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

[Craigwilliam]

People whinging about this as per usual but it is an interesting way to get this display if you don't really need the power of a mac pro or if you don't want a portable. People can complain all they want about the stand as well but you don't have to buy the stand you just get the VESA mount instead.
If you want a cheaper display there are more than enough 3rd party options.

 

[kazmac]

Good progress - I’m a little surprised there are only 2 ports on the 13”.

Confused by this...

Politely saying, low end models are the first wave of AS. The MBP announced yesterday replaced the cheapest MBP with two ports. The more powerful 13” and 16” are not ready yet.

As far as Mac Mini with the XDR display, that is a giggle... but I bet the folks who tested the Mini were using the display with more powerful Macs.

 

[aleni]

People in macrumors’s community:

When macmini supports only up to 4k:

it’s pretty lame that they have a computer line up that doesn’t work with their own monitor product.

When macmini supports up to 6k:

Who buys a $5 grand monitor just to plug it with a macmini?

TLDR:

you just can’t please macrumors’ members.

 

[Psychicbob]

They’d be better off integrating the Mac Mini into the $5000 display. Oh, wait, has that been done before?

 

[Abazigal]

TLDR:

you just can’t please macrumors’ members.

And Apple is wise not to even bother trying.

 

[Ted13]

Why is it the new Mac mini can drive a 6k display and only do two displays total?

Because it only has 2 Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports? It does have a HDMI port as well, so probably it could feed 3 displays total

 

[sirio]

who buys a cheap Mac mini and spends 5 grand on a 6k display??

come on.

I think the new Mac mini could work very well with the 48'' LG CX OLED..!! that combination looks insane.


REPLY

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

Apple:
So, now our $699, $999, & $1299 computers run 3x faster than a pc in the same class!!! This makes the value unheard of good.

Average Grumpy Gus on MacRumors:
Grrrrrrr... you think I’m impressed??!!
Remember when you offered that reference monitor comparable to ones sold for $20k, but you sold it for $5k? Lower that to $1200 (a rando price we pulled out of our proboscis) & only THEN will we admit that the completely unrelated feat of creating a 1st gen desktop chip that trebles the performance of their competitors, is impressive.

 

[deeddawg]

Apple:
So, now our $699, $999, & $1299 computers run 3x faster than a pc in the same class!!! This makes the value unheard of good.

Average Grumpy Gus on MacRumors:
Grrrrrrr... you think I’m impressed??!!
Remember when you offered that reference monitor comparable to ones sold for $20k, but you sold it for $5k? Lower that to $1200 (a rando price we pulled out of our proboscis) & only THEN will we admit that the completely unrelated feat of creating a 1st gen desktop chip that trebles the performance of their competitors, is impressive.

Yep, MR readers do give the Four Yorkshiremen a go some days...

 

[clayj]

Let me know when Apple starts selling an Apple 4K display for $500 -- then maybe I will consider coming back to Mac.

 

[Spock]

Because it only has 2 Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports? It does have a HDMI port as well, so probably it could feed 3 displays total

It says on the Mac mini website that it can only drive two displays.

 

[Freida]

It can, just not from Apple. Its the LG ultrafine

Sure, the iMac 5k display is awesome.

But then again, it cannot be bought separately.

 

[MrH42]

Because it only has 2 Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports? It does have a HDMI port as well, so probably it could feed 3 displays total

It says on the Mac mini website that it can only drive two displays.

This is correct. I reached out to Apple about this exact thing. I have 3 displays I want to power, that the total number of pixels is slightly less than a single 6k monitor, and they told it can't do it. Really strange. It sounds like it's a software thing, if the computer can handle 6k no problems.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

It sounds like you have never used a 4k display with macOS. 4k HiDPI is perfect.

If you are running HiDPI on a 3840x2160px display, your are essentially running the real estate of 1920x1080 at 2X. On a 27" display, that is a very blown up UI compared to the real estate of the 27" 5K iMac which is running 2560x1440 at 2X. This link explains why this isn't ideal - https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/

The only external display that is able to match what Apple does and be considered Retina in Apple's eyes (217+ PPI) is the 27" LG UltraFine 5K display. Only downside is it is not very attractive to look at with that forehead and thick bezels.

 

[JeepGuy]

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.

it's overkill for this, I've seen places using apple tv's for this.

 

[Spock]

it's overkill for this, I've seen places using apple tv's for this.

Not overkill if it’s a retired Mac mini from someone’s desk, in that case it’s far superior to an Apple TV

 

[JeepGuy]

Apple:
So, now our $699, $999, & $1299 computers run 3x faster than a pc in the same class!!! This makes the value unheard of good.

Average Grumpy Gus on MacRumors:
Grrrrrrr... you think I’m impressed??!!
Remember when you offered that reference monitor comparable to ones sold for $20k, but you sold it for $5k? Lower that to $1200 (a rando price we pulled out of our proboscis) & only THEN will we admit that the completely unrelated feat of creating a 1st gen desktop chip that trebles the performance of their competitors, is impressive.

by same class they mean an i3

 

[JeepGuy]

Not overkill if it’s a retired Mac mini from someone’s desk, in that case it’s far superior to an Apple TV

We are not talking about a retired mini, and I agree if you have one laying around it's perfect for that.

 

[joecomo]

ok this explains why the had the guy with the 6K screen and the new Mac mini in the video.
It is comforting to know your computer costs half of your screen stand.

 

[MacBH928]

but it doesn't support dual monitors...or so I have heard!

 

[deeddawg]

but it doesn't support dual monitors...or so I have heard!

Might be worth double-checking easily verified stuff before posting incorrect info and creating confusion...

 

[theorist9]

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.

I work with large spreadsheets that don't fully fit on a 27" monitor unless I reduce the magnification so much they're barely readable. Thus a 32" retina monitor (which means 6k)—or, even better, a 42" retina montior (which means 8k) would be ideal.

Granted, I'm not an average Mac user; but I suspect the percentage that use their Macs professionally, and could benefit from more screen real estate (not just for spreadsheets, but for other tasks as well*), is larger than 2%. [*E.g., people who need to look a multiple documents simultaenously, and don't like working with multiple monitors.]

Don't disagree, though, that it's not worth the $6,000 for most, even if they could benefit from it. So 6k/8k pixels isn't overkill, but the price is.

 

[theorist9]

If you are running HiDPI on a 3840x2160px display, your are essentially running the real estate of 1920x1080 at 2X. On a 27" display, that is a very blown up UI compared to the real estate of the 27" 5K iMac which is running 2560x1440 at 2X. This link explains why this isn't ideal - https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/

The only external display that is able to match what Apple does and be considered Retina in Apple's eyes (217+ PPI) is the 27" LG UltraFine 5K display. Only downside is it is not very attractive to look at with that forehead and thick bezels.

There's a lot of personal preference involved here. I run a 27" 3840x2160 at "default for this display" in High Sierra, and I am happy with it. Yes, the UI is somewhat bigger, but the UI only takes up a small percentage of the screen real estate, and, regardless of this, I custom-adjust the display size in my applications to whatever is required to enable me to view the amount of information I need to be able to see at once (e.g., more magnification for smaller spreadsheets, less for larger).

 

[Someyoungguy]

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.

Integrated silicon and integrated RAM. Seems like you need to lay off the marketing material for a little while.

 

[Kcetech1]

my 2020 i7 MacBook Pro struggles with my 4k display, but I blame Intel's garbage GPU for that. Any improvement in performance in graphical capability is a welcome improvement. I kinda of wish I got the 16" with the AMD GPU but I didn't want a big laptop, I love the size of the 13".

want a laugh, try it in windows and 4k is as smooth as butter on that machine. Im sure its horrid decode in safari and/or bad video drivers from Apple. I run a 4K Dell external and have the same issues . I also pump great 4k video out to the same screen on an older ( 2017ish ) precision 7710 with its iGPU in 4k as well. its not the ****** intel GPU that cant push pixels.