Solution to the one USB-C port - InfiniteUSB

[JTToft]

I am not sure that it can't. 4K@30Hz is frankly crap, so they may have chosen to not advertise it. If the dock is USB-C iF compliant (as they claim it is) - it just passes through AltMode signal from the computer port to the display. Therefore, whatever resolution / refresh the host machine supports - the dock should support as well.

- Interesting. It would be a strange choice, though, to advertise a product you're trying to sell as being less capable than it really is...

Also, on hydradock.com they're writing this nonsense:

Available display resolutions depend on whether the host computer supports DisplayPort v1.2 or v1.3. For instance, the new MacBook uses DisplayPort v1.2, which only drives Mini Displayport equipped displays up to 2,560 x 1,440 resolution or HDMI displays to 1,920 x 1,080. The new ChromeBook Pixel uses DisplayPort v1.3, which will drive either Mini DisplayPort or HDMI up to 3,840 x 2,160 resolutions.

I assume they mean 1.1 where they're writing 1.2 and 1.2 where they're writing 1.3... DisplayPort 1.2 can easily support UHD. If we're to believe the above quote, and infer a bit from it, their dock supports DP 1.3, which I highly doubt.
Perhaps this all rests on a misunderstanding of the DisplayPort standard on the part of the developers? Clearly, they have something the wrong way round...

 

[cfedu]

I know what's on their site. It doesn't contradict anything I have said above.

Displayport Suport 1.2 4K
The hydra dock does not support res. above 2560 x 1440
The Macbook supports 4K via DP and HDMI
you claim the limitation is the GPU in the Macbook


How is this not a contradiction

It's a 100% contradiction.

That is like if I connect a garden hose to a fire hydrant and then say that the reduced flow of water is a limitation of the fire hydrant.

 

[ctyrider]

Displayport Suport 1.2 4K
The hydra dock does not support res. above 2560 x 1440
The Macbook supports 4K via DP and HDMI
you claim the limitation is the GPU in the Macbook


How is this not a contradiction

It's a 100% contradiction.

That is like if I connect a garden hose to a fire hydrant and then say that the reduced flow of water is a limitation of the fire hydrant.

You seem to have reading comprehension issues. I am not going to spend more time explaining what I said.

 

[cfedu]

You seem to have reading comprehension issues. I am not going to spend more time explaining what I said.

And you must just have a cognitive deficiency.

 

[ctyrider]

Also, on hydradock.com they're writing this nonsense:

Available display resolutions depend on whether the host computer supports DisplayPort v1.2 or v1.3. For instance, the new MacBook uses DisplayPort v1.2, which only drives Mini Displayport equipped displays up to 2,560 x 1,440 resolution or HDMI displays to 1,920 x 1,080. The new ChromeBook Pixel uses DisplayPort v1.3, which will drive either Mini DisplayPort or HDMI up to 3,840 x 2,160 resolutions.

I assume they mean 1.1 where they're writing 1.2 and 1.2 where they're writing 1.3... DisplayPort 1.2 can easily support UHD. If we're to believe the above quote, and infer a bit from it, their dock supports DP 1.3, which I highly doubt.
Perhaps this all rests on a misunderstanding of the DisplayPort standard on the part of the developers? Clearly, they have something the wrong way round...

What they're saying is that their dock's mDP supports whatever DP version the host computer supports (which is exactly right, and what I had said above). Effectively, the dock breaks out the DP signal multiplexed over USB-C, and sends it out the mDP port towards the display. The dock doesn't manipulate the video signal in any way or changes its resolution or refresh rates.

Now they're a bit confused about the maximum resolutions supported by various DisplayPort standards. DP 1.2 supports up to 4K@60Hz, however in case of rMB - GPU limits it to 4K@30Hz or lower resolitions. So they're conflating the rMB internal limitations with DP standard limitations - they are not the same.