DVI vs HDMI?

[imperialreign]

Thanks for all the responses so far, guys, and nice to see Tatty still around, eh?

My current setup is a standard DVI-I single-link DVI cable (although, I have a full-blown DVI-I dual-link cable, but it's not compatible with most monitors).

HDMI has only 2 versions. HDMI and mini HDMI. The version numbers are updates to the standard.

So, then, there's no difference in actual HDMI cables between the standard revisions? There's not BS differences like USB 1.1/2.0 cables?




As well, if HDMI uses a higher refresh rating, and a monitor that supports both DVI and HDMI inputs should be able to accomodate the higher refresh, correct? (if such is the case, I myself might actually go ahead and whip out the HDMI cable - I get that "refresh banding" across the screen in some games using DVI)

So, DVI can support up to 2560x1600 res? I was always lead to believe it only support upto 1920x1200. Or is there a difference that's limited only between a single-link and dual-link cable?


@newtekie - DVI has become capable of audio pass-through? Do you have a reference link? I'm really interested in reading up some more on that capability.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

First DVI-I is dual link digital and analog supported. and should be capatible with all monitors made in the last 2 years or so.

Correct. If you have a HDMI 1.3a cable it will support anything that specifies any version older than itself. So a 1.3a cable (90% of the ones on the market) will work in a 1.2, 1.1, etc. device no problem. The only change was was improves in how the signals get transferred which resulted in higher bandwidth, higher throughput. The actual plug has never been changed and never will be changed. They added a clause in the standard to not change the plug except for the rules about HDMI mini port, but no product I know of has used that yet. See link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Versions

DVI can support up to 2560 x 1600, but the higher the resolution, the lower the maximum refresh rate. At say 1280 x 1024, both DVI and HDMI will refresh at up to 75 hz, but at 1960 x 1080 (i think that is right) DVI will be limited to 60 hz and lower, while HDMI will still be capable of better. Hell they may TV's now with 120 hz refresh rates on HDMI.

DVI dual and single link doesn't effect bandwidth. A DVI dual link will support both analog and digital signals (DVI-I). A single link (DVI-D) will only support digital signals. There is a whole bunch of other variation and rules about linking which kind of DVI cable to what, but honestly a PC monitor only needs one link that is digital, yet most GPU's have DVI-I links on them for people who still use there VGA only monitors.

There was a plan to use the second link in DVI-I to carry a audio signal, but I think it was abandoned when DisplayPort's specs were finalized. If they are still working on it, basically the video will be on the digital link on the DVI-I and the audio will be transmitted as a second analog signal on the link that is normally for a VGA signal.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

So, then, there's no difference in actual HDMI cables between the standard revisions? There's not BS differences like USB 1.1/2.0 cables?

The connectors are the same but the ratings aren't. Think NIC cables with separate categories. That's practically what an HDMI and DisplayPort cable is. In a word, yes, there are BS differences.

As well, if HDMI uses a higher refresh rating, and a monitor that supports both DVI and HDMI inputs should be able to accomodate the higher refresh, correct? (if such is the case, I myself might actually go ahead and whip out the HDMI cable - I get that "refresh banding" across the screen in some games using DVI)

Inside the monitor, it probably runs all DVI. Think one of those adaptors included on a switch to choose between interface but they are being handled the same behind the scenes. There is virtually no difference between DVI and HDMI up to version 1.3. HDMI 1.4 handles much higher resolution than DVI but at the same time, if you need that much bandwidth you'd best be using DisplayPort.

So, DVI can support up to 2560x1600 res? I was always lead to believe it only support upto 1920x1200. Or is there a difference that's limited only between a single-link and dual-link cable?

Single-link (3.96 Gbit/s) = 1920×1200 @ 60 Hz
Dual-link (7.92 Gbit/s) = 2560x1600 @ 60 Hz

First DVI-I is dual link digital and analog supported. and should be capatible with all monitors made in the last 2 years or so.

DVI-I can be dual-link but it can also be single-link. There's five connector types:

DVI-I = analog + digital single-link
DVI-I = analog + digital double-link
DVI-D = digital single-link
DVI-D = digital dual-link
DVI-A = analog

DVI-I dual-link is the female port you see on all DVI capable graphics cards and quite often also see it on DVI switches, hubs, and the like. I have never seen an actual monitor use anything except DVI-D dual-link (even those that only requre a single link). I have never seen a DVI-I or DVI-A on a monitor. They usually have a DVI-D + VGA (D-Sub 15).

 

[Scrizz]

HDMI is BS
unless your device can get upgraded firmware or whatnot you're SOL..

that's why i like DVI; you can actually see the difference in the connectors.

 

[Mussels]

people are forgetting the advantage to HDMI over DVI... audio.

my screens have speakers built in, so it makes me not even need a soundcard (if i was using a home theater system with HDMI inputs instead of my Z-5500's, i would be very happy)

 

[Deleted member 67555]

people are forgetting the advantage to HDMI over DVI... audio.

my screens have speakers built in, so it makes me not even need a soundcard (if i was using a home theater system with HDMI inputs instead of my Z-5500's, i would be very happy)

Exactly, it's nice if your tv/monitor has a digital coax for surround, for far less wires, 1 from the video card-hdmi and 1 coax from the monitor to the surround...Nice fewer wires behind the box...priceless, gives a nice clean unified volume control- I love my hdmi

 

[newtekie1]

@newtekie - DVI has become capable of audio pass-through? Do you have a reference link? I'm really interested in reading up some more on that capability.

Where did you get that from? Nothing in my post even comes close to even hinting that I was saying DVI does audio pass through.

 

[Mussels]

Where did you get that from? Nothing in my post even comes close to even hinting that I was saying DVI does audio pass through.

maybe he's confused by the fact that DVI ports can use adaptors to get HDMI with audio (video card dependant, ofc)

 

[TheLaughingMan]

He is.

Look you will need an adapter and a video card capable of audio pass through. Which you have, you just have to connect the SPDIF wire from your card to your mobo. A DVI to DVI link cannot have audio. DVI (with adapter) to HDMI can have audio. Before you ask why.....its complicated.

All this mess just proves the IEEE point. DVI is too complicated and HDMI simplifies stuff. DisplayPort will simplify it even more.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

DisplayPort is meant to complement HDMI, not replace it. It has more datapaths and therefore higher bandwidth but it actually doesn't have to carry any specific type of data. In other words, it's going to get even more complex because that DisplayPort could contain one video feed, two video feeds, three video feeds, four video feeds, audio, or none of the above. In other words, instead of just looking at the cable ends to see if it is compatible, you'll have to look at version numbers and types of data put on that cable. It's kind of like PS/2 to USB. PS/2 doesn't need any special drivers, pop it in and it will work 99.9% of the time. USB needs a driver be it a generic Microsoft driver or a manufacturer driver. The same is likely to happen to DisplayPort.

DVI and VGA are simple (if it fits, it works), HDMI/DisplayPort are complicated (if it fits, it might work).

 

[Mussels]

DisplayPort is meant to complement HDMI, not replace it. It has more datapaths and therefore higher bandwidth but it actually doesn't have to carry any specific type of data. In other words, it's going to get even more complex because that DisplayPort could contain one video feed, two video feeds, three video feeds, four video feeds, audio, or none of the above. In other words, instead of just looking at the cable ends to see if it is compatible, you'll have to look at version numbers and types of data put on that cable. It's kind of like PS/2 to USB. PS/2 doesn't need any special drivers, pop it in and it will work 99.9% of the time. USB needs a driver be it a generic Microsoft driver or a manufacturer driver. The same is likely to happen to DisplayPort.

DVI and VGA are simple (if it fits, it works), HDMI/DisplayPort are complicated (if it fits, it might work).

HDMI is an 'if it fits, it works'

its no different to DVI with having a few different standards (single link vs dual link, for example) but if you can plug it in to both ends, they will negotiate and you WILL get a video feed.

even in the future if you have HDMI 1.4 devices - hmm, my resolutions capped to 1600P i wonder why. oh, silly me, i used a HDMI 1.3 cable - you'll still get an image, it'll just disable features that are unsupported.

as for display port, i've never used one. the need for drivers seems strange, one would assume auto negotiation would be done in the devices themselves, much like EDID is for todays screens which can auto detect native resolution and refresh rates.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

HDMI has only 2 versions. HDMI and mini HDMI. The version numbers are updates to the standard.

HDMI has gone through several revisions since it's inception and there appears to be no final spec for this cable to date!

From 1.0 to 1.1 which added support for DVD Audio.

To 1.2 which added support for One Bit Audio (8 channels) and HDMI Type A connectors for PC sources (support for sRGB color space and retains YCbCr color space which required monitors to support a low voltage source).

To 1.2a which specifies Consumer Electronic Control (CEC) features, command sets, and CEC compliance tests

To 1.3 which increased the single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbit/s), support for deep color with 30-bit, 36-bit, and 48-bit xvYCC, sRGB, or YCbCr; (up from 24-bit in the previous versions) Supports output of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio streams. Etc...

To 1.3a which added Cable and Sink modifications for Type C, source termination. And other technical improvements which in essence improved on 1.3.

To 1.3b1 which added HDMI compliance testing revisions (no feature updates)

To 1.3c which added better HDMI compliance testing revisions (no feature updates)

To 1.4 which increases the maximum resolution to 4K × 2K or 3840×2160p at 24Hz/25Hz/30Hz and 4096×2160p at 24Hz. Along with a few other changes.


Face it, HDMI hasn't matured at all with the release of 1.4 this year. What this means is that if you are hard pressed for HDMI you will have to do some serious research to find out what version is actually being used for the items you wish to use HDMI for. Way to much work for no tangible benefit over DVI as a viewing source on the PC.

 

[mudkip]

HDMI has gone through several revisions since it's inception and there appears to be no final spec for this cable to date!
This cable has went from 1.0 to 1.1 which added support for DVD Audio.

To 1.2 which added support for One Bit Audio (8 channels) and HDMI Type A connectors for PC sources (support for sRGB color space and retains YCbCr color space which required monitors to support a low voltage source).

To 1.2a which specifies Consumer Electronic Control (CEC) features, command sets, and CEC compliance tests

To 1.3 which increased the single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbit/s), support for deep color with 30-bit, 36-bit, and 48-bit xvYCC, sRGB, or YCbCr; (up from 24-bit in the previous versions) Supports output of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio streams. Etc...


To 1.3a which added Cable and Sink modifications for Type C, source termination. And other technical improvements which in essence improved on 1.3.

To 1.3b1 which added HDMI compliance testing revisions (no feature updates)

To 1.3c which added better HDMI compliance testing revisions (no feature updates)

To 1.4 which increases the maximum resolution to 4K × 2K or 3840×2160p at 24Hz/25Hz/30Hz and 4096×2160p at 24Hz. Along with a few other changes.


Face it, HDMI hasn't matured at all with the release of 1.4 this year. What this means is that if you are hard pressed for HDMI you will have to do some serious research to find out what version is actually being used for the items you wish to use HDMI for. Way to much work for no tangible benefit over DVI as a viewing source on the PC.

or you buy a 1.3 HDMI cable because it's backwards compatible anyway?

 

[Mussels]

east coast: as i said in my post above yours, the revisions have changed but the sockets and plug shape has not

you can use any old cable, its the internal logic of the devices which has changed - not the cables themselves.


I'm pretty confident you can get a HDMI 1.3 device on both ends and use a HDMI 1.1 cable, and find out everything works fine. its changes for the devices (video cards, TV's) that have changed, and not for the cables.

that list also didnt include 1/10th of the actual ugprades in HDMI 1.4 - wheres the 100Mb ethernet feature, for example?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

or you buy a 1.3 HDMI cable because it's backwards compatible anyway?

No, because the point is that you are getting no benefit from it from DVI

east coast: as i said in my post above yours, the revisions have changed but the sockets and plug shape has not

you can use any old cable, its the internal logic of the devices which has changed - not the cables themselves.


I'm pretty confident you can get a HDMI 1.3 device on both ends and use a HDMI 1.1 cable, and find out everything works fine. its changes for the devices (video cards, TV's) that have changed, and not for the cables.

that list also didnt include 1/10th of the actual ugprades in HDMI 1.4 - wheres the 100Mb ethernet feature, for example?

I don't cares about the shape of the connector ? What the connector looks like is not relevant to my post. What I said is that you have to research the items you wish to use with it.

Per what I and what others have said. For PC applications HDMI is moot.
-There is nothing gained from a PC user point of view
-There is a revolving door of revisions. With 1.4 just recently released earlier this year
-There is no obtainable benefits from it when compared to DVI (when used for LCD, PC monitors)
-And here is the big thing. HDMI is more practical for HOME THEATER (and relating uses). There, I said it...

 

[Mussels]

No, because the point is that you are getting no benefit from it from DVI

Per what I and what others have said. For PC applications HDMI is moot.
-You get nothing from it from a PC user point of view
-There is a revolving door of revisions that just recently updated this year
-There is no obtainable benefits from it when compared to DVI (when used for LCD, PC monitors)

audio. more convenient plug. compatibility with devices such as HDMI switches. A single cable that is compatible between PC's, PC screens, TV's, game consoles, home theater speaker systems... its the USB of the entertainment world.

as we have said, revisions dont affect the cables. they affect the devices.

YOU, personally may see no benefit - but that doesnt mean there isnt benefits for many other people. you see no use for it on your gaming PC, but i and many thousands of other users around the world use a HTPC where it has many advantages.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

In the end, DisplayPort will replace DVI, not HDMI. HDMI will be the new "home theater" cable for everything, just give it time. And it is and will be simple because older "versions" of cables just get relabelled when they are tested and proven to work with the new standard as Mussels said. So home theater will become "Use a 1.4 HDMI cable for it. For what? For everything". TV to Blu-Ray, TV to audio system, TV to media center device, etc. One cable for all. No need to worry about what will and will not work because the devices will determine that as they should.

DisplayPort I expect to be the same. Video for your PC monitor, DP, if it has speakers, still 1 DP cables, USB hub built into monitor....guess what....1 DP cable. That is the plan at least.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

its no different to DVI with having a few different standards (single link vs dual link, for example) but if you can plug it in to both ends, they will negotiate and you WILL get a video feed.

even in the future if you have HDMI 1.4 devices - hmm, my resolutions capped to 1600P i wonder why. oh, silly me, i used a HDMI 1.3 cable - you'll still get an image, it'll just disable features that are unsupported.

as for display port, i've never used one. the need for drivers seems strange, one would assume auto negotiation would be done in the devices themselves, much like EDID is for todays screens which can auto detect native resolution and refresh rates.

As stated previously, DVI-D dual-link is used 99.9% of the time for hooking monitors up and there is no versions.

Imagine trying to figure out why your monitor is only running at 3 Gb/s just like trying to trouble shoot a 100 Mb/s network that should be operating at 1 Gb/s. That's where this is heading.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

audio. more convenient plug. compatibility with devices such as HDMI switches. A single cable that is compatible between PC's, PC screens, TV's, game consoles, home theater speaker systems... its the USB of the entertainment world.

as we have said, revisions dont affect the cables. they affect the devices.

YOU, personally may see no benefit - but that doesnt mean there isnt benefits for many other people. you see no use for it on your gaming PC, but i and many thousands of other users around the world use a HTPC where it has many advantages.

Mussels, there is no benefit to using HDMI. Just because you can find an excuse for it doesn't make it the defacto reason why everyone else should. In my previous post I already mentioned LCDs with speakers. No need to repeat myself again in this post. However, as it's common knowledge that PC, LCD monitors do not come with speakers or can use mini jacks for them this is not a good reason to use it.

 

[Mussels]

As stated previously, DVI-D dual-link is used 99.9% of the time for hooking monitors up and there is no versions.

Imagine trying to figure out why your monitor is only running at 3 Gb/s just like trying to trouble shoot a 100 Mb/s network that should be operating at 1 Gb/s. That's where this is heading.

that wont really happen. they arent changing the specs of the *cables*

you can use the same cat6 ethernet cable on 10Mb, 100Mb and gigabit network cards without issues. the *devices* at each end do the negotations, and unless the cable is utter crap, will work without a hitch.

by the time HDMI 1.4 devices comes out for sale, so too will cables come out - most people who buy a new device will buy a new cable.

I'm running HDMI 1.3 PC and TV, and i've got a HDMI 1.1 cable that loses zero features when used. i've also got a USB 1.1 header for a PC that works at 2.0 speeds.

Mussels, there is no benefit to using HDMI. Just because you can find an excuse for it doesn't make it the defacto reason why everyone else should. In my previous post I already mentioned LCDs with speakers. No need to repeat myself again in this post. However, as it's common knowledge that PC, LCD monitors do not come with speakers or can use mini jacks for them this is not a good reason to use it.

every HTPC user in the world disagrees with you. HDMI has a very good place for many PC users - i never said it has uses for everyone, that is something i have never said. you're saying its useless, and i'm saying its not. i'm content with DVI being standard and using HDMI adaptors.


your comment about minijacks backs my idea up that you've never actually used one of these screens. screens with 3.5mm stereo jacks for audio input only ever work on VGA. i have never used an LCD screen that allowed audio over DVI. only VGA or HDMI.

3.5mm jacks are also limited to stereo audio - my TV can take 5.1 audio in over HDMI, then output it from a TOSLINK port on the rear. you're telling me i need to drop to a blurry VGA signal with stereo audio, when i can have clear digital video and digital surround sound just because you think its a 'useless' plug that has no place on PC's? seriously, if you want to say something serves no purpose try using it yourself first

if it serves you no EXTRA advantages over DVI, then how is it inferior? If solution B offers all the features of A with no features removed, how can it be WORSE? it cant, at worst it can only be the SAME.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

every HTPC user in the world disagrees with you. HDMI has a very good place for many PC users - i never said it has uses for everyone, that is something i have never said. you're saying its useless, and i'm saying its not. i'm content with DVI being standard and using HDMI adaptors.


your comment about minijacks backs my idea up that you've never actually used one of these screens. screens with 3.5mm stereo jacks for audio input only ever work on VGA. i have never used an LCD screen that allowed audio over DVI. only VGA or HDMI.

Actually HTPC users wouldn't disagree as they've been doing HTPC way before HDMI. Furthermore, you are actually implying that HDMI is more suited for Home Theater per what I've said already (although not part of my quote in your post). My comment about minijacks is a observation of what can come with a PC LCD monitor. Which was mentioned to demonstrate variety other then HDMI. It doesn't necessitate a need for HDMI.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

that wont really happen. they arent changing the specs of the *cables*

Yes, they are. Not every HDMI cable can handle the requirements of 1.4. Even if they can, they might not be able to handle it at x number of feet. DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort are all the same in that regard (maximum distance determined by cable quality, not standard).

 

[Mussels]

Yes, they are. Not every HDMI cable can handle the requirements of 1.4. Even if they can, they might not be able to handle it at x number of feet. DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort are all the same in that regard (maximum distance determined by cable quality, not standard).

1.4 may be an exception. but 1.3 and below isnt.

even if you use a 1.3 cable its just going to drop to the features of 1.3 - how is that different to DVI single link and dual link?

Actually HTPC users wouldn't disagree as they've been doing HTPC way before HDMI. Furthermore, you are actually implying that HDMI is more suited for Home Theater per what I've said already (although not part of my quote in your post). My comment about minijacks is a observation of what can come with a PC LCD monitor. Which was mentioned to demonstrate variety other then HDMI. It doesn't necessitate a need for HDMI.

no. what you've been saying is that HDMI serves no purpose on a PC as DVI does the same things, or better. the missing part of my post is because you edited your post, after i quoted it.

your mention of audio still doesnt seem to comment to my posts - you suggest alternatives which are drastically inferior to what HDMI offers, when HDMI (even at 1.3) offers nothing inferior to DVI.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

1.4 may be an exception. but 1.3 and below isnt.

even if you use a 1.3 cable its just going to drop to the features of 1.3 - how is that different to DVI single link and dual link?

DVI exists exactly the same today as when it was originally released (1999). If you bought a cable back in 1999, it will perform equally well on new equipment. The standard was forward compatible instead of using individual versions. Truth be told, we're still not even close to filling the 1600p pipe that dual-link is capable of. I think, in monitors, DVI will remain the favorite for the time being. DisplayPort has only caught on with Apple; HDMI is generally only used for HTPC functions. DVI-I still resides at the heart of the system.

My conclusion, HDMI might make consumers happy (big improvement over coaxial cables) and DisplayPort might make Apple happy (because they don't like holes in their cases) but neither will make the bulk of the computer industry happy--at least not yet.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

no. what you've been saying is that HDMI serves no purpose on a PC as DVI does the same things, or better. the missing part of my post is because you edited your post, after i quoted it.

your mention of audio still doesnt seem to comment to my posts - you suggest alternatives which are drastically inferior to what HDMI offers, when HDMI (even at 1.3) offers nothing inferior to DVI.

No, I am saying that HDMI server no practical purpose over DVI that can be seen as a tangible benefit to the end user (for PC LCD Monitors). In particular those users with monitors that offer no audio support. Therefore making it moot. Furthermore, one would need to actually know which HDMI version that PC LCD monitor supports. And your audio inferior comment is specious. PC LCD monitors that do offer some sort of audio (via mini jack, speaker or otherwise) are not known to offer high fidelity audio .

In any case, I'm ending this here as we can only agree to disagree.