Is a monitor without DisplayPort worth it?

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=569_22_299&item_id=105705

 

I'm basically set on this display, but my main concerns are the lack of height adjustment as well as the lack of a DisplayPort. The height adjustment isn't as great an issue, since I can either get a monitor riser or set the thing on top of a box, but how important is DisplayPort? I can still run 144Hz over DVI, right?

[Oshino Shinobu]

144Hz over DVI and 144Hz over DP is basically the same, only DVI doesn't carry audio while DP does. In the end, it's still 144Hz

[LienusLateTips]

Last time I checked if you had HDMI 2.0 you can use that too.

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=569_22_299&item_id=105705

 

I'm basically set on this display, but my main concerns are the lack of height adjustment as well as the lack of a DisplayPort. The height adjustment isn't as great an issue, since I can either get a monitor riser or set the thing on top of a box, but how important is DisplayPort? I can still run 144Hz over DVI, right?

It will look the same over DVI as it would over DisplayPort. Just keep in mind you lose a lot of flexibility, because you need Dual-Link DVI to run 144 Hz on that monitor, and your graphics card's HDMI and DisplayPort outputs don't support adapters to Dual-Link DVI, only to Single-Link. Graphics cards seem to be tending towards discontinuing DVI ports, so this may be problematic in future upgrades if very few graphics cards have DVI ports, it will limit your choices a lot. And even if you buy a graphics card now that has a DVI port, if you want a second monitor later and want to get the same model so they will match, you will not be able to run the second one at 144 Hz if your card doesn't have a second DVI port. And you will not be able to run at 144 Hz with any laptop.

 

(Well, you can get Dual-Link DVI from a DisplayPort output with a $100 conversion device, but you may as well put that towards buying a monitor with a DisplayPort input instead)

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

27 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

It will look the same over DVI as it would over DisplayPort. Just keep in mind you lose a lot of flexibility, because you need Dual-Link DVI to run 144 Hz, and HDMI and DisplayPort don't support adapters to Dual-Link DVI, only to Single-Link. Graphics cards seem to be tending towards discontinuing DVI ports, so this will limit your graphics card options in future upgrades, and even if you buy a graphics card now that has a DVI port, if you want a second monitor later and want to get the same model so they will match, you will not be able to run the second one at 144 Hz if your card doesn't have a second DVI port. And you will not be able to run at 144 Hz with any laptop.

Just curious, is there some sort of technical reason why DP and HDMI don't adapt to dual-link DVI? They sell adapters...so would these adapters just run at 60Hz or something?

 

Also, I've found that a lot of the third party cards do have dual-link DVI. I think I'll be safe while I use this as my main display, since I can upgrade to some aftermarket 1080 Ti down the line. I just don't know if I'm willing to pay 60 dollars for a display input and a better stand. 

[Glenwing]

38 minutes ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

Just curious, is there some sort of technical reason why DP and HDMI don't adapt to dual-link DVI? They sell adapters...so would these adapters just run at 60Hz or something?

 

Also, I've found that a lot of the third party cards do have dual-link DVI. I think I'll be safe while I use this as my main display, since I can upgrade to some aftermarket 1080 Ti down the line. I just don't know if I'm willing to pay 60 dollars for a display input and a better stand. 

Yes; display outputs on your graphics card can send multiple signal types, which is what makes adapters possible; DisplayPort outputs aren't limited to just sending DisplayPort-format video, they also know how to send video in the HDMI and DVI format too. When it detects a DVI display plugged in, the DisplayPort port switches modes to send DVI signals instead of DisplayPort signals, so each pin of the DisplayPort connector is used to send the exact same signals that a certain pin on a DVI port would send (more or less). The adapter is just there to change the shape of the port, because the DisplayPort port can't physically morph itself into a DVI connector to allow you to plug DVI cables into it, but electrically it is acting pretty much exactly like a DVI connector. The only thing is that DisplayPort connectors only have 20 pins, so they can only emulate a Single-Link DVI connection (19 pins), there aren't enough pins to send the signals that would be sent over a Dual-Link DVI connection (25 pins).

 

So given the way that DisplayPort passive adapters actually work, it is physically impossible to create a passive adapter that provides a Dual-Link DVI connection from DisplayPort. You will find that most adapters on sale do appear to have a full Dual-Link DVI connector and may even say "Dual-Link DVI" in the product title or description, but don't be fooled, these are still Single-Link DVI adapters in disguise, which means it will not get more than ≈1080p 60 Hz, the limit of SL-DVI. The extra pins on the DVI connector are in fact dummy pins which are not connected to anything (this is done mainly for manufacturing convenience, as DL-DVI ports are simply produced and purchased in bulk from a third-party manufacturer and soldered to the PCB in the adapter; the PCB itself is designed with the intention of being a DP to SL-DVI adapter, but the physical DVI connector is not, it could be purchased and used for anything, so it has the full complement of pins. It is just purchased in bulk from a common manufacturer, and those exact same connectors from that same source may also be bought by other companies and used for actual DL-DVI devices).

 

The only way to get Dual-Link DVI would be to actually send the original video in the DisplayPort format, and have a device with a processor that decodes the DisplayPort packets and generate an equivalent DVI video stream, which is very costly and often unreliable.

 

Yes, most graphics cards today do still have at least 1 DVI port, I'm just saying it's trending toward them becoming rare in the future. It was only a few years ago that 2 DVI ports was standard on graphics cards, now 1 is just somewhat common, with 0 on the reference cards on both sides. Of course, none of this really makes any difference in the now; if you buy a graphics card with DVI, which most still do, then you'll be able to run the monitor just fine. As long as you know what you're getting, it's fine. I just wanted to make these limitations clear because you would not believe how many threads get posted here from people with GN246HL and XL2411Z monitors unable to get 144 Hz because they have a laptop or a new graphics card without DVI, or got a second one but their graphics card didn't have a second DVI port, and didn't realize that normal adapters won't work.

[ShoshinUK]

I dont know the reality, but I have been told a few times by very decent FPS Gamers that the port we should use, for min input lag is display port rather than DVI or HDMI.

I can't say I noticed a difference myself, but this would be good to actually know! (I havn't tested as such, I just switched to display port re bandwidth to play at 144hz 1440p etc).

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

21 hours ago, Glenwing said:

Yes; display outputs on your graphics card can send multiple signal types, which is what makes adapters possible; DisplayPort outputs aren't limited to just sending DisplayPort-format video, they also know how to send video in the HDMI and DVI format too. When it detects a DVI display plugged in, the DisplayPort port switches modes to send DVI signals instead of DisplayPort signals, so each pin of the DisplayPort connector is used to send the exact same signals that a certain pin on a DVI port would send (more or less). The adapter is just there to change the shape of the port, because the DisplayPort port can't physically morph itself into a DVI connector to allow you to plug DVI cables into it, but electrically it is acting pretty much exactly like a DVI connector. The only thing is that DisplayPort connectors only have 20 pins, so they can only emulate a Single-Link DVI connection (19 pins), there aren't enough pins to send the signals that would be sent over a Dual-Link DVI connection (25 pins).

 

The only way to get Dual-Link DVI would be to actually send the original video in the DisplayPort format, and have a device with a processor that decodes the DisplayPort packets and generate an equivalent DVI video stream, which is very costly and often unreliable.

So not even active adapters will be suitable.

 

22 hours ago, Glenwing said:

Yes, most graphics cards today do still have at least 1 DVI port, I'm just saying it's trending toward them becoming rare in the future. It was only a few years ago that 2 DVI ports was standard on graphics cards, now 1 is just somewhat common, with 0 on the reference cards on both sides. Of course, none of this really makes any difference in the now; if you buy a graphics card with DVI, which most still do, then you'll be able to run the monitor just fine. As long as you know what you're getting, it's fine. I just wanted to make these limitations clear because you would not believe how many threads get posted here from people with GN246HL and XL2411Z monitors unable to get 144 Hz because they have a laptop or a new graphics card without DVI, or got a second one but their graphics card didn't have a second DVI port, and didn't realize that normal adapters won't work.

Yeah, I know. Thanks for the info, though. Putting this into thought. 

[Glenwing]

10 minutes ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

So not even active adapters will be suitable.

You can use active adapters, since they don't rely on the DisplayPort acting as a DVI port, the adapter just takes native DisplayPort input and converts the video information inside to an equivalent DVI video stream. That is what I was referring to at the bottom. They're around, they're just really expensive, and usually not very reliable.

[LyondellBasell]

I'll sell you my XL2430T for that same price if you're wiling to pay shipping. Definitely go the DisplayPort route, man.

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

1 hour ago, Glenwing said:

You can use active adapters, since they don't rely on the DisplayPort acting as a DVI port, the adapter just takes native DisplayPort input and converts the video information inside to an equivalent DVI video stream. That is what I was referring to at the bottom. They're around, they're just really expensive, and usually not very reliable.

Oh...looks like it'll set me back around 60 bucks...

 

I found a 32" 1440p monitor (brand new) for $220 (CAD). Is it worth it? Is 92 DPI tolerable? It's the exact same pixel density as a 1080p 24". 

[Glenwing]

3 hours ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

Oh...looks like it'll set me back around 60 bucks...

 

I found a 32" 1440p monitor (brand new) for $220 (CAD). Is it worth it? Is 92 DPI tolerable? It's the exact same pixel density as a 1080p 24". 

I've never tried that large personally, but it shouldn't be any different than 1080p  as far as the physical size of icons and text. Windows may set 125% scaling by default though.

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

9 hours ago, Glenwing said:

I've never tried that large personally, but it shouldn't be any different than 1080p  as far as the physical size of icons and text. Windows may set 125% scaling by default though.

Considering that I only game on weekends, and that I will mostly be using the display for school work and web browsing, would you recommend the 32" over the 144Hz?