Why 2 DVI and not 1 DVI and 1 regular monitor output on the new cards? (sorry about not knowing the names). Reason I don't like this is that 90% of us don't have DVI input on our monitors so we will have to use a converter. And do you know what using converters mean??? Loss of video quality! as it passes through the extra converter! That pisses me off... Don't know why they didn't do what radeon cards have today, 1 DVI and 1 regular monitor output. This could make me wait and buy the radeon card if it has 1 and the other, becuase I know first hand what those converters do.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why 2 DVI on 6800 cards?
- Thread starter eddie500
- Start date
bobn4burton
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 722
I think its great! Perfect fit for my dual Dell 2001fp setup
But seriously...I think its the best way to go. You can always package your video card with 1 or 2 dvi->analog connectors. But there's no such thing as an analog->dvi connector. So this way both crowds are happy. Just have to use converters for analog.
But seriously...I think its the best way to go. You can always package your video card with 1 or 2 dvi->analog connectors. But there's no such thing as an analog->dvi connector. So this way both crowds are happy. Just have to use converters for analog.
intercollector
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 530
It is only the reference board that has 2 DVI connectors.
When it comes down to what you will see at retail, you will probably be able to get any combination of VGA and DVI connectors, as well as many different cooling solutions, power solutions, different memory speeds, and added features like tuners and such.
I'm not sure why people get so bent over a reference board. This board that we are seeing is simply used to show the capabilities of the chip. It has nothing to do with the actual cards we will see.
As for the converters, I know what they do too. And guess what? Most cards these days that support VGA just simply have the same converter on the board. There is basically nothing to them really.
When it comes down to what you will see at retail, you will probably be able to get any combination of VGA and DVI connectors, as well as many different cooling solutions, power solutions, different memory speeds, and added features like tuners and such.
I'm not sure why people get so bent over a reference board. This board that we are seeing is simply used to show the capabilities of the chip. It has nothing to do with the actual cards we will see.
As for the converters, I know what they do too. And guess what? Most cards these days that support VGA just simply have the same converter on the board. There is basically nothing to them really.
Good point. Ok lets revise this.
They are probably trying to appeal to people with money to blow on computer parts. If you are in need of dual dvi then you most likely have money. If you have money, Nvidia wants it and they want it when the card first debues (more money than later on). Soooo dual dvi=appeal for money.
Honestly I'd rather have dual VGA outputs than dual DVI.
I know there are people out there who are happy about dual DVI, Brent included.
But I still am a CRT ho... And I know that the DVI to VGA converter induces about 1 dB of insertion connector signal loss and lets in quite a bit of interference too. It is definitely noticable as wavy lines, pixel crawl, and general fuzziness at resolutions of 1600x1200 and higher. I am greatly looking forward to 1800x1440 85hz gaming using the new videocards, and I know a DVI converter is just gonna screw up the quality.
Best scenario would be to have CRT monitor makers have a DVI input and then use a RAMDAC inside the monitor to convert... But it doesn't look like that is going to happen.
I know there are people out there who are happy about dual DVI, Brent included.
But I still am a CRT ho... And I know that the DVI to VGA converter induces about 1 dB of insertion connector signal loss and lets in quite a bit of interference too. It is definitely noticable as wavy lines, pixel crawl, and general fuzziness at resolutions of 1600x1200 and higher. I am greatly looking forward to 1800x1440 85hz gaming using the new videocards, and I know a DVI converter is just gonna screw up the quality.
Best scenario would be to have CRT monitor makers have a DVI input and then use a RAMDAC inside the monitor to convert... But it doesn't look like that is going to happen.
I highly doubt it's any more signal loss than what the digital to analog coverter on the card would put out. The only time I have ever heard of signal loss is when going from VGA to DVI because then the coversion process is done twice since the native output for a card is in digital form.
Well, its noticable to me.
All better trinitron monitors have detachable VGA cables and dual inputs with maybe even a BNC input, so why not a DVI input.
I always notice the difference between different brands of videocable Some brands are crap. Better brands are thick and stiff with two ferrites attached to further reduce interference. Using an adapter is always noticable to me too.
All better trinitron monitors have detachable VGA cables and dual inputs with maybe even a BNC input, so why not a DVI input.
I always notice the difference between different brands of videocable Some brands are crap. Better brands are thick and stiff with two ferrites attached to further reduce interference. Using an adapter is always noticable to me too.
pbXassassinX1524
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,295
I personally don't mind. They are probably doing it for the future... no one is going to be using CRTs in the fairly near future. Once the responce time on LCDs gets like 1 step lower there will not really be any point. When I don't have to pay with an arm and a leg to get a nice LCD... you better bet I'll be on that bandwagon. But for now, CRTs are fine.
I'm a CRT ho also, Right now you can't beat a 22" CRT for games.
Also If the response time on a LCD was that good I would probably buy one, but until an LCD is as good as a CRT I'm going to have to stick with the CRT.
BTW, does anyone remember the 2d quality loss when using old 3d cards that required 2 video cards with a passthrough. One video card was your 2d, the other was the 3d. The 2d quality loss was so damn noticbale with the passthrough I actually once in a while disconnected the monitor from the 3d into the 2d card.
NeoNemesis
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,467
I'll bet that a 42 inch gas plasma screen beats a 22 inch CRT for games.
There is no signal loss. If you look at a DVI-I port, youll see four connectors on the right side in a square formation. Thats the analog signal. It's just rewired in a way (and some connectors from DVI part used also) as to fit VGA cables.
Disclaimer: This is purely how I see it and I may be wrong.
It's about time you get dual DVIs now.
ZenOps: what do you think about a single cable that goes from DVI to VGA, without using that extra adapter.
here is a link as an example.
http://www.pchotdeals.com/dvicabdviant5.html
They make video cards with dual DVI outputs because that will allow them to sell the most cards. People with 2 DVI LCD's can use it, people with 1 LCD and 1 CRT can use it, and people with 2 CRT's can use it. It has the DVI's for the best signal to LCD's, and you can use an adapter to go to a CRT with no signal loss. If you see a difference, it's interference within your own head. And nobody makes a DVI CRT because they'd have to spend more money to do it (and sell it at a higher price), and the quality wouldn't be any better. If they DID make a DVI CRT, it would be a normal CRT with the exact same DVI converter built-in. So what's the point?
All you are doing is playing pass the converter. Whether it is on the board, attached to the board, in the cable, or in the monitor, it is somewhere. If you are noticing a problem with it being attached to the video card instead of on the video card, odds are it's in your head or in the difference in the cables. And yes, the cable can have a big influence on video quality. A lot more than where the converter is.
(cf)Eclipse
Freelance Overclocker
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,027
signal loss within the analog cable won't be there anymore, that's the one thing i see that will help out. yeah, it'll be more expensive, but really, it shouldn't be more than $3-5 for the ramdac....
Killa|3yte
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,266
i'm sure it comes with DVI-> VGA converters
If you have a CRT like me, you have a DVI in on the monitor (IBM P260). So what's the problem again?
Sorry but I would take the clean 1600x1200+ resolution of the CRT over the crappy 852 x 480 res of most 42" plasmas and even over the most expensive ones that only offer up to 1024x760 res.
Also if people want to use these cards in their HTPC's, which would be excellent with the HD capabilities, they will want the DVI outputs for either their HD projectors or HDTV's.
All this talk of converters makes me confused.
DVI-I, the interface used on all videocards, is a digital AND analog interface. For LCD owners, only the digital input is used. On the LCD side of the cable is a DVI-D connector (DVI-Digital). If an analog projection TV, projector, or CRT monitor is used, there is a DVI-A connector (DVI-Analog).
Mind you, all the connectors are physically identical, but not all pins are connected in the cases of DVI-D and DVI-A.
Notice that in the DVI-A route, the signal leaves the connector in analog form, and is received and outputted in analog from start to finish, with no unnecessary signal loss anywhere. As you might guess, a mere change of mechanical interface (connector) is all that's needed to switch to the HD15 VGA connector.
I'm sure that most of you know see that a dual DVI-I output interface was the best for everyone, not just LCD owners.
For reference:
http://www.evga.com/support/engnotes/Note_06.asp (bottom of page)
DVI-I, the interface used on all videocards, is a digital AND analog interface. For LCD owners, only the digital input is used. On the LCD side of the cable is a DVI-D connector (DVI-Digital). If an analog projection TV, projector, or CRT monitor is used, there is a DVI-A connector (DVI-Analog).
Mind you, all the connectors are physically identical, but not all pins are connected in the cases of DVI-D and DVI-A.
Notice that in the DVI-A route, the signal leaves the connector in analog form, and is received and outputted in analog from start to finish, with no unnecessary signal loss anywhere. As you might guess, a mere change of mechanical interface (connector) is all that's needed to switch to the HD15 VGA connector.
I'm sure that most of you know see that a dual DVI-I output interface was the best for everyone, not just LCD owners.
For reference:
http://www.evga.com/support/engnotes/Note_06.asp (bottom of page)
jamestime88
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,209
unless you like playing games at higher than 800x600 resolution
EarthwormJim
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 705
If you're seeing signal loss or interference from an adapter, it's most likely a bad adapter that's not properly shielded or what not. There is no digital to analog conversion going on in the adapters. All that is happening is the analog signal in DVI-I is simply being re-routed into DB-15 heads.
Yes, Its all analog.
Its hard enough finding a good VGA cable that will not start to get fuzzy above 1600x1200 (like 1800x1440 or 2048x1536) without having to worry about the insertion loss from an adaptor (even though it doesn't convert anything)
Most DVI<>VGA are not very well sheilded, including the one that comes in most retail videocard boxes... If it was well shielded I'd expect it to have a built in ferrite and be about twice as thick as it is now.
Its not an issue at 1280x1024 or below, as almost any cable with adaptor will look pretty well all the same.
Its hard enough finding a good VGA cable that will not start to get fuzzy above 1600x1200 (like 1800x1440 or 2048x1536) without having to worry about the insertion loss from an adaptor (even though it doesn't convert anything)
Most DVI<>VGA are not very well sheilded, including the one that comes in most retail videocard boxes... If it was well shielded I'd expect it to have a built in ferrite and be about twice as thick as it is now.
Its not an issue at 1280x1024 or below, as almost any cable with adaptor will look pretty well all the same.
leukotriene
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 2,664
I haven't noticed image quality problems on the converted-from DVI secondary output of my 9800 Pro at any resolution on either monitor, including 1600x1200 (I don't use 1840x1440). Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough.
For pixel accuracy and geometry LCD is much better. For color representation a CRT can be better. This is assuming you calibrate your CRT that is which I've not seen most people do
Anyways color accuracy on uncalibrated LCD's and CRT's seems to be fairly similar on average.
LCD's ghost a little but not a big issue on the latest models and should be basically non-existant in year or two when we should see sub 10ms response time models on the market.
There is some other sometimes deficiencies in LCD's but they also have the advantages of small footprint and don't throw out lots of heat. In the Lab I work in, I much prefer my 2x 21.3" LCD's versus having 2x 21" CRT's which have a slightly smaller viewing area, eat the entire desk space in my cubicle, plus throwing outs tons of heat (already have enough heat from dual xeons thrown at me). And price at that level is the same for a really nice CRT as it is for an LCD (you can of course get not as nice CRT's though for half the price)