display and I'll admit it looks really, really good - so much that I almost wish my Dell's have DVI-D ports. BTW, his display also "runs" much nicer after he upgraded to the DP 1.2 2160p cable I gave to him. ;)
     

Share This Page