Mac mini late 2012 and 4k displays

[Passy78]

I have an upgraded late 2012 mac mini (16GB RAM, 256 GB SSD) that is still more than powerful enough for my needs. Currently I use an 24 inch display with 1080p. However, for my work needs (connecting to remote computers) I absolutely need a better display running at a higher resolution.

I understand that the maximum resolution supported by the late 2012 is QHD (or WQHD) meaning 2560x1600 or the more common 2560x1440. I am looking now at 32 inch displays either in full 4K or WQHD. The former is future-proof but expensive and the display must scale down to WQHD, the latter cheaper and the mac mini is able to run it at native resolution.

Does anybody here run a 4K display in WQHD resolution ? Does it look any good for office applications or is it bad because the display need to scale at 1:1.5 ?

The main and only reason why I am considering the 4K display is because I expect it to outlast my Mac mini which at some point might fail or might no longer support future MacOS releases.

Thanks for your opinion

 

[deviant]

32 inch 4k looks terrible. here's a chart to help you

 

[Passy78]

32 inch 4k looks terrible. here's a chart to help you

OK, so if I understand this correctly this chart applies when running the display at full 4K resolution. But as that’s what I intend to do at a later stage, this display is not ideal for MacOS, right ? Can you explain why or where this graph is taken from?

 

[Fishrrman]

For the 2012 Mini, you could use the following:

24" display @ 1080p (1920x1080) -- dot pitch .2767mm

27" display @ 1080p (1920x1080) -- dot pitch .3113mm

32" display @ 1440p (2550x1440) -- dot pitch .2775mm

Something to consider...
How old are you?
How's your vision?
For older eyes (like mine), I need larger text. The "clarity" of the text (i.e., "retina") makes little difference. It's the SIZE that makes it readable to me.

I find a 27" display running at native 1080p to be adequate. I'm not sure if 27" @ 4k would make much difference to me at all. Younger folks will look at it and proclaim "that's too grainy". But not for me.

You'll note that 1080p on a 24" display yields a dot pitch (pixel size) almost identical to 32" with a native 1440p.

 

[Passy78]

For the 2012 Mini, you could use the following:

24" display @ 1080p (1920x1080) -- dot pitch .2767mm

27" display @ 1080p (1920x1080) -- dot pitch .3113mm

32" display @ 1440p (2550x1440) -- dot pitch .2775mm

Something to consider...
How old are you?
How's your vision?
For older eyes (like mine), I need larger text. The "clarity" of the text (i.e., "retina") makes little difference. It's the SIZE that makes it readable to me.

I find a 27" display running at native 1080p to be adequate. I'm not sure if 27" @ 4k would make much difference to me at all. Younger folks will look at it and proclaim "that's too grainy". But not for me.

You'll note that 1080p on a 24" display yields a dot pitch (pixel size) almost identical to 32" with a native 1440p.

I currently have an 24 inch display with 1080p. As I need to remotely connect to work stations which are configured to 1920x1200, I need a higher resolution. I would love a 4K or 5K display in order to future-proof it and run this display at the resolution of 2560x1440 now on my Mac Mini. However 5K is too expensive, and 4K display which run at 2560x1440 might have issue due to scaling effects. That’s why I am asking.

Of course I could save money now, just buy an 32inch display with 1440p but I might regret this later.

 

[4sallypat]

I have the same 2012 server version Mini w/ i7, dual HDD, 16GB RAM and I use exclusively Apple Thunderbolt 27" MC914LL/A display as I have for all my Macs.

It runs perfectly with it's native 2560x1440 display.

Gotta say, I am a faithful multi Thunderbolt display user - going on 3 now because they are so cheap on the used market!

 

[deviant]

OK, so if I understand this correctly this chart applies when running the display at full 4K resolution. But as that’s what I intend to do at a later stage, this display is not ideal for MacOS, right ? Can you explain why or where this graph is taken from?

this chart gives you an idea how will things look in different modes

OK, so if I understand this correctly this chart applies when running the display at full 4K resolution. But as that’s what I intend to do at a later stage, this display is not ideal for MacOS, right ? Can you explain why or where this graph is taken from?

not exactly
This chart shows you different sizes and their resolution and how they would look like in native resolution (non retina) or retina (scaled 2x)
Everything else in between looks bad. As you can see, 4K looks good scaled 2x only on 21 inches. (If you were to run in native 4K, you wouldn’t be able to see anything, too small)
For the 27 inch a good resolution is either 1440p (native, which will look similarly to 1080 on 24 inch, but more screen real estate) or 5K, which is double 1440p, scaled 2x, so effectively you get 1440p but super sharp, because you have double the pixels. That’s what makes it retina.
5K monitors are super expensive.
4K 21 inch monitors are difficult to find , and who wants a 21 inch monitor anymore anyway ....
I’m personally using a 34 inches ultrawide LG 1440p monitor (the equivalent of a 27 1440p monitor basically, just wider, so more screen real estate). That and a good 27 inch 1440p are the sweet spots right now, if you aren’t willing to drop 1000 bucks for a 5K lg monitor...
I understand you want to invest into something more future proof so 4k looks like a good choice, but you will be thinking you bough a "retina" resolution screen, and it will not be able to properly 2x scale on that big of a size of the monitor, and you will get less than satisfying results. I had the same dilemma and went with 1440p exactly because of that.

Please don’t hesitate to ask if you need

 

[Miat]

32 inch 4k looks terrible. here's a chart to help you

That otherwise useful chart is misleading in that it does not factor in viewing distance.

Also what Fishrrman said about age and vision status. The absolute size of the text matters too, not just how crisp it is ('retina'). I used to be able to work with a 1440 27" screen. But now I have to use 1080 for 27".

 

[lederermc]

I have an upgraded late 2012 mac mini (16GB RAM, 256 GB SSD) that is still more than powerful enough for my needs. Currently I use an 24 inch display with 1080p. However, for my work needs (connecting to remote computers) I absolutely need a better display running at a higher resolution.

I understand that the maximum resolution supported by the late 2012 is QHD (or WQHD) meaning 2560x1600 or the more common 2560x1440. I am looking now at 32 inch displays either in full 4K or WQHD. The former is future-proof but expensive and the display must scale down to WQHD, the latter cheaper and the mac mini is able to run it at native resolution.

Does anybody here run a 4K display in WQHD resolution ? Does it look any good for office applications or is it bad because the display need to scale at 1:1.5 ?

The main and only reason why I am considering the 4K display is because I expect it to outlast my Mac mini which at some point might fail or might no longer support future MacOS releases.

Thanks for your opinion

I have a 32" 2560x1440 monitor on a Mac mini and would get a slightly smaller size if I had to purchase. 28" or so would be nice. It's too grainy.

 

[Passy78]

OK, thanks for all the replys. I have given up on a 4K monitor, as anyway I had to run it at 1440p due to the Mac mini limitations. I just bought a 1440p monitor in 27’’. I am sitting quite close to the monitor as my desk is rather small so I hope this will be the best solution.

 

[deviant]

OK, thanks for all the replys. I have given up on a 4K monitor, as anyway I had to run it at 1440p due to the Mac mini limitations. I just bought a 1440p monitor in 27’’. I am sitting quite close to the monitor as my desk is rather small so I hope this will be the best solution.

it will
you will love it

 

[newellj]

I currently have an 24 inch display with 1080p. As I need to remotely connect to work stations which are configured to 1920x1200, I need a higher resolution. I would love a 4K or 5K display in order to future-proof it and run this display at the resolution of 2560x1440 now on my Mac Mini. However 5K is too expensive, and 4K display which run at 2560x1440 might have issue due to scaling effects. That’s why I am asking.

Of course I could save money now, just buy an 32inch display with 1440p but I might regret this later.

Edit - I see you already basically did what I was writing about! Might not be helpful, but I run 1200p displays (just one on the Mini now, but I used run a pair). The displays are/were very satisfactory, though I'm not a gamer. I didn't notice any adverse impacts on the Mini's performance. With a single display, you could probably go up to 1440p with no issues. I mention this because - to me; YMMV - 1200p makes a huge difference and improvement in resolution over 1080p. I imagine 1440p would be gorgeous - at least to me.

 

[Passy78]

OK, just a short update to the story. I bought an ASUS PB278 monitor (WQHD, 27'') for 279€ which was quite a bargain. Works perfect and to be very honest I now see very little use in an expensive 4K monitor. For my office work this is more than good enough and miles better than my 1080p display from Acer I used before

 

[Neodym]

For the 2012 Mini, you could use the following:

24" display @ 1080p (1920x1080) -- dot pitch .2767mm

27" display @ 1080p (1920x1080) -- dot pitch .3113mm

32" display @ 1440p (2550x1440) -- dot pitch .2775mm

Complement: 34” @ 1440p (3440x1440) also runs fine (50Hz), even if a second monitor (1080p) is connected to HDMI at the same time.
If someone plans to go for such an UW display, I definitely recommend going curved, as with flat screens in this size you would have to constantly refocus between edges and center of the screen, which is tiring.