Mac mini 2020 and 4K

[nicolasbarut]

Hello,

i will have the new Mac mini 2020, i7, 32 GB, with no eGPU,

I want a 27 inch screen but I hesitate between a 4K or QHD screen

what do you think is the best configuration?

thanks

 

[Stephen.R]

It will run a 4K screen fine for general use if that's what you're asking.

If you do anything GPU-intensive (games, some photo or video editors) it may not perform as well.

 

[nicolasbarut]

i m not a big gamer, only Counter strike and cities skyline

but the graphic cards of the Mac mini is not very powerful, so I m asking myself, general use --> 4K, gaming--> 1440p

i don't find the answer

do you have?

 

[Stephen.R]

I run 2 24" 4K displays from a 2018 Mac mini. The biggest impact on performance (assuming you aren't going to use it at native 4K resolution, because everything will be tiny) will be if you need to run it at a non-optimal 'scaled' resolution due to the size of the screen.

For 4k, the optimal scaled resolution in macOS is 1920x1080. On a 27" screen that may render things too big. For average use, it should be fine running at a higher scaled resolution (i.e. 'looks like 2560x1440'). I find the mini can run one display scaled "non-optimally" but not two.

In-game I have no idea how well it will perform, the iGPU it has is pretty basic.

 

[nicolasbarut]

si 1440p is the better compromise?

 

[Erehy Dobon]

There is no such thing as a Mac mini 2020. It's still a 2018 model. The one that was recently announced by Apple was just a storage bump for the standard configurations. Everything else is the same: CPU, GPU, memory speed, etc.

I have an i7/16GB/1TB Mac mini 2018 and it supports 4K @ 60Hz output just fine on my 27" LG HDR UHD monitor. My usage case is quite ordinary. I happily use it in the scaled 1920x1080 resolution because my eyes are old and tired.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

There is no such thing as a Mac mini 2020. It's still a 2018 model. The one that was recently announced by Apple was a storage bump. Everything else is the same: CPU, GPU, memory speed, etc.

I have an i7/16GB/1TB Mac mini 2018 and it supports 4K @ 60Hz output just fine on my 27" LG HDR UHD monitor. My usage case is quite ordinary. I happily use it in the scaled 1920x1080 resolution because my eyes are old and tired.

Same here except I'm using a Phillips 4K monitor. I run the UI at 1920x1080 and the font size is just perfect for me.

 

[Fishrrman]

I consider 1440p on a 32" display (native resolution) to be a nice "blend" of screen real estate and (non 4k) pixel size. About .277mm dot pitch.

Others might disagree...

 

[pkalhan]

how would it look with a 49" display? Resolution of the monitor would be 1520 x 1440? I am looking at an i7 8GB RAM (but will install 32 GB of RAM but an apple authorized tech later). My ideal setup would be a mac mini with the Dell U4919DW (or an LG equivalent). I want something this size to avoid the two monitor setup I currently have with two old monitors and the bezel in-between. It is intimidating possibly buying this thing not knowing if the monitor you want will look right with it.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

i m not a big gamer, only Counter strike and cities skyline

but the graphic cards of the Mac mini is not very powerful, so I m asking myself, general use --> 4K, gaming--> 1440p

You likely won't be gaming Cities Skyline at 1440p using that machines iGPU, and get a good experience out of it. 4K is out of the question.

 

[pkalhan]

You likely won't be gaming Cities Skyline at 1440p using that machines iGPU, and get a good experience out of it. 4K is out of the question.

What if you had an eGPU? I was thinking about one of those Black Magic eGPUs on Apple’s website (the Pro version). Would that help? I don’t game at all, just want some help with resolution for the monitor I wound like to get.

 

[opeter]

si 1440p is the better compromise?

Yes, it is. I recommend a 1440p monitor and not 4k (2160p).

 

[throAU]

Hello,

i will have the new Mac mini 2020, i7, 32 GB, with no eGPU,

I want a 27 inch screen but I hesitate between a 4K or QHD screen

what do you think is the best configuration?

thanks

Personally I think 4k is the best compromise in 27" -

• you have a nice high res desktop for productivity - its pretty darn close if not retina res, so you can run scaled resolutions that still look nice. on a native 2560x1440 display you're pretty much stuck without scaling or it will look bad
• for stuff your machine can't drive at 4k (games, 3d stuff) it scales back down to 1920x1080 quite nicely as 4k is perfect 2:1 scaling.

1440p still needs a decent gpu to drive well for 3d / non general desktop stuff, and if you want to scale back you're down to 720p at 2:1 which is potato quality on a 27" display

 

[D.T.]

si 1440p is the better compromise?

I really like 1440p / QHD on a 25", it steps up the PPI a little more, and it's definitely noticeable. The '18 Mini (mine is an i7/32GB), runs two of them without any performance issues, in native resolution, they're really cost effective for a high quality model too (I'm using two Dell Ultrafine 2518).

I'll step up to two 27" when I can go 4K, with decent performance, which probably means eGPU - but only if Apple gets that totally sorted out. I guess there's also the possibility of a more stout built-in GPU in another year or two (based on some of the discussions about AMD options).

 

[opeter]

What if you had an eGPU? I was thinking about one of those Black Magic eGPUs on Apple’s website (the Pro version). Would that help? I don’t game at all, just want some help with resolution for the monitor I wound like to get.

Too expensive. Than you are better with buying an iMac.

 

[D.T.]

Too expensive. Than you are better with buying an iMac.

Some of us really like our standalone machine without an integrated monitor, and I don't even mind the cost of the eGPU + Mini being in the ballpark of an iMac. It's a little more flexible with some of the eGPU boxes (where you can swap out the card). The real problem is the implementation - if it was really just plug-n-play, you could boot and get a proper startup display, etc., I mean, functionally the same as an integrated GPU, I'd probably have one right now

 

[Stephen.R]

Some of us really like our standalone machine without an integrated monitor, and I don't even mind the cost of the eGPU + Mini being in the ballpark of an iMac. It's a little more flexible with some of the eGPU boxes (where you can swap out the card). The real problem is the implementation - if it was really just plug-n-play, you could boot and get a proper startup display, etc., I mean, functionally the same as an integrated GPU, I'd probably have one right now

I'm with you brother.

I *really* want to run these P2415Q's at a slightly higher scaled resolution, but the 630 just won't do it well. I keep looking and thinking and looking some more. Thankfully there *is* an Akitio dealer in-country, and e.g. an ASUS eGPU has turned up on our regular vendor's site now... the biggest issue is how much hassle it's going to add. I even wondered if the little Sonnet Puck would be a good choice (accepting the non-upgradability of it) because it's a similar size to the mini (and thus would be easier to fit somewhere)..


Decisions decisions.

 

[pkalhan]

Too expensive. Than you are better with buying an iMac.

I was needing a dual monitor setup or a 49" monitor. Unfortunately an iMac would not work for me.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

What if you had an eGPU? I was thinking about one of those Black Magic eGPUs on Apple’s website (the Pro version). Would that help? I don’t game at all, just want some help with resolution for the monitor I wound like to get.

Yes, it would definitely help. But if you aren't gaming or do very specific high-end workloads, you won't need an eGPU. The Mac Mini supports 4K resolutions as a standard.

 

[pkalhan]

Yes, it would definitely help. But if you aren't gaming or do very specific high-end workloads, you won't need an eGPU. The Mac Mini supports 4K resolutions as a standard.

Thank you very much for the reply and apologies for the follow up question (a lot of this is over my head so am trying to learn). If it supports 4k resolution then why are people having issues with monitor resolution? There are other threads with roughly the same topic. I currently have a two monitor setup (2 old 24" ACER 1080p) with a pretty old pc which I am wanting up update with a Mac Mini. My preference is to get an ultrawide monitor so I do not have the bevel in between the two monitors but it seems that there are issues with monitors this size for the mini. If that is the case, I could keep the two monitor set up but was wanting to know from forum member what monitors I could look at that would make a good to two monitor setup with the Mac Mini? I do not game or photo edit. I would use it for a lot of excel spreadsheets, PDF doc, and other applications where having clear font would be beneficial. Thanks in advance and again sorry for the questions.

 

[Stephen.R]

Thank you very much for the reply and apologies for the follow up question (a lot of this is over my head so am trying to learn). If it supports 4k resolution then why are people having issues with monitor resolution? There are other threads with roughly the same topic. I currently have a two monitor setup (2 old 24" ACER 1080p) with a pretty old pc which I am wanting up update with a Mac Mini. My preference is to get an ultrawide monitor so I do not have the bevel in between the two monitors but it seems that there are issues with monitors this size for the mini. If that is the case, I could keep the two monitor set up but was wanting to know from forum member what monitors I could look at that would make a good to two monitor setup with the Mac Mini? I do not game or photo edit. I would use it for a lot of excel spreadsheets, PDF doc, and other applications where having clear font would be beneficial. Thanks in advance and again sorry for the questions.

It will run 4K at the default settings (which is "looks like 1920x1080") or at native 4k (i.e. not "retina" mode) fine - but the vast majority of 4K displays on the market are physically sized such that the 'default' scaling makes things too big for most people, and thus they want to use the scaling options: but those scaling options come with a performance penalty.

 

[harriska2]

I have 32GB and am running a 4k 40" monitor scaled at 1.5x. No issues but I don't play games and don't do tons of video stuff (I do use Final Cut Pro a bit along with Handbrake).