# DVI vs HDMI?



## imperialreign (Sep 7, 2009)

I was curious about a couple of things, after debating the benefits of both display standards with a buddy the other day . . .

How exactly do the two display standards measure up to each other, especially in regards to PC monitors (not so much large-display TVs)?


Now, I know HDMI is pretty much a necessity for displays larger than 1920x1200, but, in regards to PC monitors, the vast majority of our display cards don't support a native HDMI output . . . instead, one must use a DVI=>HDMI adapter - which, I was always under the impression such adapters added a small amount of latency to the actual display, which could result in poor display performance with fast-paced subject matter (i.e. games).

As well, I was also under the understanding that such adapters don't allow for the full bandwidth of the display type . . . that is, the HDMI output bandwidth through a DVI=>HDMI adapter would only be the max that the native DVI output is capable of?


I know for sure, though, that DVI can not support an audio pass-through, where HDMI can (although, in defense of DVI, even though HDMI can support up to 8-channel pass-through, nearly 95% of all products on the market that support HDMI connectivity only support 2-channel I/O, necessitating a seperate audio connection for multi-channel support) . . . as well, DVI is not capable of supporting HDCP content (although, if one is using their rig primarily for games, such might not be much of a concern) . . . but are such drawbacks truly a hinderance of DVI for standard PC setups?

So, I guess my real question is . . . which standard _should_ be the preferred method of display connection with a "jack of all trades" PC?


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 7, 2009)

HDMI, It's slim, easier to plug in, it's the way of the future.
The DVI cable is hard and thick, which make it quite easy to fall off if you don't tighten the screws.
Since I only have 1 monitor in my room, im usually switch it between my PS3 and my PC, HDMI cables make it so much easier.


----------



## AsRock (Sep 7, 2009)

Used both types and noticed 0 difference but my v cards have always been DVI out though.  Maybe later they will put 3+ HDMI outputs on a single  v card later .


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Sep 7, 2009)

AsRock said:


> Used both types and noticed 0 difference



I agree. I've switched between both, and don't notice a difference. If you have the ability to use HDMI, the use it.
I'm using DVI though, only because I think my card doesn't like the port converter. My picture can become a redish hue 
when running HDMI :shadedshu Which is why I'm using DVI lol


----------



## BroBQ (Sep 7, 2009)

DVI is prett much the same as HDMI the only real differnce is that DVI doesnt carry the audio signal like the HDMI does. ... the connection is different, of course...

You wont see any difference between the 2


----------



## Tau (Sep 7, 2009)

Morrison5891 said:


> DVI is prett much the same as HDMI the only real differnce is that DVI doesnt carry the audio signal like the HDMI does. ... the connection is different, of course...
> 
> You wont see any difference between the 2




DVI and HDMI are both carriers of digital signal.  the ONLY diffrence being that HDMI will also carry digital audio with it.

There is no real world limit to the resolution each can carry either....  atleast not now anyways.

Personally i hate HDMI, what it does, and what it stands for.  but thats marketing for you.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 7, 2009)

DVI is a digital signal with backwards compatibility for VGA.

HDMI is based on DVI and in fact *100% compatible* - they just stripped the VGA compatibility and put audio in its place.
_There is no difference at all between HDMI and DVI as far as video signals are concerned. no quality changes, no resolution changes, NOTHING._

All ATI video cards since the 2K series support 5.1 audio (even the onboard cards) and the 3K series and up support 7.1 - thats built in.

Nvidia cards need an SPDIF cable for input, so they can do upto 7.1 but it all depends on the sound card you use.

Personally i like HDMI. I dont give a damn about sony and its constantly changing specs, but the cable is thinner, longer, lighter and cheaper than DVI - and it doesnt require annoying screws to hold it in place. with my ATI cards, i have DVI, VGA, and HDMI with audio from the one port with the adaptors that came with the card.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Sep 7, 2009)

I use vga on my HTPC.  For some reason both DVI and HDMI make the desktop look terrible and hard to read.

But in essence they are both exactly the same signal.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 7, 2009)

DrunkenMafia said:


> I use vga on my HTPC.  For some reason both DVI and HDMI make the desktop look terrible and hard to read.
> 
> But in essence they are both exactly the same signal.



some samsung screens have a "game mode" in the HDMI options which makes things look nasty. mine had it on by default (2494HS). should be fine over DVI, unless of course its default to the wrong res/"movie mode" etc


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 7, 2009)

Tau said:


> DVI and HDMI are both carriers of digital signal.  the ONLY diffrence being that HDMI will also carry digital audio with it.
> 
> There is no real world limit to the resolution each can carry either....  atleast not now anyways.
> 
> Personally i hate HDMI, what it does, and what it stands for.  but thats marketing for you.



Actually there are some current limitations on resolutions I beleive, 25xx is the max as I understand it (certainly for DVi), refresh rates between DVi and HDMI differ as well of course (DVi @ 60hz, HDMI at 75hz but I think you can do something about that on HDMI) but I agree, visually there is no difference (to my old eyes anyways), my monitor has only DSub or HDMI input, fortunatly my Vid card has HDMI output so obviously I go for that.


----------



## z1tu (Sep 7, 2009)

Mussels said:


> some samsung screens have a "game mode" in the HDMI options which makes things look nasty. mine had it on by default (2494HS). should be fine over DVI, unless of course its default to the wrong res/"movie mode" etc



I have a P2270HD and have lots of options in it that I can't access and I think it's because I'm using DVI, I also have that "game mode" option but can't access it... I was wondering if the HDMI adapter was the same thing as having an actual HDMI cable


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 7, 2009)

DrunkenMafia said:


> I use vga on my HTPC.  For some reason both DVI and HDMI make the desktop look terrible and hard to read.
> 
> But in essence they are both exactly the same signal.




Into a HDTV rather then a monitor?

I found the same actually, I found putting the sharpness up on the tv helped.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 7, 2009)

DVI dual-link (7.92 Gbit/s) is faster than HDMI 1.2a and older (3.96 Gbit/s).  At HDMI 1.3, DVI dual-link supports the same resolution (2560×1600) as HDMI but DVI can't handle as high of a resfresh rate (75Hz compared to 60Hz).  HDMI 1.4 supports 4096x2160 at 24 Hz.

Most DVI devices do support HDCP but HDCP is a bad thing so you don't want support for that anyway.

VGA -> DVI -> HDMI -> DisplayPort
VGA is included in DVI, DVI is the basis for HDMI, and DisplayPort has HDMI at its core.

DVI and DisplayPort are royalty free--HDMI is not.  Like HDMI, DisplayPort includes 128-bit AES encryption of the signal.  In effect, both suck and I stick to DVI with non-HDCP devices or VGA.


Jack of all trades PC?  VGA.  Splitters, switches, etc. won't cost you a $1000 smacks on VGA but they will on DVI and HDMI.  Pretty much every monitor works fine with quality VGA cables.  You also won't run the risk of HDCP hatin' you.


----------



## mudkip (Sep 7, 2009)

HDMI = DVI+ Audio


----------



## mudkip (Sep 7, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Most DVI devices do support HDCP but HDCP is a bad thing so you don't want support for that anyway.
> 
> .


 wtf is this bullshit?
HDCP is just copy protection, most used for blu-ray.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 7, 2009)

HDCP guarentees only one display per image (disk or graphics card).  It does not benefit the consumer at all (actually wastes electricity spent on encrypting/decrypting the signal); it only benefits (hardly) Hollywood--the result of extensive lobbying.  It completely ignores fair use laws and is a PITA to everyone that doesn't profit from it.  HDCP is also not free requiring a license.

HDCP applies to the data of an interface, not data on the medium.  Inheriently, BD-DVDs do not have HDCP but BD-DVD players may be HDCP compliant.


For the most part, HDCP has not caught on (yay!).


----------



## Mussels (Sep 7, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> HDCP guarentees only one display per image (disk or graphics card).  It does not benefit the consumer at all (actually wastes electricity spent on encrypting/decrypting the signal); it only benefits (hardly) Hollywood--the result of extensive lobbying.  It completely ignores fair use laws and is a PITA to everyone that doesn't profit from it.  HDCP is also not free requiring a license.
> 
> HDCP applies to the data of an interface, not data on the medium.  Inheriently, BD-DVDs do not have HDCP but BD-DVD players may be HDCP compliant.
> 
> ...



it has indeed caught on, you cant watch blu ray without it - unless you use dubiously legal software.

HDCP is copy protection and nothing more. macrovision, anyone? its not like its a new idea behind it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 7, 2009)

imperialreign said:


> Now, I know HDMI is pretty much a necessity for displays larger than 1920x1200, but, in regards to PC monitors, the vast majority of our display cards don't support a native HDMI output . . . instead, one must use a DVI=>HDMI adapter - which, I was always under the impression such adapters added a small amount of latency to the actual display, which could result in poor display performance with fast-paced subject matter (i.e. games).



Since DVI and HDMI are both the same display standard, just in a difference interface type.  The adaptors do no conversion, and hance add no latency.

Also, HDMI is not needed for larger than 1920x1200, both will do up to 2560 × 1600 @ 60Hz.



imperialreign said:


> As well, I was also under the understanding that such adapters don't allow for the full bandwidth of the display type . . . that is, the HDMI output bandwidth through a DVI=>HDMI adapter would only be the max that the native DVI output is capable of?



Both pretty much have pretty much the same bandwidth, so this isn't true at all.  The adaptors do not limit the resolution/bandwidth.




imperialreign said:


> I know for sure, though, that DVI can not support an audio pass-through, where HDMI can (although, in defense of DVI, even though HDMI can support up to 8-channel pass-through, nearly 95% of all products on the market that support HDMI connectivity only support 2-channel I/O, necessitating a seperate audio connection for multi-channel support) . . . as well, DVI is not capable of supporting HDCP content (although, if one is using their rig primarily for games, such might not be much of a concern) . . . but are such drawbacks truly a hinderance of DVI for standard PC setups?



DVI is definitely capable of HDCP content.

And audo pass through of 7.1 is definitely common today.



imperialreign said:


> So, I guess my real question is . . . which standard _should_ be the preferred method of display connection with a "jack of all trades" PC?



I think the way it is done today is generally best.  DVI being standard, with the option for HDMI through and adaptor with Audio.


----------



## Jeffredo (Sep 7, 2009)

Have a female DVI to male HDMI cable (monitor has only VGA and HDMI - no DVI).  It looks perfect - as it should since both are digital.


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 7, 2009)

only reason I dislike HDMI ATM is compatibility....


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 7, 2009)

HDMI was developed to bring stricter enforcement of HDCP compliance.  Along with it came the ability to transmit both Audio and Video signals.  If your only use for HDMI is for LCD monitor which doesn't offer speaker support HDMI offers no real tangible benefit.  

In it's simplest form, HDMI allows one to hook up your HDTV to the receiver which is then hooked up to your DVD player.  Or you can hook up your HDTV to your DVD player with just one cable.  All without having separate audio and video cables (for example).  

HDMI for the PC user offers no tangible benefit (that a user can actually use) that cannot be obtain through traditional DVI setups.  Which is why there is no mass acceptance of it from DVI as DVI was to VGA.  Sure you can buy it because it's "something new" but that's all you will ever get out of it "something new".  IE: different plug type, new look, etc...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 7, 2009)

It should be mentioned that most DVI cables not packaged (ehm, not cheap freebies) with something are huge in diameter and rather rigid.  HDMI cables bend easier but they don't screw in like DVI so they are more likely to come loose.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 7, 2009)

The standard change from DVI to DisplayPort will be far more widely accepted in the PC world in my opinion because of the daisy chaining ability and DVI has too manu versions.  DisplayPort will simplify some randomness found in the DVI standards (aka DVI-I, DVI-D, DVI-A, dual link or single link and all that mess).

DVI to HDMI on a PC monitor has nothing to gain.

P.S.  While you can find this to be true most of the time, my DVI cable is thinner and easier to bend than the HDMI cable I have.


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 7, 2009)

HDMI has too many different revisions floating around; some support this others don't... and the cable looks the same :shadedshu

DVI ftw


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 7, 2009)

HDMI has only 2 versions.  HDMI and mini HDMI.  The version numbers are updates to the standard.


----------



## imperialreign (Sep 7, 2009)

Thanks for all the responses so far, guys, and nice to see Tatty still around, eh? 

My current setup is a standard DVI-I single-link DVI cable (although, I have a full-blown DVI-I dual-link cable, but it's not compatible with most monitors).



TheLaughingMan said:


> HDMI has only 2 versions.  HDMI and mini HDMI.  The version numbers are updates to the standard.



So, then, there's no difference in actual HDMI cables between the standard revisions?  There's not BS differences like USB 1.1/2.0 cables?




As well, if HDMI uses a higher refresh rating, and a monitor that supports both DVI and HDMI inputs should be able to accomodate the higher refresh, correct? (if such is the case, I myself might actually go ahead and whip out the HDMI cable - I get that "refresh banding" across the screen in some games using DVI)

So, DVI _*can*_ support up to 2560x1600 res?  I was always lead to believe it only support upto 1920x1200.  Or is there a difference that's limited only between a single-link and dual-link cable?


*@newtekie* - DVI has become capable of audio pass-through?  Do you have a reference link?  I'm really interested in reading up some more on that capability.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 7, 2009)

First DVI-I is dual link digital and analog supported. and should be capatible with all monitors made in the last 2 years or so.

Correct.  If you have a HDMI 1.3a cable it will support anything that specifies any version older than itself.  So a 1.3a cable (90% of the ones on the market) will work in a 1.2, 1.1, etc. device no problem.  The only change was was improves in how the signals get transferred which resulted in higher bandwidth, higher throughput.  The actual plug has never been changed and never will be changed.  They added a clause in the standard to not change the plug except for the rules about HDMI mini port, but no product I know of has used that yet.  See link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Versions

DVI can support up to 2560 x 1600, but the higher the resolution, the lower the maximum refresh rate.  At say 1280 x 1024, both DVI and HDMI will refresh at up to 75 hz, but at 1960 x 1080 (i think that is right) DVI will be limited to 60 hz and lower, while HDMI will still be capable of better.  Hell they may TV's now with 120 hz refresh rates on HDMI.

DVI dual and single link doesn't effect bandwidth.  A DVI dual link will support both analog and digital signals (DVI-I).  A single link (DVI-D) will only support digital signals.  There is a whole bunch of other variation and rules about linking which kind of DVI cable to what, but honestly a PC monitor only needs one link that is digital, yet most GPU's have DVI-I links on them for people who still use there VGA only monitors.

There was a plan to use the second link in DVI-I to carry a audio signal, but I think it was abandoned when DisplayPort's specs were finalized.  If they are still working on it, basically the video will be on the digital link on the DVI-I and the audio will be transmitted as a second analog signal on the link that is normally for a VGA signal.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 8, 2009)

imperialreign said:


> So, then, there's no difference in actual HDMI cables between the standard revisions?  There's not BS differences like USB 1.1/2.0 cables?


The connectors are the same but the ratings aren't.  Think NIC cables with separate categories.  That's practically what an HDMI and DisplayPort cable is.  In a word, yes, there are BS differences.




imperialreign said:


> As well, if HDMI uses a higher refresh rating, and a monitor that supports both DVI and HDMI inputs should be able to accomodate the higher refresh, correct? (if such is the case, I myself might actually go ahead and whip out the HDMI cable - I get that "refresh banding" across the screen in some games using DVI)


Inside the monitor, it probably runs all DVI.  Think one of those adaptors included on a switch to choose between interface but they are being handled the same behind the scenes.  There is virtually no difference between DVI and HDMI up to version 1.3.  HDMI 1.4 handles much higher resolution than DVI but at the same time, if you need that much bandwidth you'd best be using DisplayPort.



imperialreign said:


> So, DVI _*can*_ support up to 2560x1600 res? I was always lead to believe it only support upto 1920x1200.  Or is there a difference that's limited only between a single-link and dual-link cable?


Single-link (3.96 Gbit/s) = 1920×1200 @ 60 Hz
Dual-link (7.92 Gbit/s) = 2560x1600 @ 60 Hz




TheLaughingMan said:


> First DVI-I is dual link digital and analog supported. and should be capatible with all monitors made in the last 2 years or so.


DVI-I can be dual-link but it can also be single-link.  There's five connector types:

DVI-I = analog + digital single-link
DVI-I = analog + digital double-link
DVI-D = digital single-link
DVI-D = digital dual-link
DVI-A = analog

DVI-I dual-link is the female port you see on all DVI capable graphics cards and quite often also see it on DVI switches, hubs, and the like.  I have never seen an actual monitor use anything except DVI-D dual-link (even those that only requre a single link).  I have never seen a DVI-I or DVI-A on a monitor.  They usually have a DVI-D + VGA (D-Sub 15).


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 8, 2009)

HDMI is BS
unless your device can get upgraded firmware or whatnot you're SOL..

that's why i like DVI; you can actually see the difference in the connectors.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

people are forgetting the advantage to HDMI over DVI... audio.

my screens have speakers built in, so it makes me not even need a soundcard  (if i was using a home theater system with HDMI inputs instead of my Z-5500's, i would be very happy)


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> people are forgetting the advantage to HDMI over DVI... audio.
> 
> my screens have speakers built in, so it makes me not even need a soundcard  (if i was using a home theater system with HDMI inputs instead of my Z-5500's, i would be very happy)


Exactly, it's nice if your tv/monitor has a digital coax for surround, for far less wires, 1 from the video card-hdmi and 1 coax from the monitor to the surround...Nice fewer wires behind the box...priceless, gives a nice clean unified volume control- I love my hdmi


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 8, 2009)

imperialreign said:


> *@newtekie* - DVI has become capable of audio pass-through?  Do you have a reference link?  I'm really interested in reading up some more on that capability.



Where did you get that from?  Nothing in my post even comes close to even hinting that I was saying DVI does audio pass through.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Where did you get that from?  Nothing in my post even comes close to even hinting that I was saying DVI does audio pass through.



maybe he's confused by the fact that DVI ports can use adaptors to get HDMI with audio (video card dependant, ofc)


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 8, 2009)

He is.

Look you will need an adapter and a video card capable of audio pass through.  Which you have, you just have to connect the SPDIF wire from your card to your mobo.  A DVI to DVI link cannot have audio.  DVI (with adapter) to HDMI can have audio.  Before you ask why.....its complicated.

All this mess just proves the IEEE point.  DVI is too complicated and HDMI simplifies stuff.  DisplayPort will simplify it even more.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 8, 2009)

DisplayPort is meant to complement HDMI, not replace it.  It has more datapaths and therefore higher bandwidth but it actually doesn't have to carry any specific type of data.  In other words, it's going to get even more complex because that DisplayPort could contain one video feed, two video feeds, three video feeds, four video feeds, audio, or none of the above.  In other words, instead of just looking at the cable ends to see if it is compatible, you'll have to look at version numbers and types of data put on that cable.  It's kind of like PS/2 to USB.  PS/2 doesn't need any special drivers, pop it in and it will work 99.9% of the time.  USB needs a driver be it a generic Microsoft driver or a manufacturer driver.  The same is likely to happen to DisplayPort.

DVI and VGA are simple (if it fits, it works), HDMI/DisplayPort are complicated (if it fits, it might work).


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> DisplayPort is meant to complement HDMI, not replace it.  It has more datapaths and therefore higher bandwidth but it actually doesn't have to carry any specific type of data.  In other words, it's going to get even more complex because that DisplayPort could contain one video feed, two video feeds, three video feeds, four video feeds, audio, or none of the above.  In other words, instead of just looking at the cable ends to see if it is compatible, you'll have to look at version numbers and types of data put on that cable.  It's kind of like PS/2 to USB.  PS/2 doesn't need any special drivers, pop it in and it will work 99.9% of the time.  USB needs a driver be it a generic Microsoft driver or a manufacturer driver.  The same is likely to happen to DisplayPort.
> 
> DVI and VGA are simple (if it fits, it works), HDMI/DisplayPort are complicated (if it fits, it might work).



HDMI is an 'if it fits, it works'

its no different to DVI with having a few different standards (single link vs dual link, for example) but if you can plug it in to both ends, they will negotiate and you WILL get a video feed.

even in the future if you have HDMI 1.4 devices - hmm, my resolutions capped to 1600P i wonder why. oh, silly me, i used a HDMI 1.3 cable - you'll still get an image, it'll just disable features that are unsupported.

as for display port, i've never used one. the need for drivers seems strange, one would assume auto negotiation would be done in the devices themselves, much like EDID is for todays screens which can auto detect native resolution and refresh rates.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 8, 2009)

TheLaughingMan said:


> HDMI has only 2 versions.  HDMI and mini HDMI.  The version numbers are updates to the standard.



HDMI has gone through several revisions since it's inception and there appears to be no final spec for this cable to date! 

From 1.0 to 1.1 which added support for DVD Audio.  

To 1.2 which added support for One Bit Audio (8 channels) and HDMI Type A connectors for PC sources (support for sRGB color space and retains YCbCr color space which required monitors to support a low voltage source).  

To 1.2a which specifies Consumer Electronic Control (CEC) features, command sets, and CEC compliance tests

To 1.3 which increased the single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbit/s), support for deep color with 30-bit, 36-bit, and 48-bit xvYCC, sRGB, or YCbCr; (up from 24-bit in the previous versions)  Supports output of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio streams.  Etc...

To 1.3a which added Cable and Sink modifications for Type C, source termination.  And other technical improvements which in essence improved on 1.3.  

To 1.3b1 which added HDMI compliance testing revisions (no feature updates)

To 1.3c which added better HDMI compliance testing revisions (no feature updates)

To 1.4 which increases the maximum resolution to 4K × 2K or 3840×2160p at 24Hz/25Hz/30Hz and 4096×2160p at 24Hz.  Along with a few other changes.


Face it, HDMI hasn't matured at all with the release of 1.4 this year.  What this means is that if you are hard pressed for HDMI you will have to do some serious research to find out what version is actually being used for the items you wish to use HDMI for.   Way to much work for no tangible benefit over DVI as a viewing source on the PC.


----------



## mudkip (Sep 8, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> HDMI has gone through several revisions since it's inception and there appears to be no final spec for this cable to date!
> This cable has went from 1.0 to 1.1 which added support for DVD Audio.
> 
> To 1.2 which added support for One Bit Audio (8 channels) and HDMI Type A connectors for PC sources (support for sRGB color space and retains YCbCr color space which required monitors to support a low voltage source).
> ...



or you buy a 1.3 HDMI cable because it's backwards compatible anyway?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

east coast: as i said in my post above yours, the revisions have changed but the *sockets and plug shape has not*

you can use any old cable, its the internal logic of the devices which has changed - not the cables themselves.


I'm pretty confident you can get a HDMI 1.3 device on both ends and use a HDMI 1.1 cable, and find out everything works fine. its changes for the devices (video cards, TV's) that have changed, and not for the cables.

that list also didnt include 1/10th of the actual ugprades in HDMI 1.4 - wheres the 100Mb ethernet feature, for example?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 8, 2009)

mudkip said:


> or you buy a 1.3 HDMI cable because it's backwards compatible anyway?


No, because the point is that you are getting no benefit from it from DVI






Mussels said:


> east coast: as i said in my post above yours, the revisions have changed but the *sockets and plug shape has not*
> 
> you can use any old cable, its the internal logic of the devices which has changed - not the cables themselves.
> 
> ...


I don't cares about the shape of the connector ? What the connector looks like is not relevant to my post.  What I said is that you have to research the items you wish to use with it.

Per what I and what others have said.  For PC applications HDMI is moot.  
-There is nothing gained from a PC user point of view
-There is a revolving door of revisions.  With 1.4 just recently released earlier this year
-There is no obtainable benefits from it when compared to DVI (when used for LCD, PC monitors)
-And here is the big thing.  HDMI is more practical for HOME THEATER (and relating uses).  There, I said it...


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> No, because the point is that you are getting no benefit from it from DVI





			
				eastcoast said:
			
		

> Per what I and what others have said. For PC applications HDMI is moot.
> -You get nothing from it from a PC user point of view
> -There is a revolving door of revisions that just recently updated this year
> -There is no obtainable benefits from it when compared to DVI (when used for LCD, PC monitors)



audio. more convenient plug. compatibility with devices such as HDMI switches. A single cable that is compatible between PC's, PC screens, TV's, game consoles, home theater speaker systems... its the USB of the entertainment world.

as we have said, revisions dont affect the cables. they affect the devices.

YOU, personally may see no benefit - but that doesnt mean there isnt benefits for many other people. you see no use for it on your gaming PC, but i and many thousands of other users around the world use a HTPC where it has many advantages.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 8, 2009)

In the end, DisplayPort will replace DVI, not HDMI.  HDMI will be the new "home theater" cable for everything, just give it time.  And it is and will be simple because older "versions" of cables just get relabelled when they are tested and proven to work with the new standard as Mussels said.  So home theater will become "Use a 1.4 HDMI cable for it.  For what?  For everything".  TV to Blu-Ray, TV to audio system, TV to media center device, etc.  One cable for all.  No need to worry about what will and will not work because the devices will determine that as they should.

DisplayPort I expect to be the same.  Video for your PC monitor, DP, if it has speakers, still 1 DP cables, USB hub built into monitor....guess what....1 DP cable.  That is the plan at least.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> its no different to DVI with having a few different standards (single link vs dual link, for example) but if you can plug it in to both ends, they will negotiate and you WILL get a video feed.
> 
> even in the future if you have HDMI 1.4 devices - hmm, my resolutions capped to 1600P i wonder why. oh, silly me, i used a HDMI 1.3 cable - you'll still get an image, it'll just disable features that are unsupported.
> 
> as for display port, i've never used one. the need for drivers seems strange, one would assume auto negotiation would be done in the devices themselves, much like EDID is for todays screens which can auto detect native resolution and refresh rates.


As stated previously, DVI-D dual-link is used 99.9% of the time for hooking monitors up and there is no versions.

Imagine trying to figure out why your monitor is only running at 3 Gb/s just like trying to trouble shoot a 100 Mb/s network that should be operating at 1 Gb/s.  That's where this is heading.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> audio. more convenient plug. compatibility with devices such as HDMI switches. A single cable that is compatible between PC's, PC screens, TV's, game consoles, home theater speaker systems... its the USB of the entertainment world.
> 
> as we have said, revisions dont affect the cables. they affect the devices.
> 
> YOU, personally may see no benefit - but that doesnt mean there isnt benefits for many other people. you see no use for it on your gaming PC, but i and many thousands of other users around the world use a HTPC where it has many advantages.



Mussels, there is no benefit to using HDMI.  Just because you can find an excuse for it doesn't make it the defacto reason why everyone else should.  In my previous post I already mentioned LCDs with speakers.  No need to repeat myself again in this post.  However, as it's common knowledge that PC, LCD monitors do not come with speakers or can use mini jacks for them this is not a good reason to use it.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As stated previously, DVI-D dual-link is used 99.9% of the time for hooking monitors up and there is no versions.
> 
> Imagine trying to figure out why your monitor is only running at 3 Gb/s just like trying to trouble shoot a 100 Mb/s network that should be operating at 1 Gb/s.  That's where this is heading.



that wont really happen. they arent changing the specs of the *cables*

you can use the same cat6 ethernet cable on 10Mb, 100Mb and gigabit network cards without issues. the *devices* at each end do the negotations, and unless the cable is utter crap, will work without a hitch.

by the time HDMI 1.4 devices comes out for sale, so too will cables come out - most people who buy a new device will buy a new cable.

I'm running HDMI 1.3 PC and TV, and i've got a HDMI 1.1 cable that loses zero features when used. i've also got a USB 1.1 header for a PC that works at 2.0 speeds.



EastCoasthandle said:


> Mussels, there is no benefit to using HDMI.  Just because you can find an excuse for it doesn't make it the defacto reason why everyone else should.  In my previous post I already mentioned LCDs with speakers.  No need to repeat myself again in this post.  However, as it's common knowledge that PC, LCD monitors do not come with speakers or can use mini jacks for them this is not a good reason to use it.



every HTPC user in the world disagrees with you. HDMI has a very good place for many PC users - i never said it has uses for everyone, that is something i have never said. you're saying its useless, and i'm saying its not. i'm content with DVI being standard and using HDMI adaptors.


your comment about minijacks backs my idea up that you've never actually used one of these screens. screens with 3.5mm stereo jacks for audio input only ever work on VGA. i have never used an LCD screen that allowed audio over DVI. only VGA or HDMI.

3.5mm jacks are also limited to stereo audio - my TV can take 5.1 audio in over HDMI, then output it from a TOSLINK port on the rear. you're telling me i need to drop to a blurry VGA signal with stereo audio, when i can have clear digital video and digital surround sound just because you think its a 'useless' plug that has no place on PC's? seriously, if you want to say something serves no purpose _try using it yourself first_

if it serves you no EXTRA advantages over DVI, then how is it inferior? If solution B offers all the features of A with no features removed, how can it be WORSE? it cant, at worst it can only be the SAME.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> every HTPC user in the world disagrees with you. HDMI has a very good place for many PC users - i never said it has uses for everyone, that is something i have never said. you're saying its useless, and i'm saying its not. i'm content with DVI being standard and using HDMI adaptors.
> 
> 
> your comment about minijacks backs my idea up that you've never actually used one of these screens. screens with 3.5mm stereo jacks for audio input only ever work on VGA. i have never used an LCD screen that allowed audio over DVI. only VGA or HDMI.



Actually HTPC users wouldn't disagree as they've been doing HTPC way before HDMI.  Furthermore, you are actually implying that HDMI is more suited for Home Theater per what I've said already  (although not part of my quote in your post).   My comment about minijacks is a observation of what can come with a PC LCD monitor.  Which was mentioned to demonstrate variety other then HDMI.  It doesn't necessitate a need for HDMI.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> that wont really happen. they arent changing the specs of the *cables*


Yes, they are.  Not every HDMI cable can handle the requirements of 1.4.  Even if they can, they might not be able to handle it at x number of feet.  DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort are all the same in that regard (maximum distance determined by cable quality, not standard).


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yes, they are.  Not every HDMI cable can handle the requirements of 1.4.  Even if they can, they might not be able to handle it at x number of feet.  DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort are all the same in that regard (maximum distance determined by cable quality, not standard).



1.4 may be an exception. but 1.3 and below isnt.

even if you use a 1.3 cable its just going to drop to the features of 1.3 - how is that different to DVI single link and dual link?



EastCoasthandle said:


> Actually HTPC users wouldn't disagree as they've been doing HTPC way before HDMI.  Furthermore, you are actually implying that HDMI is more suited for Home Theater per what I've said already  (although not part of my quote in your post).   My comment about minijacks is a observation of what can come with a PC LCD monitor.  Which was mentioned to demonstrate variety other then HDMI.  It doesn't necessitate a need for HDMI.



no. what you've been saying is that HDMI serves no purpose on a PC as DVI does the same things, or better. the missing part of my post is because you edited your post, after i quoted it.

your mention of audio still doesnt seem to comment to my posts - you suggest alternatives which are drastically inferior to what HDMI offers, when HDMI (even at 1.3) offers nothing inferior to DVI.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> 1.4 may be an exception. but 1.3 and below isnt.
> 
> even if you use a 1.3 cable its just going to drop to the features of 1.3 - how is that different to DVI single link and dual link?


DVI exists exactly the same today as when it was originally released (1999).  If you bought a cable back in 1999, it will perform equally well on new equipment.  The standard was forward compatible instead of using individual versions.  Truth be told, we're still not even close to filling the 1600p pipe that dual-link is capable of.  I think, in monitors, DVI will remain the favorite for the time being.  DisplayPort has only caught on with Apple; HDMI is generally only used for HTPC functions.  DVI-I still resides at the heart of the system.

My conclusion, HDMI might make consumers happy (big improvement over coaxial cables) and DisplayPort might make Apple happy (because they don't like holes in their cases) but neither will make the bulk of the computer industry happy--at least not yet.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> no. what you've been saying is that HDMI serves no purpose on a PC as DVI does the same things, or better. the missing part of my post is because you edited your post, after i quoted it.
> 
> your mention of audio still doesnt seem to comment to my posts - you suggest alternatives which are drastically inferior to what HDMI offers, when HDMI (even at 1.3) offers nothing inferior to DVI.



No, I am saying that HDMI server no practical purpose over DVI that can be seen as a tangible benefit to the end user (for PC LCD Monitors).   In particular those users with monitors that offer no audio support.   Therefore making it moot.  Furthermore, one would need to actually know which HDMI version that PC LCD monitor supports.  And your audio inferior comment is specious.  PC LCD monitors that do offer some sort of audio (via mini jack, speaker or otherwise) are not known to offer high fidelity audio .

In any case, I'm ending this here as we can only agree to disagree.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 8, 2009)

If you're not looking at the audio pass incentive (i.e. one wire that heads to your HDTV), then neither is better for a PC scenario. HDMI passes video in the same low-level format as DVI.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> No, I am saying that HDMI server no practical purpose over DVI that can be seen as a tangible benefit to the end user.  In particular those users with monitors that offer no audio support.  And your audio inferior comment is specious.  PC LCD monitors that do offer some sort of audio (via mini jack, speaker or otherwise) are not known to offer high fidelity audio .



but many, including TV's offer high quality pass through.
One cable from PC to screen, one cable from screen to speakers.
who cares about quality anyway? i use my monitor speakers for VOIP and voice chat, and my TV is just a passthrough so that my PC, wii, and housemates PS2 and 360 can all be input into it, and passed out into one set of speakers via the one cable instead of each device requiring one input each.

even if HDMI serves you, or thousands of people no purpose - it only adds features. it doesnt subtract. worst case you got exactly the same as DVI, with a connector 1/4 the size.

imagine USB the size of DVI, and you'll get the point there. its a convenience, not a neccesity - but it little things like that that make one type more preferred than the other to the casual user.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Sep 8, 2009)

I have an Asus M3A78-CM motherboard with VGA , DVI and DisplayPort that can use 2 plugs at the same time and is Hybrid CrossfireX (what the heck is that??? ). For now i use only DVI but later when high resolution screen will come out i will get one...who cares it brings no sound ...i will only use the 8.1 onboard sound to do some surrond. Ok it will take many wires for sound but tie-raps give you a big wire instead of many smaller ones  
2560 X 1600 resolution on DVI and display port..i wish i could get a screen with that much resolution but i need more bacon


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

MohawkAngel said:


> I have an Asus M3A78-CM motherboard with VGA , DVI and DisplayPort that can use 2 plugs at the same time and is Hybrid CrossfireX (what the heck is that??? ). For now i use only DVI but later when high resolution screen will come out i will get one...who cares it brings no sound ...i will only use the 8.1 onboard sound to do some surrond. Ok it will take many wires for sound but tie-raps give you a big wire instead of many smaller ones
> 2560 X 1600 resolution on DVI and display port..i wish i could get a screen with that much resolution but i need more bacon



hybrid crossfire means you can crossfire the onward with certain dedicated cards.

DVI + analogue onboard = good video and audio
HDMI = good video and audio

Both have equal quality! however, if your hardware supported the choice - would you take one thin cable, or 3 thin cables and one chunky one?


----------



## MohawkAngel (Sep 8, 2009)

I dont know but i have 6 plugs on the board for audio. 1 the micro, 1 the input and 4 others for surrond including the green one for single plugging. ill see later....anyone ever seen a 2560 X 1600 resolution  able screen? if yes send me the link even if its tv with display port or computer screen. thx


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

MohawkAngel said:


> I dont know but i have 6 plugs on the board for audio. 1 the micro, 1 the input and 4 others for surrond including the green one for single plugging. ill see later....anyone ever seen a 2560 X 1600 resolution  able screen? if yes send me the link even if its tv with display port or computer screen. thx



http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-234...1-dc-5ms-2048-x-1152/q/loc/101/210742850.html

thats the highest resolution screen i know of.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Sep 8, 2009)

Still not enough i will wait anyway my hardware are good  phenom x2 am3 550 BE with 4 gigs of ddr2 800 pc-6400 so it will be enough for a long time considering that i play only Battefield 2, work on it and use it as home theatre pc.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 8, 2009)

TheLaughingMan said:


> First DVI-I is dual link digital and analog supported. and should be capatible with all monitors made in the last 2 years or so.
> 
> Correct.  If you have a HDMI 1.3a cable it will support anything that specifies any version older than itself.  So a 1.3a cable (90% of the ones on the market) will work in a 1.2, 1.1, etc. device no problem.  The only change was was improves in how the signals get transferred which resulted in higher bandwidth, higher throughput.  The actual plug has never been changed and never will be changed.  They added a clause in the standard to not change the plug except for the rules about HDMI mini port, but no product I know of has used that yet.  See link below.
> 
> ...


None of those TV's accept a 120Hz input. Their screens output 120HZ, but they can't take a 120Hz signal from your computer.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> None of those TV's accept a 120Hz input. Their screens output 120HZ, but they can't take a 120Hz signal from your computer.



my 24" is one of those. it has a 120Hz panel that accepts a 60hz input, and merely doubles the frames.

No idea what purpose its supposed to serve, but thats the way it is.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 8, 2009)

TheLaughingMan said:


> He is.
> 
> Look you will need an adapter and a video card capable of audio pass through.  Which you have, *you just have to connect the SPDIF wire from your card to your mobo*.  A DVI to DVI link cannot have audio.  DVI (with adapter) to HDMI can have audio.  Before you ask why.....its complicated.
> 
> All this mess just proves the IEEE point.  DVI is too complicated and HDMI simplifies stuff.  DisplayPort will simplify it even more.


Not with ATI cards from 2900 and up. They have built-in audio.

As far as the overall debate on which is better to the standard PC user. Neither is. They both offer the same video quality. HDMI only shows benefit when you consider audio as well, but most people don't need to worry about that anyway.

That said, I prefer DVI on my non-HTPC computers, only because I find many HDMI monoitors to not sleep properly when using HDMI, they go to a blue screen instead of going into standby. Not a fault of either standard, just a weird quirk I noticed.


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 8, 2009)

Mussels said:


> http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-234...1-dc-5ms-2048-x-1152/q/loc/101/210742850.html
> 
> thats the highest resolution screen i know of.



play with that bad boy

http://www.surveillance-video.com/t...cd-3840x2160-w-dual-dvi-input&channelid=FROOG


----------



## Wile E (Sep 8, 2009)

MohawkAngel said:


> I dont know but i have 6 plugs on the board for audio. 1 the micro, 1 the input and 4 others for surrond including the green one for single plugging. ill see later....anyone ever seen a 2560 X 1600 resolution  able screen? if yes send me the link even if its tv with display port or computer screen. thx





Mussels said:


> http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-234...1-dc-5ms-2048-x-1152/q/loc/101/210742850.html
> 
> thats the highest resolution screen i know of.



http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010190020 1309825151&name=30"

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...93,4723~0~382981&~ck=anav&navla=4723~0~382981

etc., etc.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 8, 2009)

hey, australias a little behind on $40,000 TV's and $2,000 PC screens.


 the USA dell sells samsung and NEC screens? the hell?


----------



## Wile E (Sep 8, 2009)

That survielance TV is just 4 28" 1920x1080 screens crammed into one housing.


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 8, 2009)

lies
>.>


It *only* needs 2 dual-link DVIs to push it...


----------



## Wile E (Sep 8, 2009)

Scrizz said:


> lies
> >.>
> 
> 
> It *only* needs 2 dual-link DVIs to push it...



lol. or 4 single link.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 8, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Furthermore, one would need to actually know which HDMI version that PC LCD monitor supports.



That is actually completely wrong.  You do not need to know which version of the HDMI standard your monitor supports.  That is something it will take care of on its on.  You just get a 1.3a cable (most on the market) and it will just work.  And as Mussel said, even some of the old cables from back in the day will still work for most, if not all, applications.

The new 1.4 standard rev. just increased the product range the cable can be used for.  larger format screens (72" and up).  For computer monitors, this rev. will not be necessary.

On that note, as far as picture quality is concerned, you are right.  There is no benefit from switch from DVI to HDMI if you monitor has both and no speakers.  Mussels was simply stating this is subjective and all things considered, there are benefits for others.



Wile E said:


> Not with ATI cards from 2900 and up. They have built-in audio.



I know.  That statement was specifically for the guy that asked and he has a Nvidia GTX 285.  So for him, he will need the SPDIF cable that came with his card.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Sep 8, 2009)

oh good i think ill get another LG with high contrast for nbetter color and quick 2ms response like my flatron ...it would be ass kicking home theatre but ill have ot wait for a monitor of high resolution with display port wire


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 10, 2009)

I think it is funny Apple added DisplayPorts to a lot of their products a few months back, but there are currently no devices on the market that uses the standard.  If I am not mistake, they will start releasing DisplayPort stuff starting next year.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 10, 2009)

I said earlier that the reason they did that is most likely for design sake.  Apple hates holes in their cases and DVI is a huge hole compared to DisplayPort.  They don't care which is better as long as the hole is smaller.  That could be the same motivation for Firewire too (they didn't like big serial and parrallel ports).

Apple = form before function.


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 10, 2009)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I think it is funny Apple added DisplayPorts to a lot of their products a few months back, but there are currently no devices on the market that uses the standard.  If I am not mistake, they will start releasing DisplayPort stuff starting next year.



Display port vid cards have been out for 2 years 

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/06/ati-displayport-cards-trickle-out/


----------



## Soylent Joe (Sep 10, 2009)

If they made HDMI cables more flexible and harder to come out, then I'd hook my monitor up with it, but it's just to clunky for me.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 10, 2009)

Scrizz said:


> Display port vid cards have been out for 2 years
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/06/ati-displayport-cards-trickle-out/



Yes, graphics cards have been out with DisplayPorts for years.  Now go TRY to find a monitor to connect it to DisplayPort.

I retract that statement.  I found 4.  2 by Apple and 2 by Dell.  A link to one is below.

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=3008WFP&s=dhs

Besides this is something to discuss on another Thread.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 10, 2009)

They have DisplayPort on that monitor because 2560x1600 @ 60 Hz is the maximum of DVI-D dual-link.  They don't list the refresh rate so it's not certain if one would benefit from using a DisplayPort cable or not.  Since they included the port, I have to assume it is capable of greater than 60 Hz at that resolution.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 10, 2009)

You make a good point FordGT90Concept, but I was just shocked to find something to plug into a DisplayPort period.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 10, 2009)

I should also add that DVI isn't going anywhere so long as there remains demand for VGA.  Some cards might be DVI + DisplayPort but I doubt mainstream cards will not be completely rid of DVI for at least another decade.  One important caveat: DVI is replaced by, say, DVI2 which has VGA and doubles the bandwidth of the digital links effectively defeating the purpose of DisplayPort.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 10, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I said earlier that the reason they did that is most likely for design sake.  Apple hates holes in their cases and DVI is a huge hole compared to DisplayPort.  They don't care which is better as long as the hole is smaller.  That could be the same motivation for Firewire too (they didn't like big serial and parrallel ports).
> 
> Apple = form before function.



No, because they just used a breakout box on a "mini DVI" connection prior to display port. The hole was about the same size anyway. Apple has always adopted technology based on superior performance or equal performance but easier to use, despite lacking compatibility. Thus the reason they tried to focus on firewire instead of usb, or when they developed ADC which was basically DVI, but it also carried power and USB. And other such examples. That proves to be both good and bad for them tho. ADC never really caught on and finally died off, and USB carried a much higher adoption rate than firewire as well, and while firewire isn't dead, it's not as cheap or as prominent as USB 2.0, tho it is better in performance.

They're very hit or miss with this stuff. I like firewire over USB 2.0 or older any day, but proprietary connections like ADC are a royal PITA.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, because they just used a breakout box on a "mini DVI" connection prior to display port. The hole was about the same size anyway. Apple has always adopted technology based on superior performance or equal performance but easier to use, despite lacking compatibility. Thus the reason they tried to focus on firewire instead of usb, or when they developed ADC which was basically DVI, but it also carried power and USB. And other such examples. That proves to be both good and bad for them tho. ADC never really caught on and finally died off, and USB carried a much higher adoption rate than firewire as well, and while firewire isn't dead, it's not as cheap or as prominent as USB 2.0, tho it is better in performance.
> 
> They're very hit or miss with this stuff. I like firewire over USB 2.0 or older any day, but proprietary connections like ADC are a royal PITA.



indeed, but i love small connectors.

anyone who says HDMI cables have no advantage over DVI fails to think what USB would be like if it was the size of a parallel port. smaller is better, and more convenient (and i  the ability to plug it in and remove it with no need for screws)


----------



## wiak (Sep 10, 2009)

DVI and HDMI are both based on same signal technology
heck thats why you got HDMI to DVI cables and adapters


----------



## Wile E (Sep 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> indeed, but i love small connectors.
> 
> anyone who says HDMI cables have no advantage over DVI fails to think what USB would be like if it was the size of a parallel port. smaller is better, and more convenient (and i  the ability to plug it in and remove it with no need for screws)



Actually, the lack of screws is a minus in my setup. It's a long run, and it always pulls loose from my card. I kinda wish my monitor had a DVI input instead of just HDMI. (not only that, but my monitor doesn't go to sleep in HDMI. It just goes to a blue screen. It sleep via vga tho.)


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Actually, the lack of screws is a minus in my setup. It's a long run, and it always pulls loose from my card. I kinda wish my monitor had a DVI input instead of just HDMI. (not only that, but my monitor doesn't go to sleep in HDMI. It just goes to a blue screen. It sleep via vga tho.)



sleep missing from HDMI is a flaw of HDMIs specs. it annoys me as well.

you must have a weird cable setup for it to have enough weight to fall out - my 5M cable never comes loose at all, and i just toss it around benches and such without a car


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 10, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Actually, the lack of screws is a minus in my setup. It's a long run, and it always pulls loose from my card. I kinda wish my monitor had a DVI input instead of just HDMI. (not only that, but my monitor doesn't go to sleep in HDMI. It just goes to a blue screen. It sleep via vga tho.)


I agree.  If you don't screw it in, all those pins hold as tight, if not tighter than HDMI.  Screwing in means it's gonna take a lot of force to unseat it.  On my KVM, for instance, I only screw it in if the tower is meant to be a permanent resident.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> sleep missing from HDMI is a flaw of HDMIs specs. it annoys me as well.
> 
> you must have a weird cable setup for it to have enough weight to fall out - my 5M cable never comes loose at all, and i just toss it around benches and such without a car



The way the cable has to be run, puts it in the line of fire of my feet, and it also has to come out of the card at a pretty sharp angle.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 10, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, because they just used a breakout box on a "mini DVI" connection prior to display port. The hole was about the same size anyway.  ...


I know Apple got a lot of complaints about "mini DVI" not matching their projectors/monitors which leads to 3rd party cables which aren't common at all and in turn leads to additional, unexpected costs.  The thing is, DisplayPort not only doesn't fix that user problem, it creates even more problems because DisplayPort has zero support for VGA making that conversion cable even more expensive.  I leave it to stupid engineering which Apple has an abundance of.


USB came after Firewire but, that's a discussion for another thread.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2009)

Wile E said:


> The way the cable has to be run, puts it in the line of fire of my feet, and it also has to come out of the card at a pretty sharp angle.



thats unfortunate.

but the way i see it - i'd rather the cable come out, than it yank my PC off the desk or damage my card.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> thats unfortunate.
> 
> but the way i see it - i'd rather the cable come out, than it yank my PC off the desk or damage my card.



Nah, It's never enough pressure to move the rig or monitor. Just enough to pull the cable far enough to lose signal. It doesn't even come all the way out.


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 10, 2009)

where were we?

we need more stuff for display port


----------



## MohawkAngel (Sep 10, 2009)

yes i would like to get my display port screen man asus produced display port motherboards but no screen have display port connectors...wtf!!! also with the DVI port i can get kick ass resolution 2560X1600 but before i could get a tv with that high resolution my motherboard will be almost dead. that rsolution is with the onbard 256 megs hd radeon based on RV-610.

Can someone tell me what came first and last andwhats the difference between 
DVI-I Single link
DVI-I Dual link
DVI-D Single link
DVI-D Dual link   (the one i own for my LG Flatron W2242TQ)
DVI-A


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2009)

MohawkAngel said:


> yes i would like to get my display port screen man asus produced display port motherboards but no screen have display port connectors...wtf!!! also with the DVI port i can get kick ass resolution 2560X1600 but before i could get a tv with that high resolution my motherboard will be almost dead. that rsolution is with the onbard 256 megs hd radeon based on RV-610.
> 
> Can someone tell me what came first and last andwhats the difference between
> DVI-I Single link
> ...



they were all explained a page or two back.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 10, 2009)

MohawkAngel said:


> Can someone tell me what came first and last andwhats the difference between
> DVI-I Single link
> DVI-I Dual link
> DVI-D Single link
> ...


...and they all came out at the same time (1999).


This post has a description of each connector and single- vs dual-link:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1543552&postcount=28

This post has a diagram of the pin-outs:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1543569&postcount=29


----------



## wolf (Sep 10, 2009)

I prefer HDMI, smaller connector, and it just has this nice 'fit' if you get me (love slotting a HDMI cable in )

also no annoying pins to possibly bend and no screws to tighten.

win-win given it carries audio and the same excellent quality.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Sep 10, 2009)

That where I took the pins models. Thx ill look 

This post has a diagram of the pin-outs:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1543569&postcount=29[/QUOTE]


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 10, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I should also add that DVI isn't going anywhere so long as there remains demand for VGA.  Some cards might be DVI + DisplayPort but I doubt mainstream cards will not be completely rid of DVI for at least another decade.  One important caveat: DVI is replaced by, say, DVI2 which has VGA and doubles the bandwidth of the digital links effectively defeating the purpose of DisplayPort.



Yeah, I don't expect it to be over night or any time soon, but it just seems to where they way DP to lead to.  Right now, not even the displays being used require anything faster than current DVI offers.  So unless there is a drastic change in LCD/Plasma tech that gives ridiculous high resolution and high refresh rate, at a low cost, DVI will be here for quite a while.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2009)

TheLaughingMan said:


> DVI will be here for quite a while.



DVI will last for a long time, since you can use adaptors to make it to both VGA and HDMI.

The only way DVI will die out, is when there is more displayport monitors out there, than there is VGA ones.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> DVI will last for a long time, since you can use adaptors to make it to both VGA and HDMI.
> 
> The only way DVI will die out, is when there is more displayport monitors out there, than there is VGA ones.



Which will only happen when display technology goes beyond the scoop of VGA capabilities.....a long time from now.  Good thing we already got the replacements ready for the next 2 to 3 levels of changes.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 10, 2009)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Yeah, I don't expect it to be over night or any time soon, but it just seems to where they way DP to lead to.  Right now, not even the displays being used require anything faster than current DVI offers.  So unless there is a drastic change in LCD/Plasma tech that gives ridiculous high resolution and high refresh rate, at a low cost, DVI will be here for quite a while.


High resolutions are a huge drag on computers too.  Just look at the Microsoft lifting the 720p requirement on Xbox.  Developers want more detail and more detail means lower resolution.  LCD/Plasma isn't really the problem--its the horsepower that drives it which is holding it back.

I think graphics really sprang forward from about 1993 to 2003 because of the low resolutions yet high quality of CRT displays.  There was really no need to focus on high resolutions so they exponentially increased the number of triangles.  With LCDs, resolution and quality are directly tied so developers are forced to choose one or the other resulting in a relative stagnation in graphic quality over the past five or so years.

It really isn't very hard to make 60" LCD screens but it's hard to get it a resolution and framerate that won't make it look like crap.


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 11, 2009)

wolf said:


> I prefer HDMI, smaller connector, and it just has this nice 'fit' if you get me (love slotting a HDMI cable in )
> 
> also no annoying pins to possibly bend and no screws to tighten.
> 
> win-win given it carries audio and the same excellent quality.



HDMI is a connector I dislike(can't fasten it)


----------



## MohawkAngel (Sep 11, 2009)

I used epoxy to stick my hdmi cable. works well   just kidding


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 11, 2009)

MohawkAngel said:


> I used epoxy to stick my hdmi cable. works well



you got me lol
I as like wtf


----------



## MohawkAngel (Sep 11, 2009)

Owned !


----------

