View Full Version : IS DVI Really worth it?
dicecca112
07-25-05, 07:28 PM
I here a lot of people say that you really should get an LCD with DVI, but for the average users that games a little and likes to watch TV and DVDs on his computer, is it worth it?
ajrettke
07-25-05, 07:34 PM
I've tried both side by side but on 2 different LCD's. I now run DVI on both, and to be honest I don't think I would notice unless I was searching for it. However, the question about is it worth the cost...well with 20" or larger I think almost every respectable LCD has both...and I personaly would avoid 17 and 19" LCD's like the plague cuz of the 5:4 resolution.
gram_vaz
07-25-05, 07:35 PM
on modern cards no. if you were using an older card that used lower quality ramdacs and the analog signal it was giving to the lcd was crappy you would definately get blurriness/picture noise but modern cards use high quality ramdacs so the vga signal the lcd monitor receives is solid and there is very little risk of blurriness/picture noise. just be sure to hit the auto adjust button on the monitor. if you still notice irregularites manually adjust.
I would not consider an LCD without a DVI connector, and if I had the LCD and needed a different video card to obtain DVI, I'd buy one.
I would not consider an LCD without a DVI connector, and if I had the LCD and needed a different video card to obtain DVI, I'd buy one.
how come?
It looks worlds better to me. Some people don't notice the difference, but when you've seen as many monitors as I have you know right away. DVI insures ghost-free performance with a good panel, and makes for idiot-proof color accuracy.
It looks worlds better to me. Some people don't notice the difference, but when you've seen as many monitors as I have you know right away. DVI insures ghost-free performance with a good panel, and makes for idiot-proof color accuracy.
wow so it actually prevents ghosting compared to Analog? I had no idea.
gram_vaz
07-26-05, 02:08 AM
wow so it actually prevents ghosting compared to Analog? I had no idea.no it doesn't.
OK larva, what do u mean by insures ghost-free performance from a good panel then? is ghosting a bigger problem w/ analog?
OK larva, what do u mean by insures ghost-free performance from a good panel then? is ghosting a bigger problem w/ analog?Not ghosting from the movement, but ghosting as in you see indistinct text due to there actually being more than one of them there. Analog is prone to all kinds of problems, with fuzzy images resulting in many cases. Also, the color accuracy is no better than with a CRT when you are using an analog source, were it will be perfect every time with the DVI. Color accuracy is one of the chief advantages to using a LCD, and it's not something you have to give up these days as DVI units aren't that expensive.
Notice how rarely you see a notebook whose display is not perfect. They are all DVI, and if you want IQ and color accuracy you can count on for your desktop, you need DVI just the same.
3DFlyer
07-26-05, 11:34 AM
I've noticed some of same things on my home PC with DVI. It just seems sharper and "in focus" more. I can't really put it into terms very well like others have done, but to me it just looks better. My games seem alot better than they were without it. I like it.
If it doesn't cost anymore or is only a few dollars more, I cannot see not wanting to go that route. Digital signals are always better on computers. I'd say it's definitely worth it from a price standpoint, and a quality of video output standpoint.
I went with an analog screen mostly because of price. I got a 17in TFT with analog input for about 50 pounds less than I would have usually paid.
I think it depends what your priorities are. I wanted a cheap decent screen for internet, email, IRC and games. If you want perfect colours and a clearer picture (better for the likes of desktop publishing and so forth) then DVI is possibly the way to go.
Any news on how using a DVI->VGA convertor affects image quality? ie Video Card DVI -> Converter -> Analog cable -> Monitor?
dicecca112
07-26-05, 11:51 AM
Any news on how using a DVI->VGA convertor affects image quality? ie Video Card DVI -> Converter -> Analog cable -> Monitor?
I was just thinking the same thing
covana2244
07-26-05, 12:26 PM
It will look just like the analog output of the video card.
Well, there really isn't a 'DVI' port. There are three, DVI-A (analog), DVI-D (digital), and DVI-I (integrated, both signals are present). DVI-A ports pass only the same analog signal that you would normally get out of the VGA connector. DVI-D ports pass only the digital one that you would drive an LCD with a DVI connector with. What we have on almost all video cards with 'DVI' ports are actually DVI-I ones. This means that there is also the analog signal on the DVI connector, so those DVI-VGA adaptors are not converting anything, just making the proper connections so that an analog monitor is run from the same analog signal that is coming out the VGA port (if present).
And it is only for reasons of economy that you should even consider a LCD with no DVI connection. DVI is demonstrably superior, and those that say there is no difference are deep in the throes of justifying saving that money. When it amounted to hundreds of dollars, it was a reasonable tradeoff. With DVI-I ports on PCs abundant and the DVI-equipped LCDs carrying such a minor price premium in most cases, it makes less and less sense to invest in an analog-only LCD all the time.
It will look just like the analog output of the video card.Correct, see above for the reasons.
overclock shot
07-26-05, 05:55 PM
Any idea when HDMI will be rolling out on video cards?? I'm dying to use it for my LCD HDTV, which ironically has VGA and HDMI, but no DVI.
dicecca112
07-26-05, 06:02 PM
well I took your advice (larva finally convinced me) and just ordered my new 8ms 17" LCD with DVI
gram_vaz
07-26-05, 06:05 PM
And it is only for reasons of economy that you should even consider a LCD with no DVI connection. DVI is demonstrably superior, and those that say there is no difference are deep in the throes of justifying saving that money. When it amounted to hundreds of dollars, it was a reasonable tradeoff. With DVI-I ports on PCs abundant and the DVI-equipped LCDs carrying such a minor price premium in most cases, it makes less and less sense to invest in an analog-only LCD all the time.
i've been through several lcd monitors some being the samsung 710t and 172x and used both vga and dvi on all of them. on modern cards the difference between dvi and vga is lessened for the reason i outlined in my previous threads about the quality of ramdacs used. you just have to be sure to clean out the vga signal using the monitor osd controls. there is still the risk of noticeable blurriness/picture noise on modern cards that is true but it is rare. i've had good luck in how good vga looked on my monitors. at first it would look awful with everything looking slightly blurry and picture noise but after tweaking the osd controls it was near as good as dvi.
It is possible for LCD's running off an analog signal to look decent, but as even you admit, there is a chance it won't. I don't like recommending people bet 95% of cost of a DVI-equipped LCD on a solution that might prove acceptable. You can only save a tiny bit if it works out, and lose a lot if it doesn't. And even if you save that tiny bit, you in every case give up at least a tiny bit of sharpness and the color accuracy drops markedly. For someone who has an analog LCD that proved acceptable I am happy, but even that person shouldn't recommend that others take the risk. Given the current financial parameters, it's a pure loser by the 'ole cost/benefit ratio.
dicecca112
07-26-05, 06:54 PM
well for an acer 17" 8ms LCD with DVI, it was something I couldn't pass up. My local Compusa had it so I could actually look at it, and I liked it so I went to zipzoomfly and got it for 247$ shipped.
Sounds like a killer deal to me, and when you go DVI there isn't much to go wrong. It's amazing how inexpensive quality LCDs have gotten, if I could evaluate photographs as well on one as I can my Nokia 21" CRT even I would have one soon. On my mom's 1905FP every shot looks perfect, even the ones that aren't.
dicecca112
07-26-05, 07:05 PM
yeah I'm excited right now I have a 13" LCD Analog. This thing is terrible, but hey it was 200$ at the time when I quality LCD was expensive.
gram_vaz
07-26-05, 07:35 PM
It is possible for LCD's running off an analog signal to look decent, but as even you admit, there is a chance it won't. I don't like recommending people bet 95% of cost of a DVI-equipped LCD on a solution that might prove acceptable. You can only save a tiny bit if it works out, and lose a lot if it doesn't. And even if you save that tiny bit, you in every case give up at least a tiny bit of sharpness and the color accuracy drops markedly. For someone who has an analog LCD that proved acceptable I am happy, but even that person shouldn't recommend that others take the risk. Given the current financial parameters, it's a pure loser by the 'ole cost/benefit ratio.
i still disagree that the quality has to noticeably drop with regards to color and sharpness in vga. any modern card + any decent lcd monitor brand with tweaking of the osd controls will give you quality just as good as dvi. my sister is using a vga only monitor and i've been through my fair share of monitors. only once out of all the monitors i've tried did i get image degradation in vga and it wasn't blurriness, it was picture noise, some of the colors looked like they had fuzz in them. but yea, considering that a lcd monitor with dvi is cheap nowadays there is no reason to take the risk of image degradation however rare it is with a vga only monitor.
i still disagree that the quality has to noticeably drop with regards to color and sharpness in vga. any modern card + any decent lcd monitor brand with tweaking of the osd controls will give you quality just as good as dvi. my sister is using a vga only monitor and i've been through my fair share of monitors. only once out of all the monitors i've tried did i get image degradation in vga and it wasn't blurriness, it was picture noise, some of the colors looked like they had fuzz in them. but yea, considering that a lcd monitor with dvi is cheap nowadays there is no reason to take the risk of image degradation however rare it is with a vga only monitor.It may be rare that the degradation is severe, but it is always there. It all depends on just how discerning and practiced your eye is. I can tell immediately which is which, even in cases where most would look at the analog set and declare it just as good.
gram_vaz
07-26-05, 08:00 PM
yea, i kind of thought you would fall back on how good the eyes are but i like to consider that i have hawk photoshop eyes. i can tell when there is image degradation and i have seen it happen but it is rare. maybe you just haven't seen vga on a good brand lcd monitor and haven't properly cleaned the signal with the osd monitor controls? only brands i trust when it comes to lcd monitors are samsung, nec, LG, and benq.
Heh, that's funny. First analog LCDs with IQ concerns are so rare people need not even consider it when purchasing, and now they are common enough that every single one I've seen could be affected. It can't be both.
gram_vaz
07-26-05, 10:58 PM
what? i never said they were common enough. please reread my posts. you just gotta pick your brands. for a lcd monitor you should always get from good brands, the ones i've listed i've found to be them. not just for how good vga mode is implemented but ms and contrast, viewing angle, and overall iq regardless of vga or dvi. if you get a bad lcd how well vga looks is going to be the least of your concerns with regards to overall quality of the monitor. what i'm basically saying is if your lcd monitor can't handle vga mode well it was a crappy monitor to begin with. on any decent lcd monitor the chances of noticeable image degradation in vga are very slim.
RangerXLT8
07-27-05, 01:19 AM
I just recently upgraded from VGA to DVI and I can see a significant improvement in quality. For a 100.00 Monster DVI cable it's woth it. If your like me and your on a PC for the better part of the day, I recommend going DVI, on the other-hand for just an everyday PCer, they won't notice the difference.
jediman
07-27-05, 02:46 AM
from my understanding of a digital link is that whatever information you are sending has been affected by noise very little (read: not at all). I don't get why you would pay 100 dollars for a monster cable for dvi
i would guess if there is enough noise to make any other digital cable produce an improper signal your monster would have just as much a problem with it
gram_vaz
07-27-05, 03:19 AM
yea, it's really useless to buy those high end cables for digital connections.
jediman
07-27-05, 03:49 AM
a salesperson was trying to push a digital audio cable off on my friend who in a fit of boredom spent 30 minutes trying to explain to the salesperson that it didn't matter
Mr_Fuchs
07-27-05, 04:05 AM
i just got my 20inch lcd today, and WOOOT.
I loaded it up with oldschool VGA, looked great. tried it on DVI, looked just as great.. makes no diff as far as i can tell.
Not everyone notices the difference, but the difference is there. If you want to see it every time, use a color calibration device and see how badly the extra digital-ananlog-digital conversion skews the color reproduction. Or even compare the screen image to the output of a color-accurate printer like the i-series Canons. DVI nails it every time, VGA blows it. This is one of the chief advantages to a LCD as compared to a CRT, and using an analog input gives it right back.
And while you can improve the color accuracy easily enough via the controls, to ever get the DVI level of accuracy you must calibrate the set with the (expensive) optical calibration device, just the same as a CRT.
And VGA input will degrade sharpness, but as noted, a good video card and high grade of LCD will minimize this to the point that many will simply be unaware. But look under magnification, and it's obvious. And after you know what to look for, it's hard to ignore the difference.
IT depends on the card, and the monitor itself. The card has to convert the digital info into analog, then the monitor has to convert it back to digital to be able to display it on the LCD screen. If the monitor has a bad a to d converter, or the cards vga out sucks, then you have problems.
Most cards these days have great VGA out, so I would think that you need to worry more about what the monitor can do, and running a good quality cable.
voodoomelon
07-31-05, 11:33 AM
I had the unique advantage there a few days ago of having my 2 2005fpws side by side, one connected with DVI, one with standard VGA.
There is a very noticeable difference. I thought at first one of the screens had its brightness set lower than the other one. But all the settings were exactly the same and the DVI connected screen was far crisper and brighter, with the colour reproduction a good deal more accurate.
;)
As resolution rises, the problems inherent with analog input manifest themeselves. By the time you reach 1600x1050, analog input is a total waste of time (and money).
voodoomelon
07-31-05, 10:49 PM
Definitely. If you're looking for a high resolution display with optimum quality, then DVI input is the obvious choice.
And I think you mean 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 larva...
<< Nit-picking as usual... :rolleyes:
;)
And I think you mean 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 larva...
<< Nit-picking as usual... :rolleyes:
;)If we must pic nits, whatever problems you will have at 1600x1050 will be that much worse at 1680x1050. The point was, more resolution exacerbates the problem, not exactly what the native resolution of the screen happens to be :)
voodoomelon
07-31-05, 11:11 PM
Aye, i knew what you meant, just I don't know anyone on the planet that uses 1600x1050, lol.
;)
gram_vaz
08-01-05, 02:39 AM
IT depends on the card, and the monitor itself. The card has to convert the digital info into analog, then the monitor has to convert it back to digital to be able to display it on the LCD screen. If the monitor has a bad a to d converter, or the cards vga out sucks, then you have problems.
Most cards these days have great VGA out, so I would think that you need to worry more about what the monitor can do, and running a good quality cable.
exactly. what annoys me is that certain people are adamant that there has to be image degradation. image degradation can happen but it's rare on modern cards and lcd monitors.
gram_vaz
08-01-05, 03:16 AM
wow
gram_vaz
08-01-05, 03:17 AM
ok, explain to me with physics why there always has to be image degradation. oh, and don't worry about dumbing it down. i'll understand. :)
edit - nvm, i see you deleted your post.
That facts are what they are, the laws of physics don't change just because some are capable of overlooking the consequences in the majority of cases.
gram_vaz
08-01-05, 03:17 AM
there goes your post again, lol
gram_vaz
08-01-05, 03:18 AM
That facts are what they are, the laws of physics don't change just because some are capable of overlooking the consequences in the majority of cases.
ok, explain to me with physics why there always has to be image degradation. oh, and don't worry about dumbing it down. i'll understand. :)
oh, and please don't just say because there is a conversion process the signal has to go through. conversion doesn't necessarily mean noticeable degradation. i'm after a hardcore explanation here then i'll believe it.
ok, explain to me with physics why there always has to be image degradation. oh, and don't worry about dumbing it down. i'll understand. :)
edit - nvm, i see you deleted your post.I guess you think there is a free lunch in the electrical and physical world. Analog to digital conversion, and digital to analog conversion, are imperfect processes. Even done as well as technology allows, there is loss and distortion that is inherent in the process. You can't take a digital signal, convert it to an analog one, and back to digital, without disturbing its integrity. Efficiency is less than 100% no matter what you do, and this is doing something. And by the time you get to resolutions like 1600x1050, the consequences are entirely visable to all but the least discerning of viewers.
gram_vaz
08-01-05, 03:24 AM
hmm, not quite the explanation i was after. so all you can come up with is because there is a conversion process? conversion doesn't necessarily mean noticeable degradation of the signal.
hmm, not quite the explanation i was after. so all you can come up with is because there is a conversion process? conversion doesn't necessarily mean noticeable degradation of the signal.The point is, conversion means degregation of the signal. Noticeable is a subjective term. Some people just don't see much when they look. 15 years ago, I didn't see much when I looked. You might consider your own personal learning curve, and that it might be as big a factor in your appraisal as whether or not the degragation exists or should be considered by those looking to purchase an LCD monitor.
gram_vaz
08-01-05, 03:33 AM
still waiting for the physics explanation...
there are many processes of conversion that go on in the pc. your fsb is multi-pumped from a core clock. agp bus is an extension of pci. the various interfaces of your pc. does this mean your data is degraded?
believe me, i'm no chump when it comes to eyesight. there is no image degradation on most of the lcd monitors i've tried in d-sub. quit being so close minded.
Let me remind you of the point of this thread:
I here a lot of people say that you really should get an LCD with DVI, but for the average users that games a little and likes to watch TV and DVDs on his computer, is it worth it?I will quote the PM I received from this user after his LCD purchase, I hope he does not mind. I'm sure he didn't post it in this thread to avoid a round of senseless bickering from those that are, as you so aptly put it, closed-minded.
A Thank You
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just hooked up my LCD after you convinced me to get DVI and I can tell you that I am amazed at what I was missing, thank you so much for convincing meI'm not really concerned with your opinion of me, opinions don't mean much. What I am concerned is that the users of this board get quality advice, as judged by whether they benefit if they follow it, or not. I'm not here to debate, only to help. We understand your opinion on the subject, find some way to deal with the fact that mine is different. In this case my opinion got the user where he wanted to go, and even though he would have been not been aware of what he was missing if he was not discerning, would not had I not given it. Bicker as long as you want, this thread was successful in its ultimate purpose in spite of it.
gram_vaz
08-01-05, 03:53 AM
many times with computers it's more like people 'think' they can tell the difference just like people think they can tell the difference from a 100mhz cpu oc or a 20mhz gpu oc. i even once saw a person that thought a 3ghz p4 was way faster than a athlon xp 3000+...
btw, if you stop trying to be so elitist you'll realize it takes two to bicker. ;)
buttonmash
08-01-05, 05:45 AM
Back the question at hand...
In my experience, DVI offers a much crisper picture. I was using the standard DVi cables with dual nodes that usually come with most LCDs. I then switched to MonsterCable DVi-400 cables and noticed an even bigger difference.
Ghosting/bleeding seemed more prevalent with VGA vs. DVi. The cables are a must have if you want to minimize signal loss.
gram_vaz
08-01-05, 06:10 AM
^ higher quality cables make squat difference for digital signals. there is no difference between the stock 10dollar dvi cables included with the lcd monitor and the 100dollar dvi cables you can buy. if it were analog and thus susceptible to interference then it would matter. everyone see where the you 'think' you can tell the difference comes in?
i'll shut up now though. i realize this forum isn't for me when it comes to things like this. i'll just go to other forums when i want to discuss lcd monitor tech and the like.
voodoomelon
08-01-05, 10:10 AM
gram_vaz, what you were asking was a high end physics-related LCD question, an answer to which would be far more reachable on an LCD forum or even through Google.
I wouldn't expect to find such a complex answer on a forum like this, it's a highly specialised question. So maybe you should go to a different forum to find your answer, instead of argueing with larva who provided a solution to the person that started the thread in the first place.
Having said that, you provided me with info about analogue connections I didn't know, so it's all good.
:)
VGA doesn't necessarily mean inferior quality. Here's a VGA only panel that has top notch quality, especially the color reproduction: http://www.behardware.com/articles/572/page3.html
The color reproduction is actually better than most of the DVI panels included in the round-up.
Scott9027
08-01-05, 11:21 PM
In my personal experience VGA is just as good as DVI. However, I have heard that people who demand alot from their monitors appreciate DVI, so I don't think you will be dissapointed.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.