Now watch robotphone OEMs screw the whole thing up like they did, and continue to do, when the USB-C connector was introduced.
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.
DisplayPort 2.0 Now Compatible With USB4, Supports Up to Two 8K Displays or One 16K Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That chicken and egg problem is not quite how the economy works. If demand is low then prices should go down, unless few are being made (which would make these items scarce). Do you think it is hard for consumers to find these or that manufacturers are purposefully throttling production?
i think it is simply a combination of there is not enough demand and production levels to satisfy that little demand is not enough to bring in mass production cost reductions.
Again, TB3 or TB4 is not mandatory part of USB 4 spec. It is up to the vendor to decide whether to support it or not. Both in Cable AND controller.
I have so many questions:
1-So is TB and USB4 the one and the same now?
2-How does Intel benefit from giving away TB royalty free?
3-Why do we need HDMI, DisplayPort, and USB4, why can we just use 1 port to transfer everything?
4-at 77Gbps, isn't this faster than Ethernet? Can this be used to send internet to households instead of fiber?
5-What are some real world uses for 77Gbsp?
1-So is TB and USB4 the one and the same now?
2-How does Intel benefit from giving away TB royalty free?
3-Why do we need HDMI, DisplayPort, and USB4, why can we just use 1 port to transfer everything?
4-at 77Gbps, isn't this faster than Ethernet? Can this be used to send internet to households instead of fiber?
5-What are some real world uses for 77Gbsp?
Wow, that's so impressive. I'm glad to see display port, Thunderbolt and USB converging onto a single plug. I will not miss the days of multiple I/O port types on computers.
You should look up what 1 strand of fibre optics can carry....now, that's mind-blowing.
The max cable length is 2 metres. You can get up to 100 m with optical cables, but those are much more expensive.
Haha I thought either this will end up being the case, or that cable will be a solid INCH in diameter XD
The Super Bowl broadcasters said 1080p60 was better than 4k60 for motion - so hopefully by the time we’re at 16k it will be a lot more than 60fps
www.digitaltrends.com
“It turns out that 1080p at 60 frames per second delivers really smooth motion, while 4K at 60fps does not. “With 4K at 60fps, you can definitely see some motion artifacting,” says Drazin. And as you can imagine, blurriness, smearing, and pixilation in fast-moving sports is a no-go.”
Look Behind The Scenes At Super Bowl LIV With Fox Sports | Digital Trends
Embedded with Fox Sports, we take you to Super Bowl LIV to show you how the first 4K HDR broadcast of the event is getting put together.
www.digitaltrends.com
“It turns out that 1080p at 60 frames per second delivers really smooth motion, while 4K at 60fps does not. “With 4K at 60fps, you can definitely see some motion artifacting,” says Drazin. And as you can imagine, blurriness, smearing, and pixilation in fast-moving sports is a no-go.”
Unless the next Mac Pro is fully an ARM lineup (certainly possible but I doubt it) they'll likely have at least one intel mac with USB4 (hell, eventually there will be standalone USB4 cards and people with Mac Pros will want to add them for that matter).
Also, given USB4 is basically TB3 with some extra features there's really no reason for them not to move Intel Macs next year, in fact they may not have a choice depending on what will be in Intel's upcoming chipsets (and there's been no suggestion that they'll replace the entire lineup with ARM next year, so we probably have at least a year or two of co-existence)
Serious question: does this in any way address the power overload/overheating issue that was identified with MacBooks re: connecting peripherals and drawing power from the same port? My worry is that this may be a more serious issue than is being addressed, and certainly makes we wonder about the true viability of having a magic universal connector for everything connected to your MB.
i mean, if they're trying to make it royalty free for tb3...what's stopping them from making it royalty free...now?
im missing something key here.
What are the practical uses of such absurdly high resolutions, particularly on a computer screen and the typical sizes of those?
1. This is a mess. Thunderbolt 4 is USB4, but USB4 is not necessarily TB4. Problem is that USB4 will be manufacturer dependent. But if something claims to be TB4, it will implement everything from the USB4 spec.
2. Market penetration. It is part of their chips now, so it will benefit Intel for peripherals to support it. USB is not technically a competing standard anymore.
3. That would be the best, but there are several features and different interests in each standard. Primarily a cost-analysis. Basically because they are used for different types of equipment, the organization behind those focuses on improvement at different areas. But now at least the physical connections seem to consolidate somewhat, so USB/TB/DP will all use USB-C which technically support up to 80Gb/s. HDMI will still use their own connector and cables.
4. Ethernet is now at 100Gb/s bidirectional, but if you just focuses on transfer speed, but not on quality of transfer, reliability, cable lengths, and so on, it may seem like they could be easily interchanged. Unfortunately there are more than just raw transfer speed at one meter length.
5. 7680x4320 (resolution) x10 (bits) x120 (Hz) is already at half that bit rate. And if you go 16k you will see that you will be limited to only 60Hz resolution. So why such resolutions? VR will be the target primarily. I am not sure how interested desktop monitormakers will be for such high resolutions, but that remains to be seen. But also for 16 bits colors, or even higher refresh rates. There is some future proofing. Displayport also support daisy-chaining monitors.
Last edited:
But still not on MacOS even after all these years
Also can't use DisplayPort MST hubs or multi-monitor USB-C adapters. Even though the same hardware works fine in Windows, enabling extended desktop with a single adapter.
Is this some pathetic, petty attempt by Apple to "convince" people to buy Thunderbolt monitors?
Last edited:
It is the same data as Thunderbolt 3 had. They just changed directions. Instead of an 8 lane freeway with two directions ( 4 lanes in and 4 lanes out ) they just made the freeway all one direction. Like for an evacuation for a hurricane ( natural disaster) turn all the lanes one way and can handle twice as much traffic getting out.
Once flipped all of the high speed lanes outbound all that have left that is bidirectional is the legacy USB 2.0 speed "side channel". From the "inbound" perspective it is dramatically slower. Outboud it is helpful in not having to create a new connector for mega resolution output.
stop, i can only get so hard.
add in high refresh rate display at full res and then im gettin real tickly
USB4 may not reduce the price of docks much. First, USB4 technically makes the Thunderbolt subcompoent optional. Systems can get a USB4 label and not support Thunderbolt 3 at all.
Second, USB4 opens the door to wider than just 2 port, "daisy chain" docks. Wider fanout at 40Gb/s probably isn't going to reduce prices, but will let folks setting to the "normative" USB hub notion of connectivity. What will have is USB4 routers. That subset is required to carry Thunderbolt (whereas the host systems and "dead end" (one input) perhiperhals can skip it.).
The volume of TB4/USB4 capable systems will go up. But there is likely a huge chunk of the existing USB market that will duck Thunderbolt just to keep the lower price anchor costs expectations you are projecting here.
P.S. Thunderbolt 2 docks probably aren't going to shrink dramatically in price (as new) because the number of systems that need them is shrinking. When substantively more are thrown on the used market, the price may dips but as long as that is a controlled trickle (and not a sudden tidlal wave) the price move won't be very large.
For my use case today, having one cable to drive both Ultrafine 5K displays would be amazing, which would require 10K bandwidth. Less about single display resolution.
I also believe the push here is not just for computer monitors, but for larger screens (televisions) . 4k at 55" is wonderful. 4K at 85" is not as crisp... definitely a first world problem. Interesting tangent here... we could (will?) see televisions built with USB4. Personally, having one cable type across all electronics would be fantastic, and would provide more options for power delivery and integration. Imagine connecting your Apple TV 8K to your LG with a single cable, providing power / video / data connection, with a more robust form of CEC integration between devices.
RE: thunderbolt docks vs USB docks - I think we're already at the tipping point. My work provides Surface devices with Surface docks (a USB3 dock equivalent). The cost factor seems to be the integrated power supply, a "traditional" USB dock with multiple video connections ($100) + OEM power supply ($50) is extremely close to a Surface Dock (~$185), and you get the convenience of one cable. Plus we have had a ton of issues with the cheaper USB docks.. and they cant drive dual QHD monitors. Having everything migrate to one standard, one cable, will probably save us 10-15 hours / year in support tickets at a 50 person company. The dock is more like a monitor, I want to buy one and replace it every 5-7 years, instead of 3-4 years for a computer.
Last edited:
TB4 isn't going to change the aggregate bandwidth any more than DisplayPort 2.0 is . TB4 is pragmatically far more so USB4 with the Thunderbolt 3 component not being optional. The USB4 standard technically allows host systems to skip TBv3 capability. TB4 will be a distinctive sign that the system vendor didn't do that. ( also get some more > USB 3.2 perks , but that is basically the primary point of TB4. )
Pretty good chance may get the opposite case. USB4 and no Thunderbolt 3. A USB subsystem with USB 3.2 (2x2) and no Thunderbolt.
There is no 3rd party with a Thunderbolt complete solution yet. Doesn't look to be any time soon ( to weave natively into an iPad Pro over the next year or so. ). Intel's discrete solution won't work in an iPad Pro.
Battery consumption wise may not even get USB 3.2 (2x2). That 10Gb/s ( 3.1 gen 2 ) probably would stand. A more likely addition might be a 2nd port at 10Gb/s more so than Apple doubling up the single one.