# DVI vs. VGA: Quality Difference



## kiwiasian

I've heard VGA is lower quality than DVI.
What makes it "lower quality"?
I'm using VGA right now and my image is fine...
Tried DVI and I don't see a difference...

Can someone elaborate on how VGA is "lower quality?"


----------



## Yoko Littner

not visual quality that seperate's the 2. rather potential and capability's. as well as support for multi monitor and higher refresh rate's.

dont quote me on this. this is PURE speculation and isnt based on anything other then the information on the top of my head. but u can use what i said as a reference.

Other OCN member's will enlighten you more on this more so then i can. hope i helped though!


----------



## kiwiasian

does vga not support multimonitor?
i was planning on my future eyefinity setup to be 1x DP, 1x dvi, and 1x VGA...


----------



## Nautilus

VGA's quality is subject to cable quality (insulation).


----------



## [email protected]

DVI is better cuz it's Digital









But HDMI is way better.


----------



## youra6

Supposedly VGA is acceptable for lower resolutions. Higher resolution monitors work better with DVI. But using both on 2x 1080P monitors, I could not see a discernable difference.

I know you can have multiple monitors with VGA and eyefinity is VGA compatible.

http://support.amd.com/us/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity-dongles.aspx


----------



## Fletcherea

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected];11772558*
> DVI is better cuz it's Digital
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But HDMI is way better.


Its the exact same thing minus the ability to transfer audio. VGA, being analog, can lose data being converted to digital(which wasn't the case years ago with big tube monitors, as they were also analog). And as mentioned before, the analog signal can get degraded by the length and quality of the cable that is used.

*edit* I can surely see a difference switching cables even on my small monitor, the image is noticeably sharper with the dvi connection.


----------



## skier

DVI is much better, VGA has a limited maximum resolution of 1600x1200 I think (can't do 1920x1080) and DVI is much clearer, text is hard to read with a big monitor on VGA

DVI is worth it.


----------



## ZainyAntics

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected];11772558*
> DVI is better cuz it's Digital
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But HDMI is way better.


Oh god, please stop spreading misinformation, you have no idea what you're talking about.

HDMI is no better quality wise than DVI, or VGA...


----------



## XX55XX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skier;11772585*
> DVI is much better, VGA has a limited maximum resolution of 1600x1200 I think (can't do 1920x1080) and DVI is much clearer, text is hard to read with a big monitor on VGA
> 
> DVI is worth it.


VGA can do resolutions of up to 2048x1536.

The quality of VGA, as mentioned before, is largely dependent on the quality of the cable.

It really depends. VGA is a dying standard. DVI is something newer. To me, there are few discernable differences between the two standards. And if there are any, most lay consumers won't really know or care about them.

I personally use VGA with my monitor, and the quality depends on the cable I am using.


----------



## mrfajita

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected];11772558*
> DVI is better cuz it's Digital
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But HDMI is way better.


Ignorance is bliss...
VGA has no input lag or latency, because its analog, and with a good signal cable is just as good quality as DVI or HDMI.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skier;11772585*
> DVI is much better, VGA has a limited maximum resolution of 1600x1200 I think (can't do 1920x1080) and DVI is much clearer, text is hard to read with a big monitor on VGA
> 
> DVI is worth it.


My monitor is an analog CRT, VGA and runs at 2048x1536, and Sony made some CRTs even higher resolution than this one.


----------



## newphase

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected];11772558*
> DVI is better cuz it's Digital
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But HDMI is way better.


Why?
DVI =HDMI except HDMI carries audio.


----------



## nathris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZainyAntics;11772593*
> Oh god, please stop spreading misinformation, you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> HDMI is no better quality wise than DVI, or VGA...


Fixed.

VGA is an analog signal, but everything in your computer is digital.

When you use VGA the video card first has to convert the signal to analog before sending it through the cable. This results in quality loss. Since its an analog signal it is subject to interference when passing through the cable, resulting in more potential signal loss. The monitor then needs to convert it back to a digital signal, which again reduces the quality.

The end result is that for larger resolutions VGA is noticeably less sharp.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrfajita;11772643*
> Ignorance is bliss...
> VGA has no input lag or latency, because its analog, and with a good signal cable is just as good quality as DVI or HDMI.


Wow... seriously? CRTs have no input lag. The actual cable used makes no difference...

Also, CRTs don't have pixels, and thus use analog, so using a VGA cable actually makes sense (still some loss due to the conversion, but CRTs are less crisp anyway)


----------



## Riou

VGA is an analog signal sent from the graphics card. DVI is a digital signal sent from the graphics card.

VGA is more susceptible to interference from the environment. It also has more visual noise like moire.

Also a VGA connection has that 1 or 2 second lag where the monitor auto-adjusts to adjust the picture properly when changing resolutions. Otherwise, you would have to deal with blurry text and other noise. It was worse with CRT's because you also get geometry distortions. Older VGA monitors did not have an auto-adjust feature so every time the monitor changes resolution, you would have to adjust it yourself for every resolution, refresh rate, and bit-depth!

DVI supports higher resolutions than VGA. VGA can only go up to 2048x1536 resolution iirc. Dual-link DVI can support much higher resolutions.

I use DisplayPort, which is a newer standard similar to HDMI.

P.S. DVI does have analog parts in them for backwards compatibility with VGA. That is what allows a DVI-VGA adapter to be used.


----------



## Nick911

as all have sad VGA is old and needs to be phased out for DVI( the better since its digital).


----------



## 8ight

DVI just supports dual-link resolutions and some forms of it do USB/Sound etc...
+It's digital, though some forms of it have analog channels.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZainyAntics;11772593*
> Oh god, please stop spreading misinformation, you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> HDMI is no better quality wise than DVI, or VGA...


I havent come across a vga cable that can output eye candy as well as dvi/hdmi

And just like you said, hdmi/dvi are the same, both are digital however the only difference is that hdmi can carry over sound.

EDIT: seems some of us need to pick up a comptia A+ book and take a cander lol


----------



## skier

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XX55XX;11772629*
> VGA can do resolutions of up to 2048x1536.
> 
> The quality of VGA, as mentioned before, is largely dependent on the quality of the cable.
> 
> It really depends. VGA is a dying standard. DVI is something newer. To me, there are few discernable differences between the two standards. And if there are any, most lay consumers won't really know or care about them.
> 
> I personally use VGA with my monitor, and the quality depends on the cable I am using.


yea the cable makes a difference, but a never-been-used VGA cable still isn't as clear as a DVI cable, now do you have a monitor other than your 4:3 17" ? when I reviewed video cards I was using a 46" Samsung for 1920x1080, and when I was using a GTX 260 and lost the DVI-HDMI connector I was using a DVI-VGA connector, and the maximum resolution I could use was 1600x1200 because no application or windows or nvidia control panel would allow anything above that, even though it wasn't the TV's resolution or even aspect ratio, but it worked fine.

on my 19" I sometimes have to use VGA, and it looks like crap for web browsing compared to the DVI i'm used to, all the letters are hazy

some people are saying a bigger res. of 2053x1536, but that's on CRT's not LCD's. my laptop's VGA also only can go up to 1600x1200 with the sammy

also, i've been able to pass audio through DVI ports with a DVI-HDMI connector without anything connected to the video card aside from power and the DVI-HDMI


----------



## Bassdoken

Does this question really need to be asked?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected];11772558*
> DVI is better cuz it's Digital
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But HDMI is way better.


DVI and HDMI are the same thing, but nothing utilizes the audio channel for DVI.
But, DVI > VGA, because let's face it, digital > analog.
Imagine a wavy line (this is analog), and imagine a string of binary (digital). Now, rub both in mud/dirt/smudge it around. The wavy line will be harder to read (loss of quality), but a 1 will always look like a 1, and a 0 will always look like a 0.
Also, VGA has to convert to digital (if you have a modern LCD panel), which uses a small amount of CPU power. Do not want.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skier;11772585*
> DVI is much better, VGA has a limited maximum resolution of 1600x1200 I think (can't do 1920x1080) and DVI is much clearer, text is hard to read with a big monitor on VGA
> 
> DVI is worth it.


As said before, VGA can do 2046x1156 (or whatever, I don't remember.







), but DVI/HDMI can do up to 2560x1600.

DVI is overall better, because you don't have to worry about the quality of the cable. VGA used to be the same quality as DVI, back when it was more popular, and the cables were very nice. Nowadays, VGA cables are jank. I can tell when I have VGA or DVI plugged into my monitor. VGA looks so washed up and dull. :/


----------



## Riou

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skier;11772721*
> on my 19" I sometimes have to use VGA, and it looks like crap for web browsing compared to the DVI i'm used to, all the letters are hazy


My U2410 has an auto-adjust feature for VGA which makes the text and picture clearer automatically without needing to press any buttons. Do you have an auto-adjust monitor button on your monitor? If your press that button, the picture quality is much better.


----------



## skier

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Riou;11772780*
> My U2410 has an auto-adjust feature for VGA which makes the text and picture clearer automatically without needing to press any buttons. Do you have an auto-adjust monitor button on your monitor? If your press that button, the picture quality is much better.


I don't really care, I just only use my DVI cable and it's crystal clear regardless


----------



## Thosesneakyfrench

I'm seeing a lot of half-right, half misinformed answers here.

DVI is Digital. VGA is analog. That much is true. I don't feel the implications of the latter have been properly discussed yet.

DVI is 0 and 1s. You either get a signal, or you don't. It's not subject to interference, and because it's digital, you can run it for long lengths of around 30 feet before having problems. That's where the advantages end.

VGA is capable of everything that DVI is. I have a Sony Trinitron on my desk that's sitting at [email protected] hz. Interference? I have a two bi-amplified studio monitor speakers on my desk with no conflict. Quality difference? In proper lighting, when properly calibrated, this CRT has better colors that my LG W3000, an IPS LCD (on DVI btw.) If you're experience worse picture quality on VGA than DVI, you either:
1) have a gaping hole in your VGA cable
2) are trying to run a wire across your room
3) have an AC unit running full speed behind your screen.


----------



## BradleyW

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kiwiasian;11772277*
> I've heard VGA is lower quality than DVI.
> What makes it "lower quality"?
> I'm using VGA right now and my image is fine...
> Tried DVI and I don't see a difference...
> 
> Can someone elaborate on how VGA is "lower quality?"


VGA does not produce as much colour in comparison to DVI. Yellow is ment to look far better in DVI as well.


----------



## BradleyW

Sometimes, to notice a difference, it depends how good your display is in general.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thosesneakyfrench;11775192*
> I'm seeing a lot of half-right, half misinformed answers here.
> 
> DVI is Digital. VGA is analog. That much is true. I don't feel the implications of the latter have been properly discussed yet.
> 
> DVI is 0 and 1s. You either get a signal, or you don't. It's not subject to interference, and because it's digital, you can run it for long lengths of around 30 feet before having problems. That's where the advantages end.
> 
> VGA is capable of everything that DVI is. I have a Sony Trinitron on my desk that's sitting at [email protected] hz. Interference? I have a two bi-amplified studio monitor speakers on my desk with no conflict. Quality difference? In proper lighting, when properly calibrated, this CRT has better colors that my LG W3000, an IPS LCD (on DVI btw.) If you're experience worse picture quality on VGA than DVI, you either:
> 1) have a gaping hole in your VGA cable
> 2) are trying to run a wire across your room
> 3) have an AC unit running full speed behind your screen.


Speaking of half-right answers...

It depends on WHAT DVI interface you're actually talking about. For example DVI-D is digital only. DVI-A is analog only. DVI-I is analog or digital depending on the device...then there's single and dual link...and I think there's now a DVI connector that allows USB through it too.


----------



## jprovido

I just plugged my monitor on both dvi and vga and duplicated the output. tried switching it a tons of times look at text, color, games really closely to see any difference.

I didn't see even a bit of difference. I had my brother help out and tell me to change it randomly I can't spot the difference between vga and dvi. I can't say I have a good vga cable. I just have on of this cheap 1-2$ vga cables lying around.


----------



## Volvo

Also, DVI takes away the need to 'Auto-Adjust'.


----------



## jprovido

my conclusion.

don't care about the mumbo jump analog this, digital this. I compared it myself. dunno if it's just with my display but they had no difference at all. I won't mind running my monitor on vga or dvi coz they look the same in my eyes.


----------



## ZainyAntics

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever;11772703*
> I havent come across a vga cable that can output eye candy as well as dvi/hdmi
> 
> And just like you said, hdmi/dvi are the same, both are digital however the only difference is that hdmi can carry over sound.
> 
> EDIT: seems some of us need to pick up a comptia A+ book and take a cander lol


If you take a VGA cable and a HDMI cable and use a monitor as say, 1440x900, quality will be the same.


----------



## kiwiasian

then how is VGA quality compared to DVI at 1920x1080?

actually nevermind, i'll try it on my own and see


----------



## kapura

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> DVI is better cuz it's Digital
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But HDMI is way better.


HDMI is the same quality as DVI. The only difference is that HDMI transmits sound as well as video. DVI is used for monitors because its solely for video.

Link: http://hdmivsdvi.com/

<3


----------



## Xinoxide

RAMDACS are the limitation with VGA. [email protected]**?hz is the max you can squeeze through a cable to the best of monitors.

**? I am googling it....

I guess a 400mhz RAMDAC can push [email protected] hz... but alot of cards nowadays have 450mhz.


----------



## 47 Knucklehead

For the most part, you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference on a "typical system" (a computer hooked up to a monitor that is < 2 feet away) between VGA, DVI, or HDMI by looking at it.

Now if you are going further than 6 feet away, I'd go with digital (either DVI or HDMI). The up side with HDMI is that with one cable you can also get audio.

But for 99% of the systems out there, there is really no difference and often boils down to what connector is on your video card and what connector is on your monitor.

/flame shields to max


----------



## P.J

If your monitor has DVI input, so use it and if not, stay with D-Sub.
D-Sub also depends on the monitor's ADC.
HDMI is better maybe because of the socket + audio.

I see no reason to discuss more


----------



## Sir Beregond

From a visual quality standpoint, I have seen no discernable difference between VGA and DVI. What I have noticed however is that VGA is much more prone to have cable issues that cause the color to get screwed up. Guess this is because it is Analog. I recomend you stick with the DVI/HDMI since it is digital.


----------



## saadxt

I have a Dell 18.5' 16:10 LCD.I was getting noise problems on display specially at lower resolutions like 1024 x 768 and specially on black color using VGA. Later figured out it was the problem with graphic card. Switched to DVI and problem solved. And display is slightly nicer(or may be I just think it is) but yeah the noise problem was solved by changing the cable rather than having to change graphic card. DVI


----------



## hazarada

In simplest terms DVI is digital, VGA analog. Technically there is no limit to the resolution or refresh rate that either can carry (depends on data clock). Both are subject to EM noise, in case of VGA it usually shows as color distortion, in DVI as pixel snow. It is also worth noting that VGA capability is included in most common DVI cables which also gives the ability to passively "convert" from one to another (the signal was analogue to begin with though). In terms of quality - under normal circumstances its nothing that you can notice.

HDMI and DVI are *not* the same, while both are digital and similar they carry a different protocol. Due to the cable similarities though DVI signal can be transmitted over HDMI (which is what happens when you use a passive converter) and recently vice-versa too(so these days both DVI and HDMI are capable of carrying usb and audio signals as well as video). Pure HDMI is more strictly regulated than DVI though and has some additional options for image encoding.

Displayport is yet another standalone cable/protocol, directly targeting to replace DVI. Lice its predecessor though the cable is capable of transmitting DVI/HDMI signals for backwards compatibility.


----------



## MarshallRA

When I had my Acer X223W LCD, I used VGA for one PC and DVI for another. When both were at native res and I auto adjusted on VGA, they looked identical. I could not tell the difference, although the acer X223W is one of the worst monitors i've had in terms of colors and contrast and all that so it might have been not good enough to notice a difference. That being said, I could not notice a difference on my ASUS VH236H either which is a much better monitor.

I honestly don't know what the resolution limit for VGA is, I can set my VGA CRT to 2560x1920 at 72hz, while almost everyone says the limit is 2048x1536 at 60/75hz, which clearly isn't the case.


----------



## Hogwasher

the zombie thread is alive


----------

