Will the 2014 Mac Mini support Philips 43 in monitor?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by oldhifi, May 11, 2018.

  1. oldhifi macrumors 65816

    oldhifi

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Location:
    USA
    #1
  2. sublunar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    #2
    I think the HDMI port only outputs 1080p, the Thunderbolt 2 port would offer 4k at 30Hz which is not ideal. You'd have to wait for the next Mac Pro or Mac Mini for 4k/60Hz support.
     
  3. oldhifi thread starter macrumors 65816

    oldhifi

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Location:
    USA
  4. sublunar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    #4
    Actually, I'll correct myself: 4k at 24-30Hz as per your cut and paste above through the HDMI port. Either way. the Iris Graphics 5100 can't really drive 4k satisfactorily anyway. Another reason to wait for the 2018 Mini ;)

    While your Philips monitor will accept HDMI 2 (4k) I think the 2014 only has HDMI 1.4 which is not enough to drive the aforementioned monitor at 4k/60Hz
     
  5. TomGun macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Location:
    Norway
  6. sublunar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    #6
    It uses a Mini DisplayPort to hdmi 2 connector. The amazon link officially states it wouldn’t work with haswell

    • Supports AMD GCN cards, Nvidia® Maxwell cards and Intel® Skylake HD 5XX series and newer. Not intended for older architectures (such as Intel Haswell HD 4XXX / NVidia Kepler 5xx series Graphics)

    And the use of SwitchResX and mention of firmware updates would suggest a bit of hacking there.

    Finally performance isn’t going to rest either way.

    But good effort for trying and with any luck the next Mac mini will directly support 4K from usb-c or hdmi 2 for those of us who want the higher performance.
     
  7. TomGun macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Location:
    Norway
    #7
    I don't know much about Skylake, Haswell and the differences, I just noticed the OP asking about 4K@60Hz on the latest (2014) Mac Mini, and that was the same model that it seems to work with in the video, using that adapter and SwitchResX. Sorry, but can you point me to where it mentions firmware updates, as I cannot find it?
     
  8. opeter macrumors 68000

    opeter

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    #8
    Your monitor needs to have HDMI 2.0 specification.

    HDMI 1.4 wont work.
     
  9. sublunar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    #9
    There's firmware updates to the adapter mentioned on the link to the Amazon page for the adapter in the video.
     
  10. TomGun macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Location:
    Norway
    #10
    Thanks, I found it now. Seems to be solved smoothly with that mentioned MacBook Pro, though. I ordered one of those adapters a couple of days ago for my Mac Mini 2014, we'll see if it works. Worth a try I think.
    --- Post Merged, May 12, 2018 ---
    The monitor in question has HDMI 2.0
     
  11. treekram macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Location:
    Honolulu HI
    #11
    By the way, the link to the product for those interested but not to the point of going through the video or going to the YouTube page, is:
    https://www.amazon.com/CAC-1170-DisplayPort-Supports-3840x2160-certified/dp/B017BQCUGW

    The Intel specs for the processors used for the 2014 Mini (1.4 Ghz to 3.0 Ghz) all specify a max resolution of 3200x2000@60 Hz. However, the specs have a double-dagger footnote which says that the number is not cast in stone - saying it "may vary depending on system configuration". Though the footnote implies that the max resolution could be less, rather than more (Intel is basically saying blame the computer manufacturer, not us, if you can't get this number).

    It would have been interesting to see what the System Information Graphics/Displays is when the adapter is connected and SwitchResX is running. It would also have been good to know which Model Mini and which OS the person in the YouTube video was using. One possibility (pure speculation on my part) is that perhaps 6 bits per color channel is used and that allows a higher resolution.
     

Share This Page