AnimeSuki Forums

Tiberium Wolf · 2006-03-20, 02:27

Ok... I noticed that my GF4 MX has a DVI-I (dual link) and my imax LCD has a DVI-D (dual link). I went to wiki to check out that the hell was DVI. So would there be any difference in using the DVI connection, I mean better than the standard vga connection? More important can I even make such connection? I did a google search for a DVI cable and in the 1st site I found the price was 20€

***GHDpro*** · 2006-03-20, 03:04

Explaining the advantage of DVI is simple. A video card is a digital device. A LCD display
is a digital device. A normal D-Sub (VGA) cable is a analog cable. Does that make sense?
I think not, yet probably 98% of all LCD screens still use D-Sub cables for odd reasons.

A DVI cable connection simply makes the whole loop digital. This means you don't need
to adjust the screen anymore (like center the display, change colors, change brightness etc)
as that's all directly specified by the video card.

Needless to say DVI will give you better picture quality. Though you have to decide for
yourself if it's really worth the price -- the difference isn't massive. But noticable.

Danj · 2006-03-20, 04:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHDpro

Explaining the advantage of DVI is simple. A video card is a digital device. A LCD display
is a digital device. A normal D-Sub (VGA) cable is a analog cable. Does that make sense?
I think not, yet probably 98% of all LCD screens still use D-Sub cables for odd reasons.

LCD screens that have non-analog DVI connections seem to be more expensive than the ones you mention with D-sub connections. Also, the other things that annoy me about LCDs are a) all 17" and 19" LCDs seem to be that horrible horrible horrible resolution, 1280x1024 (hate hate hate) and b) to get 1600x1200 or higher you have to get at least a 20.1" LCD.

Ending · 2006-03-20, 07:12

All that doesn't really matter, since all newer vid.cards (for example: GF 7800) have only dual DVI connectors. Meaning: VGA is passing away and with it go the CRT screens.

Kurz · 2006-03-20, 09:25

CRTs are still a vaild piece of hardware. For me I game with my PC so having good refresh rates are important. A new display tech called, "SED," comes out based on 1 Cathray tube per pixel. Then most will come running back.

A display as thin as a LCD but visual quailities of a CRT? I dont know about you, but I am hooked on the idea.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/5...-kind-sed.html

EDIT: There should be Monitors coming out at the end of this year!

TheFluff · 2006-03-20, 13:20

CRT > LCD obviously. LCD's are expensive, have low resolutions for their size, "dead pixels", a very limited set of alternative resolutions and bad refresh rates. Just about the only thing they have going for them is the size and weight...

Ending · 2006-03-20, 14:27

What are you talking about? LCDs costs only 300 euros in average, cheaper models coming close to 200, and quality-wise they are better than majority of CRTs. Bad refresh-rates? Really, even 60 Hz on LCD beats the best CRT with 120 Hz due of the difference in technology.

And what does "low resolution" has to do with anything? Regular 17" LCDs run antive on 1280x and that is more than enough for most games. Even if you wanted more, it would require you to have some über-hardware to back it up, not to mention that the game developers need to take it into account too when they start making textures.

Plus, dead pixels are rare -especially those bright ones that cause the complaints.

TheFluff · 2006-03-20, 14:37

Who the fsck said I was interested in playing games? I'm after a high resolution monitor with high contrast and good color representation. That means a CRT.
Point me to a 19" LCD that does 1600x1200 like my 19" CRT does (I've looked, but so far there are none). Also, my 19" Dell P992 (flat surface, trinitron) cost me about 60 euros (of course, it was used, but in excellent condition), not the 300+ a halfway decent 19" LCD would cost - and the LCD wouldn't even do 1600x1200, which is my desktop res. If I was in the market for a new monitor, anything smaller than 19" or a resolution less than 1600x1200 wouldn't even be an option.

Good CRT's > LCD's.

Tiberium Wolf · 2006-03-20, 15:16

In Portugal... CRTs are almost gone... actually when I bough my imax LCD last friday I had to make an extra trip back to the store coz there was 1 dead pixel when I turn it on my house... Wasted gas! I should have check it there in the 1st place.

Danj · 2006-03-20, 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurz

CRTs are still a vaild piece of hardware. For me I game with my PC so having good refresh rates are important. A new display tech called, "SED," comes out based on 1 Cathray tube per pixel. Then most will come running back.

A display as thin as a LCD but visual quailities of a CRT? I dont know about you, but I am hooked on the idea.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/5...-kind-sed.html

EDIT: There should be Monitors coming out at the end of this year!

Yeah, I'm looking forward to SED too, it's another reason why I've held off thinking of getting a new monitor or TV, because rumour has it that SED might actually be cheaper as well as better.

TheFluff · 2006-03-20, 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiberium Wolf

CRTs are almost gone...

That's why the nice, used ones are so insanely cheap.

killmoms · 2006-03-20, 16:46

After owning a Dell 2005FPW which I unfortunately had to sell to afford my spring break trip, I won't go back to CRTs. I can't take the bulk, and the supposed "improved" qualities don't make up for the lack of widescreen and larger size of my LCD. Not to mention that the "low refresh rates" of LCD don't even matter—since they're not scanning the way CRTs do, you won't get eyestrain from a 60Hz LCD, there's no flickering. If you're worried about not getting more than 60fps in your games because of it... well, then you just have no life.

Although, I think OLED has a better chance of replacing LCD than SED.

***GHDpro*** · 2006-03-20, 17:10

A few comments:

- SED looks nice

- Yes, CRT offers better picture quality and possible screen resolution than LCD
But for a display of a certain size (CRT 19"+) you need lots of space. I too was
in the "anti-LCD" camp once, but I've switched sides -- LCD display simply offer
good picture quality (with refresh rates that are no longer a problem) yet
consumes FAR less space than CRT displays. [my room/desk isn't that big, so it counts]

But...

Please get back on-topic, this thread was originally about DVI...

Ledgem · 2006-03-20, 23:56

Sorry GHD, but I'm also going to keep up the off-topic banter ;P

The refresh rates issue is garbage. Maybe if you're at extremely high framerates you can see the difference, but otherwise, all that talk of ghosting and such was a lie, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a heavy gamer, but my LCD is one of the cheaper ones and I've sure as hell never had any problems.

The only thing that CRTs win out over LCDs for, as far as I'm concerned, are colors. Specifically, black levels. My monitor essentially has no black levels. Then again, as I said before, I went for the ultimate cheapest in the 17" line.

What the LCD really shines in is sharpness. Once you get used to an LCD, almost everything on a CRT looks blurry as all hell. Yes, I hate the 5:4 aspect ratio I'm locked into, and it'd be nice to go to 1600x1200 (although on a 17" screen that'd probably look bad anyway), but the fact that it's so light, it's not a space heater, and I have extreme sharpness of image simply outweighs that. I'm now looking into going for a dual monitor setup with two LCDs; this is possible due to their size and weight, seeing as I am a college student with limited space.

End verdict, use what suits you best, but don't insult the other technology with ridiculous claims (the refresh rates issue for LCDs was long dead, as far as I was concerned; I'm amazed to see it being brought up here).

Ending · 2006-03-21, 08:30

Ditto, so use DVI.

Just make sure it is the right kind of DVI, as there are DVI-D, DVI-I, and DVI=I. IIRC, been a while since I had to find out. Most cables should come with the vid. card and/or monitor.

Anyway, your monitor and vid.card are incompatible without a separate converter and considering that the card is just a bare MX, I wouldn't go through the trouble since the benefit isn't that big. You should get it naturally the next time you upgrade your comp.

TheFluff · 2006-03-21, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ledgem

What the LCD really shines in is sharpness. Once you get used to an LCD, almost everything on a CRT looks blurry as all hell.

Stop using crap CRT's with large dotpitch... and that sharpness thing is a result of the LCD being more or less designed for one specific resolution, so the pixels basically have a fixed size (which is why an LCD performs suboptimally on any resolution not an even fraction of the res it was designed for). In any case, black levels and color representation is what matters to me, hence I prefer CRT's. Apologies for the trolling earlier.

Tiberium Wolf · 2006-03-22, 02:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wordplay

Ditto, so use DVI.

Just make sure it is the right kind of DVI, as there are DVI-D, DVI-I, and DVI=I. IIRC, been a while since I had to find out. Most cables should come with the vid. card and/or monitor.

Anyway, your monitor and vid.card are incompatible without a separate converter and considering that the card is just a bare MX, I wouldn't go through the trouble since the benefit isn't that big. You should get it naturally the next time you upgrade your comp.

So what are the DVI options should I look in the vid cards next time I do an upgrade?

SirJeannot · 2006-03-22, 04:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wordplay

All that doesn't really matter, since all newer vid.cards (for example: GF 7800) have only dual DVI connectors. Meaning: VGA is passing away and with it go the CRT screens.

the dvi plug is meant to support analog signal as well

***GHDpro*** · 2006-03-22, 04:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirJeannot

the dvi plug is meant to support analog signal as well

Ah yes -- I got the proof running at my mother's place. A Mac mini only has a DVI connector
but with the supplied adapter you can easily hook it up to a CRT monitor with a VGA cable as well.

Of course... I'd only use that option if you had no DVI-compatible monitor. Also I'm
not sure if every video card will support that. They probably will though -- lots of video
cards have both VGA (D-Sub) and DVI connectors, yet they can run dual monitor setups
with both monintors being CRT displays with the right adapter (afaik... never tried this).

Ending · 2006-03-22, 06:40

Quote:

So what are the DVI options should I look in the vid cards next time I do an upgrade?

You don't really need to look for it, since it is becoming a standard nowdays. After a year or two there is only one type of DVI, I guess... I'd trust to the fact that if I bought both a new vid.card and a new monitor, I'd get them to work together flawlessly. Of course, it might be HDTV that is the big word next time, so then you might want to watch out for that.

@ SirJeannot

Dunno, there are converters, but haven't tried them either. I'd rather just stick the cable to the plug than toy with anything else, though.

2006-03-20, 02:27	Link #1
Tiberium Wolf Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Age: 44	DVI... anyone using it? Ok... I noticed that my GF4 MX has a DVI-I (dual link) and my imax LCD has a DVI-D (dual link). I went to wiki to check out that the hell was DVI. So would there be any difference in using the DVI connection, I mean better than the standard vga connection? More important can I even make such connection? I did a google search for a DVI cable and in the 1st site I found the price was 20€ __________________

2006-03-20, 09:25	Link #5
Kurz Gao~ a sound for the ages Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: I live in a relm of swirling of thought and emotion, Ever lost in the relm of infinite possiblities. Age: 37	CRTs are still a vaild piece of hardware. For me I game with my PC so having good refresh rates are important. A new display tech called, "SED," comes out based on 1 Cathray tube per pixel. Then most will come running back. A display as thin as a LCD but visual quailities of a CRT? I dont know about you, but I am hooked on the idea. http://www.behardware.com/articles/5...-kind-sed.html EDIT: There should be Monitors coming out at the end of this year! Last edited by Kurz; 2006-03-20 at 13:57.

2006-03-20, 13:20	Link #6
TheFluff Excessively jovial fellow Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: ISDB-T Age: 37	CRT > LCD obviously. LCD's are expensive, have low resolutions for their size, "dead pixels", a very limited set of alternative resolutions and bad refresh rates. Just about the only thing they have going for them is the size and weight... __________________ \| ffmpegsource 17:43:13 <~deculture> Also, TheFluff, you are so fucking slowpoke.jpg that people think we dropped the DVD's. 17:43:16 <~deculture> nice job, fag! 01:04:41 < Plorkyeran> it was annoying to typeset so it should be annoying to read

2006-03-20, 14:37	Link #8
TheFluff Excessively jovial fellow Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: ISDB-T Age: 37	Who the fsck said I was interested in playing games? I'm after a high resolution monitor with high contrast and good color representation. That means a CRT. Point me to a 19" LCD that does 1600x1200 like my 19" CRT does (I've looked, but so far there are none). Also, my 19" Dell P992 (flat surface, trinitron) cost me about 60 euros (of course, it was used, but in excellent condition), not the 300+ a halfway decent 19" LCD would cost - and the LCD wouldn't even do 1600x1200, which is my desktop res. If I was in the market for a new monitor, anything smaller than 19" or a resolution less than 1600x1200 wouldn't even be an option. Good CRT's > LCD's. __________________ \| ffmpegsource 17:43:13 <~deculture> Also, TheFluff, you are so fucking slowpoke.jpg that people think we dropped the DVD's. 17:43:16 <~deculture> nice job, fag! 01:04:41 < Plorkyeran> it was annoying to typeset so it should be annoying to read Last edited by TheFluff; 2006-03-20 at 14:57.

2006-03-20, 15:16	Link #9
Tiberium Wolf Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Age: 44	In Portugal... CRTs are almost gone... actually when I bough my imax LCD last friday I had to make an extra trip back to the store coz there was 1 dead pixel when I turn it on my house... Wasted gas! I should have check it there in the 1st place. __________________

2006-03-20, 03:04	Link #2
*GHDpro* Administrator Administrator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Netherlands Age: 45	Explaining the advantage of DVI is simple. A video card is a digital device. A LCD display is a digital device. A normal D-Sub (VGA) cable is a analog cable. Does that make sense? I think not, yet probably 98% of all LCD screens still use D-Sub cables for odd reasons. A DVI cable connection simply makes the whole loop digital. This means you don't need to adjust the screen anymore (like center the display, change colors, change brightness etc) as that's all directly specified by the video card. Needless to say DVI will give you better picture quality. Though you have to decide for yourself if it's really worth the price -- the difference isn't massive. But noticable.

2006-03-20, 07:12	Link #4
Ending Senior Member Join Date: May 2004	All that doesn't really matter, since all newer vid.cards (for example: GF 7800) have only dual DVI connectors. Meaning: VGA is passing away and with it go the CRT screens.

2006-03-20, 14:27	Link #7
Ending Senior Member Join Date: May 2004	What are you talking about? LCDs costs only 300 euros in average, cheaper models coming close to 200, and quality-wise they are better than majority of CRTs. Bad refresh-rates? Really, even 60 Hz on LCD beats the best CRT with 120 Hz due of the difference in technology. And what does "low resolution" has to do with anything? Regular 17" LCDs run antive on 1280x and that is more than enough for most games. Even if you wanted more, it would require you to have some über-hardware to back it up, not to mention that the game developers need to take it into account too when they start making textures. Plus, dead pixels are rare -especially those bright ones that cause the complaints.

2006-03-20, 16:46	Link #12
killmoms Former Triad Typesetter Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Washington, DC Age: 40	After owning a Dell 2005FPW which I unfortunately had to sell to afford my spring break trip, I won't go back to CRTs. I can't take the bulk, and the supposed "improved" qualities don't make up for the lack of widescreen and larger size of my LCD. Not to mention that the "low refresh rates" of LCD don't even matter—since they're not scanning the way CRTs do, you won't get eyestrain from a 60Hz LCD, there's no flickering. If you're worried about not getting more than 60fps in your games because of it... well, then you just have no life. Although, I think OLED has a better chance of replacing LCD than SED.

2006-03-20, 17:10	Link #13
*GHDpro* Administrator Administrator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Netherlands Age: 45	A few comments: - SED looks nice - Yes, CRT offers better picture quality and possible screen resolution than LCD But for a display of a certain size (CRT 19"+) you need lots of space. I too was in the "anti-LCD" camp once, but I've switched sides -- LCD display simply offer good picture quality (with refresh rates that are no longer a problem) yet consumes FAR less space than CRT displays. [my room/desk isn't that big, so it counts] But... Please get back on-topic, this thread was originally about DVI...

2006-03-20, 23:56	Link #14
Ledgem Love Yourself Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Northeast USA Age: 38	Sorry GHD, but I'm also going to keep up the off-topic banter ;P The refresh rates issue is garbage. Maybe if you're at extremely high framerates you can see the difference, but otherwise, all that talk of ghosting and such was a lie, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a heavy gamer, but my LCD is one of the cheaper ones and I've sure as hell never had any problems. The only thing that CRTs win out over LCDs for, as far as I'm concerned, are colors. Specifically, black levels. My monitor essentially has no black levels. Then again, as I said before, I went for the ultimate cheapest in the 17" line. What the LCD really shines in is sharpness. Once you get used to an LCD, almost everything on a CRT looks blurry as all hell. Yes, I hate the 5:4 aspect ratio I'm locked into, and it'd be nice to go to 1600x1200 (although on a 17" screen that'd probably look bad anyway), but the fact that it's so light, it's not a space heater, and I have extreme sharpness of image simply outweighs that. I'm now looking into going for a dual monitor setup with two LCDs; this is possible due to their size and weight, seeing as I am a college student with limited space. End verdict, use what suits you best, but don't insult the other technology with ridiculous claims (the refresh rates issue for LCDs was long dead, as far as I was concerned; I'm amazed to see it being brought up here). __________________

2006-03-21, 08:30	Link #15
Ending Senior Member Join Date: May 2004	Ditto, so use DVI. Just make sure it is the right kind of DVI, as there are DVI-D, DVI-I, and DVI=I. IIRC, been a while since I had to find out. Most cables should come with the vid. card and/or monitor. Anyway, your monitor and vid.card are incompatible without a separate converter and considering that the card is just a bare MX, I wouldn't go through the trouble since the benefit isn't that big. You should get it naturally the next time you upgrade your comp.