11 ms·
Still no real GPU. It's the reason I went back to a MacBook. What drew me in is the desktop class i7. At the time the Mini outperformed all other Macs in bench
by tabs_masterrace 7y ago
Still no real GPU.
It's the reason I went back to a MacBook. What drew me in is the desktop class i7. At the time the Mini outperformed all other Macs in benchmarks, and it is noticeable and fast during compile times etc.
Once you connect a 4k Screen (or even more screens), an eGPU becomes a must have. The integrated one just can't do smooth UI rendering. For example typing in IntelliJ always felt laggy, because it takes so long to redraw I guess. Or things like Google Maps on satellite view in a big browser window will stutter a lot. All the subtle macOS animations aren't smooth and so on.
Bothered me so much I had to sell it. Was thinking about keeping it as media center for the TV, but again, no GPU makes it less then ideal, and its way too powerful for the job otherwise.
- stephenr 7y agoThe performance depends very greatly on the resolution you run the 4K screen at. If you're using a non-evenly scaled resolution (i.e. not exactly 1x or 2x rendering) it's not gonna be fantastic. Running at 'default' 2x my 2018 runs 2x 24" 4Ks without issue - the problem most people have I think is that they buy much larger displays and then want to use a higher rendered resolution, which is where the iGPU will struggle.
- larrik 7y agoIsn't "4K" the resolution??
- gambiting 7y agoYes, but I guess just like I don't know anyone who runs their retina macbook at the native resolution, you don't need to run a 4K screen at 4K. For instance 1080p gives you perfect 2x2 scaling with no blurriness at all since every pixel perfectly translates into 4. I have no idea why you'd do that, but I can see why that's a valid consideration for some people.
- zaphoyd 7y agoMacs have the option to run a 4K screen at different "effective dpis" via scaling. The default ~200% scaling factor gives you a 1920x1080 work area that is twice as sharp. A lot of folks (myself included) choose to draw larger work surfaces (I use a 5120x2880 canvas with 2560x1440 work area on my 24 inch 4Ks). A 4K screen is high enough DPI that when scaled text still looks very nice (nicer than a native res 1440p display). Doing this (especially on multiple displays) requires a lot of GPU power.
- bzzzt 7y agoYes, but since you can get 4k on everything from 24" to 84" you'll want to choose between more space or bigger fonts depending on the setting. macOS can do 'fractional scaling' when the integer scaling isn't to your preference, but the implementation works by rendering to a much higher resolution internally and then scaling down which needs a beefy GPU to run without noticeably overhead.
- bluedino 7y agoAnything bigger than 24" or so and the blurriness gets bad. The pixel density just isn't quite there.
- stephenr 7y agoAs others have said it is the physical resolution, which is why the term used in macOS is "Looks like X by Y". The default of "looks like 1920x1080" is straight "@2x" - so the rendering is pixel doubled in both axis, giving a crisper image than a same size "real" 1920x1080 display.
- CrazyStat 7y ago> the problem most people have I think is that they buy much larger displays and then want to use a higher rendered resolution I'm not going to buy a 4k screen with the intention of running it at 1080p. There are plenty of large 1080p screens out there. If I buy a 4k screen it's because I want to run it at 4k.
- joosters 7y agoI'm using a 4k display on a mac mini, but I've got it set halfway between the 'larger text' (1080p x2) and 'more space' (4k with no pixel doubling). This doesn't mean I'm running it at a lower resolution - behind the scenes, the mac is actually rendering the display at 6016x3384 and then smoothly scaling it down to the native 4k of 3840x2160. Because it's having to draw everything at a higher resolution than the actual screen, performance does take a hit, but I find everything still works perfectly smoothly and responsive (just don't try playing games at this resolution on the mac mini!)
- joshmn 7y agoMac Mini user here also: What display are you using?
- joosters 7y agoIt's a BenQ EW3270U, 4k @ 60hz, connected via USB-C. It's been working just fine, I'd recommend it. I have a second monitor which is not high-DPI but 2560x1440, connected with a USB-C => displayport cable. Surprisingly, the mix of high-DPI and normal DPI monitors works really well, with no problems, even when moving windows from one display to the other.
- stephenr 7y ago... I think you've missed the point. It isn't running at 1080p. It's doing "@2x" pixel rendering (commonly called "Retina") - so it uses 4 physical pixels to render one "screen" pixel, giving you much crisper.. everything.
- Lightbody 7y agoJust chiming in here and endorsing the eGPU add-on to resolve 4k monitor performance for non-standard resolutions / pixel density. Without it things get pretty chunky. With it, smooth as butter.
- everdrive 7y agoMac Mini doesn't need a real GPU in my opinion -- what they need is a mid-level desktop that accepts a real GPU. $1000 - $1500 with decent specs. But, we know they won't move into that space.
- PascLeRasc 7y agoYou can get a new Mac Mini and a Thunderbolt 3 eGPU for $1500 or less.
- MisterTea 7y agokinda negates the whole mini part.
- stephenr 7y agoI never understand this argument. If you "want" a mid-level "box with slots", that's going to be bigger anyway.
- izietto 7y agoI don't think that's the point: if you can ship 16" MacBook Pros with dedicated GPU you could do the same with MacMini; why don't you give me such option? ("you" stands for "Apple" here btw)
- greggman3 7y agoMacBooks don't have real GPUs either (I assume you mean Macbook Pros). Running the default HDRP Unity scene on a MacBook Pro runs around 30fps, Running on a 3yr old Razer 1060 runs at 180fps. I use my MBP more than my Razer but I'm disappointed Apple no longer makes the power house laptops they used to.
- zootam 7y agothe 15" macbook pro has a dedicated gpu, the mac mini only has integrated gpu.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> Still no real GPU. What is a 'real' GPU? Why is this one not 'real'? If it can be used to run a rendering API and it outputs graphics fast enough to use the computer with a realistic number of monitors then it's a real GPU.
- penagwin 7y agoWell there's an integrated GPU sure - it does 'technically have a real gpu'. But there no options for CUDA applications, and no options for similar applications on the AMD side. Depending on your use case, the iGPU might not be powerful enough for your needs even without ML programs if you have multiple monitors (and one is 4k).
- somerandomanon 7y agoIntel GPUs generate artefacts in FCPX and Motion 5 under heavier load.
- terhechte 7y agoAre you already running Catalina? I observed a huge UI performance increase with the current Mac Mini on Catalina. The lagginess and stuttering you described bothered me to no end, but it feels (almost) completely fine on Catalina. Edit: I have a 5k screen connected
- hugi 7y agoIf IntelliJ can't handle realtime rendering of text on modern hardware, perhaps the problem is with the software? My kid spilled a glass of water on my 2018 MacBook last year (sob). At that time, word was out about the 2019 MacBooks with the new keyboards, so I decided to hold out, took out an old 2012 Mac Mini and have been doing my (Java/Swift) development on it for the past few months. It works so well, I've been in no hurry to pick up a new MacBook. Definitely don't feel animations or anything is laggy.
- FpUser 7y agoIntelliJ tools always felt like molasses to me. Maybe has something to do with them being done in Java. Most of my dev tools are native and the feeling is totally different.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hugi 7y agoWell, my two primary tools are Xcode and Eclipse. Xcode is native but Eclipse is much, much faster. I doubt appliction performance has much to do with the language they're written in.
- FpUser 7y agoNot the language but what it compiles to and of course some sorcery that few people possess. Anyways I had actually used Eclipse and did not find it particularly responsive. Been a while so maybe it is faster now.
- trumpeta 7y agoyeah they have a bunch of open bugs about performance making it unusable, they are even rewriting their rendering to use Metal underneath
- nine_k 7y agoYes, the problem must be in software, but not that software. IntelliJ is quite fast for me both on Windows and on Linux, no typing lag.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]