Analog vs Digital

[Is new really better]

 What hapenned.. 

 

So first of all i'm no expert but that does not stop my curiosity i shall first tell u what happened then my observations.

 

Some time ago i (my cat ) broke my TV which i used as computer screen then i replaced it with monitor .

That monitor is really old and it takes some time to start up ,like hour or two its  different every time but i used it anyways. 

And since i like to fidget with technology i  changed signal cables thinking it starts so slow cause of it .

But now with different cable my PC detected monitor as another one. In games visual tearing is almost non existent, i have less of input delay and screen is not getting blurry .

Before native resolution was 1680x1050 which i could lower to 1440x900 to put on 75 Hz frequency but  now windows does not recommend native one nor i can get it to 75hz .

 

I would like to know whats changed by changing cables  . 

 

Here's list of hardware used :

-graphics card  MSI Radeon r9 380 Gaming 4GB

-monitor LG Flatron W2234S ( now recognized as ACER S271HL ) -  Flatron has d sub input

-First cable https://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Computer-Cable-AWM-E101344-Style-20276-VW-1-80C-30v-Space-Shuttle-D-/163354638184

-Second cable  https://www.ebay.com/itm/VGA-Cable-6ft-Awm-2919-Male-Female-80C-30V-VW1-Low-Voltage-Computer-E300060-/352765825494 

- adapter whitch connects those VGA cables to my DVI- i exit on graphics card   https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-DVI-VGA-Cable-Adapter/dp/B000067SOH

 

Its not placebo effect i'm moba gamer so i notice every tiny detail so please can i get some opinions from experts.

 

[CreativeName642]

Almost nothing is changed by changing cables. Just get a new monitor. I recommend a 1080p 144Hz at the very least if you're going to primarily game on it.

[mariushm]

Dude you need to stop.

 

No matter what refresh rate you choose in Windows, the actual LCD panel will only do 60 Hz, it will only update 60 times a second. So, choosing anything higher than 60Hz will just shove more data through the cable, reducing the signal strength for each pixel.

 

The processor inside the monitor contains an Analogue to Digital converter which converts the analogue signal on the VGA inputs to digital, and then another part of the processor inside the monitor takes the digital signal and processes it and puts it on the actual screen.

 

In order to be compatible with ancient VGA cards and various devices (ex. oscilloscopes, medical devices, old laptops), the analogue to digital converter inside the monitor must be capable of accepting a refresh rate between something like 23 Hz all the way to 75 Hz ... but most common is 48 .. 75 Hz. 

This doesn't mean you will actually see 75 updates on the screen, the analogue to digital converter either duplicates or throws out extra frames, and sends 60 frames each second to the part which puts the images on the lcd panel.

 

So at 1680x1050 60 Hz ... you're sending 105,840,000 pixels every second through the vga cable

At 1440x900 75 hz, you're sending 97,200,000 pixels a second... that's 91% of the amount of data above. 

So while 75 Hz will do shit for your actual refresh rate on screen (again, you'll still only get 60 Hz on lcd panel), because you're sending less data through the vga cable, each pixel has more time on the wires, a higher signal intensity, so the image quality may be actually better. But, you would get even better quality by setting the refresh rate to 60 Hz.

 

The ideal vga cable would be one that has ferrite beads (those nodules) on each end of the cable, then each pair of wires inside the able shielded with mesh of copper or aluminum, then all pairs of wires shielded with another mesh of metal.

 

The Dell cable is shit, the pairs are not separately shielded.. and it's most likely cable recommended to be used with those 17-19" lcd monitors that do maximum 1280x1024.  At least it has the ferrite beads.

The other cable seems to be thicker, but it maybe be just the pictures taken differently.

 

A good VGA is really thick and with those ferrite nodules at both ends.

 

Windows determines what resolutions the monitor supports through a couple of pins in the VGA connector and in the DVI connector. It's called DCC.

If the VGA cable doesn't have those pins connected with wire (not all vga cables do), or if the DVI->VGA adapter doesn't connect those pins, then Windows can't read data about the monitor and just lists it as plug and play or some random monitor.

 

Here's the vga pinout ... the pin 12 and 15 are used to transfer the information from monitor to the video card and from there to PC (data and clock) :

 

In the DVI connector, you have pins 6 and 7 which have the same role, DDC data and clock .. so the dvi adapter must link those pins to the vga side to work

 

 

 

[Is new really better]

Mariushm  , thank you  for comprehensive answer .

 

 Yes the other cable is thicker but it appears  that it has pins on ports but not wires in cable ,i'll cut open it some other time.Meanwhile ,  I've ordered another monitor and yet I'm still not satisfied .

Perhaps it has something to do with video timings ,so by windows detecting it or graphics software as different monitor it adjusted timings to fit better with that panel .