Mac mini 2018 bad UI-performance with LG 5K-Display

[Krevnik]

Mine is 34”, do you think I can run 3440x1440 it native, and it look okay?

Yes.

Example is that the iMac 21.5 and 27" monitors are 220 Px/inch (@2x, Retina). So a ~110 Px/inch display (like 34" 3440x1440 displays are) will have roughly the same sharpness as the 2013 iMac with the same OS version on it.

 

[mctrials23]

Mine is 34”, do you think I can run 3440x1440 it native, and it look okay?

I would think so, thats nowhere near proper 4K. Thats close to half the pixels of full 4K. And thats a large monitor. If anything I think it will look far too large if you don't run it at native res.

 

[shenfrey]

I would think so, thats nowhere near proper 4K. Thats close to half the pixels of full 4K. And thats a large monitor. If anything I think it will look far too large if you don't run it at native res.

Does that mean I’ll get by with with 8GB ram? Until I eventually upgrade with more ram? As I hear the performance issues come with the scaling which is why more ram is required? As I’m going native I should be okay right?

 

[shenfrey]

Just finished setting up my Mac mini with the LG UltraFine 5k. Performs great! No specific noticeable lags or anything like that. I'm just doing general computing so... so far so good!

Which EGPU are you using there?

 

[roosvelt]

Hi folks,
which 27" QHD monitor with 110 ppi would you recommend me to run a Mac mini i7 32Go 1To SSD ?

The reason why I want to go this way is because I don’t want to have scalling probem or UI lags, so for me the choice of a 27" in QHD is better and I’m not interested in 4K or 5K because until this day I use an iMac late 2012 27".

As far as I know, I could also plug the mac mini to my iMac in target mode but it would be a lot of power consumption, no ?

 

[ek9max]

I just picked up a 2018 Mac Mini with i5 processor. Tried running 2x 32" 4k displays scaled to 3008x1692. That's what seems readable for me.

Anyway. As I was waiting for ram and ifixit tools I tried running 1 4k display, then 2. It was pretty bad. Super sluggish, borderline unusable for a guy coming from a 2014 Imac retina that has been buttery smooth for me for the last 6 years.

Got my 32GB ram in today. It is much better. I decided 2 monitors was too much looking "side to side" for me, so I just want to keep one of them.

That being said. I'm still not happy. My 2014 imac is still snappier and smoother going into mission control or switching between multiple desktops.

I may try a sonnet 560 EGPU because they are pretty cheap now and seem like no hassle. Or I might grab a Razer X and buy a used RX580 because it wouldn't cost much more than the Sonnet from the apple store.

I just wanted to tell my findings of the last couple days.

If I run in 3840x2160 or 1920x1080 it's smooth and fine. But I don't like how either of those look. I'm spoiled with 5120x2800 scaled to 2560x1440 on my 5k imac.

Furthermore. I ran one of the monitors off my Imac's 2014 AMD M295X in 3008x1692 along side the built in display. Buttery smooth. So that proves to me that the IGPU in the mac mini is trash.....

 

[Hessel89]

So that proves to me that the IGPU in the mac mini is trash.....

haha well.. that's a given. Especially compared to an AMD R9 295X

 

[ek9max]

Bit of an update. I had all but given up, but I decided that I would try the Sonnet 560 puck today and if that worked out, i would get a razer X and rx580 combo as they are cheap on the used market now.

So I loaded up the Mac mini with all my apps and everythign again and hooked up the 4k display.

THIS TIME WHEN SETTING UP I DIDN'T TURN FILE VAULT ON.

Everything is very smooth now. I even hooked up the 2nd 4k display and everything is much smoother than yesterday.....

Very odd but thought I would note it in this forum.

Although it's not as smooth as my Imac I'm not sure that I see a need for an EGPU now. I still might go get the sonnet puck to test it out anyways.

 

[ek9max]

Another add.

Bought the Sonnet 560 puck. Everything is silky smooth now.

 

[Osamede]

Sorry to hear that OP. There is some difference in the GPU between the i3 and i5/i7 though.

Looking at gpu benchmarks, with the i5/i7 on the left, and i3 on the right, there's a 20% performance difference:
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compa...s-630-Desktop-Coffee-Lake-i3/m356797vsm359294

Also, when you compare the mini's 3 processor options, the i7's graphics actually runs 100MHz faster than the i3/i5:
https://ark.intel.com/compare/126688,129939,134905

I would maybe consider another processor option other than the i3 if you want to use it with a 4k display.

Uh no, not true.

I have a stock 2018 i3 with only 8GB RAM and got no problems displaying on my LG 4K screen at 60 Hz.

 

[sdp77]

Will a 2018 Mac mini, i7, 32 GB RAM, work with a Sony 4K 65" TV?

 

[sergioarista]

Will a 2018 Mac mini, i7, 32 GB RAM, work with a Sony 4K 65" TV?

Yes, it supports up to 3 4k outputs. I have used all three 2 lg ultra fine 4k 21.5" and a LG Oled 55" TV so yes, it works with TV, just be aware than in my case I had to activate deep color option in my tv in order to make it accept signal from my Mac mimi. My Mac mini is a i3, 32 gb.

 

[sergioarista]

This is BS and you know it. There is literally no reason why an i3 would be less capable then the i5 as they all have the Intel UHD 630. It's all about the memory.

They have different amount of cache and top igpu speed, resulting an about 30% more performance on i7 compared to i3. I bought an i3 thinking the same, I wish Had known this before that purchase...

1. i3-8100B:
   - 4 cores (4 threads)
   - 6MiB L3 cache
   - 2.4GHz DRAM
   - Max clock speed 3.6GHz
   - Max iGPU clock speed 1.1GHz
   
   
2. i5-8500B:
   - 6 cores (6 threads)
   - 9MiB L3 cache
   - 2.666GHz DRAM
   - Base clock speed 3.0GHz, max turbo boost clock speed 4.1GHz
   - Max iGPU clock speed 1.1GHz
   
   
3. i7-8700B:
   - 6 cores (12 threads)
   - 12MiB L3 cache
   - 2.666GHz DRAM
   - Base clock speed 3.2GHz, max turbo boost clock speed 4.6GHz
   - Max iGPU clock speed 1.2GHz

Intel product specifications

Intel® product specifications, features and compatibility quick reference guide and code name decoder. Compare products including processors, desktop boards, server products and networking products.

ark.intel.com

 

[ek9max]

Uh no, not true.

I have a stock 2018 i3 with only 8GB RAM and got no problems displaying on my LG 4K screen at 60 Hz.

what resolution? Mine was ok at native or 1080p. But at those the icons and stuff are too big or too small. And of the other scaled ones makes things laggy. I needed an egpu to run “ looks like 3008x1692” smoothly.

 

[vigyan]

what resolution? Mine was ok at native or 1080p. But at those the icons and stuff are too big or too small. And of the other scaled ones makes things laggy. I needed an egpu to run “ looks like 3008x1692” smoothly.

whether you use you native or HiDpi at 1080p. you can always adjust the size of icons and text. avoid going for weird resolutions like 3008x1692. Retina or HiDpi works on Mac OS with integer scaling. 1x 2x etc. but not with 1.5x or 1.8x. just like an iMac 5k is best view at 2560x1440 which is half of native 5k.

edit - update - you will notice in display preferences - for the choices in between Mac prompts - "using a scaled resolution may affect performance" . its for a reason. stick to the first or the last option only where there is no warning.

 

[Osamede]

what resolution? Mine was ok at native or 1080p. But at those the icons and stuff are too big or too small. And of the other scaled ones makes things laggy. I needed an egpu to run “ looks like 3008x1692” smoothly.

All resolutions in there work fone with no performance penalty on my Mac Mini 2018 i3. It’s not correct to say the unit cannot ha for them.

Question is can your eyes handle the sizes. There, if you are sensitive as stated above - it’s a Mac and your only eyes-garanteed solution is the design reference: 5k screen running a scaled 2560p.

But the base model device does not choke and on the various resolutions with a full speed 4K. It can run then.

 

[ek9max]

All resolutions in there work fone with no performance penalty on my Mac Mini 2018 i3. It’s not correct to say the unit cannot ha for them.

Question is can your eyes handle the sizes. There, if you are sensitive as stated above - it’s a Mac and your only eyes-garanteed solution is the design reference: 5k screen running a scaled 2560p.

But the base model device does not choke and on the various resolutions with a full speed 4K. It can run then.

That’s just not the case with me. And many others. There are MANY posts with people trying to find a solution to a laggy UI on 4k displays.

Anything other than native3840x2160 or half at 1080 run kinda crappy.

I wish it wasn't this way. And I have experimented with egpus to fix this problem. I tried the Sonnet puck 560 and razer x core w/ rx580. I settled on the Sonnet because of size.

Sorry. I just don’t believe your setup is smooth like you say.

Give it a try. You will notice a major difference between native res and scaled.

Just yesterday my wife accidentally unplugged the EGPU so I decided to plug the HDMI back into the mac mini and give it a shot. It was laggy and just not smooth.


[automerge]1592147467[/automerge]

whether you use you native or HiDpi at 1080p. you can always adjust the size of icons and text. avoid going for weird resolutions like 3008x1692. Retina or HiDpi works on Mac OS with integer scaling. 1x 2x etc. but not with 1.5x or 1.8x. just like an iMac 5k is best view at 2560x1440 which is half of native 5k.

edit - update - you will notice in display preferences - for the choices in between Mac prompts - "using a scaled resolution may affect performance" . its for a reason. stick to the first or the last option only where there is no warning.

True. Well my eyes can’t handle native res. But I have 20/15 vision.

Everything is too small or my monitor is too far away. Lol.

 

[vigyan]

You answered it yourself. If you are not going to scale with proper setting then even with good eyesight you won't get sharp details. There is a reason everyone who has ever used retina display from the first iPhone to new gen Mac is spoilt for life. As it's perfect when 4 pixels come together to form a single pixel (two horizontal and two vertical).
But if people are adamant to do it with 3.6 or even 3 pixels then results will never be the same. Try imac 5k at one of these scaled non integer hidpi mode. Now play any 1080p video on YouTube. You will see it starts looking crappy in comparison to it's default view.
But that's just my humble analysis and opinion. As I mentioned before there is a reason Apple mentions beforehand that performance will not be same at scaled resolution. So I guess they agree too.

 

[HeavyMantra]

Just plugged in the 32" Ultrafine. Fans go on full blast seconds after starting a 4k video which sucks. Seems great apart from that

 

[ek9max]

You answered it yourself. If you are not going to scale with proper setting then even with good eyesight you won't get sharp details. There is a reason everyone who has ever used retina display from the first iPhone to new gen Mac is spoilt for life. As it's perfect when 4 pixels come together to form a single pixel (two horizontal and two vertical).
But if people are adamant to do it with 3.6 or even 3 pixels then results will never be the same. Try imac 5k at one of these scaled non integer hidpi mode. Now play any 1080p video on YouTube. You will see it starts looking crappy in comparison to it's default view.
But that's just my humble analysis and opinion. As I mentioned before there is a reason Apple mentions beforehand that performance will not be same at scaled resolution. So I guess they agree too.

I don’t think I ever disagreed with you.It kinda feels like we are both saying the same thing.

it would be nice to be able to easily increase the size of the text on a system wide level.

Moe if the gpu was just powerful enough to drive 3008x1692 on 32”display. Which is very similar sized icons and text to my 27” retina iMac at 2560x1440.
[automerge]1592238975[/automerge]

Just plugged in the 32" Ultrafine. Fans go on full blast seconds after starting a 4k video which sucks. Seems great apart from that

Mac mini? Slightly laggy when switching full screen apps or going to mission control Launchpad? Those are the most noticeable lags on my system until I got an egpu.

 

[HeavyMantra]

Mac mini? Slightly laggy when switching full screen apps or going to mission control Launchpad? Those are the most noticeable lags on my system until I got an egpu.

I don't notice any lag yet. But the fans really get put to work as soon as you try to do anything graphics intensive. 4k video works well except for the fans.

 

[joulss]

Hello,

got a new Mac Mini i7 last week with 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. I also added a LG Ultrafine 5K display and the Blackmagic eGPU (RX 580) to drive it.

I gotta say I'm very disappointed because even with this configuration, the computer is super laggy. UI stutters a lot, especially when several apps are opened. Worst is Exposé and Launchpad. Google Maps is a nightmare too.

I tried different combinations and here is what I've noticed so far :
- Mac Mini directly to LG display, no eGPU -> unusable
- Mini Mini + eGPU, display plugged into Mac Mini : -> still unusable, eGPU doesn't change anything for UI lag, just gets a little better for some apps that use GPU, but Safari and Chrome are still a nightmare
- Mac Mini + eGPU, display plugged into eGPU : better but still laggy

When you plug the display into the eGPU there is no boot screen and you can't apply system updates so that's a no-go for me. Besides I don't see the point in getting such a small computer if one needs to add lots of external peripherals to make it run smoothly.

So I returned the LG display and eGPU and I'm sticking with my BenQ 32" 1440p display for now. With this configuration the computer is smooth so I guess the Mini is not ready for 5K and has to stick to 1440p. Guess I'll invest in an Eizo display to get something a bit better.

All in all I'm disappointed because I'm coming from a Mac Pro 6,1 with 6 Core CPU and D500 and despite all the hate against this computer, it performed MUCH better and was smoother than this Mini. I shouldn't have listened to the hype and kept the Mac Pro. Besides the Mac Mini is super noisy, CPU runs often around 95° and fans ramp up to 4000rpm very easily, whereas my Mac Pro was dead silent even under heavy load. I'm thinking about returning the Mini and get an Imac but delays are super long and I need a computer to work, plus I'm a little scared with Retina now and don't want to spend more than 2K on another computer if this one is laggy too.

So if you really want a Retina display : go buy an Imac, if you don't care and stick to 1440p : get a used Mac Pro 6,1, it will perform much better, will be more silent and has a discrete GPU much better than this sh**ty UHD 630.

Don't listen to the hype.

 

[Zeebedy]

Hi,

Is it possible you have a faulty unit?

My Mini has been flawless really (a bit of UI lag on the integrated graphics, but now I have updated to 10.15.5 and the RX 580, and is smooth as hello on the UI now..

And is real quiet even under a bit of load..

 

[joulss]

I don't think it's a faulty unit. I also borrowed a Mac Mini i3 from someone to test and it was worse. I think it's normal as the Mac Mini is basically a laptop without display, I don't think it's meant to run professional apps 24/7.

So I disabled Turbo Boost, at least I have a silent computer.

 

[Boyd01]

if you don't care and stick to 1440p : get a used Mac Pro 6,1, it will perform much better, will be more silent and has a discrete GPU much better than this sh**ty UHD 630.

Have only had my 2018 Mini for a week now, but I'm completely happy. Am using a 32" BenQ 1440p display and it looks great at the native resolution. I would rather have this big screen than an iMac running at a scaled resolution.

At this moment I have Windows 10 running a professional GIS application in a 16gb Parallels VM and it's noticeably faster than my old dual core i5 Windows 7 computer. I also have MS Word, Photoshop, Mail, Messages and Safari running on MacOS at the same time. The Mini is a bit warm to the touch but is absolutely silent. I'm sure the fan must be running but I can't hear it, even when I put my ear next to it.

Now, mine is an i7 with 64gb of RAM, so maybe that makes a difference? Activity monitor says 27gb is currently in use. I decided against getting a 4k or 5k monitor because it would have to be about 42 inches for the dot pitch I want at native resolution (don't want to read tiny text).

Anyway, seems like it's all about finding the right combination that suits your needs. Perhaps the Mini isn't a good choice for those who want 4k or 5k and scaled resolutions? But I really don't see a problem with 1440p and am sure I wouldn't be as happy with a 7-year old Mac Pro. I already have too many vintage computers and wanted something new, not another "orphan".