Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 19 juillet 2010 - 12:25 .
Useless USB video docking stations
Débuté par
Gorath Alpha
, juil. 18 2010 06:35
#1
Posté 18 juillet 2010 - 06:35
Gorath Alpha
-
- Members
- 10 605 messages
USB is too slow (narrow bandwidth) for gaming graphics, and USB is what all but the option that costs as much as a better laptop all by itsellf costs ($750) comes with. This subject came up in another thread, but I thought it deserved a stand-alone thread.
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 18 juillet 2010 - 07:18
phoenixofthunder
-
- Members
- 1 811 messages
250 MB/sec not fast enough?Gorath Alpha wrote...
USB is too slow for gaming graphics, and USB is what all but the option that costs as much as a better laptop all by itslelf costs ($750) comes with.
#3
Posté 18 juillet 2010 - 10:56
Recnamoken
-
- Members
- 757 messages
PCI-E has 500 MB/sec at the moment. And that is for one lane. Modern videocards use 16 lanes. Do the math.
#5
Posté 18 juillet 2010 - 11:12
Recnamoken
-
- Members
- 757 messages
The data transfer speed of PCI-E videocards compared to external videocards connected by USB.
#6
Posté 18 juillet 2010 - 11:16
Gorath Alpha
-
- Members
- 10 605 messages
There have been some actual high-speed bus connectors in some laptops that would actually support the amount of data that flows across the PCI-e video bus, and USB cannot do so, not by a very wide margin. Laptops designed in the current form are solid blocks at the end of the process, without any normal access to any interior space where desktop designs allow for changing almost anything inside the enclosure.
Several proposed designs for such high speed busses have been shown that allow an ordinary laptop to connect to a video docking station that contains a game-quality video card in it, and in turn sends its signal to a desktop style display device. AMD, Asus, and perhaps Gigabyte, are among the brand names associated with such prototypes.
In the end, all that has existed has been the one very high priced product, that still leaves some things to be desired, and various USB products that are literally worse in the sense of animation speed, than the onboard chips they are supposed to supercede. Obviously, some of the USB-based products have been sold, else they would not continue to be available, but they serve other purposes besides gaming.
(And if I ever did know how the things are actually used, I have forgotten now).
G
Several proposed designs for such high speed busses have been shown that allow an ordinary laptop to connect to a video docking station that contains a game-quality video card in it, and in turn sends its signal to a desktop style display device. AMD, Asus, and perhaps Gigabyte, are among the brand names associated with such prototypes.
In the end, all that has existed has been the one very high priced product, that still leaves some things to be desired, and various USB products that are literally worse in the sense of animation speed, than the onboard chips they are supposed to supercede. Obviously, some of the USB-based products have been sold, else they would not continue to be available, but they serve other purposes besides gaming.
(And if I ever did know how the things are actually used, I have forgotten now).
G
Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 19 juillet 2010 - 02:34 .
#7
Posté 19 juillet 2010 - 06:01
mrmike_1949
-
- Members
- 721 messages
1920 x 1080 (pixels/frame) X 30 (frames/sec) X 32 (bits/pixel :: color depth) = a whole f^@*load of bits/sec. USB ain't even close to being fast enough
