I just learned(*) of the existence of USB monitors. It seems like a clever way to have my cake and eat it too if I combine it with my Nuc. This way I could have a fairly easily relocatable setup that's slightly better than a desktop (I prefer my components separated). Now I wonder, what's the catch? My first instinct is to suspect that this is not exactly plug and play when it comes to linux.
(*) In terms of hardware, I burned off all my enthusiasm between 1987 and 2000. There's nothing left anymore.
USB monitor --- what's the catch?
Re: USB monitor --- what's the catch?
Hello,
intel NUC has multiple monitor ports, so what's the issue? About usb monitors. The bandwidth of HDMI is between 10 and 18 Gbps while the bandwidth of usb3 is 3 Gbps. So I think the catch is that the graphics performance is worse and you need a proprietary driver. I'm using Linux myself. But I'm happy with the display and hdmi ports, no need for USB monitors. On the other hand the usb3 latency and bandwidth seems to be sufficient to run a video in 32 bit colordepth with a resolution of 2560x1440 and 25 fps.
Update: usb3 bandwidth is only 3 Gbps. Which allows only for 25 fps at stated resolution and colordepth.
Cheers,
Thomas
intel NUC has multiple monitor ports, so what's the issue? About usb monitors. The bandwidth of HDMI is between 10 and 18 Gbps while the bandwidth of usb3 is 3 Gbps. So I think the catch is that the graphics performance is worse and you need a proprietary driver. I'm using Linux myself. But I'm happy with the display and hdmi ports, no need for USB monitors. On the other hand the usb3 latency and bandwidth seems to be sufficient to run a video in 32 bit colordepth with a resolution of 2560x1440 and 25 fps.
Update: usb3 bandwidth is only 3 Gbps. Which allows only for 25 fps at stated resolution and colordepth.
Cheers,
Thomas
Re: USB monitor --- what's the catch?
it's apparently complicated - USB (C) is just the connector type. various protocols (?) like displayport, thunderbolt, "USB 3.1/2" can apparently be run over this connector, with varying bandwidths. brute has seen FHD monitors connect without problems through USB C (thunderbolt?). it is pretty convenient - power for laptop, passthrough of all devices, picture and sound. this was not on Linux though.
Re: USB monitor --- what's the catch?
USB 3.1 gen2 is up to 10Gbps, I think. More peripherals coming out to utilize this and USB-PD etc but USB spec is a shit-show so lots of incompatibilities out there. You'll have to read what others have to say about your computer or peripheral or try yourself and return if not working.
Thunderbolt (3, via USB-C) is what is most tried-and-true for monitors and eGPUs. USB protocols only have USB sorts of endpoints, whereas Thunderbolt exposes PCIe endpoints. Again, this comes back to USB spec and USB software being shitty whereas PCIe spec is pretty nice (so better software). The drawback is that it is an Intel, proprietary technology and they don't seem to care about ubiquity.. so definitely less devices with Thunderbolt3 -> more expensive.
Thunderbolt (3, via USB-C) is what is most tried-and-true for monitors and eGPUs. USB protocols only have USB sorts of endpoints, whereas Thunderbolt exposes PCIe endpoints. Again, this comes back to USB spec and USB software being shitty whereas PCIe spec is pretty nice (so better software). The drawback is that it is an Intel, proprietary technology and they don't seem to care about ubiquity.. so definitely less devices with Thunderbolt3 -> more expensive.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15979
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: USB monitor --- what's the catch?
Okay, this sounds very much like a bad idea. Also, I guess I don't get to drive the monitor from the +5V and save the power adapter.
Re: USB monitor --- what's the catch?
Well, the idea is good but it might still be a bit of a dream unless you buy very specific components or willing to take some chance. Or wire up your own solution. As far as powering the monitor, the more common thing (monitor hardware, firmware) is to have the monitor supplying power to the computer. However, it is still the idea in the newer USB specs to make device negotiations possible so that you could technically select which way things go; for instance, should your chromebook be charging/charged by your connected Note9? Both of those have screens, maybe you want your chrombook to only serve as input and monitor for your phone OS (I am not aware of such a mode/functionality being implemented even if it is possible in the USB specs)?