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

MacRumors said:


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
Click to expand...
J. Jizzle said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry to see that the M1 Mac Mini still has an HDMI 2.0 port. If it had been 2.1 I think I would have purchased one. Maybe a future version?
 
BWhaler said:
A new $1,200 display should have been the one more thing today.

It’s stunning to me Apple is OK with their computers being hooked up to junk monitors.
Click to expand...
Preach. I don't get Apple’s reluctance to release a 5k display. They already have it on the iMac, just take the computer out of it, narrow the bezels and voila. Done! I would buy two, maybe three in a heartbeat.
 
Freeangel1 said:
who buys a cheap Mac mini and spends 5 grand on a 6k display??

come on.
Click to expand...
If I could afford/justify the display, I'd definitely pair it with a loaded Mac mini because I really have no use for a Mac Pro. But almost anyone would love that display. Just wish it came down in price or they came out with a 500nit version for $1500.
 
amartinez1660 said:
Didn’t totally know about this subpixel rendering being completely disabled. Is it for performance reasons or something to be gained substantially by this?

I’m using a couple of 27” old TB displays (which are 2.5k) and the main iMac 5k display. The iMac is beautifully sharp but the other two don’t strike me as bad either. At default viewing distances and text size, the screen real state is the same and the experience mostly the same. Granted, I’m looking 80% of the time the main screen.
Click to expand...
Apple's never officially (to my knowledge) given a reason, but the "conventional wisdom" is that subpixel rendering is complicated to implement, so Apple decided to get rid of it (even though they were able to implement it beautifully). Typical Apple -- not caring if a change will obsolete an older, but still predominantly-used, product. [And, even among Apple users, I'm certain that non-retina external monitors will continue to outnumber retina external monitors by a very large margin for at least a few years to come.]

How much the reduced sharpness is an issue will of course vary from person to person. But I suspect having a 5k retina for your main display helps a lot. For instance, my main display is a 4k 27", which is fine with High Sierra. But I also have two lower-res auxiliary displays which would give me a headache if I spent a lot of time looking at them. However, since they are auxiliary displays, I can tolerate them.
 
Last edited:
gugy said:
Preach. I don't get Apple’s reluctance to release a 5k display. They already have it on the iMac, just take the computer out of it, narrow the bezels and voila. Done! I would buy two, maybe three in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
24" 4k ($300), 27" 5k ($750), 32" 6k (1k-2k), and 32" 6k XDR (bring price down to $3000). The product team for this could be very small and would cost Apple basically nothing in terms of lost focus.
 
J. Jizzle said:
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.
Click to expand...
People are never happy my “apples prices are absurd” Apple lowers prices “this is a slap in the face to me because I paid more a few years ago”
 
The only plausible thing why they are not doing cheaper standalone monitors is it might be profitable according to their criteria.
 
PatriotInvasion said:
It's not about total pixels. It's about pixel density and HiDPI. A standard 3840x2160px 4K display forces you to choose between 1080px HiDPI at 2X which makes UI elements look comically large or run it in native 4K (3840x2160) with everything feeling too small.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you have never used a 4k display with macOS. 4k HiDPI is perfect.
 
I’m running two XDRs at 6k resolution on my hackintosh that cost me little less than $1300. It’s great to have the option to upgrade graphics, ssd etc
 
Hastings101 said:
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...
The new Mac mini has a fan. Silent operations is the MacBook Air, quiet operations is MacBook Pro and mini
 
CJ Dorschel said:
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.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think you’re overestimating the love of windows from businesses. Sure, some applications are only built for windows like you say. But if you break it down, the cost of ownership is actually a lot less to own a Mac vs a PC. Once you factor in the need for tech support (10% of Mac users need their hand hold vs 90% of PC users), cost of repair using AppleCare, longevity of the devices working and being maintained with updates... it actually comes out to be a LOT cheaper for businesses to switch over to Mac. Something I’ve been seeing more and more of in my line of work (meeting with and speaking to CEO’s every day).
 
Many of you pointed out the irony of pairing a 6k monitor with a Mac Mini. Perhaps Apple is suggesting that after you buy the $6,000 monitor, you'll barely have enough coin left for anything more than a Mac Mini.

And as a few of you mentioned, 6k is overkill for 98% of Mac users. We're past the point of diminishing returns. The extra performance of the 6K monitor is not worth the cost in terms of dollars and extra GPU horsepower to make it worth it, unless you're involved with top notch professional video production for a living. Even then, with people consuming content at home, no one has a 6k TV yet and the 5K models are still toys for the rich.
 
gimarbazat said:
I’m running two XDRs at 6k resolution on my hackintosh that cost me little less than $1300. It’s great to have the option to upgrade
Click to expand...
AgentElliot007 said:
Seriously, that’s the most laughable aspect of today without an announcement of a lower-priced Apple display. The mere suggestion is comical to me.
Click to expand...
Display is huge, heavy, costly to ship and repair. If Apple makes and sell cheap displays, it’s not going to make enough money to cover the support cost.
 
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but I guess this all but confirms that the first Apple Silicon iMacs will have 6K screens.
 
CJ Dorschel said:
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.
Click to expand...
Autodesk is moving to web based Apps & tools thus it doesnt matter about software, your OS, or hardware. As so is most other software companies will follow including the enterprise market. By 2025 actual software will no longer exist.
 
CJ Dorschel said:
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.
Click to expand...
And to make it worst the Pro XDR isn't even anywhere close to being a reference monitor. It is good, very good professional monitor. But not reference. And even in the similar spec it is still very expensive compared to other expensive Pro monitor.
 
Freeangel1 said:
who buys a cheap Mac mini and spends 5 grand on a 6k display??

come on.
Click to expand...
That display is going to last you a good 10 years unless is breaks. I'm tempted by the display, although it's still too expensive for me. I probably don't do anything more power intensive than a Mini could perform, so why not? I'll probably upgrade the desktop 4-5 times over the lifetime of the display.
 
I love how they prefaced the GPU performance as better than other Windows computers "in their class" meaning with an integrated GPU. How does it fair versus a discreet GPU PC? I'm guessing it gets blown out of the water. With the M1 announcement, are we looking at never seeing a discreet GPU in a Mac again? Cause that would be a shame. Unfortunately, I don't think integrated GPUs will ever reach the same power level. So once again we'll be using machines that are not as fast or as powerful as they could be, while Windows PCs continue to outpace them. I mean at best the CPU and SSD could be better than Intel? But what's to prevent Intel from out-innovating Apple once again?

It's looking more and more like my next computer will be a self-built hackintosh or a Windows PC. I despise the Windows UI, but it's almost worth it to me to be able to finally enjoy games that I've been unable to play or have been horrendously slow and bug-ridden for the past decade due to Apple's stubbornness. I'm still gaming on my 2011 MacbokPro with a discreet GPU. I'll probably just get a larger SSD and partition and bootcamp it when my games drop support for older Mac OSs.

I like how Apple always wants to show people playing games but never actually want to even attempt to cater to major gaming developers or craft affordable and expandable PCs. And Metal is not a great answer to DirectX. In fact it screwed over people like me. Heroes of the Storm comes to mind. I can't even launch the game anymore, because Blizzard had to make it compatible with Metal. Even though my graphics card handled it just fine, they cut support for older OSs that didn't include Metal support. But what's hilarious is I could install Windows via Bootcamp, and Windows will run it just fine on my Mac, probably even better. I mean you just have to laugh.

I thought I'd give Apple a chance with this new ARM processor, but they're clearly going their own path again like what they did with the PowerPC. I suspect they will go through this great conversion only to find that Intel has once again out-innovated them. History might not repeat itself, but I bet will rhyme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top