Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
HDMI Announces USB-C to HDMI Cables for 4K Displays and TVs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a Club3D USB-C->HDMI 2.0 converter which does 4K@60Hz.
[doublepost=1472819371][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1472819371][/doublepost]
I also have a Club3D DP 1.2->HDMI 2.0 converter.
Both of these solutions have chips that are increasing the frequency of the signal at the HDMI end. This isn't providing true 4k@60Hz. It's providing 4k@30Hz, frame doubled to 60Hz.
I assume they are converting the DisplayPort 1.2 present.
And one of the is plainly DisplayPort 1.2.
I don't know where you found proof that they are fake.
Actually, yep, the DisplayPort 1.2 to HDMI 2 adapter can be real (DP 1.2 has similar bandwidth).
The USB-C to HDMI 2 adapter has to be up-sampling the signal. You have 10Gb/s on the USB-C side. You have 18Gb/s on the HDMI 2 side. How are you filling the pipe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
USB-C can only support HDMI 1.4 natively. You need a more robust USB spec to support HDMI 2.x. (will we need 36Gb/s for 120Hz? Maybe just 26Gb/s?)
The port in the MacBook should really be called USB 3.1 with a USB-C connector (so everyone's clear of the limitations).
Ok, yes, the full USB-C spec does include alternate modes for TB3 as well as DP 1.3.
Perhaps with the new Mac's we'll see a more robust implementation (would hope so as that spec was formalized two years ago).
It's not fake. It's a USB 3.1 port that is utilizing the USB-C connector. (but it's a USB 3.1 port first).
You can have a USB-C port that supports the USB3.1 protocol - that's the difference. It's in the implementation.
From the beginning, the USB-C connector was designed to merge with TB3, that's why I call a USB-C connector that does not have TB3 fake.
My point is that there was never an official HDMI>Thunderbolt cable which is why Apple don't sell one and instead you need third party cables that are crab, or adapters. But USB C comes along and gets one straight away
Thunderbolt adaptation has been crap anyways. The devices are far and few between and usually cost so much that only professionals will buy them.
I have the first Thunderbolt-enabled Mac that Apple ever sold and never have I used it as anything other than a mini-DisplayPort.
It's a welcome addition but shouldn't be used to replace HDMI outputs. Display adaptors in particular annoy me. I found myself hooking laptops up to TVs a lot more once MacBook Pros started finally coming with a regular HDMI output. Before that, it was too much of a hassle.
[doublepost=1472833685][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1472833685][/doublepost]
Only if projectors and TVs all adopt it, and you can use male-to-male USB-C... Otherwise, it'll be dongles.
Last edited:
No, it's not a dongle. It's a cable which is defined by HDMI Founders. It might not be a common cable, but neither is a USB to Lightning cable, which is not a dongle.
That's only if you're going to carry around a long USB-C to HDMI cable. The reason people carry dongles is they're short, and they expect a male connection endpoint to be available. You don't see people carrying Lighting to male ethernet cables that go straight into the wall.
They're saying it because a "dongle" is not a freaking cable. Period. A dongle is something you ATTACH TO A CABLE to make it work.
No, this isn't a great solution since you still have to purchase a cable at least once, but at least a cable doesn't tend to get lost so easy like a dongle does that you have to attach when needed. This is the same reason why losing the headphone jack on the iPHone is a STUPID IDEA. Having to keep track of some dongle/adapter to use regular headphones with an iPhone just means you are going to lose it constantly. I'm sure Apple loves that idea as that means they can keep selling you more dongles an then tell you that you wouldn't have that problem is you just bought some new headphones that have a Lightning cable already (at least until they switch to USB-C on the iPhone 8 or 9 at which point you can buy ANOTHER DONGLE and/or headphones to solve your problem all over again..... It's awful. This is why we have STANDARDS to begin with so we don't have these issues and waste of money. But Apple has never really cared much for standards because they make a lot more money when they a big seller that is incompatible with everything else (e.g. iPhone cables).
I know it's a cable.
What I meant is, a dongle is effectively an adapter. So is this cable, an adapter.
The point is that I still cannot use existing connections without an adapter of some kind..
[doublepost=1473011701][/doublepost]
Sorry, no.
Any adapter, including a cable, is a dongle. These terms are interchangeable.
Look it up.
Just because the ends are smaller than other dongles Apple has made doesn't mean it isn't one.
As opposed to any other kind of cable? If it so much as converts a male jack into a female one it's an "adapter" of sorts, but what most of us mean by "dongle" is a small device that can be easily LOST because it's small and removable. What the person was saying is that because it is a cable, it's not going to get lost. I pointed out you still have to buy one, though, regardless.
OK, because you INSIST on "being right", I WILL look it up....
----------
don·gle
ˈdäNGɡəl,ˈdôNG-/
noun
noun: dongle; plural noun: dongles
- a small device able to be connected to and used with a computer, especially to allow access to wireless broadband or use of protected software.
1980s: an arbitrary formation.
Or we can look at Merriam Webster's definition:
Definition of dongle
- : a small device that plugs into a computer and serves as an adapter or as a security measure to enable the use of certain software
As I said, a "small device" not a CABLE which is neither "small" or a "device". An adapter might be considered a "dongle" particularly if it contains electronics to convert it (rather than just a different connector), but a cable itself cannot be a "dongle". I suppose it could "contain" a "dongle" but then it's not really "connected" (as in removable) and hence one of the biggest drawback to dongles (you can lose them quite easily).
The definition I'm looking at specifically says yes, it has to be SMALL (and a "device") not a cable. An "adapter" could be a cable, but not a "dongle."
*SIGH
Bolded the definition of "dongle" in your post.
And I stated that the "cable" is smaller than previous adapters (like DVI to VGA, TB to HDMI, Mini DVI to DVI, etc), it is a device, and it serves as an adapter.
We can go around in circles about the semantics of it all, but the point I was making is this:
This dongle, cable, or whatever, would still be yet another adapter to carry, regardles of it's shape, size, or category.
HDMI connectors are pretty much universal nowadays, and I can see Apple removing the HDMI connector from their devices in favor of this, thus requiring, you guessed it, a damn dongle, adapter cable, wagic wand, or whatever you want to call it.
I understand that tech moves forward, but I just hate when Apple jumps ahead like this sometimes (taking away built-in functionality), seemingly unnecessarily.
Apple does what is financially good for Apple. They don't care if the consumer has to juggle cables, dongles or adapters so long as we pay them exorbitant amounts for those items. Why offer 2008 Macbook Pro functionality (I have a connector for every imaginable thing needed at the time save eSata and I can get it with an expansion card) when you can offer one port that no one supports directly and requires all kinds of breakout boxes, cables and adapters to get basic functionality out of the notebook? They're essentially moving the burden external to the device. That may be fine at home as a desktop docking solution, but it's a lot messier for those on the road that need to connect external gear.
+1
Form over function. They really need to get their head out of their ass and start designing for the real world again.
(love this graphic)
