How do I get a DVI monitor/video-card connection to work?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I have just built a new desktop machine with a Asus Extreme EN6600GT
video card that has both analog and digital outputs. My monitor (Eizo
L885) also accepts digital input so I wanted to connect the monitor to
the video card via the DVI connectors. I bought a cable at the store
marked "DVI-I dual link" but it doesn't seem to work. The video card
appears to be aware that there is a DVI monitor connection, but the
monitor says it's not receiving a signal.

Am I using the right cable? If so, what else might be wrong? Do I
have to tell the video card to switch to DVI output or something? The
analog connection works fine, but I'd like to try DVI since it is
supposedly even sharper than analog.
18 answers Last reply
More about monitor video card connection work
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:a24dc11k8u38pcid697d9tdgifa30eru0s@4ax.com...
    >I have just built a new desktop machine with a Asus Extreme EN6600GT
    > video card that has both analog and digital outputs. My monitor (Eizo
    > L885) also accepts digital input so I wanted to connect the monitor to
    > the video card via the DVI connectors. I bought a cable at the store
    > marked "DVI-I dual link" but it doesn't seem to work. The video card
    > appears to be aware that there is a DVI monitor connection, but the
    > monitor says it's not receiving a signal.
    >
    > Am I using the right cable? If so, what else might be wrong? Do I
    > have to tell the video card to switch to DVI output or something? The
    > analog connection works fine, but I'd like to try DVI since it is
    > supposedly even sharper than analog.

    go to graphics card settings and select the DVI out......
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    More to the point click on the drop down box & select the new monitor & then
    tick the box "EXTEND WINDOWS ON TO ............... "


    "Ted" <OnThe@Upbtinternet.com> wrote in message
    news:da65rk$pbe$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
    >
    > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:a24dc11k8u38pcid697d9tdgifa30eru0s@4ax.com...
    >>I have just built a new desktop machine with a Asus Extreme EN6600GT
    >> video card that has both analog and digital outputs. My monitor (Eizo
    >> L885) also accepts digital input so I wanted to connect the monitor to
    >> the video card via the DVI connectors. I bought a cable at the store
    >> marked "DVI-I dual link" but it doesn't seem to work. The video card
    >> appears to be aware that there is a DVI monitor connection, but the
    >> monitor says it's not receiving a signal.
    >>
    >> Am I using the right cable? If so, what else might be wrong? Do I
    >> have to tell the video card to switch to DVI output or something? The
    >> analog connection works fine, but I'd like to try DVI since it is
    >> supposedly even sharper than analog.
    >
    > go to graphics card settings and select the DVI out......
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > My monitor (Eizo L885) also accepts digital input ...

    So it presumably has both DVI and HD15 connectors.
    The DVI connector may be DVI-I, and thus contain
    both digital and analog pins. So your monitor has
    at least 2 analog inputs and one digital.

    When it sees signals on multiple inputs at the same
    time, it must have some strategy for selecting which
    one to display. My LCD provides bezel buttons and
    on-screen menus for doing so, including choices of
    "DVI Digital" and "DVI Analog". What does RTFM of
    the monitor manual tell you?

    > ... so I wanted to connect the monitor to the
    > video card via the DVI connectors.

    And presumably use the digital connection, at the
    LCD's native geometry.

    > I bought a cable at the store marked
    > "DVI-I dual link" but it doesn't seem to work.

    If the monitor is using some automatic input selection
    strategy, a DVI-I cable could confuse it, because it
    contains both analog and digital signals, and your
    card is likely emitting both signals.

    The "dual link" was needless, as odds are 99.999312%
    that both your card and monitor are single-link,
    and unless you are running over 1920x1200, you're
    running single-link regardless. No harm, however.

    If there's anything odd about the missing factory
    DVI cable, it might be that it was a DVI-D cable,
    lacking analog pins. If the monitor doesn't provide
    some user control over input selection, you may
    be forced to use a DVI-D cable (or clip the analog
    pins in the cable you bought).

    --
    Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
    http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "BruceM" <bruce@@hotmail.com> writes:

    > More to the point click on the drop down box & select the new monitor & then
    > tick the box "EXTEND WINDOWS ON TO ............... "

    OK, I just tried it. Didn't seem to do anything. Maybe the cable is
    wrong. The video card does notice the presence of the monitor on the
    DVI cable, but the monitor displays nothing on the DVI input and
    claims that the horizontal and vertical sync are zero. So maybe the
    cable is wrong, or maybe there's something I have to configure, but I
    think I've gone through a ton of menus by now.

    I wish I could find the cable that came with the monitor. I'm not
    sure where I put it, but obviously if I could find that I could
    probably eliminate the possibility of a cable issue.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Fred is back writes:

    > How do you know you should find the cable that came with the monitor?

    Presumably the cable provided with the monitor is of the appropriate
    type for carrying a digital signal from card to monitor. The more
    generic cable I bought might be slightly different in some way.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

    > Presumably the cable provided with the monitor is of the appropriate
    > type for carrying a digital signal from card to monitor.

    Try logging in as field, password support.

    > The more generic cable I bought might be slightly different in some way.

    You seem frustrated.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Fred is back writes:

    > Try logging in as field, password support.

    Logging into what?

    > You seem frustrated.

    Slightly. I'm mystified as to why I can't get the digital connection
    to work. Since I have both a card and a monitor that support digital
    video now, I'd like to try it.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

    > Logging into what?

    Why?

    > Slightly.

    Classic reading comprehension problem.

    > I'm mystified as to why I can't get the digital connection to work.

    You are not the only one who can't, you know.

    > Since I have both a card and a monitor that support digital video now,
    > I'd like to try it.

    Really? You have both a card and a monitor that support digital video now?
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Fred is back writes:

    > You are not the only one who can't, you know.

    No doubt. An answer to my question would thus help many people, not
    just me.

    > You have both a card and a monitor that support digital video now?

    Yes. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point in trying to get a digital
    connection to work.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    rjn writes:

    > So it presumably has both DVI and HD15 connectors.
    > The DVI connector may be DVI-I, and thus contain
    > both digital and analog pins. So your monitor has
    > at least 2 analog inputs and one digital.

    Right, according to the manual.

    > When it sees signals on multiple inputs at the same
    > time, it must have some strategy for selecting which
    > one to display. My LCD provides bezel buttons and
    > on-screen menus for doing so, including choices of
    > "DVI Digital" and "DVI Analog". What does RTFM of
    > the monitor manual tell you?

    That it normally gives priority to the DVI-I connection, and if there
    is a signal present on that, it displays it. If no signal is present,
    and there is a signal on the analog connection, it falls back to the
    analog connection. Currently it displays the analog connection,
    implying that it is receiving nothing over the DVI-I connection.

    > And presumably use the digital connection, at the
    > LCD's native geometry.

    Right.

    > If the monitor is using some automatic input selection
    > strategy, a DVI-I cable could confuse it, because it
    > contains both analog and digital signals, and your
    > card is likely emitting both signals.

    I can't find anything in the manual about a selection strategy if both
    analog and digital signals are present on the _same_ DVI-I connector.
    Additionally, if there were any signals, I should be able to manually
    switch to that connector and see something, but when I do so, the
    screen is blank. The monitor says it is receiving nothing over that
    link.

    > The "dual link" was needless, as odds are 99.999312%
    > that both your card and monitor are single-link,
    > and unless you are running over 1920x1200, you're
    > running single-link regardless. No harm, however.

    OK. That's just the kind of cable I was able to find at the store.

    > If there's anything odd about the missing factory
    > DVI cable, it might be that it was a DVI-D cable,
    > lacking analog pins. If the monitor doesn't provide
    > some user control over input selection, you may
    > be forced to use a DVI-D cable (or clip the analog
    > pins in the cable you bought).

    But I don't seem to be getting _any_ signal over that connector.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:2kfgc1pmpup2m9q3d2s01fmu71rdela854@4ax.com...
    > > If there's anything odd about the missing factory
    > > DVI cable, it might be that it was a DVI-D cable,
    > > lacking analog pins. If the monitor doesn't provide
    > > some user control over input selection, you may
    > > be forced to use a DVI-D cable (or clip the analog
    > > pins in the cable you bought).
    >
    > But I don't seem to be getting _any_ signal over that connector.

    Right, but the problem is that the card's DVI output may
    have the digital output enabled, while the monitor is
    looking for an analog input over its DVI-I input. Actually,
    assuming your cable is DVI-I at both ends, then the
    card must have a DVI-I output - because a DVI-I
    plug won't mate with a DVI-D output (there's no place
    for the analog pins). So it may be that enough is appearing
    on the card's analog output (sync signals, say, but no valid
    video, or vice-versa) to make the monitor "think" that it
    should be using that connection, when in reality the
    card is only providing a valid output via the digital side
    of the connector. Hard to tell.

    On the other hand, if you're happy with the results using
    the analog interface, I wouldn't bother worrying about it
    further.

    Bob M.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers writes:

    > Right, but the problem is that the card's DVI output may
    > have the digital output enabled, while the monitor is
    > looking for an analog input over its DVI-I input.

    I think the monitor looks for digital input over the DVI first, but
    the manual doesn't clearly state either way.

    > Actually,
    > assuming your cable is DVI-I at both ends, then the
    > card must have a DVI-I output - because a DVI-I
    > plug won't mate with a DVI-D output (there's no place
    > for the analog pins). So it may be that enough is appearing
    > on the card's analog output (sync signals, say, but no valid
    > video, or vice-versa) to make the monitor "think" that it
    > should be using that connection, when in reality the
    > card is only providing a valid output via the digital side
    > of the connector. Hard to tell.

    So how can I find out? Both card and monitor are rather poorly
    documented.

    > On the other hand, if you're happy with the results using
    > the analog interface, I wouldn't bother worrying about it
    > further.

    Everyone one says DVI is vastly sharper, so I wanted to profit from it
    if I can, since I supposedly have a card and monitor that both support
    it now. When I look at the monitor under a magnifying glass, the
    pixels seem to be very precisely aligned for the analog signal--it's
    hard to imagine them being much better. But it would be nice to be
    able to compare.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:fqghc1tbi5fg2otik32q7a22m84bk957q6@4ax.com...
    > Everyone one says DVI is vastly sharper, so I wanted to profit from it
    > if I can, since I supposedly have a card and monitor that both support
    > it now. When I look at the monitor under a magnifying glass, the
    > pixels seem to be very precisely aligned for the analog signal--it's
    > hard to imagine them being much better. But it would be nice to be
    > able to compare.

    LCDs are fixed-pixel devices; if the analog signal is correctly
    sampled, and you don't see any blurring at the edges of
    objects due to the sampling clock wandering around, the image
    you see right now is as good as it will get.

    Bob M.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Fred is back wrote:

    > Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Logging into what?
    >
    > Why?
    >
    >> Slightly.
    >
    > Classic reading comprehension problem.
    >
    >> I'm mystified as to why I can't get the digital connection to work.
    >
    > You are not the only one who can't, you know.
    >
    >> Since I have both a card and a monitor that support digital video now,
    >> I'd like to try it.
    >
    > Really? You have both a card and a monitor that support digital video now?

    Uh, Eliza, <plonk>

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers writes:

    > LCDs are fixed-pixel devices; if the analog signal is correctly
    > sampled, and you don't see any blurring at the edges of
    > objects due to the sampling clock wandering around, the image
    > you see right now is as good as it will get.

    Then why do so many people seem to rave about digital input? It does
    seem to be very sharp as an analog image; the pixels all line up
    perfectly, as far as I can tell.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Bob Myers writes:
    >
    >
    >>LCDs are fixed-pixel devices; if the analog signal is correctly
    >>sampled, and you don't see any blurring at the edges of
    >>objects due to the sampling clock wandering around, the image
    >>you see right now is as good as it will get.
    >
    >
    > Then why do so many people seem to rave about digital input? It does
    > seem to be very sharp as an analog image; the pixels all line up
    > perfectly, as far as I can tell.

    Because there's never any question about alignment with digital nor can it
    drift.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:

    > Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> Bob Myers writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>LCDs are fixed-pixel devices; if the analog signal is correctly
    >>>sampled, and you don't see any blurring at the edges of
    >>>objects due to the sampling clock wandering around, the image
    >>>you see right now is as good as it will get.
    >>
    >>
    >> Then why do so many people seem to rave about digital input? It does
    >> seem to be very sharp as an analog image; the pixels all line up
    >> perfectly, as far as I can tell.
    >
    > Because there's never any question about alignment with digital nor can it
    > drift.

    Oh? Play with Powerstrip and an LCD connected via DVI and you will find
    that alignment is most assuredly at issue.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:7ltjc1dj4paken4482rsibno333enpjufa@4ax.com...
    > Bob Myers writes:
    >
    > > LCDs are fixed-pixel devices; if the analog signal is correctly
    > > sampled, and you don't see any blurring at the edges of
    > > objects due to the sampling clock wandering around, the image
    > > you see right now is as good as it will get.
    >
    > Then why do so many people seem to rave about digital input? It does
    > seem to be very sharp as an analog image; the pixels all line up
    > perfectly, as far as I can tell.

    Part of it is simply that "digital" in general has been very successfully
    marketed; there's a mindset of "if it's 'digital,' it must be better." And
    in SOME cases, it is - if the analog "front end" of an LCD monitor
    isn't doing a good job of generating a sampling clock for the timing
    it sees, then the sampling of the video information can wander around
    and lead to an unstable image (most often, you'll see little "flickers"
    around the edges of objects or characters). But if the sampling of the
    analog signal is done correctly, then the image produced will be
    basically indistinguishable from that of the "digital" connection.

    The real selling points of digital interfaces have little to do with image
    quality (although in some cases there can be a difference - not always
    in favor of the digital connection, but a difference), and much more
    to do with the ability to more easily manipulate and protect the
    information.

    Bob M.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Hardware Connection DVI Monitors Graphics