HDMI or DisplayPort convert to DVI?

M

Mug

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
192
I am building a new Z87 system. I'm not a gamer, so I'm planning to use the built video capabilities of the haswell / Z87 combo.

The motherboard I'm planning to get does not have a DVI connector, but it does have HDMI and DisplayPort. My monitor only accepts DVI so I plan to get a new cable with DVI on one end and either HDMI or DisplayPort on the other. Is there an advantage of using one (HDMI or DP) over the other?
 
HDMI->DVI adapter/cable will be cheaper. Get a HDMI->DVI cable, though, not an adapter. The adapters put a lot of extra torque on the connector on the motherboard/GPU. I've seen them break things. They are really, really, really stupidly designed. Always use the cable.

Edit: Unless needing dual-link, as mentioned below. Good point. In which case you'd need to use DP, but make sure the specific adapter you buy supports conversion to dual link DVI. Unfortunately, buying a DP adapter is a bit trickier as there are different kinds with different compatibility+features. And many of them cost quite a lot more than an HDMI->DVI cable.
 
Last edited:
DVI is the video portion of HDMI. Go with the cable option as the first guy said.
 
What type of monitor is it? If it's a big one that needs dual-link DVI, then likely HDMI to DVI won't give you the full resolution.
 
It's an HP 30" monitor. The model number is HP LP3065. Native Resolution is 2560x1600. Will I be able to get full resolution using a conversion cable?
 
Not with HDMI to DVI. HDMI is a single link DVI. Maybe with an active DP to dual link DVI adapter.
 
nalc said:
Not with HDMI to DVI. HDMI is a single link DVI. Maybe with an active DP to dual link DVI adapter.
Click to expand...

Not maybe, but actually to drive a 1600p/1440p monitor it is required an active displayport to Dual link DVI adapter, like this, this or this.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
geok1ng said:
Not maybe, but actually to drive a 1600p/1440p monitor it is required an active displayport to Dual link DVI adapter, like this, this or this.
Click to expand...

Hmm, none of those choices are exactly cheap. Would I be better off buying a $100 - $200 video card with built in DVI output? Are there any other advantages using a standalone video card over the built video of the haswell CPU?
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Mug said:
Hmm, none of those choices are exactly cheap. Would I be better off buying a $100 - $200 video card with built in DVI output? Are there any other advantages using a standalone video card over the built video of the haswell CPU?
Click to expand...

Since you're not a gamer, you won't get any major increases with a standalone GPU, but you still may get more output formats or integrated video decoding features or whatever if this is for a HTPC.

Major downside will be less power efficiency.

DP adapters are indeed pricy.
 
dandragonrage said:
Since you're not a gamer, you won't get any major increases with a standalone GPU, but you still may get more output formats or integrated video decoding features or whatever if this is for a HTPC.

Major downside will be less power efficiency.

DP adapters are indeed pricy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, was kind of looking forward to not dealing with a video card. Maybe I'll reconsider my motherboard choice and look for one with a DVI connector.
 
tl;dr

1. HDMI to DVI cables will carry single link DVI signals with certainty, and have a good to very good (but not perfect) shot at carrying dual link DVI signals if the source part supports dual link DVI via another connector.

2. DP to single link DVI should work assuming that the DP port is dual-mode (which is fairly common). But active adapters are required for dual link DVI and should be avoided unless a last resort.

3. If your monitor requires dual link DVI (native resolution is more than 1920x1200) then a new video card or native DVI port on the motherboard is required to ensure functionality beyond a doubt.

Lastly, if you post the motherboards in question, we may be able to give you a more specific response.

The long version...

So... this isn't as straight forward as looking at the HDMI, DVI, and DP specifications.

Video cards, integrated or otherwise, generally make a distinction between video processing lanes and connectors. A video card may have two DVI connectors and one HDMI connector, but only two lanes and thus support only two displays simultaneously. In such a case, the video card may not care to make a distinction between a display being plugged into one of its two DVI connectors or into its HDMI connector, even for resolutions requiring dual link DVI. E.g. no matter which connection you use, the video signal is the same.

That being said, if a display has native support for HDMI, then the display may care. Sometimes this is due to the display reading or expecting an EDID signal which supports up to 1920x1200p60 (or, rarely 4096×2160p30), but there could be other reasons such as different hardware used to handle HDMI over DVI. An HDMI to DVI cable may prevent this, and in general has a good shot of it. But DVI is still capable of sending an EDID signal, and nothing is certain.

As for DP, that is a bit of a different animal. Unlike HDMI, DP does not borrow from DVI for its display signal. DP ports that support passive HDMI adapters are actually dual-mode ports, the DP display signal itself is not compatible with HDMI (and thus not compatible with DVI). And while it is conceivable that the dual-mode functionality of a DP port may borrow from a DVI lane from the first example, in practice implementations generally do not allow for this.

As for DP to dual link DVI active adapters, stay away from these like the plague. They are expensive, and even the most expensive adapters have a far from perfect track record. (Single link DVI adapters are essentially adapting the dual-mode HDMI to DVI. E.g. they are a double adapter of sorts, but still passive.)
 
Mug said:
Yeah, was kind of looking forward to not dealing with a video card. Maybe I'll reconsider my motherboard choice and look for one with a DVI connector.
Click to expand...

Triple check that the onboard DVI is capable of dual link DVI, very few if any are. Personaly i have never met an Intel mobo capable of dual link DVI.

Active dual link DVI adapters are expensive, and yes, for most users a dedicated video card is a better solution. But the adapter will allow you to use the monitor with a notebook so consider your options carefully. having a big monitor is great, but without adequate graphics the experience is not complete. even a card as "cheap" as NVIDIA 650 Ti boost may allow to experience a few games at reduced quality settings. I game with mine since early 2008 and the first card that allowed me game was an 8800GT
 
geok1ng said:
Triple check that the onboard DVI is capable of dual link DVI, very few if any are. Personaly i have never met an Intel mobo capable of dual link DVI.

Active dual link DVI adapters are expensive, and yes, for most users a dedicated video card is a better solution. But the adapter will allow you to use the monitor with a notebook so consider your options carefully. having a big monitor is great, but without adequate graphics the experience is not complete. even a card as "cheap" as NVIDIA 650 Ti boost may allow to experience a few games at reduced quality settings. I game with mine since early 2008 and the first card that allowed me game was an 8800GT
Click to expand...

Hmm, so even the mobo's with the DVI connector may not be able to drive my monitor? I didn't know that. Guess I'm getting a video card!
 
This may not be the correct forum, but do you guys have any suggestions on a decent card that's known to run cool and quiet?
 
Mug said:
This may not be the correct forum, but do you guys have any suggestions on a decent card that's known to run cool and quiet?
Click to expand...

The new 750/750 ti are extremely power efficient, most of the 750 ti's don't even have a PCI-E power connector so they take the power directly from the motherboard.

The 650 ti has a TDP of 110 watts vs 60 watts on the 750 ti.

This lower power draw will mean less heat, if you take a dual fan one like the EVGA FTW version (however this version does need 1 6 pin PCI-E power connector), the fans will barely need to work to cool it off.
 
kevinlekiller said:
The new 750/750 ti are extremely power efficient, most of the 750 ti's don't even have a PCI-E power connector so they take the power directly from the motherboard.

The 650 ti has a TDP of 110 watts vs 60 watts on the 750 ti.

This lower power draw will mean less heat, if you take a dual fan one like the EVGA FTW version (however this version does need 1 6 pin PCI-E power connector), the fans will barely need to work to cool it off.
Click to expand...

I was looking at the 750 ti, but one spec I'm not sure about is the memory bus width of 128 bits. I recall reading something that mentioned 192 bits or above would be more desirable (but don't recall why). Would there be any advantage of higher bit width for my use?
 
Mug said:
I was looking at the 750 ti, but one spec I'm not sure about is the memory bus width of 128 bits. I recall reading something that mentioned 192 bits or above would be more desirable (but don't recall why). Would there be any advantage of higher bit width for my use?
Click to expand...

The 750 ti is at the top of the range of our recommendations for you. any faster card and you would need to tell us what power supply you will use, etc. On the other hand we cant really suggest you cheaper cards like ths USD49-60 Geforce 210 or radeon 5450 because they are even slower than Intel IGP. With the 750ti you will pay triple the price for ten times the performance,
 
Mug said:
I was looking at the 750 ti, but one spec I'm not sure about is the memory bus width of 128 bits. I recall reading something that mentioned 192 bits or above would be more desirable (but don't recall why). Would there be any advantage of higher bit width for my use?
Click to expand...

It does have a lower memory bus width, but it also has 8x the L2 cache (2048KB vs 256KB) compared to the previous architectures.

In benchmarks/gaming the 750ti stacks up pretty well vs the previous gen.

Check this video for benchmarks : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK6vHNkexic

Keep in mind the 650 ti boost has a 134 watt tdp vs the 60 watt tdp of the 750 ti FTW.

Edit I think this will interest you as well, since it compares intel iGPUs (one of the CPU they use has a 4600 which is the same iGPU as the i7 4770k and i5 4670k) vs the 750 ti : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Pnte_niJE
 
kevinlekiller said:
It does have a lower memory bus width, but it also has 8x the L2 cache (2048KB vs 256KB) compared to the previous architectures.

In benchmarks/gaming the 750ti stacks up pretty well vs the previous gen.

Check this video for benchmarks : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK6vHNkexic

Keep in mind the 650 ti boost has a 134 watt tdp vs the 60 watt tdp of the 750 ti FTW.

Edit I think this will interest you as well, since it compares intel iGPUs (one of the CPU they use has a 4600 which is the same iGPU as the i7 4770k and i5 4670k) vs the 750 ti : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Pnte_niJE
Click to expand...

I saw another one of Paul's videos (http://youtu.be/vpVEA6zBrcc). I'm really liking the EVGA 750ti SC model. Probably still overkill for what I need, but looks like a nice video card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top