New Thunderbolt Display With Integrated GPU Still in the Works

[SPNarwhal]

Can someone tell me the point of this? Is it to put less stress on the machine since it won't have to use its own gpu?

It says it's for a more universal compatibility, but what machine has an issue using an external monitor? I don't get it. I might understand it if it were a 5k display and needed a dedicated gpu because a lot of machines can't process that high of resolution, but for the standard display, why would it need a dedicated gpu?

 

[cBraunDesign]

Here's a question... Would it be possible to include an integrated GPU specifically to drive the pixels of the display, and still allow the GPU of the machine connected to it to operate as usual? In other words, could they include a GPU simple enough just to drive the display, without necessarily risking it becoming prematurely obsolete? I have no idea how this stuff works, but it seems like there's a solution that would allow for long term use while the user upgrades their machine on a regular basis.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Intel is not supporting DisplayPort 1.3 in Thunderbolt 3 and DP1.3 is the minimum standard to support 5K single-plane panels over a single cable. Instead, TB3 supports double the DP1.2 channels so a single cable can drive a 5K dual-plane panel using MST (so one channel drives one half of the panel and the other channel drives the other half).

By putting the GPU and the same custom display hardware they have in the iMac 5K in this 5K display, it might allow use of a single-plane display panel with a single TB3 cable. It might even allow the current MacBook Pros, iMac 5Ks and Mac Pros with TB2 to use the display with a single TB2 cable (instead of the required two via MST as is the case now). And if they can eliminate the need for MST, that would improve response times for things like gaming.

How will this even be possible? Wouldn't the DisplayPort-out feed from the portable Mac still be faced with the limitations of DisplayPort 1.2 built into Thunderbolt 3? Thinking out loud, wouldn't the data feed for the resolution output still be coming in multiple streams to a theoretical 5K display with integrated GPU?

If such a display is ever released, it seems like the GPU would be tied more to assisting the portable Mac with the heavy task of rendering that many pixels comfortably more than having anything to do with superseding DisplayPort technology.

 

[calaverasgrande]

"It's believed Apple has not introduced a 5K display to match the 5K iMac because there are no machines that could run it over a single stream cable, a fact that will remain true even in upcoming machines like a rumored Skylake Retina MacBook Pro."
So sick of this logic. Pretty much all of us would be FINE with a 4k TB display. Or even a 2.5k TB display. The market of mac users that want/need a monitor is not restricted to iMac owners. In fact, they are likely a very small segment of this Venn Diagram.
People with Mac Pros and Minis NEED a monitor. They don't need 5k. That is just a number that makes sense according to certain ratios of icons, retina displays etc that make it easy.

 

[nutmac]

I wonder why they chose a lapse period in between announcing the new one?

My guess is that the replacement will come much later than expected. I doubt Apple will bother to integrate GPU so that it can squeeze 5K signal to single Thunderbolt 3 (which is limited to 4K @ 60 Hz). My guess is that the replacement will arrive with Thunderbolt 4 which isn't due until next year at the earliest.

 

[FightTheFuture]

I still find it odd that they recommended 3rd-party alternatives instead in their official statement...

Yeah I found that weird too. Only time I remember Apple driving users to a third-party was when Maps with iOS6 launched.

Outdated and expensive. Could it be that it wasn't selling?

I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case. Can't imagine a market where there would be demand for this display.

It feels like Apple was stuck in an awkward waiting period while Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C were fully developed.

I feel the same way. Almost as if the display engineers would walk back and forth to the MacBook department and second guess plans while TB3 w/ USB-C interface were in development.

It'll be outdated before it's even released.

GPU tech far outpaces display tech.

Not really sure I understand this sentiment. It's a display, not a desktop. If the internals are built to drive a 5K monitor, and only that, than that's all the GPU needs to do. I don't understand why this would become obsolete unless the software doesn't support it. For instance, we can plug in an 800x600 VGA display into any modern computer, same as a 5K display. They both work as intended.

This all sounds great, but I can only imagine this thing will cost nearly $2,000.

Apple never released a display over $1000.

 

[ipedro]

This is Apple's opportunity at building an actual AppleTV. A beautiful designed 5K display has only to include an AppleTV chip built in and people could use them as a TV. A 27" could be the flagship model but scaling up to 55" or higher shouldn't be too complex.

 

[TechZeke]

It would be nice if Apple would make Macs more gaming and/or VR-friendly. Don't know if they'd need screen with GPU or just desktop-class graphic cards (instead of weak mobile cards). Especially for the iMac...we don't care if it's a few millimeters thicker Jony Ive...put a Nvidia 1080 in that thing!

They've been able to put desktop GTX 980's into notebooks. It should be a cake walk for the iMac if it was tad thicker with some extra cooling since, you know, it's supposed to be a desktop.

 

[LordVic]

Why would you want this and an updated Mac Pro? The instant you hook a Mac Pro to this, the vast majority of it's value (the graphics cards) are now out of the picture.

It makes no sense to buy a computer with a powerful GPU, then a monitor that can only use its own internal GPU.

to be fair , aside from users of Apple's media production tools, the Mac Pro was pretty lackluster for everything else. those dual GPU's are compltely useless for anything that wasn't exclusively written to use them (like Final Cut Pro). Making MOST users of the Mac Pro wasting money on useless graphics cards (that were already out of date on launch).

its one of the reasons I didn't buy a Mac Pro when it came out and I was in the market for a new desktop computer. I could have lived with the USB-3 or Thunderbolt for external drives (i have a server that I use for storage anyways).

But non-replacable, custom designed GPU's that would ONLY b able to be replaced from Apple killed it for me. What Apple should have done is start the "Mac Pro" with a standard i5 CPU and have consumer grade GPU's available as well. make each panel modules so that you can customize all 3 "modules". maybe 3 CPU's. maybe 2 CPU's and a GPU. maybe 2 GPU's and a CPU. etc etc.

Isntead, we got one of the most lack luster "pro" machines that was absolutely more form than substance

you can build today, a machine that runs laps around the performance of the Mac Pro for a couple thousand less than the entry level Mac pro, that features all newer tech. And the Mac Pro? Still the same price that it was at launch

 

[rawweb]

Apple never released a display over $1000.

Errr, you do realize that the 30" Apple Cinema Display (2004-2010) was originally US$3,299 and later reduced to $2,999

 

[PatriotInvasion]

I think that if they're going to release a device that combines a monitor, a graphics card, speakers, microphone, Thunderbolt ports, and USB ports, they really ought to just go ahead and put the rest of the iMac into the case as well...

This. The 5K iMac is good value. What if this phantom GPU equipped 5K Thunderbolt Display is really just a next generation 5K iMac that brings back Target Display Mode utilizing it's built in GPU to assist MacBook Pros that want to connect to it as an external display?

 

[Marx55]

Apple should do it right: Thunderbolt 3, USB 3.1 Type-C (reversible) Generation 2 and SDXC with extra pins supporting maximum read/write speed (300 MB/s).

 

[FightTheFuture]

Please link me to a 27" monitor with built in TB ports, USB ports, an ethernet port, and built in speakers and iSight type video camera.

Don't forget the MagSafe connector. These displays do triple the work as a hub and dock.

Moving the GPU to the monitor is an easy win in both regards. This is what will allow a new rMBP form factor.

This is Apple's opportunity at building an actual AppleTV. A beautiful designed 5K display has only to include an AppleTV chip built in and people could use them as a TV.

I like the way you guys think.

Errr, you do realize that the 30" Apple Cinema Display (2004-2010) was originally US$3,299 and later reduced to $2,999

Man good memory. Forgot about that beast of a display!

 

[throAU]

This is the obvious path forward IMHO.

Mobile GPUs in portables suck. They're not really usable on battery for more than 45 minutes when doing things you need the GPU for.

So. Stick it in the thunderbolt display for when you're at a desk.

You plug in your notebook with a single cable, you get display, power and (desktop grade) GPU. You un-dock, it falls back to mobile integrated GPU (and you get the great battery life that entails).

For most people's usage pattern that is probably ideal. For those very few users who need a GPU in their machine when they're not actually at their desk on AC, the high end 15" machine will continue to exist (and likely if the GPUs are AMD in the machine and AMD in the display, some sort of crossfire may even work). For almost everyone else? Mobile GPU in the portable machine just doesn't really make sense.

This is the sort of thing that was talked about 5 years ago when thunderbolt was originally released. I'm just disappointed it has taken this long - people have hacked together solutions to do just this. It has been demonstrated to work, it just needs Apple to be behind it.


Where do i sign?

 

[monstruo]

hopefully that integrated GPU can be user upgradable (perhaps attached but external to the display itself)

As much as most of us hope for, apple will never do that. Even it's upgradable – it'll be an apple proprietary connector.

Also, it's the transition period as Apple might drop magsafe for its new MBP. It's going to be interesting to see what Apple's decision would be: more adaptors? Hmmm, who knows?!

 

[LordVic]

Can someone tell me the point of this? Is it to put less stress on the machine since it won't have to use its own gpu?

It says it's for a more universal compatibility, but what machine has an issue using an external monitor? I don't get it. I might understand it if it were a 5k display and needed a dedicated gpu because a lot of machines can't process that high of resolution, but for the standard display, why would it need a dedicated gpu?

From my understanding of the logic they used in their statement (this is my interpretation)

once the display has been processed by the GPU, to get the displayed image to the Display from the GPU, there's no current easily solution for Apple. to carry 5k from GPU to display it would require either Display port 1.3 or Thunderbolt 3. Neither of which any Apple computer currently has.

However, since Thunderbolt is really just a fancy way of connecting PCI-E lanes externally, and Thunderbolt 2 (for now) is capable of carrying up to 20GB/s of bandwith, or equivelant of 4 lanes of PCI-E 2.0. While this wont let the highest end GPU run full tilt, it'll still be better than any integrated GPU that intel can provide. And often better than most mobile GPUs (because of thermal limtiations)

So, instead of trying to carry uncompressed, finished display images to the display, they will use Thunderbolt 2 (and 3 when available) to carry the PCI-E data to the GPU, which can then be connected via short display port to the display (all internally) or even solder it directly in and setup their own pathings from the GPU's output to the display driver.

This would further allow Apple to "thin" and "lighten" their computers by using lower end integrated GPU's for mobility while keeping on TB2 until they move forward with their TB3 refreshes. And considering TB3 is backwards compatible with 2 and 1, the display itself would still work with newer hardware.

 

[Mr. Dee]

So all those persons who claimed they are done with Apple and are moving to a Hackintosh or Windows. Thoughts please?

 

[doelcm82]

I highly doubt this is true. Killing the line prior to a replacement and Apple reps telling users to go third party isn't a strong indicator of an upcoming replacement.

I don't know whether it is true or not. But Apple could have a 5K (or better) monitor in the works that will only be compatible with upcoming MBPs. The message to current owners is the same: Go third party. The market for the new monitors won't exist until Apple begins selling the new MBP.

Also, the new monitor might include in its hub a lightning port (for plugging in headphones).

 

[kingtj]

Not really? I mean, what were they supposed to say? "Now that our only external display is discontinued, we recommend you try to buy up whatever's left on the shelves because after that, you might never find a suitable display for your Mac!" ??

People who want to buy a new Mac Pro today, or who want to buy a laptop with the idea of using it on the desk at home or in the office with an external monitor need to feel comfortable knowing Apple supports many options for doing it.

I still find it odd that they recommended 3rd-party alternatives instead in their official statement... If they're really working on this, wouldn't that drive away a lot of sales? People don't upgrade their monitors annually.

 

[rawweb]

Man good memory. Forgot about that beast of a display!

I remember only because I lusted after it for 7 years and could never afford it new...after buying a computer of course...lol.

The 27" LED Cinema Display (and it's quiet replacement ATD) really was a major price reduction point for Apple while retaining incredible quality. It still rivals a lot of monitors in the wild. Though, admittedly, I've always liked the Matte options of yesteryear.

 

[Loge]

Not sure I get the benefit of this with the MBP. The benefit of a portable is that it's portable.

 

[throAU]

Here's a question... Would it be possible to include an integrated GPU specifically to drive the pixels of the display, and still allow the GPU of the machine connected to it to operate as usual? In other words, could they include a GPU simple enough just to drive the display, without necessarily risking it becoming prematurely obsolete? I have no idea how this stuff works, but it seems like there's a solution that would allow for long term use while the user upgrades their machine on a regular basis.

This is what openGL, Metal, DirectX12 and other new APIs are about. Making more efficient use of whatever GPU resources are in the machine, in some cases, concurrently.


Yes, I do think that would be the intention - AMD have been working on this to combine their integrated APU resources with their external GPUs for some time now. And I suspect this is part of why Apple have been using AMD so much recently, in addition to AMDs general better performance on OpenCL code.

 

[ZZ9pluralZalpha]

It feels like Apple was stuck in an awkward waiting period while Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C were fully developed. Now that they are, they can transition their entire lineup.

Unfortunately, 'fully developed' turned out to still lack a single-cable 5k-capable display standard. Without DisplayPort 1.3, I fear it's either more awkward waiting period for the next Thunderbolt revision or workaround solutions like external GPUs.

 

[shareef777]

This move would line up perfectly with Apple's goals. Despite the constant flak it has received over the years, Apple has reliably made its devices thinner and more power efficient. Moving the GPU to the monitor is an easy win in both regards. This is what will allow a new rMBP form factor.

Except for when you need more power then an iGPU can provide and you're not at home/office. I know, shocking that people take a MOBILE device out of a home/office.

 

[LordVic]

So all those persons who claimed they are done with Apple and are moving to a Hackintosh or Windows. Thoughts please?

not sure how a display with built in GPU grossly affects hackintosh usage.

I would argue that MOST people who are building hackintoshes are doing so for a few reasons that are somewhat intertwined:
1: they don't want an all-in-one computer. Apple currently only sells 2 "desktop" computers. The Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. Both of which are highly proprietary, non-upgradable niche products. the Mini featuring laptop grade components that are soldered in and the Pro featuring purely proprietary modules that have never received updates.

2: they want to game. that means they want standardized desktop components. PCI-E based GPU's. ATX (or derivatives) motherboards for standardized components. CPU's that are meant for the desktop (currently MOST Apple products ship with laptop grade CPU's, including a few 27" iMacs). They also want the ability to ugprade components as they deem needed, instead of having to replace the entire unit.

3: They think that Apple hardware costs are expensive for what you get. The Apple tax is real for many people. Building a hackintosh allows them to say in MacOS land while not supporting Apple's business practices.

What putting a GPU in a display does is help their existing line-ups. see my last post to see why this is beneficial for Apple computer users.

 

[throAU]

Not sure I get the benefit of this with the MBP. The benefit of a portable is that it's portable.

The benefit is this: Some people only want one machine. To drive a discrete GPU in a portable, you're still tied to an AC power point. If you have a machine with discrete GPU, just try run a game or other high end 3d app while on battery and see how it murders your battery life. I'm not kidding with my 45 minute statement. I've tested it with my 15". Battery life running 3d hard is under 45 minutes, when it was new. Doing it on battery is not practical.

So yes, if you're at somebody else's desk (and they don't have a GPU in their monitor), then sure, the inbuilt mobile discrete GPU will be a benefit. But for a huge number of users (especially home users, or small business users), having a single portable machine with small form factor, great battery life and that can still run high end 3d stuff when at home on a desk hooked up to AC is killer. It's what i've wanted for the past 3 years for example.

I don't want 2 machines and having to deal with the sync issues that involves. I want a 12-13" machine that can connect to a high end GPU when required, when I am on AC power. The rest of the time i want it to be light weight, silent, cool, and have great battery life.