Based on my experience from the last 2 video cards I have used, I’m starting to wonder if DVI is actually worth the trouble.
Sure, a DVI signal is better quality than VGA.
I can notice the difference on my monitor (but then the VGA cable feels thin and “flimsy” so I’m sure the analog signal is being subjected to interference.
But to my eyes, its not unbearable.
However, what has hit me the most, has been that many video cards seem to be able to handle analog VGA better than DVI-D.
Having a video card either not be able to display 1680 X 1050 over DVI, or not being able to cope with the data throughput, means that I’m now going back to the analog VGA cables (at least until most video cards can cope with mid-range monitors using DVI).
Given than a 22″ monitor (with native resolution of 1680 X 1050) is both common and relatively inexpensive, then why can’t common video cards cope with DVI output to these monitors?
Related posts:
- geforce 7300gt sometimes blanks for 2 seconds I haven’t been having much luck with video cards this year. I purchased an inno Nvidia GeForce 7300GT a few months...
- GeForce FX5500 won’t display 1680 X 1050 As mentioned briefly in a previous post (http://www.computer-aid.com.au/blog/2008/09/14/geforce-7300gt-sometimes-blanks-for-2-seconds/), I had installed an AGP Galaxy GeForce FX5500 into my PC, but...
- UV Plus+ 16 review I had a customer who wanted to buy a PC so he could play flight simulator. He said he would...
- viewsonic va2013wm cannot display native resolution I’m a big fan of Viewsonic monitors. But all monitor manufacturers manage to produce the occasional faulty unit. In this...
- HP FW660AA monitor won’t resume from standby Customer buys a new computer, but continues using the old monitor (a HP FW660AA). Since the new PC has a...
Posted by Computer Help in Technical
D. Stenberg says:
