Questions about monitors and Display Port

[Charlie98]

Why don't the less expensive monitors have Display Port input?

Is DP better or worse in real world use than HDMI or DVI-I/-D?

I'm fixing to get a new GPU and it has 3 DP output connections, but only 1 DVI and 1 HDMI... just want to make sure I'm not going to get stuck.

 

[Cerb]

Why don't the less expensive monitors have Display Port input?

Probably the same reason it's higher-end monitors that lack VGA: regular folk don't know WTH DP is, and those with decent PCs haven't needed VGA in many years.

Is DP better or worse in real world use than HDMI or DVI-I/-D?

If you need DL-DVI from them, worse. They can convert to HDMI or SL-DVI with passive adapters, you can likely get up to two non-DP connections from those DP ports (for whatever reason, they all have 1 DP-only transmitter). If buying all new parts, that makes them better. If you have older >1080P monitors, that need DL-DVI, and want to hook up 2 or more of them, it makes them worse.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It goes DP>HDMI>DVI but for single monitor and any resolution less than 4k there is no practical difference.

DVI is the old standard and is quickly being fazed out, anything with just DVI is probably going to be obsolete in the next few years. It is included mostly for legacy devices. It is video only.

HDMI is the most common connecter out there, it is almost the only connecter used in consumer electronics, and is basically ubiquitous. If you want to connect your computer to a TV or audio receiver, HDMI is the way to go. It carries both video and multi-channel surround sound.

DisplayPort is backwards compatible with both of these with adapters. A single Displayport can be split to run up to 8 independent 1080p monitors (or fewer higher resolution displays.) It can carry multiple video and multiple multi-channel surround sound. The main problem with DisplayPort is that it is not included on a lot of lower end equipment, but this is slowly changing.

 

[Charlie98]

It goes DP>HDMI>DVI but for single monitor and any resolution less than 4k there is no practical difference.

DVI is the old standard and is quickly being fazed out, anything with just DVI is probably going to be obsolete in the next few years. It is included mostly for legacy devices. It is video only.

HDMI is the most common connecter out there, it is almost the only connecter used in consumer electronics, and is basically ubiquitous. If you want to connect your computer to a TV or audio receiver, HDMI is the way to go. It carries both video and multi-channel surround sound.

DisplayPort is backwards compatible with both of these with adapters. A single Displayport can be split to run up to 8 independent 1080p monitors (or fewer higher resolution displays.) It can carry multiple video and multiple multi-channel surround sound. The main problem with DisplayPort is that it is not included on a lot of lower end equipment, but this is slowly changing.

That helps...

Mostly, I'm wondering about true 120Hz refresh... as I understand it HDMI can't do that natively, but DVI-D can... but you say DVI is largely legacy and going bye-bye.

I love HDMI for it's simplicity, including it's audio capabilities, but it obviously has it's limits as well.

 

[Black Octagon]

Dual Link DVI can...DVI-D is not necessarily the same thing

 

[Charlie98]

Dual Link DVI can...DVI-D is not necessarily the same thing

Ooops... I thought that's what the '-D' was. Now I understand the reference above 'DL-DVI.'

 

[SMOGZINN]

That helps...

Mostly, I'm wondering about true 120Hz refresh... as I understand it HDMI can't do that natively, but DVI-D can... but you say DVI is largely legacy and going bye-bye.

I love HDMI for it's simplicity, including it's audio capabilities, but it obviously has it's limits as well.

HDMI 1.4b and up is capable of handling 1080p video at 120 Hz. The problem is finding a device that accepts a 120hz signal over HDMI.
If you are wanting to run 120hz then DisplayPort is definitely the way to go.