Query Alert

[Grenadier]

Spending upwards of £4000 on a Mac Pro is a large commitment for me.
However, I may well be able to turn this into £3500.

I already have a 40" Sony Bravia LCD TV.
http://energo.shop.by/pics/items/40v2000.jpg

It has a DVI input.
Recently, the adventerous thought of saving £780 and using that as a monitor hit me.

Let me assure you, I dont know my VGA from my WXGA, however I can tell that under XGA (My specifications booklet tells me) the numbers 1024x768 are listed. I can only presume then that means that the TV supports 1024x768.
Also, under WXGA, the numbers 1280x768 and 1360x768 are listed.
Once again, I have no idea what this means, but I think it means I can use the TV in the 1024x768 resolution.

What im trying to say is...have I presumed rightly ?
Could someone, if they have the time also explain what this all means ? I would be incredibly thankful.


However, it doesnt end there. I have a second query.

Since the resolution 1024x768 requires very little graphical horsepower, even 6000 series era cards would run modern games on high.
What im trying to say is...does this apply to TVs too ?
At 1024x768 with a X1900XT would I required very little horsepower to run anything on high for the next few years ?

If its of any use, the TV supports 1080i, 720p, 576p/i, 480p/i.
It also supports HDMI.

 

[Grenadier]

Anyone ?!

 

[dkoralek]

Spending upwards of £4000 on a Mac Pro is a large commitment for me.
However, I may well be able to turn this into £3500.

I already have a 40" Sony Bravia LCD TV.
http://energo.shop.by/pics/items/40v2000.jpg

It has a DVI input.
Recently, the adventerous thought of saving £780 and using that as a monitor hit me.

Let me assure you, I dont know my VGA from my WXGA, however I can tell that under XGA (My specifications booklet tells me) the numbers 1024x768 are listed. I can only presume then that means that the TV supports 1024x768.
Also, under WXGA, the numbers 1280x768 and 1360x768 are listed.
Once again, I have no idea what this means, but I think it means I can use the TV in the 1024x768 resolution.

What im trying to say is...have I presumed rightly ?
Could someone, if they have the time also explain what this all means ? I would be incredibly thankful.


However, it doesnt end there. I have a second query.

Since the resolution 1024x768 requires very little graphical horsepower, even 6000 series era cards would run modern games on high.
What im trying to say is...does this apply to TVs too ?
At 1024x768 with a X1900XT would I required very little horsepower to run anything on high for the next few years ?

If its of any use, the TV supports 1080i, 720p, 576p/i, 480p/i.
It also supports HDMI.

OK, I'll take a stab at this. My guess is that the default 7300 option will handle this with no problem as I assume the dual link dvi issue with the 30" displays is due to the increased resolution, not the screen size. The problem, as I see it, with your set up is that the pixel density on the tv will be lousy, so that unless you plan on sitting far from your tv to work on the computer (which is doable with either long cables or using a bluetooth keyboard and mouse), the display is going to be lousy (a 23/24" widescreen monitor displays 1200 pixels on the height compared to 1080 for a 1080i tv). Because OS X is currently not resolution independent, the OS will display 1080 as if the monitor was a bit smaller than a 23" display. I'm probably not explaining this well. There are also probably a variety of contrast differences, etc.

Hope that helps somewhat.

cheers.

 

[Makosuke]

WXGA is "Widescreen XGA". And yes, generally speaking if the monitor says that it supports 1360x768 via the DVI input, then it should (and the picture will look the best if you're using the native resolution of the display which is probably 13something x 768).

Any even remotely modern video card will have no trouble at all displaying those resolutions, but if you're going to be doing any serious gaming, you'll probably want to fork out for the 1900. The 6000 series will be fine for casual gaming, but isn't going to be at its best running high-horsepower games, especially a couple years from now.

Of course, you can always upgrade the video card later, perhaps with a cheaper 1900 off of eBay once better cards become available and people start upgrading.

Edit: dkoralek posted while I was typing and pointed out a very good point--TVs have drastically lower pixel density than monitors because you're supposed to sit 12 feet from them, not 12 inches. Now, if you're sitting on your couch while computing with your TV, that'll be ok, but if you try to sit much closer it'll look horrible and you'll probably ruin your neck too.

Personally, I would say for gaming the TV situation would be just spiffy, but for word processing or anything more precise, it's going to be somewhat annoying, and seems odd to cheap out on the screen with a computer like that. Remember, if you don't like paying a lot for a monitor, even a reasonably priced ViewSonic monitor ($350, so I guess £200) will have higher resolution than your TV, and you can sit in front of it.

 

[Grenadier]

Understood.
So, it looks like the TV WILL be an excellent choice when itll come to Battlefield 2

But I think you guys are right-
I might aswell get myself a monitor too.

Thank you very much for your time guys.
Good day.

 

[poopyhead]

not a direct answer but
I run a macmini with on board graphics hooked up to my 720p (1024x768) 40inch lcd tv with no problems, I also hook up my powerbook to the same tv through dvi with no problems. I am currently sitting about 4 feet away from my display using a wireless keyboard and the display looks great despite the low pixel density. Just be aware that while the display is larger than say a 17 inch powerbook dispaly that you will in essence have less desktop due to the lower resolution of the tv.