VGA vs DVI

Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by adamg, Aug 4, 2003.

  1. adamg

    adamg Guest

    What does DVI do that VGA doesn't? Would it give a better picture on an LCD? Is it worth an extra AU$200?
     
  2. albybum

    albybum Penguin Rancher

    Messages:
    280
    Location:
    Elizabethton, TN
    DVI is an all digital connection and it will give you a sharper more clean image assuming you have the display that supports it like a high resolution LCD or Plasma screen.

    If you already have a display that supports it, it might be worth the extra cash to get a video card that supports it. But I would pay the extra for more performance over quality.

    Here is a forum with some other people's perspectives:

    http://bizforums.itrc.hp.com/cm/QuestionAnswer/1,,0x304f9c196a4bd71190080090279cd0f9,00.html
     
  3. Glaanieboy

    Glaanieboy Moderator

    Messages:
    2,626
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    On CRT monitors, the image is analog and images displayed on LCD screens are digital. In the first case, all the videocard does, is to translate the digital signals it receives from the computer, to analog signals for the CRT monitor.
    Because LCD screens are digital, there is an extra step added when the signal enters the monitor, that is the translation from analog to digital. This causes signal degradation, and thus less clearer image. That's why DVI was invented. DVI output is digital, and results in a much sharper image, because there is no signal conversion.
    I have a 15" LCD screen with a VGA connection type, and the image is very good for me. However, when going to the bigger screens (17"+), more pixels have to be called upon, and so there is more digital to analog to digital conversion and so more chance on signal loss.
    This is all from personal experience, so go to a computer shop and ask someone to give a demonstration.
     
  4. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    All the new high-end cards come with DVI connectors, but personally I think LCD screens are usually bought because people think they look neato :p Or perheps they have so much money that it doesn't matter what they buy. A flatscreen CRT monitor with high refresh rates has a much better picture, IMO.

    That extra $200 can be put toward higher quality brands and a bigger, flatter screen.

    One of my monitors has digital BNC inputs as well as analog. You could get a DVI-to-BNC dongle and just find a monitor with those inputs if a good digital picture is what you want.
     
  5. jumpy

    jumpy Guest

    Yep they do look cool. Lets not forget the fact they don't strain your eyes as much, take up less desk space, emit less heat, consume less power etc.
    I certainly would buy one if I had the cash :D

    What LCD are you looking at adamg? take a look at www.razorprices.com for some good prices :)
     
  6. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    High refresh rates (85Hz or better) eliminate eyestrain, and I have AC, a huge desk, and electricity paid where I live...it works for me ;)

    I would never go so far as to say that LCD screens are bad, they're just spendy and I can't afford one! I bought two CRTs for the same price. More practical for me, anyhow.
     
  7. Zedric

    Zedric NTFS Guru Folding Team

    Messages:
    4,006
    Location:
    Sweden
    Sure 85Hz+ is pretty much flicker free, but when compared to the super-calmness of an LCD it's a big difference. Too bad the LCD:s still have downsides, like resolution, viewing angle, dead pixels and so on...
     
  8. adamg

    adamg Guest

    Im looking at two LCDs (both 15"). Both Samsung, one is the 151N (analog) for $525 and the other one is the 152T (analog/digital) for $625. Seems like the difference is only $100 :) .
     
  9. rnielsen151

    rnielsen151 OSNN Junior Addict

    Messages:
    39
    Pay the money for the digital...well worth the extra money.

    The digital one also has an analog jack.

    You'll be able to see the difference
     
  10. Glaanieboy

    Glaanieboy Moderator

    Messages:
    2,626
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I work in a store where we sell the 151N monitor and I must say that the picture is quite sharp. I've got myself the predecessor, the Samsung 151s, and I like what I see, the picture is sharp enough. Just like I said earlier in my previous post, go to a local computershop and ask for a demonstration of both monitors. This way you can decide if you see the difference, and if it's worth the $100 extra to have a DVI monitor.
     
  11. Taurus

    Taurus hardware monkey

    Messages:
    3,206
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    friend and i both have this same lcd (dell 1800fp, see sig). i use the digital connection and he uses analog. i was surprised at the clarity his showed. i couldn't put them side-by-side, but i couldn't notice any real difference between the two. though i'm sure i could find it if i were able to put them side-by-side. plus i'm sure digital offers truer colors and uses the entire contrast range capable of the lcd.

    also, these dell's are very decent lcd's and probably have good analog/digital converters in them.
     
  12. Zedric

    Zedric NTFS Guru Folding Team

    Messages:
    4,006
    Location:
    Sweden
    One difference I know would go away on my dads 17" Hansol if it had DVI would be the strange shadows that appear on the screen. If you have a white surface with black objects (like text) the objects cast shadows about 1cm to the right of them. This is because of signal bounce in the analogue cable. On a digital signal these shadows would not appear at all.