Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Powering 30" display @ 2560 x 1600

    Member Since
    Feb 15, 2007
    Posts
    10
    Unhappy Powering 30" display @ 2560 x 1600
    Ok, so ive got a 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC display and im currently running it on a PC. However, I got the new 24" imac for at work, after a week of using it im pretty much ready to ditch my PC at home (which was dated anyway) for a new MAC. This is where I come to a bit of a problem.

    Am I right in thinking that the only way i can power my display at the full resolution is by getting either a Macbook Pro or a Mac Pro?

    I hope not as im just not prepared to pay that much for a mac that wont be anywhere nere as powerful as the price equivalent PC. I was rather hoping to get a Mac Mini, or another 24" imac then run the 30" off one of those.

    Surely this cant be right? The only desktop that powers the 2560 x 1600 res is the mac pro, I just find that insane, seeing as the imac has a graphics card that SHOULD have Dual DVI-D out. This must actually mean they have had it removed or a special downgraded version has been added to all imacs.


  2. #2
    Powering 30" display @ 2560 x 1600

    Member Since
    May 13, 2005
    Posts
    2,410
    Quote Originally Posted by quantic View Post
    ...seeing as the imac has a graphics card that SHOULD have Dual DVI-D out. This must actually mean they have had it removed or a special downgraded version has been added to all imacs.

    im not sure if this part of your post is true... but the rest is accurate.

    Why dosnt the iMac have Dual DVI-D out??? only Mr. Jobs knows for sure.

  3. #3
    Powering 30" display @ 2560 x 1600

    Member Since
    Feb 15, 2007
    Posts
    10
    Well, I cannot really understand it. If you buy the graphics card that comes in the imac, either separately or in a PC it comes with at least one dual-link DVI-D.

    I know because my pc has exactly the same one. This means that they have deliberately made it so that the only desktop that can run the 30ACD is the mac pro.

    God, that is some very evil product placement. Such a shame too, OSX 10.4/10.5 is great.

  4. #4
    Powering 30" display @ 2560 x 1600
    bryphotoguy's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 02, 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,978
    Specs:
    Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
    Quote Originally Posted by quantic View Post
    Well, I cannot really understand it. If you buy the graphics card that comes in the imac, either separately or in a PC it comes with at least one dual-link DVI-D.

    I know because my pc has exactly the same one. This means that they have deliberately made it so that the only desktop that can run the 30ACD is the mac pro.

    God, that is some very evil product placement. Such a shame too, OSX 10.4/10.5 is great.
    The graphics card on an iMac is built into the logic board. It is not a seperate card like it is found on a desktop tower. There is a dvi out to a second monitor. Whether the graphics card is rated for a 30" monitor is something totally different. The graphics cards in the iMac arent high end and not rated for a 30" monitor.
    Maybe Apple assumes high end users will use their high end computer.

    January 2008 Member of the Month

  5. #5
    Powering 30" display @ 2560 x 1600

    Member Since
    Feb 15, 2007
    Posts
    10
    Yeah but thats just it? 1500pounds for a top spec imac that wont even power a single 30" monitor?

    Where as you could get a PC with SLI 8800GTX for the same price, that will power 4?

    "Maybe Apple assumes high end users will use their high end computer."

    Id quite like to make that choice on my own and would assume something costing 1500pounds was high-end.

  6. #6
    Powering 30" display @ 2560 x 1600
    mac57's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 29, 2006
    Location
    St. Somewhere
    Posts
    4,560
    Specs:
    iMac 27" 3.4 GHz, 256 GB SSD, 2 TB HDD, 8 GB RAM
    Remember quantic, the assumption is that most users will use the iMac's built in screen. Only a very small percentage will go beyond that. I think Apple's choices in this area make good sense, given the market they were going after. I think for you, the Mac Pro may be the right (although expensive) choice.
    My Macs: iMac 27" 3.4 GHz, Mac Pro 3.2 GHz, PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5 GHz, G4 Cube with 1.2 GHz Upgrade
    My iStuff: 64GB iPhone 5, 64GB iPad4, 30GB iPod Video, 16GB iPod Touch
    My OS': Mac OS X Lion, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Mac OS X Tiger, Mac OS 9.2.2, openSUSE 10.3
    I was on the Mac-Forums honor roll for September 2007

  7. #7
    Powering 30" display @ 2560 x 1600
    bryphotoguy's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 02, 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,978
    Specs:
    Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
    Quote Originally Posted by mac57 View Post
    Remember quantic, the assumption is that most users will use the iMac's built in screen. Only a very small percentage will go beyond that. I think Apple's choices in this area make good sense, given the market they were going after. I think for you, the Mac Pro may be the right (although expensive) choice.
    Agreed. I had a CD iMac before my Mac Pro and never imagined putting a 30" monitor up to it. 30" seems a bit much as a second monitor and somewhat overpowering.

    Quote Originally Posted by quantic View Post
    Where as you could get a PC with SLI 8800GTX for the same price, that will power 4?
    Id quite like to make that choice on my own and would assume something costing 1500pounds was high-end.
    You're not really comparing a random fruit with that same random fruit. (I would say apples with apples but that might get confusing.) If people could pick whatever video card they want in an iMac, they probably wouldn't put in what Apple did. Plus, you're buying a Mac, not a PC. Prices are higher for many reasons. No one said you had to buy one.

    If I was Steve Jobs, I'd make a Mac Pro Mini that was $700 cheaper than the Mac Pro. But I am not Jobs so there is no Mac Pro Mini so bought the Mac Pro.

    January 2008 Member of the Month

  8. #8
    Powering 30" display @ 2560 x 1600
    Alexis's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 20, 2006
    Posts
    2,255
    Specs:
    Al iMac 20" 2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
    Whether the graphics card is rated for a 30" monitor is something totally different. The graphics cards in the iMac arent high end and not rated for a 30" monitor.
    The max resolution for the Radeon HD2600 is 2560 x 1600. Ie. suitable for a 30" display.

  9. #9
    Powering 30" display @ 2560 x 1600
    bryphotoguy's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 02, 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,978
    Specs:
    Quad 2.8GHz Mac Pro, Edge iPhone
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexis View Post
    The max resolution for the Radeon HD2600 is 2560 x 1600. Ie. suitable for a 30" display.
    Specs copied and pasted from the Apple.com website:

    Support for external display in extended desktop mode
    Digital resolutions up to 1920 by 1200
    Analog resolutions up to 2048 by 1536

    January 2008 Member of the Month

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Display Size 2560 x 1440
    By DaveyboyFeherty in forum Switcher Hangout
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-21-2012, 08:04 PM
  2. White Macbook 13" randomly powering up
    By Engent in forum Apple Notebooks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2011, 03:30 PM
  3. Dual monitors (30inch -> 2560 * 1600) on a MacBook Pro 17
    By demrek1971 in forum Apple Notebooks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-04-2010, 08:20 PM
  4. Lacie drives powering on in the "off" position...MacPro related
    By putdownripoff in forum Other Hardware and Peripherals
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 02:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •