Mac Mini driving a Samsung 4K TV??

I have a 2013 Mac Mini with the specs below
• 2,6-GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
• 16 GB 1600-MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x 8 GB
• Fusion Drive 1 TB

I now ordered a Samsung 55” UE55F9000 and a screen resolution of 3840 x 2160.
Now I just l;earned that the only connections this screen accepts are either HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 or a component.

Is the Mac Mini capable of delivering such a resolution via HDMI ??
Thanks a lot

According to Apple support the 2013 Mac Mini HDMI port only supports up to 1920x1080 resolution.

mac Min driving a Samsung 4K TV

Question for Peterdorr - Did you ever get this working? I too have a (early 2013) macmini and have just bought the same TV as you.

if not:

a) Are there any mac computers that will drive this TV at 3840x2160?
b) Can Apple TV do it?

Many thanks

Mark

The current answer is no.
Even the first gen Thunderbolt won't put out a 4k resolution.

As far as i am aware, there is currently no off-the-shelf computer from anyone that supports 4k output.

The very first motherboards that support it have just been hitting the market since August 2013 - I think first by Asus and then Gigabyte.
Want 4k output from a computer right now - gonna have to build your own Windows box.
With all the content available in 4k, personally, I'd just use HDMI and let the TV do the upscaling.

There hav been some tricks shown - like using dual thunderbolt ports to output to 4 screens - with a single desktop - and a combined 4k output - this is with Intel's Collage display tech.

(I can't even imagine how small text would be with a 4k output. I might have to wear 2 pairs of glasses to read the menu bar.)

HDMI like stated is still 1080p. Basically going 4k is like having four 1920x1080 monitors. Mac Mini can support up to 3840x1080 only with the Ivy Core HD4000 iGPU. Even most high-end nVidia and AMD graphics only will get you 5760x1080. Which is 3/4s of the requirement for 4k. So no a single GPU system will not get you 4k for at least a few more years. Now the NEW Mac Pro possibly could. But really depends on if the TV will accept multiple inputs, (meaning the TV can act as multiple displays in one).

Hope this clears this up. Its not a matter of the system as a whole as its more due to the speed of the GPU cards RAMDAC. So even a PC with a single video card still not get you 4k either. You will need two mid level or higher video cards so you will get the power of multiple RAMDACs.

thanks for your advice both. It does seem as though I jumped too soon buying the UHD TV - I am in Australia and they are still 'up there' in price at $4700 for the 55" and $6800 for the 65"

I read somewhere that Netflix had some 'test' footage in 4K - some footage of people on bicycles or similar. If this is true, then how did they intend to deliver it?

thanks - (not very familiar with this stuff…..) Mark

I've read Netflix is testing 4k. Nothing mentioned yet about the delivering part. Everyone delivering HD content already recommends 10 meg down. Are we going to need 40 meg or will we have to download the files first instead of streaming?

I'd like to know if you can tell the difference upscaling your B-Rs to 4k?

it would appear from this theme that I don't really understand all the issues of 4K or what upscaling really means. I must read up.

However, in answer to Bobtomay's question. In the store, I got the sales rep to play the same BluRay DVD to both the 8000 series Samsung and the 9000 series side by side. The quality on the 9000 (which I bought) was considerably better. He also had some BR discs that were labelled "4K Mastered" which played in a normal BR player. I don't really understand the difference between BR and 4K mastered BR.

In any event, I spent considerable time creating an iTunes library with all my movies on a media drive recently and was hoping to not go back to BR. I have a Mac mini that I bought this year that I connect to the TV with HDMI to view these movies. it seems as though there is no Apple device that will deliver the 4K signal to the TV, so for now at least, I have not gained true benefit for the $2,000 difference.

The Samsung TV has a separate box with all the video/HDMI inputs and a proprietary cable that then connects to the TV. The concept being that if standards evolve (HDMI 2.0?) in the coming months that I could buy just the box without having to buy a whole new TV. Don't know how much the box is/will be.

Here's hoping that the coming months see lots of 4K available and clarity about what device is needed to deliver it.

Right now there is not really any 4k content out there except for some youtube and a couple other streaming vids.

Unfortunately, have to admit Samdung has a great idea with that breakout box to have connections currently viable and then be able to replace without tossing the TV later on when 4k content becomes more available and the upgrade to a finalized HDMI 2 becomes the new standard.

For those looking and trying to figure out what to buy, I'm with this cnet reviewer - link.

XJ - If you're reading this, you'll like this quote:

Speaking of picture quality, none of the LED LCDs I've tested in the last few years, 4K or otherwise, can beat the best plasmas, let alone OLED. But plasma's future is questionable at best, and OLED TVs will likely remain mega expensive for the next few years.

Click to expand...

thanks for the link

I am not as insane (spending all that money on a 4K TV now rather than waiting) as it appears. I am having some home work done and the TV is custom fitted into a recess and therefore will not be replaceable unless I am lucky to get another one exactly same dimensions. So I didn't want to be realising in a year from now that I thad obsolete technology. Hence the decision.

The review of the TV itself is actually very good.

I was at the cutting edge of the HD revolution replacing TVs about once a year for several years. Hard to say what choice I would make if I was in need of a new one right now. After all the reading I've done, am hoping my Panny plasma holds up until OLED makes it to the market at a price point I can afford.

I was out looking at 4k units a couple weeks ago - watching one that had the Amazing Spiderman playing. The graphics of some of the scenes were quite amazing and the store had that B-R on sale for $10. So, back at home, popped it in to watch on my plasma. Like the reviewer noted above, most of the movie was indistinguishable to me. However, there were a few scenes, like the one where spidey is underground with the strands of web out in multi directions where the lizards come trudging out on them that was very good on the plasma, but the clarity, sharpness and vibrancy of the strands of web were eye ball blowing astounding on the 4k set. What I don't know is if the set in the store was playing a B-R or if they had a 4k master that was being shown. But, I can use that reviewers comment to provide myself with an excuse not to run out and upgrade my TV.

thanks Bobtomay

Interesting on the Cnet review. They say they couldn't tell much difference between the 8000 and the 9000. When I looked at it in the store he was using an animated B-R movie, Happy Feet 2 and I could certainly tell the difference.

I also note on the review that in the USA the TV comes with 4 sets of 3D glasses. Only two here.. Same old story