AW17r4 and USB-C Dock

It depends on both the dock model and the system.  The D6000 uses a DisplayLink chip, so it actually doesn't connect to any GPU directly.  Instead, it uses "indirect display" technology where a driver causes the CPU and GPU to render video data meant for the DisplayLink display, then compress it and send it as regular USB data traffic to the DisplayLink dock/adapter, which then decompresses it converts it to native video for output to the displays.  If you're thinking this isn't an ideal solution, especially for gaming, you're absolutely right.  Making matters even worse is that due to a Windows limitation, indirect displays can only be driven by the system's primary GPU, which will be the Intel GPU in a multi-GPU system, so the dGPU would not be able to accelerate any content on DisplayLink-attached displays.  DisplayLink is really intended for PCs that don't have any native docking or display outputs (or to add more displays to a system that's already using all available display outputs), and it usually works fine for typical business productivity use cases, but it basically falls apart for gaming and even full screen video applications.  The compression can create video artifacts, motion judder, and of course increased CPU/GPU utilization, and that gets worse whenever lots of the display area is changing at once and/or your USB bus is already saturated with other traffic, such as a large file transfer.

The WD15 and TB16 both actually connect to a GPU, but which GPU depends on how your system is wired, and I'm not sure about the AW17 R4.  In most multi-GPU systems on the market, the Intel GPU is the only one physically wired to the display outputs, and the dGPU when active works as a render-only device, passing completed video frames to the Intel GPU for output to the displays.  If you have this type of setup, then the dGPU will be able to accelerate content being output to the WD15 and TB16, with some limitations.  The limitations are that there are certain technologies that may be supported by your dGPU that only work if the dGPU is physically wired to the display outputs and therefore will NOT not work in the "Intel GPU passthrough" scenario.  These include G-Sync, 5K resolution, stereoscopic 3D, and VR.  There may be others.

The other possibility is that the dGPU is physically wired to the USB-C/TB3 port.  In that case, any displays attached to that port (or attached to a dock that itself taps into the native GPU connection on that port) will be driven directly by the dGPU, in which case you'd have no functional limitations at all.  The reason this design isn't used in most cases is because it means that the dGPU has to be running whenever a display is attached to any outputs that are physically wired to it, even if you're not running GPU-intensive tasks, and that takes a battery life penalty.  But this design IS sometimes found on gaming-oriented systems because the assumption is that gamers will care more about things like VR, G-Sync, etc. than battery life.  I just don't know if that's true of the AW17 R4.

Hopefully that helps.

In addition to all of the above, if you want to find out how the AW17 R4's ports are wired, you or another owner can run a pretty simple test.  Get a USB-C to DisplayPort or HDMI cable/adapter and connect it to an external display, then go to NVIDIA Control Panel.  Somewhere in there, it will show all of the displays on the system and indicate which GPU each of them is physically wired to.

The TB16 and WD15 will behave identically with respect to the GPU acceleration that's available.  The TB16 will support up to dual 4K 60 Hz displays and some triple display configurations, whereas the WD15 will only do dual displays up to 1080p or a single 2560x1600 display (or 4K but only at 30 Hz).

Do you mean “the same” as in that the GT1060 won’t output over Thunderbolt either?

I’m wondering what the point of the high pricing of TB3 solutions boasting multi-display 4k outputs for creative arts and high end gaming markets are, if the solution itself is ineffectual in utilising high end graphics...

Unless I’m still missing something.

I understand TB3 eGfx solutions... but not 4k output only devices...

Who spends £300 to output their state of the art laptop GFX through discrete GPU’s to miltiple displays so they can view webpages, play with 1080p movies and spreadsheet simultaneously?

I also have a 17r4 with gtx1060.  If you want to run an external monitor I think you will get the best results if you connect it to your DisplayPort.  

You can only utilize your 1060 though either your hdmi or DisplayPort.  If you try any other ports like your tb3 it will only go through your intel 630 integrated graphics.

Your tb3 and usb-c ports will work fine for other things like powered usb hubs and external storage.  Just not anything video related.

Ok. So most convenient solution for me would be HDMI plus a USB-C dock for attaching multiple high speed devices and ethernet etc?

Yes, that should work fine.  You should always use either your hdmi or DisplayPort for external monitors so they will then be directly connected to your gtx1060.  Just note that if you use hdmi most monitors are then limited to 60Hz max re-fresh rates.  Most monitors today also have a DisplayPort and this is better than hdmi anyway.  However, for your 17r4 you will need a DisplayPort to mini DisplayPort cable and/or adapter because your 17r4 has a mini DP port.

---

@SampleX wrote:

Do you mean “the same” as in that the GT1060 won’t output over Thunderbolt either?

I’m wondering what the point of the high pricing of TB3 solutions boasting multi-display 4k outputs for creative arts and high end gaming markets are, if the solution itself is ineffectual in utilising high end graphics...

Unless I’m still missing something.

I understand TB3 eGfx solutions... but not 4k output only devices...

 

Who spends £300 to output their state of the art laptop GFX through discrete GPU’s to miltiple displays so they can view webpages, play with 1080p movies and spreadsheet simultaneously?

 

---

You CAN use the dGPU with Thunderbolt and USB-C solutions as long as they don’t use a DisplayLink chip. There might be certain features that are unavailable depending on your system’s internal wiring, but dGPU acceleration will be available. If you’re still confused, reread my first reply more carefully. I already spelled all of this out there.

(And on a somewhat related note, when you ask for help on a public forum and people volunteer their time to write replies, especially detailed replies, adding at least a simple “thank you” to your own follow-up posts wouldn’t be completely out of line, rather than just asking more questions and expecting more volunteered time to provide answers.)

Unfortunately I don't think that you can use the tb3 usb-c to bypass the iGPU with a 17r4.  That's just the way it's wired.  I have tested this before with a usb-c to hdmi adapter connected to my tb3 and checking the nvidia physix tab it only shows it connected to the iGUP (intel 630), not the dGPU (1060). 

So, the only connections you can use to utilise the 1060 with a 17r4 for external monitors is to plug them into either the hdmi or mini DisplayPort (or both).  the DisplayPort should support 4k 30hz, maybe 60hz depending on resolution.

The tb3 usb-c port on the 17r4 is still very useful for other applications like fast mass storage.  No sense using it for ethernet because there is already an ethernet port on the 17r4.

If you need more graphics processing power you may want to consider using an Alienware Graphics Amplifier with a GTX1080 founders edition GPU.

Not being able to bypass the iGPU does not mean that the dGPU is completely unavailable. Again, the majority of multi-GPU laptops on the market have their display outputs wired to the iGPU, but the dGPU is still able to accelerate content on those displays by acting as a render-only device and passing completed video frames to the iGPU for final output to the display. That’s what NVIDIA Optimus does. It’s only a small handful of niche features that become unavailable in this wiring configuration. In fact, I’m 98% certain that the AW17 R4’s internal display is physically wired to the iGPU, and obviously the dGPU can still be used with that. The same would capability would be available with the USB-C/TB3 ports.

All that said, if the HDMI and DisplayPort outputs are physically wired to the dGPU, then yes if you WANT a few of those niche features like G-Sync and VR, those outputs would be better to use. But if you don’t care about those and would rather have a single cable solution, then you do NOT completely lose the dGPU by using USB-C/TB3.

Sorry, but unless you actually have a 17r4, your comments are not very useful imho.

Well, that ripped me a new one, didn’t it?

Here’s the thanks you demanded.... thank you so very very much.

I’ve never read someone use so many very self-important words to say “I don’t know the answer to your question.”

More fool me for being so **bleep** specific and asking about whether something specific was possible with a specific model of computer.

I’m now the best informed person on how something on any number of computers might or might not work and the schience behind why, but without being an engineer who designed that computer specifically, I’m no wiser.

I do very much appreciate, having asked for clarification, being told to refer back to the original tome of verbiage which concludes with “I don’t know.”

It helps keep me grounded to know how stupid I am.

May I recommend you refer to the dictionary definitions of “sanctimonious”, “verbose” and “redundant.”

Since you value your time and effort so very much I’d like to kindly suggest that reading the question and being succinct and honest about your ability, or willingness to answer it effectively would help you save a lot of it.

And on topic, you’ll be amazed how an effective and light hearted, patient treatment of a request for help which included the word “please” elicits all kinds of gratitude - but usually they’re forthcoming when the effective answer provides enlightenment. I don’t know for sure but I imagine that if you ask someone for a lift to a specific place and they take you on a twenty mile ride around the outskirts and then tell you they didn’t know the place you were trying to get and leave you in an even stranger district, thanks aren’t the first thing on your mind.

Thank you so very much. I’m overwhelmed and none the wiser.

Ok, cheers.

That helps give a clearer picture of the 17r4. It’s a kind of ironic position that the TB3 solutions boasting extended graphics are in effect hamstrung by high end graphics laptops, perfect for mid-end business and general multimedia, but all sell at what I would class as high-end accessory pricing.

Certainly the way they’re advertised doesn’t promote the notion that your £2000 laptop might actually be the inherent fatal bottleneck in your plan for the ideal one-cable convenient solution to dekstopizing the laptop.

it certainly threw me, and I’m glad to have had a clear definitive recalibration of my expectations with this rig. Especially before spending spondoolix.

More than anything the convenience of one-port “docking” to a desktop environment was appealing - it seemed....tidy. I don’t know if it’s just an OCD thing but the idea of plugging in and out 4 or 5 cables per day irritates me - wearing ports out, plus having previously ended up with a toasted ethernet port on a lappy... One cable loks tidy, but the hope begins to fade when it becomes apparent that power is insufficient over TB3. Then graphics requires the use of the MDP or HDMI, plus the TB3 for USB and bulk storage... 3 cables and the price of a dock doesn’t seem like money so well spent for the 17r4. Maybe if it were an XPS15... and I have a TB2 dock for a MacBookPro...

You learn something every day.

Cheers, Boss!

---

@SampleX wrote:

Well, that ripped me a new one, didn’t it?

Here’s the thanks you demanded.... thank you so very very much.

I’ve never read someone use so many very self-important words to say “I don’t know the answer to your question.”

More fool me for being so **bleep** specific and asking about whether something specific was possible with a specific model of computer.

I’m now the best informed person on how something on any number of computers might or might not work and the schience behind why, but without being an engineer who designed that computer specifically, I’m no wiser.

I do very much appreciate, having asked for clarification, being told to refer back to the original tome of verbiage which concludes with “I don’t know.”

It helps keep me grounded to know how stupid I am.

May I recommend you refer to the dictionary definitions of “sanctimonious”, “verbose” and “redundant.”

Since you value your time and effort so very much I’d like to kindly suggest that reading the question and being succinct and honest about your ability, or willingness to answer it effectively would help you save a lot of it.

And on topic, you’ll be amazed how an effective and light hearted, patient treatment of a request for help which included the word “please” elicits all kinds of gratitude - but usually they’re forthcoming when the effective answer provides enlightenment. I don’t know for sure but I imagine that if you ask someone for a lift to a specific place and they take you on a twenty mile ride around the outskirts and then tell you they didn’t know the place you were trying to get and leave you in an even stranger district, thanks aren’t the first thing on your mind.

Thank you so very much. I’m overwhelmed and none the wiser.

 

 

 

---

Wow.... So let’s see here. I explained to you that the D6000 and the WD15/TB16 docks you asked about differ in an important way that affects whether the dGPU can be used no matter what system you use them with. I then confirmed for you that if you used the latter two dock options, you would at the very least have dGPU acceleration, and simply MIGHT not have certain niche features like G-Sync, 5K, VR, etc. I further clarified that even if a display is physically wired to the integrated GPU, that does NOT mean that the displays can’t be used for gaming or rendering, because Optimus allows dGPUs to act as render-only devices even for those displays. It didn’t sound like you knew any of that beforehand, judging by your original post. And given that most people don’t care about the aforementioned niche features and instead just want to make sure the dGPU can be used for rendering, for most people’s purposes my answer would have contained all information necessary for making an informed dock purchasing decision. And yet you claim to be none the wiser. How nice. That could only be the case if you were specifically and solely interested in those niche features, since that was the only element I was unsure about.

But if you DON’T care about those specific capabilities, then even IF the USB-C/TB3 port on that system is wired to the integrated GPU, having a display connected through a TB16 would be functionally equivalent to connecting to the built-in mDP port. That can hardly be described as hamstrung and only useful for mid-end business and general multimedia. It simply means that this design isn’t ideal for a small subset of gamers that use those specific features.