DVI, is it worth it?

[Paul Robinson]

Hi,
just got a new graphics card that has 512Mb of DDR3 mem and a DVI
connection as well as VGA.

My Sony LCD screen only has VGA but for 12 quid I can get a convertor.

Is it worth it?
Is DVI that much better, any advice gratefully received

Paul

 

[Leythos]

Hi,
just got a new graphics card that has 512Mb of DDR3 mem and a DVI
connection as well as VGA.

My Sony LCD screen only has VGA but for 12 quid I can get a convertor.

Is it worth it?
Is DVI that much better, any advice gratefully received

If the DVI was built into the unit, you would see a big difference,
using a converter to take DVI>VGA is not worth anything.

I've got computers with both SXGA and DVI outputs, I also have monitors
that support native DVI and SXGA input, it's night and day different in
terms of quality of image when you look at the same output through the
different connectors.

Get a DVI monitor and you'll see the difference.

 

[Paul Robinson]

If the DVI was built into the unit, you would see a big difference,
using a converter to take DVI>VGA is not worth anything.

I've got computers with both SXGA and DVI outputs, I also have monitors
that support native DVI and SXGA input, it's night and day different in
terms of quality of image when you look at the same output through the
different connectors.

Get a DVI monitor and you'll see the difference.

Cheers Leythos. I will

 

[Bob Knowlden]

The "12 quid "converter uses an analog signal that is already present on the
DVI connector. I doubt that its performance would be any better than the
signal on the regular VGA port. Don't bother with the adapter, unless you
want to run two analog monitors (which your graphics card would probably
permit). If you really want to add a second monitor, though, make it
digital.

I have never compared DVI to analog on the same monitor. I just bought a
Samsung 204B, and so far (two days!) I've only used the DVI cable. My Dell
desktop machine at work has a 17" monitor with both analog and DVI inputs,
but the PC that drives it is analog only (onboard video). Both displays look
good to me. The text on both is more readable than it was on my previous
home monitor, a Sony HMD-440 19" CRT, even though the pixel sizes are
slightly smaller on the LCDs. (I used the CRT at a custom resolution of
1368X1026, which gave a 4:3 aspect ratio and a pixel size of approx. 0.27
mm.)

I doubt that you're giving up much with an analog LCD.

Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

 

[Guest]

I have DVI and VGA on identical monitors side by side. They look identical. I
am very picky about graphics and I couldn't tell them apart if my life
depended on it. However... the DVI cables are 35' long and the VGA 6'. If you
are running big groups of cable across the room, then dvi is the way to go.
Even if you have tripple shielded VGA cables that close together and that
long, you will start to see some messyness on the screens. I used 25' VGA
cables to run 21" crt monitors at 1920x1440 and I could just start to see the
quality decline. When I moved up to a quad lcd display, I went with DVI.

DVI will just cost you slightly more, for both the cables and monitors. So I
guess it all depends on your application.

Ryan

 

[Leythos]

I have DVI and VGA on identical monitors side by side. They look identical. I
am very picky about graphics and I couldn't tell them apart if my life
depended on it. However... the DVI cables are 35' long and the VGA 6'.

I've got a facility full of computers that have DVI/VGA graphics cards
and half of the monitors have dual DVI/VGA connectors, the others are
just VGA.

When I move a compter from location to location, and move one that was
on a VGA only monitor to one that has DVI, I notice the difference in
quality of text on the screens, it's a BIG difference to me and most of
the users. Once I swap it to a DVI cable they see a very clear image,
where the VGA cable provided what they thought was a good image, when
you show them the DVI image on the same monitor, it's amazing.

 

[Guest]

you swaping the monitor, cables or both? You shouldn't notice a difference on
a good quality monitor (when set up properly) at resolutions 1280x1024 and
below, expecially on vista.

I have the viewsonic vp171 series and even under a magnifing glass the text
looks identical (same number of pixels darkened in the same spot) in VGA v.
DVI

Never underestimate the power of analog. It can't however offer 2 signals
though one cable dual link DVI (although only the very highest end video
cards can output this) but it does can do an excellent job at even high def
signals at long distances...

Quote from ecoustics.com
"Isn't Digital Just Better?

It is often supposed by writers on this subject that "digital is better."
Digital signal transfer, it is assumed, is error-free, while analog signals
are always subject to some amount of degradation and information loss. There
is an element of truth to this argument, but it tends to fly in the face of
real-world considerations. First, there is no reason why any perceptible
degradation of an analog component video signal should occur even over rather
substantial distances; the maximum runs in home theater installations do not
present a challenge for analog cabling built to professional standards.
Second, it is a flawed assumption to suppose that digital signal handling is
always error-free. DVI and HDMI signals aren't subject to error correction;
once information is lost, it's lost for good. That is not a consideration
with well-made cable over short distances, but can easily become a factor at
distance."

At 12m or so the DVI signal is lost and you get nothing. At 10 Meters a good
DVI cable will give you 100% signal. The reason why VGA has a tendency to
fail, is that all 15 wires in the cable are not the same length.
bettercables.com ensures that cables they make at any length are as close to
perfect as possible. So a VGA cable of over 12m may be possible, but not for
DVI. At short distances, VGA and DVI are almost identical.

I am not suggesting that we all go out and buy 100$ cables from bettercables
but i am saying once again the it depends on a lot of factors.

 

[Leythos]

you swaping the monitor, cables or both? You shouldn't notice a difference on
a good quality monitor (when set up properly) at resolutions 1280x1024 and
below, expecially on vista.

Single monitor, DVI + VGA connectors, single computer with DVI and VGA
outputs, set to highest native resolution that monitor supports - DVI
images/text looks cleaner than VGA images.

Single Monitor, DVI + VGA Connectors, two computers, one used DVI output
to Monitor, other used VGA output to Monitor, same resolution, vastly
different quality of images (yes, the cards are different, but they are
in the same class).

Now, at 640x480, it won't make any difference, although I can still see
the difference.

I've seen this same quality issue with AOC, Viewsonic and several other
vendors LCD panels, DVI seems to always present a clearer image than the
same monitor on VGA.

 

[Guest]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdgadz/116534089/

That is the best image comparison I could make. It almost looks as though
the VGA is clearer, the pixels show the LCD grid....but then it could also be
the fault of my camera.

 

[Leythos]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdgadz/116534089/

That is the best image comparison I could make. It almost looks as though
the VGA is clearer, the pixels show the LCD grid....but then it could also be
the fault of my camera.

I don't dispute your findings for your eyes, but, for a bunch of users
in several facilities, we see that DVI provides a better visual image
for everyone that compares the two modes.

 

[Guest]

so maybe DVI wins overall because it comes up clearer in most cases, just
based purely on the fact that it is digital. Kind of like the digital v.
analog audio dispute. Analog audio can be as good if not better but in most
cases users will say that digital sounds better.

shrug?

 

[Leythos]

so maybe DVI wins overall because it comes up clearer in most cases, just
based purely on the fact that it is digital. Kind of like the digital v.
analog audio dispute. Analog audio can be as good if not better but in most
cases users will say that digital sounds better.

How about this - "to each his own opinion"?