is there a loss in quality using a VGA from DVI-D source?

[nix253]

hey guys how are you all? my graphics card has 2 dvi-d ports and one hdmi and display port. now i'm planning to use a vga cable which i'll be connecting to the graphic card through the dvi-d--> vga adapter that has been supplied as an accessory with the card. so will there be loss in quality due to using vga or since the source is dvi-d the quality will be same as HDMI?

i need to use vga because my display is giving me that 1080/24p HD signal issue when playing crysis 2 on HDMI ....so i think it'll be resolved with this setup.

 

[VirtualLarry]

There can be. It depends entirely on the quality of the video card's outputs, the quality of the adapter dongle, and the quality of your VGA cable, and the quality of your monitor's inputs.

On my 26" LCD, with a decently-shielded cable, the picture is pretty sharp. But I get rolling bars, alternating light and dark, scrolling down the screen. The picture with a DVI-D single-link cable is perfect, as far as I can tell.

 

[ChippyUK]

I guess there will be a bit, but since you have the cables, you can see for yourself which is easy enough if your monitor has more than one input.

Certainly on my Dell 24" the difference between DVI and the laptop VGA is a very noticeable loss in sharpness. Ah where did I put the HDMI lead...

 

[tcsenter]

You can't get analog VGA from DVI-D source without a video converter of some kind. DVI-D = digital only. I presume you meant DVI-I.

 

[alaricljs]

On top of that being a DVI-I connection on the back of your card, it's NOT a DVI source in any way if you use the VGA adapter dongle. It is purely an analog VGA source presented through a different connector and then converted to the 15 pin standard.

So the most important parts of the equation are cable and connector quality, and the AD/DA parts in the card and monitor. Understand that these are lower quality parts than back in the day since "nobody" cares about them anymore.

Best of luck is basically all I can offer.

 

[zephyrprime]

yes.

 

[Modelworks]

Generally not an issue. I heard a lot of people talking up the superiority of digital vs analog signals on video output. As a test to show them there was little difference when concerned with short distances under 10 feet, I set up an experiment.

I took 2 vga cables of different brands. I cut one end off each one. I then proceeded to wire the two different cables together. They each used different wire sizes and one wasn't even shielding the wiring. I twisted and soldered the wires together and did not shield the connections in any way. It looked bad, a mass of wires all tangled with no concern for what might interfere with another wire.

The result , not 1 person out of 10 could tell the difference in picture quality between the hacked vga cable and a DVI connection. RGB video is fairly tolerant unless you start going distances where signal strength becomes an issue.

 

[Modelworks]

On my 26" LCD, with a decently-shielded cable, the picture is pretty sharp. But I get rolling bars, alternating light and dark, scrolling down the screen. The picture with a DVI-D single-link cable is perfect, as far as I can tell.

Rolling bars are caused by a ground loop. DVI is immune to ground loops for the most part due to the transceivers being isolated.

 

[Modelworks]

So the most important parts of the equation are cable and connector quality, and the AD/DA parts in the card and monitor. Understand that these are lower quality parts than back in the day since "nobody" cares about them anymore.

The parts are higher quality than ever because the tech that goes into them is very mature. There is nothing bad about RGB analog. The main push to switch from RGB analog has to do with the switch from CRT to LCD. CRT could process RGB directly where LCD needed conversion on both ends adding cost and complexity.