3 ms·
Personally I think baking the GPU power into the displays themselves is the more Apple-y approach. As opposed to some sort of additional-stackable-boxes soluti
by roc 13y ago
Personally I think baking the GPU power into the displays themselves is the more Apple-y approach. As opposed to some sort of additional-stackable-boxes solution.
(Which I'd love to see; I just don't see Apple doing it.)
- grecy 13y ago> Personally I think baking the GPU power into the displays themselves is the more Apple-y approach. I don't agree. Any Monitor with built in GPU won't make sense with the new Mac Pro, which (I think) will be the driving force for the new (likely 4K) Thunderbolt cinema displays.
- roc 13y agoBut without the GPU what Apple machines other than Mac Pros will decently drive a 4k display? [1] Apple's left the Pro line to languish for so long, I can't imagine they'd let it limit their ability to differentiate in the larger display business. [1] And of those upgraded MBPs that could hit 4k aren't going to be able to do it on two displays, which is quite popular.
- barrkel 13y agoGPUs become obsolete way faster than monitors.
- roc 13y agoAre you trying to say Apple wouldn't put GPUs in displays because it might accelerate the display upgrade cycle?
- barrkel 13y agoI'm trying to say that customers aren't quite stupid enough to invest in a display that they'll throw out 18 months later.
- roc 13y agoIn a product line-up where a new GPU requires an entire new machine, merely having to replace a display would actually be an improvement. Not that people with those sorts of interests, even when Apple customers, rely on Apple hardware to serve those interests.
- sneak 13y agoAs long as it can be used with a pass-through Thunderbolt mode, it would still be perfectly usable as a display/port expander without using the internal GPU, should you buy a faster machine. Also, Apple stuff seems to last damn near forever, so it'll hold a lot of resale value (even if the GPU is two years old) for those who want to upgrade.