Don't see a difference betw VGA and DVI-D input on HD monitor

[brassplyer]

On a 22" Acer HD monitor, comparing the VGA input -vs- the DVI-D input coming from an Nvdia GeForce GTX 460 Cyclone running Battlefield Bad Company 2, I don't see any difference. Should I?

[johns0]

Nope,but in a higher resolution with a bigger monitor you will see a bit of improved difference.

[sanlyn]

Nope,but in a higher resolution with a bigger monitor you will see a bit of improved difference.

Generally the difference favors VGA, which is faster with fewer artifacts and less rounding of data (and even that depends on specific circuitry in specific cards) . There is nothing wrong with 22" HD monitors; overall performance isn't dependent on size. But buying the cheapest monitors you can get your hands on won't make much difference.

[brassplyer]

Nope,but in a higher resolution with a bigger monitor you will see a bit of improved difference.

Not sure what you mean by higher resolution. This particular monitor has a 1080p native resolution, game is at max settings.

[nic2k4]

The difference is that VGA can pickup noise through the cable which will appear as thin diagonal lines across the screen. DVI data starts as digital and stays digital, VGA has to be converted to analog first then converted back to digital by the monitor circuitry. If you see no difference, great; don't go nit picking, you'll only get disappointed. It's like back in the days of $1000 Trinitron monitors, if you wanted to be mean to someone you only had to point the 2 faint black horizontal lines across the screen; that would drive them mad.

[Constant Gardener]

I had grounding issues which gave hum bars on a VGA input; digital was fine. Now that I have fixed the grounding, I don't notice any difference between the analog and digital images.

[sanlyn]

The difference is that VGA can pickup noise through the cable which will appear as thin diagonal lines across the screen. DVI data starts as digital and stays digital, VGA has to be converted to analog first then converted back to digital by the monitor circuitry. If you see no difference, great; don't go nit picking, you'll only get disappointed. It's like back in the days of $1000 Trinitron monitors, if you wanted to be mean to someone you only had to point the 2 faint black horizontal lines across the screen; that would drive them mad.

None of that explains why gamers and graphics pros themselves don't use DVI-I.

Not everyone used Trinitrons. Extremely difficult to calibrate properly. Some of them were so blue they couldn't be calibrated.

The front panels of all LCD/LED monitors and HDTV's are analog display devices. To be used by human sensory organs, all digitally-sourced audio and video must be converted to analog. Your eyes and ears are not digital devices. Ever heard of a DAC?

The analog-vs-digital debate won't be settled here (or anywhere else). Analog is still the preferred technology for photgs, Hollywood, restoration shops, etc. Eventually all analog goes into digital conversion, not because it's superiuor but because that's the path of technology today. There are still lots of people who play LP's, lots of recording studios that master to analog tape, and plenty of photogs who are pissed off about having to switch from film to the usual digital crap. I'm disappointed, too, that my local theater has switched from movie film to digital -- it is no match for film. But that's just the way it is.

I have 2 PC's with analog cards, and 2 PC's with all-digital gear. I would work on the analog cards any time, and I can see a big difference. But that's just not the way things are going for the future.

[brassplyer]

None of that explains why gamers and graphics pros themselves don't use DVI-I.

I've never taken a survey but you don't think gamers like DVI?

What makes me wonder is that this particular video card - GTX 460 Cyclone - is certainly a gamer's card and has a DVI port.