Seriously, why the hell are video cards even being equipped with a VGA connector?

[kmmatney]

"See, that wouldn't work for me, and if you stuck a 30" LCD display about 7-8in from my face, I can tell you right now that there would be viewing-angle issues with me being able to see the corners of the screen. They would likely be off-color, if not entirely non-visible at the far edges. "

I've had my face that close, and there really isn't much of a problem. I would put the viewing angle at about 170 deg. Also, the latest 45" LCD TVs are simply amazing. I had a look at one in Best Buy - these blow away plasma TVs. This is the future of TVs - it won't be long before LCDs make Plasma TVs obsolete.

Sharp 45" LCD

 

[Steffenm]

I ordered a BFG 6800 Ultra OC (see own thread in video forum) today, and it has Dual DVI. It also comes with a AGP<->DVI adapter. I find it comforting to have dual DVI just in case I get the opportunity to run dual LCD displays some day. I just hope using an adapter won't cause any problems? I saw someone mentioning artifacts... I won't be afraid of this, but I'll smash my CRT monitor with my bare hands if it happens. Just spent $600 on a video card, so I really don't feel like using another $7-800 on an LCD monitor.

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: McArra

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
LCDs suck.

Obviously not a user or a user of a crappy one...

Actually I have a very nice WUXGA LCD on my laptop. I wish I had a nice CRT though, or in addition.

Laptop?? Don't make me laugh, they look pretty bad comparing to desktop LCDs, they can't be compared....

 

[bobsmith1492]

 

[imported_humey]

Ok 1st of I HATE LCD's and to buy my 6800 ultra and game on a lcd would be overkill on gpu part.

2nd someone mentioned samsung shallow crt, this is true and to other peep who said it is distant far of tech, well actually they will be avail in stores in 2006 so say samsung, im in UK and im due a new tv but i hold of for a shallow crt HD tv if its only in 2006 sometime, i can live for now with my super high res/high hz 19" mitsubishi and i may even get a 22", i not care about it power use or bulk, i care about the picture on screen, i will never ever own a LCD in the current state they run as there POS apart from office work i not game or watch movie on them.

I dont see many lcd's than can play a 19**x1080 wmv movie at full resif any.

BTW this is all IMO so no flamming please.

 

[LTC8K6]

There are dual DVI cards from the FX5200 to the 9600 and on up. Pretty much in every price range.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Honestly? An LCD. Please point me in the direction on where I can find a CRT that can match its resolution.

There was one "mystery" LCD display around for some time, however, which was way above anything we could imagine - the IBM T221. A 22.2" inch wide (16:10) LCD monitor with 9.2 million pixels arranged in stunning 3840x2400 (QUXGA-W) resolution, contrast ratio of 400:1, brightness of 235 cd/m2, and viewing angle beyond 85 deg in all directions. While not known about widely (another example of top technology not marketed well before), this fantastic piece of technology can be seen in establishment involved in high-performance computing and visualisation, life sciences, hi-res imaging and satellite processig, engineering, architecture and broadcasting - you can see four HDTV channels or two 4 megapixel camera pics next to each other in full resolution with room to spare still... well, this is the highest-resolution, finest-dot-pitch monitor in the world.

I noticed that you failed to mention the cost of such a display...

WTF? You were asking about freakin' brain surgeons! You asked:

Let me ask you this question - would you rather your medical doctor, look at your brain-scans, on a high-quality high-resolution CRT, or on an LCD display? Be honest here.

And I gave you an answer. Then you realized you don't know what the fvck you're talking about and bring up price. What, the brain surgeon can't afford decent equipment? The question wasn't about the average joe buying an LCD. The problem with you is that you can't stay on topic. Do you have OCD or something? This thread is about the positive and negatives of dual DVI cards. Not freakin' CRT vs LCD.

Huh? If you take away my VGA output, and give me a dongle instead, I'll have to deal with physical space issues around the machine, signal degradation (and I've seen it personally, playing with my R9200 card and included DVI-to-VGA dongle), and the additonal unnecessary risk of hardware damage, all because you want things to be a primarily LCD-oriented world? No thanks.

What physical space issues? Are you talking about the 2.5" adapter? Give me a freakin' break. As far as the degradation of picture quality using an adapter goes, you either had a bad card, or a bad adapter. I had a 8500 hooked up to my Sony G500 with the adapter and I couldn't tell the difference between VGA and DVI>VGA. So picture degradation really isn't an issue. The ONLY valid complaint I see with you is that when using the adapter, it is more prone to breaking the connector. Although that is true, regular care should avoid any problems. I've used DVI>VGA adapters quite a bit (Quadros, FireGLs, 8500) and have NEVER come close to damaging the card.

PS. JackBurton, how do you feel about the dual-link DVI to two single-link DVI splitter dongle idea? Anything wrong with that? (Please don't mention space requirements or signal-degradation issues, of course, since you trivially dismissed those when discussing DVI-to-VGA dongles.)

Dual-link DVI is the next evolutionary step for LCDs. To power the Apple 30" LCD you HAVE to have dual-link DVI. But when I pay $599 for Apple's version of the GeForce 6800U, I get dual-link DVI AND dual DVI connectors. Two 30" LCDs powered by one card baby. There's just NO need to have a VGA connector. Like I said, maybe in the low to mid range video cards, VGA and DVI would be fine. But all high end cards should have dual DVI come standard.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: TStep
All this discussion of the video card not having DVI is dandy, but the sorry fact of the matter is many of the LCD's don't have DVI either.

Actually, the reason for this is the same one as the reason for the original question. Bottom line is most consumers are idiots. If their monitor has a VGA connector and their video card has a DVI connector, odds are they'll say it doesn't work without looking for the adapter. Same deal with the reverse -- just a DVI-I connector on the monitors means they'll have to deal with people with 100% compatible analog video cards that they think won't work.

As for the CRTs are faster than LCDs argument, it totally depends on how you slice it. I'd even argue that it's physically impossible for a CRT to be faster than an LCD. Show me a red circle on any CRT and it's blinking on and off at some refresh rate you've set. Show me that same red circle on any LCD and it's constantly on at any refresh rate you've set. Bottom line is our eyes work better on constant images -- show me something that blinks on and off a hundred times a second in nature and prove me wrong.

Finally, is a "nitch product" a typo for a "bitch product"? Or how do you add a "t" into the middle of a word and drop an "e"? I think it's much better as a typo. Or maybe he meant bitchin'. "It serves you right for wanting a bitchin' video card for your bitchin' dual LCD setup."

 

[imported_humey]

Let me point out nice little test some peep put here other day to test lag on lcd, i try look for it later.

20ms lcd = 50fps so newest $$$$$ ones at 8ms are approx 110fps, so i not exept for fast moving gamming.

 

[imported_humey]

Found it, i tried this on a 8ms 19" BenQ lcd in my cousins pc shop and it was not to good looking, i then did on my 19" crt Mitsubishi and its fast very fast.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1532268&enterthread=y

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: humey
Found it, i tried this on a 8ms 19" BenQ lcd in my cousins pc shop and it was not to good looking, i then did on my 19" crt Mitsubishi and its fast very fast.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1532268&enterthread=y

That's very exciting, but this is not an LCD vs CRT debate.

 

[imported_humey]

Correct but it addresss some points above and is still true.

LCD today as in 02/03/05 aint ideal for gamming and some dont like for movies either but i would think pal and ntfc at under 30fsp would not lag.

I'll buy a shallow Crt in 2006

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: humey
Correct but it addresss some points above and is still true.

LCD today as in 02/03/05 aint ideal for gamming and some dont like for movies either but i would think pal and ntfc at under 30fsp would not lag.

I'll buy a shallow Crt in 2006

Use an Apple 30" for a week and let me know if you'll go back to your CRT.

 

[WA261]

I like my CRT better then both my LCDs

 

[imported_humey]

Apple aint a normal tft lcd as we all know they told us long ago they were making better/cheaper than tft lcd's, i will take one if you buy me it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: McArra
Laptop?? Don't make me laugh, they look pretty bad comparing to desktop LCDs, they can't be compared....

Possibly ironically, laptop LCDs are generally better-quality and higher-res/smaller pixel-pitch than desktop ones. I found out that Dell (or was it IBM) sells a high-end model with a 15.4" LCD screen that is capable of 1600x1200 res. That's a heck of a lot better than most desktop LCD panels, that even at 19", are still at 1280x1024 res, which is actually *worse* dot-pitch than a decent-quality 19" CRT, which can usually do 1600x1200.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
WTF? You were asking about freakin' brain surgeons! You asked:

Let me ask you this question - would you rather your medical doctor, look at your brain-scans, on a high-quality high-resolution CRT, or on an LCD display? Be honest here.

And I gave you an answer. Then you realized you don't know what the fvck you're talking about and bring up price. What, the brain surgeon can't afford decent equipment?
The question wasn't about the average joe buying an LCD. The problem with you is that you can't stay on topic. Do you have OCD or something? This thread is about the positive and negatives of dual DVI cards. Not freakin' CRT vs LCD.

Maybe I do. You're right, I did ask about a medical application, which isn't so highly price-sensitive, and then I followed by commenting on the more mainstream price/performance issues of LCDs. Also, I was actually talking about the much more mundane MRI scans, which are often stored and viewed digitally these days, not specifically brain surgery, but it wasn't clear from context. It is interesting that you had to go to those lengths to find an LCD that could compete with a high-quality high-resolution CRT display for that application though.

Originally posted by: JackBurton
What physical space issues? Are you talking about the 2.5" adapter? Give me a freakin' break. As far as the degradation of picture quality using an adapter goes, you either had a bad card, or a bad adapter. I had a 8500 hooked up to my Sony G500 with the adapter and I couldn't tell the difference between VGA and DVI>VGA. So picture degradation really isn't an issue. The ONLY valid complaint I see with you is that when using the adapter, it is more prone to breaking the connector. Although that is true, regular care should avoid any problems. I've used DVI>VGA adapters quite a bit (Quadros, FireGLs, 8500) and have NEVER come close to damaging the card.

Well, I have damaged a card once, those things really are much more of an "accident waiting to happen" than you might think. The space and signal-degredation issues are real. What resolution were you running through the DVI-to-VGA adaptor? At 1600x1200, I'm willing to bet that it will add a slight shadow to the text. At least that's what I observed on mine. It's like any transmission line intended to carry high-frequency signals, like a DSL line - if there are segments of the transmission line with mis-matched impedances, there will be signal degredation. That is a a fact, due to the laws of physics. Whether or not you are able to percieve them, is a subjective, personal issue. But that doesn't mean that they aren't there. (Just like LCD ghosting - some people with sensitive eyes, can see "ghosting" even on the fastest panels available today. Yet, others cannot see any ghosting at all, even on the older 25ms+ panels.)

Originally posted by: JackBurton

PS. JackBurton, how do you feel about the dual-link DVI to two single-link DVI splitter dongle idea? Anything wrong with that? (Please don't mention space requirements or signal-degradation issues, of course, since you trivially dismissed those when discussing DVI-to-VGA dongles.)

Dual-link DVI is the next evolutionary step for LCDs. To power the Apple 30" LCD you HAVE to have dual-link DVI. But when I pay $599 for Apple's version of the GeForce 6800U, I get dual-link DVI AND dual DVI connectors. Two 30" LCDs powered by one card baby. There's just NO need to have a VGA connector.

See, it's comments like that that fuel the CRT vs. LCD debate - now you aren't just aguing in favor of dual DVI connections, but actually against having VGA connections at all.

Should I likewise, start aguing against any DVI outputs at all on VGA cards? At least not until you start to get into the price domain of "workstation" cards? Hmm. Goose-gander, pot-black, need I say more?

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Like I said, maybe in the low to mid range video cards, VGA and DVI would be fine. But all high end cards should have dual DVI come standard.

And yet, you refrain from comment about the DVI splitter dongle idea - how convenient. Could it be, that you wouldn't be happy with that idea either? How do you think, when we CRT users feel, when you suggest that we should be forced to endure additional hassle, just because a small minority part of the market wants some extra features?

Let me clue you in - the market tends to favor the majority, when it comes to cost-benefit and incremental-cost issues. If you are in the minority, you will pay more, that's just how it is.

Edit: to add a comment from someone backing up my comment about view-distance and color effects on LCDs - from this thread

Originally posted by: Thera
One of my biggest problems is that I'm very fidgety while I'm gaming. Sometimes I lean back in my chair and that really changes the color coming from the monitor. I was kinda surprised by this but I'm slowly getting used to it. I'm trying to sit straight up now and view the screen from an upright position.

At least to me personally, that's still unacceptable, and would have to be fixed in order for me to ever consider LCDs to be a complete CRT replacement, but due to how LCDs work, I don't think that can ever happen.

Originally posted by: Thera
Anyway... if this is the current state of LCD monitors I think they're not quite ready for competitive gaming yet. But when I look at the form factor and power consumption difference the LCD becomes very attractive to me, and possibly worth it.

That seems to be the current state of consumer LCD technology in a nutshell right now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: L00PY
As for the CRTs are faster than LCDs argument, it totally depends on how you slice it. I'd even argue that it's physically impossible for a CRT to be faster than an LCD.

What are you talking about? You have that exactly backwards.

Originally posted by: L00PY
Show me a red circle on any CRT and it's blinking on and off at some refresh rate you've set. Show me that same red circle on any LCD and it's constantly on at any refresh rate you've set. Bottom line is our eyes work better on constant images -- show me something that blinks on and off a hundred times a second in nature and prove me wrong.

What does human persistance-of-vision have to do with the maximum theoretical physical response-rate of the display? CRTs are an order of magnitude faster here, no matter how you slice it. When have you heard that CRTs suffered from ghosting at higher refresh-rates in games lately?

I don't deny that the human vision system is a continous analog system, and that in some circumstances, it might be better to have a display device that has essentially "motion blur" (temporal AA) built in to it, in terms of providing a sense of continous motion for some tasks, but that isn't what your original statement was about, nor is it in support of it.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: JackBurton

PS. JackBurton, how do you feel about the dual-link DVI to two single-link DVI splitter dongle idea? Anything wrong with that? (Please don't mention space requirements or signal-degradation issues, of course, since you trivially dismissed those when discussing DVI-to-VGA dongles.)

Dual-link DVI is the next evolutionary step for LCDs. To power the Apple 30" LCD you HAVE to have dual-link DVI. But when I pay $599 for Apple's version of the GeForce 6800U, I get dual-link DVI AND dual DVI connectors. Two 30" LCDs powered by one card baby. There's just NO need to have a VGA connector.

See, it's comments like that that fuel the CRT vs. LCD debate - now you aren't just aguing in favor of dual DVI connections, but actually against having VGA connections at all.

Ok, I don't know if you were confused by my statement because of the way I worded it, but I'm not trying to get rid of CRT users. CRT users can do dual displays using the VGA connector AND the DVI connector via an adapter. LCD users (with DVI connections) can't do dual displays AT ALL UNLESS they have a card that supports dual DVI connections. I brought up dual link because the current DVI connections only support up to 1920x1200. You'll need dual link DVI to push a 30" panel running at 2560 x 1600. There is just no way around it. I'm assuming a DVI>VGA adapter should still work on a dual link connection.

Should I likewise, start aguing against any DVI outputs at all on VGA cards? At least not until you start to get into the price domain of "workstation" cards? Hmm. Goose-gander, pot-black, need I say more?

You're almost doing that. Like I said, CRT users can do dual displays using the VGA connector AND the DVI connector via an adapter. LCD users (with DVI connections) can't do dual displays AT ALL unless they have a card that supports dual DVI connections. So you're basically taking away my ability to run dual LCD monitors whereas if I had my way, all you'd have is a 2.5" adapter sticking out of your video card but you'll be able to do everything you've always done before.

And yet, you refrain from comment about the DVI splitter dongle idea - how convenient. Could it be, that you wouldn't be happy with that idea either? How do you think, when we CRT users feel, when you suggest that we should be forced to endure additional hassle, just because a small minority part of the market wants some extra features?

I don't have a problem using a doggle. But LCDs are getting better and better VERY quickly. If a manufacturer uses a single dual link DVI connection, I'll still only be able to run one Apple 30" LCD (you aren't going to be able to use a doggle to push two 30" LCDs on a single DVI connection). Although I most likely won't get another 30" LCD, I'd at least like to have that option, ESPECIALLY with a $500-$600 video card.

Let me clue you in - the market tends to favor the majority, when it comes to cost-benefit and incremental-cost issues. If you are in the minority, you will pay more, that's just how it is.

Let me clue you in, CRTs user are going to quickly become part of the minority whether you like it or not. Like I said, Sony and Mitsubishi have pretty much dropped out of the CRTs business. And those were the TOP dogs in CRT manufacturing. So I think the only person that needs to get a clue here is you.

 

[housecat]

I hate to derail your thread further but-

Let me clue you in, CRTs user are going to quickly become part of the minority whether you like it or not. Like I said, Sony and Mitsubishi have pretty much dropped out of the CRTs business. And those were the TOP dogs in CRT manufacturing. So I think the only person that needs to get a clue here is you.

That does suck. For more than the CRT fanboys.
Those were some nice CRTs, the best.

When I heard that news, and saw the 30" Apple Cinema LCD and 12ms panels coming out, I knew for sure CRT was dead and that LCD is the new king.

With the diamondtron/trinitrons gone.. its pointless to put yourself in a corner and attempt to defend CRTs.. the stuff has been trumped on every level.

The King is Dead! Long Live the King!

 

[whoisrube]

BNC connectors for the win!

 

[BrokenVisage]

lol @ VirtualLarry.. always so maticulous and structured with his responses.

 

[kmmatney]

One good thing about CRTs is that they are great for kids. I have 6 and 4 year old sons with CRTs they can bang on. Of course a glasss protector in front of an LCD would do the same thing, but I've only seen expensive SONY LCDs with that.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
One good thing about CRTs is that they are great for kids. I have 6 and 4 year old sons with CRTs they can bang on. Of course a glasss protector in front of an LCD would do the same thing, but I've only seen expensive SONY LCDs with that.

I agree with that. I dont have kids yet. But they are cheap and durable. As long as it doesnt fall off the desk on one of their heads.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
LCDs suck.

You suck and probably don't own one.