Question about video cables

[BenasBr]

Which is better HDMI from video card to DVI into monitor cable or DVI to DVI cable? Is there somekind of drawback if use HDMI to DVI because DVI to DVI is a bit more expensive.

[manikyath]

under normal circumstances, hdmi-dvi works pretty much identical to dvi-dvi

exceptions being:

- dual-link dvi is a no-go. if your display asks for dual-link dvi, you're at a loss.

- odd display sizes or frequencies that HDMI doesnt normally do *may* be problematic (not a guarantee here one way or the other)

- some really stupid hardware likes to hate those cables as well. i've had it happen on one or two occasions, out of endless combinations.

[KenjiUmino]

HDMI = DVI with some added features (like audio transmission and whatnot)

 

the video signals are electricaly the same, thats why there are cheap passive adapters for converting HDMI to DVI and vice versa.

 

it does not matter wich cable/connector you use out of these two and the video signal is transmitted in digital so there is not even any difference in picture quality between cheap and expensive cables.

 

display port vs HDMI/DVI would be a different story though as the video signal has to be actively converted to a different standard AFAIK - however, the signal stays fully digital here as well so there should be no change in picture quality either - but thats not what you been asking here anyways

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

HDMI = DVI with some added features (like audio transmission and whatnot)

 

the video signals are electricaly the same, thats why there are cheap passive adapters for converting HDMI to DVI and vice versa.

 

it does not matter wich cable/connector you use out of these two and the video signal is transmitted in digital so there is not even any difference in picture quality between cheap and expensive cables.

 

display port vs HDMI/DVI would be a different story though as the video signal has to be actively converted to a different standard AFAIK - however, the signal stays fully digital here as well so there should be no change in picture quality either - but thats not what you been asking here anyways

you've clearly never dealt with stupid hardware before

[KenjiUmino]

Just now, manikyath said:

you've clearly never dealt with stupid hardware before

i have, but i have to admit that i never ran into the kind of problems you just described.

and i also never had a display that required dual link DVI so i completely forgot it existed ... my bad ... gotta hand this one to you.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, KenjiUmino said:

i have, but i have to admit that i never ran into the kind of problems you just described.

and i also never had a display that required dual link DVI so i completely forgot it existed ... my bad ... gotta hand this one to you.

dual-link is the obvious one, because it's essentially two HDMI cables worth of bandwidth, it's the stupid hardware that gets you

[KenjiUmino]

4 minutes ago, manikyath said:

dual-link is the obvious one, because it's essentially two HDMI cables worth of bandwidth

i guess thats why hdmi 2.0 was necessary (and because of a new HDCP version) 

[manikyath]

10 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

i guess thats why hdmi 2.0 was necessary (and because of a new HDCP version) 

that's where stupid hardware comes in, because some GPUs and some displays only do some versions of either connections, and when they dont agree your screen turns into a rave fest.

[KenjiUmino]

6 minutes ago, manikyath said:

that's where stupid hardware comes in, because some GPUs and some displays only do some versions of either connections, and when they dont agree your screen turns into a rave fest.

i wonder if all the standards only exist so some manufacturers can ignore them

[manikyath]

24 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

i wonder if all the standards only exist so some manufacturers can ignore them

they dont ignore them, its that especially in the case of hdmi-dvi cables there's too many different ones for things to not go downhill in some odd cases.