Mac Mini and 4K display

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by MiniMe77, Feb 18, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MiniMe77 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    #1
    Hi, I'm about to order a new Mac Mini, high-end spec with SSD storage.

    If I've understood properly it's possible to set the display to 4K resolution at 30 HZ and even 50HZ? To set it at 50HZ do I need to use the switchresx app or can I do it without any external app?

    Can anyone please recommend some 4K displays? I'm interested in Dell and Samsung but am open to suggestions. I read that the colours on a Dell might not be very bright? And I am guessing on a Samsung they are quite intense like their tvs? I am looking for a 27-28" display.

    Also, if the 4K is set to 30Hz or 50Hz will it be too choppy in general use or does it depend on what you are doing on the monitor? E.g. if I am only browsing or doing microsoft office stuff or going through iPhoto, will it be ok or will it stutter like crazy?!

    And how is the performance if I am watching proper 4K content from youtube?

    Thanks!
     
  2. MiniMe77 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
  3. adonis3k macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    #3
    50hz on my Samsung 34 Curved, but should be 60hz but cannot work out how to get that.
     
  4. MiniMe77 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
  5. adonis3k macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
  6. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #6
    It will not get 60 Hz.

    This is due to a hardware limitation in all Intel Haswell-Us.

    Only Haswell-HQs with Crystal Well can output to 4K @ 60 Hz.
     
  7. stevemr123 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    #7
    To be honest, I would not recommend Mac Mini for a 4K display at all. They can't do 60Hz, and even if you get to work it at 50Hz, performance will be substandard as some parts of OS X is not properly optimized for Intel video drivers at high resolutions (Dock folder stuttering is a prime example).

    Since no Apple desktop (aside from Mac Pro which is an overkill) can do 4K properly, I (as an old time Apple fan with lots of Apple hardware) had to build a Hackintosh to enjoy proper 4K support... such a shame. :eek:
     
  8. wakele, Feb 20, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015

    wakele macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2015
    #8
    I don't agree at all with you. The mini handles really well the 4k at 52 hz (can't see any difference with 60hz). For me, no problems at all since I discovered that using hdmi and dp at the same time enables the monitor to be detected as 4k monitor. My dock folder doesn't have any stutter, no problems at all! Ok, you can feel that some yosemite animations they lack some frames, but I think this is happening even in the 5k Imac (not sure, but I think I noticed that in the Apple Store).
    I Only have to go to 1440p when I work with windows XP virtual machine, since it is a bit laggy selecting text or scrolling when programming, but come on, this is a virtual machine. In the actual OS, NO LAGS AT ALL, ANYWHERE. Really happy with the Mini working like that, crisp image and very good performance, ZERO noise (amazing)...
     
  9. stevemr123 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    #9
    Maybe I am perfectionists. :) I use several macs at home and at work, and everytime I sat at my 52Hz 4K mac I was noticing the problems: the OS is optimized to work at 60Hz, so scrolling (especially in Safari) will cause tearing/vsync artifacts all the time. Dock works fine - what I meant is that if you pin folders to the dock, open them and scroll them, they will stutter (not because of the 52Hz but the lack of GPU power), the experience won't be the butter smooth scrolling you used to on your other Macs. So yes, one could live with it, but it's still not perfect. I could attach an external GPU through thunderbolt, but i found that its almost as problematic as building a full blown Hackintosh, so I opted for the latter (using a GTX970). Yes, not a perfect solution, but 4Kwise its great. :)
     
  10. wakele macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2015
    #10
    Yes, ok, maybe that's the point: this is my first and only mac and I am not used to superior mac machines. I am very happy with the behavior of this little machine, though! Working so fluent with this resolution, but I have to admit that using a 50hz resolution makes the scroll a bit less smooth. For me, when I enjoy so crisp images, I forget the lack of smoothness :p
     
  11. MiniMe77 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    #11
    So, I ordered my new Mini. I went for the high-end i7 processor, 1TB SSD and 16GB RAM.

    I hope that's not overkill....I want it to last me a good five years as this is replacing my mid-2007 iMac. So I hope that spec means it will be pretty fast compared to my old iMac that only had 4GB RAM and a 320GB spinner drive.

    Now if only I could decide whether to get a 4K display or not!

    I'm hanging on in the hope that the Apple thunderbolt displays get upgraded this year. In the meantime I'll use my tv as a display.

    Also, I was thinking of replacing the dead drive in my iMac with a 256GB SSD drive. If I did, could I use the iMac display for the iMac AND the Mini using some sort of switch?
     
  12. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #12
    Completely overkill with that i7, because it's the same as the i5 with 2 cores and 4 threads.

    Anyway, congrats with your purchase :D
     
  13. MiniMe77 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    #13
    You mean it's the same as the quad core 2012 i5? I am one of the few who doesn't want the 2012 version. I prefer the newer wi-fi and better graphics card. #
     
  14. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #14
    There is no 2012 quad core i5; only 2012 quad core i7.

    What I meant was, it's the same as the 2.6 and 2.8GHz i5s offered in the current 2014 models.
     
  15. MiniMe77 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    #15
    The i7 3.0 is not the same as the i5 2.6/2.8 versions at all...
     
  16. yjchua95, Feb 28, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2015

    yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #16
    Yes it is. Don't you ever do your research?

    The i5 2.6 and 2.8GHz, and i7 3.0GHz, have 2 cores and 4 threads.

    Both only have very slightly different clock speeds.

    The 3.0GHz i7 only has a slightly larger cache.

    Just take a look at the bloody Geekbench results. They're almost identical. Which means as good as being the same in reality.

    Only quad core i7s are different.
     
  17. MiniMe77 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    #17
  18. yjchua95, Feb 28, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015

    yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #18
    There isn't. The article is invalid because Apple uses i5s that also have hyperhtreading in the Mac Mini.

    The article is totally invalid. Only Geekbench results are valid.

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/1519613?baseline=1820062

    The difference is very little between the 2.8 i5 and 3.0 i7.

    So think again. As a software engineer for one of the Silicon Valley's largest companies, I've my research.
     
  19. MiniMe77 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    #19
    Thanks, your link only confirms that there IS a difference.
     
  20. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #20
    Which is barely noticeable and the delta is really small. And that also translates to as good as no difference.
     
  21. MiniMe77, Feb 28, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015

    MiniMe77 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    #21
    In your opinon maybe.

    I'll trust the other sources thanks.

    It makes no difference to me, the i7 is still better than the i5 even if it's only a small difference. And I had the money to go for the highest spec so all is good. The extra cost isn't going to break the bank so what's your problem?

    Plus, from the same site: http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

    The i7 is clearly a few spots above the i5. You know what that means? They are NOT the same. ��
     
  22. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #22
    A few spots with less than a 20% delta is as good as nothing in real life. And real life performance is all that matters. I couldn't give a flying **** about a small delta in benchmarks.

    I'll just sit back and laugh at you, a newbie, who thinks he can notice a difference between a dual core i5 and a dual core i7.

    MR user titles are there for a reason.
     
  23. MiniMe77, Feb 28, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2015

    MiniMe77 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    #23
    Wow, what an arrogant attitude. The fact is you are wrong and can't admit to it. Just because I am new on here doesn't mean I am a newbie. I have been using Macs for thirty years. You have no idea what I intend to use it for. And processors have different names for a reason....to differentiate them. Funny how you said all that matters is the benchmarks and yet now you couldn't care less about them. Do your homework properly next time and do me a favour and stay out of my thread. 'Troll' should be next to your title.

    In any case, I had to go for the high-end because I wanted the 1TB Flash option. So where is the harm in going for the i7 for an extra 160 pounds? If it's a slightly better, faster processor with more cache and the money is not an issue then there is no reason to not take it.
     
  24. MiniMe77 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    #24
    Hi, what monitor do you use?
     
  25. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #25
    The fact is I am right, as it makes no difference whatsoever with real life performance.

    I've been using it since the original 1984 Macintosh.

    Benchmarks only matter in showing performance deltas, but real life performance are not accurately reflected in benchmarks whatsoever.

    You're more of the troll by grabbing an article that is totally invalid.

    It is you who should do your homework. That article you posted assumes that the i5 doesn't have hyper threading, when in actual fact, Apple does use i5s with HT.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page