is DVI really nessisary

[TrueEevil]

Does a DVI imput really make a significant difference in picture quality? i mean if it comes to spendin an extra 50 bucks on a moniter that has it than one that dosn't?

 

[ohnnyj]

I've put three Dell 2005FWP monitors up side by side on three machines one with XP and integrated graphics (analog), and two with the same video card one using the DVI output on the card and one using the analog output on the card and there are very very minute and sublte differences but for the most part I cold not tell a difference.

 

[Stark]

yes, it does make a significant difference (especially if you read text most of the time vs play games)

 

[TrueEevil]

well i built the system to game and watch dvds. now i just need a moniter and a vidio card. if i get a Dvi ill go with a XFX 6600gt. if not ill go with a leadtek (same chipset).

 

[nitromullet]

This is what Anandtech said about DVI vs. VGA in their review of the Dell 2001FP.

Streaking and ghosting:
2001FP (digital) 5, None
2001FP (analog) 5, Extremely present at 1600x1200. Analog signal is not capable.

http://www.anandtech.com/displ...howdoc.aspx?i=1918&p=1

 

[JBT]

It depends on the monitor. Ussually 17" LCD's you won't be able to tell the difference. Some people won't notice the difference no matter what the size. Peronally the monitor, keyboard, and mouse are the 3 things you interact with the most when you use your computer, so why not make them the best?

 

[Rockhound1]

In general, for LCD monitors larger than 17", it does make a difference.

 

[BigRigDriver]

It depends on the monitor. Ussually 17" LCD's you won't be able to tell the difference. Some people won't notice the difference no matter what the size. Peronally the monitor, keyboard, and mouse are the 3 things you interact with the most when you use your computer, so why not make them the best?

So True

 

[Yossairian]

I was skeptical at first, but I sure could tell the difference at 17". I thought everyone was full of shiz when they said DVI makes that big of a difference. Some people cant tell the difference, some people even think the analog looks better, YMMV. I paid an extra $100 for the DVI, it was worth it to me.

 

[cubby1223]

Using the dvi port greatly increases clarity when the monitor is not in its native resolution.

 

[kmmatney]

DVI didn't make any visual difference on my 19" LCD at native resolution. However it is a lot more flexible when changing to resolutions. Its very easy to have the monitor not "stretch" the image when gaming at 1280 x 960. It centers the image vertically, keeping 32 picxls blank above and below the image. I could not get the monitor to do this reliably using the analog connector.

 

[Wolfshanze]

I find this talk fascinating... I am a hardcore gamer (for many, many years), and have always had CRTs for being able to change screen resolutions that best fit the game. I play everything from Doom 3 and Far Cry to really old-school 1997 640x480 fixed resolution games like Panzer General and Pacific General.

This is my delima... I have been looking at getting a swank LCD monitor (probably the Viewsonic 912B), but have been very curious how the interloption will look on something stuck in 640x480. Will DVI help make so low a resolution look good (or at least passable?). I actually do spend a fair amount of time at that resolution when I'm playing a game like PacGen, even though the next day I might kill some demons in Doom 3 at the native resolution (I have a 3.0GHz system with a 6600GT video card). So I need a monitor that can handle it all... currently I have a nice Samsung 955DF 19" CRT, but the heat it puts out makes my room very hot, and I'd like an LCD to help cool things off and ease my eyes!

So does DVI make a differance with interloption? What's a good gaming LCD monitor that will also look good at a low non-native resolution?

Help/advice please!

 

[DorianX]

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze
I find this talk fascinating... I am a hardcore gamer (for many, many years), and have always had CRTs for being able to change screen resolutions that best fit the game. I play everything from Doom 3 and Far Cry to really old-school 1997 640x480 fixed resolution games like Panzer General and Pacific General.

This is my delima... I have been looking at getting a swank LCD monitor (probably the Viewsonic 912B), but have been very curious how the interloption will look on something stuck in 640x480. Will DVI help make so low a resolution look good (or at least passable?). I actually do spend a fair amount of time at that resolution when I'm playing a game like PacGen, even though the next day I might kill some demons in Doom 3 at the native resolution (I have a 3.0GHz system with a 6600GT video card). So I need a monitor that can handle it all... currently I have a nice Samsung 955DF 19" CRT, but the heat it puts out makes my room very hot, and I'd like an LCD to help cool things off and ease my eyes!

So does DVI make a differance with interloption? What's a good gaming LCD monitor that will also look good at a low non-native resolution?

Help/advice please!

I would say AOC Or my personal fav SAMSUNG

 

[Wolfshanze]

Hmmm... I'm looking for a 19" LCD (I forgot to mention that). I don't think Samsung makes a 19" LCD with a low response time (I think their lowest for 19" is 20ms). I haven't heard of AOC monitors... any recomendations on a model?

I basically need this LCD monitor to have four features
#1: 19" screen
#2: Low response time (16ms or less)
#3: DVI input
#4: Great interloption at low res

 

[SilverTrine]

Well I can tell a big difference on a 17" LCD between DVI and Analog. DVI is crisp, the colors vibrant, and the text clear. Analog, the picture is murky, colors not as vibrant, and the text is poor.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze
Hmmm... I'm looking for a 19" LCD (I forgot to mention that). I don't think Samsung makes a 19" LCD with a low response time (I think their lowest for 19" is 20ms). I haven't heard of AOC monitors... any recomendations on a model?

I basically need this LCD monitor to have four features
#1: 19" screen
#2: Low response time (16ms or less)
#3: DVI input
#4: Great interloption at low res

Just get a 2001fp, it's usually the same price as low response time 19 inch monitors.

 

[drpootums]

If i had a 19" monitor with a native res of 12x10 (looking at the BenQ model) would i be able to bring it up to 16x12? I just wanna know, being i dont wanna screw anything up.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Just get a 2001fp, it's usually the same price as low response time 19 inch monitors.

I found this link on the Dell 2001FP which retails for (currently) $639.00 at Dell (is there anyplace besides Dell to get one?).

One thing Dell's website does not mention, what is the response time on the 2001FP? Is there any ghosting in games and/or movies? Why doesn't Dell list the response time, or are they afraid to list it (you think if it was really low, they would list it).

I did notice they listed a lot of supported resolutions, but they didn't mention a native resolution. Is there a "prefered" resolution to the 2001FP, or does it look good in all supported resolutions (640x480 is one of my primary concerns).

Anyone with a 2001FP feel free to answer on response time and resolution support (and if you have a 2001FP, do me a favor and take a look at something in 640x480).

 

[ROJAS]

DVI makes a big difference when you are doing databases for many hours and reading text. I also noticed a sharper output to LCD screens versus crt monitors.

DVI is better on LCD's.

 

[cubby1223]

It also makes a big difference on what brand you're dealing with. Some monitors show no visible difference vga vs. dvi and others show a very noticable difference even when in the native resolution.

And no, you cannot set the monitors to higher resolutions than the native resolution. Well, actually you can, but it's a completely unacceptable display whether you're using vga or dvi connection.

 

[Wolfshanze]

So what about the Viewsonic VP912B? That one has me very interested, and yes, I would be using the DVI connect... any experience if the DVI on the Viewsonic is significantly differant or better then the Analog? Will that help with low-res old-school gaming? (One of my low-res games is a turn-based game with a fair amount of text and graphics).

I basically need an LCD that can do EVERYTHING from top notch games like Doom3 and FarCry, to movies, to desktop work and low-res (640x480) gaming. I'm hoping maybe the Viewsonic VP912B might fit the bill (or perhaps the Dell 2001FP, but the refresh and "patchy screen" worry me on the Dell).

 

[bytor33]

I don't think it matters what lcd you have those old low resolution games are simply going to look worse on an lcd no matter how good of job it does of scaling and if you really must play them just use a crt. It's not that big of deal to swap them out if you're going to play the game for a big stretch, just go back to the lcd when you're done. For an all purpose lcd that also performs extremely well for games I would highly recommend the viewsonic 912b or sony hs94p, both use the same panel. I have the hs94p and I haven't used my sony 21" g500 crt since I got it.

 

[genghislegacy]

Originally posted by: Rockhound1
In general, for LCD monitors larger than 17", it does make a difference.

Yes and even at 17" the difference begins to show.

 

[genghislegacy]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
It also makes a big difference on what brand you're dealing with. Some monitors show no visible difference vga vs. dvi and others show a very noticable difference even when in the native resolution.

And no, you cannot set the monitors to higher resolutions than the native resolution. Well, actually you can, but it's a completely unacceptable display whether you're using vga or dvi connection.

agree

 

[cbehnken]

response time on 2001FP is 16 ms and I've not noticed any "patchy screen"

The monitor is the most flawless piece of hardware I have ever used.

I am using DVI