Don't Get Too Attached to DVI and VGA, They're Being Phased Out

rated by 0 users
This post has 26 Replies | 5 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,356
Points 1,191,585
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Sat, Jan 21 2012 10:33 AM
Your PC (and maybe you) likely has a connection with DVI or VGA, a pair of interfaces that have seemingly been around since cavemen first discovered the computer. It hasn't actually been that long, however both are about to enter legacy status as a number of computer vendors and display makers start shunning DVI and VGA over the the next few years, according to In-Stat.

The future belongs to HDMI and DisplayPort, and some of you are already there, especially if you're rocking a home theater PC. Why the shift?

"DVI has no roadmap to upgrade the specification; it is essentially the same as it was upon its launch in 1999," says Brian O’Rourke, Research Director. "HDMI and DisplayPort, on the other hand, have made significant strides in a number of markets. HDMI-enabled device shipments will increase at a 17 percent annual rate through 2015 and DisplayPort-enabled device shipments will reach 1 billion."


According to In-Stat, DisplayPort and HDMI will run the show in 2015, while DVI and VGA will be left sitting on the sidelines.

In-Stat predicts DisplayPort will have a whopping 95 percent attach rate in notebook PCs in 2015, which isn't as surprising as HDMI having a 94 percent attach rate in Blu-ray players in 2013. DisplayPort will also infiltrate tablet PCs, with In-Stat predicting over 118 million external DisplayPort-enabled tablets shipping in 2015.

Will you miss DVI and VGA, or have you already moved on?
  • | Post Points: 320
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 495
Points 4,825
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Brighton, MA

I won't be missing DVi and VGA (hell noooooooooo) we have to advance,I already moved on :) DVI and VGP just seem too old and big :-p

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 495
Points 4,825
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Brighton, MA

Hey paul Lilly i have to highlight that asking question to the news will motivate people to comment, so we can see their answers too.I will like that you keep asking questions at the end of the reviews/news which is a nice tactic, and i think people will agree with me.Thanks you very much 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 997
Points 14,405
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Ontario
Manduh replied on Sat, Jan 21 2012 11:04 AM

That is logical \\//

Anything I have, where graphics quality is important to me, is already hooked up to HDMI. And I don't think I ever used DVi :S So them being fazed out doesn't affect me. :)

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 2
Points 25
Joined: Jun 2011

Hi Manduh,

Why do you think that HDMI has advantage over DVI in graphics quality?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 997
Points 14,405
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Ontario
Manduh replied on Sat, Jan 21 2012 12:15 PM

I have no idea, like I said I don't think I've ever used DVI.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 436
Points 3,395
Joined: Dec 2010
LLeCompte replied on Sat, Jan 21 2012 12:35 PM

HDMI and DVI are the samething, just HDMI carries audio in the same signal. Thats why its so good for TVs and such. HDMI is easier to upgrade and has been upgraded since it came out. Now the problem lies in are monitors now going to come with HDMI cables? There is really no difference between a $100 monster cable and the $5 cables off amazon. The price of HDMI is going to have to have to come down a little if its going to be included in boxes. Also, HDMI is going to have to be the standard on motherboards when people buy desktops. I know it already comes on a few desktops, but VGA still is kinda for the cheap market at say best buy.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 495
Points 4,825
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Brighton, MA

The graphics quality is the same on the HDMI and DVI as far as i know. The only Advantage of the HDMI is that It carries audio and the DVI doesn't. HDMI looks better and is smaller as far as i can see :-p

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 495
Points 4,825
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Brighton, MA

I think somebody posted when i was typing lol but well we said the same thing :-p

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 47
Points 340
Joined: Jan 2012
Diggity0 replied on Sat, Jan 21 2012 12:54 PM

I work in commercial A/V installation and our suppliers have been telling us about the phase out for a couple of years now. Our problem is that by converting to digital, the cable runs become more expensive (3 - 4x the cost) and sometimes more complicated with only a slight increase in quality. The push to digital seems to be driven more by content protection then display quality. There are manufacturer's that limit the resolution of the analog inputs of their TV's so that you can only get premium picture quality through the digital ports. However, the analog inputs, if they weren't limited, have the potential to show the same 1080p signal as the digital inputs. The good ol' VGA cable could be run 100 ft or longer without issue. With Digital cables you need Cat5 extenders and special shielded cable to get the job done. When VGA cables go bad, typically the image quality will be bad but still there. With Digital, there is no image when there is an issue and you have to spend more time troubleshooting the cable - source or HDCP issues. It can be very frustrating. Fortunately the industry has evolved and now HDMI/DVI are getting better to work with, but now there's Display Port to deal with and it looks like we will have to go through the same problems as we did with HDMI/DVI. On the plus side, I can count on having job security for the next few years with all the installations that we will have to convert from analog to digital.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 495
Points 4,825
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Brighton, MA

@ Diggity0 interesting your post. Thanks you

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 435
Points 6,255
Joined: May 2010
Location: Portland, Oregon

I thought DVI, or at least dual link DVI, carried more bandwidth than hdmi. Correct me if im wrong, but aren't Nvidia and AMD's 3d solutions limited to 60fps while using hdmi?

i7 950 - ASUS Rampage 3 Extreme - ASUS GTX 570 - AZZA Hurricane - 6 GB Corsair 1600 - Corsair AX750 - WD 1tb black  Cool Thank You HH!!!!!!Cool

 

AMD 1090T - MSI 890FXA-GD70 - XFX HD5850 x2 - CM Storm Scout - 8GB Kingston HyperX 1600 - Corsair HX850 - Sammy spinpoint f3 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 495
Points 4,825
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Brighton, MA

take a look at this http://binglongx.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/summary-of-vga-dvi-hdmi-and-displayport/ for those that are confused

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,865
Points 29,645
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: United States, Connecticut

I don't mind this switch at all though I know I am going to need a new monitor with my next rig. The only input on my 7 year old monitor is VGA so I even had to convert my DVI on my current machine to VGA.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,622
Points 55,190
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: United States, Massachusetts
ForumsAdministrator
MembershipAdministrator
Dave_HH replied on Sat, Jan 21 2012 2:29 PM

The problem I have with most HDMI connections is that they max out at 1080p. I say most because if you have an HMDI 1.4 compatible graphics adapter and 1.4 compatible display, you can go higher res. The problem is many 30-inch panels are not HDMI 1.4 compatible now and we run 30-inch panels around here a lot.

Editor In Chief
http://hothardware.com


  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 309
Points 2,695
Joined: Aug 2010
JDiaz replied on Sat, Jan 21 2012 5:01 PM

There's no advantage for graphics of HDMI over DVI, as HDMI is basically DVI with audio and DRM protection added. You can even use a basic connector adapter to switch between HDMI and DVI as long as you don't need audio.

The main thing is convenience as you don't need a separate audio cable with HDMI...

While the only limitations are in the specification for how it is used, but those will change as the standard becomes dominant and higher res screens become more common to take advantage of.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 8,686
Points 104,335
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
MembershipAdministrator
Moderator
realneil replied on Sat, Jan 21 2012 5:01 PM

I have HDMI connectors on the gaming PC's, and DVI's on all of the rest.

They appear to work the same.

 

Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 70
Points 560
Joined: Dec 2011
Location: Canada, Alberta
DDeveaux replied on Sat, Jan 21 2012 6:03 PM

Now that more monitors are starting to come with DisplayPort connectors, I definitely think it's time to say "bye-bye" to VGA & DVI. HDMI & DisplayPort seem to be doing a good job at exceeding the specs (newest versions of DP can handle 4K resolution). Yes, HDMI maxes out at 1080p AFAIK (maybe 1920x1200), but that's why we have DisplayPort as well.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 1,016
Points 10,925
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Mcallen, Texas
OSunday replied on Sat, Jan 21 2012 9:50 PM

It's about time they phased out VGA with its limited cable length and resolution, but I think DVI still holds its own even if HDMI and Display Port are better

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Sun, Jan 22 2012 5:00 AM

I'm not going to mind but HDMI is not that much suitable as a replacement. I can see it as a convenient way to connect your media device to your TV (due to it having an audio signal.) but as a DVI replacement, unlikely. DisplayPort maybe since it has support for more color bits but very few monitors actually support that, making the difference between the two unlikely. I can understand why VGA is being phased out but DVI still has usage, the only thing that's wrong with it is that it's big and non intuitive but if it works, why try to replace it?

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 654
Points 5,945
Joined: May 2008
Location: Stockholm
mhenriday replied on Sun, Jan 22 2012 5:04 AM

As Diggity0 pointed out above, the change to digital here is driven not by concern for the consumer, but rather by the content industry's incessant attempts to block users from using their machines as they wish - termed «content protection» in Newspeak - the same sort of mentality (profit motive) behind such abominations as SOPA and PIPA. But who cares about users in the best of all possible worlds ?!!...

Henri

Not Ranked
Posts 21
Points 165
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Parts Unknown
sweenjm replied on Sun, Jan 22 2012 5:11 AM

I've really just liked DVI better because it makes a good solid (screwed on) connection.....hdmi can be hit or miss on how well the device and the cable stay connected.   That said, i would gladly use hdmi if i could afford one of these sweet Sony OLED monitors.  http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-oledmonitors/product-PVM2541/       Yeah, check that out...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 1,103
Points 11,175
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
CDeeter replied on Sun, Jan 22 2012 1:16 PM

VGA has been around for a long time, and for good reason - it just works, and it supports everything from 320x240 - 1600x1200. Not bad for an old geezer!

But time moves on, analog is giving away to digital, and a new standard must step up to take it's place. Whether it will be Display Port, HDMI, or something else it's hard to say. I just hope whatever it is, lasts as long as VGA. Having new standards rise up every couple of years would be hell.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 60
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Chicago
goldone replied on Wed, Jan 25 2012 12:00 AM

This is good info to know when looking at buying a new computer and monitor.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 20
Joined: Feb 2012
kenpmason replied on Thu, Feb 2 2012 10:14 PM

What no one mentioned is D-DVI (Dual). HDMI is limited to 1920x1080 (including v1.4), while D-DVI goes to 2560x1600, currently the highest res for a single monitor.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Sat, Feb 4 2012 10:09 PM

kenpmason:

What no one mentioned is D-DVI (Dual). HDMI is limited to 1920x1080 (including v1.4), while D-DVI goes to 2560x1600, currently the highest res for a single monitor.

Agreed. But DisplayPort can also do the same things that DVI can do. HDMI is not a replacement for DVI, it's just an easier way to hook up your TV to everything else. I'm guessing DisplayPort is the port designed to replace DVI; I mean it has a lot of bandwidth, support for more color bits and supports the high resolutions that DVI-D has and even higher.

It's a shame that DVI has to go but the future is here even though the past is working just fine.

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (27 items) | RSS