Apple is way too design conscious do implement a kludge like that.
They'll either put the TB port on the GPU, or route a DP signal from the GPU internally and 'mix it' on the motherboard.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How will Thunderbolt be implemented on the Mac Pro
- Thread starter mherrick
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple is way too design conscious do implement a kludge like that.
They'll either put the TB port on the GPU, or route a DP signal from the GPU internally and 'mix it' on the motherboard.
MacPro ships with off-the-shelf video cards [albeit with reflashed firmware], and none of the ones on the market today support TB in any way, or have the ability to route DP to the motherboard. Doing so is a cool idea, but it would require agreement on a new electrical / connector design between Intel (who design the motherboard) and GPU manufacturers, and there has been no news of this whatsoever from Apple, Intel, ATI or nVidia.
Thus unlikely, at least in next 12 months...
Well, Apple can't NOT ship Thunderbolt on the next MacPro refresh... so I guess they're going to have to come up with a solution!
You're right, by mandating that a Thunderbolt connection has to carry both data and video, they've made their lives significantly more difficult - particularly on a computer where video is implemented using a third party card.
We'll have to wait and see what their solution is.
It is a Mac Pro, and not necessarily a designer computer.
Routing the DP signal internally would be much more difficult, and would compound the GPU issues we already have.
It's an Apple. Seriously, this kludge will NEVER HAPPEN - even if it is the best solution.
I agree completely.
Really?
Consider this cable which shipped with the 2004 Cinema Display...
Spidey!!!
Attachments
The difference is that those cables were just bundled, and separated out again each end.
Each one of those connectors at the computer side was a standard connector in and of itself.
With Thunderbolt, Apple is specifically requiring that a TB connector contains a video signal. A video-less TB port just doesn't fit this standard they've created.
Also, rather than being just a bundle of two different wires - I'm assuming there would have to be some multiplexing circuitry implemented in this cable itself.
I really hope I'm wrong!
Yes, there is the need for a multiplexer in the path before the signals are transmitted over the cable (BTW, the cables are already active, as they use modulators on each end). Not elegant at all if they add a multiplexer to the cable, though it should be possible (just more clunky on the computer end, and it would add costs).
Unfortunately, according to the specifications page on the new 27" ThunderBolt display, there isn't a MDP connector listed.
So either Apple will keep the older model around out of necessity (which doesn't look likely, as it's no longer listed), or they do plan on getting a graphics signal over a TB port in the next MP.
No long listed where???
On the marketing (propaganda page) or in the store?
For the store, it is there:
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/mac_accessories/displays?mco=MTM3ODc3MTY ( Mac > Mac Accessories > Displays in the store )
As of this evening both are listed. It is a bit buried in the store, but it is still there. Apple could change listing both when the TB model ships but two things.
1. they have put Thunderbolt in the product name "Apple Thunderbolt Display (27-inch) " ( versus " Apple LED Cinema Display (27" flat panel)" )
One name doesn't blot out the other. If you go to either one of the respective pages in the "similar products" box on the left you get the "twin" alternative offering.
it will be a couple of years before the TB Macs outnumber the pre-TB Macs. Until then Apple can still sell plenty of the "classic" model to users who want one. It isn't like they didn't do that for years with the 30" display. ( sold unchanged for long peroid of time). Using the same panel just lowers costs on both models.
2. The simplest solution requiring no hocus pocus rerouting of single would be to just sell two displays. One for the older Mac and the future Mac Pros and one for the rest of the Macs.
Apple knows the Mac Pro users probably are not a "one size fits all" bunch and that multiple monitors will get used by varying groups of users. A straightforward video card with straightforward MDPort adaptors will work with (and be validated with and supported on) the broadest range of monitors. Not just Apple ones.
[ The reasoning here seems to be backwards. Mac Pros are suppose to boost the sales of Apple Displays ... errr no. Apple will take the money want there is a fit but there is not reason to go wonky to force the issue. Frankly the displays with the MagSafe power cable hanging out of them are an odd-ball fit for the Mac Pro anyway. There is no way you are going to get enough power for a workstation to come through some dinky MagSafe connectors. That isn't what the displays were primarily designed for. Likewise being "hardwired" with a TB/MDB cable attached. ]
That is not good at all; I have no intention to change my 2009 MP before end of 2013. I hope spple implement TB in different way for MP
The Product Page wasn't there when I checked when typing my post. Went to Mac ->Accessories, and all that was listed was the ThunderBolt Display. No MDP model whatsoever.
So I took a look at the TB display's specifications page to see if it had dual inputs, which doesn't appear to be the case (had they decided not to implement TB on the next MP's for a GPU signal interconnect).
In terms of it still being available in the store, it's seemed reasonable to me that there is still stock available on the MDP model, but it's no longer in production.
In that case, it would be in the clearance or refurb section. It being in the regular store indicates that Apple has not discontinued it, which means it's still in production.
Generally speaking, I'd agree. But that may not be the case, particularly as they still have MDP based systems for sale (current MP for example).
Once there aren't any more MDP based systems for sale however, that's when I'd expect any remaining stock to be transferred to the Refurbished Store/Clearance section (or sold off to other vendors that specialize in discounted Apple merchandise).
How I reasoned it out anyway.
This isn't necessarily true. Stuff like the iSight exited production but stuck around for a while in the store.
Therein lies the circular argument in this thread. The Mac Pro doesn't "have to" transition to TB. Therefore, all MDP models won't wink out of existence. Therefore, the MDP display model can continue.
The circular argument is that the tail wags the dog ( the display is TB so therefore the Mac Pro has to go TB) and then circles itself because there is no more MDP models left. That's a leap.
The current Mac Pro is not MDPort only. So not only are they going to flush the MDPorts off the card but the other connector will disappear also. All so can laid a burnt offering at the feet of the TB gods?
Not likely. Even if one port was hooked to some TB hack there would still at least one MDPort on the Video card (along with the Dual-Link DVI). The only way to get to an Apple only video card would be an Apple only implementation of the card. Apple is cheap. They haven't built or commissioned a special Apple reference design in last 4-6 years so why are they going to start now? Any basic reference design that is just made EFI and Apple boot enabled isn't going to have TB. There is no market for it at this point. Right now there doesn't even exist any monitors shipping that connect to it. Even Apple is slow rolling this on the peripheral side.
It is highly doubtful AMD or Nvidia are going to jump into bed where have to put Intel tech on each video card unless there is an established market for it. [ Right now TB is as much an open standard as Adobe Flash is. ]
Adopting MDPort made sense once single cards wanted to drive 3-4 monitors the rear edge space becomes a premium and a smaller connector is better. Neither is MDport single implementer specific. If TB standardizes, gets multiple implementers , and becomes popular to put on non-mobile boxes then perhaps the video card vendors will jump in, but at least two of those 3 need to be in place before they move.
I'd normally agree.
But the Mac Pro is a odd one out.
There is no easy way to give a Thunderbolt + DP all-in-one port.
I would be very surprised and very annoyed if Apple do custom GPUs, especially given the driver news in Lion.
I recon it will be standard GPUs. For cost reasons.
When I go to the Mac page (not the store), and click on Accessories, all that comes up is the Thunderbolt Display. Even when I click into the Thunderbolt Display page, there's no mention of the MDP version whatsoever. Follow the links, and see if I'm blind, as I don't see the MDP model listed anywhere in the product pages.
I'm only finding the MDP model in the store, which does lend to the conclusion they intend to sell off existing stock, not keep two models going simultaneously.
So I don't see this as "The tail wagging the dog" at all in terms of native display input offered by Apple on their monitors once the existing MDP stock is sold off.
Now if you had the impression I've meant that MDP will disappear entirely, that wasn't the case, as I'm only talking about the monitor (expect MDP will still be on cards, and the MDP to DVI/DL-DVI adapters continue on as well).
But if Apple intends to sell the new monitor to owners of the next MP model, then it will need a means of connecting it, which appears to be TB only since they no longer have a product page on the previous MDP mode.
Thus the conclusion that the next model will offer a TB port for graphics as well as data (it's possible Apple is no longer intending to sell monitors to future MP owners once the MDP stocks are gone, but I'm not convinced of this).
I've not said this at all.
My comments have only been in regard to the product page for monitors, which only shows the Thunderbolt model.
As it happens, I do expect at least an MDP port on the next graphics cards offered by Apple, and if users are truly lucky, a DL-DVI port as well (not so sure if DL-DVI will be present however, as we're reached the 3 year mark since GPU cards were based on DL-DVI as the principle connector). And unfortunately, Apple doesn't seem to like to support tech they're no longer using across the entire computer line for very long (i.e. keep MDP, dump DL-DVI). I truly hope I'm wrong on this, but Apple's recent history does offer support for this sort of thinking (3 year support cycle whenever possible).
Even if it's TB and MDP only, DVI and DL-DVI are still possible through adapters already available. Not ideal, but Apple could take this approach (yet another means for income from users that want to use something outside of Apple's offerings).
I don't expect them to.
It's possible they could contract an ODM to supply new GPU cards with the TB chip included (short-term solution to get a TB port), but I don't expect this.
It's better for the market in general to get Intel and GPU makers to agree on an open connection method (i.e. edge connector that routes DP signals to a separate edge connector to a PCIe TB card; similar to an SLI or Crossfire connector). Just some PCB trace routing on the GPU manufacturer's end.
In Apple's case, the TB chip is likely to be soldered on the logic board/backplane board IMO, which at most, means a special cable for the MP (edge connector from the GPU side to a header of some sort for the logic board/backplane board). It's financially feasible, and they don't seem to mind ordering special cables.
There's no real need to, even if it does get an established market. It's not only less hassle, but it's cheaper to leave the TB chip off of the GPU card IMO.
This way vendors and consumers can decide if they want to add a TB chip/card if they wish.
I understand your point, and in a wider look at the market (all desktops with slots), I agree.
In Apple's case, it does seem they intend to use TB in the next MP, so that is a bit of a unique issue ATM (trying to adopt the standard universally across their line before any other vendor).
But there's an easier way to look at this (edge connector/cable solution that keeps the TB chip off of the GPU card). Perhaps a bit specialized on Apple's end (special connector for the TB side, such as being on the logic board/backplane board rather than the CPU tray), but viable solution for the PC desktop market IMO.
You are blind.
[ just looking in wrong spot. ] http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html
Right there on the bottom left is the LED display. All the tech spec minus the marketing fluff ( "magic design", blah , blah , blah ) is right there on the store page.
Frankly, if pitching this primarily to Mac Pro users not sure you'd want the "magic design blah , blah, blah" page anyway because it makes it glaringly obvious that this monitor was not designed with the Mac Pro in mind.
High gloss screen, useless MagSafe connector wire dangling out of it, no mainstream GPU connectors , no Multiple connectors, limited length connector cord, no 10-bit color , etc.
Furthermore, having the MDP is going to useful for pre-TB Mac users (of which there are millions) come into the store and decide later they want a external display. Going to tell them to walk away or "it is not on the web page but this one works" kind of conversation ?
[ I'm not buying the TB display and cable are compatible with display port suggestion that was floating around before. However, if it is hardware "workarounds" folks are positing perhaps they could make the display work if folks skip the connector entirely and just plug a DPort cable into the open port on the back of the monitor. Some logic in the display that says "if no TB connections hook the internal DPort pins to the exterior socket connected with DPort cable and just pass-thru" wouldn't be hard. ]
You're putting why too much stock in the Apple propaganda pages. They are going to hype the TB monitor. The MDP model will be there for folks who look for it. Frankly, if the MP is the *only* new Mac that requires it putting the display's info on the MP's pages makes much more sense that putting it out there so the the vast majority of the new Mac users will stumble across it.
If you believe the propaganda pages certain memory configs are "only available on the online Mac store".
They will have a "which one do I buy" confusion issue. Having a two pages for monitors that are 98% alike is something they'd want to be careful how they market it.
Right. So if Apple has a headless Mac which has MDP connectors wouldn't it make some sense for those who can only buy everything from Apple to have a monitor they can hook up to. Especially, when they have already created it and manufactured it for a while ?
On the TB macs, the MDPorts completely disappeared.
That is probably the closer solution path.
However, it is a bit more than PCB trace routing. TB takes individual DP streams ( v1.1 or 1.1a ). So lets say you want to route two of the MDPort connectors down the the motherboard. That means two switches ( one for each stream). Now there is probably a switch already there for "mirroring on two ports" mode but this is a bit more involved. You need to route multiple streams down to the motherboard which is going to cost space even if do standardize the connectors.
The greater than 2 monitor set up is likely much more common on Mac Pro's than MBP. That scenario is what missing in the "How do I get a monitor hooked up to TB on the motherboard" scenarios. It is not get "a" connector hooked up, it should be how do you get all the connectors hooked up. The current Mac Pro has 3. That should be your minimal starting point.
It is doable. However, it would also cost more.
I don't buy this second part. I think Apple is more aligned with mainstream desktop market when it comes to Mac Pros than not. IHMO, it would make more sense if Apple dumped the current MDPort display model for the a better one once the Mac Pro is primary target. Stop trying to market some MacBook Pro docking station to Mac Pro users and give them a display that more of them would be happier with. Dump the glossy screen , add 10bit color (and/or >10bit LUT) , 98-100% color space coverage , MDPort (so can use on different computer if have to and supports v1.2's wider color space ... which TB does not ) monitor that is at or over the $999 price point. If still at $999, at least justify why costs as much as the docking station Display even though has less wires coming out it. It has "more" of something different. (they can use the same panel to control costs but they'd put more/better supporting infrastructure behind the panel to push it into another market segment space. )
Imagine how much air would go out of the "Apple hates Pros" whining balloon if they did that along side releasing a new Mac Pro. ;-) Frankly, MBP users who wanted high end color would probably buy it too (relatively happily trading off the docking stations features for color.). I don't think the buyers would be restricted to just Mac Pro users either so it could get enough volume to survive. Mac Pro uses Dport 1.2 (not 1.1a) and PCI-e 3.0 (not 2.0) .... that would put the Mac Pro on the leading edge technology adoption. Not solving the docking station problem.
I doubt 50+% of Mac Pro users are buying Apple displays now (more non-Apple display connect than Apple ones). TB doesn't "do" anything new for those non Apple Displays. Nothing. Mac Pro users don't need a docking station. The only "feature" of TB left is "PCI-e" expansion which it already has.
In that case, the product page isn't on the website for same reason new Mac Pro's page isn't on the website... it hasn't been released. Apple would be getting back into the Display business ( having replaced the kludgey docking station, the LED/MDPort, model with a better docking station, the TB model.)
If the MDPort version gets snuffed from the Mac Pro page after it is release then yeah. But right now, there is a simpler route Apple can take.
Last edited:
Ah, OK.You are blind.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html
Right there on the bottom left is the LED display. All the tech spec minus the marketing fluff ( "magic design", blah , blah , blah ) is right there on the store page.
Sadly, I took a look at the Mac Pro page when I was looking, but didn't click the Design link (didn't expect it would be there).
I'll chalk it up as another Homer Simpson moment.... DOH!
Given I hadn't seen the MDP monitor page, I was thinking an adapter was more likely, as the new TB models don't have dual inputs (easy, clean solution that wouldn't be expensive).
I was actually thinking in terms that Apple is focusing on the consumer market, which is what both the MDP and TB monitors were primarily aimed at (MDP can be used with the MP, but it was more of an afterthought at best in terms of design influence). Besides, for those that need color accuracy, there are far better choices available (Eizo Nanao, NEC, ...). But allowed them to offer a monitor that is suitable for non-creative professionals that just need a screen and wanted a complete Apple solution (program development for example).
I can see what you're getting at, but it would make a bit more practical sense if one monitor was aimed at consumers, while the other at professionals (could be viewed this way of sorts, due to the two different input connectors).
But neither was developed with professionals in mind (both were designed with the consumer systems in mind).
As a result (both monitors aimed at consumers), I expected the display page to have links to both, as there will still be older consumer system owners that decide they want an MDP Apple display for their laptop or Mini, as you mentioned.
But the fact it was missing from that page added weight to the idea Apple was abandoning MDP as a native input in my mind, which by logic, fostered the idea of adapters as a means for MDP port owners to connect to the new model.
Glad to see this may not be the case (can't be 100% certain the original assessment is wrong yet, though I hope it is), as such a solution would be rather convoluted for users, and the additional expense of adapters would generate anger from those that would have to buy them.
Of course.
Keeping both monitors around makes sense (as would a monitor with both TB and MDP inputs). But the couple of times I looked, I didn't see the MDP version was still available on a product page (just in the store).
I've based the idea on the premise the switches would be on a TB PCIe card, or the logic board/backplane board in Apple's case, which would eliminate the need for additional active components soldered to the GPU card.
Granted, for separate traces per DP spec, you will have a larger connector (i.e. lets say they're smart and add additional traces to the card interconnect for DP 1.2, there would be 60 pins to deal with <double sided @ 30 per>, assuming they keep all common grounds and PWR traces separate).
Granted, at 30 per side, it's a bit large vs. SLI (13 per side) or CrossFire (20 per side IIRC), but should be doable.
So I still see this as primarily an exercise in trace routing in terms of the GPU cards. Worst case, it would get the accounting dept.'s attention if additional layers were necessary to handle the additional traces or the PCB be elongated a bit, but this would most likely depend on the GPU used, physical memory,... of the specific card in question.
Granted, any increase in costs to GPU makers in order to include such a connection wouldn't be welcome by the business side, but I don't expect it to be drastic in such cases due to the economy of scale (say connector + additional PCB costs under $1). Add $3 to the MSRP (300% markup for the additional feature), and the
I would think so as well.
I was actually only thinking of a single TB port on the logic/backplane board, and 1 - 2 MDP ports on the GPU card itself (one of the DP's routed over to the TB chip via some sort of cable). Which would give 2 - 3 monitor ports available per card installed in the system. Which would provide 4 - 6 monitors (up to 2x cards) should be sufficient for those that want to use a multiple display configuration.
Of course, if all of the monitors are DVI based (likely if they're professional models), adapters will be needed. But it's possible to do at least.
I wish the MP was still focused on DVI as well, but that's not what happened from 2009 to date (one token DL-DVI port for users that use professional monitors that still use DVI/DL-DVI as their primary input connections; might have a token VGA as well).
And in terms of the monitor, sadly, I don't see them creating a professional unit again (10 bit LUTs or better, matte screen, ...).
I suspect they see such a move as the wrong direction for themselves (take focus away from the consumer market to a market they have a small presence in comparatively speaking with other vendors in the enterprise/professional segment).
Unfortunately, as their focus seems overwhelmingly on the consumer market, I don't think a solution such as this will happen.
I doubt it's even 50% of MP users that buy Apple branded monitors these days. So focusing on the consumer market (i.e. docking station for laptops) makes a lot more sense from their POV (much greater sales volume = larger contribution to the Gross Margin per Q/H/Y).
We'll have to wait and see, but I hope that the MDP port sticks around, even if the MDP monitor itself is cut loose (worst case), as there are already adapters that allow professional users to connect to existing DVI/DL-DVI monitors.
On the Mac pro, there has to be a backplane TB port that is not on the gpu. Apple never gets cutting edge graphics cards anyway so how do we expect them to magically pull a TB compatible GPU out of a hat within the next 4 months (assuming that's when MacPro6,x is coming out)
I think apple could solve all the confusion by: Having the TB display have a MDP cable and a TB cable (and the dangling magsafe cable). And, here's the kicker, the MP could have an integrated Intel HD GPU that uses the same tech in the MBPs for dynamic graphics switching.
If it detects that both the MDP cable and TB cable are plugged in, then the MDP cable carries the video stream to the Discrete GPU and the TB cable carries the data stream to the on-board TB port.
If it only detects the TB cable plugged in to the onboard TB port, then it gets the data stream and video stream. And only the Integrated GPU is used.
Cons to this theory:
1) confusion between a tb cable and a mdp cable looking alike. This could be solved by having an adapter sold separately that splits the TB cable into a TB cable and a MDP cable. If a customer bought that adapter then they are likely to know how to use it.
2) integrated GPU on a macpro could be considered a hack job on a nice machine, but could drive costs down if they made the discrete gpu optional for the buyer. I could see Server Macpro models benefiting from not having to lug around an expensive ATI card.
3) apple already declared that the display only supports TB capable macs, so this contradicts the possibility of having a "tb/mdp splitter adapter" since it might lead some consumers to believe they could get an older mac to use the display. Of course with out the data stream.
i am very eager to see what apple does with this because this whole thing has been ****ing with my brain.
I think apple could solve all the confusion by: Having the TB display have a MDP cable and a TB cable (and the dangling magsafe cable). And, here's the kicker, the MP could have an integrated Intel HD GPU that uses the same tech in the MBPs for dynamic graphics switching.
If it detects that both the MDP cable and TB cable are plugged in, then the MDP cable carries the video stream to the Discrete GPU and the TB cable carries the data stream to the on-board TB port.
If it only detects the TB cable plugged in to the onboard TB port, then it gets the data stream and video stream. And only the Integrated GPU is used.
Cons to this theory:
1) confusion between a tb cable and a mdp cable looking alike. This could be solved by having an adapter sold separately that splits the TB cable into a TB cable and a MDP cable. If a customer bought that adapter then they are likely to know how to use it.
2) integrated GPU on a macpro could be considered a hack job on a nice machine, but could drive costs down if they made the discrete gpu optional for the buyer. I could see Server Macpro models benefiting from not having to lug around an expensive ATI card.
3) apple already declared that the display only supports TB capable macs, so this contradicts the possibility of having a "tb/mdp splitter adapter" since it might lead some consumers to believe they could get an older mac to use the display. Of course with out the data stream.
i am very eager to see what apple does with this because this whole thing has been ****ing with my brain.
It's an interesting idea. Keep in mind, though, that the GPU switching on the Macbook Pro is a special feature of both the laptop GPU and the mobile controller chip. I haven't heard of any desktop GPUs coming with this feature.
If the splitter is done correctly though, it could just not allow the TB ports to provide video data, while only taking video data from the MDP side.
Someone also pointed out that the Xeon's don't come with integrated graphics, but I've seen Mac Pros with integrated graphics before. (The Intel Developer Macs, which had a separate board that did Integrated Graphics.)
(At least that's what I heard. Ahem.)
On the GPU card? There doesn't "has to be" a TB controller in the Mac Pro at all. It is not a required part to make a workstation.
If Apple decides they want to be uniform in having TB on-board just for purely for the sake of consistency the simplest solution is to just stick an embedded GPU (e.g., use same kind of plug-in boards as iMac, mini, and laptops use) on the internal board. They can pick an inexpensive low end mobile GPU that can only drive just one monitor. If they want to maximize sharing parts they could just select the same GPU as the mini.
That solves the need for any gyrations or Rube Goldberg design changes to GPU cards. The just implement TB-hooked-to-motherboard's-GPU just like all the other Mac. Simple and done.
They could probably now sell a $2,099 or $2,199 Mac Pro that has no video card at all. You would get a workstation with the Mini's abilities in graphics. That actually might make sense for the following users:
a. Just needs CPU power. (e.g., someone who is going to rack this as a server. )
b. Was going to buy a 3rd party video card anyway. (should make the card flash tweakers happy). Similar to buying Mac Pro with minimal RAM and then replacing it all. This way don't have to replace anything.
c. Someone who wants a > 3 monitor set-up where one of the monitors doesn't have much heavy lifting to do.
In the second case, an internal GPU that isn't being used for graphics isn't exactly useless. The Mac Pro can ship OpenCL jobs to it if it is not being used for anything else. It is like a mac Pro with an extra floating point unit in it. For example, the Mini's AMD Radeon 6630M comes in at 480 GFlops . That's more than many predecessors of the Mac Pro had. The 6350M is just 80 GFLops but also just 7-11W and likely somewhat cheaper (but may not help volume buying).
The down side is that need 16x PCI-e 2.0 to hook the 6630M up. If believe that folks that say TB external PCI-e boxes are OK for "good enough" graphics if choke that down to 4x PCI-e then could chop the E5's 40 PCI-e lanes into 16-8-8-4-4 . Prune that last 4x v3.0 off and and actually have 8x worth of v2.0 bandwidth. You still have 4 PCI-e v3.0 slots for cards. (on dual package Mac Pro's have more lanes than can consume in 4 slots so even less of a problem. )
For those who need heavy duty graphics they just buy a Mac Pro at the current price points with a video card and perhaps ignore the embedded GPU. [ Adding TB in no way solves the sub $2,000 Mac Pro pricing problem. For Mac Pros with video cards it will actually drive it in the opposite direction: up. ]
They are even less likely is have to build custom cards. It is not because they can't. It is a pricing and profitability thing not a engineering problem.
Now that more WinPC targeted motherboards are targeting UEFI it should get much easier though to get 3rd party video cards to show up. Even mainstream windows will be booting EFI as Windows 7 and 8 take over the market.
However, Apple can throw a wrench into leveraging the general parts market but throwing some TB kludge into the mix, just as the availability is about to widen. That's a goofy move for them to make. The Mac Pro already has some problems competing on cost. It is a silly move to artificially drive up costs without adding value. [ adding an embedded GPU might drive cost up slightly but the OS and Apps can leverage the added value if they take advantage of it. It isn't bad to pay more if you get more. ]
They don't need dynamic switching. Nor does it need to be integrated graphics. It just needs to be on the motherboard to be highly conducive for TB implementations. Integrated is a nice space saving way of doing that but the Mac Pro isn't exactly tightly squeezed on internal space.
Dynamic switching is to save power. A Mac Pro has a 900W power supply. If your objective is to gently sip power you have failed after you plug it in and turn it on.
Perhaps just need ability to turn off the embedded GPU if not being used for OpenCL or graphics. There are Xeons with integrated graphics. Some of the E3 models have integrated graphics. At some point, when the transistor budget is larger, the E5 series may get them too. If things like OpenCL gain more widespread usage even "servers" can use them and an integrated graphics module just saves for the times when need to use an attached console monitor. For now though, there is bigger bang with using the transistors budget for additional x86 cores and local cache.
At some point a low end integrated graphics will probably be added to the E5 class Xeon. Probably not at the upcoming Ivy Bridge iteration. The one after that though. Especially if TB starts to take off and Intel "needs" at least one GPU on every motherboard to nominally pump a Display Port channel to the TB built into the standard I/O chipset. It doesn't have to be a bleeding edge integrated GPU. Just enough so there is a respectable DP stream by default. In the meantime, Apple could "fill in the blank" with a simple, inexpensive laptop module solution.
Multiple cables is a design fail. One of the primary objectives of TB is to reduce the number of cables. If having TB requires more cables they your trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. It is a clear indication trying to stuff TB where it doesn't add much value.
I think it is messing with some folks brains because trying to have the tail wag the dog. Throw out notion that the TB monitor is driving Mac Pro design and left with serious question as to why need TB at all. Hook multiple monitors to Mac Pro... use the multiple connectors on GPU card. Need to hook to high speed storage... eSATA/SAS. Need to add a PCI-e card... plug-it in.
Other than TB peripheral "hotness" envy ( of which there is not alot to choose from in comparison to the PCI-e card solutions that already exist) what's the motivator???
Even high end Audo/Video equipment connections. Several of those cards have proprietary PCI-e connectors. Build a proprietary-to-TB dongle that has a power cord and plug "Mobile" A/V TB equipment into the boards probably already have. That may work if can just make the TB controller look like a layered switch.
Integrated graphics pragmatically requires being co-located with the memory controller. In the past the memory controller was seperate. However, all current and future x86 designs will have the memory integrated with the x86 cores. Therefore the intgrated graphics being being absorbed into the CPU package.
E3's already include graphics:
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/...croprocessors_will_launch_on_February_20.html
However, they pay a price in that capped at 4 cores since need room for the HD3000 graphics engine. You get entry level graphics with that trade-off
"...As a result, Intels representatives say that a workstation armed with a Xeon E3-12x5 processor should have the chops to contend with an entry-level discrete graphics card, ... "
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xeon-e3-c206-workstation,2933-4.html
If Intel doesn't go from 8 -> 10 cores on the next architecture tweak (after Ivy Bridge) , but to 8 -> 8 + (HD3000+OpenCL) then could squeeze the integrated graphics into the E5 series. Likewise, if the graphics vendors could squeeze a 4x PCI-e v3.0 package that had built in 512MB into a smallish chip package they would have a better chance of getting incorporated onto some larger motherboards even if Intel goes from 8 -> 10 x86 cores.
"Entry level" cards in their classic form are likely going to disappear. Both Intel and AMD are putting "entry level" GPU performance into the CPU packages. Only the exceptionally rare CPU packages will be left without that functionality.
What if the Pros have 2 MDP in that you connect your VGA to and that gives you video in the 2 TB ports? it is a kludge but they can't avoid one unless using an integrated graphics card, but then your ATD wouldn't work with your extra upgraded graphics card :S