No eGPU and two 4K monitors (no scaling). Is it possible?

[gusping]

Can the new Mac mini (i7/16GB RAM) drive two 4k displays with no scaling (or 1080p mode, which uses no extra GPU power)? I have one 4K monitor and would love to get another. I don’t do any intensive work, just browsing, videos, outlook, word processing etc.

Any comments are appreciated. Thanks

 

[macdos]

Can the new Mac mini (i7/16GB RAM) drive two 4k displays with no scaling (or 1080p mode, which uses no extra GPU power)? I have one 4K monitor and would love to get another. I don’t do any intensive work, just browsing, videos, outlook, word processing etc.

Any comments are appreciated. Thanks

That's what I use, and it works like a charm. Why wouldn't it work? It doesn't take a lot to drive a 4K screen (or two, or three). What takes a lot is doing computing with a GPU, as in rendering (games, video production etc.).

 

[Stephen.R]

I think it will depend. From memory @macdos uses them at pure 4K mode (ie no scaling of any kind). At “best for this display” aka “looks like 1080p” I had some weirdness (most noticeable is occasional UI lag and dropped video frames), but that’s possibly due to a fault (it appears to have the t2 issue, not sure how much this potentially affects gpu), I’m taking it in for service today or tomorrow.

 

[dmsea1]

Can the new Mac mini (i7/16GB RAM) drive two 4k displays with no scaling (or 1080p mode, which uses no extra GPU power)? I have one 4K monitor and would love to get another. I don’t do any intensive work, just browsing, videos, outlook, word processing etc.

Any comments are appreciated. Thanks

I am using that same setup now - works perfectly. I have the i7 and 16gb as well. I have done HD editing on one screen and HD streaming on the other, while monitoring the internal GPU and it is pulling it off nicely. You will be more than fine with an additional monitor. I think I would upgrade the RAM before I upgraded to a eGPU.

 

[Stephen.R]

I am using that same setup now - works perfectly.

What resolution are you running the displays, out of interest?

 

[dmsea1]

What resolution are you running the displays, out of interest?

LG Ultrawide 34" 3440x1440 and Vizio 60" 3840x2160

 

[gusping]

LG Ultrawide 34" 3440x1440 and Vizio 60" 3840x2160

Thanks for your comments. Out of interest, which LG UltraWide monitor have you got, and is there a considerable hit to pixel density vs the 4K monitor when using them side by side? I have only used a 1080p or 4K monitor in recent years.

 

[dmsea1]

Thanks for your comments. Out of interest, which LG UltraWide monitor have you got, and is there a considerable hit to pixel density vs the 4K monitor when using them side by side? I have only used a 1080p or 4K monitor in recent years.

I purchased the LG 34UC80-B - I am not actually sure the PPI on it - it is affordable and the one thing it doesn't have that makes it cheaper are internal speakers (don't need them) and USB-C - ( I just purchased a 4k HDMI to USB-C cable through Amazon) and you can pocket the savings. I didn't need a USB-C monitor or speakers since I do some recording and I have my own speakers. I have not noticed any hit to pixel density and I was coming from an iMac. I am not scaling either display either. Hope that helps.

 

[gusping]

I purchased the LG 34UC80-B - I am not actually sure the PPI on it - it is affordable and the one thing it doesn't have that makes it cheaper are internal speakers (don't need them) and USB-C - ( I just purchased a 4k HDMI to USB-C cable through Amazon) and you can pocket the savings. I didn't need a USB-C monitor or speakers since I do some recording and I have my own speakers. I have not noticed any hit to pixel density and I was coming from an iMac. I am not scaling either display either. Hope that helps.

Thanks! Seems that model isn't available in the UK. There is a Samsung 3440 x 1440p monitor available I could get instead of another 4k monitor. It has a 100hz refresh rate which may be too much for the Mac mini alongside a 4K monitor already.

 

[gusping]

That's what I use, and it works like a charm. Why wouldn't it work? It doesn't take a lot to drive a 4K screen (or two, or three). What takes a lot is doing computing with a GPU, as in rendering (games, video production etc.).

Thanks. Out of curiosity, which monitors do you have, and how are they connected, USB-C to DP?

 

[djc6]

I have i7/16GB/1TB mac mini 2018. I have two 27" 4K monitors running at 60Hz and I am scaling both displays - NO LAG, no issues. I've been using it for over a month and am very happy!

One display is HDMI <-> HDMI

Second display is USB-C <-> HDMI 2.0 active cable: http://a.co/d/0bugVQ5

 

[gusping]

I have i7/16GB/1TB mac mini 2018. I have two 27" 4K monitors running at 60Hz and I am scaling both displays - NO LAG, no issues. I've been using it for over a month and am very happy!

One display is HDMI <-> HDMI

Second display is USB-C <-> HDMI 2.0 active cable: http://a.co/d/0bugVQ5

View attachment 813014

Thank you so much, just what I wanted to know. Do you have two 4K displays or one 4K and one LG 5K displays? I’m surprised that it’s lag-free with that and scaling. Very impressive.

 

[macdos]

Thank you so much, just what I wanted to know. Do you have two 4K displays or one 4K and one LG 5K displays? I’m surprised that it’s lag-free with that and scaling. Very impressive.

1:1 is optimal, but 1:2 scaling is no problemo. Other scalings will tax the GPU.

 

[gusping]

1:1 is optimal, but 1:2 scaling is no problemo. Other scalings will tax the GPU.

To clarify, on a 4K monitor, 1:1 is 3840 x 2160, and 2:1 is the ‘looks like 1080p’ mode?

 

[macdos]

To clarify, on a 4K monitor, 1:1 is 3840 x 2160, and 2:1 is the ‘looks like 1080p’ mode?

Yes.

4K = UHD = 3840x2160 (2160p)

Divide by half to get FHD = 2K = 1920x1080 (1080p)

If you try QHD = 2560x1440 you have 2/3 scaling, which requires computation.

 

[gusping]

Yes.

4K = UHD = 3840x2160 (2160p)

Divide by half to get FHD = 2K = 1920x1080 (1080p)

If you try QHD = 2560x1440 you have 2/3 scaling, which requires computation.

Thank you! Going by what djc6 says, it looks like I now need to find £500 to purchase a second 4K monitor and a dual VESA monitor mount... What fun!

 

[djc6]

Thank you so much, just what I wanted to know. Do you have two 4K displays or one 4K and one LG 5K displays? I’m surprised that it’s lag-free with that and scaling. Very impressive.

I have two LG 27UD58P-B 4K displays - no 5K.

My use case are browsers (chrome, firefox, safari), terminal and slack - doing work mostly. No issues playing youtube videos, etc.. but I am not doing any gaming. I don't notice any lag while doing UI animations.

 

[macdos]

I have two LG 27UD58P-B 4K displays - no 5K.

My use case are browsers (chrome, firefox, safari), terminal and slack - doing work mostly. No issues playing youtube videos, etc.. but I am not doing any gaming. I don't notice any lag while doing UI animations.

The image you posted tells that you have one 5K monitor and one "6K" monitor, both at 1:2 scaling. Since LG 27UD58P-B is actually 4K at 3840x2160, I assume you have used "lowres" options to get those numbers, and then scaled it 1:2. What's the point?

 

[djc6]

I assume you have used "lowres" options to get those numbers, and then scaled it 1:2. What's the point?

Not clear what you mean. One monitor I have set to "looks like" 3008x1692 and another I have set to "looks like" 2560x1440

One monitor is a little further away from me on the desk, so I just set them to where I can comfortably read text.

 

[macdos]

Not clear what you mean. One monitor I have set to "looks like" 3008x1692 and another I have set to "looks like" 2560x1440

One monitor is a little further away from me on the desk, so I just set them to where I can comfortably read text.

View attachment 813162 View attachment 813163

I was referring to the image in #11

So what is happening here is that monitor 1 is scaled from native 3840x2160 to virtual 6016x3384 (1.56x), and then divided by half to real 3008x1692 (0.78333x).

Monitor 2 is scaled from native 3840x2160 to virtual 5120x2880 (1.333x), and then divided by half to real 2560x1440 (0.666x).

No wonder those setups look so fuzzy.

 

[djc6]

I was referring to the image in #11

So what is happening here is that monitor 1 is scaled from native 3840x2160 to virtual 6016x3384 (1.56x), and then divided by half to real 3008x1692 (0.78333x).

Monitor 2 is scaled from native 3840x2160 to virtual 5120x2880 (1.333x), and then divided by half to real 2560x1440 (0.666x).

No wonder those setups look so fuzzy.

I know thats what the OS is doing. I just didn't get the "What's the point?" comment - the point is I can read text on the displays

Any suggestions on what I should be doing instead? When I use native resolution and increase font size in individual applications, it doesn't increase size of the UI elements.

I find the displays even at these scaled resolutions look a lot lot nicer than my previous 24" 1920 x 1080 displays (HP ZR24w)

 

[007p]

Possibly a stupid question - but as the Mac mini can’t drive 2 x 5k monitors - that means even if you scaled the monitors you would end up with one 1440p and one 1080p? Rather than two 1440p as it couldn’t run that?

 

[iandk]

Can anyone confirm, 2x 4K monitors work even in scaled mode without issues?

 

[Stephen.R]

Can anyone confirm, 2x 4K monitors work even in scaled mode without issues?

The default scaling? (i.e. "looks like 1920x1080") Yep, works pretty well.

Non-default scaling (i.e. I'd prefer "looks like 2304x1296" because my displays are 24") it'll run one OK on the built-in GPU, but two gets quite.. choppy.

 

[iandk]

I would be interested in the option one left to the "more space"