Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by wonga1127, Apr 2, 2006.
Maybe a dumb question, but would an intel iMac 20" support the 30" ACD without any kinks?
I doubt it, you need dual DVI. The iMac'll only give 1.
I'm not sure, though.
Is this an Intel iMac?
No . the specs needed for the system to push that is:
30-inch Cinema HD Display
- Power Mac G5 (PCI-X) with ATI Radeon 9650 or better or NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT DDL or better with Mac OS X v10.3.9 or Mac OS X v10.4.2 or later
- Power Mac G5 (PCI Express), all graphics options
- PowerBook G4 with dual-link DVI support and Mac OS X v.10.3.9 or Mac OS X v10.4.2 or later
- MacBook Pro with Mac OS X 10.4.4 or later
- Windows PC and graphics card that supports DVI ports with dual-link digital bandwidth and VESA DDC standard for plug-and-play setup
I believe so. I think you can only go up to 23" ACDs on the iMacs.
The iMac Core Duo does support being connected to the 30" Apple Cinema Display HD, but not at the full resolution. You'd get 1280x800 on the 30". That would be great for presentations but probably not for everyday use.
Yeah, the problem is the system Apple must use to connect such a high resolution monitor. It splits up the signal into two DVI signals, in two separate DVI cables, and re-integrates them at the monitor. So you cannot *really* use it on a Mac that doesn't have two DVI ports (and the capability to split a signal across them, I guess).
It's not two physical cables guys, it's just a "dual link" port.
I think mkrishnan was trying to be funny.
Sorry, not funny, but overly simplistic. It's two discrete DVI-D signals, isn't it?
Two different signals (sort of), one cable. This is possible because DVI is capable of digital signals. Only 1s and 0s are being transfered and they correspond to a pixel on the monitor. The monitor must be displaying it's native resolution. It only has to update the pixels being changed and not the whole screen (unlike an analog signal). I'm sure someone else can elaborate more.
Then I'm not really sure I get it... what exactly is the difference between DVI with dual link and a normal DVI-D signal? The things you describe are all true about digital signals sent to a monitor in the absence of dual link. Well, except saying that it can transmit "update" images of only changed pixels. I'm not so sure that's true. But everything else seems the same.
I don't think it stretches, I'm pretty sure it would put a black border around that section of the screen.
Everything is the same except that one signal is sent, then the second signal is sent. Because the signal is digital and the bits transfer faster than the eye can see, the monitor can update before you can notice.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse... But if one cable sends the two signals down the same pipeline sequentially, then why on earth is this technology even necessary? How is that an improvement over just sending one larger signal over the same pipeline, since all the data is being sent through the same transfer mechanism, anyway. My impression was that dual link essentially used two separate parallel DVI pathways to get a higher throughput to enable the larger resolution....
EDIT: I found this here:
So *something* is bandwidth limited... but I guess it's the transceivers? But then how is it possible to have a non-dual-link-capable cable? There's some physical difference between the cables, it seems.
I'm not sure if the cable is different or if more pins in the cable are used.
The cable is different.
If I understand you correctly, you're asking for a reference. I don't have any except for what I remember from reading about people connecting their non-dual-link PowerBook G4s to the 30", and getting a stretched 1280x800 on it.
This forum thread might give a clue also:
It's possible to have non-dual-link capable cables because there's a difference in the number of pins when you compare non-DL and DL cables.
edit: grapes911, yup it's the number of pins being used (in the case of a DL cable in a single link application) and the number of pins present (in the case of a DL application).
No it wouldn't. It would be very blurry, becasue it's not the native resolution, for such price its not worth it
I didn't say it was a cost effective solution. Anyhow if you're giving a presentation and need a 30" screen for it, your audience will be far enough away to not notice the fuzziness. Otherwise you'd do the presentation off your MBP / PB's screen.
Thank you for the education, Rod and Grapes. *goes off to apply for CE credit*
Hey, I learned some things here too. I had a general understanding, but it makes a lot more sense now. I love this forum.