Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's New M1 Chip Brings 6K Display Support to Mac Mini and Base 13-Inch MacBook Pro For the First Time

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,019
40,052


Apple's new Mac mini and 13-inch MacBook Pro models with the custom-designed M1 chip are compatible with up to a 6K display, including Apple's Pro Display XDR. By comparison, the previous-generation Intel-based Mac mini and Intel-based entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro with two Thunderbolt 3 ports support up to a 5K display.

mac-mini-pro-display-xdr.jpg

The new MacBook Air with the M1 chip can also drive a 6K display, but so can the previous Intel-based MacBook Air released earlier this year.

6K display support is becoming widespread across the Mac lineup, with other capable models including the 2018 and newer 15-inch or 16-inch MacBook Pro, 2020 13-inch MacBook Pro with four Thunderbolt ports, 2019 or newer iMac models, and 2019 Mac Pro. Apple's Pro Display XDR is also compatible with any Mac model with Thunderbolt 3 ports that is capable of being paired with a Blackmagic eGPU.

The new Mac mini, 13-inch MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air mark the beginning of Apple's transition away from Intel processors in Macs. In June, Apple revealed its plans to begin using its own custom chips in Macs, promising industry-leading performance per watt. At the time, Apple said that the transition would take about two years to be completed.

Apple says the M1 chip delivers up to 3.5x faster CPU performance, up to 6x faster GPU performance, and up to 15x faster machine learning, while enabling battery life up to 2x longer than previous-generation Macs.

Article Link: Apple's New M1 Chip Brings 6K Display Support to Mac Mini and Base 13-Inch MacBook Pro For the First Time
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/10/mac-mini-now-supports-6k-display/
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: retrophonic
I’m curious as to how the new integrated graphics will perform. 3x better than the old Intel integrated is pretty much cheap to mid discrete GPU land so that would be pretty impressive for allowing low to medium settings on modern games.

Also does anyone know if the M1 in the mini is passively/fanless or actively cooled? The quiet cool design I keep seeing is sort of ambiguous
 
Hastings101 said:
I’m curious as to how the new integrated graphics will perform. 3x better than the old Intel integrated is pretty much cheap to mid discrete GPU land so that would be pretty impressive for allowing low to medium settings on modern games.

Also does anyone know if the M1 in the mini is passively/fanless or actively cooled? The quiet cool design I keep seeing is sort of ambiguous
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t really call it integrated graphics because with the new unified memory and the way they are doing it it’s not really integrated graphics in the way we have though of this before since it’s a SOC.

There will not be dedicated graphics options like on a traditional pc.
 
Kcetech1 said:
im more annoyed that you cant hook up as many external displays to any of the new models. 1 for the air/pro and 2 for the mini ...... wtf Apple???
Click to expand...

Presumably the GPU ain't that great, they're simply moving away from in-built Intel chips?

Since forever it has been the case that Apple could improve graphics performance by a loooot simply by including a low/mid-range GPU for ~$100-200 extra (maybe even less). However, then people wouldn't have to upgrade every 2 years when the in-built CPU is deemed incapable of running the eye candy required for the latest macOS [did I get the OS' name correct?]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandstorm and CJ Dorschel
Or maybe just buy your next 3 or 4 MacBook Pro upgrades for the price of the monitor and get a normal monitor that will probably be just as good for almost all people.

I like the Apple monitor but the $6K is absurd, they really need a model well under $2K that is "good enough" and I'm on board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djgamble, Sandstorm, kazmac and 6 others
Hastings101 said:
I’m curious as to how the new integrated graphics will perform. 3x better than the old Intel integrated is pretty much cheap to mid discrete GPU land so that would be pretty impressive for allowing low to medium settings on modern games.

Also does anyone know if the M1 in the mini is passively/fanless or actively cooled? The quiet cool design I keep seeing is sort of ambiguous
Click to expand...
It has a fairly large fan. Only the Air is passively cooled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spungoflex, bernuli, matrix07 and 2 others
djgamble said:
Presumably the GPU ain't that great, they're simply moving away from in-built Intel chips?

Since forever it has been the case that Apple could improve graphics performance by a loooot simply by including a low/mid-range GPU for ~$100-200 extra (maybe even less). However, then people wouldn't have to upgrade every 2 years when the in-built CPU is deemed incapable of running the eye candy required for the latest macOS [did I get the OS' name correct?]
Click to expand...
Basically what I was thinking, but for some of us the idea that an entry level computer cant run triple externals easily for work or development is a full on abomination. ffs my raspberry pi 4 board runs dual externals and an attached LVDS, your saying an M1 equipped 13" pro cant even do that level. Makes me think were back to Apple making toys for Fischer Price in my workflows and as it seems quite a number of my fellows here on MR and over at the forums at Apple as well.

Now add in the fact it seems confirmed that the M1 chips cant run an eGPU either ..... WOW, just WOW
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwdsail, bklement and CJ Dorschel
HiRez said:
Or maybe just buy your next 3 or 4 MacBook Pro upgrades for the price of the monitor and get a normal monitor that will probably be just as good for almost all people.

I like the Apple monitor but the $6K is absurd, they really need a model well under $2K that is "good enough" and I'm on board.
Click to expand...
I miss the days when Apple had award winning dedicated display lines. The 20", 23", and 30" CCFL LCD's were stunning and pro's bought up the 30" displays without blinking. Many I know still use the 30" ones. I wish Apple would produce a reasonable display. The 24" and then 27" LED Cinema Display's were simply repurposed iMac panels in an enclosure. Unfortunately, the PSU's failed on them due to poor soldering. I went through over a dozen 24" and 27" displays over the years but thankfully Apple replaced or repaired them.

I was ecstatic when Apple announced a return to the tower Mac Pro and a display, then like the audience spit out my coffee at the price points. When they announced the stand was extra for $999, I was done.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: sideshowuniqueuser, RealityM, jwdsail and 20 others
From what I can remember when Apple released the updated Mac Mini (2018) it's configuration fully spec'd out was around $4,000. And that could only be configured with Intel UHD 630 graphics. This new Mac Mini announced today is only around $1,700 fully spec'd out. To me Apple just makes a price up in their head's and says that's it. Pretty much a slap in the face to us who wanted the most powerful Mac Mini back in 2018.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wubsylol, retrophonic and CJ Dorschel
It’s rather underwhelming to be honest. And even with this Apple Silicon transition, it‘d be a slow, steady transition for Mac to be iOS device. With its “3x GPU improvement” would it be able to run elite PC games? Or chugging into PS5 performance? It’d be 10 years before that happens.

I’ve been waiting for Apple Arcade to be a fully matured games store that’s able to match at least PS4 performance. Still can’t see that happens anytime soon.

The mission of Apple Silicon is clear, the best industry-leading performance per watt. That’s pretty much the keyword.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandstorm, eulslix, idktbh and 1 other person
iSayuSay said:
The mission of Apple Silicon is clear, the best industry-leading performance per watt. That’s pretty much the keyword.
Click to expand...
That part.

I know this is first gen, but the trade-offs for power/battery sacrificing Windows/Bootcamp and functionality will hit hard. Many who use MacBook's for both work and personal use as they need Windows for work preferred them over needing two systems. Now we're back to the PPC era and don't think for a second MS will work on a full silicon Windows OS - there's no financial benefit for them unlike Intel. I know a few engineers working at AutoDesk who have told me they have no intention on porting over AutoCAD and other engineering/design apps as they're already juggling Windows/Mac Intel versions. This will kill Apple's push in the business market as Intel Mac's opened up the ability for two-in-one systems, a financial and functional benefit. Even using emulation with Rosetta 2 won't cut it - they've tried. The graphics may be decent enough for casual usage but until discrete GPU support is official a lot of businesses looking to update their hardware are either holding off until more systems hit the market and whether or not other companies decide to port their apps, etc. or investing in Windows systems and restructuring their workflow as they don't have the time and money to wait out what if's.

Now they can build their own without licensing fees but I can't help wonder what the long term impact will be on Apple's Mac marketshare. Once you tell consumers they can't run Windows virtually or in Bootcamp, it will be hard to sell a $2499+ MacBook Pro when they have to maintain a Windows system as well. People are missing that key factor and don't realize just how much of an impact this move will have on consumers and businesses making financial and operational decisions moving forward.

I know it will be a few years and Apple will support Intel systems for a while but at some point they won't and it already has a lot very weary of investing money and time in a closed ecosystem. I'm all for improvements in power and efficiency but at what cost? I wonder what would have happened if Apple didn't cut their departments working with Intel and Intel leadership hadn't become a mess.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Sandstorm, jwdsail, JeepGuy and 5 others
6K is not overkill for anyone. What is overkill though is the price tag for average user as most of the tech is not needed.
Not to mention the ******** stand that is $1k.

Reduce certain features, bring the price down and most prosumers will be more than happy to get 6K display. Just like 5K on iMac was awesome so is the 6K.



AxiomaticRubric said:
6k is total overkill. 4k offers more than enough pixels for the average Mac user.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandstorm, frisbfreek, Jury and 5 others
szw-mapple fan said:
I know quite a few places that use the Mac mini mounted behind a TV as a presentation/advertising tool. This will be great for that market.
Click to expand...
A Mac Mini behind a TV as a presentation/advertising tool. Sure, that makes plenty of sense. A Mac Mini behind a $5K-$6K 32" monitor as a presentation/advertising tool... that makes a lot less than plenty of sense. Closer to no sense at all imo.

It only works as a marketing bullet that highlights the power of the silicon. From a practical standpoint it's not very.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandstorm and Huck
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back