Performance affected between DVI and Analog?

C

CoW]8(0)

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,427
Is there a performance loss when a graphics card has to convert to an analog signal (VGA) as opposed to simply outputting a DVI signal?
 
if youre talking about a DVI to VGA adapter, im pretty sure theres no drop.

if youre talking about a DAC, that is all done before the signal is output.
 
nothing lost with vga, but use dvi as it is newer.... and gives sapposadly "better" picture quality, and does actually in some cases.
 
Im running DVI. right now. ive tried running analog and comparing image quality difference and there is no difference. DVI may be newer but IMO its kinda lame because it only allows 60Hz max refresh rate. as if i was running analog i could turn on 75Hz and have much less tearing in my games. with out having to enable v sync. so if you cant run DVI who cares?
 
How about the difference between standard DVI (which is analog) and DVI-D?
 
if you can run dvi, do so. picture quality, especially text, is noticeably better. people bitching about refresh simply dont understand that its meaningless on an lcd.
 
Performance isn't a factor so much as quality. Drop $50,000 on an HDTV and what you're paying for isn't so much the display as the scaler, which is virtually nonexistent in monitors. Run a DVI cable at your monitor's native resolution and that isn't a factor, but at the same resolution on a 15-pin "analog" connection and you'll see blurry images or in the worst cases display artifacts as your monitor's pitiful scaler tries to make the best of the signal it's been given.
 
you have analog output because crt monitors needed it so the digital data is converted to analog at that point, lcd displays can handle the digital data so no conversion is needed
 
DVI looks better on high resolutions.

You may not notice the difference on a 1024X768 max LCD, but you sure do notice the difference on a 1600X1200 panel.

Refresh rate doesn't make a difference with picture quality... even at 5hz there would be no flicker... the "hz" rate is just the rate of screen update.

Refresh rate does, however, effect the Vsync settings. If you use vsync, I am not sure what would be better 60hz or higher. I know that vsync works in steps... so 60hz then a lower step like 45hz or 30hz... I am not sure... you should look that up. 75hz would have a different set of steps and I don't know if it would be better. It depends on how powerful your card is... if it can maintain a 60 FPS better then 75 fps, it won't step down as often. anyway... look that up.
 
when I hook my laptop up to my lcd(it only has analog out) you can tell that the image quality is not as good as coming from my desktop(dvi) The whole screen is noticably blurry and I can tell a lot in games.
 
Go with DVI, the less conversions the better. As for a performance hit, no there would not be one becasue the DAC/ADC steps are after the image is rendered.

Refesh rates DO matter on LCDs, just not like they do on CRTs.
 
just go with DVI because all the cool kids are doing it.
at 1280x1024 i can't tell. i just like the idea of DVI more lol....
 
I can tell a slight difference between DVI/VGA @ 1280x1024 on my Sony HS95P LCD. When I'm in VGA hooked up analog, the picture is slightly more blury/darker and you can see a little interference (emi?) on the monitor.. but when in DVI, the picture is brighter and sharp as a razor with no interference. I'm using both brand new dvi/vga cables, and a dvi-->vga converter when I use analog. I just stick with DVI-->DVI because of those reasons alone. I find it easier on my eyes.
 
I mostly play CoD2, and I've tried it using both the DVI and the Analog sides of my video card. I play at 1280x1024, which is the native resolution of my 19" lcd.

When I first got my lcd, I immediately hooked it with the DVI cable. I noticed that my scores tended to stay about the same as what they were with my old analog monitor. After a few weeks, the DVI adapter on my 9800pro died. So I odered a new card (x850pro) and ran with the lcd on the analog cable. The first game of CoD2 I played using the analog cable resulted in me getting first place, no one hardly touched me. I can write off one game as a fluke, everyone gets lucky; However, I was getting no less than third on any of my normal servers. I normally finished somewhere in the middle of the pack.

When my new card came in I tried both the analog and DVI connections and noticed the same thing. Even though the image quality was noticeably better on DVI, I scored a helluva lot better on the analog side. So I am still running on the analog side today, since my rig is primarily a gaming machine I don't see any reason to switch to DVI...
 
Soldur said:
I mostly play CoD2, and I've tried it using both the DVI and the Analog sides of my video card. I play at 1280x1024, which is the native resolution of my 19" lcd.

When I first got my lcd, I immediately hooked it with the DVI cable. I noticed that my scores tended to stay about the same as what they were with my old analog monitor. After a few weeks, the DVI adapter on my 9800pro died. So I odered a new card (x850pro) and ran with the lcd on the analog cable. The first game of CoD2 I played using the analog cable resulted in me getting first place, no one hardly touched me. I can write off one game as a fluke, everyone gets lucky; However, I was getting no less than third on any of my normal servers. I normally finished somewhere in the middle of the pack.

When my new card came in I tried both the analog and DVI connections and noticed the same thing. Even though the image quality was noticeably better on DVI, I scored a helluva lot better on the analog side. So I am still running on the analog side today, since my rig is primarily a gaming machine I don't see any reason to switch to DVI...
Click to expand...

Maybe have something to do with your monitor. What kind is it? Sounds like there's more input lag on the DVI side than on the VGA side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top