Why do these cards have DVI ports?!

TheLostSwedeWhy do these cards have DVI ports?!

For that nostalgia dopamine hit.

It's been a while since I last saw a passive card that wasn't a GT210/710/730/1030

DVI is useful to me for my current Phillips monitor from 2017 I feel no need to upgrade, as long as it is working.
I MIGHT get grab fanless one, if price is right. Not holding my breath though.

ExcuseMeWtfDVI is useful to me for my current Phillips monitor from 2017 I feel no need to upgrade, as long as it is working.
I MIGHT get grab fanless one, if price is right. Not holding my breath though.

There are plenty of adapters out there for using a modern graphics card with older equipment. And DVI being digital (the analog part of DVI isn't used in the above cards)


it only needs a cheap passive adapter from HDMI.

john_There are plenty of adapters out there for using a modern graphics card with older equipment. And DVI being digital (the analog part of DVI isn't used in the above cards)


it only needs a cheap passive adapter from HDMI.

I know that. And not having to bother with extra doohickeys is a plus for me.

ExcuseMeWtfI know that. And not having to bother with extra doohickeys is a plus for me.

Well, it's not really that much of a bother an adapter like the above. The only reason buying that card just for the DVI, is having a DVI to DVI cable that don't want to throw away.

^Why though? Just to appease your delicate sensibilities? Then I'm afraid I'm gonna pass.
"No bother at all" is still better than "not that much"

ExcuseMeWtf^Why though? Just to appease your delicate sensibilities? Then I'm afraid I'm gonna pass.
"No bother at all" is still better than "not that much"

I see you edited your reply to add some extra sauce.
Oh, come on. I didn't insulted you by pointing at something obvious, did I?

john_I see you edited your reply to add some extra sauce.
Oh, come on. I didn't insulted you by pointing at something obvious, did I?

Apparently for some people sticking a cheap adapter like this to their old monitor's DVI cable


is more trouble than being severely limited to a small niche of cards that still possess DVI ports.

This card should be a 3040, not a 3050...

john_I see you edited your reply to add some extra sauce.
Oh, come on. I didn't insulted you by pointing at something obvious, did I?

No, seriously, why do you think everyone should proceed the way you think is appropriate, i.e., buy the adapter instead of actually having an option to not bother with one? It strikes me as entitled to think you get to dictate only right approach in this situation and deny others' alternative ones.

Palit has determined there is enough demand to warrant and approach like this, and I'd figure, having skin in the game, they have more accurate information on it than you, or I for that matter.

ExcuseMeWtfNo, seriously, why do you think everyone should proceed the way you think is appropriate, i.e., buy the adapter instead of actually having an option to not bother with one? It strikes me as entitled to think you get to dictate only right approach in this situation and deny others' alternative ones.

Don't accuse me for what YOU are doing. I never insisted on anything.

Your post, about your TV, was giving the idea of having a DVI port was important for compatibility reasons. But DVI and HDMI are electrically identical and compatible so the adapter is just a simple piece of plastic and metal, not a PCB board with logic on it. No different than the DVI to VGA adapter for example. I only pointed to that.
I don't know why you got angered or something about that post to have to reply that adding an HDMI to DVI adapter was somehow bothersome. My reply was simply again pointing to something obvious. It wasn't. I mean, it's a 30 seconds task and a $2 cost. Someone could just buy a DVI to HDMI cable and doesn't even have to use an adapter anyway.
You replied with " "No bother at all" is still better than "not that much" ". I saw that YOU where not going to let it go, it was your way, or the wrong way, so I thought OK and didn't replied. Then you had to edit your post to make it more spicy and more personal. And now you accuse me for what YOU KEEP doing.
OK.

Palit has determined there is enough demand to warrant and approach like this, and I'd figure, having skin in the game, they have more accurate information on it than you, or I for that matter.

As I said above, having a DVI to DVI cable could be a reason. Not exactly a reason based on logic, limit your options, as it was correctly pointed above in another post, just to keep using an old DVI to DVI cable, but...

Then the majority of consumers out there aren't exactly experts in video sockets. Many who wouldn't know that HDMI and DVI are in fact compatible will buy Palit's card thinking that they can't use their DVI monitor with a video card offering only HDMI and DisplayPort exits. Someone reading your original post would come also at that conclusion, which is wrong. I think that's what Palit was thinking. Selling to that target group.
The above model would have been great for old monitors, if Palit had done the extra job on the card's PCB by adding the necessary logic to also offer VGA out throught that DVI port. I mean, you can buy an HDMI to VGA adapter from Ali with less than $2. So, it is not some expensive logic to put on the card to add also analog out on that DVI port.

Okay. Only one problem: never asked anyone for purchasing advice in the first place.

So apologies for not taking any unsolicited tips that were not welcome to begin with. Or having audacity to not justify my own purchasing choices to random strangers.

This is clearly going nowhere, so I'll leave it at that.

ExcuseMeWtfnever asked anyone for purchasing advice in the first place

Never gave one. This is a forum. Except someone addressing you directly and insisting on what YOU HAVE TO do, any post is done here is for the sake of conversation and for everyone to see.

I'll pass commenting on the rest. Waste of time.

Have a nice day/night.

For people that are confused about the DVI port: Lots of cheaper cards tend to have DVI simply because lots of people that buy cheap cards have DVI monitors. When I bought my 1650S I was glad to see it's DVI port because I had a DVI monitor at the time. I could also see someone buying this card as their "test card" (because of it's lack of power connectors) and having a wide variety of ports is helpful for these things because you don't necessarily know what monitor someone has when working on stuff.

Luke357For people that are confused about the DVI port: Lots of cheaper cards tend to have DVI simply because lots of people that buy cheap cards have DVI monitors. When I bought my 1650S I was glad to see it's DVI port because I had a DVI monitor at the time. I could also see someone buying this card as their "test card" (because of it's lack of power connectors) and having a wide variety of ports is helpful for these things because you don't necessarily know what monitor someone has when working on stuff.

That's a totally valid reason when ports are not compatible. Here HDMI and DVI are compatible and the adapter needed simple and cheap. Palit could just include an HDMI to DVI adapter in the box and still offer DVI support.
The DVI post is simply for those who think that the card absolutely needs to have a DVI port to be compatible with DVI monitors.

I think the DVI port is actually better because there are no issues with poor contact.

Also, I purchased and am using a Palit GeForce RTX 3050 KalmX 6GB graphics card, and since it is a fanless graphics card, there is no need for a separate power port and it does not collect dust, which is good. And of course it doesn't make any noise.

Personally I think that DVI is great for a card like this, since even though the card itself is a pure joke, it's still a decent card for upgrading an older office-tier PC to a entry-level gaming rig. And for a cheap gaming rig, you can get an used old monitor with DVI.