• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does DVI really matter for LCDs or is VGA good enough?

K

Kamui

Senior member
Hi,

I am currently using 2 Dell 2001FP and I am looking for a good video card that has good 2d output and average 3d.

My previous card, a Matrox Parhelia, just burned and it left me a very bad impression of Matrox cards. And I know that Nvidia cards dont seem to have good 2d graphics. So, I am basically left with ATI based cards.

I have 2 cards in mind right now and I was wondering what is your opinion on :

1) HIS Excalibur 9600 Dual DVI (aproximately $129)
2) MSI ATI RX9800PRO Video Card, 128MB DDR, 256-bit, DVI/S-Video, 8X AGP (~ $195)

Now, option 1 seem to be exactly what I am looking for. But I cant seem to find this item anywhere (even Newegg has it out of stock). So I might be left with option 2 instead.

Now, suppose I connect my two LCD to this card (1 to the DVI connector and the other one to the VGA connector), how is image going to be for both? My previous experience was the DVI output was much much better than the VGA output on LCD... but that might have changed...


Kamui
 
DVI is so much better.

1) You never have to adjust the screen.

2) Signal does not get degraded from being converted from digital to analog and back to digital.

3) DVI gives you a pixel perfect picture exactly the way it was ment to be seen since the digital signal is untouched.
 
If you try using analog for your 2001fp's in native res, it's gonna look like crap. Analog (vga) can't handle that much data. Go with the digital imo.
 
If you try using analog for your 2001fp's in native res, it's gonna look like crap. Analog (vga) can't handle that much data. Go with the digital imo.
Click to expand...
I can assure you that the person who posted this does not have the 2001fp lcd, and really doesn't know what they are talking about. VGA at 1600 X 1200 is rock stable, and visually very plaesing on the 2000fp and the 2001fp.

i have both monitors. they are both great monitors ..

honesty, i cannot tell the difference between analog and digital output in terms of image sharpness..

i do not play games.

there is a definite problem with the interaction of some DVI cards with the 2000fp and the 2001 fp lcd's...
read the dell forums and you'll see what i mean.

i got radeon 9200 cards for my computers, because they are the fastest vid cards around with passive cooling (no fan noise, i'm into ultra quiet)

the 2001fp, initially had problems coming out of sleep mode, until i changed a setting on the vid monitor to a "non-standard" setting (suggested by ATI). this worked fine, and the card and monitor have been very stable.

the 2000fp had problems with the screen periodically "blacking out" and then re-establishing the image...i could not correct this problem with any work-arounds, and eventually switched to the VGA output for this monitor.

i cannot really tell ANY difference in the appearance of the monitors with either digital or analog inputs.
of course you just "feel" that the digital output ought to be better, but subjectively, i really can't tell any difference.

both monitors are very sharp, rock stable, and the 2001fp seems a shade "brighter" than the 2000fp..but this is independant of the adapter card, and is monitor specific.

i have a tv card, and routinely watch tv on these screens all the way up to 1600X1200 in size, and the tv image is great. analog or digital.

hope that helps.
 
I have a 17.4" LCD with both VGA and DVI inputs, and it can toggle between them. I plugged it into my Radeon 7500 with both cables at once, and toggled the monitor back and forth from DVI to VGA. The DVI image is noticably better. But it's not the monitor that you have, so YMMV.
 
I helped a friend switch his 2001FP from vga (rage pro 8MB) to dvi on 98pro just last night. No difference in sharpness we could see...
 
You won't have to worry about poor 2D performance from nVida if you?re going with DVI. The root of poor 2D performance from nVida cards came from the use of low quality filters some manufactures used on the analog VGA output. Also Leadtek's nVida cards are supposed to have excellent 2D quality.
 
Here's how VGA works with a CRT:
Video Card generates digital signal --> DAC --> VGA port --> CRT decodes analog signal & displays image

VGA with an LCD:
Video Card generates digital signal --> DAC --> VGA port --> ADC --> LCD decodes digital signal & displays image

DVI with LCD:
Video Card generates digital signal --> DVI Port --> LCD decodes digital signal & displays image

Note: DAC is digital-to-analog converter. ADC is analog-to-digital converter.

You should not see a significant difference, but as LCD gains widespread acceptance over CRT (it certainly will) eliminating the DAC and ADC saves money, as well as eliminating the possibility of analog fuzzy errors.
 
Originally posted by: CarrotStick
DVI is so much better.

1) You never have to adjust the screen.

2) Signal does not get degraded from being converted from digital to analog and back to digital.

3) DVI gives you a pixel perfect picture exactly the way it was ment to be seen since the digital signal is untouched.
Click to expand...


Enough said. With an LCD running analog, you might still have to adjust the pixel phase/clock, as well as vertical/horizontal position. With DVI, it's automatically adjusted and centred from the moment you switch your PC on. Also, one thing that I have noticed is that LCD's connected through DVI scale a bit better to lower resolutions.
 
LCD has auto adjust, even using VGA, you don't have to adjust the position things.
If your LCD is a good one, not a low-end, using VGA is good enough.
 
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i got radeon 9200 cards for my computers, because they are the fastest vid cards around with passive cooling (no fan noise, i'm into ultra quiet)
Click to expand...

For a complete non-gamer with a DVI LCD, I might get a R9200, but I don't think there was ever a time when R9200's were the fastest passive cards. They're really slow and don't support DX9.

There are plenty of faster passive cards, like just about any R9600.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-289

There are a couple of passive R9800's, and you can put that huge passive Zalman heatsink on about anything, too.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: CarrotStick
DVI is so much better.

1) You never have to adjust the screen.

2) Signal does not get degraded from being converted from digital to analog and back to digital.

3) DVI gives you a pixel perfect picture exactly the way it was ment to be seen since the digital signal is untouched.
Click to expand...

word.
 
Hi guys,

Thanks for all those that replied to my question.

It seems that I should go for the MSI 9800 PRO card =)

Did anybody here try to hook up this card into two monitors? In other words, is this video card a "dual head"?

Kamui.
 
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
If you try using analog for your 2001fp's in native res, it's gonna look like crap. Analog (vga) can't handle that much data. Go with the digital imo.
Click to expand...
I can assure you that the person who posted this does not have the 2001fp lcd, and really doesn't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. I do have the 2001fp thank you very much. Want pics? Though I've never used the analog, from all the reviews/posts I read before I got this monitor, people say it had trouble with analog at 16x12.

Edit: Also, why should he trust your little subjective opinion instead of the hundreds of other reviews he can find online? If he wants 2d performance, he's going to want a perfect picture with no image degradation. DVI will give him that.
 
Though I've never used the analog
Click to expand...
well there you go...opinion versus fact..
i can't tell any difference between analog and dvi output to the 2001fp at 1600x1200, both look great.

you also completely missed the second part of my post which reports on the difficulty that the 2001fp and 2000fp lcd monitors can have interfacing with dvi cards.

From personal experience, and from perusing the Dell forums, it becomes obvious that you can have some strange problems wit the 2001fp monitor related to the dvi interface, which is not present when you use analog output even from the same video card!

you might learn something if you read my "little subjective opinion" a little closer.

i would be interested in seeing those "hundreds of reviews online" that specifically examine image clarity on the dell 2001fp dvi versus analog input. perhaps you could provide a few links.

If you try using analog for your 2001fp's in native res, it's gonna look like crap. Analog (vga) can't handle that much data. Go with the digital imo.
Click to expand...
the image doesn't look like "crap", it looks great.
I don't know what "Analog (vga) can't handle that much data" means....
1600x1200 analog output to the 2001 lcd looks and functions great, without any difficulty.

i purchase a dvi video card because i too had read the dvi output to an LCD screen made for a sharper image. i had built-in analog video in my computer all ready.

well, in my opinion, i wasted my money, because the image is not demonsterably improved with dvi.

the only upside is, that when i eventually purchase a second 2001fp for my computer, i can run one monitor off the dvi port, and the other off the vga port....dual head...

also. my wife runs a samsung lcd monitor off a analog signal, and it looks stunning as well.

i would say that if your budget it tight, vga at 1600x1200 is fine.
if you want to go dvi, be aware that there are some potential drawbacks with the 2001fp and how it interacts with some dvi cards....if you have prob;lems...diligently search the dell forums and you'll probably find a solution there.
 
Analog does not allow disabling scaling (or stretching) to maintain an accurate aspect ratio with ATI gear. NVIDIA has more functionality in this regard but I don't know if it is likewise limited to digital or not.
 
Hi guys,

Now question for you now is if MSI 9800 PRO card will run as a dual head monitor.

Is there someone that owns this card that could tell me ?


Kamui.
 
if gaming isnt priority why not stick to a Radeon 9200 or something thats known for 2D quality and can play (your going to kill me for this) games occasionally (if your monitor supports 512*400 resolutions)


haha i remember back in the day my Kyro II 64MB was great 2D performer and could top the high end Geforce 2 GTS in many games, yet only cost $120......

those were the days
 
a bunch of the Nvidia 6800 GT cards have dual dvi. they are pricey but might be worth looking into if you want a high performance dual dvi card. analog is so 90's, i dont know why anyone would prefer it over digital 🙂
 
DVI DOES makes a big difference, although I'm sure some people wouldn't be that picky and notice. (I've got two quality LCD monitors now, and can tell a difference on both, using multiple video cards) Any good quality Nvidia or ATi card should be fine for 2D quality. Often the low-end cards use low-end parts that make 2D quality worse (probably most/all the Gefore 5200s, for example). But a mid-high end card will be fine.

The Dell 2001 is probably having problems with DVI with some cards because a lot of cards don't output a good enough signal to drive 1600x1200 through DVI. Either Tom's or Anantech had an article about it recently. Again, buying a better quality card will take care of that problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top