I am guessing that HDMI will have to best effect, however is it worth it to go buy a 40 dollar cable when I already have a VGA and a DVI cable? If it will make the monitor stand out, then 40 dollars is well worth it, but if it's hard to tell the difference then I don't want to bother with it. Anyone have any input on the big differences between the three?
HDMI and DVI are effectively the same format. the only difference is HDMI contains Audio as well. The big jump is from VGA to DVI. you will see better quality from the DVI port than the VGA port.
There isn't a really good reason to buy a $40 cable for a short length (6 feet or under). As long as the HDMI cable is 1.3 compliant, it will work just fine. My cable is worth $12, and it looks just as good as the $60 cable I foolishly bought for my TV.
There have been some studies made by impartial engineers (I get the trade publications in electronics) that have shown that the bandwidth in an HDMI cable is pretty much the same, no matter the cost. Basically, your eye can't tell the difference.
The only real good reason to buy an expensive cable is if you need to run a long length of it, say more than 12 to 15 feet. A more expensive cable usually has better shielding that rejects interference that affects the picture. In that case, it's a good idea to spend a bit more, but for standard PC to monitor cable lengths you don't need to break the bank. Just make sure that it meets the 1.3 standard for HDMI and you're good to go.
DVI might be a better way to go, anyway. I found that running my monitor with an HDMI cable taxed the video cards heavily. They run at full speed all the time with HDMI, but downclock under minimum load with DVI. Not sure if it's a driver issue, but ATI's latest drivers have been a little flaky...
I'd choose DVI. There are far fewer connection issue posts with DVI as compared to HDMI. DVI is a direct digital connection, and will display as well as HDMI. Since no audio is needed, no reason not to use DVI, especially if you already have the cable. A Guy
I'm running my main monitor through HDMI, and it downclocks fine when I have it as a single monitor. When I have my dual monitors setup it doesn't downclock, but Nvidia have said that's a hardware limitation.
But the rest of what you said is very true. My HDMI cable cost me £3 and it works great. I read something similar about tests done on a £40 HDMI cable against a metal coat hanger and the metal coat hanger had just as good of an image as the £40 HDMI cable. At the end of the day HDMI is digital, so it either works or it doesn't work. There's no inbetween like there is with VGA with the quality of the cable that can degrade the image quality and VGA being more susceptible to interferance than HDMI.
The only thing I had to do with HDMI is change the digital colour format in the Nvidia control panel. With HDMI, the monitor was using colour levels for a TV instead of a monitor, so the colours were more washed out. I had to change the digital colour format to YCbCr444 instead of RGB and the colours were fine again.
DVI +1. I've used it for watching movies from my computer to my tv for years.
HDMI is exactly the same quality just with sound, so unless you need audio to the tv, there is no use i spending any $ on it.
40 dollars for a hdmi cable? Your obviously shopping in the wrong shop my friend. I bought three brand new 10 metre ones an it cost no more than £20 for all three.
Yes it's worth the investment!
Here is a five metre one for 3 pounds 99.
HDMI cable
Last edited by RST101; 31 Jul 2010 at 08:13.
Quote