Product comparison · 2 usb graphics adapters

Lindy USB Type C to Triple Display Converter vs Microconnect USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black

Add a product
  • 8specifications compared
  • 8differ
  • 0identical
  • 19known for one product only

Key differences

The Microconnect USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black has 114 mm more width than the Lindy USB Type C to Triple Display Converter (159 mm vs 45 mm). The Microconnect USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black has 106.8 mm more depth than the Lindy USB Type C to Triple Display Converter (121 mm vs 14.2 mm). The Lindy USB Type C to Triple Display Converter has 76 mm more height than the Microconnect USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black (85 mm vs 9 mm). Product colour: Grey on the Lindy USB Type C to Triple Display Converter, Black on the Microconnect USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black.

  • Product colour
    • USB Type C to Triple Display Converter:Grey
    • USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black:Black
  • Width
    • USB Type C to Triple Display Converter:45 mm
    • USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black:159 mm
  • Depth
    • USB Type C to Triple Display Converter:14.2 mm
    • USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black:121 mm
  • Height
    • USB Type C to Triple Display Converter:85 mm
    • USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black:9 mm
  • Weight
    • USB Type C to Triple Display Converter:68 g
    • USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black:8 g
  • Package width
    • USB Type C to Triple Display Converter:174 mm
    • USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black:159 mm
  • Package depth
    • USB Type C to Triple Display Converter:194 mm
    • USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black:121 mm
  • Package weight
    • USB Type C to Triple Display Converter:80 g
    • USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC USB graphics adapter Black:10 g

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (off)
Comparison of 43297, USB3.1CCMF-MAGNETIC
27 specifications
Performanceidentical
HDMI versionKnown for one1.4Unknown — not stated by the source
HDCPKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
HDCP versionKnown for one1.4/2.2Unknown — not stated by the source
Maximum resolutionKnown for one3840 x 2160 pixelsUnknown — not stated by the source
Supported graphics resolutionsKnown for one1920 x 1080 (HD 1080), 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA), 3840 x 2160Unknown — not stated by the source
ChipsetKnown for oneVL100, IT6562FN, PS8222BUnknown — not stated by the source
CertificationKnown for oneCE, FCC, RoHS & REACH, California Proposition 65Unknown — not stated by the source
Design1 differ
Product colourDiffersGreyBlack
Weight & dimensions4 differ
WidthDiffers45 mm159 mm
DepthDiffers14.2 mm121 mm
HeightDiffers85 mm9 mm
WeightDiffers68 g8 g
Operational conditionsidentical
Operating temperature (T-T)Known for one0 - 45 °CUnknown — not stated by the source
Storage temperature (T-T)Known for one-10 - 70 °CUnknown — not stated by the source
Operating relative humidity (H-H)Known for one10 - 85%Unknown — not stated by the source
Packaging data3 differ
Package typeKnown for onePolybagUnknown — not stated by the source
Package widthDiffers174 mm159 mm
Package depthDiffers194 mm121 mm
Package weightDiffers80 g10 g
Package heightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source9 mm
Packaging contentidentical
Quantity per packKnown for one1 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source
ManualKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Technical detailsidentical
Compliance certificatesKnown for oneRoHSUnknown — not stated by the source
Cable lengthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source0 m
Connector 1 form factorKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceAngled
Connector 1 genderKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceMale
Connector 2 form factorKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceStraight

A dash means the value is not stated by the source. Unknown values are never counted for or against a product, and there is no overall score.

More usb graphics adapter comparisons

All usb graphics adapter comparisons