randomUserUSB-C powered monitors? Directly from GPU? no 220V cables? no DP cables? Working USB hub inside monitor?

randomUserUSB-C powered monitors? Directly from GPU? no 220V cables? no DP cables? Working USB hub inside monitor?

Yes please.

Been waiting for this for ages and ages. My money is yours the first day you release 1440p monitor powered by USB-C from GPU.

My current 1440p 60Hz monitor uses only 12W when ON.

Those extra watts from PD that are left after powering the monitor could also charge devices connected to it.

randomUserUSB-C powered monitors? Directly from GPU? no 220V cables? no DP cables? Working USB hub inside monitor?

Yes please.

Been waiting for this for ages and ages. My money is yours the first day you release 1440p monitor powered by USB-C from GPU.

My current 1440p 60Hz monitor uses only 12W when ON.

Those extra watts from PD that are left after powering the monitor could also charge devices connected to it.

bugUSB can only power smaller monitors.

AssimilatorHonestly I doubt that USB-PD will come to desktop systems. For laptops it maybe makes sense, but even then the laptop's charger would need to support 100W over what it currently does. Most laptop chargers are rated around 65W, now the manufacturers have to almost triple those chargers' capacity just to cater for the handful of people who will want to charge their phone from their laptop. Not a very economical prospect.

AssimilatorYou're conflating this updated USB-C alt mode with the USB-PD spec. While USB-PD theoretically allows for transferring power between any compatible devices, in practice it's used for charging devices and that's it. The reason for this simply that requiring host systems to supply up to 100W (not an insignificant amount of power) is somewhat infeasible - as @bug notes, a graphics card that supports USB-PD would have to be able to draw up to an additional 100W from the system, on top of its TDP. When you consider that many graphics cards draw under 100W, which allows them to not require supplemental power connectors, you begin to see how this is a problem.

Honestly I doubt that USB-PD will come to desktop systems. For laptops it maybe makes sense, but even then the laptop's charger would need to support 100W over what it currently does. Most laptop chargers are rated around 65W, now the manufacturers have to almost triple those chargers' capacity just to cater for the handful of people who will want to charge their phone from their laptop. Not a very economical prospect.

BTW, what monitor do you have? 12W seems extremely low, each of my 1440p screens each draw almost four times that.



Wut?

My 2560x1440 monitors only draw up to 46W each, which means I could theoretically power both of them from a single USB-C connector.

Now, if your point is that expecting a GPU to supply 100W of power delivery is unrealistic, then I'd agree, as per my above comments.

danbert2000It's interesting to me that they're saying that a USB C cable can transmit 80 Gbps. That seems off, even if you're using the latest USB cables that can do Gen 3.2 x 2. The way I understand it, the alt mode can use 40 Gbps from the USB4 spec alongside 20 Gbps bidirectional USB4, or use 80 Gbps unidirectionally. But this is going to require use of a 40 Gbps cable, which just doesn't exist right now. I understand that USB4 is backwards compatible with Thunderbolt 3, but does this mean that Thunderbolt 3 cables are going to be able to do USB4, or that these cables are only useful in Thunderbolt 3 compatibility mode? In any case, 40 Gbps cables are expensive and very short. It seems to me that this will be somewhat useful in the future when these cables come down in price, but for most people, the Displayport 2.0 cables will be desirable because they will be cheaper and likely longer.

All of these high bandwidth cables are a bit of a clusterf#$@. They're just so fast that they have to be certified and from a reputable brand, and even then, they seem to be susceptible to failing a lot easier from general wear and tear. Of course we must keep pushing the envelope, but I feel that requiring these bandwidths is going to universally shorten cables and make them more expensive. It's going to be a long long time before you can get a 6 ft USB4 cable that isn't obscenely expensive. I was just looking for 10 Gbps cables and even those don't really come in 6 ft without active redrivers and a $40 price tag. Now for 4x the speed, I'm just not sure that this technology is going to be useful for a good long while. This goes for HDMI 2.1 and Displayport 2.0 native cables, too.

AnandTechLike USB4 then, for extremely short runs passive cables will be possible, while for runs over a foot or so – which is to say, pretty much all real-world monitor setups – an active cable is required.

AssimilatorWut?

My 2560x1440 monitors only draw up to 46W each, which means I could theoretically power both of them from a single USB-C connector.

Now, if your point is that expecting a GPU to supply 100W of power delivery is unrealistic, then I'd agree, as per my above comments.

theonek100w through usb-c connector is just a no...