DVI vs Dsub: am I missing something?

[Mithrandir]

Im just wondering what exactly are the pros and cons of each?

It seems there are no benefits in terms of quality, I've used both on my 17" but to be truthful I wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two.

I'm considering a 22" widescreen to use for net and multimedia (DVDs, etc) as they seem realtively cheap at £160.

Apart from being analogue and digital, what else have I missed out?

[staffsMike]

I notice a teeny tiny difference on my 20" (1680 x 1050)

It's supposed to be more apparent at 1920 x 1200 but i can't comment.

[Mithrandir]

I notice a teeny tiny difference on my 20" (1680 x 1050)

It's supposed to be more apparent at 1920 x 1200 but i can't comment.

I was thinking it's probably more apparent when using something like 1680 x 1050 on a 22" (larger dot pitch I'm guessing) than a 20" with the same res.


(Im only using my 17" at 1280 x 1024)

[kalniel]

Im just wondering what exactly are the pros and cons of each?

It seems there are no benefits in terms of quality, I've used both on my 17" but to be truthful I wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two.

I'm considering a 22" widescreen to use for net and multimedia (DVDs, etc) as they seem realtively cheap at £160.

Apart from being analogue and digital, what else have I missed out?

Totally depends on the screen in question and the electronics inside it. Some do a great job of converting the signal to the display, some don't. Sometimes analogue can be a better picture than DVI!

I notice a teeny tiny difference on my 20" (1680 x 1050)

It's supposed to be more apparent at 1920 x 1200 but i can't comment.

It more depends on the length of the cable - if you have a rubbish cable and the monitor is a long way away you *might* notice some degredation in quality. But it's quite unlikely. On the otherhand, analogue can cope really well with high resolutions, where as normal digital can only go up to about 1600x1200, beyond that you have to use extra connectors via dual link.

[abeacock]

DSUB:

digital signal in the gfx card converted (lossy) to analogue DSUB port that goes into the DSUB port of the TFT which is then converted (lossy again) to digital before being displayed on the panel.

DVI:

digital all the way baby!

[Fabula]

DVI is potentially better, but depends on implementation.

A good dsub monitor will look better than a normal DVI one.

But DVI is definately the future, so if buying new just go for it.

[directhex]

one thing to consider: a DVI signal is always the right size, whilst with VGA you have to mess about with centering the image on the screen (or hitting the Auto button every time the res changes)

[b0redom]

... where as normal digital can only go up to about 1600x1200, beyond that you have to use extra connectors via dual link.

I've got a standard DVI cable plugged into a 8800GTX and a Dell 2405FPW @ 1920x1200.....

[kalniel]

I did say 'about' - I can't remember what the limit of single link is, obviously it's at least 1920x1200

[EtheAv8r]

On my ViewSonic VP2039B 1200*1600 driven by a Palit 8800GTX I have a high quality ProfiGold Dual-Link DVI-D cable that delivers hugely improved display quality - particularly text, and small text. It is very noticably better than other DVI-A cables (single and dual link) I have.

Problem is the monitor is not always detected on start-up with this cable, and often comes live very late into the boot-up process - after USB devices are detected and come alive.... and the first I see is the logon screen. Sometimes (too often) it will not come on at all and I have to swap the cable over.... or power down and re-start. I was swapping with a DVI-A cable to get a picture.... this is always detected but dispaly of text is poor. To get round this I currently have the monitor DVI port connected to one port on the graphics card via the ProfiGold DVI-D and the D-Sub port on the monitor connected to the other port on the graphis card.

Not totally satisfactory, but I need early access to the screen to make BIOS settings changes..... and at least I get a screen display every boot.

[kalniel]

On my ViewSonic VP2039B 1200*1600 driven by a Palit 8800GTX I have a high quality ProfiGold Dual-Link DVI-D cable that delivers hugely improved display quality - particularly text, and small text. It is very noticably better than other DVI-A cables (single and dual link) I have.

I didn't know you could get dual link for analogue signals too.

The idea with digital (DVI-D, but most common form of DVI so most people just call it DVI) is that the quality doesn't matter - any old DVI cable will do because the signal is digital.

[drunkenmaster]

generally dvi cables quality is much less important than on the analogue, inherently dvi interference is really not a issue while analogue has a much bigger issue. the worst quality d-sub cables can be distorted easily giving an awful picture. a high quality d-sub cable is less easily distorted but its still possible. but routing the cable effectively can also have a massive difference, keeping it away from a massive jumble of power, speaker cables and anything else is pretty essential for analogue.

one of the bigger issues is, on a monitor with a single connection it will normally be a d-sub, so it will put more money into the conversion chip and the overall quality is massively effected by that, it has to have a conversion chip as lcd's are digital plain and simple. if a monitor has dual inputs 99% of the time you'll have one dvi and one analogue, dvi cable to dvi connector to getting image to the screen requires less hardware, less effort and is pretty reliable so they assume most people will use the dvi port. this leads to cost saving by using cheaper d-sub parts the screen needs so very very often dvi looks much better than d-sub on the same monitor, but largely due to crappy quality parts for the d-sub.

a high quality d-sub cable/port/chip on a monitor can provide every bit as good signal as a dvi can, but will most likely add to cost and still be less reliable.

rant = get a monitor with dvi port

[merdat]

I've got a 19" wide screen jobbie -quality is middle of the road and it has DVI socket plus D-sub. I use the D-sub but must see if I can get a DVI cable and see if there is any great difference.

[arthurleung]

My monitor always looks yellowish when using the D-sub, and slightly blurred. It probably doesn't matter with gaming, but it is quite noticeable even just using windows explorer.

[EtheAv8r]

I didn't know you could get dual link for analogue signals too.

It is only the digital part of the cable that is dial link... but DVI-A cables carry both analogue and digital - pure digital cables do not have the analogue pins.

The idea with digital (DVI-D, but most common form of DVI so most people just call it DVI) is that the quality doesn't matter - any old DVI cable will do because the signal is digital.

And here I have to disagree - there is a hugely visible difference between different digital cables - come round mine and I will prove it to you! Mind you up till recently I also thought digital is digital.... but it aint! - not on my setup anyway....

[kalniel]

It is only the digital part of the cable that is dial link... but DVI-A cables carry both analogue and digital - pure digital cables do not have the analogue pins.

I thought DVI-A was just the analogue - DVI-I is the both digital and analogue one.