Benefits of DVI?

**Mousey** · Mar 20, 2007, 05:30 PM

i'm looking at maybe getting a monitor with DVI compatibility since i've heard the image is sharper and refreshes quicker?
for £84.99 anybody that knows their british currency knows that this monitor would be a bargain, but if i swap my monitor with my mate's i'll buy a DVI cable and use that...
i was just wondering

Judas · Mar 20, 2007, 05:46 PM

pay close attention,

I've seen some monitors that while having a DVI connection, are not TRUE Digital monitors (?)... makes them cheaper to build without having all the dvi decoders and converters and such.

DVI does have it's obvious advantages, considering how you'll NEED a compliant DHCP Video card and Monitor to run/play HD-DVD's, and the only way to do that is with a DVI connection (or HDMI)

Geminiwave · Mar 20, 2007, 05:47 PM

im not sure what you're asking.

are you asking if DVI is better?

yes its better.

If all connections on the monitor were equal it wouldn't be so bad because VGA really doesnt pose a problem unless the cord is very long or poorly shielded...but most monitors run digitally natively so basically you have a signal being taken from digital to analog, run along the VGA cable, and then converted from analog to digital again. Thats where the VGA solution really becomes a problem. VGA is still quite good...it just doesn't fly so well when the monitor runs natively digital.

in short. Use DVI where possible.

Judas · Mar 20, 2007, 05:53 PM

Multiple conversions aren't good, ever, i'll agree, but there is no point in buying a monitor that may have a DVI plug on it if it's not able to take true advantage of it.

And a monitor for the price mentioned, i can't see it really having any quality difference. Hell, i'd never buy a monitor that cheap, it's just usually not a good idea. (maybe a CRT today, but not an LCD).

Remember, the screen you stare at all day should be something that you can use and work with for years apon years before having to replace down the road. It's worth it to try and spend as much on it within reason, as possible. Get something good, like a Dell 2007WFP (or similare high quality lcd monitor)....

ChaosMinionX · Mar 20, 2007, 06:24 PM

DVI is faster and cleaner looking than a VGA connection because with the VGA its transmitted as an analog signal and has to get converted to digital and there can be quality loss and takes a lil extra time to convert.

DVI is a digital signal that gets transmitted digitally so theres no conversion or quality loss since its already a digital signal thats easily read by the video card.

~~DudeBoyz~~ · Mar 20, 2007, 06:24 PM

My ATI X800 XT card and XT Pro card both had one native VGA and one native DVI port on them.

When I ran in Analog with either of those cards via the VGA port, both LCD's I have looked pretty good at their native 1600x1200@60hz. Part of that is because both of those cards have Analog Filters on them to greatly increase signal quality to analog devices.

When I got my new X1950 Pro AGP, it came with 2 DVI ports - no native VGA ports. Since there is no analog VGA port, the card lacks any kind of filter for analog signals. So, if I plugged that card into my LCD's, the VGA signal was not that clean by comparison.

The Samsung's built in Analog Circuitry seemed to do a very good job of making that analog signal look very good at 1600x1200@60hz. However, my Viewsonic seems to have really crappy analog circuitry and as a result, the analog image out of that card looked like junk by comparison. Problems are obvious, especially in the center of the LCD.

Both the Viewsonic and Samsung came with 2 cables - one for VGA analog and one for DVI. With the Samsung, it worked fine in either mode. But with Viewsonic I had to use the DVI-D cable to get a non-compromised image.

The Viewsonic VP2030b looks FANTASTIC with the supplied DVI-D cable. 1600x1200@60hz is breathtakingly clear. If I were to get another LCD today for my personal use, it would be another VP2030b from Viewsonic. As good as the Samsung 204b is, especially in terms of value, if I can get a Viewsonic VP2030b with a DVI-D connection, it has just enough extra visual clarity to be my choice.

The color on the Viewsonic is not as rich as the Samsung, but the anti-glare filter is less intense, so even if the colors are sort of bland, the picture itself actually appears to be a little smoother.

With a DVI-D setup, you do not have to do ANY Digital to Analog conversion. The signal is not filtered but it also should not have much if any noise to impact image quality.

For me, one one of my two LCD's, it made a HUGE difference. On the other, not so much.

I think it's better to be safe than sorry and go NATIVE DVI-D if you can.

Here's a link to a page that talks about the different types of DVI connections:

http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/DVI_info.html

I believe DVI-D is going to be the most "pure" of all of them. When my Viewsonic first registers the video signal, it shows a graphic that lists what mode it is in. Mine comes up as:

DVI-D
1600 x 1200 / 60hz

That makes it easy to know I'm in Digital Only mode.

H3X4D3C1M4L · Mar 26, 2007, 07:17 AM

The answer isn't black and white to be certain... though from experience I can say that it depends on your card's implementation for the DVI signal encoder and the monitor.

My CRT showed far less interference and noise when I plugged it in with a DVI-I connector than with a DB-15. That said with the same monitor but different card the result was the opposite.

Its all about experimentation but in theory no one is better than the other for EVERY circumstance.

Mar 20, 2007, 05:30 PM	#1
Mousey Synth's Long Lost Bro Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Web Design Hell Posts: 7,189 Rep Power: 245 System Specs	Benefits of DVI? i'm looking at maybe getting a monitor with DVI compatibility since i've heard the image is sharper and refreshes quicker? for £84.99 anybody that knows their british currency knows that this monitor would be a bargain, but if i swap my monitor with my mate's i'll buy a DVI cable and use that... i was just wondering __________________

Mar 20, 2007, 05:47 PM	#3
Geminiwave I Have lovely Breasts Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: In the closet... Posts: 5,395 Rep Power: 64	im not sure what you're asking. are you asking if DVI is better? yes its better. If all connections on the monitor were equal it wouldn't be so bad because VGA really doesnt pose a problem unless the cord is very long or poorly shielded...but most monitors run digitally natively so basically you have a signal being taken from digital to analog, run along the VGA cable, and then converted from analog to digital again. Thats where the VGA solution really becomes a problem. VGA is still quite good...it just doesn't fly so well when the monitor runs natively digital. in short. Use DVI where possible. __________________

Mar 20, 2007, 06:24 PM	#5
ChaosMinionX USB 3 dot oh Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,911 Rep Power: 47 System Specs	DVI is faster and cleaner looking than a VGA connection because with the VGA its transmitted as an analog signal and has to get converted to digital and there can be quality loss and takes a lil extra time to convert. DVI is a digital signal that gets transmitted digitally so theres no conversion or quality loss since its already a digital signal thats easily read by the video card. __________________ ::Heatware:: How you can help DriverHeaven by using Digg!

Mar 20, 2007, 06:24 PM	#6
~~DudeBoyz~~ banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,677 Rep Power: 0	My ATI X800 XT card and XT Pro card both had one native VGA and one native DVI port on them. When I ran in Analog with either of those cards via the VGA port, both LCD's I have looked pretty good at their native 1600x1200@60hz. Part of that is because both of those cards have Analog Filters on them to greatly increase signal quality to analog devices. When I got my new X1950 Pro AGP, it came with 2 DVI ports - no native VGA ports. Since there is no analog VGA port, the card lacks any kind of filter for analog signals. So, if I plugged that card into my LCD's, the VGA signal was not that clean by comparison. The Samsung's built in Analog Circuitry seemed to do a very good job of making that analog signal look very good at 1600x1200@60hz. However, my Viewsonic seems to have really crappy analog circuitry and as a result, the analog image out of that card looked like junk by comparison. Problems are obvious, especially in the center of the LCD. Both the Viewsonic and Samsung came with 2 cables - one for VGA analog and one for DVI. With the Samsung, it worked fine in either mode. But with Viewsonic I had to use the DVI-D cable to get a non-compromised image. The Viewsonic VP2030b looks FANTASTIC with the supplied DVI-D cable. 1600x1200@60hz is breathtakingly clear. If I were to get another LCD today for my personal use, it would be another VP2030b from Viewsonic. As good as the Samsung 204b is, especially in terms of value, if I can get a Viewsonic VP2030b with a DVI-D connection, it has just enough extra visual clarity to be my choice. The color on the Viewsonic is not as rich as the Samsung, but the anti-glare filter is less intense, so even if the colors are sort of bland, the picture itself actually appears to be a little smoother. With a DVI-D setup, you do not have to do ANY Digital to Analog conversion. The signal is not filtered but it also should not have much if any noise to impact image quality. For me, one one of my two LCD's, it made a HUGE difference. On the other, not so much. I think it's better to be safe than sorry and go NATIVE DVI-D if you can. Here's a link to a page that talks about the different types of DVI connections: http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/DVI_info.html I believe DVI-D is going to be the most "pure" of all of them. When my Viewsonic first registers the video signal, it shows a graphic that lists what mode it is in. Mine comes up as: DVI-D 1600 x 1200 / 60hz That makes it easy to know I'm in Digital Only mode. Last edited by DudeBoyz; Mar 20, 2007 at 06:31 PM.

Mar 26, 2007, 07:17 AM	#7
H3X4D3C1M4L DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,794 Rep Power: 0	The answer isn't black and white to be certain... though from experience I can say that it depends on your card's implementation for the DVI signal encoder and the monitor. My CRT showed far less interference and noise when I plugged it in with a DVI-I connector than with a DB-15. That said with the same monitor but different card the result was the opposite. Its all about experimentation but in theory no one is better than the other for EVERY circumstance.