Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

VGA vs DVI

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
July 4, 2003 4:07:20 AM

I was lookin for an LCD for college and it seems the majority of them are vga analog based. let's say with the Hyundai Q17--what would be some general differences in quality/ghosting etc with usin the VGA version over the DVI?

More about : vga dvi

July 4, 2003 3:55:55 PM

color wise.. dvi and vga are practically the same..

but DVI is far, really far, superior when it comes to ghosting and games...

this is from what i read and from all my experience :) 
July 4, 2003 4:58:22 PM

But what if a VGA model has the same response time as a DVI?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 4, 2003 8:06:59 PM

response time doesn't matter when comparing the two. An lcd is naturally digital and so when you use an analog hook-up the signal has to be converted. Whenever a signal is converted it loses quality. If you read some lcd reviews over on anandtech you will be able to see the difference between the two modes. (read the hitachi 16ms review, and the 192t review for some good comparisons between analog and dvi)
July 5, 2003 5:48:52 AM

but we're talkin image quality, not ghosting and such in terms of "loss of quality" ?
July 5, 2003 5:52:07 AM

Don't worry about it, if you must go analog, go analog. Reason I'd prefer digital is b/c you don't have to deal with a lot of the things to fine tune your screen (it just works) but then again there's auto adjust on analog and u certainly get more control. In some lcd's there will be a slightly noticeable degredation in analog mode, but in many there is none. Also, colors can be different in analog or digital mode, in some cases for the better or for the worse in digital. Such an example is seen with the TFT7020 from Compaq where colors are rather harsh in digital mode compared to analog.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by flamethrower205 on 07/05/03 01:52 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 5, 2003 6:51:54 AM

I think that DVI has more potential for keeping up with future technology, but right now, analog is just as good. The NEC/Mitsubishi 1760V that was just reviewed is one of the top 17" models around (for the price, 399.00). I'm getting a an LCD for the fall semester of college. Still havent decided though...
July 8, 2003 12:14:12 AM

The newer crop of LCDs seem to have NO difference in image quality. Analog or DVI it has nothing to do with gaming image quality either (as some have suggested). I run a 25ms 19" LCD with no issues yet on the games I like to play (3D or 2D). If you lock the refresh rate for the game to 60Hz and in theory lock the frame rate to 60 fps max (or whatever the LCD supports) you should not get any image artifacts.

If you are going to compare Analog to DVI on LCDs make sure you use the same PC, with the same video card.

As far as future being somehow better with DVI, that is another myth. In fact, Olight will most likely be the future for display units phasing out LCDs completely.

But most importantly, go seem the LCDs for yourself. Be sure to use the Auto adjust and also fine tune to get the image quality you desire. Bad LCDs do exist, but they are in the minority now, not the majority -- following the same path as CRTs did in the early days (yes I'm an old fart).
July 8, 2003 6:13:04 PM

Is response time really all that unimportant? I'm stuck between getting the NEC LCD1760V (analog) and the LCD1760VM (digital) for my first LCD. NEC lists the response time of the 1760V as 16 ms (yes, not a true 16 ms), and the 1760VM as 25 ms, and this difference has been my main uncertainty as to which to get (I'm not as worried about the brightness or contrast ratio differences).

Do you really think the digital would be significantly better, despite the ~ 33% slower response time?
August 21, 2003 5:27:29 AM

Another consideration is according to my reading, a 16 ms LCD does not display true 16 million colors. It's 25 ms counterpart does.
August 21, 2003 6:08:39 AM

The main reason I've read about why Response Time is not that important is because the advertised Response Time is only between Grey and Black. The true Response Time differs for differant colors, so it is impossible to judge performance of your monitor going by the rated Response Time of only 2 colors. A Response Time rating of 16ms would allow you to get constant 62.5FPS (1000/16) if the game you were playing was only made in Grey and Black. But, of course, games arn't just black and grey so the true Response Time differs from what you read in an ad or review.
!