# HDMI vs DVI vs SVGA (D-Sub)?



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 11, 2012)

Which has best graphics quality?


----------



## Bo$$ (Nov 11, 2012)

Display port is theoretically the best, but HDMI is so cheap and widely used i think it has benefits over the rest right now


----------



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 11, 2012)

Bo$$ said:


> Display port is theoretically the best, but HDMI is so cheap and widely used i think it has benefits over the rest right now



You mean APPLE display port (tell me if I got it wrong)? I would never buy an apple!! Anyway that would only work on an APPLE monitor so you have to pay 10x the value for the monitor; not worth it!!!


----------



## repman244 (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> Which has best graphics quality?



Quality? All that are digital have the same quality, only analog can loose quality since it's...well analog.

And I use Display Port.


----------



## Kaynar (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> You mean APPLE display port (tell me if I got it wrong)? I would never buy an apple!! Anyway that would only work on an APPLE monitor so you have to pay 10x the value for the monitor; not worth it!!!



Display Port was not invented nor is owned by Apple...

DP and mini-DP is available on most (if not all) high-end GPUs for the past year. My ASUS PA246Q screen also has DP connection, thats over a year old model too.

I think that any digital connection is the same (so DP and HDMI) if you look on wikipedia you can find alot of info.


----------



## Frick (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> You mean APPLE display port (tell me if I got it wrong)? I would never buy an apple!! Anyway that would only work on an APPLE monitor so you have to pay 10x the value for the monitor; not worth it!!!



As someone said, not true at all. And Apple monitors are good monitors, not your avarage cheap TN ones.

Anyway voted DVI as I like those connector. HDMI are way too flimsy.


----------



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 11, 2012)

Frick said:


> As someone said, not true at all. And Apple monitors are good monitors, not your avarage cheap TN ones.
> 
> Anyway voted DVI as I like those connector. HDMI are way too flimsy.



I don't know what HDMI cables you're using - every HDMI cable I ever owned was solid.

Apple is overpriced, which was my point. And even if you have the port on the graphics card, it's useless unless you also have the port in the monitor.


----------



## Bo$$ (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> You mean APPLE display port (tell me if I got it wrong)? I would never buy an apple!! Anyway that would only work on an APPLE monitor so you have to pay 10x the value for the monitor; not worth it!!!



No no Display Port is universal, like HDMI! just more expensive, just put into google


----------



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 11, 2012)

Bo$$ said:


> No no Display Port is universal, like HDMI! just more expensive, just put into google



Ok, thanks for the info; however, I've never owned a monitor which had a displayport input. What kind of monitors have that port?


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2012)

Dual link dvi and display port would be the two highest bandwidth connections out there.


----------



## Protagonist (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> Ok, thanks for the info; however, I've never owned a monitor which had a displayport input. *What kind of monitors have that port?*



Any brand HP, Dell, LG, Samsung, etc. basically any brand.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 11, 2012)

DisplayPort and Dual-Link DVI has largest amount of bandwidth, so I would imagine that those would. HDMI is nice because it rolls a lot of other things other than video into the same connector (multi-channel audio and Ethernet (in v1.4)) but as far as video quality, I would take DVI/DisplayPort any day.


----------



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 11, 2012)

st.bone said:


> Any brand HP, Dell, LG, Samsung, etc. basically any brand.



I've never seen one...


----------



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 11, 2012)

I love this forum, so many people here!


----------



## Kaynar (Nov 11, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> DisplayPort and Dual-Link DVI has largest amount of bandwidth, so I would imagine that those would. HDMI is nice because it rolls a lot of other things other than video into the same connector (multi-channel audio and Ethernet (in v1.4)) but as far as video quality, I would take DVI/DisplayPort any day.



DisplayPort also supports any audio, ethernet, USB and maybe more.


----------



## Protagonist (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> I've never seen one...



There you go
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&sku=320-2736


----------



## Widjaja (Nov 11, 2012)

There are monitors with display port for sale out there,just no where near as much as DVI/D-Sub monitors.

I see a tendency to have monitors with HDMI/D-Sub nowadays too.


----------



## xBruce88x (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> I don't know what HDMI cables you're using - every HDMI cable I ever owned was solid.
> 
> Apple is overpriced, which was my point. *And even if you have the port on the graphics card, it's useless unless you also have the port in the monitor.*



Same can be said for all the other ports 

I'm gonna go with DVI since I guess that also covers dual dvi for very high resolutions.


----------



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 11, 2012)

xBruce88x said:


> Same can be said for all the other ports
> 
> I'm gonna go with DVI since I guess that also covers dual dvi for very high resolutions.



except that DVI and HDMI are on all of the high quality cards, and most monitors have either HDMI or VGA. Displayport, on the other hand, is less frequent on cards and extremely rare in monitors. Thus, the premise of my statement.


----------



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 11, 2012)

st.bone said:


> There you go
> http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&sku=320-2736



Thanks, but that's on the expensive end for a mere 21" monitor.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> except that DVI and HDMI are on all of the high quality cards, and most monitors have either HDMI or VGA. Displayport, on the other hand, is less frequent on cards and extremely rare in monitors. Thus, the premise of my statement.





vawrvawerawe said:


> Thanks, but that's on the expensive end for a mere 21" monitor.



Don't double post please, there is an edit button for a reason. Double posting is also against the rules.


----------



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 11, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Don't double post please, there is an edit button for a reason. Double posting is also against the rules.



Didn't mean to.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> Didn't mean to.



I understand, that is why I'm pointing it out. Most people don't mean to but new users don't tend to know the forum rules.


----------



## repman244 (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> Displayport, on the other hand, is less frequent on cards and extremely rare in monitors.



I wouldn't say so, most of modern cards have Display port or mini display port (especially workstation cards where you won't find HDMI). When it comes to monitors, yes it's it's a bit "harder" to find, but definitely not extremely rare.
Pretty much all of the monitors that are somewhat oriented towards business have them, and as far as I've seen pretty much all monitors that are IPS (or similar) have DP (but they do cost a bit more).

On laptops you find them on mobile workstations where it's more common than HDMI.

So I guess that HDMI is more widely used in consumer market (TV's, HTPC, monitors), whereas the display port is used in the business environment (workstations, higher end monitors...).


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> except that DVI and HDMI are on all of the high quality cards, and most monitors have either HDMI or VGA. Displayport, on the other hand, is less frequent on cards and extremely rare in monitors. Thus, the premise of my statement.



Look harder

 Computer Hardware, Monitors, LCD Monitors, 1, 2

All of those have at least one display port connection on them.


----------



## dude12564 (Nov 11, 2012)

I use DVI, but I think it runs out of bandwidth at higher resolutions, at 144 Hz or something. I think LinusTechTips covered something about that when he was unboxing an ASUS IPS monitor.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2012)

dude12564 said:


> I use DVI, but I think it runs out of bandwidth at higher resolutions, at 144 Hz or something. I think LinusTechTips covered something about that when he was unboxing an ASUS IPS monitor.



Dual link can officially do 2560x1600@60Hz/3840x2400@33Hz now plenty of people go over that and dual link DVI has no official maximum bandwidth it comes down to the cable itself better cable will give you higher resolution.


----------



## BlackOmega (Nov 11, 2012)

Depends on the resolution. At typical resolutions there should be no difference.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2012)

BlackOmega said:


> Depends on the resolution. At typical resolutions there should be no difference.



Except when comparing analogue and digital. Huge difference in quality between VGA and DVI.


----------



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 11, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Except when comparing analogue and digital. Huge difference in quality between VGA and DVI.



Can you explain?


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> Can you explain?



Try both and tell me you cannot see the difference between DVI and VGA.


----------



## repman244 (Nov 11, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> Can you explain?



VGA uses an analogue signal which is sensitive to any interferences.
You can see the difference when it comes to the TV cable signal: the old analogue signal was "fuzzy", "blurred" or it came with a lot of static. Digital signal is just 1's and 0's.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 11, 2012)

repman244 said:


> the old analogue signal was "fuzzy", "blurred" or it came with a lot of static. Digital signal is just 1's and 0's.



Poorly shielded analog signals have this, yes. But poorly shielded DVI cables can do the same thing. Digital or Analog, both signals are influenced by interference. The real benefit here is that DVI (as others have said,) provides a digital signal, so there is no conversion that needs to be done on the monitor's end. A CRT display on the other hand wouldn't benefit from a digital signal much because of how it scans the image.

All in all, modern cables are more resilient to interference than they used to and most of the quality degradation you notice on VGA now is converting the signal from one for to another. Not having to convert the signal will always give you better image quality. Digital signals also use the available bandwidth more efficiently than analog alternatives, which is why digital signals replaced analog on cable TV here in the US.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 11, 2012)

HDMI is technically equal to DVI but DVI is better because it has more strict cable/transmission requirements (e.g. cross talk, cable length, etc.).  DVI also can be screwed in so they don't fall out.


----------



## repman244 (Nov 11, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Poorly shielded analog signals have this, yes. But poorly shielded DVI cables can do the same thing. Digital or Analog, both signals are influenced by interference. The real benefit here is that DVI (as others have said,) provides a digital signal, so there is no conversion that needs to be done on the monitor's end. A CRT display on the other hand wouldn't benefit from a digital signal much because of how it scans the image.



True but, digital isn't that sensitive as analogue is, even materials used in cables can have an impact on analogue signal.
Another thing to consider is the cable length, you can keep amplifying the analogue signal in between to increase the cable length but you also amplify interference/static... Digital, you can just use some kind of a repeater and keep going without issues.

The converter converts what it gets fed, so it converts all the interference as well, however I'm not sure how much (there will be some since you can't go analogue to digital without a loss) interference/distortion comes from the conversion itself.

Could the interference come from (in this case the GPU) itself? There are a lot of components there (and on a very small space) that could cause this, but could it be the main contributor?


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 12, 2012)

repman244 said:


> Could the interference come from (in this case the GPU) itself? There are a lot of components there (and on a very small space) that could cause this, but could it be the main contributor?



Possibly, it really depends on how good the RAMDAC on the GPU is and how well shielded it and the analog lines are. If DVI has enough interference, it causes the entire signal to have problems, so the picture really doesn't end up getting displayed. VGA might look worse but at higher interference levels it is more resilient than DVI. I would trust a 50ft VGA cable more than a 50ft DVI cable (of similar build and construction.) Granted I wouldn't really want a 50ft video cable run of any kind for that matter.


----------



## 20mmrain (Nov 12, 2012)

I would look at it like this.... All of your Digital Options like HDMI/DVI/Display Port you will not be able to tell the difference visually. Anyone who says they can tell the difference is BS'ing you. 

However where you will be able to tell the difference is resolution on your monitor plus other features. Concentrate on spending your money on your monitor and video card not your cable.


----------



## Bo$$ (Nov 12, 2012)

20mmrain said:


> I would look at it like this.... All of your Digital Options like HDMI/DVI/Display Port you will not be able to tell the difference visually. Anyone who says they can tell the difference is BS'ing you.
> 
> However where you will be able to tell the difference is resolution on your monitor plus other features. Concentrate on spending your money on your monitor and video card not your cable.




Well said
Although HDMI + DP are better than DVI as they can carry sound


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 12, 2012)

Bo$$ said:


> Although HDMI   DP are better than DVI as they can carry sound



Sound doesn't make it better IMHO. HDMI provides similar bandwidth as dual-link DVI (latest HDMI spec,) but DisplayPort supports significantly more bandwidth than HDMI. So all in all, as far as bandwidth is concerned, DisplayPort is the better of the 3, followed by HDMI, then DVI. DVI would be almost on par with HDMI with the exception that DVI only supports RGB color space where HDMI and DisplayPort support YCbCr color space and deep color.


----------



## Bo$$ (Nov 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Sound doesn't make it better IMHO. HDMI provides similar bandwidth as dual-link DVI (latest HDMI spec,) but DisplayPort supports significantly more bandwidth than HDMI. So all in all, as far as bandwidth is concerned, DisplayPort is the better of the 3, followed by HDMI, then DVI. DVI would be almost on par with HDMI with the exception that DVI only supports RGB color space where HDMI and DisplayPort support YCbCr color space and deep color.



I didn't mean in terms of quality i only referred to flexibility of the usage. i myself just changed to HDMI last week


----------



## Frick (Nov 12, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> I don't know what HDMI cables you're using - every HDMI cable I ever owned was solid.



I was at an electronics shop for a while (repairing TV's mostly) and one of the more common problems were the HDMI connectors. Not the cables, but the jacks in the TV's.

(that and LG TV's not being assembled properly )


----------



## Bo$$ (Nov 12, 2012)

Frick said:


> I was at an electronics shop for a while (repairing TV's mostly) and one of the more common problems were the HDMI connectors. Not the cables, but the jacks in the TV's.
> 
> (that and LG TV's not being assembled properly )



how are samsungs?


----------



## vawrvawerawe (Nov 13, 2012)

Bo$$ said:


> how are samsungs?



I think we can all rest assured that Samsung is the Porsche of the electronics industry.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 13, 2012)

vawrvawerawe said:


> I think we can all rest assured that Samsung is the Porsche of the electronics industry.



It would be more like Fiat. Owns some nice brands, but puts out some garbage as well.


----------



## dude12564 (Nov 13, 2012)

cdawall said:


> It would be more like Fiat. Owns some nice brands, but puts out some garbage as well.



Samsung kies....


----------



## Widjaja (Nov 13, 2012)

cdawall said:


> It would be more like Fiat. Owns some nice brands, but puts out some garbage as well.



I agree with this.
My current monitor is a good example which will be replaced soon.
Not only did it ghost with 2ms boot and run fine with no boost at 5ms, it also had Capxon caps which died on me.


----------



## Frick (Nov 13, 2012)

Bo$$ said:


> how are samsungs?



I wasn't there for long so it's hard to tell. Also this was in 2009, I think LG had some serious problems for a while with their production lines or something.


----------



## Jetster (Nov 13, 2012)

DVI and HDMi are the same quality as both a digital. HDMI has some benifits with sound and size. DVI has some benifits as it will carry analog and digital


----------



## INSTG8R (Nov 13, 2012)

I am using a DVI/HDMI Cable(Think it came with my TV) I like the convenience of the HDMI plugged into my card, easy to just unplug.


----------



## tayga (Nov 14, 2012)

i use HDMI witch goes to 1920x1080 16:9 but my native rez witch is 1680x1050 16:10
and it's funny that i have to select 16:9 to get rid of the black bars. 16:10 adds the black bars so it poses as 16:9 and HDMI give you the advantage between RGB and YPbPr

p.s. if i go above my native rez then i get this "to much sharpness" like it's bin turned up to max and you see that bleeding bright white line around objects and the image looks softer


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 14, 2012)

DVI-I connectors are a lil more robust as of durability.
DVI as per resolution can obtain higher refresh rates.

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

The Troubles users have had with HDMI seem to be a lil too common.

HDMI may hold the highest resolution but their refresh rate can be slower


----------

