Can the GeForce Drive two 30" at Full Rez?

[Brent Turbo]

I believe the specs here are a tad bit misrepresented, since Apple has been unclear about their new display...

On order to support the full 2560 x 1600 resolution, the monitor must utilize BOTH ports in tandem on the nVidia 6800 card. It is possible to run two 30" displays off of one card, but they must both run at a lower resolution, as supported by DVI standards.

In short, you cannot have two 30" Apple displays running at 2560 x 1600 on the same computer. It's not a big deal, since almost no one could afford that configuration in the first place.

[PismoGuy]

In fact, it comes with two Dual DVI connectors, allowing users to drive two 30" Apple Displays.


Does this mean that it can support four smaller displays? Just imagine four 23 or 20" screens around you..... mmyessss.... haha.

If so, will we be able to run some games in a panoramic fashion? I guess it would get sluggish in higher settings with 3 monitors.

[Brent Turbo]

Does this mean that it can support four smaller displays? Just imagine four 23 or 20" screens around you..... mmyessss.... haha.

If so, will we be able to run some games in a panoramic fashion? I guess it would get sluggish in higher settings with 3 monitors.

That is a misquote. It comes with Dual DVI connectors. Not TWO Dual DVI connectors. There is no such thing as a dual DVI connector, but there is such thing as a hardware technology that links two DVI connectors together to support displays larger than the DVI standard can accomodate.

[dguisinger]

I believe the specs here are a tad bit misrepresented, since Apple has been unclear about their new display...

On order to support the full 2560 x 1600 resolution, the monitor must utilize BOTH ports in tandem on the nVidia 6800 card. It is possible to run two 30" displays off of one card, but they must both run at a lower resolution, as supported by DVI standards.

In short, you cannot have two 30" Apple displays running at 2560 x 1600 on the same computer. It's not a big deal, since almost no one could afford that configuration in the first place.

Brent,

Maybe you could try reading before you speak. It has DUAL DUAL DVI interfaces. The monitor doesn't plug into 2 ports, Dual DVI is a DVI port with two DVI signals, using previously unused pins in the connector.

This graphics card has the equivilent of 4 DVI ports using the 2 Dual DVI Ports.

Therefore you can run two monitors at full resolution, Apple wouldn't pull a stunt like that and stand up in front of a crowd and say you can get 8.2 million pixels off that card if it wasn't true.

[dguisinger]

That is a misquote. It comes with Dual DVI connectors. Not TWO Dual DVI connectors. There is no such thing as a dual DVI connector, but there is such thing as a hardware technology that links two DVI connectors together to support displays larger than the DVI standard can accomodate.


Again, wrong. Try reading apple's website.

[Grimace]

I believe the specs here are a tad bit misrepresented, since Apple has been unclear about their new display...

On order to support the full 2560 x 1600 resolution, the monitor must utilize BOTH ports in tandem on the nVidia 6800 card. It is possible to run two 30" displays off of one card, but they must both run at a lower resolution, as supported by DVI standards.

In short, you cannot have two 30" Apple displays running at 2560 x 1600 on the same computer. It's not a big deal, since almost no one could afford that configuration in the first place.


I dont' think this is right. The "old' DVI standard utilized half of the pins. The "new" DVI standard utilizes all of them. You ONLY use one DVI connector to fully power a 30" display.

You can power two 30" off the same card. One DVI port per display. (It would have been helpful to call the new connectors DVI2 or something.)

[dguisinger]

From Apple's website:

Dual Link DVI
The 30-inch Cinema HD Display requires the next level of DVI connectivity — “dual link” to drive the massive amount of pixels to the screen. And the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL graphics card (available from the Apple Store) delivers, with the most advanced graphics engine available. This card, designed specifically to support the dual link DVI connection, delivers 2560 by 1600 resolution. Even better, it can drive two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays, giving you the ultimate creative canvas. This card will be available for Mac only in August 2004.

[Frixo Cool]

Yup, it's DUAL DUAL and it does support 2 x 2560x1600.

[dguisinger]

Yup, it's DUAL DUAL and it does support 2 x 2560x1600.

Hence why during the video he said not only is it Dual DVI, its Dual Dual DVI and the crowd gasped. :)

[sabbath999]

Yup, it's DUAL DUAL and it does support 2 x 2560x1600.

Which is completely sick :eek: , in a good sort of way :D

[Brent Turbo]

Brent,

Maybe you could try reading before you speak. It has DUAL DUAL DVI interfaces. The monitor doesn't plug into 2 ports, Dual DVI is a DVI port with two DVI signals, using previously unused pins in the connector.

This graphics card has the equivilent of 4 DVI ports using the 2 Dual DVI Ports.

Therefore you can run two monitors at full resolution, Apple wouldn't pull a stunt like that and stand up in front of a crowd and say you can get 8.2 million pixels off that card if it wasn't true.

Sorry buddy, but that's not the case....

The technology known as "Dual Link DVI" supports resolutions up to 2048x1536. It requires both ports to drive a signal higher than that.

HEre's the DVI standard if you'd rather believe marketing:

http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html

I'm not trying to poop in anyone's conflakes here, I just want to make sure nobody has any false hopes for these displays before they get a mortgage on their house.

[Sun Baked]

Hence why during the video he said not only is it Dual DVI, its Dual Dual DVI and the crowd gasped. :)Maybe we should include the old term sheet... since this is getting confusion and calling it DVI2 would again be confusing when DVI 2.0 does show up. :confused: Terms recognized by the DVI 1.0 Specification:

DVI-D Digital Only
DVI-I Digital and Analog
Dual Link Dual Link DVI supports 2x165 MHz (2048x1536 at 60 Hz, 1920x1080 at 85 Hz). A dual link implementation utilizes all 24 of the available pins.
Single Link Single Link DVI supports a maximum bandwidth of 165 MHz (1920x1080 at 60 Hz, 1280x1024 at 85Hz). A single link implementation utilizes 12 of the 24 available pins.

[dguisinger]

Sorry buddy, but that's not the case....

The technology known as "Dual Link DVI" supports resolutions up to 2048x1536. It requires both ports to drive a signal higher than that.

HEre's the DVI standard if you'd rather believe marketing:

http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html

I'm not trying to poop in anyone's conflakes here, I just want to make sure nobody has any false hopes for these displays before they get a mortgage on their house.

OMG Dude, read the f*n website and watch the f*n presentation. Dual DVI Link is a single port. It is not standard DVI x 2!

[Brent Turbo]

From Apple's website:

Dual Link DVI
The 30-inch Cinema HD Display requires the next level of DVI connectivity — “dual link” to drive the massive amount of pixels to the screen. And the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL graphics card (available from the Apple Store) delivers, with the most advanced graphics engine available. This card, designed specifically to support the dual link DVI connection, delivers 2560 by 1600 resolution. Even better, it can drive two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays, giving you the ultimate creative canvas. This card will be available for Mac only in August 2004.

Right. It CAN drive two 30" displays. It says NOWHERE that it can drive two displays at 2560 x 1600. Read it again. It's called marketing.

[javabear90]

wait, can you get a splitter and so you get 4 normal dvi ports? Then 4 displays :rolleyes: :cool:

[benpatient]

it isn't a question of "old" or "new" DVI connections...it's the same standard...a good portion of the full set of pins simply weren't being used by most DVI cards and monitors...

Workstation PC graphics cards like the Quadra series have been using the whole DVI bandwidth, though what is being called dual DVI is really two signals running on one connection. (the IBM T221 needs two "dual DVI" connections to go above 21hz at full resolution (which is an insanely high 3800x1600). To achieve 40hz, it needs all four DVI channels. And it has been around since early 2003, at least that's when I heard about it.

i must point out here, that it seems a bit misleading to quote THG's review of the PC 6800U, when we all know (or should) that the Mac version will likely be quite a bit different, in function AND in performance...other high-end Mac graphics cards available right now are down-clocked so that the current machines can handle the power requirements. down-clocking, obviously, leads to a slower card. How much slower is yet to be seen. My point is simply that we have no idea what speeds the core and memory will be running on this Mac version of the 6800U.

Just to clarify a couple of things, you CAN attach 2 30" screens to this card. You can't, though, expect identical (or, if the speeds are enough different, comparable) performance.

just running a desktop resolution of 2560x1600 is going to put a lot of stress on the card...add 3D effects processing to the burden, and even a Quadra3000 has a bit of trouble running the T221 and doing 3d at the same time...

[Brent Turbo]

OMG Dude, read the f*n website and watch the f*n presentation. Dual DVI Link is a single port. It is not standard DVI x 2!

You're 100% correct! Dual Link DVI is ONE port. The video card in question has TWO dual link DVI ports. Each dual link DVI port can support a resolution UP TO 2048x1536. That is far below the advertised resolution of 2560 x 1600. In order to display that resolution on ONE 30" display, a cable must be plugged into BOTH dual link DVI ports. Plugging in two monitors requires a lower resolution on both displays.

Get it?

[chmilar]

It is simple: the 30" display can be driven by ONE dual-link DVI port.

The nVidia 6800 Ultra card has TWO dual-link DVI ports.

From Apple's website (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=M9593G/A): It is the first card available to support the DVI standard dual link digital signal specification from the two DVI ports it features.

Dual-link DVI supports 330 MHz of bandwidth. 2560x1600 at 60Hz uses 246 MHz. It easily fits on ONE Dual-link DVI connection!

[dguisinger]

Right. It CAN drive two 30" displays. It says NOWHERE that it can drive two displays at 2560 x 1600. Read it again. It's called marketing.
Brent, you are DENSE.

Apple has come out and said DUAL DUAL DVI in the Keynote, watch it your freaking self. They say it on their website. We have posted the specs that say Dual DVI uses all the pins.

Now it is time for you to sit down and shut up. Stop spreading false truths.

[Brent Turbo]

It is simple: the 30" display can be driven by ONE dual-link DVI port.

The nVidia 6800 Ultra card has TWO dual-link DVI ports.

From Apple's website (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=M9593G/A): It is the first card available to support the DVI standard dual link digital signal specification from the two DVI ports it features.

Again, you're totally right. It's fully possible to run the 30" display off of one port, but you will not be able to achieve the full 2560 by 1600 resolution.

[blakespot]

Right. It CAN drive two 30" displays. It says NOWHERE that it can drive two displays at 2560 x 1600. Read it again. It's called marketing.


The Mac GeForce 6800 has two dual link DVI ports. Each can drive a 30" screen at its native 2560x1600 resolution.

"The DVI standard specifies a single connector that handles two different digital signal bandwidths: single link and dual link. At 165MHz, the single-link bandwidth supports HDTV and UXGA (1600-by-1200-pixel resolution) display formats. The dual-link bandwidth (transmitted over a single cable) uses the same DVI connection, but it supports much higher resolutions, such as the 2560-by-1600-pixel res"


blakespot

[Brent Turbo]

Brent, you are DENSE.

Apple has come out and said DUAL DUAL DVI in the Keynote, watch it your freaking self. They say it on their website. We have posted the specs that say Dual DVI uses all the pins.

Now it is time for you to sit down and shut up. Stop spreading false truths.

The problem is that you don't understand the terms. Yes, it is DUAL DUAL DVI. Meanint TWO x DUAL DVI

One DUAL DVI = maximum resolution of 2048x1536, so if you plug the monitor into ONE DUAL DVI port, then how do you expect to get a highed resolution than that out of one port?

[Brent Turbo]

The Mac GeForce 6800 has two dual link DVI ports. Each can drive a 30" screen at its native 2560x1600 resolution.

"The DVI standard specifies a single connector that handles two different digital signal bandwidths: single link and dual link. At 165MHz, the single-link bandwidth supports HDTV and UXGA (1600-by-1200-pixel resolution) display formats. The dual-link bandwidth (transmitted over a single cable) uses the same DVI connection, but it supports much higher resolutions, such as the 2560-by-1600-pixel res"


blakespot


I'd be interested in knowing where that came from, because that goes against the very Dual Link DVI standard itself. It could be possible if it were a floating standard and could be modified by Apple, but I didn't think that's how DVI worked.

[dguisinger]

You're 100% correct! Dual Link DVI is ONE port. The video card in question has TWO dual link DVI ports. Each dual link DVI port can support a resolution UP TO 2048x1536. That is far below the advertised resolution of 2560 x 1600. In order to display that resolution on ONE 30" display, a cable must be plugged into BOTH dual link DVI ports. Plugging in two monitors requires a lower resolution on both displays.

Get it?

*LAUGHS*

Look at what you just said! You are saying a Dual DVI port can't drive the resolution on one monitor.

[Brent Turbo]

*LAUGHS*

Look at what you just said! You are saying a Dual DVI port can't drive the resolution on one monitor.

Correct. Again the link to the standard:

http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html

Read the maximum resolution for one Dual Link DVI port.

[Sun Baked]

Correct. Again the link to the standard:

http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html

Read the maximum resolution for one Dual Link DVI port.And I see a "term sheet" for DVI 1.0 -- and no way to see where the standards have been modified since the original DVI 1.0 implementation years ago.

[arn]

I believe the specs here are a tad bit misrepresented, since Apple has been unclear about their new display...

On order to support the full 2560 x 1600 resolution, the monitor must utilize BOTH ports in tandem on the nVidia 6800 card. It is possible to run two 30" displays off of one card, but they must both run at a lower resolution, as supported by DVI standards.

In short, you cannot have two 30" Apple displays running at 2560 x 1600 on the same computer. It's not a big deal, since almost no one could afford that configuration in the first place.

I think you are mistaken. I think each port on the card is Dual DVI.

arn

[arn]

That is a misquote. It comes with Dual DVI connectors. Not TWO Dual DVI connectors. There is no such thing as a dual DVI connector, but there is such thing as a hardware technology that links two DVI connectors together to support displays larger than the DVI standard can accomodate.

I think you are mistaken. There is such a thing as a Dual DVI connector. And this card has two of them

arn

[Frixo Cool]

Jobs said 8.2 mpixels. And that's 2 x 2560x1600 isn't it?

[Brent Turbo]

I think you are mistaken. I think each port on the card is Dual DVI.

arn

Yes, they are. There's a misunderstanding about what Dual Link DVI is, though. There are two Dual Link DVI ports on the card. Each supports a maximum rez of 2048x1536, or both Dual Link ports can be linked (creating a quad-link, essentially), for the full 2560 x 1600 resolution.

[JustAGuy]

I think Brent backed down from the "no dual dvi" port stance, but he still has a valid point wrt the res limitation. The DVI page clearly shows a lower res than Jobs is saying.

However, I'm not convinced that this is a complete summary of supported res.

[VeloDrax]

You're 100% correct! Dual Link DVI is ONE port. The video card in question has TWO dual link DVI ports. Each dual link DVI port can support a resolution UP TO 2048x1536. That is far below the advertised resolution of 2560 x 1600. In order to display that resolution on ONE 30" display, a cable must be plugged into BOTH dual link DVI ports. Plugging in two monitors requires a lower resolution on both displays.

Get it?

I understand your confusion, based on the DVI information sheet. However, the X800 and 6800 break the above stated barrier.

The Dual Dual 6800 will push two 30-inch displays at full resolution.

Personally, I would have thought the Apple marketing machine would have come up with less confusing terminology to describe the technology in question.

[Brent Turbo]

Jobs said 8.2 mpixels. And that's 2 x 2560x1600 isn't it?

It is. I mean, I want to believe it, but I know what marketing tries to do, and I'd like to see a link or something that shows that this card is actually capable of pumping 2560 x 1600 out of EACH dual link port. Everything I've read about DVI, and this particular card, works against that theory, and the marketing is extremely unclear.

[HyperX]

Brent I get what your saying.. Let's wait and see though

Apple may NOT be adhearing to the Dual DVI spec. This wouldn't be the first time. If it was spec then there would be nothing that says you couldn't run a 30" off a 9800XT. I have a feeling the ports are a bastard child of dual dvi 1.0 spec.

[dguisinger]

I understand your confusion, based on the DVI information sheet. However, the X800 and 6800 break the above stated barrier.

The Dual Dual 6800 will push two 30-inch displays at full resolution.

Personally, I would have thought the Apple marketing machine would have come up with less confusing terminology to describe the technology in question.

Problem is Apple invents enough terms as it is for industry standards, if they want their products to be easily understood by people that work in both Mac and PC industries, its in their best interest to let people know what industry standards it works with.

Basically, I would assume this is an overclocked Dual DVI signal to hit that resolution.

[JustAGuy]

It's also worth doing some math. Single DVI supports up to 1920x1080 @ 60 Hz, which is ~2.1 mp. If the Dual really does only go to 2048x1536 as per that page, that's only ~3.1 mp, not a good efficiency for the second set of pins.

2560-by-1600, and 4.1 mp seems more inline with what you'd expect for 2 single dvi connections being able to carry.

[Brent Turbo]

I think Brent backed down from the "no dual dvi" port stance, but he still has a valid point wrt the res limitation. The DVI page clearly shows a lower res than Jobs is saying.

However, I'm not convinced that this is a complete summary of supported res.

AFAIK, these are the people who created the DVI standard to begin with, and there is no 2.0 standard.

Look, I'm not trying to cause trouble around here, and I'll glady buzz off if that's what people want, but I want people to more clearly understand that this MAY not be what they think it is. I was excited about this too, until I noticed the marketing was confusing, and it all started to look like fine print to me.

[dguisinger]

It is. I mean, I want to believe it, but I know what marketing tries to do, and I'd like to see a link or something that shows that this card is actually capable of pumping 2560 x 1600 out of EACH dual link port. Everything I've read about DVI, and this particular card, works against that theory, and the marketing is extremely unclear.

Brent,

sorry about getting really frustrated with you, when you were denying there were two dual links I was getting pretty flustered when its like right there.

As far as the throughput goes, I would assume my assumption to be correct, that they can scale up the DVI frequency slighly to make their targets.

[Lancetx]

It is. I mean, I want to believe it, but I know what marketing tries to do, and I'd like to see a link or something that shows that this card is actually capable of pumping 2560 x 1600 out of EACH dual link port. Everything I've read about DVI, and this particular card, works against that theory, and the marketing is extremely unclear.

This is from NVIDIA's website, however, this is in reference to the Windows version of the 6800 card. Perhaps the Mac version will be different though, I guess time will tell...

Dual integrated 400 MHz RAMDACs for display resolutions up to and including 2048 × 1536 at 85Hz

[dguisinger]

It's also worth doing some math. Single DVI supports up to 1920x1080 @ 60 Hz, which is ~2.1 mp. If the Dual really does only go to 2048x1536 as per that page, that's only ~3.1 mp, not a good efficiency for the second set of pins.

2560-by-1600, and 4.1 mp seems more inline with what you'd expect for 2 single dvi connections being able to carry.

What you are saying sounds right. Infact, if you think about it, 4-5 years ago when the standard was made, anything more than 2048 probably seamed like an ungodly number of pixels that would never be made in a monitor, so they picked a number that was a multiple of 1024 (hense two standard LCDs of the time, side by side) and put that in the standard. It probably is fully capable of driving 4.1 million pixels.

[arn]

Yes, they are. There's a misunderstanding about what Dual Link DVI is, though. There are two Dual Link DVI ports on the card. Each supports a maximum rez of 2048x1536, or both Dual Link ports can be linked (creating a quad-link, essentially), for the full 2560 x 1600 resolution.

You're assuming the numbers given here (http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html) are absolute Maxiumum resolutions and not just convenient examples of real-life monitors/resolutions.

arn

[chmilar]

To compute the bandwidth needed for a display: horiz pixels * vert pixels * refresh rate.

Single-link DVI: 165 MHz maximum

Dual-link DVI: 330 MHz maximum

2048 * 1536 * 60Hz = 188 MHz

2560 * 1600 * 60Hz = 246 MHz

So 2560x1600 at 60Hz easily works on ONE dual-link DVI, with bandwidth to spare. Last time I checked 246 < 330.

2048 * 1536 is too much for a single-link, so it has to use dual-link. However 2048x1536@60Hz does not represent the maximum bandwidth of dual-link DVI!

[Laslo Panaflex]

Right. It CAN drive two 30" displays. It says NOWHERE that it can drive two displays at 2560 x 1600. Read it again. It's called marketing.

Are you joking? It has dual dual link DVI connectors.

Here is how it works:

The card has two DVI connectors.

Each connector is essentally 2 DVI connectors in one, giving it the ability to support resolutions past the 1920x1200 max of a single DVI connector.

So this card has the ability to support 1920x1200 times FOUR!

That is more that enough to support dual 30" displays at their native resolution.

If you need more proof, look at this thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77501

It has pictures of a G% with Dual 30" CMDs running at native resolution.

Do not underestimate the power of this card, it is very impressive.

[Sun Baked]

Yes, they are. There's a misunderstanding about what Dual Link DVI is, though. There are two Dual Link DVI ports on the card. Each supports a maximum rez of 2048x1536, or both Dual Link ports can be linked (creating a quad-link, essentially), for the full 2560 x 1600 resolution.Look back at the Matrox Parhelia 512 card from 2002 it says -- (Single dual-link DVI output Up to 2560 x 2048).

So there is a possibility this card can support a LOWER resolution from their Dual Link DVI output.

[ColdZero]

Lets just do some math:

2560x1600 = 4096000 (The number of pixels on 1 30" LCD)

4096000 * 32(number of bits per pixel) = 131,072,000 (bits per 30" panel")

131,072,000 / 8 (to convert to bytes) = 16,384,000

For each 30" flatpanel at 32bit color depth, you need roughly 16mb of video memory. There is no reason that any 32mb+ card couldn't drive 2 of these monitors. The only reason you need the 6800 card is because of the extra DVI pins, there is no dual dvi interface on this card. On some workstation cards there are dual dvi interfaces. On my workstation at work, the graphics card plugs into a splitter cable that has a high density connector on one end and 2 dvi ports on the other. That then plugs into my 2 17" flat panels. This card does not have that. Each 30" display only requires one DVI cable, but 2x the pins because of the extra bandwidth required. The 23" display was already close to the limit of single dvi.

[Brent Turbo]

---Duped from another DDL thread---

nVidia's QuadroFX line has Dual DVI Linking, and should be able to power the 30". PCs had it before Macs did.

"dual DVI digital connectors drive the highest resolution digital displays available on the market. Dual-link DVI connector drives QUXGA-wide displays via a single connector."
"up to 2048x1536 per display or 3840x2400 for a single digital display"

---

From what little I've seen (and understand) the 30" has only one DVI connector cable, so how are you going to hook it up to both DVI ports?
I am almost positively sure that the 3840x2400 res above can be driven
from one DVI port. Fess up Brent.

Fess up to what, exactly? Fess up to wanting to know if this is as good as advertised? Okay! Consider me fessed.

Up to 2048x1536 for a single display, right? Is that higher or lower than the 30" display's maximum resolution?

Thanks to those who want to help find out the truth. Personally, I don't get the animosity (fess up?), it's just a computer monitor.

[Brent Turbo]

Look back at the Matrox Parhelia 512 card from 2002 it says -- (Single dual-link DVI output Up to 2560 x 2048).

So there is a possibility this card can support a LOWER resolution from their Dual Link DVI output.

See, that's helpful information!

[dguisinger]

Fess up to what, exactly? Fess up to wanting to know if this is as good as advertised? Okay! Consider me fessed.

Up to 2048x1536 for a single display, right? Is that higher or lower than the 30" display's maximum resolution?

Thanks to those who want to help find out the truth. Personally, I don't get the animosity (fess up?), it's just a computer monitor.


Brent,

No manufacturer would ever advertise a card capable of running two LCDs of x type if it couldn't do it at native resolution, they know they would be sued. That and besides the fact they had dual displays on display for public viewing, we know it works.

[blakespot]

Yes, they are. There's a misunderstanding about what Dual Link DVI is, though. There are two Dual Link DVI ports on the card. Each supports a maximum rez of 2048x1536, or both Dual Link ports can be linked (creating a quad-link, essentially), for the full 2560 x 1600 resolution.

A single dual link DVI port on the GeForce 6800 (and there are two of these ports on the card) can drive a 30" at its native res of 2560x1600. There is only one DVI port used per 30" screen. There are other very high resolution displays that indeed connect to two physical ports on a videocard, but this is not how the Apple 30" Cinema functions.

This (http://home.sport.rr.com/mrmudbug/wwdc04/wwdc04-Pages/Image8.html) is a picture of a single G5 with a GeForce 6800 driving dual 30" displays.



blakespot

[tenton]

There seems to be some confusion on the max resolution settings, in regards to DVI.

What Brent is linking is correct:

Dual Link = 2x165 MHz (2048x1536 at 60 Hz), Single Link DVI = 165 MHz (1920x1080 at 60 Hz).

However, there is something missing. Realize that the 23" LCD panels are 1920x1200 native resolution. This can be driven by a single link DVI port (Cinema Display HD does it, as well as most of the other 23" LCD monitors). How? There are two methods. One is, of course, to turn down the refresh rate. This isn't as bad as it sounds; LCDs don't have to paint the screen every second with information (and thus, don't need to refresh as constantly as a CRT).

The other method, which Apple definitely employs with the 23" (and probably will with the 30"), as well as many video card manufacturers (including ATi and Nvidia; my 9800 AIW has the option), is to utilize some of the blanking (syncing) frames that are normally sent (not really needed for a LCD display) as actual data frames (frames with graphic info). For those with Wintel boxes, check to see if you have an option that reads "Reduce blanking intervals for digital connections" or something like that (I'm not near my home PC to check what it says for ATi cards).

Hopefully that clears up some confusion.

[Freg3000]

This (http://home.sport.rr.com/mrmudbug/wwdc04/wwdc04-Pages/Image8.html) is a picture of a single G5 with a GeForce 6800 driving dual 30" displays.


That's the strongest proof right there. You can fly down to SF and go into the Moscone center and look at it.

[Brent Turbo]

Tenton's post has some stong information, and is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. The picture of the dual monitor computer didn't do much for me, because it's a picture of a surfer and a mountain, and would be the perfect type of images to show if you wanted to hide what resolution your screens were showing.

I was never suggesting some sort of huge cover-up, I just know that when you're pumping up a new product, it doesn't make wise marketing sense to say "it's great, but not quite as great when you add the second monitor." So you'd wanna word it funny to get around that point. Apple is a corporation, and that's what corporations do.

But from what I've read, particularly Tenton's information, it seems logical enough that they can, in fact, run full resolution in a dual monitor configuration. I'm a little concerned at how personally some took this discussion, however. I wanted to be clear on the specs, and being skeptical is never a bad thing, right? I do not trust large corporations' marketing, no matter how friendly their products are!

[ITR 81]

Everyone should notice the PC 6800 Ultra cards are shorter then say the Mac's 6800 Ultra DDL. The Mac's ver. looks to be over an inch longer. So no the cards are not the same.

PC 6800 Ultra:
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/CP/5917/verto-board.jpg

Mac 6800 Ultra DDL:
http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/2041/572/store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/m9593ga_125.jpg

[dongmin]

There seems to be some confusion on the max resolution settings, in regards to DVI.

What Brent is linking is correct:

Dual Link = 2x165 MHz (2048x1536 at 60 Hz), Single Link DVI = 165 MHz (1920x1080 at 60 Hz).
I know this discussion has been settled elsewhere but for anyone who's just now getting around to reading this thread (like myself)...



Tenton, your math doesn't add up.

1920 x 1080 x 60 Hz = 124,416,000 That's 124 MHz, no? Also:

2048 x 1536 x 60 Hz = 188,743,680


Now, the 30" resolution is:

2560 x 1600 x 60 Hz = 245,760,000 (~246 MHz)

Dual DVI: 2 x 165 MHz = 330 MHz

Sorry if I'm repeting a lot of what other people have said. I just want to set the math straight.

[pdpfilms]

Holy crap. Brent, I commend you. You're taking alot of flak for simply stating an interperetation. Has anyone actually called apple yet? I'm sure they'd be able to answer a simple question like "Does the 6800 support dual 30" displays at full resolution?" with a yes or no. Give it a try.

[edesignuk]

.

[tenton]

I know this discussion has been settled elsewhere but for anyone who's just now getting around to reading this thread (like myself)...



Tenton, your math doesn't add up.

1920 x 1080 x 60 Hz = 124,416,000 That's 124 MHz, no? Also:

2048 x 1536 x 60 Hz = 188,743,680


Now, the 30" resolution is:

2560 x 1600 x 60 Hz = 245,760,000 (~246 MHz)

Dual DVI: 2 x 165 MHz = 330 MHz

Sorry if I'm repeting a lot of what other people have said. I just want to set the math straight.

It's not my math; those numbers are quoted from the Digital Display Working Group link that Brent gave earlier. There's got to be a reason for it; I'm just not sure what it is. I've been in the market for a 1920x1200 display (unfortunately the Apple Cinema Display is out->no TV inputs, no sale) and people have had issues with those resolution monitors, with cards that don't support the reduced blanking frames (or with that option off). My guess is that other things that need to be sent aren't counted (which include those blanking frames, which aren't part of the refresh rate) with the the raw multiplication of the pixels and the refresh rate.

Edit: In reading over the DVI 1.0 spec (available for free at the ddwg website linked below), my guess was correct. The fourth factor missing from the calculation is termed "Bandwidth Overhead (loosely defined as blanking)."

The page is at http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html (DDWG is the group that developed DVI, IIRC).

[edesignuk]

How the hell did this get posted in "Macrumors.com News Discussion", only "MacRumors" is supposed to be able to post here :confused:

[BakedBeans]

How the hell did this get posted in "Macrumors.com News Discussion", only "MacRumors" is supposed to be able to post here :confused:

i thought that, but felt to dumb to ask....anyone???

[MrSugar]

2560 * 1600 = 4096000

4096000 = 4.1 million = 30" at max resolution

4096000 * 2 = 8192000 = 8.2 million = two 30" at max resolution


WWDC slide with two 30" displays, "8 Million pixles!"



The new GeForce card runs both displays at full resolution. Done Deal

[Brent Turbo]

How the hell did this get posted in "Macrumors.com News Discussion", only "MacRumors" is supposed to be able to post here :confused:

It got broken off because of the level of activity on this one particular misconception.

And thanks for the picture of "Dual Dual Link." We kinda all agreed on that on page one... :confused:

I *did* ask someone from Apple, who says that none of his Apple contacts know for sure if it can drive both screens at full rez, and that it's been a bit of a discussion even within Apple. He did confirm that the 30" display has one video connector (not two, as I had previously been informed), and in order to achieve full resolution even on ONE screen, the refresh rate takes a hit (due to the Dual Link DVI standard and its inherent limitations), therefore the framerate drops well below 60fps.

If anyone has the 23" Cinema Display, you'll notice the same method was used to achieve its full rez through the single link DVI interface, which does not natively support the resolution of the 23" display. It has a lower than 60hz refresh rate, and therefore has a maximum framerate somewhere in the low 50s.

Again, to clarify, the maximum resolution for a Dual Link DVI port is 2048x1536 @ 60 Hz. In order the increase the resolution output from a Dual Link DVI port (to 2560x1600), the refresh rate must drop, and hense the framerate. So it looks like two displays can crank out full rez at once, but regardless of the number of displays, the frame rate must take a hit at full rez. This is now confirmed.

[pdpfilms]

Apple doesn't know? That's very un apple-like. I don't suppose we'll get anywhere with this debate if even the people behind the products can't figure it out themselves. Why don't we all just wait until august and find out, aye?

[The Bartender]

Apple doesn't know? That's very un apple-like. I don't suppose we'll get anywhere with this debate if even the people behind the products can't figure it out themselves. Why don't we all just wait until august and find out, aye?

do you know anyone who is going to have two of these displays in august?

[Brent Turbo]

Apple doesn't know? That's very un apple-like. I don't suppose we'll get anywhere with this debate if even the people behind the products can't figure it out themselves. Why don't we all just wait until august and find out, aye?

I think it's pretty much been narrowed down to two possibilities by now:

1) Card can drive 2 30" displays at full resolution. DVI Dual Link standards remain intact, and high resolution is achieved by increasing the blanking interval and decreasing the refresh rate of each display (same would have to be true with single display, as well), same as Apple did on the 23" Cinema Display to make it standards compliant with Single Link DVI.

2) Card can drive 2 30" displays at full resolution. DVI Dual Link standards have been modified by Apple. 30" Display is only compatible with 6800 Ultra DDL card, and 6800 Ultra DDL card is only compatible with the 30" display. In order the bend the standards, this would have to be a 100% proprietary setup.

My vote is on #1, because that's what Apple has done before, to remain VESA compliant, and it just makes sense. Only a hardcore gamer would notice a FPS drop from 60fps to 45-50fps, and I don't think these are marketed at hardcore gamers.

[whooleytoo]

Holy crap. Brent, I commend you. You're taking alot of flak for simply stating an interperetation. Has anyone actually called apple yet? I'm sure they'd be able to answer a simple question like "Does the 6800 support dual 30" displays at full resolution?" with a yes or no. Give it a try.

Heh, I was about to say the same. Credit for Brent for not going postal when having to restate the same point over and over.. ;)

Steve clearly stated the "8 million pixels with two monitors" point, so he's clearly convinced the max resolution can be supported on just one port. Maybe he just meant it will work "within a year"..... <cough!>

[Brent Turbo]

Heh, I was about to say the same. Credit for Brent for not going postal when having to restate the same point over and over.. ;)

Steve clearly stated the "8 million pixels with two monitors" point, so he's clearly convinced the max resolution can be supported on just one port. Maybe he just meant it will work "within a year"..... <cough!>

Thanks, man. At least someone noticed that I've been saying the same thing over and over again, but people just don't get it. Two "Dual"s in a row ain't that hard to get your mind around.

Looks like hypothesis #1 from my post above is the winner. I've been doing a lot of research on the DVI standard, and it's fully possible to exceed the stated resolution of the Dual Link DVI specification by implementing an increased blanking interval. The same trick Apple used to get their 23" HD display to work on a Single Link connection, which does not support its native resolution in theory, but can be juiced into working by using a higher blanking interval.

Now a real DVI expert would have to step in and answer this, but I'm not sure if an increased blanking interval decreases frame rate, or results in drop frames, or none of the above. I tend to understand that it's a reduced frame rate, since the Cinema Display 23" HD's refresh rate drops to 52Hz when in 1920x1200 mode.

So yeah, two 30" displays at once guys. Full resolution. Higher blanking interval (regardless of single or dual display configuration) at 2560x1600 mode. That looks like the final answer. Thanks to those to actually helped find the answers here. Thanks for the frustration of having to repeat that I know that it's "DUAL Dual Link" like 900 times.

[MacQuest]

Holy crap. Brent, I commend you. You're taking alot of flak for simply stating an interperetation. Has anyone actually called apple yet? I'm sure they'd be able to answer a simple question like "Does the 6800 support dual 30" displays at full resolution?" with a yes or no. Give it a try.

Just an FYI "pdpfilms", Brent didn't "simply state an interpretation". He was trying to come across as though he knew a fact, in other words, he made an accusatory statement.

Here's a part of the original post:

"On order to support the full 2560 x 1600 resolution, the monitor must utilize BOTH ports in tandem on the nVidia 6800 card. It is possible to run two 30" displays off of one card, but they must both run at a lower resolution, as supported by DVI standards.

In short, you cannot have two 30" Apple displays running at 2560 x 1600 on the same computer."

Sounds like more of an accusation based on misinformation to me. Not at all a simple question. :rolleyes:

[kylos]

Nice job on this, Brent. You got a lot of replies from people who didn't bother to actually understand what you were asking but were able to work it out with the help of a few who actually contributed.

As far as blanking intervals/refresh rate, I think the issue lies between a nominal refresh rate and an actual refresh rate. As others calculations have shown, the refresh rate of the 30" display falls within the 330 Mhz (2*165 Mhz) limit of dual dvi. So it would seem that the standard blanking interval for a crt running 60hz lowers the actual refresh rate from 330 Mhz to something below the 246 Mhz someone calculated for the 30" displays. Increasing the interval between blanking signals will bring the maximum actual refresh rate to something above 246 Mhz but below 330 Mhz. At least, according to my theory.:)

[Brent Turbo]

Just an FYI "pdpfilms", Brent didn't "simply state an interpretation". He was trying to come across as though he knew a fact, in other words, he made an accusatory statement.

It's a computer monitor, man. Get on with your life! We all learned a little something. My original thoughts on the monitor were wrong. Who cares? I'm certainly not losing any sleep about it, and I can safely say I know enough about DVI standards now to carry on the world's most boring conversation, should it ever arise. It's a no lose situation, if you ask me!

[kylos]

Hehe, more pointless info. I'm not too knowledgeable about blanking rates and such, but with a little calculation I've discovered that a 2:1 ratio between data cycles and blanking cycles would generate a data refresh rate of 220 Mhz, which is above the 188 Mhz display rate of dual dvi's max. resolution. Upping that ratio to 4:1 would give a data refresh rate of 264 Mhz, which is above the rate calculated for the 30" display. so there are the numbers to prove it. ha. (if I'm understanding all this properly.)

[MacQuest]

It's a computer monitor, man. Get on with your life!

I don't [actually didn't] really care about the displays at first, I was upset with your false claims. Just because you don't understand something or believe it to be different, doesn't give you the right to go making false accusations [you did blame Apple's marketing afterall] and claiming them as fact.

We all learned a little something.

Yes we did. As I stated above, I didn't care about all the technical aspects at first but it's cool to know and understand them now.

My original thoughts on the monitor were wrong.

Bingo!

Who cares?!

Not me anymore. This should be a lesson to a) know what you're talking about when you post, or b) ask a question if you're not sure instead of claiming falsities.

Now get me off of this emotional rollercoaster... I got a headache! :D

[Brent Turbo]

Hehe, more pointless info. I'm not too knowledgeable about blanking rates and such, but with a little calculation I've discovered that a 2:1 ratio between data cycles and blanking cycles would generate a data refresh rate of 220 Mhz, which is above the 188 Mhz display rate of dual dvi's max. resolution. Upping that ratio to 4:1 would give a data refresh rate of 264 Mhz, which is above the rate calculated for the 30" display. so there are the numbers to prove it. ha. (if I'm understanding all this properly.)

Damn! That's some hardcore research. It all makes so little sense, and combined with the fact that, barring a lottery winning, none of us are ever going to hook up a pair of these things to a G5 anyway, I'm ready to devote my brain to other topics. Thanks for the info, and the understanding!

[Brent Turbo]

Not me anymore. This should be a lesson to a) know what you're talking about when you post, or b) ask a question if you're not sure instead of claiming falsities.

Now get me off of this emotional rollercoaster... I got a headache! :D

Actually, I've learned to tread lightly when discussing politics, religion, and Macintosh!

[WinX]

Here's a quick recap on DVI throughputs.

Single-link DVI: maximum pixel rate: 165MHz to 225MHz -- i.e. 165megapixels/sec to 225 megapixels/sec -- depending on the particular transceiver chip pairs used and physical link characteristics.

Let's consider the Apple 23" Cinema Display: resolution=1920*1200

Assume the horizontal blanking period of 7% (ballpark figure that depends on the particular LCD display's design)
To display 1920 pixels horizontally, you'd thus need to send 1920*1.07 pixels i.e. 2054 pixels
Assume the vertical blanking period is 12% (again, a ballpark figure. I don't have the exact specs for Apple's displays)
To display 1200 rows vertically, you'd need to send 1200*1.12=1344 lines

With a 165 megapixel per second budget, you could thus achieve a refresh rate of:
165000000 / ( 2054 * 1344 ) ~= 60Hz.

There is thus no need for Apple to resort to shenanigans like "overclocking out of spec" a DVI link to support a 23" display.

Let's now consider Apple's latest 30" display at 2560*1600.
Again, assume a 8% horizontal blanking period and a 12% vertical blanking period.
Total virtual pixels to be sent to display: 2560*1.08*1600*1.12=4954522

Pixel budget via a single dual-link DVI connector: 2*165 megapixels/sec = 330 megapixels/sec
Achievable refresh rate (ballpark estimate):
330000000/4954522 ~= 67Hz

The calculations are TRIVIAL for somebody who knows e.g. what "165MHz" means.
There's thus NO REASON at all to surmise that Apple must artificially lower the refresh rate for its 30" display, or suggest that a two-connector NVIDIA 6800 card can't possibly drive two 30" displays at their full 2560x1600 resolutions and at decent refresh rates.

Blanking periods
"Blanking" periods were a necessity for Cathode Ray Tube-based display units, as the electrical potential necessary to return the electron ray to its start position once a phosphor line was scanned took a certain amount of time to be established in the driving coils.
LCD displays, obviously, don't use inductance coils and high-voltage electrical fields to drive an electron ray to paint a picture, and thus don't really require large horizontal or vertical blanking intervals.
LCD display's blanking periods are a relic of the past and are mainly maintained for compatiblity reasons, e.g. to unify timing generators for video cards that can drive DVI and analog VGA displays, and give some time to software to access the frame buffer for glitchless redraws squeezed in the vertical blanking interval.

[tenton]

Blanking periods
"Blanking" periods were a necessity for Cathode Ray Tube-based display units, as the electrical potential necessary to return the electron ray to its start position once a phosphor line was scanned took a certain amount of time to be established in the driving coils.
LCD displays, obviously, don't use inductance coils and high-voltage electrical fields to drive an electron ray to paint a picture, and thus don't really require large horizontal or vertical blanking intervals.
LCD display's blanking periods are a relic of the past and are mainly maintained for compatiblity reasons, e.g. to unify timing generators for video cards that can drive DVI and analog VGA displays, and give some time to software to access the frame buffer for glitchless redraws squeezed in the vertical blanking interval.

You are correct in this. In fact, in reading the DVI spec from DDWG, they even refer to the blanking with the words "artificially high" and the expectations (of the DDWG group) was for the blanking intervals to be reduced or eliminated from being sent through the data cable.

Let me clarify the point I made earlier. Apple (and other video card and monitor makers) are using the blanking intervals (which are artificially high for LCD monitors) to send image info. Not lowering the refresh rate. Turning down the refresh rate is one way to get around the raw 165 Mhz limit; reducing the blanking intervals (which seem to be higher than the percentages that WinX is using in his calculations) is the other. (some video cards and monitors that don't support a reduced blanking interval obviously would require you to turn down the refresh rate or use the VGA cable for the really high resolutions).

If I'm reading things correct, the 165 Mhz (or 330 Mhz for dual link) limit is a copper wire limit for DVI.

[StrongBad]

just FYI everyone:


I thought ahead. During my 30 second chance to touch the dual 30" setup, I checked the monitor control panel. The displays were not mirrored, and both ran at 2560 x 1600. The G5 also had samples images in photoshop that were cut to that EXACT resolution. The apple guy at that station was boasting that he knew the guy that took one of the nature pics.



SB

[WinX]

If I'm reading things correct, the 165 Mhz (or 330 Mhz for dual link) limit is a copper wire limit for DVI.

It's refreshing to see in this thread somebody who seems to understand the issues at hand :)

One person in this thread suggested that Steve Jobs was trying to pull a fast one, demoing two 30" LCD displays being driven at less than their full resolution.
One person -- not necessarily different from the person aforementioned ;-) -- also repeatedly demonstrated an inability to understand what 165 megapixels/sec of bandwidth could support, or to perform simple arithmetic.

Hence my somewhat irritated tone, faced with such stubborn conviction from a person that his "understanding" of DVI specs was sufficient to suspect that Apple's display specs were manipulated, or second-guess Steve Jobs' demo.

Anyway, as to DVI's "copper limit": a copper pair can be driven at higher rates than DVI's 165MHz "limit", which, with 8b/10b encoding, translates to a raw bit rate 1.65Gigabits/sec.
Infiniband 1X, for example, transmits a raw bit rate of 2.5Gigabits/sec over a single copper pair over distances of up to 17 meters, which is arguably far longer than average computer to display distances.

[i_am_a_cow]

That is a misquote. It comes with Dual DVI connectors. Not TWO Dual DVI connectors. There is no such thing as a dual DVI connector, but there is such thing as a hardware technology that links two DVI connectors together to support displays larger than the DVI standard can accomodate.

I don't know if this has already been said... but did you WATCH the video on the site, yea the one where steve jobs says "it comes with DUAL dual dvi" and "you can have 8 million pixels..." ?????

[fregedegpo]

That has been stated, but thank you so much for reminding us of the statement made by Brent that started this whole thing off. Brent... that's treading gently?

[movabi]

I'm just curious why we get only one agp slot? I run three montiors and most graphics cards are agp and not pci. I do run 2 off my Nvida and one off an ATI pci. My question is, are monitors that are driven by only one card faster than if they are shared? :confused:

[uzombie]

I'm just curious why we get only one agp slot? I run three montiors and most graphics cards are agp and not pci. I do run 2 off my Nvida and one off an ATI pci. My question is, are monitors that are driven by only one card faster than if they are shared? :confused:

I think it they want you to buy more machines :)

There is forthcoming PCI Express. Which to me, and you can "brent" me if I am wrong, is like the old days of the Apple ][...slots! 7-9 slots! Weeeeee.

[Frobozz]

There are two methods. One is, of course, to turn down the refresh rate. This isn't as bad as it sounds; LCDs don't have to paint the screen every second with information (and thus, don't need to refresh as constantly as a CRT).

This is a very good point. I was just reading about a new 8 megapixel 22 inch display that Slashodot had mentioned. It's sole purpose is photo editing, so reresh rate is not important. A Matrox Parhelia (2 years old?) was driving the monitor, but only at 40 or so KHz.

As you correctly point out (which I was unaware of until I read this article), was that the refresh rate of an LCD is not as pivital as that of a CRT. CRT's build their screens with rays, and as a result of a phosphor's rapid decay you see flicker at lower refresh rates. Since LCD's do not have this type of technology, you will only need a quick refresh rate if motion is a primary concern-- there is no flicker.

Obviously, movie editors and gamers would want a fast refresh rate. The latter would not be using a 30 inch Cinema display to play Halo, however. :-) I can't imagine how awful a frame rate you'd get.

[Frobozz]

I don't know if this has already been said... but did you WATCH the video on the site, yea the one where steve jobs says "it comes with DUAL dual dvi" and "you can have 8 million pixels..." ?????

Oh come on, cut the guy some slack. Most web sites were stating, incorrectly, that it took 2 connectors to drive one Cinema Display. The marketing surrounding it was very confusing.

[ddbean]

do you know anyone who is going to have two of these displays in august?


Uh, your local Apple store?

[Brent Turbo]

Oh come on, cut the guy some slack. Most web sites were stating, incorrectly, that it took 2 connectors to drive one Cinema Display. The marketing surrounding it was very confusing.

Wow, thanks for having a level head.

I'm not a Mac "evangelist," so I don't quite relate to the idea of getting upset over computer parts. It's just circuit boards and such, and I don't equate getting the specs wrong with treason. I'd read some faulty info about the two connectors, which started the whole mess. Then people continually hounding me about that fact that it's DUAL Dual (I know, dude!) made it get really, um, repetitive.

Thanks for the memories, thanks for the beer.

[whooleytoo]

Thanks for the memories, thanks for the beer.

Wait a minute! Beer? There was beer?

You can jokes all you like about Mac vs PC, but DO NOT JOKE ABOUT BEER!!! :D

[jkojima]

Who said anything about Apple's implementation being standard? Yes the official Dual-Link DVI spec states a lower max. resolution than the 30" is capable of. But consider: official consortium specs are always conservative... for example, overburning emerged as a way to squeeze more capacity out of a "standard" CD-R disk back in the day. And computer enthusiasts reguarly overclock their processors, RAM, video cards, etc. It is conceivable that by using high quality, shieded cables, Apple and nVidia are able to increase the available bandwidth above the official spec.

Just look at gigabit ethernet over copper - it used to be commonly accepted that copper wire could not deliver the bandwidth. Same thing in this case, I believe.

[g3ski]

Brent and guiguy need to get a room!

okay, how about that IBM T221 Monitor.....

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8578

(tested on a Pentium 4, 3Ghz PC)

"the IBM T221. A 22.2" inch wide (16:10) LCD monitor with 9.2 million pixels arranged in stunning 3840x2400 (QUXGA-W) resolution, contrast ratio of 400:1"

"you can see four HDTV channels or two 4 megapixel camera pics next to each other in full resolution with room to spare still"

"Anyway, I needed to uplift the Windows desktop font resolution to 144 dpi to be able to see the characters - the looks of fonts were great, but again the physical resolution of this monitor is 204 dpi, with photo display better than what you would have from a 600 dpi colour laser printer"

"it still needs a lot of effort to set it up even on the highest end graphics hardware, and we'd need an interface six times faster than the current DVI to get fast-refresh display at full resolution of this incredible device. Finally, it does cost a lot - something like $8,400 IBM Web price."

So the Apple 30" display is not such a high price after all ; )

g3ski

[ryan42]

Might be useful to refer to the 12/24 DVI as "half DVI" and the full 24/24 as full DVI. Also, with the 4 display comments, WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU NEED THAT?! I mean GOD... and the power to drive those puppies!

[skunk]

I'll let you know what they're like when my set-up arrives... :cool:

[daveg5]

If I understand it right it can drive 2 monitors at 3840X2400, each.
Thats two of IBM's LCD monitor at that resolution.
1920x1200+1920X1200 #1 dvi dual link
1920x1200+1920X1200 #2 DVI dual link
The memory is Dynamically split between the two.
Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong, cause I would like to know also.

[daveg5]

Brent and guiguy need to get a room!

okay, how about that IBM T221 Monitor.....

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8578

(tested on a Pentium 4, 3Ghz PC)

"the IBM T221. A 22.2" inch wide (16:10) LCD monitor with 9.2 million pixels arranged in stunning 3840x2400 (QUXGA-W) resolution, contrast ratio of 400:1"

"you can see four HDTV channels or two 4 megapixel camera pics next to each other in full resolution with room to spare still"

"Anyway, I needed to uplift the Windows desktop font resolution to 144 dpi to be able to see the characters - the looks of fonts were great, but again the physical resolution of this monitor is 204 dpi, with photo display better than what you would have from a 600 dpi colour laser printer"

"it still needs a lot of effort to set it up even on the highest end graphics hardware, and we'd need an interface six times faster than the current DVI to get fast-refresh display at full resolution of this incredible device. Finally, it does cost a lot - something like $8,400 IBM Web price."

So the Apple 30" display is not such a high price after all ; )

g3ski
Overall, it was a whole new viewing experience - PDF files were print-quality when viewed, photos looked better than on the photographs, and 3-D models looked too real. I even had eight Internet sites open at once without overlapping. Only a few games with OpenGL, like Quake3 Arena support the full resolution though.

This monitor surely makes sense for anyone in professions like CAD/CAM, 3-D visualisation, imaging, DTP, science or even medicine. However, it is too early to look at it for the mainstream – it still needs a lot of effort to set it up even on the highest end graphics hardware, and we'd need an interface six times faster than the current DVI to get fast-refresh display at full resolution of this incredible device. Finally, it does cost a lot - something like $8,400 IBM Web price. But not to worry, some consolation - 20-inch 1600x1200 LCD monitors are now rapidly dropping in price down to the high-end home levels: watch out for some interesting entries on our pages soon... µ


Sure it is , IBMN is just higher, the IBM was originally as high as $22000.00, now can be had for $4000 refurb and $7000 wholesale. its claim to fame is having 9.2 million pixels, thats more than two 30" Apple displays put together, 204DPI, again more than twice apples,, but most of all .12 dot pitch. twice the sharpness if you will of Apples. all in one unit instead of two at just 22", IBM has newer software that scales your desktop and mouse pointer so you can see them while doing your full resolution photo editing. My question is can the Nvidia 6800 ultra drive one or two of these. it seems like a no brainer, that will help Apple in the scientific, cad, mathematics, extreme photo editing, publishing, pdf, art, graphic, audio waveform editing segments. But IBM would have to develop with Apple software, ala Expose, that will scale MacOSX tiger's desktop, mouse and icons to a legible size for proper navigation.
IBM,ATI/NVDIA?APPLE really needs to support Mac with this monitor to rich the extreme pro market.
I see it as a complement to the Apple displays rather than a competitor. I so wish I could see this in action. Amazing!

[WinX]

My question is can the Nvidia 6800 ultra drive one (IBM 3840x2400 22-inch display) or two of these.

Gosh. I'd really like to see one of these IBM displays in action. I assume the display needs two dual-link DVI connections, hence the "Quadro" moniker of the NVIDIA cards designed to drive them.
It should be intriguing to test the IBM display with the Mac version of the 6800 Ultra. One wishes it were possible to override the EDID resolution information communicated by the display to the card, and tell OS X that there are two independent 3840x1200 virtual displays connected to the 6800. By putting the virtual displays on top of each other, it might be possible to synthesize a 3840x2400 display :D
Not sure if OS X would allow the windows to vertically span across the virtual display boundary, though.

As for the IBM display's bandwidth requirements, given that one of the 6800's dual-link DVI connectors can deliver 330Megapixels/sec, even one of these connectors could possibly drive the IBM display at around 330000000/(3840*2400*1.1) ~= 33 Hertz refresh rate, assuming a 10% blanking overhead. This might be fast enough for most non-game/non-video-editing applications.

[The Bartender]

Gosh. I'd really like to see one of these IBM displays in action. I assume the display needs two dual-link DVI connections, hence the "Quadro" moniker of the NVIDIA cards designed to drive them.
It should be intriguing to test the IBM display with the Mac version of the 6800 Ultra. One wishes it were possible to override the EDID resolution information communicated by the display to the card, and tell OS X that there are two independent 3840x1200 virtual displays connected to the 6800. By putting the virtual displays on top of each other, it might be possible to synthesize a 3840x2400 display :D
Not sure if OS X would allow the windows to vertically span across the virtual display boundary, though.

As for the IBM display's bandwidth requirements, given that one of the 6800's dual-link DVI connectors can deliver 330Megapixels/sec, even one of these connectors could possibly drive the IBM display at around 330000000/(3840*2400*1.1) ~= 33 Hertz refresh rate, assuming a 10% blanking overhead. This might be fast enough for most non-game/non-video-editing applications.

That would be quite sad considering the fact that video editers are possibly a majority of the customer base for these things.

[remingtonhill]

I have a question.

What makes the 23" (and now 30") "HD" while the 17" & 20" are not "HD"

Surely the 20" has more then enough resolution to meet the HD standard, right?

Second, do they make HD DVDs? If so can I watch an HD DVD on a powermac with a 23" display? (in HD)

Third, is there a way I can watch TV in HD with a powermac and a 23" (or 30") HD Display?

Thanks!
-Rem.

[shyataroo]

they should modify the monitors so that they recivie (I cant spell) Power/Data from the Ethernet or Firewire Cable that way you can have a FIrewire hub and 4 30" LCD's for playing Doom 3 on *head explodes at the thought*

P.S. for those of you who think that no Graphics Card Can power 60" of Screen spaace SHOVE THIS DOWN YOUR THROATS http://www.go-l.com/monitors/grand_canyon/features/index.htm (the site looks alot like apple.com hmm.... could it be the windows of websites?)

[shyataroo]

I have a question.

What makes the 23" (and now 30") "HD" while the 17" & 20" are not "HD"

Surely the 20" has more then enough resolution to meet the HD standard, right?

Second, do they make HD DVDs? If so can I watch an HD DVD on a powermac with a 23" display? (in HD)

Third, is there a way I can watch TV in HD with a powermac and a 23" (or 30") HD Display?

Thanks!
-Rem.

What makes them High Def is they are just like regular High Definition TV's they use Either 780p (progressive) 780i (interlaced) 1080p or 1080i res... I don't really know much else sorry -Micky "I swear I didn't know she was 18" K

[NusuniAdmin]

someone in yahoo mac chat posted a picture from the wwdc of 2 30" displays running at full rez on one card. If he ever logs in again i will make sure i get the url.

[mr_austin]

Surely the 20" has more then enough resolution to meet the HD standard, right?


Nope. The 20" is 1680x1050. 1080i (the highest res HD format) is 1920x1080.

The good news is you could run 720p.... which is the highest res most plasmas and LCD tvs that call themselves HD can run...

So, Apple marketing didn't call the 20" HD while TV manufacturers putting out gear with lower res are... score one for apple in the honesty column.

-a

[g3ski]

P.S. for those of you who think that no Graphics Card Can power 60" of Screen spaace SHOVE THIS DOWN YOUR THROATS http://www.go-l.com/monitors/grand_canyon/features/index.htm (the site looks alot like apple.com hmm.... could it be the windows of websites?)

It's Four 23" screen connected. Pretty freakin' awesome. But if you look at the specs you will see that it's just four 1600x1200 23" LCD panels. It is powered by a single card, as the website states:

-Matrox's AGP QID Pro or PCI*G450 X4 MMS Series Graphics Cards
-NVIDIA Quadro® NVS 400 Series
-Appian Phoenix Radeon QD is a Quad-DVI &*Analog*Output Professional Graphics Adapter
-Xentera GT, GT 4 and GT8*Graphics Adapter series based on ATI's Professional Technologies


Here are the specs of the largest display setup......

92" / 6400x1200
Ultra-Speed™ Display Technology
4 x 23" TFT Panel
1600 x 1200 Pixels
$18,000

[wjchan]

A dual-link cannot be split into 2 single-links to drive 2 monitors. The reason is that, with dual-link, the pixel data is divided into even and odd portions and transmitted on separate links.

The latest revision of T221, the DG5, comes with an external box that splits a dual-link into two single-links. These 2 single-links contain even and odd pixels separately and cannot be used to drive other monitors. The T221DG5 recombines these 2 streams internally. Using the Quadro FX 3000, which has 1 dual-link and 1 single-link ports, one should connect the dual-link port to the external box which then connects to DVI 1&2 on the monitor. The single-link port on the QFX3K should be connected to DVI 3 on the monitor, leaving DVI 4 unconnected. The dual-link is responsible for the 2624x2400 portion of the screen and the single-link is responsible for the remaining 1216x2400 portion. This hack is necessary because the dual-link effective bandwidth of 330MHz is not enough to drive the monitor at 3840x2400@48Hz.

I did try my older T221DG3 on my friends G4 and it looked great. But at 13Hz, the lag time is too much to bear. Now that I have a DG5, I want him to get the 6800DDL with his G5 so we can try it at 24Hz. I'm not sure if the Apple driver contains the 3-link hack to do 48Hz.

EDIT: 2560x1600@60Hz requires 348MHz using the VESA GTF 1.0 timing. So technically, you do need reduced blanking interval when using a dual-link DVI. GTF timing contains a lot of blanking time for CRTs; LCDs certainly don't need it.

[Eastend]

You're 100% correct! Dual Link DVI is ONE port. The video card in question has TWO dual link DVI ports. Each dual link DVI port can support a resolution UP TO 2048x1536. That is far below the advertised resolution of 2560 x 1600. In order to display that resolution on ONE 30" display, a cable must be plugged into BOTH dual link DVI ports. Plugging in two monitors requires a lower resolution on both displays.

Get it?
Driving Force


The 30-inch Cinema HD Display is so big, it requires the next level of graphics technology. The NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL graphics card delivers, with the most advanced graphics engine available for Mac. This card includes dual link DVI connectors to deliver up to 2560 by 1600 resolution over each port. Even better, with two connectors, or Dual Dual Link (DDL), you can drive two 30-inch displays, for the ultimate creative canvas. This $599 card will be available as a built to order option and as a standalone kit in August 2004. That's a copy and paste from Apples site,
end of that disccussion right.

B