WWDC: New LCD Displays

[bkopi]

According to nVidia's specifications the GeForce 6800 GPU can deliver a resolution of up to 2048x1536. The specs are on their web site at http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20040406661996.html

I wonder now, how on earth can any video card based on that GPU drive the new 30" display at a resolution of 2560x1600?! And why this display is only supposed to be good for MACs? The GeForce 6800 is available for PCs also!

If anybody has any info on that I would appreciate a response, as I'm trying to find out if there is any kind of scaling going on there (which would mean low graphics quality) or even worst, if this is all marketing crap?!

In principal the GPU should be able to drive (2048x1536)x2, given the two DVI outputs. So another explanation could be that there is a special driver (probably for MAC OS, that's why the 30" display only for MACs) that 'steels' pixels from one DVI and drives them to the other.. producing some kind of (2560x1600) on one DVI and the remaining (1536x1472) on the second? Don't know, just speculating.. And anyway, Apple never claimed that a dual 30" display configuration can be driven at maximum resolution at the same time by a G5 with a GeForce 6800..

Any links to relevant tech discussions are highly appreciated

 

[army_guy]

With a high resolution on a small display one can increase the dpi hence putting everything into an appropriate size. Having an ultra high resolution makes everything look razor sharp (and less pixelated for an LCD) not small as most people think therefor IMO the resolution of the 30" needs to be a touch higher in the 3000+ range to be compared to say a 15.4" WUXGA to achieve the same sharpness.

 

[army_guy]

According to nVidia's specifications the GeForce 6800 GPU can deliver a resolution of up to 2048x1536. The specs are on their web site at http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20040406661996.html

Depends on what the video card is doing, that resolution is probably for 3D not 2D. I should say that dont expect to play games at even 2048x1536 as the resolution is way to high and the response time will probably make you sick with the smearing and ghosting of the 30" Apple Display.

 

[m.r.m.]

Err... you realize that the fastest pixel response time (rise + fall) available today – in only a very few LCDs – is 12 ms, don't you?

yeah, that's why lcd displays aren't that good for first person shooters at the moment. almost all counterstrike pros (yes, there is such a thing ) use standard 19" monitors; and money is no object for them when it comes to such things. even at my semi-pro level (med school and football make sure i don't play more ) you'll hardly find a single person with a lcd display.

 

[army_guy]

I wouldnt say that LCD arent good with FPS but the small LCDS i.e. less than 19" with 12ms response times are OK for the average gamer but for someone who plays alot of games LCD's cant touch CRT's for response time, colour and contrast and will not for at least another 12-18 months. Also I would of included brightness but this has been resolved for small displays that can reach 800mcd however that 30" apple barely manages 400mcd VS the average CRT of 1000mc++.

CRT's will die eventually but its not gona happen soon especially for the pro users in video/photo editing and gamers who have to use multiple resolutions. You cant play games on high res LCD's at thier native res hence running anything lower just blurs the image.

 

[army_guy]

According to nVidia's specifications the GeForce 6800 GPU can deliver a resolution of up to 2048x1536. The specs are on their web site at http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20040406661996.html

I wonder now, how on earth can any video card based on that GPU drive the new 30" display at a resolution of 2560x1600?! And why this display is only supposed to be good for MACs? The GeForce 6800 is available for PCs also!

The GeForce 6800 was designed for the PC, the default configuration is DUAL DVI but nvidia give the board manufactures to use VGA as well. So far ive seen DUAL DVI and VGA + DVI, I think there is also a DUAL VGA. The 6800 MAC is identical except for the BIOS and some signal changes (via resistors)for the AGP Port so that the card cant be used in a PC.

 

[m.r.m.]

I wouldnt say that LCD arent good with FPS but the small LCDS i.e. less than 19" with 12ms response times are OK for the average gamer but for someone who plays alot of games LCD's cant touch CRT's for response time, colour and contrast and will not for at least another 12-18 months. Also I would of included brightness but this has been resolved for small displays that can reach 800mcd however that 30" apple barely manages 400mcd VS the average CRT of 1000mc++.

CRT's will die eventually but its not gona happen soon especially for the pro users in video/photo editing and gamers who have to use multiple resolutions. You cant play games on high res LCD's at thier native res hence running anything lower just blurs the image.

amen to that.

 

[MrSugar]

Depends on what the video card is doing, that resolution is probably for 3D not 2D. I should say that dont expect to play games at even 2048x1536 as the resolution is way to high and the response time will probably make you sick with the smearing and ghosting of the 30" Apple Display.

These are the hasty comments I refered to in my last post. A 16ms will not ghost, please read and do some research before making comments.

I play a lot of games on LCDs that are 16ms, also there are a lot of articles about it out. For instance Tom's Hardware has one that is really good. Although 12ms and 14ms monitors are better, 16 really is doing a great job for almost all tasks.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040326/index.html

 

[rendezvouscp]

This is such a long thread, I haven't been able to read all of it. But I wanted to mention that the 30" is only 29.7" viewable. Interesting.
–Chase

 

[Downdivx]

This is such a long thread, I haven't been able to read all of it. But I wanted to mention that the 30" is only 29.7" viewable. Interesting.
–Chase

Interesting, anybody know all of the details on the old vs new viewable?
I thought the old 23" was 23" viewable.

W

 

[thatwendigo]

I wouldnt say that LCD arent good with FPS but the small LCDS i.e. less than 19" with 12ms response times are OK for the average gamer but for someone who plays alot of games LCD's cant touch CRT's for response time, colour and contrast and will not for at least another 12-18 months. Also I would of included brightness but this has been resolved for small displays that can reach 800mcd however that 30" apple barely manages 400mcd VS the average CRT of 1000mc++.

Oh no, the LCDs aren't as horrendously bright as possible? If you bother to read the subjective reviews of the new displays, you'lll find an awful lot of the people looking at the new Apple displays are turning the contrast and brightness down because it's too much. This is the same kind of attitude that dominates the constant complaints around this place, because people often look at the numbes and nothing else.

I realize that you, army_guy, are at least somewhat conversant in the topics of computers. I've read your posts, and while we don't agree on a large number of things, I would have thought you wouldn't fall for that horribly misleading sort of measure.

To pull a bit from the Tom's Hardware article someone else mentions:

With the basic settings, the monitor shows a dominance of blue and is very bright. On the spectrogram, its brightness measures 270cd/m², definitely higher than average for a default setting. As a reminder, LCDs usually have a brightness of around 200cd/m², twice that of CRTs (80 to 110 cd/m²). Set at zero in the OSD, the minimum brightness is 142cd/m², and the colors are nowhere near as good. So it's best to stick to the default settings, which give you 92% of the colors. About 82% of them, the lightest ones, rate a DeltaE <1.​

So, that's a lower-end panel that has comparable brightness, which is appparently two to three times that of a CRT. Where are you getting your claims from?

 

[stuBCN75]

Nevertheless, they should have looked like this:

http://www.eyegonomic.com/page.dsp?page=188

They do look great but dont come cheap. have not had a chance to really compare the specs to the Apple 23"

http://www.macnn.com/news/19936

has anyone found these for cheaper anywhere ?

 

[m.r.m.]

These are the hasty comments I refered to in my last post. A 16ms will not ghost, please read and do some research before making comments.

I play a lot of games on LCDs that are 16ms, also there are a lot of articles about it out. For instance Tom's Hardware has one that is really good. Although 12ms and 14ms monitors are better, 16 really is doing a great job for almost all tasks.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040326/index.html

i was in the market for a lcd monitor. among others i've tried the sony hs73p (mentioned in the review). it's a 16ms display and i encountered the smearing playing counterstrike. now, in no way do i claim to be an expert in this field and i am more than willing to accept all your judgements on this, because i'm sure you're better educated in these matters, but i am just conveying my experience. i haven't found a lcd display yet, that could go up against my iiyama crt monitor. i'm not a hardcore gamer in the sense that i play all kinds of games, so i can't judge how displays would do in whatever game, but i am a pretty serious and decent counterstrike player (playing in the electronic sports league) and all the lcd's (some with 16ms others above, if i remember correctly even one 17" with 12ms, though not positive on the last) that i tried so far have had models smearing while strafing. the pc i used while testing these monitors is a amd64 3000+ with an ati 9600xt. this smearing (you call it ghosting, i hadn't heard of that term in this context so far ) has never occured to me on a crt monitor. maybe it won't occur on this new generation of displays, but i guess someone would actually have to test that.

btw, since i'm a mac newbie (i'm writing this on my 12" powerbook) i was curious, would the performance suffer profusely (fps drop etc.) if one ran counterstrike f.e. on a mac with virtual pc? how good do programs perform under virtual pc (since i don't have the program i have no clue)? i much prefer os to windows (eventhough i grew up with windows only), but i'm quite addicted to that game, so there is no way i could completely abandon the pc. if i were to decide to stop gaming, i'd switch completely in a heartbeat.

 

[Mav451]

These are the hasty comments I refered to in my last post. A 16ms will not ghost, please read and do some research before making comments.

I play a lot of games on LCDs that are 16ms, also there are a lot of articles about it out. For instance Tom's Hardware has one that is really good. Although 12ms and 14ms monitors are better, 16 really is doing a great job for almost all tasks.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040326/index.html

This is true, but you have to remember that alot of people may identify with one of those "intense bad memories"--for me that was looking at nearly the entire LCD line in 2002-2003 and seeing everything blur and ghost because no one at the time was even close to 16ms (except for the select few such IIYAMA|, Hitachi's CML174, Solarism 1730)

Those are hardly what I call "consumer" models of their time b/c they were exorbitantly priced until recently. Now the 2nd revision, CML175 (16ms LCD based on the original CML174 of 2002) runs for barely $399 at a some places:
http://shop.monitorsdirect.com/product.asp?sku=2359465
I bring this up b/c the CML174 in 2002-early 2003 ran for close to $600+ The difference a year and a half makes in the LCD world

Amazing progress...but only recently. That is why people may still doubt their gaming capabilities. I bring up the CML175 b/c my friend actually bought one. Now, even he said that while it is pretty high-end, it still lags just a bit in counter-strike. Well, a bit sure beats getting the ghosting you would get now from a budget 25ms (or WORSE) LCD

 

[Mav451]

The 20" Viewsonic monitor you compare to the Apple 20" CD to is NOT a WIDESCREEN monitor. WIDESCREEN LCDs are, across the board, significantly more expensive than 4:3 ratio screens. No matter who makes them. Those are the screens you need to compare the apple displays to. Widescreen is a whole different ballgame... designed for high end graphics, and in particular, video editing, where the wide aspect ratio matches the footage you are editing. Widescreen displays do not enjoy the same economy of scale that 4:3 displays do.

DaveG5, Although you have a good point, the difference between 1600x1200 and 1680x1050 is so minute, that I think it the viewsonic is a viable competitor, as we are only talking 80 pixels in width and 150 pixels in length. So it's sort of a wash, right? You can still put virtually the same image on either without really knowing much difference. the 4/3 will save you some scrolling and the widescreen some extra toolbars or video width, but we are talking less then 10% width and about 10% lenth, therefore fair comparison.
I would choose the Apple for firewire/usb hub, nicer design, better looks, single cable that goes to usb, firewire, power, dvi.

Yeah, the Apple does have the advantage of having 2 FW400 ports; while the VP201B I brought up has 4 USB2.0 ports (+2 USB, -2 FW)...I guess this may be more suited for PC users than anything else with the inclusion of extra USB and no FW.

The 4 USB ports are ultra useful (1 Digi Cam, 1 Printer, 1 for USB Memory Sticks) which leaves one left over for anything else.

 

[yadmonkey]

For me, the biggest disappointments are:

1. Price of the 20". Its probably a reasonable price, but I bought into the rumors that they'd be cheaper due to the lower cost of components. Again, just a disappointment that it puts the 20" out of my reach for a bit longer.

2. Lack of dual inputs. Unfortunately I am still somewhat dependent on my PC as well, so it would have been lovely to be able to connect my Mac and PC to the same Apple display.

Take that for what it is - not a rant about how Apple screwed everyone over, but a couple of reasons I am disappointed.

 

[MrSugar]

i was in the market for a lcd monitor. among others i've tried the sony hs73p (mentioned in the review). it's a 16ms display and i encountered the smearing playing counterstrike. now, in no way do i claim to be an expert in this field and i am more than willing to accept all your judgements on this, because i'm sure you're better educated in these matters, but i am just conveying my experience. i haven't found a lcd display yet, that could go up against my iiyama crt monitor. i'm not a hardcore gamer in the sense that i play all kinds of games, so i can't judge how displays would do in whatever game, but i am a pretty serious and decent counterstrike player (playing in the electronic sports league) and all the lcd's (some with 16ms others above, if i remember correctly even one 17" with 12ms, though not positive on the last) that i tried so far have had models smearing while strafing. the pc i used while testing these monitors is a amd64 3000+ with an ati 9600xt. this smearing (you call it ghosting, i hadn't heard of that term in this context so far ) has never occured to me on a crt monitor. maybe it won't occur on this new generation of displays, but i guess someone would actually have to test that.

btw, since i'm a mac newbie (i'm writing this on my 12" powerbook) i was curious, would the performance suffer profusely (fps drop etc.) if one ran counterstrike f.e. on a mac with virtual pc? how good do programs perform under virtual pc (since i don't have the program i have no clue)? i much prefer os to windows (eventhough i grew up with windows only), but i'm quite addicted to that game, so there is no way i could completely abandon the pc. if i were to decide to stop gaming, i'd switch completely in a heartbeat.

This is interesting to me. I know from my own personal expirience on my 16ms displays as well as others my friends use, that none of them ghost (or smear) at all. Although that article from Tom's Hardware does say that some of them do in general I have been very very impressed with 16ms response time. Of course you aren't going to be as fast as a CRT, but the low response times now days makes the CRT pretty much dead in the water. It has its niche in very very few places.

 

[MrSugar]

This is true, but you have to remember that alot of people may identify with one of those "intense bad memories"--for me that was looking at nearly the entire LCD line in 2002-2003 and seeing everything blur and ghost because no one at the time was even close to 16ms (except for the select few such IIYAMA|, Hitachi's CML174, Solarism 1730)

Those are hardly what I call "consumer" models of their time b/c they were exorbitantly priced until recently. Now the 2nd revision, CML175 (16ms LCD based on the original CML174 of 2002) runs for barely $399 at a some places:
http://shop.monitorsdirect.com/product.asp?sku=2359465
I bring this up b/c the CML174 in 2002-early 2003 ran for close to $600+ The difference a year and a half makes in the LCD world

Amazing progress...but only recently. That is why people may still doubt their gaming capabilities. I bring up the CML175 b/c my friend actually bought one. Now, even he said that while it is pretty high-end, it still lags just a bit in counter-strike. Well, a bit sure beats getting the ghosting you would get now from a budget 25ms (or WORSE) LCD

This is a good point, you do bring up some of the original LCD fore runners with 16ms. My friend had the Hitachi and man was that thing sweet, but at the time very pricey. I do think people still have fears of the ghosting, they should sit down at the apple store with these new displays and play a dvd or two and realize how much of a difference one year makes.

 

[MrSugar]

For me, the biggest disappointments are:

1. Price of the 20". Its probably a reasonable price, but I bought into the rumors that they'd be cheaper due to the lower cost of components. Again, just a disappointment that it puts the 20" out of my reach for a bit longer.

2. Lack of dual inputs. Unfortunately I am still somewhat dependent on my PC as well, so it would have been lovely to be able to connect my Mac and PC to the same Apple display.

Take that for what it is - not a rant about how Apple screwed everyone over, but a couple of reasons I am disappointed.

it is odd that on such a high end display apple didn't include dual inputs. I suppose it only targets a few in the crowd out there, but it would have been nice. Perhaps they felt it was too much cable clutter ... ?

 

[Capt Underpants]

it is odd that on such a high end display apple didn't include dual inputs. I suppose it only targets a few in the crowd out there, but it would have been nice. Perhaps they felt it was too much cable clutter ... ?

Probably. Though they could've made the second cable detachable so if it wasn't in use, there wasn't un-needed cable clutter. Apple has a history of handicapping it's products. It's no surprise that they didn't introduce dual inputs.

 

[army_guy]

These are the hasty comments I refered to in my last post. A 16ms will not ghost, please read and do some research before making comments.

I play a lot of games on LCDs that are 16ms, also there are a lot of articles about it out. For instance Tom's Hardware has one that is really good. Although 12ms and 14ms monitors are better, 16 really is doing a great job for almost all tasks.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040326/index.html

16ms does ghost, why? two reasons:

1) 16ms does goes expecially in fast past games such as UT2003, HALO, etc..

2) LCD manufactures mis quote the response and when measured it can be as much as 5ms-15ms higher than the claimed.

 

[yadmonkey]

Though they could've made the second cable detachable so if it wasn't in use, there wasn't un-needed cable clutter. Apple has a history of handicapping it's products.

Agreed. I can't explain the history of handicapping their products, but in this case it might force me to get another LCD. Half the point of getting an LCD is avoiding clutter. Well using two computers and avoiding clutter means getting a third-party LCD.

Damn shame too, as I love Apple's products and think this is otherwise a damn fine display. It can't be that small a niche market, can it?


PS - Capt Underpants, gamertag: Rey Mo

Although I probably won't be online too much until Dead or Alive Ultimate comes out! Maybe some Splinter Cell in the meantime.

 

[Arael]

Agreed. I can't explain the history of handicapping their products, but in this case it might force me to get another LCD. Half the point of getting an LCD is avoiding clutter. Well using two computers and avoiding clutter means getting a third-party LCD.

Damn shame too, as I love Apple's products and think this is otherwise a damn fine display. It can't be that small a niche market, can it?


PS - Capt Underpants, gamertag: Rey Mo

Although I probably won't be online too much until Dead or Alive Ultimate comes out! Maybe some Splinter Cell in the meantime.

Exactly. I plan to get a 23in within 1/2 year or so.
I'll probably get the apple if it has dual input.
Now I'll consider just any other brand.

I think the reason is that Apple wants to sell their
displays to Apple-only customers. They don't want business from people like me, who wants to share a large monitor between a PC and a Mac.
Yes, I can still get a high-end DVI switch, but thats another $2xx.

 

[Downdivx]

Exactly. I plan to get a 23in within 1/2 year or so.
I'll probably get the apple if it has dual input.
Now I'll consider just any other brand.

I think the reason is that Apple wants to sell their
displays to Apple-only customers. They don't want business from people like me, who wants to share a large monitor between a PC and a Mac.
Yes, I can still get a high-end DVI switch, but thats another $2xx.

What monitor includes a dual DVI input?

 

[cr2sh]

Interesting, anybody know all of the details on the old vs new viewable?
I thought the old 23" was 23" viewable.

W

That is correct.. all the old displays were viewable as the size was stated. 23, 23" 20, 20", 17, 17"