If you go back to the WWDC 2017 vids, it's one that covers external graphics, or possibly a dedicated VR one, the presenter literally says that eGPU isn't as good as a motherboard slot.
That is more so what you wanted to hear, that isn't what got said.
There is transcript on the video's page.
VR with Metal 2
One of the early mentions of eGPUs in the talk is
"...
. And finally, by providing that foundational support for external GPUs, so that developers have a broader range of Mac hardware.Of VR capable Mac hardware to work on. ..."
Later on
"...
So, Thunderbolt 3 offers twice the theoretical bandwidth of Thunderbolt 2, which is great.
But you have to keep in mind that this is still a quarter the bandwidth of the PCI bus available to the internal GPUs in our platforms. So, this is important. ..."
This is your hand waving as "not as good as". It just is 1/4. For many mac systems the external GPU is also "bigger than" the GPU that is internal to the Mac. So the next sentence is.
"
You have a choice, now, between using the internal GPU with a high bandwidth link, or a high performance external GPU with a link at about a quarter the bandwidth. ..."
The presenter goes on to how the developer can evaluate which choice is better in the context the program is being run in.
In a new Mac Pro, that is quite likely usually going to be the inside (possibly pragmatically embedded ) GPU. For a Macbook the bandwidth tradeoff has a high likelihood of being worth it. The software has to decide which one of the two ( because it is not always the same answer) thing to do.
Later on the following is presented
"...
The best advice that we can give you is to render on the same GPU that's driving the display your app is on. I call this the golden rule of GPU selection. So, let's extend this and build a decision tree. ..."
So the notion of TB being a limit of pumping back the display output to be rerouted doesn't really line up.
As for as pre-caching data into the GPU VRAM/cache that is a relatively common issue in gaming and previous. There would be a longer pause before starting on an eGPU but once cached up for local scene this wouldn't be a problem except for extreme cases.
Yeah, I imagine they could spin it as displays with docks in them being a good consumer option "but pros are telling us they find all that stuff junking up their monitors just gets in the way, and they'd rather have a dedicated IO dock, and let their monitor be just a monitor. So here's Jony Ive to tell us about the new Pro Display...
"We challenged ourselves to answer the question, 'what IS a display?'..."
Chuckle. The "pro" series displays that Dell (Ultrasharp) , HP (Dreamcolor or UHD Z ) , Nec ( PA series ) , Ezio (colorEdge ) all have USB hubs in them. So the notion that most pro want monitors sitting on their desks that solely have video data capability is at serious odds with the reality of what the leading vendors in that market are selling. Nobody asked for but they are all doing it.
For example Eizo has a relatively new DCI 4K HDR monitor
https://www.eizo.com/products/coloredge/cg3145/
Yes ... it has a 3 port uSB hub in it.
Yes cranking up the screen size up to 5K HDR or 8K ( and data hog HDR cherry on top of that) will push the solution out of a single TBv3 cable solution that doesn't involve compression. The market analysis problem there is how is that the market norm?
The reality here though is Apple hasn't introduced a new monitor that had no power providing features since 2004. That is
14 years ago. Apple started on the power providing monitor track in 2008: 10 years ago. In those ten the Mac market has grown considerably and the revenues and profits totals are way up. Apple is extreme unlikely going to reverse direction and optimize their product line up for the mix of Macs they sold in 2003-2004. Reality in 2018 is different. Mac Pro is going to be an even smaller portion of the Mac line that they were in 2008-2010 ( 2010 is when the last "display only" 30" product was discontinued). The iMac Pro is going to skim off even more.
Apple probably is going to continue to do the different track they have been on. A "Pro" monitor with a singular input on it. Probably almost no buttons ( configuration there software control panel) and yes Thunderbolt v3.
For folks who want something different a new Mac Pro with 4 TBv3 sockets , 2 HDMI and/or mDP sockets, and a open x16 slot could be hooked up almost every "pro" monitor out there. through some combination of configuration options.
Even 8K.
two TBv3 ports with type-C to DisplayPort cables ( or one of mDP sockets if present).
one TBv3 cable to desktop port dock for easy front facing I/O ports. ( not behind monitor either).
three cables up to desk.
If the internal AMD GPU doesn't pass Nvidia focus then a card in the 2nd GPU slot and nominal mainstream hook ups via cards mDP and the USB socket(s )off the box. Three cables up to desk.
For a 4K HDR Thunderbolt could have 1 cable up to desk and a USB controller bandwidth off the ports on the monitor ( and not sub 8 Gb/s USB hub).
[doublepost=1522859591][/doublepost]
....
Yep. Another reason I don't think the Apple Pro Display will be Thunderbolt. Unless Intel and AMD do something with Thunderbolt on the GPU front.
It seems unlikely Apple will ask mid level pros to get a MacBook Pro, and an eGPU, and then oooops our display doesn't work with that. Not when Apple could just to DisplayPort and make everyone happy.
How many Mac users across the whole market are going to buy eGPUs. You folks seems to off lost in the weeds where 10-15% of total Mac new users run off and buy eGPUs. How likely is that?
So let's put this into a more realistic context. Let's say probably somewhat % generously that 5-6% of Mac users buy a eGPU. That still leaves 94% of the Mac market left to sell a TB display into. If Apple sells TB display into about 2% of that base left over it still would likely to be profitable.
Leaving out the eGPU
and the 2nd GPU (if provide an open secondary x16 PCI-e slot) isn't going to dramatically change the picture of the target market Apple can sell into. Most Mac Pro users are probably going to buy 3rd party monitors anyway. If they solely just get Mac Pro users who don't buy third party monitors that would likely be even more a market viability issue than the custom GPUs.
Is Apple really going to jump in to the market where they are trying to sell Apple monitors to HP, Dell, and Levnovo workstation owners? How likely is that? Or is Apple primarily going to just target Mac users (basically ignore selling accessories to the general workstation market) ? is BTO or random walk in off the street going to be the primary sales driver?
Right now in since Apple doesn't make a display they can disavow the UltraFine 5k and 4k whenever they want.
The 4K UltraFine option pretty much sucks when it comes to the USB ports on the monitor. They are simply USB 2.0.
As far as disavow goes, that is hardly credible. Those two solutions have only video input. In the rest of LG's lineup at roughly similar price range ( > $540 ) can you find another model they sell that has one and only one video input?
For whatever reason it appears that Apple abandon the development of these monitors and made some deal with LG to finish pushing them out to market. ( Apple industiral design clogged up with other higher priority work? some bean counter went Scrooge McDuck and steve'd them. something along those lines.)
The initial quality issue I think Apple would avoid. I suspect they have learned a lesson that nobody but Apple wants to build something quite like that and so they should probably design it. Very likely it will have a Rip Van Winkle product cycle where they will disappear for 3-4 years at a time. ( 30" monitor took 6 years to replace/retire. )
[doublepost=1522860893][/doublepost]
Could the Pro display be a VR/AR headset?
Extremely unlikely. As much as folks want to hype VR into some vast widely deployed market ... it isn't. Neither one of those make sense as a GUI interaction with a computer.
What other new could Apple offer to the industry in the form of an external display?
Apple's track record with discrete display has not been revolutionary at all. They had adopted changes as they appeared on the market ( LCD panels, hiDPI , 5K ), but there little to show where Apple was all outer their by their lonesome.
A display with built in GPU or with a slot for GPU?
The mania is that GPUs evolve rapidly. Monitors generally don't ( in a bit of a higher dpi and color gamut expansion now but that is probably going to wane soon. ) So coupling a "fast mover" to a "slow mover" makes what kind of sense?
Slot for GPU is putting fans and much bigger power suppliers with more moving parts into a monitor. One reason why monitors generally last a long time is that they avoid moving parts that can fail.
Don't really need a slot. Sonnet introduce a "puck" eGPU
https://www.sonnettech.com/product/egfx-breakaway-puck.html . It is VESA mount compliant, so could just bloat it to the back of a monitor. As for folks who want something bigger and bulkier .... that "slot" basically would become the majority of the monitor case. It would more so be a GPU with a monitor attached than vice vera.
So no ... Apple doing either one of those is highly dubious. Apple is extremely likely to let 3rd parties cover the eGPU product space entirely. ( pretty steady track record when it comes to broad coverage of Thunderbolt periperhals )
Unseen exceptional picture quality?
The only thing here is that it wouldn't be surprising to see Apple move their 120Hz iPad Pro work up to the display. It isn't 120Hz for gaming spec porn chasing sake. It would be more the smoothing out the screen for more normal, app display ( not necessarily 3D stuff. ).
Apple has some catch up to do in HDR compliant monitors... not particularly in the "unseen feature before" category.
Built in Apple TV? Wireless charging on the foot?
nope and nope. Why would "Pro" being asking for that. Odd ball just for odd ball sake is unlikely.
