Given the rate at which Apple updates hardware these days, it sure wouldn't be fun to have a 2-3 year-old TB3 Display with eGPU selling at premium price after its initial launch - and also because this is Apple, of course that eGPU solution wouldn't be user-upgradable.
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
Best in class battery life, great screens, single source of support, good keyboards, great trackpads, fastest SSD performance on the market.
Apple hardware is great, unless you're dead set on spec sheet racing and picking at differences that make very little difference in the real world (with the exception of the Mac Pro).
Thunderbolt 3 does support double the DP1.2 channels as TB1 and TB2 do, so a single TB3 cable performs the same function as two TB1/TB2 cables. So you can use a single TB3 cable to carry a 5K signal.
The trick is, TB3 uses MST (Multi-Stream Transport) so it will only work with a dual-plane display: a display that draws it's picture in two halves (like the iMac 5K and Dell 5K monitor). DP1.3 is required for a single-plane display, which will likely be the preferred solution as it does perform better (not needing to integrate two halves).
I expect Intel will eventually support DP1.3, but we'll have to wait until after Kaby Lake which means probably 2018 or 2019.
Mobile GPUs for you, and you, and you! Mobile GPUs for everyone!
Yes, you too Mac Pro users!
Glassed Silver:mac
Why exactly would it need a desktop GPU?
All they need is something strong enough to push the pixels, it won't take much.
You'll essentially have two GPUs. Your computer will do the app and system computation and your display with push the pixels.
[doublepost=1466865205][/doublepost]
Why would it become obsolete? The GPU is just to push the pixels. If it's fast enough to push the pixels now then it will be fast enough to push the pixels in 5 years.
The title of this article is misleading. It's based on hersay not fact and should be taken as such.
Ok, gotta admit that Apple is great on battery life. Seems like there are better screens available, though. Single source of support is a deficit, not a bonus! (Although Apple support is decent right now.) I've never liked Apple's keyboards myself -- they've totally placed form before function. I'll give you the trackpads, as I don't use trackpads and can't say anything one way or another. And I'm surprised about the "SSD performance" issue; Apple doesn't make their own SSDs, so I don't see why their SSD usage is any better than any other company's SSD usage.
Or the exception of the Mac Mini. Or the exception of the 21 inch iMac. And really, the full-sized iMac is barely holding on by its fingertips now. Apple may still be investing in laptops, but their desktop lineup is just the pits right now; low-end processors, slow platter drives in most products, no expansion slots, no ability to upgrade GPU, and even soldered RAM in the Minis and the low-end iMacs.
Today's desktop hardware from Apple is not great.
Pushing pixels is a fancy term describing that the desktop will be displayed and little more can be achieved.
The problem is, no matter your class of computer, if this is the only way to drive your screen it shouldn't limit you to mobile graphics.
Glassed Silver:mac
My thought is this: If they do this inversion, then that means anyone who uses a MacBook with a 3rd party display (or projector) automatically gets crappy performance compared to the Apple display. OR, for those who clamshell their MacBooks and connect two external displays to them, this would mean that if one display is an Apple display and the other is some old LCD you had sitting around, one screen performs great and the other is drawing from the weak internal GPU. What a mess!
This still seems like a regression, just in a different way. I don't think that what is outlined in this rumor is what's going on here.
Why tell everyone to go out and buy a 3rd party display, only to then remove the graphics processor from the Mac itself? I think we need to face it: We are not Apple's target demographic any more and we need to move on. In the next few years, I'm already expecting that they are going to release their devtools for Linux or something and just tell you to build your own desktop hardware but please install Linux and our devtools and make stuff for our mobile platform. And for those who don't want that, well they can install Windows and use Xamarain via Visual Studio.
It's game over. They are just being sweet and coy about breaking up with us. Thing is, Windows isn't something I WANT to move to, but Linux is still too rough. Ubuntu has done a good job of making it accessible to average folks, and even to the tech savvy who don't want to have to port every goddamn thing, but... It's still not as refined as Win or macOS.
Stop cheating, John Paczkowski this time your leakers kidding you.
First the technical reality:
Thunderbolt 3 eGFX AMD XConnect specification implies disabling the internal GPU (same restriction when you have an laptop with integrated GPU as iris pro and you switch to the discrete GPU as amd radeon M380x, you cant use both at same time)
What it means for the iMac retina or the Mac Pro or the Macbook Pro with dGPU?, its respective dGPU and iGPU will be disabled while on eGPU, add this TB3 implies an bootleneck due its 4x PIE3 lines vs 16x PCIe lines available for onboard dGPU, means an eGPU has NO SENSE FOR iMac 27 Retina, Neither MBP Neither Mac Pros, so an TB3 Display with eGPU wont be a 2nd display option for its primary market, only will be an option for Mac Minis or Macbooks w/o dGPU.
Apple actually have an much better option to deliver 5K HDR @ 120hz instead TB3, Did you know USB-C also suport DP1.4 if some mac is loaded with an DP1.4 dGPU (as AMD Polaris Radeon 460/470/480) thru USB-C only ports (non TB3) it can handle even 8K display while on dGPU, NO Tricky MST, no Tricky-Expensive TB3-eGPU, only a little discrete upgrade to the USB-C only Headers.
First the technical reality:
Thunderbolt 3 eGFX AMD XConnect specification implies disabling the internal GPU (same restriction when you have an laptop with integrated GPU as iris pro and you switch to the discrete GPU as amd radeon M380x, you cant use both at same time)
What it means for the iMac retina or the Mac Pro or the Macbook Pro with dGPU?, its respective dGPU and iGPU will be disabled while on eGPU, add this TB3 implies an bootleneck due its 4x PIE3 lines vs 16x PCIe lines available for onboard dGPU, means an eGPU has NO SENSE FOR iMac 27 Retina, Neither MBP Neither Mac Pros, so an TB3 Display with eGPU wont be a 2nd display option for its primary market, only will be an option for Mac Minis or Macbooks w/o dGPU.
Apple actually have an much better option to deliver 5K HDR @ 120hz instead TB3, Did you know USB-C also suport DP1.4 if some mac is loaded with an DP1.4 dGPU (as AMD Polaris Radeon 460/470/480) thru USB-C only ports (non TB3) it can handle even 8K display while on dGPU, NO Tricky MST, no Tricky-Expensive TB3-eGPU, only a little discrete upgrade to the USB-C only Headers.
Because they've been moving AWAY from that for some time. You can use an external GPU in a lot of places where an expansion slot doesn't make sense (e.g. a laptop or a Mac Mini). External GPUs are coming now that Thunderbolt has sufficient bandwidth to make them realistically usable. People need to just give it up on user replaceable video or some kind of mid tower Mac. If they weren't going to do it a decade ago when it made sense, they're definitely not going to do it now.
Whether or not Apple allows it doesn't matter at this point. Thunderbolt 3 has sufficient bandwidth to handle video and the interface is available, as are the drivers for at least some video devices. The only real question is whether we'll have to use Apple-specific video devices or be able to use something like the Razer Core with a card of our choice. If a Hackintosh can support a chipset, odds are high it'll work just fine as an external device.
Personally, even if Apple is ridiculous and doesn't allow it in macOS, for my own purposes I want it for gaming and I boot into Windows for that anyway. It's something that will be restricted at the software level, not the hardware level.
Given Apple actually announced a discontinuation and this thread is speculation, I would agree. It makes no sense for Apple to steer customers to other display vendors when they have their own pending.
Yep, many are discussing the technical flaws/possibilities based on a this rumor, and that is fine, but would a company like Apple really announce a discontinuation and steer customers to other vendors if they have a new machine pending? Also, Apple is very careful about its public announcements, so that makes this rumor even less likely IMO.
It seems more likely this was an intentional leak meant to assuage the heated discussion about the potential demise of headless Macs based on the monitor discontinuation and no announced replacement.
Last edited:
And, the reason they've been moving away from that because they want full control over their hardware; that way, they can limit their support to just the subset of available GPUs that they have approved. Which goes out the window if the consumer is allowed to choose any GPU they like. If they are going to allow users to choose their own GPUs, they might as well go back to expansion slots.
True! However, Apple has always distinguished its top-of-the-line "Pro" Macbook with a high-end mobile GPU; I'm not sure they really want to allow lower-end laptops access to high-end GPUs, as it would reduce their effort to upsell customers from their other laptops to the Pro.
And as for the Mini -- the entire point of a Small-Form-Factor PC is to have an entire PC in a small box. If you need to add a second, larger box to the Mini to perform the exact same function that a standard tower PC does (that is, provide expansion slots), well, why the heck did you buy a Mini in the first place???
Its easy for the USB-C spec - USB-C DisplayPort Alternate Mode just physically allocates one or more of the high-speed wire pairs to DP signals. However, the USB-C controller has to implement this. The question is, are there any actual USB-C port controllers that support DP 1.4?
...in a TB3 port*, the TB3 controller includes the USB-C port controller. Now, TB3 docs have always said that it maxes out at DP 1.2 - but that is for DP-over-Thunderbolt where the DP data gets moshed together with PCIe data and sent, physically, as a Thunderbolt signal. I've always assumed that TB3 will also support USB-C's DP Alternate Mode whereby DP signals are routed directly from the controller's on-board DP input(s) to pins on the USB-C port.
However, I've also assumed that, since Intel isn't interested in DP >1.2, the circuitry in Intel's controller that does the routing will still be DP1.2 only, although I see no technical reason why it couldn't be made that way.
The question is, whether Apple would make a Mac with a mixture of TB3 and non-TB3 USB-C ports.
(* Or "USB-C socket supporting Thunderbolt alternate mode" if you prefer. Blergh. USB-C/TB3 is going to be confusing as heck for consumers even without the "same connector - several different types of cable" stuff).
They are not mutually-exclusive, indeed ThunderBolt3 is delivered exclusively via USB-C.
It's noteworthy that not all USB-C ports are TB3 enabled though. (ex. the MacBook).
It's pretty well a given that if and when new TB displays arrive, they will have USB-C connectivity, and I'm highly inclined to think those ports will be TB3 enabled.
Last edited:
Perhaps the Apple vision of the Desktop Computer is now a "smart" display ...
... with a slot of some sort to insert a niPadPro ....
... or a USB-C bus powered tiny MacMini which mounts on the rear of the display ...
... or a clamshell nMacBook attached via cable.
It will accommodate all of the above plus your choice of keyboard, trackpad, and mouse of course.
... with a slot of some sort to insert a niPadPro ....
... or a USB-C bus powered tiny MacMini which mounts on the rear of the display ...
... or a clamshell nMacBook attached via cable.
It will accommodate all of the above plus your choice of keyboard, trackpad, and mouse of course.
Last edited:
I wonder if Apple will neuter the integrated GPU for all their current macs because the thunderbolt display would already have a better one.
At first I was excited but now i'm skeptical. If Wacom makes a 5k cintiq monitor, it would by default be incompatible. I hate Windows, but even I can easily tell that Microsoft is out-innovating apple at every corner.
At first I was excited but now i'm skeptical. If Wacom makes a 5k cintiq monitor, it would by default be incompatible. I hate Windows, but even I can easily tell that Microsoft is out-innovating apple at every corner.
Yes there are since Feb USB-C DP1.4 enabled bridges. here is just one http://www.paradetech.com/products/displayport-switch-products/ps8349/
You can count on the Upcoming Mac to have at least 2 USB-C only ports, that's due a simple technical convenience, you cant reliable boot an USB Recovery from Thunderbolt, you need and actual USB compliant port, also some peripherals require a "Pure USB" port for certain task as the iPhone you cant flash it from a HUB or a Virtual USB port.
ALL USB-C alt mode are actually USB-C alt mode, TB3 is an USB-C alt-mode, as Display port, the difference is an TB3 port when working as USB-C only provides DP.1.2 since Alpine Ridge was defined around DP1.2, you need another USB-C controller or interface that support DP1.4 Given you dont need all your ports in your mac to be TB3 you have to source some USB3.1-USB-C port adapters, and you can source one recent with DP1.3 or DP1.4 (even the easier to source DP1.3 USB-C are good enough for 5K HDR @ 60FPS on SST).
So I think is safe to assume upcoming Macs with will support at least DP1.3 thru USB-C non-thunderbolt ports.
Max TB3 ports possible on Macbooks and iMac are 2 (1 Alpine Ridge dual header), on the Mac Pro maybe 4 or 6 depends on how Apple manages available PCIe3 lines from C612 PCH, more likely to be only 4 TB3, remember an old OS/X Leak that accounted for an Mac with 10 USB ports 4 ports "HS" and 6 "SS" maybe represent 4 USB3.1 USB-C only plus 6 USB3.0 thru TB3 or viceversa 4 TB3 and 6 USB-C.
Last edited:
If I remember the history on this, the idea of putting a GPU in the display came from some guy on Twitter just brainstorming. I find it exceedingly unlikely that Apple would announce that they're discontinuing a product line just to relaunch it in a few months and that some guy guessed the architecture in 140 characters or less.
I hope to be wrong-- I'd love an updated display-- but I vote "bogus" on this report.
I hope to be wrong-- I'd love an updated display-- but I vote "bogus" on this report.
Yes, TB3 is backward compatible with TB1/2. I recently got such an adapter for my XPS13. Older Thunderbolt 2 docks are working with this adapter. Now if Apple would support displayport chaining and hubs...
Not true, fortunately! The LG 34UC98 has a thunderbolt 2 connectivity, works as a dock, has speakers, etc. However, thunderbolt monitors are hard to find outside of LG and Apple. As in, impossible! As an owner of both, I love the convenience.
You've been able to expand any mac with thunderbolt externally for 4-5 years now. I have a friend who has run a Titan off an MBA. Sure, performance isn't exactly as fast as in a desktop, and a titan is overkill on thunderbolt 1 with an MBA CPU, but it's nowhere near as slow as some seem to think.
That's from 3 years ago with thunderbolt 1.
External expansion via thunderbolt works. Has worked for ages. Price just needs to drop a bit and first party support needs to be better.