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.
Can DisplayPort dominate the market?
- Thread starter wingman17
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
DisplayPort is okay but really finicky. It's better than HDMI overall, but I get the feeling it won't replace HDMI in a lot of places, a la TV's.
Doesn't it already? I seem to seem to displays with displayport all over the place.
Thunderbolt 3 is the way forward from now, so if an Apple product doesn't have HDMI already, it won't get it.
...or, rather, it is the future in Apple's alternate reality (in which USB-A, DisplayPort and HDMI are already "legacy connectors") which Apple need to be true so that they can make laptops too thin to host HDMI or MiniDisplayPort sockets.
Back in the real world, Thunderbolt 3 has been around for a year or two now, and there is still only one Thunderbolt 3 display on the market - an Apple/LG joint effort. Even Apple/LG's smaller 4k display uses USB-C's DisplayPort alternate mode (i.e. DisplayPort physically running over a USB-C connector) rather than TB3 (virtual DisplayPort links tunnelled through TB3 protocol).
Thunderbolt 3 is limited to DisplayPort 1.2 and doesn't support DP 1.3 or 1.4 - so it still needs to use the MST kludge for 5k and larger displays.
In current PCs and Macs, most TB3 ports only output graphics from integrated GPUs or low-power mobile GPUs. In the PC desktop (and Hackintosh!) world, where serious graphics users & gamers use PCIe GPUs, there's absolutely no point in connecting the display via TB3 - which involves adding a TB3 card with an external cable going to a DP output on your graphics card - when all GPUs have HDMI and/or DisplayPort connections, possibly supporting newer DP/HDMI standards than can be used over TB3. Even with the internal graphics, the only reason to use TB3 for a display connection is if you're using multiple displays and you have a typical silly PC motherboard with 1 of everything, two of nothing port-wise. Even then, a USB-C to DisplayPort adapter does the job.
...and with the new 2016 MacBooks, with 2 or 4 TB3 ports being the only connections for power, USB, display or storage, you're going to be reliant on a multiport adapter anyway, so may as well get one with DP or HDMI...
So, no - I don't see TB3 becoming dominant on third-party displays for a good while. I think we'll see a mixed market: HDMI at the low/gaming end (compatible with consoles, BD players and set-top-boxes), DisplayPort at the higher end (pro graphics & power users). There may be a niche for USB-C or TB3 displays designed as docking stations for laptops and mobile devices - but then why go for TB3 instead of USB-C alt mode, and hence exclude most mobile devices?
...also, I get the impression that there is not much demand for 5k displays outside the Apple world (in which it's a "sweet spot" being a pixel-doubled version of the old 27" iMac/TB display/LED Cinema display).
I'm torn. I like the USB-C port in that it can be plugged in wither way. On the other hand it wasn't that big of a deal connecting a type A USB.
In terms of Thunderbolt 3, I don't see it doing much better then Thunderbolt an Thunderbolt 2 did. There is the caveat of external graphics cards for Macs that might possibly be a game changer.
Edit:
Sorry guys, I meant to include this link I found with an interesting explanation of USB 3.1 and USB-C.
In terms of Thunderbolt 3, I don't see it doing much better then Thunderbolt an Thunderbolt 2 did. There is the caveat of external graphics cards for Macs that might possibly be a game changer.
Edit:
Sorry guys, I meant to include this link I found with an interesting explanation of USB 3.1 and USB-C.
Last edited:
There's a difference between "expense" and "expensive." "Expense" is any cost, "expensive" is a high/hard-to-justify cost.
I don't quite get the notion that HDMI is "expensive."
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/terms.aspx
There is a frame of mind that any royalty is "expensive" - intellectual property should be free to all, and all that, so anyone who charges a royalty is a criminal or some such. It's a nice, self-serving philosophy short term, anchored in the notion that only physical goods have value.
While manufacturers aren't going to pay any cost unnecessarily, royalties can be cheaper than creating something oneself, or add value that makes the product more appealing to consumers in numbers that more than make up for the added cost. In other words, whatever the cost, if a feature sells enough goods, it's not "expensive."
I don't see Displayport replacing HDMI in TVs, cable boxes, Apple TV, etc. Compatibility with the installed base is far too important, especially to cable operators.
And what does dropping HDMI in favor of Displayport do for Apple? HDMI has already been dropped from the laptops, never was present on iMac. The only current Macs with HDMI are MacPro and Mini - the smallest Mac product lines. We don't know whether the next Mac Pro and Mini refreshes (if they happen) will include HDMI, but I suspect that, for a machine that comes without a display, an extra display option remains a selling point. Since HDMI adds versatility, while Displayport is redundant to Thunderbolt/USB-C... If HDMI is eliminated, it's not going to be replaced by a dedicated Displayport.
I don't quite get the notion that HDMI is "expensive."
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/terms.aspx
Now, there is a similar royalty for Displayport, although some challenge whether it needs to be paid.
There is a frame of mind that any royalty is "expensive" - intellectual property should be free to all, and all that, so anyone who charges a royalty is a criminal or some such. It's a nice, self-serving philosophy short term, anchored in the notion that only physical goods have value.
While manufacturers aren't going to pay any cost unnecessarily, royalties can be cheaper than creating something oneself, or add value that makes the product more appealing to consumers in numbers that more than make up for the added cost. In other words, whatever the cost, if a feature sells enough goods, it's not "expensive."
I don't see Displayport replacing HDMI in TVs, cable boxes, Apple TV, etc. Compatibility with the installed base is far too important, especially to cable operators.
And what does dropping HDMI in favor of Displayport do for Apple? HDMI has already been dropped from the laptops, never was present on iMac. The only current Macs with HDMI are MacPro and Mini - the smallest Mac product lines. We don't know whether the next Mac Pro and Mini refreshes (if they happen) will include HDMI, but I suspect that, for a machine that comes without a display, an extra display option remains a selling point. Since HDMI adds versatility, while Displayport is redundant to Thunderbolt/USB-C... If HDMI is eliminated, it's not going to be replaced by a dedicated Displayport.
DisplayPort just seems, well,, more Apple-y..
To have a Display Port on a TV with a dongle hanging off it would just look wired.., only because we've gotten used to HDMI ports on consumer products. I figure, just because it's the 'norm'
Why would you wanna put out a 4K TV, only to skimp down on royalties with a display port because your too cheap to not to go for HDMI ?
Different market..... TV's etc are priced higher than computers, much higher, so they can afford it.. i guess.