What is the difference between a single cable transporting a 5K monitor video stream via DP 1.2 and a single cable transporting a 5K monitor video via DP 1.3? Does the former only work with TB displays?
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.
Intel Announces Thunderbolt 3 With USB-C, Single-Cable Support for Dual 4K Displays at 60Hz
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Does the USB 3.1 support in TB3 mean that you can plug in a USB 3.1 device into the port and the port will act like a USB 3.1 port (because the controller behind the port can extract a USB 3.1 from the PCIe data it is fed) or can it also multiplex a USB 3.1 signal with the PCIe data over the TB cable?
And would a USB-C port on the other side in the same placement really increase the thickness of that Macbook by even a micron? Seriously doubt it. Never mind that a micron-extra thickness way outweighs the ability to power on a device and use a peripheral like a display, projector, hard drive at the same time.
The upside of this is the USB port count on the MBP will probably increase. 2 TB/USB + 1-2 normal USB.
The new Tunderbolt controller chip is apparently huge almost as big as the Intel PCH chipset chip. Adding USB 3.1 apperantly needed some transistors. If they cannot make a cheaper controller, it will always be expensive to add TB support in accessories. Even if there wasn't those expensive cables.
USB 3.1 is just fast enough for anything one usually plugs in (flash sticks, hdd, cameras). Displays are cheaper to just support HDMI or DP and don't need TB. NAS are better used over wifi or via 10G Ethernet. Only external GPUs and some professional sound hardware might need TBs bandwidth or latency. It will always see very limited use and never really catch on. It is just not needed for 99% of things and too expensive to support in both chipsize and pure cost.
But it does add USB ports to the MBP.
Hooking up to a television is exactly why I posted about HDMI 2.0.
The latest Google Chrome notebook has two USB-C ports and you can charge it over either of them.
You don't need good luck selling any two or three year-old Mac. They will sell easily, the only question is whether you get 50 or 60% of its original price.
What will make HDMI obsolete on the next MBP that wouldn't also already have made it obsolete on the current MBP? Technically there is no need for HDMI on the current MBP as the TB/mDP port could provide HDMI with a cheap adaptor. Only if the reason to have three monitor-capable ports is why the current MBP has its HDMI port, will there be less of a reason to not have it on a TB3-equipped next MBP.
I can see the "Pro" machines having two Thunderbolt 3 (with USB type C plug,) two or three USB 3.1 type C ports, an SD reader, headphone/microphone combo, and one HDMI. I would imagine one port on each side would be available as a charging port. (I would prefer to see one Thunderbolt on each side, with one USB on one side, and two USB on the other, with the two Tunderbolt ports being the charging ports.)
I imagine the Retina MacBook will stay with USB-only until Thunderbolt moves in to the core chipset (the new Thunderbolt 3 chip takes as much logic board space as the main CPU+chipset!) Once it's in the core chipset (maybe the next generation,) it would swap USB for Thunderbolt.
I imagine the MacBook Air will move to one Thunderbolt 3 on one side, and two USB 3.1 type C ports on the other, plus headphone/microphone, and SD on the 13"er; with the TB and one USB available as charging ports.
iMac would have power, two Thunderbolt 3 plus four USB 3.1, SD reader, headphone/microphone, and *MAYBE* an Ethernet port.
Mac Mini would have power, two Thunderbolt 3 plus four USB 3.1, SD reader, headphone/microphone, and one HDMI. Bonus points for replacing the power connector with an extra USB 3.1.
Mac Pro would have six Thunderbolt 3 plus four USB 3.1, separate audio in and out, one HDMI.
Basically, across the board just replacing Thunderbolt 2 ports with Thunderbolt 3 in USB type C form-factor, and replacing USB 3 type A with USB 3.1 type C ports.
Yes, you'll need adapters for a while, but standardizing on the one plug would be a major boon. Especially if many/most Thunderbolt peripheral manufacturers build in USB connectivity, too. Then you just plug the peripheral in to the plug, and it just works. Yeah, if you plug it in the "wrong" plug, it may operate slower, but for most peripherals, for most users, it wouldn't matter anyway. (And for those it does, those are the users who would know to make sure to plug it in to the right port.)
Bonus: If you run out of Thunderbolt ports, you can just plug it in to a USB port, and it would still work, just slower.
I imagine the Retina MacBook will stay with USB-only until Thunderbolt moves in to the core chipset (the new Thunderbolt 3 chip takes as much logic board space as the main CPU+chipset!) Once it's in the core chipset (maybe the next generation,) it would swap USB for Thunderbolt.
I imagine the MacBook Air will move to one Thunderbolt 3 on one side, and two USB 3.1 type C ports on the other, plus headphone/microphone, and SD on the 13"er; with the TB and one USB available as charging ports.
iMac would have power, two Thunderbolt 3 plus four USB 3.1, SD reader, headphone/microphone, and *MAYBE* an Ethernet port.
Mac Mini would have power, two Thunderbolt 3 plus four USB 3.1, SD reader, headphone/microphone, and one HDMI. Bonus points for replacing the power connector with an extra USB 3.1.
Mac Pro would have six Thunderbolt 3 plus four USB 3.1, separate audio in and out, one HDMI.
Basically, across the board just replacing Thunderbolt 2 ports with Thunderbolt 3 in USB type C form-factor, and replacing USB 3 type A with USB 3.1 type C ports.
Yes, you'll need adapters for a while, but standardizing on the one plug would be a major boon. Especially if many/most Thunderbolt peripheral manufacturers build in USB connectivity, too. Then you just plug the peripheral in to the plug, and it just works. Yeah, if you plug it in the "wrong" plug, it may operate slower, but for most peripherals, for most users, it wouldn't matter anyway. (And for those it does, those are the users who would know to make sure to plug it in to the right port.)
Bonus: If you run out of Thunderbolt ports, you can just plug it in to a USB port, and it would still work, just slower.
If you had the opportunity to test MST on OS X, you'd know that pretty much means nothing - the pipes have always been there on my 2-year old rMBP, but Apple didn't get their crap together until 10.10.3 to enable multiple DP displays. One user in the Dell P2715Q displays thread has one of these and a larger LG TB display working - on one cable, so the bandwidth is already there. Don't hold your breath for Apple's implementation of MST - cows still can't fly either.
I still have 2 4k displays on my desk, and you don't.
Here is some clarification and prognostication on the cabling and power:
From the USB-IF USB 3.1, Power Delivery (PD) specs, and what Intel has said about Thunderbolt 3
1. a proper passive Type-C to Type-C cable, if made correctly will permit up to 20 Gbps performance. This will allow the same cable to act as a USB 3.1 gen 1 or gen 2 connection, or a Thunderbolt 3 20 Gbps connection. Only wires, and a carefully made cable need be made. Note well, some cables may have a "marker chip" inside to indicate what type of cable it is. Not the same as an active cable like Thunderbolt 1/2 ones, just a simple ID; no expensive driver chips inside.
For power delivery, must handle +5v at up to 3amps, and have voltage drop within limits of the USB-IF/PD spec. This gets you to the "up to 15watts" capability for USB or Thunderbolt 3 devices
There will need to be careful quality control for these cables to assure 20 Gbps operation. A bad cable simply won't do. Recall the issues with some early USB 3.0 cables and their susceptibility to WiFi and Bluetooth interference.
2. For the charging capability to deliver power up to 100 watts for charging or other purposes, there needs to be a protocol and controller to up the voltage to a higher level: 20v @5amps. This requires a Type-C to Type-C cable with heavier current capability for the max 100 watts; if the cable mentioned in #1 above is used, you will be limited to 60 watts (+20v @ 3amps). This makes the presence of a "marker chip" desirable, so the cable capability can be known programmatically.
3. For 40 Gbps operation, active cables are required. For copper, cable drivers similar to those found in legacy Thunderbolt cables will be required; just be able to operate at the higher bit rates.
4. Optical cables require power to operate and have complexity. The Intel announcement for Thunderbolt 3 says that they will be targeted to deliver 40 Gbps connections, though slower speeds might be possible.
5. Intel promises bi-directional legacy Thunderbolt 1/2 to Thunderbolt 3 so everything works if connected: older devices to new computers with Thunderbolt 3, and vice versa. These will consume power, so recall if going from legacy ports that promise 10 watts there will be no way to create 15 watts for new Thunderbolt 3 devices.
6. Finally, regarding 100watts and Power Delivery: for devices with multiple Type-C ports, it is unlikely that each will be able to deliver the max power. Perhaps shared, perhaps limited to only one port. Moving that kind of power around, automatically, is not practical.
Note well: typically, optical cables don't carry power due to the long lengths, so bus powered devices won't work if connected via optical. However, with the new PD modes, something might be possible in the future.
Reading the tea leaves, I can envision a new type of dock that would connect to the laptop. The dock could provide the additional I/O ports people might expect, and then act as a charger back to the laptop.
There is a lot of magic that has still not been talked about. The Alpine Ridge/Thunderbolt 3 ecosystem has a lot of work to do to get this right. So...Alpine Ridge will need to work with power controllers to help all this power switching happen, and minimize the smoke and sparks
From the USB-IF USB 3.1, Power Delivery (PD) specs, and what Intel has said about Thunderbolt 3
1. a proper passive Type-C to Type-C cable, if made correctly will permit up to 20 Gbps performance. This will allow the same cable to act as a USB 3.1 gen 1 or gen 2 connection, or a Thunderbolt 3 20 Gbps connection. Only wires, and a carefully made cable need be made. Note well, some cables may have a "marker chip" inside to indicate what type of cable it is. Not the same as an active cable like Thunderbolt 1/2 ones, just a simple ID; no expensive driver chips inside.
For power delivery, must handle +5v at up to 3amps, and have voltage drop within limits of the USB-IF/PD spec. This gets you to the "up to 15watts" capability for USB or Thunderbolt 3 devices
There will need to be careful quality control for these cables to assure 20 Gbps operation. A bad cable simply won't do. Recall the issues with some early USB 3.0 cables and their susceptibility to WiFi and Bluetooth interference.
2. For the charging capability to deliver power up to 100 watts for charging or other purposes, there needs to be a protocol and controller to up the voltage to a higher level: 20v @5amps. This requires a Type-C to Type-C cable with heavier current capability for the max 100 watts; if the cable mentioned in #1 above is used, you will be limited to 60 watts (+20v @ 3amps). This makes the presence of a "marker chip" desirable, so the cable capability can be known programmatically.
3. For 40 Gbps operation, active cables are required. For copper, cable drivers similar to those found in legacy Thunderbolt cables will be required; just be able to operate at the higher bit rates.
4. Optical cables require power to operate and have complexity. The Intel announcement for Thunderbolt 3 says that they will be targeted to deliver 40 Gbps connections, though slower speeds might be possible.
5. Intel promises bi-directional legacy Thunderbolt 1/2 to Thunderbolt 3 so everything works if connected: older devices to new computers with Thunderbolt 3, and vice versa. These will consume power, so recall if going from legacy ports that promise 10 watts there will be no way to create 15 watts for new Thunderbolt 3 devices.
6. Finally, regarding 100watts and Power Delivery: for devices with multiple Type-C ports, it is unlikely that each will be able to deliver the max power. Perhaps shared, perhaps limited to only one port. Moving that kind of power around, automatically, is not practical.
Note well: typically, optical cables don't carry power due to the long lengths, so bus powered devices won't work if connected via optical. However, with the new PD modes, something might be possible in the future.
Reading the tea leaves, I can envision a new type of dock that would connect to the laptop. The dock could provide the additional I/O ports people might expect, and then act as a charger back to the laptop.
There is a lot of magic that has still not been talked about. The Alpine Ridge/Thunderbolt 3 ecosystem has a lot of work to do to get this right. So...Alpine Ridge will need to work with power controllers to help all this power switching happen, and minimize the smoke and sparks
The difference is with that the 5k monitor with Displayport 1.2 will have to rely on multistream transport (MST) while with Displayport 1.3 it can be singlestream transport (SST). MST sends two, lower resolution video signals that are combined together to get the full resolution while SST sends the full picture in one signal. MST is basically SLI or Crossfire for monitors. MST is what the current 5k Dell monitor uses, except the two video signals travel over separate cables. Thunderbolt 3 lets you use one cable but it will still rely on MST to send two separate video signals over that single cable. It's really a disappointment that Intel didn't move to Displayport 1.3 with Thunderbolt 3 and killed off MST for good. Just as 4k monitors are moving away from MST to SST, Intel comes out with a solution that ensures MST will live on in 5k and above monitors. Bizarre.
Last edited:
Magsafe is one of Apple's best ideas. Magsafe on the original unibody MBP was to me the pinnacle of Apple's perfect design. Things have gone downhill from then.
I don't know if this is talked already in this thread (I don't know how to search within this thread in this new interface),
But this is exactly what's wrong in not having a separate display connector. 8 and half months later when dp1.3 was approved, Intel announces TB3 not supporting it. Does this mean that Apple's products do not support dp1.3 before TB4, which might come sometimes in 2017? Pheew...
But this is exactly what's wrong in not having a separate display connector. 8 and half months later when dp1.3 was approved, Intel announces TB3 not supporting it. Does this mean that Apple's products do not support dp1.3 before TB4, which might come sometimes in 2017? Pheew...
What's the practical difference in this case though? It will still be carried over one cable. I can see the advantage over using two DP cables to one monitor, which is exactly the advantage you get here.
I guess using hubs and daisy chains is going to become less of a power user option if they go down to 3 ports
This current Apple obsession with lack of ports is disturbing. I get it, they think that less ports looks more artistic, looks cleaner (and is cheaper to build). There is a point at which this kind of thinking collapses in on itself and results in exactly the kind of less-useful computers that Apple has been building.
Right now my MBP has three things plugged into it, my Mac Pro six cables to it and my Z230 has five items plugged in. Four USB devices are plugged into the Z230. That would max out the USB ports on anything Apple currently builds. Fortunately the HP has six more USB ports making it comfortable to use and user friendly. Come on Apple, why let HP kick you in the behind?
At least at the beginning, 4K monitors on Macs (with TB2) also use(d) MST over a single 'mDP' cable. 4K monitor support in OS X was improved with 10.10.3 but I don't know whether involved or was due to a move from MST to SST. The point being that MST might be a bit of a hack but that has to mean that the user experience has to suffer much if at all.
Exactly - numerous attempts have been made to run external GPUs in Thunderbolt enclosures, but if OS X doesn't have the support/drivers, it won't happen.
Ok, now THAT is something!
It seems to me that Intel (and sadly probably Apple also) are more interested in combining everything into ONE PORT than anything else. The problem is that provides very little configurability of future notebooks (like Apple's current USB-C carrying model). Notice how the lesser model only has ONE PORT. Theoretically, I suppose manufacturers could insert a built-in "hub" into their notebook designs to provide dedicated ports for specific uses (other than Thunderbolt) but because this is Thunderbolt and not USB, you could NEVER have more than one or two Thunderbolt ports PERIOD because it's a DAISY-CHAINED format and Daisy-Chaining SUCKS TO HIGH HELL. You're always unplugging and plugging in devices to add a device (including monitors, which often do NOT have pass-throughs).
Given Apple's recent history, I seriously doubt Apple would "bother" to add any kind of hub-based ports on the notebooks themselves. That would mean even a top-of-the-line Macbook Pro would only have TWO PORTS on it PERIOD. Plug in your power and you have one left. Everything would need hubs/adapters galore and thus far, those have proven long in the making and HIGH HIGH HIGHHHHHHHH in price. You'd be afraid to drop your Thunderbolt 2 hub as it will probably cost $500+ for a model with all the ports a 2008 MBP came with standard.
Practical difference might be, that when the whole IT industry has used dp1.3 for years, they don't design new monitors to work with ancient MST anymore. Therefore this shortens the lifespan of a mac, where obviously you can't change the interface card to a newer version or have separate discreet connection to display.
How about current monitors that use MST? They don't have a USB-C connector, this only affects things at a protocol level afaik, it's still 1 cable with USB-C. The only difference is the link speed, both DP 1.2 and DP 1.3 uses four lanes, but DP 1.3 is 50% faster, but still slower than ThunderBolt 3.
Secondly, DisplayPort over USB-C is a VESA and USB 3.0 promoters group standard.
http://www.vesa.org/faqs/#DisplayPort Alt Mode for USB Type-C FAQs
Last edited:
Intel today at Computex 2015 unveiled Thunderbolt 3 with a USB Type-C connector, instead of Mini DisplayPort, and support for USB 3.1, DisplayPort 1.2 and PCI Express 3.0, as outlined by Ars Technica. The new spec's Thunderbolt transport layer provides up to 40Gbps throughput, double the max bandwidth of Thunderbolt 2, alongside an optional 100 watts of power for charging devices in accordance with the USB Power Delivery spec, or 15 watts of power without USB PD.
Thunderbolt 3 is capable of driving up to two 4K external displays at 60Hz or a single 5K display at 60Hz running off a single cable. Dell and other manufacturers currently use a dual-cable solution for most 4K and 5K external displays, since the current DisplayPort/Thunderbolt spec does not provide enough bandwidth to drive the high-resolution monitors. Thunderbolt 3 also supports more protocols than any other I/O controller, making it compatible with virtually any dock, device or display.
Intel expects initial products with Thunderbolt 3 to start shipping before the end of this year, and ramp up in 2016. Thunderbolt 3 is rumored to launch alongside Intel's next-generation Skylake chips, succeeding the Broadwell line, later this year, and the new spec could theoretically be included in Skylake-based Macs that could possibly be released in late 2015. Refreshed Macs would likely gain USB-C ports integrated with Thunderbolt 3 as an all-in-one solution.
Article Link: Intel Announces Thunderbolt 3 With USB-C, Single-Cable Support for Dual 4K Displays at 60Hz
Suddenly it all makes sense. And now, for the first time probably ever, I feel like I can reasonably predict what Apple is going to do next in terms of the near future of the Mac.
First off, Apple put out this retina "MacBook" as a proof of concept machine, much like they did with the Core 2 Duo MacBook Airs. They didn't replace the MacBook Air this go around because it's obviously not powerful enough yet. But the roadmap clearly suggests that this will inevitably change at which point the MacBook will supplant the MacBook Air just like the MacBook Air supplanted the original MacBooks.
Tying it back to Thunderbolt 3, this MacBook had to have been designed with Thunderbolt 3 in mind; they knew that, albeit only via a single port, the MacBook would be designed to be dockable.
So, my predictions for the rest of the Mac line:
MacBook Pro: the dual-core Broadwell chips for the 13" Retina came out just in time for it to be sensible to use given that Skylake is still set to release on time. The quad-core chips that would go in the 15" Retina, on the other hand, will not be out in such a fashionable timeframe. If Apple were to adopt Broadwell in a 15" Retina, that would REQUIRE them to put out something with Thunderbolt 2, only to have it be incompatible with the barrage of Thunderbolt 3 devices that will launch with Skylake. Given that MacBook Pros tend to release on a strictly 8-10 month cycle, it makes sense to update the 13" with Broadwell, and not wait on the Broadwell processors for the 15" to be updated (a decision that Apple must have made shortly after the launch of the Broadwell-laden 13" Retinas). Therefore, there will be no Broadwell 15"; Apple will skip straight to Skylake. Given that Thunderbolt 3, coming with Skylake, will take a different connector, and given that we've had about three years with the current body style of the retina MacBook Pro (seven years of the overall 'Unibody' themed styling), we might be due for a bigger refresh. At the least, a port layout change is definite. At most, given that USB-C is thinner than standard USB and the miniDP connector, Apple could actually make a thinner MacBook Pro with all Thunderbolt 3 ports (or at least with USB and Thunderbolt ports that have all USB-C connectors). I'm not saying that the MacBook Pro needs to be any thinner, but knowing Apple, they'll push it to be thinner anyway. In any event, the 13" Retina will be updated at a normal timeframe to Skylake when the time comes and the 15" will coast on the Haswell chips - without ever going to Broadwell - until Skylake comes out, at which point, both will see a redesign.
Thunderbolt Display: Apple hasn't updated this for Thunderbolt 2 because it would suck to have a display that wasn't directly compatible with the machines they knew they were going to make. The current Thunderbolt display would suffice enough, given that they can't really support it at higher resolutions through the current DisplayPort protocol. I mean, yeah, USB 3.0 and MagSafe 2 and Thunderbolt 2 support would be nice, but if you know you're going to move to the USB-C connector, that changes things somewhat. Apple intentionally waited for Thunderbolt 2 before putting out the new Mac Pro. They may very well have waited until Thunderbolt 3 before putting out a new Thunderbolt display, especially in light of the new MacBook having a design that was clearly meant to be docked first and foremost.
Mac Pro: Speaking of Mac Pro, am I the only one who was wondering why there hasn't been a refresh of everyone's favorite turbine engine trashcan cylinder? My guess is that, again, Thunderbolt 3 is to blame. If your goal is to push the idea of external expansion, and if, through a different connector, Apple's master plan is to push Intel's unity of USB and Thunderbolt, they might as well wait until they can put out a Mac Pro with Thunderbolt 3. So rather than a Mac Pro with four USB 3.0 and six Thunderbolt 2, they'll just have ten Thunderbolt 3 ports on top of a much newer architecture of Xeons, faster RAM and newer GPUs. What better way to update that machine and, why settle sooner for any less?
Mac mini: With the likes of the Intel NUC and the Gigabyte Brix, and the current Haswell Mac minis already using PCIe sticks of flash storage, the current form factor is larger than it needs to be (and also quite due for a redesign). Again, I'm not saying I dislike its current size, but if they're not going to give us two internal 2.5" bays, quad-core CPUs, and discrete graphics, they can make it smaller without killing any functionality. If they were nice, they could, like Intel and Gigabyte, make the machines user-expandable. But knowing Apple, they likely won't do such a thing. USB-C laden Thunderbolt 3 only makes this easier.
iMac: The iMac is due for a redesign. If not next rev then definitely the one thereafter. Much like the 15" Retina, Apple might as well wait for Skylake. They got rid of the higher-end 27" non-retina iMac; it seems logical that they will continue phasing out the non-retina 27" iMac. Perhaps a redesign would nicely coincide. This time, they would have native support for 5K via the newer DisplayPort Protocol rather than all of the custom hardware that made the current Retina 5K 27" iMac possible. We might see a retina 21.5" iMac. At that point, it would make sense. Users of that Mac wouldn't need the kind of transition that users of the 13" and 15" MacBook Pros and 27" iMacs did. Though Apple might retain a model of Haswell non-retina iMac to ease the transition to retina a bit. Either way, same deal, uniform Thunderbolt 3/USB-C across the board.
MacBook Air: Again, expect to see the MacBook Air eclipsed by the "MacBook" and the MacBook Pro lines. As those two become thinner, the non-retina, non-Force-Touch-laden laptops will become more redundant and there will be less of a reason for their existence. They are due for a redesign soon anyway; it would make sense for the future of the 13" Retina to eclipse that of the 13" Air and for the future of the "MacBook" to eclipse the 11" Air, once again simplifying the lineup.
USB-C adapters will likely become standard included accessories. At least until native accessories start hitting the market. I'm still unsure of the fate of MagSafe 2; something tells me that it'll stick around for the MacBook Pros. The Airs will be gone and the MacBook will be fine being powered solely by Thunderbolt 3/USB-C. Though I may be wrong.
Anyway, that's what I see happening down the road. Again, given Apple's practices on other upgrades throughout their history and their current trajectory as well as their positioning of, once again, their newest small computer as the future of all notebooks, I'd say that I'm likely not far off.
Last edited: