Large display monitor for 5,1?

[rosindabow]

I'm running a Mac Pro 5,1 and I would like to find out what might be available in a large display monitor. I've been running dual video monitors for years. One is an Apple 30" HD Cinema Display and the other is an older Apple 27" cinema display. The older unit is beginning to crap out. I know that Apple has discontinued all their displays except the 27" Thunderbolt. In any case, I'm not interested in that. I was wondering if anyone works with a larger single display. Something like 40" or even bigger? Something that wold allow me to get rid of both of my displays and work on one large visual desktop. I am running 4 computers (2 Mac Pros, Mac Mini, and G5) into this dual display using a single keyboard and mouse via an Adder AV4PRO-DVI-DUAL. Any suggestions? Anyone using a large single screen video display/monitor?

I'm running a DAW (digital audio workstation,): Digital Performer as well as Pro Tools and sometimes Logic Pro. , I am not running video except to sync to the DAW, as playback - no games or higher hi-intensive video demand. I am on OS 10.9.5 and would like to find out everything I might need, including a GPU display card and size, type, and brand of viz monitor. Thanks.

 

[h9826790]

What's your budget?

 

[rosindabow]

What's your budget?

I would like to keep it under $1,500 for everything. One more caveat - the display card should not have any fans. I am recording audio and my Mac Pro is in the room with me so any added noise, even that of a super quiet fan, is unwanted.

 

[h9826790]

I didn't own this one, but may fit your need.

Dell 43" 4K Multi Client Monitor

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&oc=P4317QSAP

 

[Childs]

While its not quite as big as what you are looking at, I'm using a Crossover 324K, which is 32" and 4K. I could see using a 40" 4K as being a sweet spot, as I find scaled 3200x1800 at 32" to be comfortable viewing. 4K at 32" is a little too small, but just barely.

One thing is that getting macOS to recognize the display correctly was a pain in the butt. It kept saying it was a TV, and then would limit the output frequency to 30Hz or lower at anything above 1440p. I had to add an EDID override to get it to think it was a monitor. And I couldnt use the displayport 1.2 input on the monitor without setting it to 1.1, and to get 60Hz instead of 30Hz I needed an active mini displayport to hdmi 2.0 adapter. Even then I cant boot using the adapter, and need to switch over a different adapter, then switch it back. Getting everything working 100% is still a work in progress, but its usable.

Anyways, theres a lot of stuff to consider. If I were to do it over again I'd probably just get something like the BenQ BL3201PH which would probably be seen as a legit monitor. Still might do it if it goes on sale. If you use a TV or something off brand, you'll have to deal with it not possibly working out of the box. Also, you'll need to make sure your video card can support the resolutions. I dont think you can get a fanless card for a Mac Pro that would support 4K. I definitely know the GT120 wont do it. Well, not at 60Hz. I forget what I was trying to do when I used it with the monitor, maybe that was before I realized I had to use dp 1.1. The point is do your homework first.

 

[nigelbb]

I agree that 40" is the sweet spot for 4K. I'd been using a 30" 2560x1600 for nearly nine years so the 40" 3840x2160 was a nice upgrade with a little higher pixel density but not teeny-weeny fonts at native resolution. The screen I have is the Philips 40" BDM4065UC which has now been superseded by the 43" BDM4350UC which includes HDMI 2.0 & is still around the same price. At under £600 it's an amazing bargain. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-Br...UTF8&qid=1474360691&sr=8-1&keywords=bdm4350uc

 

[rosindabow]

Some great information.

I agree that 40" is the sweet spot for 4K. I'd been using a 30" 2560x1600 for nearly nine years so the 40" 3840x2160 was a nice upgrade with a little higher pixel density but not teeny-weeny fonts at native resolution. The screen I have is the Philips 40" BDM4065UC which has now been superseded by the 43" BDM4350UC which includes HDMI 2.0 & is still around the same price. At under £600 it's an amazing bargain. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-Br...UTF8&qid=1474360691&sr=8-1&keywords=bdm4350uc

What kind of display card would you use with this? Again, I'm hoping for a card without a fan.
[doublepost=1474389688][/doublepost]

While its not quite as big as what you are looking at, I'm using a Crossover 324K, which is 32" and 4K. I could see using a 40" 4K as being a sweet spot, as I find scaled 3200x1800 at 32" to be comfortable viewing. 4K at 32" is a little too small, but just barely.

One thing is that getting macOS to recognize the display correctly was a pain in the butt. It kept saying it was a TV, and then would limit the output frequency to 30Hz or lower at anything above 1440p. I had to add an EDID override to get it to think it was a monitor. And I couldnt use the displayport 1.2 input on the monitor without setting it to 1.1, and to get 60Hz instead of 30Hz I needed an active mini displayport to hdmi 2.0 adapter. Even then I cant boot using the adapter, and need to switch over a different adapter, then switch it back. Getting everything working 100% is still a work in progress, but its usable.

Anyways, theres a lot of stuff to consider. If I were to do it over again I'd probably just get something like the BenQ BL3201PH which would probably be seen as a legit monitor. Still might do it if it goes on sale. If you use a TV or something off brand, you'll have to deal with it not possibly working out of the box. Also, you'll need to make sure your video card can support the resolutions. I dont think you can get a fanless card for a Mac Pro that would support 4K. I definitely know the GT120 wont do it. Well, not at 60Hz. I forget what I was trying to do when I used it with the monitor, maybe that was before I realized I had to use dp 1.1. The point is do your homework first.

Thanks - this helps a bit. The Phillips looks great but it sounds like you have a hard time getting it to work. I need to be able to turn my system on and go. How do I figure out how to make this work? Who would know what display card to use? And here's a simple question, if I'm adding a new display card, does it go in the slot where the old one used to be? Thanks.

 

[nigelbb]

GTX680 Flash it yourself for Apple boot screen & avoid the macvidcards tax. I don't think that you will find a card without a fan that will be powerful enough to shift all of those pixels around.

The guy using Crossover 324K had the problems with 4K resolution not me with the Philips. There are some quirks to the Philips but it works OOTB. The quirks may or may not have been fixed with the 43" version but I can live with them rather than spending 2-3x the money for a Dell of similar size.

 

[Childs]

GTX680 Flash it yourself for Apple boot screen & avoid the macvidcards tax. I don't think that you will find a card without a fan that will be powerful enough to shift all of those pixels around.

The guy using Crossover 324K had the problems with 4K resolution not me with the Philips. There are some quirks to the Philips but it works OOTB. The quirks may or may not have been fixed with the 43" version but I can live with them rather than spending 2-3x the money for a Dell of similar size.

Yeah, I think if I didnt go Korean it would have been smoother. There are a lot of strange things with this monitor. macOS actually thinks it can do 8K, and guess what, it can!

http://imgur.com/SXetALO

lol But a lot of the virtual resolutions and overclocking ability probably makes things strange for macOS and it doesnt know what to do. I would think even a regular 4K TV would have worked better. But my main point was that the OP should check around and see if anyone used the monitor/tv in macOS before buying it if it isnt from the major monitor/tv manufacturers. Its one of those things where you think a monitor is just a monitor, but Apple has to make it harder than it has to be.

 

[phairphan]

I recently went from a setup of a 30" and two 20" monitors to a 32" 4K display. After using at least two monitors for 15 years, I was expecting the transition to be more disruptive than it was. If you don't make healthy use of Expose currently, become acquainted with it. I run the monitor unscaled at 3840x2160 and find it to be quite useable, but this will be dependent on the user. I suspect I would miss the crispness if it was a 40" display.

The video card situation is up in the air. I'm waiting for the current gen cards to gain support (or not) before purchasing a card. Currently running on my original 4870, which drives the display at 30Hz. I don't believe you will find a fan-less card capable of driving a 4K display at the moment.

Edit: Should add that I'm using a BenQ 3201. It was absolutely plug and play. No strangeness.

 

[rosindabow]

So I just spoke with Apple and the technician said that if I don't need to go to 4K, I could run via either the Mini display port to HDMI connection or use the Dual DVI link. He said that it should be able to support a large 43" screen. Does this make sense? Remember, I'm running audio so I'm not as concerned with the crispness of the picture. I just have to be able to adjust resolution size easily. Does the tech know what they're talking about?

 

[Childs]

Edit: Should add that I'm using a BenQ 3201. It was absolutely plug and play. No strangeness.

This was the monitor I was looking at originally when I started to think about upgrading. Still might get it, although I'd need to get a new arm as it seems like its a heavy monitor.

So I just spoke with Apple and the technician said that if I don't need to go to 4K, I could run via either the Mini display port to HDMI connection or use the Dual DVI link. He said that it should be able to support a large 43" screen. Does this make sense? Remember, I'm running audio so I'm not as concerned with the crispness of the picture. I just have to be able to adjust resolution size easily. Does the tech know what they're talking about?

Well yeah, but thats only if you simply wanted a bigger screen. I thought you wanted the equivalent workspace or more in a single big screen. Going from two monitors (1440p + 1600p) down to 1080p would be a serious downgrade in work area. The physical size of the screen doesnt matter, but the resolution of the screen does.

You know, the cheapest option would be to get a new 1440p monitor. You should be able to get one with DL-DVI for under $200, and you wouldnt need to upgrade anything else.

 

[rosindabow]

Well yeah, but thats only if you simply wanted a bigger screen. I thought you wanted the equivalent workspace or more in a single big screen. Going from two monitors (1440p + 1600p) down to 1080p would be a serious downgrade in work area. The physical size of the screen doesnt matter, but the resolution of the screen does.

You know, the cheapest option would be to get a new 1440p monitor. You should be able to get one with DL-DVI for under $200, and you wouldnt need to upgrade anything else.

Two things; First, I truly do not know about monitors and resolution size - that's why I posted this thread. I am trying to figure out what exactly it is that I need. I DO want to have the equivalent or larger workspace - I most definitely do not want to step back. Second- what exactly is a 1440p monitor?
Overall - I'm not looking for the cheapest - I'm looking to find what will work with my Mac Pro that i am very happy with right now. Thanks for all your help so far - I have learned a lot and I have also learned that there is still a lot more to learn ...

 

[h9826790]

Fanless 750Ti exist, which is strong enough to drive 4K monitor.

However, the only reliable way to get a flashed fanless 750Ti should be from MVC. No other choice. And you MUST install the Nvidia web driver to make the card work. There is no driver for this card in the OS. So, the card won't work properly until driver installed and selected (for flashed card, you will still see the screen, but just no acceleration, and at low resolution. Therefore, it's very easy to "fix" the driver issue).

 

[scotttnz]

I agree that 40" is the sweet spot for 4K. I'd been using a 30" 2560x1600 for nearly nine years so the 40" 3840x2160 was a nice upgrade with a little higher pixel density but not teeny-weeny fonts at native resolution. The screen I have is the Philips 40" BDM4065UC which has now been superseded by the 43" BDM4350UC which includes HDMI 2.0 & is still around the same price. At under £600 it's an amazing bargain. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-Br...UTF8&qid=1474360691&sr=8-1&keywords=bdm4350uc

I replaced my 3 monitor setup with the BDM4065UC. Love it! My video card is an unflashed GTX760 and works well other than the lack of boot screens. (It has fans, but I can't hear them.) I have looked at the BDM4350UC, but to my eyes it looks soft and kind of washed out. Perhaps it is the larger screen size, but I think it is more to do with the contrast ratio of the IPS panel vs the VA panel in the 40".

If you want to change to one of these big screens (or any 4K screen really) my advice is to take some time to educate yourself about the video card options for your Mac Pro. There are lots of options with different pros and cons. It needs to support 4K resolution, and I strongly recommend that you get a card capable of doing so at 60Hz or more. Then you have non-flashed vs flashed for boot screen support, and native driver vs web driver, or no driver support. For the uninitiated it can be quite complex.

 

[Childs]

Two things; First, I truly do not know about monitors and resolution size - that's why I posted this thread. I am trying to figure out what exactly it is that I need. I DO want to have the equivalent or larger workspace - I most definitely do not want to step back. Second- what exactly is a 1440p monitor?
Overall - I'm not looking for the cheapest - I'm looking to find what will work with my Mac Pro that i am very happy with right now. Thanks for all your help so far - I have learned a lot and I have also learned that there is still a lot more to learn ...

A 1440p monitor is a monitor with a resolution of 2560x1440 pixels, which is what your 27" Thunderbolt display is. Your 30" Cinema display is 2560x1600 pixels. So your total work area for both monitors is 3,686,400 + 4,096,000 = 7,782,400 pixels. Most TVs are 1920x1080, regardless of the size. So at 20" or 70", most TVs will still be 1920x1080. So the technician saying you dont need 4K, just use mini displayport to HDMI out to a 40" TV would mean your work area would be reduced down to 2,073,600 pixels...which is way less than you have with just one of your monitors. You want what you already have or more. Two options:

1. Buy a 4K monitor/tv. This would give you a resolution of 3840x2160, which is 8,294,400 pixels. The resolution is independent of the size of the screen. You can go as small as something like 24", but what you want is around 40". So basically the size of the stuff on the screen would look like you see now, but now you can see more things. This is more than what you have now, and in one monitor. The downsides is that it would also most likely require:

1. New video cards so you could output to 4K@60Hz. Remember, you have 4 machines using these monitors. You might not need them if you can get by with 4K@30Hz, although that also depends on which Mini you have, and what video cards are currently in your Macs. Hz is the frequency in which things are displayed to the screen. More is better, which looks fluid. Less is worse, which looks stuttery. I dont know what you're going to do with the G5. A modern card might work, but that depends what version of OS X your running and if the drivers would support it.
2. This also means you will need to do something with your KVM, as that uses DL-DVI, and you'll need one that supports 4K, which basically means a displayport KVM.

2. Since your 27" Thunderbolt display is dying, simply replace that monitor. You can buy a monitor thats the same size and has the same resolution for $200 or less, and you dont have to change anything else.