You are reading a single comment by @Velocio and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@Velocio
2560 x 1440 resolution at 24 bits per pixel = 88,473,600 bits.
At 60Hz, that's 5,308,416,000 bits per second.
So a little more than half the claimed 10Gbit potential bandwidth of Thunderbolt.
I guess you're not going to be daisy-chaining two of them on the same port as you can't split bandwidth across channels, so daisy-chaining 2 monitors would saturate your bandwidth.
Currently, DisplayPort is 17Gbps over a single channel, which means 3 monitors can be daisychained, except Apple never supported version 1.2 of the protocol as that would've left Thunderbolt dead in the water.
Don't get me wrong, Thunderbolt is nice... but the capabilities have existed for years and already exist in other devices in the market for faster bandwidth and daisy-chaining. Thunderbolt is only going to be able to make a difference in terms of reducing the number of ports and cables needed... nothing else, and to achieve this Apple needs to achieve widespread adoption and can only do so by not implementing other technologies that would make Thunderbolt irrelevant before it took hold in the market, i.e. USB3 and DisplayPort 1.2 which are both widespread and have many supported devices.