MacBook: Performance of external displays

NameOfBeast

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
874
Reaction score
0
Hi guys:

How well does a MacBook perform with an external monitor? I'm not doing any gaming, mainly text based apps, but PDFs and PS files must render quickly. Is 1920x1200 performance going to be OK, or am I going to regret not getting a MB Pro? :)

Answers along the lines of: `I'm using an external monitor with resolution XxY and performance is Great/An Abomination' particularly appreciated.

Thanks!
 
Would like to know this as well. The next few weeks are killing me with these old computers!

Also, dual use monitor? Good/Bad?
 
I'm running a 19" 1400x900 LCD on my Macbook. I don't have any complaints. If you want any specifics, let me know and I'll try at at home tonight. I have the external set up to extend my screen to the right.

The only problem I get is with apps who assume there will only ever be one dispay. For example, if I want to view images as a slideshow in Preview, the fullscreen mode is always on the notebooks screen, even if preview itself is on the external. Quicktime, when open on the external, goes into fullscreen on the external, but the moment you click on anything on the internal screen, Quicktime exits fullscreen mode. MPlayer doesn't do this though, so I tend to use it most if I want a movie playing in the background while I'm working on something else.

But that's minor. iPhoto and Aperture respect the difference between the two screens. Besides, I don't think this is a hardware issue, it's just the way some applications are coded.
 
Also, dual use monitor? Good/Bad?

Friend of mine has some model BenQ that has DVI and VGA inputs that he can swich on the display. So he has his PC plugged into the VGA and the MacBook into the DVI, and he can easily switch between the two - much nicer than a separate KVM or fiddling about with the cables.
 
Naah it's fine. 144MB VRAM is more than enough to handle 2D on two screens. The only limit is your resolution won't go beyond 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 or something like that. It won't do the 1900x1200-ish one.
 
Naah it's fine. 144MB VRAM is more than enough to handle 2D on two screens. The only limit is your resolution won't go beyond 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 or something like that. It won't do the 1900x1200-ish one.

Are you sure of that? Apple claim that it can do 1920x1200:
ntel GMA X3100 graphics processor with 144MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory3

Extended desktop and video mirroring: Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to 1920 by 1200 pixels on an external display, both at millions of colors

Looks as if I may be in the market for a 1680x1050 screen; Bit of waste getting a bigger display if it can't be driven at its native resolution.
 
Are you sure of that? Apple claim that it can do 1920x1200

I see. This is strange. They definitely showed one stop lower on mine's spec page, but I see that's now showing 1920x1200 too. I wonder if it could unofficially do it all along and they've just made it official now.
 
Hi guys:

How well does a MacBook perform with an external monitor? I'm not doing any gaming, mainly text based apps, but PDFs and PS files must render quickly. Is 1920x1200 performance going to be OK, or am I going to regret not getting a MB Pro? :)

Answers along the lines of: `I'm using an external monitor with resolution XxY and performance is Great/An Abomination' particularly appreciated.

Thanks!
Probably - the MB is small and compact but the MBP is a much better machine in all regards other than size (and price?).
 
Probably - the MB is small and compact but the MBP is a much better machine in all regards other than size (and price?).

Hi bwana,

Can you point us to a post or some resource that explains why you think this is the case? I'm shopping around for a MB/MBP and just want to find out what others think.

Thanks!
David
 
To answer my own question: A MacBook with an external display at 1920x1200 handles like a champ! :D

An awesome little machine.
 
Good to hear! I'll start looking for one then (the screen, that is). Which one do you have?

An ACER P243W; Which is very low-end and does not have a very good rep in these forums --- but it has one deciding advantage over virtually every other 24'' monitor I looked at: it `hangs low' and so fits into my very small workspace. I'm genuinely delighted at this set-up.
 
An ACER P243W; Which is very low-end and does not have a very good rep in these forums --- but it has one deciding advantage over virtually every other 24'' monitor I looked at: it `hangs low' and so fits into my very small workspace. I'm genuinely delighted at this set-up.

I have this monitor and there is very little anything "low end" about it for gaming, word processing and so on. I can compare it to the HIGH END
30 inch Dell which I have connected to my Mac Pro. The colour reproduction
is also as good as my old 19inch HP 1955.

I think these people don't know what they're talking about. There's a lot
of people who bought substellar 22 inch monitors (which can't resolve full HD) and are probably just jealous. There is a slightly more expensive
Samsung and an HP at R5999, both at 24 inches.

The P243 does have one drawback, its a 6bit plus dithering panel, which
means its super fast but if you want to do really serious graphical work on
it - eg photo editing in Photoshop you may want to get a full 8bit or even a 10bit display (eg the likes from NEC or EIZO).
During ordinary gaming, browsing, video viewing or even photo editing (consumer level) you
won't see this though. MacBooks and lower end MacBook Pro's also have these 6bit+DiFr displays.

It does have both DVI and VGA inputs and it looks great with all the 1080P trailers you can throw at it.
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X