External graphics docks or eGPUs will inevitably be a growing threat to gaming laptops

[_MT_]

Personally, I'm really looking forward to getting a USB4 AMD laptop for this very reason.

Has there been any confirmation from AMD that they will implement Thunderbolt in their USB4 controller? Because it's not mandatory. You can have a USB4 controller that doesn't support Thunderbolt at all. And USB4 in itself doesn't provide any facility for eGPUs. Even when it comes to USB itself, it still relies on USB 3.2. It just uses the technology of Thunderbolt to provide tunnelling, to put it simply. So a single connector and cable can carry, for example, USB 3.2 and DisplayPort at the same time (like external storage hooked up to a monitor). But the support for PCIe tunnelling, which is what full Thunderbolt offers and eGPUs utilize, is optional.

[_MT_]

A laptop maker should not sell you a $450 1185g7 (just the CPU cost) in a laptop with an 18w cooler. It's a scam.

Officially, it's a 15 W processor. And it can be configured as a 12 W unit. Or 28 W. What the manufacturer does with it is their decision. You don't have to buy it. All in all, 1185 doesn't make much sense. It was always the case. All you're getting over 1165 is higher bin silicon. You are paying premium for premium silicon. You might even get away with 1135.

Really, it's not in your interest to have a processor consume 50 W for any substantial period of time in an ultrabook. Battery would be flat in no time. The point is portability. If it lasts less than two hours, it's useless. When you have a 50 Wh rated battery, it's rated to provide 50 W for one hour. If you want your laptop to last 8 hours, you're looking at more like 6 W average. For the whole laptop. Ponder that.

[Spunjji]

eGPU concept has been around since 2008, with AMD and Fujitsu-Siemens collaborating on the short-lived XGP concept.

It hasn't caught on specifically because it ends up costing as much as just having a notebook and a separate gaming PC, but gives you worse performance and lower flexibility than a proper gaming notebook. I like gaming notebooks because I can game in different locations - different rooms of my house, different places, on a train, etc.

If the eGPU concept is really going to take off then, as others have noted, it will need to compete on both a cost and a convenience level with the alternatives. I honestly don't think that's going to happen any time soon, and I don't think the GPU shortage has anything at all to do with it.

[t4n0n]

I would say that the form factor that eGPUs currently adopt fundamentally undermines their own utility and arguments for their adoption.

The whole premise of external graphics - especially in the context of laptops - is that it is peripheral to the laptop itself.

Therefore, as a peripheral device the aim should be to supplement the weaknesses of laptops (limited compute power due to thermal, spatial and power constraints) whilst retaining the strengths of the platform (portability, accessibility, comfort - think quietness).

Now consider existing eGPU designs: almost universally, they are dedicated to accommodating already existing graphics cards, which themselves are designed as peripheral devices to (generally ATX format) desktop PCs. Do you see the problem here?

Accomodating GPUs that were designed for a desktop environment immediately introduces two constraints that cripple the original premise: a bulky form factor that is not amenable to portability and the requirement for mains power.

These constraints blow any arguments for portability out of the water and essentially resign eGPUs to stationary docking stations that ultimately provide an expensive and inferior alternative to a dedicated gaming/workstation PC.

Until this inherent contradiction is resolved, I cannot see eGPUs existing as more than a niche product.

[Dorby]

I would say that the form factor that eGPUs currently adopt fundamentally undermines their own utility and arguments for their adoption.

The whole premise of external graphics - especially in the context of laptops - is that it is peripheral to the laptop itself.

Therefore, as a peripheral device the aim should be to supplement the weaknesses of laptops (limited compute power due to thermal, spatial and power constraints) whilst retaining the strengths of the platform (portability, accessibility, comfort - think quietness).

Now consider existing eGPU designs: almost universally, they are dedicated to accommodating already existing graphics cards, which themselves are designed as peripheral devices to (generally ATX format) desktop PCs. Do you see the problem here?

Accomodating GPUs that were designed for a desktop environment immediately introduces two constraints that cripple the original premise: a bulky form factor that is not amenable to portability and the requirement for mains power.

These constraints blow any arguments for portability out of the water and essentially resign eGPUs to stationary docking stations that ultimately provide an expensive and inferior alternative to a dedicated gaming/workstation PC.

Until this inherent contradiction is resolved, I cannot see eGPUs existing as more than a niche product.

eGPUs are for people who use their Ultrabooks - Thin & Light laptops - as a Primary, and Only PC for whatever reason. Their goal is to offer an "All-in-1" solution for a person who wants to save money instead of investing in an expensive Gaming Desktop + Ultrabook + more Electricity bills, while still being portable enough for long-distance travel when needed.

The core premise is that an eGPU consumer is not at all interested in buying a desktop PC, and wants to maintain the portability of a ~1kg laptop, while being able to independently upgrade their dGPU down the road. There lies the appeal and promise of eGPUs in the future, given the right conditions.

[vertigo]

Personally, I'm really looking forward to getting a USB4 AMD laptop for this very reason.

Has there been any confirmation from AMD that they will implement Thunderbolt in their USB4 controller? Because it's not mandatory. You can have a USB4 controller that doesn't support Thunderbolt at all. And USB4 in itself doesn't provide any facility for eGPUs. Even when it comes to USB itself, it still relies on USB 3.2. It just uses the technology of Thunderbolt to provide tunnelling, to put it simply. So a single connector and cable can carry, for example, USB 3.2 and DisplayPort at the same time (like external storage hooked up to a monitor). But the support for PCIe tunnelling, which is what full Thunderbolt offers and eGPUs utilize, is optional.

Not that I'm aware of. Now that you say that, I recall reading that months ago, but either forgot or thought there was something else to it or something. It would certainly be ridiculous for AMD not to implement it, since they can and a lot of people see that as a big limiting factor to AMD over Intel, but I suppose if they see the eGPU situation the same as most it could make sense, though I still think it would be good for things like providing a display with video and USB for a built-in hub with one cable, not to mention maybe at some point finally being able to power a display off of USB as well, so one cable for everything.

[_MT_]

I still think it would be good for things like providing a display with video and USB for a built-in hub with one cable, not to mention maybe at some point finally being able to power a display off of USB as well, so one cable for everything.

USB4 will do that. As I wrote, you can have USB 3.2 and DisplayPort streams on the same cable. And Power Delivery works as well. Although, you'd power a laptop from a display, not the other way around (laptops are not designed to supply a lot of power to external devices as they are battery-powered). That way, you just connect one cable and laptop charges, display is connected and USB peripherals as well. But that's it. You're limited to USB. You can't connect PCIe based devices like GPUs, network cards or storage (if you want to go above USB 3 speeds). That's what you need Thunderbolt for.

[_MT_]

Accomodating GPUs that were designed for a desktop environment immediately introduces two constraints that cripple the original premise: a bulky form factor that is not amenable to portability and the requirement for mains power.

A significant problem is that a GPU can require a lot of power. A laptop would have to get it from somewhere. And it gets only worse as a laptop (and its battery) gets smaller. You can't expect a laptop that was never designed to have a dGPU to power a dGPU. Even if the box is built around a mobile chip. Even a measly 65 W mobile chip is too much for a typical ultrabook.

[vertigo]

USB4 will do that. As I wrote, you can have USB 3.2 and DisplayPort streams on the same cable. And Power Delivery works as well. Although, you'd power a laptop from a display, not the other way around (laptops are not designed to supply a lot of power to external devices as they are battery-powered). That way, you just connect one cable and laptop charges, display is connected and USB peripherals as well. But that's it. You're limited to USB. You can't connect PCIe based devices like GPUs, network cards or storage (if you want to go above USB 3 speeds). That's what you need Thunderbolt for.

I was thinking more along the lines of a laptop passing power through from AC to the monitor, i.e. powering a monitor when the laptop is plugged in. But also for desktops, to be able to have just one cord going from the desktop to the monitor for everything. An example use case for either situation, and something I've wanted to do before, is to get a touchscreen monitor and have it connected via one USB cable to provide poewr, video, and USB, so it could be used as a tethered tablet. This would be great for using a computer while in bed or on the couch.

[_MT_]

I was thinking more along the lines of a laptop passing power through from AC to the monitor, i.e. powering a monitor when the laptop is plugged in. But also for desktops, to be able to have just one cord going from the desktop to the monitor for everything. An example use case for either situation, and something I've wanted to do before, is to get a touchscreen monitor and have it connected via one USB cable to provide poewr, video, and USB, so it could be used as a tethered tablet. This would be great for using a computer while in bed or on the couch.

a) It would take up two ports on the laptop (one for a display and one for a power supply). Not necessarily a deal-breaker, but worth mentioning.
b) Laptop's power supply would have to be sized to accommodate a monitor. Making it bigger, heavier and more expensive.
c) The connector used for power supply would have to be able to carry enough power for both a laptop and a monitor. USB PD is not there - officially, it tops out at 100 W which is plenty for ultrabooks. But not enough for an ultrabook plus a desktop monitor.
d) And when it comes to power, it's not just a monitor, but also all the peripherals connected to it.

I can't see an advantage compared to the other way around where a monitor essentially acts as a power supply. So, a desktop monitor is permanently connected to the grid, potentially also a wired computer network, speakers, camera, whatever, powering all that. And by connecting a single cable, you get both power for a laptop and data, all the peripherals. Thunderbolt is superior for this but USB can work for anything that can be made as a USB device. You take up only one port on a laptop and you can keep a charger in a bag.

Yes, USB4 can be used to connect e.g. a drawing tablet to a desktop with a single cable. Assuming it can fit within a 100 W budget. But your computer has to be able to supply that much power on an USB port. Technically, USB allows it. But the motherboard manufacturer has to implement it. And similarly, tablet's manufacturer has to build it so it supports USB PD. The thing here is that they can't assume a computer will be able to supply enough power so there has to be an alternate means of powering it and so they might not bother with USB PD on the video/ data port at all (especially if only a few computers can supply enough power). If it's USB4, I think USB + video on one cable is given. The potential complication here is that USB-C is not that common on desktops and that they will probably want backward compatibility and some flexibility. Another complication is that video output on a desktop is often on a video card. You have to get video and USB on the same port, not to mention PCIe for Thunderbolt. This is easier in a laptop with its higher integration.

[_MT_]

d) And when it comes to power, it's not just a monitor, but also all the peripherals connected to it.

I have forgotten to add that what matters is not how much you use, but how big is the budget the monitor has for peripherals. I don't want to rain on your parade but the point is that this largely rests with device manufacturers, to take advantage of what is possible. The main limitation of USB that you come up against is the 100 W limit. I can imagine it going up, to accommodate more powerful laptops, potentially increasing its utility for other applications. But there is a limit. USB-C exists primarily for "ultraportable" devices. That won't be compromised.

[vertigo]

a) It would take up two ports on the laptop (one for a display and one for a power supply). Not necessarily a deal-breaker, but worth mentioning.
b) Laptop's power supply would have to be sized to accommodate a monitor. Making it bigger, heavier and more expensive.
c) The connector used for power supply would have to be able to carry enough power for both a laptop and a monitor. USB PD is not there - officially, it tops out at 100 W which is plenty for ultrabooks. But not enough for an ultrabook plus a desktop monitor.
d) And when it comes to power, it's not just a monitor, but also all the peripherals connected to it.

I can't see an advantage compared to the other way around where a monitor essentially acts as a power supply. So, a desktop monitor is permanently connected to the grid, potentially also a wired computer network, speakers, camera, whatever, powering all that. And by connecting a single cable, you get both power for a laptop and data, all the peripherals. Thunderbolt is superior for this but USB can work for anything that can be made as a USB device. You take up only one port on a laptop and you can keep a charger in a bag.

Yes, USB4 can be used to connect e.g. a drawing tablet to a desktop with a single cable. Assuming it can fit within a 100 W budget. But your computer has to be able to supply that much power on an USB port. Technically, USB allows it. But the motherboard manufacturer has to implement it. And similarly, tablet's manufacturer has to build it so it supports USB PD. The thing here is that they can't assume a computer will be able to supply enough power so there has to be an alternate means of powering it and so they might not bother with USB PD on the video/ data port at all (especially if only a few computers can supply enough power). If it's USB4, I think USB + video on one cable is given. The potential complication here is that USB-C is not that common on desktops and that they will probably want backward compatibility and some flexibility. Another complication is that video output on a desktop is often on a video card. You have to get video and USB on the same port, not to mention PCIe for Thunderbolt. This is easier in a laptop with its higher integration.

a) But that's the point, that in theory it should only require one port and one cable, at least if the technology improved enough.
b-c) I realize all that, and realize my example is a pipe dream at the moment, but I'm hopeful that with an increase in the capabilities of USB4 and in other technologies, such as power consumption of computer components and displays, that it will be not only possible, but a widespread capability. Technically, it should be possible now, since there are extremely low-power (1W) displays (granted I don't think there are any touch displays that low-power, but probably not far off). And even if not with a laptop, a desktop should be able to handle it quite well. Anyways, the point isn't necessarily what is currently possible, but what could be possible with some more advancement, and the decision by engineers to add the functionality. I'm just hoping it happens.

[t4n0n]

Accomodating GPUs that were designed for a desktop environment immediately introduces two constraints that cripple the original premise: a bulky form factor that is not amenable to portability and the requirement for mains power.

A significant problem is that a GPU can require a lot of power. A laptop would have to get it from somewhere. And it gets only worse as a laptop (and its battery) gets smaller. You can't expect a laptop that was never designed to have a dGPU to power a dGPU. Even if the box is built around a mobile chip. Even a measly 65 W mobile chip is too much for a typical ultrabook.

I agree, a bus powered solution wouldn't work. I was thinking more along the lines of an eGPU with its own power source, namely a sizeable battery and the additional possibility of DC power from a plug.

The basic premise of the idea is to take the GPU out of the gaming laptop and put it in a self contained peripheral device that has its own power and thermal solution. In doing so, you not only expand the scope of what the graphics processor can achieve by having its own dedicated cooling and power, but also remove the thermal and power load on the laptop - basically, both devices are able to operate more effectively.

And when you don't have the need for dedicated graphics, your laptop has longer battery life and higher/longer boost clocks. You could also allow the eGPU to act as a portable power bank, to charge the laptop.l

[vertigo]

Another consideration, and something a friend and I were discussing last night, is that gaming is going more online, in a Netflix-type model, i.e. cloud gaming. As this becomes more common/popular, and as internet connections become faster and more ubiquitous, the need for a gaming laptop will decrease and, most likely, so will the demand. So not only does that mean this may all be a moot point in the near future, but that it's less likely manufacturers are going to want to invest in developing eGPU technology right at a time that it's going to be more-or-less made obsolete.

[_MT_]

a) But that's the point, that in theory it should only require one port and one cable, at least if the technology improved enough.
b-c) I realize all that, and realize my example is a pipe dream at the moment, but I'm hopeful that with an increase in the capabilities of USB4 and in other technologies...

Well, if the display isn't powered from a grid and there is only one cable connecting the laptop with the display, where does the power come from? Laptop's battery? Instead of charging it at home while it's "docked," you'd be discharging it? That's why you need two ports. And that's why I think it makes more sense (in the general case) to have display powered from the grid and use it to charge your laptop over the same cable that is used to send video to the display.

My point was that USB is already there. As long as you can live with the 100 W limit.