Better, maybe, to think of it as a silly rumor made up by someone on the internet.
Last edited:
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.
New Thunderbolt Display With Integrated GPU Still in the Works
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Better, maybe, to think of it as a silly rumor made up by someone on the internet.
Wouldn't that just be upscaling? As far as I know Intel doesn't support SLI type tech at all so you severely limit the systems it works with.I think most of you guys are looking at it the wrong way. The GPU assist in the display will not be obsolete as it won't act as GPU. The calculation for any scene will still be calculated on the GPU on your computer and the GPU in the display will only be used to DISPLAY those pixels. So I assume that the GPU on the computer will calculate the scene and sends the data to the display which will just use the power in the GPU to display those pixels. There might be some crunching and "packaging" but the display won't be like a real GPU. So those of you asking for NVIDIA 1080 and all other crap please realise that this will not work like that. Think of it as display with a chip that helps showing the pixels and forget the GPU label. That way its easier to not get confused.
If it were as easy as this sounds, and the instructions to render the data is small relative to rendering the data itself on the MacBook, than why wouldn't a display like this already exist? Seems like a no brainer, and in theory you wouldn't even need Thunderbolt 3 on the MacBook if it's just transferring instructions.
In theory this has been possible since TB1. However, Intel, who owns and licenses the Thunder Bolt standard refused to license it out for eGPUs.
A few years back I was looking up the dev specs and looked at the request form to apply for official licenses and it had blocked off eGPU section with N/A. Looks like Intel only decided to license it now with tb3.
Well there's your problem. The eject button triggered a shut down, and you were supposed to shut then down before inserting them. Maybe your colleagues didn't know that.
My feeling on this is we WILL see a new Apple 5k 27" display at some point in the future. But not until later next year. And it won't have an integrated GPU.
Apple are in an unfortunate position whereby their current display is old. Their laptop platform is also in need of an update.
It's looking like we're going to see redesigned, USB-C only MacBook pros later on this year. With no MagSafe, making them incompatible with the current thunderbolt displays.
Apple can't currently drive 5k over a single cable, but they will be able to once we see introduction of Intel's Kaby Lake processors next year. But this is next year - too long to wait for MacBook Pro updates.
So my guess is they've discontinued the current display as it wouldn't look good having their only display incompatible with it. And it's not up to par in terms of resolution.
Come next year once the new MacBook pros see a spec bump to Kaby lake, they'll introduce their Retina display, driven by a single USB-C cable, which will also charge a laptop.
I don't think they'll introduce a display with an integrated GPU as displays just aren't big sellers for Apple. And there will be too much r and d to get something like this working.
I've also heard recently from a fairly reliable source that just a few weeks ago Apple stopped LaCie from releasing a 4K, 'Apple styled' panel to compete with the Thunderbolt Display. Why would they do this if they were going to kill their display offering long term?
God for thought. Of course I could be completely wrong - just in case I am I've just snapped up a Thunderbolt Display and a top spec 15 MacBook Pro!
Apple are in an unfortunate position whereby their current display is old. Their laptop platform is also in need of an update.
It's looking like we're going to see redesigned, USB-C only MacBook pros later on this year. With no MagSafe, making them incompatible with the current thunderbolt displays.
Apple can't currently drive 5k over a single cable, but they will be able to once we see introduction of Intel's Kaby Lake processors next year. But this is next year - too long to wait for MacBook Pro updates.
So my guess is they've discontinued the current display as it wouldn't look good having their only display incompatible with it. And it's not up to par in terms of resolution.
Come next year once the new MacBook pros see a spec bump to Kaby lake, they'll introduce their Retina display, driven by a single USB-C cable, which will also charge a laptop.
I don't think they'll introduce a display with an integrated GPU as displays just aren't big sellers for Apple. And there will be too much r and d to get something like this working.
I've also heard recently from a fairly reliable source that just a few weeks ago Apple stopped LaCie from releasing a 4K, 'Apple styled' panel to compete with the Thunderbolt Display. Why would they do this if they were going to kill their display offering long term?
God for thought. Of course I could be completely wrong - just in case I am I've just snapped up a Thunderbolt Display and a top spec 15 MacBook Pro!
They can do it this year with Skylake using Thunderbolt 3 (as that can handle two DP1.2 channels over one cable). So the Fall MacBook Pro and iMac refreshes will be able to drive it (as I fully expect they will have TB3).
Agreed. The only current Mac model the Thunderbolt Display makes sense with is the MacBook Air since it serves as a docking station and the MBA is non-retina, as well. And I am not sure how long the Air will be in the line-up as there is no real reason to Retina it with the MacBook and new MacBook Pros (which will certainly be thinner and lighter than the current models).
Nope. Intel have already confirmed Kaby Lake chipsets will not support DisplayPort 1.3, which is required for 5K over single-cable USB-C. So they will use 2xDP1.2 over a single Thunderbolt 3 cable like the Skylake chipsets do.
I agree with you - if Apple goes with a top-end GPU for longevity, it's going to be very expensive and for people who don't need that GPU power might consider it too expensive. If they go with a lower-performance GPU to hit a lower price point, it risks early obsolescence.
If they don't want to do MST over DisplayPort 1.2 through a Thunderbolt 3 cable, than fine. But once DisplayPort 1.3 is supported by Intel and Thunderbolt, I would be shocked if Apple doesn't make a 5K Thunderbolt 3 Display for the high end market or those willing to part with the cash to turn their MacBook Pro into a retina desktop hub.
By threatening to pull all LaCie products from the Apple Store.
[doublepost=1467508155][/doublepost]
Okay, I wasn't aware Kaby Lake wouldn't support DP1.3, or that two DP1.2 signals could be carried over thunderbolt 3.
Would that leave enough bandwidth for other devices plugged into the screen.
The one thing I can't work out if this is the case is why they have discontinued the current display? Surely if a new one was going to be coming out with new MacBook pros they would just keep the old one running until that time?
Yes, enough fo an extra Thunderbolt 1 and a full USB3.0.
Apple perfectly can support DP1.3 SST (on those system with capable gpu as AMD Polaris) by including USB-C ports w/o using Intel Thunderbolt Muxers (aka Alpine Ridge) but a common USB3.1+DP1.3 Muxers already available as this from VIA http://www.via-labs.com/product_show.php?id=73 .
Last edited:
The display resolution isn't such an issue: sure its not 4k/Retina but - at 1m viewing distance - it hits the angular resolution criteria for "retina" (see http://isthisretina.com and look up the 27" iMac) and certainly gives a ton of screen real-estate. Its just the price - you really, really have to want that docking functionality to pay that much - and if you do, the functionality is outdated: USB 2, Thunderbolt 1, Magsafe 1.
The mystery is why it didn't get updated some years ago along with the iMacs when they went to the tapered/antiglare design. Most likely it was never selling spectacularly well.
Actually, although the 1xDP1.3 solution sounds more elegant, DP-over-USB-C works by "physically" assigning USB-C wire pairs to DP. I believe DP1.3@5k uses up all of the high-speed lanes in the USB-C connection, just leaving the legacy USB 2 channel (which has its own wire pair). So, you're not going to want to "dock" anything more than mouse, keyboard and maybe sound.
Thunderbolt 3 has more total bandwidth than plain USB-C (when used with an active or short cable) and everything is multiplexed together so you don't "waste" bandwidth by assigning specific pins to protocols.
We're all thinking about "GPU in computer" vs. "GPU in display". How about splitting the load in a more innovative way, to avoid the bottleneck of needing to send 60 full frames a second along an external wire? I think DP1.3 includes some sort of compression, but it is still compressing full frames so the compression needs to be "one size fits all" (i.e. we're talking LZW rather than JPEG).
The obvious example is, say, h264/h265 video - an uncompressed full-screen HD video takes a lot of bandwidth, but h264/5 reduces that by an order of magnitude with little loss, and anyway, in most scenarios, the source material is already in that format. Rather than squeeze that down the cable, why not "passthrough" the video to the display, and let the GPU in the display render it? ANS: because that's fine for full-screen video, but h26x is optimised for motion video and, in a mixed screen, cause visible artefacts in, say, a page of text.
So, could the "GPU" in the display basically be a sort of compositing engine - receiving data for each element of the display in the most efficient format (RLE, JPEG, h26x, 2d vector data, openGL) with the GPU in the computer concentrating on "heavy lifting" (like rendering photo-realistic 3D and sending the render to the display with the optimum compression)?
I.e., basically, the GPU in the display wouldn't need to be cutting edge, just less of a bottleneck than the piece of wire.
Basically the eGPU either integrated or not on the Display only worth for system with an weak internal GPU ( either kinda CPU integrated (iGPU) as Intel Iris Pro or an Discrete GPU dGPU)as AMD Radeon M ), because current macOS on PC Based Architecture cant Render on different GPU concurrently (dual GPUs on SLI/xfire actually are seen as a single GPU with twice cores), as on the typical laptop implementation when you are using the dGPU the iGPU is disabled and viceversa, the same actually occurs on Thunderbolt 3 eGPU on Windows PC as the Razer Core, even if the eGPU and the internal dGPU are the same Kind of GPU as long I know Thunderbolt 3 dont include any provision fo SLI or CrossFire, ugliest scenario.
Even consider this is not an Issue and Apple finds a way to make the eGPU work in tandem with the dGPU, here still persist another issue, the PCIe Bottle Neck, TB3 actually is an PCIe3 x4 switched (shared) bus is only the half or 1/4 the capacity of the typical dGPU PCIe bus at x8 (mobile skylake) or x16(desktop skylake).
You mention whats old news, compressing content before sending to the GPU, actually is an common tehcnique used on most videogames and video players, so send textures and video streams compressed (as stored) the the GPU which deflat those contents and renders quickly, even cache textures use to be so large that would create bottlenecks and choppy play if loaded uncompressed thru PCIe even at 16x, it have been for years and you aren't aware (as should be).
That means that an TB Display with eGPU will look choppy at the same time the attached display reproduce content smoothly.
I imagine Apple still has a supply of these monitors on-hand and by announcing they are not making any more, they could be hoping that folks buy them. It is also probable that the news Apple was no longer ordering new units from suppliers would have leaked out so they are preempting that.
Thanks for that.
But if they bypass Thunderbolt they lose out on one of the best features of the Thunderbolt Display. The ability to daisy chain multiple Thunderbolt-capable devices.
You cant have both at same time.
Even on Thunderbolt 3 you cant daisychain 2 5K Tb3 Display maybe 2 4K TB3 display.
I think TB3 primary usage will have to do with other peripherals than Displays.
Can the same USB-C port supply TB (when a TB device is plugged in) and USB 3.1+DP 1.3 if a DP 1.3 device is plugged in?
No, first to support TB3 you need an Alpine Ridge Muxer chip from Intel, more basic USB-C with DP1.3 sourced from other than Intel cant support TB3, only USB3.1, DP1.3 and Power Delivery as Alt-Modes.
Even on a TB3 port if you are using DP1.2 alt mode you loss all the TB3 capacity, only way to have DP1.2+TB3 data+USB3.1 is using TB3 devices all along the chain:
[computer USB/DP/PCI data]
|| ||
[muxer Alpine Ridge TB3]
|| ||
[USB-C header TB3 Alt mode (1)]
|| ||
[TB3 cable with USB-C plug copper passive /copper active/optic active]
|| ||
[USB-C header TB3 Alt mode as on (1)]
|| ||
[demuxer Alpine Ridge TB3]
|| ||
[peripheral USB/DP/PCI data]
While Basic USB-C should be:
[computer USB/DP]
|| ||
[muxer USB-C]
|| ||
[USB-C header USB3.1 or DP Alt mode (2)]
|| ||
[USB-C cable copper passive / copper active]
|| ||
[USB-C header USB3.1 or DP Alt mode as on (2)]
|| ||
[demuxer muxer USB-C]
|| ||
[peripheral USB/DP]
That brings up some interesting questions what ports the next [15"] MBP might have. Maybe physical USB-C ports, two can take power and provide USB 3.1 as well as DP1.3 and two that can provide TB3, USB 3.1, and DP1.2? The current HDMI port might continue to stay but with USB-C ports taking over USB, TB, charging and DP, Apple could go all in and go all USB-C (replacing TB2, USB A and MagSafe). Just like the MacBook One, a single port to rule them all, except that it has four of them. Though making clear which of those USB-C ports is good for (a) charging, (b) DP 1.3 aka 5K, and (c) TB3 might be a bit of a challenge. Do other laptops with multiple USB-C ports allow charging via any port?
[doublepost=1467672269][/doublepost]
Except when using a TB dock, then TB3 can still be the connection to the monitor (sure, not for 5K monitors).
I think Apple should enable all 4 ports (2 usb-c only and 2 usb-c/TB3) for power delivery (charging), coz you need to power your notebook from your display/dock either TB3 or USB-C.
Technically TB3 can drive a 5K display but no more than a single one and on MST DP1.2, with limited bandwidth to daisychain more TB device (a paltry TB1 and a USB3 not USB3.1), not likely not the most optimal TB3 configuration, a recent leak suggest Apple will only introduce a 21"4K TB3 display and not offer TB3 on other sizes leaving users free to choose a 5K Display from LG (ASUS just show a 5K/32"with DP1.3 USB-C aimed at Graphic Pros).
I see more convenient to drive a 5K Display on USB-C DP1.3 on systems with capable GPU and leave 4K displays/tb3 to those requiring to daisychain TB3 peripherals to the display or need more than 1 display on each TB3 Cable.
only laptops allowing TB3 PD/charge is newest HP Sceptre 13 and Dell XPS13 also both having a single USB-C only port also PD enabled ... both 2xTB3+1xUSB-C/only
I'm not talking about daisy chaining multiple 5K displays. Just referring to something as simple as having a Thunderbolt external drive connected to the display and getting Thunderbolt speeds as a result of the Thunderbolt feed coming from the Mac.
If they bypass Thunderbolt and make a display that is getting just USB 3.1/DisplayPort 1.3, the Thunderbolt docking capabilities would be gone from the display as a Thunderbolt hub and would be limited to USB 3.1 speeds. Even Gen 2 is 25% of the speed Thunderbolt 3 provides.
Docking with an 5K TB3 display has little sense, the bandwidth taken by the display leaves you with bandwidth just enough for another TB1 Peripheral and a USB3 Peripheral.
I'm not sure you can Dock with USB-C/DP1.3 (at least you should be capable to draw power from the monitor) but on USB-C/DP1.2 you can dock with Power 4K Video@30p and a USB3, with 4K video@60p you lose USB3.
Docking Daisy chaining with TB3 as used to be on TB2 will be useful for upto 4K Displays, since you have enough bandwidth for a full TB2 peripheral and another 4K display both at 60p.
A recent annonymous leak suggest Apple to be reading only a 4K 21" TB3 Display, those that want a 5K display should source from LG or Asus and connect to USB-C.