Multi-monitor with the Thunderbolt Display

The Thunderbolt Display has a single Thunderbolt port for daisy chaining additional devices. Each Thunderbolt port can support 7 additional devices, which means 6 devices once you connect the Thunderbolt Display. These devices can be anything Thunderbolt, however you cannot connect a DisplayPort monitor to the Thunderbolt Display directly. If you want to connect another monitor directly to the Thunderbolt Display it must be another Thunderbolt Display. To understand why, we need to look at the architecture of a Thunderbolt controller.

This is the first Thunderbolt controller Intel introduced, codenamed Light Ridge:

You see it has four Thunderbolt channels and two DisplayPort inputs. It also has a single DisplayPort output as well as a DisplayPort passthrough option. What's the difference? If there are only two devices in the chain, the computer and a DisplayPort monitor, you can use the DisplayPort passthrough option bypassing the majority of the logic entirely. This is how the 2011 MacBook Pro can connect directly to a DisplayPort display. Put a Thunderbolt device in between those two devices and you can no longer use the passthrough mode. You have to send a Thunderbolt signal to the Thunderbolt device, and it can then extract the DisplayPort signal and output it. Simply passing DisplayPort through won't work.

I originally believed Apple used the smaller Eagle Ridge controller in its Thunderbolt Display, but now believe that to be incorrect. Upon closer examination of our dissection photos it appears that the 27-inch panel is driven by an embedded DisplayPort (eDP) connection. If I'm right, that would mean the DisplayPort output from the Light Ridge controller is routed to the eDP connector in the display. With its sole DP output occupied by the internal panel, the Thunderbolt Display cannot generate any more DP signals for anything connected directly to its Thunderbolt Port. 

If you connect a Mac to the Thunderbolt Display what is sent is a Thunderbolt signal. DisplayPort is broken off and sent to the display but there's no way to propagate an additional DisplayPort signal to any other non-TB displays in the chain. The output on the Thunderbolt Display is literally a Thunderbolt output, it can't double as DisplayPort.

However, if you connect another Thunderbolt device that uses Light Ridge you can split any additional DisplayPort signals out of the chain. In other words, if you connect the Thunderbolt Display to a Promise Pegasus you can then chain on another DP panel. If you own a 27-inch Cinema Display and were hoping to add the Thunderbolt Display to it on the same Thunderbolt chain, you will need another TB device in between.

There are also the obvious GPU limitations. The 13-inch MacBook Pro only supports two displays (Ivy Bridge will up this to three). If you manage to connect two to the 13 however, Apple will just blank the display on the notebook and drive the two external panels. The MacBook Air is a different story. Not only does it only support two displays, but the Eagle Ridge controller only has a single DisplayPort input so you're not driving more than one external display via a MBA no matter what you do.

I tested multimonitor functionality with a 27-inch LED Cinema Display as well as a second Thunderbolt Display. In the case of the Cinema Display, as expected, I couldn't get video out of the port on the Thunderbolt Display. Connecting the Thunderbolt Display to a Promise Pegasus and then connecting a Cinema Display to it worked however. I also woke up the MacBook Pro's internal display and confirmed that I could get all three functioning simultaneously. There's a definite slowdown in UI frame rate with two 27-inch panels being driven by the MacBook Pro's integrated Radeon HD 6750M. It's not unbearably slow but kiss any dreams of 30 fps goodbye.

I also confirmed that two Thunderbolt Displays worked on the MacBook Pro regardless of the connection configuration.

Power Consumption Windows/Boot Camp Experience
Comments Locked

275 Comments

View All Comments

  • danjw - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    I really thought the computer industry was done with the whole daisy chain idea. Requiring every device to have two connectors just adds to cost. Requiring licensing from Intel for the icon and Intel being the only controller manufacturer, will further drag it down. I think it will be just about as successful as firewire, limited success with Apple customers, but not much else. Sure, you may see the ports on PCs, but there will be a much larger selection of peripherals that support USB 3.0.
  • touringsedan - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    Listened to your audio clip that was corrupted during your file transfer.

    Wanted to comment that I have a 1st gen 27" and it does the same thing to me and usually I have to recycle the power to the display and all is returned to normal.

    It seems to occur almost never now for some reason, but was about to return it and it eventually tapered off.

    I do have the keyboard and an external USB drobo attached to my display.
  • AmishElvis - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    It seems like the next logical step would be to include the video card inside the monitor, then let the computer use it via the pci-e lanes.
  • jecs - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    I will love that. Even an upgradable option.
  • Dug - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    FANTASTIC IDEA!!!!!!
  • Constructor - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    10Gb/s is a lot for an external port, but graphics cards can need even more bandwidth under heavy load, so even Thunderbolt would still be a bottleneck, particularly for the bigger cards.

    Nevertheless, more than one manufacturer has already announced external PCIe enclosures for Thunderbolt, so you'll be able to plug any graphics card into that and as long as there's a TB-compatible driver for it it will work as desired.

    Putting the GPU into the display is nice for the few months as long as the GPU is still up to date, but it will become a drag on the monitor when the GPU is overtaken by newer models. The separate box may be the more flexible option there.
  • Iketh - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    why can't the monitor have a removable backplate?
  • Constructor - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    It does, sort of. You just need suction cups and a set of Torx screwdrivers getting there...! B-)

    But seriously: What for, exactly?
  • jecs - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Ok. But isn't this the first Thunderbolt implementation? Intel promised a lot more bandwidth. An external box could be an option but obviously not as great as inside the display.
  • Constructor - Saturday, September 24, 2011 - link

    Right now it's 10+10Gb/s and that will remain the limit for some time.

    And I still wouldn't want a quickly outdated GPU in the display which could have a much longer usable lifespan, but that's of course a matter of preference. We'll see what will become available.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now