Can the Mini HANDLE the 2005FPW / Apple Cinema 20" disp

Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I read on Anadtech, that since the mini only has 32mb of vram, anything over 1024 or so, could cause major slow down. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I just ordered the 2005FPW, and planned on switching to the mini - but it would be aweful if the beautiful gui was ruined by this problem.

While the 2005FPW's native resolution is 1680x1050, and the Mini/ATI's max resolution is 1920 x 1200, it seems like 3d effects (ripples, etc.) would suffer in such a high resolution - isnt the gui '3d'?

**Update** I just learned that the Ripple doesn't run on the mini - what OTHER effects cannot be run, or have to be turned off??

Thanks for input in advance. I just don't want to purchase a mini, and find out that the interface suffers slowdown, and isn't fluid because of the high resolution.

Coming from a PC, in a game for example, the performance between 1024x768 & 1680x1050 would be significant - but maybe I don't understand the gui.

Here is a quote from the article:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2328&p=6
At 1024 x 768, it's great and it's even fine at 1280 x 960, but once you start going above and beyond that, you start running out of video memory real quickly. I am concerned about performance under OS X Tiger, simply because with more being stored in video memory (e.g. font caches), you'll run out of video memory even quicker. Granted, what I'm discussing right now isn't a reduction in actual performance, but rather a reduction in the smoothness of animations - which to a first-time OS X user can be a huge turn off.

I think this article was written before tiger, so Anand could have been pointing out a 'possible' scenario, so i'd like to have your input on this subject.
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
3,378
Reaction score
61
Points
48
sabotage said:
could cause major slow down.

I have a 2005FPW and a 2001FP, both work well on my mini. It isn't going to slow you down when doing work.
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
9,065
Reaction score
331
Points
83
Location
Munich
Your Mac's Specs
Aluminium Macbook 2.4 Ghz 4GB RAM, SSD 24" Samsung Display, iPhone 4, iPad 2
At work we have a 23" apple display hooked up to a mini, and it runs most tasks fine, although you do notice some slowdown with expose and iPhoto.

Also the slideshows don't work correctly for some reason...
But this is at 1900x1024 (I think, or whatever 1080i is).
 

ped


Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Points
6
sabotage said:
Thanks for input in advance. I just don't want to purchase a mini, and find out that the interface suffers slowdown, and isn't fluid because of the high resolution.

Coming from a PC, in a game for example, the performance between 1024x768 & 1680x1050 would be significant - but maybe I don't understand the gui.

Here is a quote from the article:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2328&p=6


I think this article was written before tiger, so Anand could have been pointing out a 'possible' scenario, so i'd like to have your input on this subject.

I think what they're referring to is the fact that once you get into that high of a resolution with the limited video memory you have less room for multiple pages in that memory. When computers animate something like a game or a GUI the videocard is drawing the next two or three frames in an offscreen buffer in the same video memory as the primary (displayed) buffer is located. This helps from an efficiency standpoint (drawing additional frames using otherwise idle clock cycles) but it also makes for smoother animation.
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
9,065
Reaction score
331
Points
83
Location
Munich
Your Mac's Specs
Aluminium Macbook 2.4 Ghz 4GB RAM, SSD 24" Samsung Display, iPhone 4, iPad 2
While the 2005FPW's native resolution is 1680x1050

Well that's quite a bit less than the resolution we're using the mini with, so if ours is mostly smooth, yours should be better than that again...
Effects like ripple etc. have nothing to do with a graphics cards performance, the card in the mini just doesn't have that capability.

Think of it this way: My VW Beetle can go 133 km/h. So can a Porsche. But the Porsche can go 133 km/h AND has electric windows. Does that mean the Porsche is better at driving 133 km/h?

Ok weird analogy, but I hope you get my point. (It's late here ;))
**Update** I just learned that the Ripple doesn't run on the mini - what OTHER effects cannot be run, or have to be turned off??
None, that's the only effect the mini can't display. It's because that effect needs a certain capability on the card, that the one in the mini simply doesn't have. It's a non-issue for 95% of things you'll do on a mac...

Most other effects, such as exposé, the genie effect etc. work fine IMO.
 
D

Deanster

Guest
I run the 2001FP on my mini for a mix of office and light graphics tasks (Adobe CS non-power user). I don't notice any difference in display fluidity and response from the 17" Samsung I used previously on both the Mini and my Dual G4 867 PowerMac.

Might be a different situation running high-frame-rate games or DVD's, which I just don't do, but for normal all-day-every-day 'Work' tasks, the 20XX Dell monitors seem to be an outstanding match with the Mini.

Perhaps someone else can fill us in on the 'Play' type stuff.
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
3,378
Reaction score
61
Points
48
Deanster said:
Perhaps someone else can fill us in on the 'Play' type stuff.


The mini doesn't have the power to play games very well, unless you don't mind running at a really low resolution, but at that point I would rather play a console.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top