[Darth80]

Hey guys,

I have been using the same old cable to link my gaming computer to my screen for like 8 years. That cable probably has been there for 2 or 3 different gaming computers.

The cable I am currently using is the multiple pin thing with 1 screw-able pin on each side. I believe we call them DVI cables.

It still works fine, I just want to make sure I'm still doing things right in today's context.

1) Should I replace my DVI screen cable by a HDMI cable or other technology? What are the advantages (and disadvantages if any) of doing so ?

My graphic card is quite powerful (R9 290X if I remember well) so it can output to HDMI, and my old VG236 screen can take HDMI, although I'm not sure if it's better than DVI.

2) Has there been many improvements on computer screen technologies within the last decade? So far, I like my 23 inch ASUS VG236H.

 

[Rich-M]

Like you I have used dvi cable and connection for years. Recently a very tech savvy friend told me I should be using the hdmi connection which he says produce better truer colors. I did it and I'll be damned if I see anything differently. Like you I had a 23" Asus monitor I used for about 4 years and an ATi R-9 280X.

One thing I did I think made a nice difference though is I built a rather pricey rig for a client who demanded certain products among them an edge to edge Dell 24" monitor. I liked the monitor so much on his system I then bought one for myself and I think it made a nice improvement not only because more of the screen showed but because the colors seem much brighter!

 

[JimE]

The digital signal across DVI and HDMI should be the same. And depending on the hardware quality (video card, monitor, and cable), you may not even see a difference between analog (VGA) and digital (DVI or HDMI).

Test and see what works best in your situation.

 

[Frost_Byte]

That is not actually true. You will see a difference between an VGA connection and DVI in most cases, and you will see a difference with HDMI but you have to toggle YCbCr444 instead of RGB 'colors' in the adapters profile to actually get that difference.

 

[JimE]

That is not actually true. You will see a difference between an VGA connection and DVI in most cases, and you will see a difference with HDMI but you have to toggle YCbCr444 instead of RGB 'colors' in the adapters profile to actually get that difference.

True, assuming you are using all quality hardware (as I noted above).

I've seen several times that a quality VGA cable will have the same or better image than a DVI cable (especially those thin crappy cables that ship with some monitors).

That is why I stressed hardware quality and noted to test and see which looks better. Even those that don't know quality differences in hardware, should be able to actually see the difference when testing.

 

[Rich-M]

Oh yeah I agree with Frost Byte here in that that when I first went to a Dvi connection I saw a big difference. I didn't know about the "toggle" for hdmi or maybe am a bad listener so I will look into that one.

 

[Frost_Byte]

Oh yeah I agree with Frost Byte here in that that when I first went to a Dvi connection I saw a big difference. I didn't know about the "toggle" for hdmi or maybe am a bad listener so I will look into that one.

I sent you several high quality screenshots in an email some time back explaining in detail how to do that with both AMD, and nvidia cards. If you would like me to resend it I can do that.

I will post a screenshot of my own control panel right now and show you where it is as far as NVidia is concerned.

 

[ebackhus]

A screencap is just an image from the frame buffer so cable vs cable won't be visible. DVI vs HDMI it's essentially a draw. Both transfer video but HDMI cables are more future-proof than DVI due to the way they are built. DVI comes in single and dual link flavors. Dual link allows higher resolutions than single link. HDMI doesn't have the limitation. HDMI also carries audio and ethernet data, DVI does not. If we remove the audio and data and limit to a 1080p display the image is similar.

 

[Frost_Byte]

Yeah "similar" but that is where the similarity ends. You can definitely see the difference if you know how to look for it and why to look for it. For 98% of people yeah HDMI/DVI is a wash. For me no. Games and Blue Rays look better with HDMI and ycbcr444.

Overall though I get your point unless you are a hardcore image/video affectionado there is no difference.

 

[Darth80]

ebackhus: I just learned something right there: a screenshot is not actually what the user sees on the screen because the screenshot is taken at the "frame buffer" ! I didn't know that !

Out of curiosity, where is the "frame buffer" between my GPU and my monitor? Is the frame buffer inside the GPU ?

A few people seem to agree that it's pretty much a draw between DVI and HDMI for computer monitors, except that HDMI seems better for the future and exception made of very small fraction of the population who can see the difference.

One last thing: does it matter if it's Windows or Linux or the conclusion would be still the same ? I am asking this because I got 2 Windows 7 computers and I am considering the possibility of switching one of them to Linux.

 

[ebackhus]

The frame buffer is the image stored in RAM, it's typically the last thing generated before it hits a RAMDAC for analog connections or gets piped out over HDMI or DVI.

HDMI is more future-proof so that's a major plus there. I honestly can't see a difference between HDMI, DVI or DisplayPort images.

Windows vs Linux it heavily comes down to driver support. The last time I really played in Linux I had an nVidia card in the box. Took a while but I got the drivers installed and it ran great. I've heard that more recent nVidia drivers for Linux are a real pain in the buttocks. I never tried with an ATi/AMD card under Linux.

 

[Darth80]

Alright, thanks a lot for your help !