A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DVI v DisplayPort



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 14th 19, 02:42 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Peter Johnson[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default 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  
Old October 14th 19, 03:10 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,453
Default 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  
Old October 15th 19, 12:34 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default 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  
Old October 15th 19, 06:17 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default 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  
Old October 15th 19, 04:27 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Peter Johnson[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default 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  
Old October 15th 19, 06:06 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,453
Default 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  
Old October 15th 19, 07:55 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default 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  
Old October 16th 19, 07:56 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,453
Default 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  
Old October 17th 19, 06:33 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Peter Johnson[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default 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  
Old October 17th 19, 06:34 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Peter Johnson[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.