If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DVI v DisplayPort
I have a monitor connected to my PC using DVI ports on both. But the
monitor has DisplayPort capability. Would there be any advantage in installing a video card with DisplayPort capability in the PC and using DP instead of DVI? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DVI v DisplayPort
Peter Johnson wrote:
I have a monitor connected to my PC using DVI ports on both. But the monitor has DisplayPort capability. Would there be any advantage in installing a video card with DisplayPort capability in the PC and using DP instead of DVI? DVI and HDMI are the same. Display Port supports higher refresh rates at the high resolutions. You didn't mention which brand and model of monitor, or its native resolution. If the monitor doesn't support higher resolutions and refresh rates than what DVI/HDMI support then there is no point in changing your video adapter to something the surpasses what your monitor can support. HDMI 1.4: 3820x2160 @ 30Hz HDMI 2.0: Ups refresh to 60Hz DVI single-link: 1920x1200 @ 144Hz DVI dual-link: Ups resolution to 2560x1600 DP 1.2: 3820x2160, 4K, @ 60Hz, 1080p @ 144Hz DP 1.4: Ups refresh to 4K @ 120Hz and 8K @ 60Hz Without knowing the specs for the monitor, know way to know what it supports for max/native resolution and refresh rates, or what DVI/HDMI/DP specs are supported. Having a DP port doesn't mean the monitor supports the max DP specs. Getting a video card that supports higher resolutions at high refresh rates is not going to alter the hardware in your monitor which might be the limiting factor. However, a much video card will offer you the opportunity to later improve the monitor to match the maximums supported by the video card. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DVI v DisplayPort
Peter Johnson wrote:
I have a monitor connected to my PC using DVI ports on both. But the monitor has DisplayPort capability. Would there be any advantage in installing a video card with DisplayPort capability in the PC and using DP instead of DVI? For modest monitors, the three digital standards are essentially all the same. If your DVI is working right now, there'd be little point switching to DP as an experiment. I think DP has the edge on highest res at the moment. Maybe if you bought a brand new 8K monitor, you'd need a new video card with the latest DP standard, to drive it. A dual link DVI only goes up to 2560 x ? . That's an incentive to change standards, when you're a rich guy and can afford an 8K monitor. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DVI v DisplayPort
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:34:38 -0400, Paul
wrote: Peter Johnson wrote: I have a monitor connected to my PC using DVI ports on both. But the monitor has DisplayPort capability. Would there be any advantage in installing a video card with DisplayPort capability in the PC and using DP instead of DVI? For modest monitors, the three digital standards are essentially all the same. If your DVI is working right now, there'd be little point switching to DP as an experiment. I think DP has the edge on highest res at the moment. Maybe if you bought a brand new 8K monitor, you'd need a new video card with the latest DP standard, to drive it. A dual link DVI only goes up to 2560 x ? . That's an incentive to change standards, when you're a rich guy and can afford an 8K monitor. Paul They're all effectively "only the very highest-grade, graphic workstation or gaming IPS monitors" now. Meaning, effectively, nothing. The difference is, between 24"-27" so-called IPS monitors, that stratum is now being infiltrated by 32" monitors. I've had a 32" since Day 1, which died some months ago and now is replaced by a 32" model that cost a tenth what the first cost in the early days of LCDs ($1000/US early production runs). What I know from this replacement procedure is I could have done a damn sight better than the $129 I paid, say, up to a $200 leeway for and within 32" monitors exclusively. The 32" unit increasingly (and finally) is a competitively discounted item on sale monitor marketing, nonetheless placed and still within a promotion for $500+ "professional-grade" IPS 32" monitors. It doesn't cost you your arm, possibly a leg, to save to pay for your eyesight. In my instance, it's programmers, I notice, who matter. What programmers, contextual sorts, expect from being up close to a 32" monitor is different from graphics designer expectations, or, from a game applications, the gamer's standpoint. And, they've surprising little to do with what $200 delivers on sales of 32" monitors, being what advertising has in turn to promote from what they'll actually provide. You sit in front of one then to make your decisions. They're are no aesthetics, subjectively, that substitute to qualify for expected standards. Then, you're looking at what 32" means: Possibly a refurbished unit, usually somewhat limited warranties, an update from an older graphic card, et. al. Surprising, as well, how many of these present computer "specialty IPS monitors", 32" (and below), still come equipped with a standard (S)VGA cable connect, i.e., no-nonsense, straight-BIOS default CMOS connectivity;- there's very few of those left, if at all, from in a cross-over type "television" marketing on monitors with SVGA connects. Mine, for $129, came with a fast courtesy return-shipping label at no cost. It may be swishy-washy black-&-whites compared to a relatively heavy and bulky 32" from a couple decades ago, but at least the seller was kind enough to include a return shipping label and not mess around. Screw it, I'm not driving, ordering all over, spending more and adding up time or expenses to get it perfectly right;- I went ahead and also bought the seller's extended 5-year warranty plan. It's also the last television currently produced with a VGA connection, purposes, for $129. Something changes, some things you just have to look harder. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DVI v DisplayPort
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:10:30 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
DVI and HDMI are the same. Display Port supports higher refresh rates at the high resolutions. You didn't mention which brand and model of monitor, or its native resolution. If the monitor doesn't support higher resolutions and refresh rates than what DVI/HDMI support then there is no point in changing your video adapter to something the surpasses what your monitor can support. HDMI 1.4: 3820x2160 @ 30Hz HDMI 2.0: Ups refresh to 60Hz DVI single-link: 1920x1200 @ 144Hz DVI dual-link: Ups resolution to 2560x1600 DP 1.2: 3820x2160, 4K, @ 60Hz, 1080p @ 144Hz DP 1.4: Ups refresh to 4K @ 120Hz and 8K @ 60Hz Interesting response. The monitor is: https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/pr...xub2792qsu-b1/ The video card is: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/p...-750-ti-kalmx/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DVI v DisplayPort
Peter Johnson wrote:
Interesting response. The monitor is: https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/pr...xub2792qsu-b1/ Per its manual, the max/native resolution of that monitor is 2560x1440, so a video card that exceeds that spec won't give you any better display. DVI will support well that monitor at a refresh of 60Hz. Although the general spec says vertical refresh is 55 to 75 Hz, you're probably limited to 60 Hz at the max/native resolution. From its manual, page 26: Support max. resolution DVI: 2560x1440 @ 60Hz HDMI: 2560x1440 @ 60Hz DP: 2560x1140 @ 70Hz Going to a DP connection gives you all of another 10Hz in refresh rate which is neglible even in video games. Unless you get a video card that hits that resolution, or higher, and at much higher refresh rates, like 144Hz, buying a new video card will give you nothing more than your current monitor can already use with your existing video card. The video card is: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/p...-750-ti-kalmx/ The site never mentions refresh rate at which resolutions. I downloaded the video card's manual. Says "Supports resolutions up to 2560x1440". The video card supports the monitor's max/native resolution, but no mention of refresh rate. I'm guessing its 60Hz at 2560x1440. Getting a higher resolution video card with a DP port won't magically make the monitor increase its resolution or refresh rates. In addition to buying a better video card to get a DP port that supports higher resolutions along with higher refresh rates, you would need to get a better monitor (higher resolution, plus higher refresh rates). Your video already supports the max/native resolution of your monitor using a DVI connection. All a new video card with DP will give you is possibly another 10Hz in refresh rate (provided the monitor has an INF driver file you can install that specifies the higher refresh rate). You'd be wasting your money buying a new video card unless you also get a better monitor (higher refresh rate; e.g., 144Hz). What you have is a passively cooled video card. No fan for active cooling. That means the video card hopefully throttles its GPU cycles to keep heat below some maximum threshold. While not having a fan means the video card is quieter, you can get newer and more robust video cards with fans for active cooling that are very quiet. In my new build that has twice as many fans, it is far quieter than my old build. I have to look at the lights (Power, fans) to know it is powered on. Once in a blue moon I've loaded the GPU so hard that its fan had to speed up, and that was not during video gaming. Active cooling means you could extend the temperature range of the video card. Well, not let the temperature get higher but incur a higher load on its GPU without exceeding the max temperature. Newer games would hit the GPU harder; however, yours has a reduced number of shaders, so you might be restricted what video games you can play or they have to use less shaders meaning less load meaning less heat. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DVI v DisplayPort
VanguardLH wrote:
Peter Johnson wrote: Interesting response. The monitor is: https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/pr...xub2792qsu-b1/ Per its manual, the max/native resolution of that monitor is 2560x1440, so a video card that exceeds that spec won't give you any better display. DVI will support well that monitor at a refresh of 60Hz. Although the general spec says vertical refresh is 55 to 75 Hz, you're probably limited to 60 Hz at the max/native resolution. From its manual, page 26: Support max. resolution DVI: 2560x1440 @ 60Hz HDMI: 2560x1440 @ 60Hz DP: 2560x1140 @ 70Hz Going to a DP connection gives you all of another 10Hz in refresh rate which is neglible even in video games. Unless you get a video card that hits that resolution, or higher, and at much higher refresh rates, like 144Hz, buying a new video card will give you nothing more than your current monitor can already use with your existing video card. The video card is: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/p...-750-ti-kalmx/ The site never mentions refresh rate at which resolutions. I downloaded the video card's manual. Says "Supports resolutions up to 2560x1440". The video card supports the monitor's max/native resolution, but no mention of refresh rate. I'm guessing its 60Hz at 2560x1440. Getting a higher resolution video card with a DP port won't magically make the monitor increase its resolution or refresh rates. In addition to buying a better video card to get a DP port that supports higher resolutions along with higher refresh rates, you would need to get a better monitor (higher resolution, plus higher refresh rates). Your video already supports the max/native resolution of your monitor using a DVI connection. All a new video card with DP will give you is possibly another 10Hz in refresh rate (provided the monitor has an INF driver file you can install that specifies the higher refresh rate). You'd be wasting your money buying a new video card unless you also get a better monitor (higher refresh rate; e.g., 144Hz). What you have is a passively cooled video card. No fan for active cooling. That means the video card hopefully throttles its GPU cycles to keep heat below some maximum threshold. While not having a fan means the video card is quieter, you can get newer and more robust video cards with fans for active cooling that are very quiet. In my new build that has twice as many fans, it is far quieter than my old build. I have to look at the lights (Power, fans) to know it is powered on. Once in a blue moon I've loaded the GPU so hard that its fan had to speed up, and that was not during video gaming. Active cooling means you could extend the temperature range of the video card. Well, not let the temperature get higher but incur a higher load on its GPU without exceeding the max temperature. Newer games would hit the GPU harder; however, yours has a reduced number of shaders, so you might be restricted what video games you can play or they have to use less shaders meaning less load meaning less heat. More modern cards have better feedback systems. This card is a "two fan compact" card, when other versions of the card are "three fan full sized" card. The first test is a particle simulation provided with the CUDA kit and compiled in Visual Studio. https://i.postimg.cc/GhvnCqFw/Smoke-Particles2.jpg (Card is not "flat out") 1911MHz Vcore = 1.0620V PerfCap = Vref (bumping against VCore limit) Power = 60W Temp = 47C https://i.postimg.cc/85cZzPxf/furmark.jpg (Card is "flat out") 1582 MHz VCore = 0.8310V PerfCap = Pwr (bumping against Power limiter) Power = 181.5W (out of a max of 180W) Temp = 60C Some older cards were damaged, when an NVidia driver update arrived with the fan control turned off by accident. Implying the older cards didn't have sufficient controls. The demo of the card above, hints that maybe those days are past. Some of the feedback at least, will be in hardware alone, so even if the driver crashes and doesn't recover, the card is probably protected. At one time (i.e. the video card in the machine I'm typing on, a PCIe card), the fan register would be set to 100% at power up, but intelligent fan speed control would not happen until the driver loaded. In the case of the "defective" driver, when the driver loads, the fan drops from 100% to 0% and the card starts to overheat (even in the desktop). That's because the power ratio on the older cards, idle still burned a lot of power (2:1 max to min on an 8800). Whereas modern cards can drop as low as 3W at idle. And that value has been sneaking up the last few years, so we no longer see impressive numbers like that. GDDR6 memory or HBM2 probably isn't helping. ******* DVI is available with single link (1920x1200) or dual link (2560x1600). As long as "all the pins" (dual link) on the DVI connector are in usage, then the DVI/HDMI/DP are all the same in terms of what they offer to the owner of a 2560x1600 monitor. If your DVI happened to be single link (causing that monitor to run in a non-native resolution), then you might want to upgrade just to get native resolution operation. A 2560x1600 monitor running on the single link connector, would probably have slightly blurry text. Single link DVI R,G,B,Clk 165MHz 1920x1200 CRTRB xxx (no electrical connection) Dual link DVI R,G,B,Clk 165MHz 2560x1600 R,G,B,Clk 165MHz HDMI R,G,B,Clk 330MHz 2560x1600 So HDMI, a smaller connector, only has "one link" and not dual link like DVI, but at a minimum, the clock rate is double the link on the DVI. That's what allows an HDMI to give at least the same res performance as a dual link DVI. And HDMI and DP have received improvements since then, while DVI just stopped at 165MHz, spec-wise. If they'd wanted to, they could have pushed the clock on DVI, too. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DVI v DisplayPort
Paul wrote:
This card is a "two fan compact" card, when other versions of the card are "three fan full sized" card. The OP's video card has no fans. Although it's an AMD 750 Ti design, it has no fan(s). Product image: https://tpucdn.com/review/palit-gtx-.../pressshot.jpg According to the review article the OP linked to, back when the card was introduced in 2014, it was the only passively cooled 750 Ti design. DVI is available with single link (1920x1200) or dual link (2560x1600). As long as "all the pins" (dual link) on the DVI connector are in usage, then the DVI/HDMI/DP are all the same in terms of what they offer to the owner of a 2560x1600 monitor. If your DVI happened to be single link (causing that monitor to run in a non-native resolution), then you might want to upgrade just to get native resolution operation. The specs for the OP's video card says it supports 2560x1440 over its DVI connection, so it must be dual-link DVI. https://www.displaygeeks.com/wp-cont.../DVI-Types.jpg For the dual-link DVI connector, there are no pins missing in the missing of the pin matrix. From an image for the Palit GTX750ti video card at: https://www.ixbt.com/video3/images/g...50ti-front.jpg those at DVI dual-link connectors. Well, they are dual-link DVI connectors but it's possible there are no wires to the middle pins; however, since the video card is spec'ed to 25620x1440 then those middle pins should be connected and supported in the logic. I couldn't find an image at Google for the backside of the OP's monitor or for its connectors. The manual for the OP's monitor shows the location of the DVI connector and lists it as "DVI-D 24pin". 24 pins means fully populated in the connector, and DVD-D means dual-link. So, the OP's video card and monitor both have DVI dual-link connectors to support 2560x1440. The specs for the monitor state 2560x1440 is still the max resolution when using its Display Port. That a connector has higher specs doesn't mean they must support the max specs. The OP will achieve no better support of his current monitor using a DP port on a new video card than what his current video card can support using the DVI-D connections between old video card and old monitor. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DVI v DisplayPort
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:06:14 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Peter Johnson wrote: Interesting response. The monitor is: https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/pr...xub2792qsu-b1/ Per its manual, the max/native resolution of that monitor is 2560x1440, so a video card that exceeds that spec won't give you any better display. DVI will support well that monitor at a refresh of 60Hz. Although the general spec says vertical refresh is 55 to 75 Hz, you're probably limited to 60 Hz at the max/native resolution. From its manual, page 26: Support max. resolution DVI: 2560x1440 @ 60Hz HDMI: 2560x1440 @ 60Hz DP: 2560x1140 @ 70Hz Going to a DP connection gives you all of another 10Hz in refresh rate which is neglible even in video games. Unless you get a video card that hits that resolution, or higher, and at much higher refresh rates, like 144Hz, buying a new video card will give you nothing more than your current monitor can already use with your existing video card. The video card is: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/p...-750-ti-kalmx/ The site never mentions refresh rate at which resolutions. I downloaded the video card's manual. Says "Supports resolutions up to 2560x1440". The video card supports the monitor's max/native resolution, but no mention of refresh rate. I'm guessing its 60Hz at 2560x1440. Getting a higher resolution video card with a DP port won't magically make the monitor increase its resolution or refresh rates. In addition to buying a better video card to get a DP port that supports higher resolutions along with higher refresh rates, you would need to get a better monitor (higher resolution, plus higher refresh rates). Your video already supports the max/native resolution of your monitor using a DVI connection. All a new video card with DP will give you is possibly another 10Hz in refresh rate (provided the monitor has an INF driver file you can install that specifies the higher refresh rate). You'd be wasting your money buying a new video card unless you also get a better monitor (higher refresh rate; e.g., 144Hz). What you have is a passively cooled video card. No fan for active cooling. That means the video card hopefully throttles its GPU cycles to keep heat below some maximum threshold. While not having a fan means the video card is quieter, you can get newer and more robust video cards with fans for active cooling that are very quiet. In my new build that has twice as many fans, it is far quieter than my old build. I have to look at the lights (Power, fans) to know it is powered on. Once in a blue moon I've loaded the GPU so hard that its fan had to speed up, and that was not during video gaming. Active cooling means you could extend the temperature range of the video card. Well, not let the temperature get higher but incur a higher load on its GPU without exceeding the max temperature. Newer games would hit the GPU harder; however, yours has a reduced number of shaders, so you might be restricted what video games you can play or they have to use less shaders meaning less load meaning less heat. I half suspected that there'd be nothing in it for me to change to DP so thanks for confirming it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DVI v DisplayPort
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:55:06 -0400, Paul
wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Peter Johnson wrote: Interesting response. The monitor is: https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/pr...xub2792qsu-b1/ Per its manual, the max/native resolution of that monitor is 2560x1440, so a video card that exceeds that spec won't give you any better display. DVI will support well that monitor at a refresh of 60Hz. Although the general spec says vertical refresh is 55 to 75 Hz, you're probably limited to 60 Hz at the max/native resolution. From its manual, page 26: Support max. resolution DVI: 2560x1440 @ 60Hz HDMI: 2560x1440 @ 60Hz DP: 2560x1140 @ 70Hz Going to a DP connection gives you all of another 10Hz in refresh rate which is neglible even in video games. Unless you get a video card that hits that resolution, or higher, and at much higher refresh rates, like 144Hz, buying a new video card will give you nothing more than your current monitor can already use with your existing video card. The video card is: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/p...-750-ti-kalmx/ The site never mentions refresh rate at which resolutions. I downloaded the video card's manual. Says "Supports resolutions up to 2560x1440". The video card supports the monitor's max/native resolution, but no mention of refresh rate. I'm guessing its 60Hz at 2560x1440. Getting a higher resolution video card with a DP port won't magically make the monitor increase its resolution or refresh rates. In addition to buying a better video card to get a DP port that supports higher resolutions along with higher refresh rates, you would need to get a better monitor (higher resolution, plus higher refresh rates). Your video already supports the max/native resolution of your monitor using a DVI connection. All a new video card with DP will give you is possibly another 10Hz in refresh rate (provided the monitor has an INF driver file you can install that specifies the higher refresh rate). You'd be wasting your money buying a new video card unless you also get a better monitor (higher refresh rate; e.g., 144Hz). What you have is a passively cooled video card. No fan for active cooling. That means the video card hopefully throttles its GPU cycles to keep heat below some maximum threshold. While not having a fan means the video card is quieter, you can get newer and more robust video cards with fans for active cooling that are very quiet. In my new build that has twice as many fans, it is far quieter than my old build. I have to look at the lights (Power, fans) to know it is powered on. Once in a blue moon I've loaded the GPU so hard that its fan had to speed up, and that was not during video gaming. Active cooling means you could extend the temperature range of the video card. Well, not let the temperature get higher but incur a higher load on its GPU without exceeding the max temperature. Newer games would hit the GPU harder; however, yours has a reduced number of shaders, so you might be restricted what video games you can play or they have to use less shaders meaning less load meaning less heat. More modern cards have better feedback systems. This card is a "two fan compact" card, when other versions of the card are "three fan full sized" card. The first test is a particle simulation provided with the CUDA kit and compiled in Visual Studio. https://i.postimg.cc/GhvnCqFw/Smoke-Particles2.jpg (Card is not "flat out") 1911MHz Vcore = 1.0620V PerfCap = Vref (bumping against VCore limit) Power = 60W Temp = 47C https://i.postimg.cc/85cZzPxf/furmark.jpg (Card is "flat out") 1582 MHz VCore = 0.8310V PerfCap = Pwr (bumping against Power limiter) Power = 181.5W (out of a max of 180W) Temp = 60C Some older cards were damaged, when an NVidia driver update arrived with the fan control turned off by accident. Implying the older cards didn't have sufficient controls. The demo of the card above, hints that maybe those days are past. Some of the feedback at least, will be in hardware alone, so even if the driver crashes and doesn't recover, the card is probably protected. At one time (i.e. the video card in the machine I'm typing on, a PCIe card), the fan register would be set to 100% at power up, but intelligent fan speed control would not happen until the driver loaded. In the case of the "defective" driver, when the driver loads, the fan drops from 100% to 0% and the card starts to overheat (even in the desktop). That's because the power ratio on the older cards, idle still burned a lot of power (2:1 max to min on an 8800). Whereas modern cards can drop as low as 3W at idle. And that value has been sneaking up the last few years, so we no longer see impressive numbers like that. GDDR6 memory or HBM2 probably isn't helping. ******* DVI is available with single link (1920x1200) or dual link (2560x1600). As long as "all the pins" (dual link) on the DVI connector are in usage, then the DVI/HDMI/DP are all the same in terms of what they offer to the owner of a 2560x1600 monitor. If your DVI happened to be single link (causing that monitor to run in a non-native resolution), then you might want to upgrade just to get native resolution operation. A 2560x1600 monitor running on the single link connector, would probably have slightly blurry text. Single link DVI R,G,B,Clk 165MHz 1920x1200 CRTRB xxx (no electrical connection) Dual link DVI R,G,B,Clk 165MHz 2560x1600 R,G,B,Clk 165MHz HDMI R,G,B,Clk 330MHz 2560x1600 So HDMI, a smaller connector, only has "one link" and not dual link like DVI, but at a minimum, the clock rate is double the link on the DVI. That's what allows an HDMI to give at least the same res performance as a dual link DVI. And HDMI and DP have received improvements since then, while DVI just stopped at 165MHz, spec-wise. If they'd wanted to, they could have pushed the clock on DVI, too. Paul Thanks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
vga to displayport adapter | micky | General | 4 | February 17th 17 08:01 AM |
HDMI or DisplayPort? | Larc[_3_] | Homebuilt PC's | 13 | December 30th 16 08:06 PM |
Displayport vs VGA connector | ps56k[_3_] | Dell Computers | 3 | July 24th 13 12:21 AM |
Displayport vs DVI | Martin Racette | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | January 28th 11 08:22 PM |
Dell's DisplayPort Folly | Ablang | Dell Computers | 8 | March 25th 08 03:47 PM |