I am sure the monitor could be set up to work as a plain (m)DP monitor even if it had a built-in graphic card, bypassing it should not be rocket science. It thus would not be Mac-only.
But the additional cost naturally remains.
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.
Apple's Upcoming Hardware Refresh to Include Thunderbolt LED Display, Not MacBook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But the additional cost naturally remains.
How much bandwidth does 2 27" monitors consume?
Theoretically speaking, is there performance hit if you daisy chain 2 27" + Lacie thunderbolt storage?
Not sure what to make of this:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...intel-thunderbolt-is-it-really-that-good.aspx
Theoretically speaking, is there performance hit if you daisy chain 2 27" + Lacie thunderbolt storage?
Not sure what to make of this:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...intel-thunderbolt-is-it-really-that-good.aspx
Nothing stops Apple from adding multiple TB ports to its computers. If your 4K display sucks up all of one TB port's bandwidth, then you just put your other TB devices on your second TB port.
There's very little chance of getting any of these "rumors" correct, since it's Apple. You never know what they're up to, and that's not a bad thing, just the way it is.
Yeah. One straightforward solution would be a switch that let you toggle between video inputs ( like most competing models have with multiple input connectors on the back). If there are two TB ports it would be nice if Apple monitors could actually accept input from two different sources.
Then, assuming TB controller is bi-directional on DP packets and can switch between its two ports, hook the TB DP pins to the monitor's switch. Hook the GPU output to the switch. Only need some custom DP switch inside the monitor that can talk to the TB controller to get it to do its switching (since multiple levels).
Now the user just presses some "change input" button to change between the sources. Likewise some of the "iMac in monitor mode" solution copied over.
However, if the TB controller is not bi-directional and switching then you have a bigger mess (or limited input; just bidirectional to one port).
Nothing besides costs and space. The controller probably has two ports. To going to 3-4 means more logic boards space. It is already going to be interesting how they squeeze this onto the MBAs.
Most of the macs have edge space constraints unless Apple throws those form factor drivers out the window. There are lots of computer models Apple could build. Most of them they don't.
TBolt is DP and PCIe only.
USB/1394 traffic is not carried by the TBolt protocol. Only DisplayPort and PCIe traffic is on the wire.
The display would need to have a PCIe controller for USB (it could even be USB 3), and a separate PCIe controller for 1394.
Addtional separate PCIe controllers for audio, graphics, network, disks, flash readers, optical discs, etc could also be added. (A "PCIe bridge" can act as a PCIe hub so that you can have as many PCIe lanes as you need - you're not limited to one PCIe x4 device or four PCIe x1 devices.)
Apple could make a very nice docking station with TBolt - might be pricey, though.
USB/1394 traffic is not carried by the TBolt protocol. Only DisplayPort and PCIe traffic is on the wire.
The display would need to have a PCIe controller for USB (it could even be USB 3), and a separate PCIe controller for 1394.
Addtional separate PCIe controllers for audio, graphics, network, disks, flash readers, optical discs, etc could also be added. (A "PCIe bridge" can act as a PCIe hub so that you can have as many PCIe lanes as you need - you're not limited to one PCIe x4 device or four PCIe x1 devices.)
Apple could make a very nice docking station with TBolt - might be pricey, though.
Last edited:
Agreed for the portables but on the iMac I think they will find the space they need for this, nobody would complain if the iMac became one or two millimetres thicker (which would add a large additional volume).
On the Airs with their very limited port number, any port that can double-duty is a good thing.
Not interested in the features Lion has to offer. Will be sticking with SL till machine dies. Will get a new mac and OS whatever that may be 4 years from now.
Too bad for you.
I'm looking forward to switching to Mac and starting my experience with Lion.
SL feels outdated in comparison. Lion is the future.I know the feeling though. I'm still using XP on most of my Windows machines just because I prefer it over 7 (which isn't a bad OS, but I have my preferences set).
Jobs would complain. Ive would complain. Apple is obsessed with thin. 1-2mm does matter to them.
Don't tell me the iMac shape was designed first then given to the technicians to see what amount of electronics they could fit in. This is an iterative process and if they want to fit an extra TB chip in it, they will find a way that does not offend John Ive's sense of aesthetics.
Maybe I'm just seeing things but the mini in the picture looks like the side length-to-height ratio is smaller than the 2010 model. I'm not sure if that would mean it's thicker or that its footprint is smaller, though the latter would be great if true.
I hope someone who is a bit more savvy with i/o technology can explain clearly how TB would be able to run two 27" ACD monitors without completely hogging all of the bandwidth available to a TB bus, especially with a new or next generation MBP, which will have only one GPU and no ability to add another.
For that matter, will a next-gen Mac Pro be able to run multiple TB busses from additional GPU cards?
For that matter, will a next-gen Mac Pro be able to run multiple TB busses from additional GPU cards?
I am also curious about this. Any thoughts on whether the impending 27" Thunderbolt Cinema display will work with a 2010 Displayport equipped MacBook Pro?
If there are ports on the back of the display, such as USB, would those work as well?
But does adding another port = another bus? Do you go from 10gb of throughput to 20gb, or would they just share 10gb?
This seems to have been a cock-up too
As it's back with the SL desktop again now.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac
As it's back with the SL desktop again now.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac
Attachments
It definitely seems to me that they meant to release Lion this past week, but they must have run into something. If there was never any intent to do so, why would anyone (or any automated system) put the Lion image on everything? I have a feeling it'll be next week.
...Or, of course, the folks at Apple know about all this crazy speculation and are just totally screwing with our minds and have no real idea of the exact release date yet.
EDIT: And... hold on... oh, I was about to say I was surprised they haven't removed these images yet, but it seems they have. Am I the first to notice this, or am I really late?
...Or, of course, the folks at Apple know about all this crazy speculation and are just totally screwing with our minds and have no real idea of the exact release date yet.
EDIT: And... hold on... oh, I was about to say I was surprised they haven't removed these images yet, but it seems they have. Am I the first to notice this, or am I really late?
Doesn't Apple's Thunderbolt implementation multiplex in the PCIe 10Gb bus with a DisplayPort signal? That is why a standard DisplayPort monitor can be used if it is the last in a TB chain -- the last TB device pulls out the DisplayPort signal and passes it along. If this is indeed the case then the first display would get its video via a signal on the Thunderbolt bus and the second display could get the DisplayPort signal. This would also imply that the displays can continue to accept a standard DisplayPort signal from non-TB systems as the second display would be getting straight DP.
No. there are multiple "lanes" in the copper wired TB just as there are in Display Port.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Port
Over on the right with the pin assignments you'll see that there is a lane 0 , 1 , 2 , and 3 in Display port. TB uses just two. The PCI-e traffic is segregated from the Display port traffic. So along the way to the end of the daisy chain all the intermediate TB controllers have to do is look at the DP data, decide it isn't for them, and just pass it along. Likewise, if something starts "talking" to it which doesn't understand TB, the controller can fall back into legacy mode and just talk DP to the device on the other end of the cable. When you plug in a DP monitor it has little knowledge there is a TB controller on the other side.
DP can only run 5.4Gbps per lane. Multiple monitors wouldn't be hard to do if the pixels traffic per monitor is less than that. Each monitor could get a different lane. At 24bpp color 27" should be close to that upper limit. For a 30bit color monitor it would be a problem.
The optical versions of TB will probably multiplex DP and the PCI-e data and then demultiplex it back out before it hits the controller. Obviously there are not 4 separate sets of wires inside of that cable.
If the TB controller in the display monitor is smart enough to know talking to a legacy DP cable it should work.
