Can the GeForce Drive two 30" at Full Rez?

StrongBad · Jul 1, 2004

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 · Jul 2, 2004

tenton said:
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 · Jul 2, 2004

Brent Turbo said:
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 · Jul 2, 2004

it has been stated

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 · Jul 2, 2004

why only one agp slot?

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?

uzombie · Jul 2, 2004

My point..is..

movabi said:
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?

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 · Jul 2, 2004

tenton said:
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 · Jul 2, 2004

i_am_a_cow said:
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 · Jul 2, 2004

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

Uh, your local Apple store?

Brent Turbo · Jul 2, 2004

Frobozz said:
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 · Jul 2, 2004

Brent Turbo said:
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!!!

jkojima · Jul 2, 2004

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 · Jul 2, 2004

Get a room

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 · Jul 3, 2004

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 · Jul 3, 2004

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

daveg5 · Jul 3, 2004

Yes

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 · Jul 3, 2004

g3ski said:
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 · Jul 3, 2004

daveg5 said:
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

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 · Jul 5, 2004

WinX said:
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
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 · Jul 5, 2004

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 · Jul 6, 2004

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 · Jul 6, 2004

remingtonhill said:
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 · Jul 6, 2004

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 · Jul 6, 2004

remingtonhill said:
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 · Jul 6, 2004

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

Can the GeForce Drive two 30" at Full Rez?

macrumors member

macrumors newbie

macrumors regular

macrumors member

macrumors member

macrumors member

macrumors demi-god

macrumors demi-god

macrumors regular

macrumors member

macrumors 604

macrumors regular

macrumors member

macrumors 6502

macrumors G4

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors newbie

macrumors member

macrumors member

macrumors regular

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502a

macrumors member

macrumors member

Our Staff