The Great Debate:

>>57344287
Neither. DisplayPort is objectively better.

Displayport

>>57344287
>it's another retarded thread

>>57344297
DisplayPort and VGA desu. VGA mainly for old CRTs with Apple tier display resolutions.

Display port or USB type-C which supports VGA, HDMI, and Display port.

>>57344287
dvi because thats what other people say i'm not exactly sure myself

File: chigau_yo.jpg (584KB, 1520x1080px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1520x1080px

Quality (Cord / Connector) VGA & DVI
Quality (Video) DVI / HDMI
/Thread
>>57344297
>>57344299

>>57344297
>>57344299
Is it better for ALL purposes? I only ask this because I've never used display port but what I do need is a 10 meter long cable and something that can push that far

So far HDMI is the only thing that fits this purpose. I haven't looked up DP distance though

Gee, I don't know. Maybe the one that can carry the other two?

>>57344325
DP don't care bout distance and cable quality.
Every cable is capable of the standard the device itself supports, over tens dozens of metres.

>>57344369
hdmi loses quality over a fairly short distance unless you get special cables

the image gets snowy with white pixels.

>>57344393
i'm talking ~15ft or more
I'd consider that a fairly short distance, but I guess that just my opinion, man

>>57344369
>>57344393
Both HDMI and Displayport will degrade in quality past about 3 meters unless you're buying expensive cables or only using low bandwidth (1080p 60hz), then Displayport should be fine up to like 10 meters.

hdmic an't do 120fps 4k and displayport is apple shit so dvi wins

File: 1473960090119.jpg (219KB, 1280x913px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1280x913px

>>57344393
>>57344416
>DisplayPort lets you take advantage of today’s high-bandwidth content, enabling you to create a professional and powerfully compelling digital signage solution. With native fiber optic support, DisplayPort can be run 100’s of meters to remote monitors or other image receiving equipment.
HDMAIDS BTFO

>>57344325
You cap at 3 meters on most video cables. For long distance stuff look into video over ethernet. HDMI over ethernet is more common than DP.

HDBaseT is good if you've got the cash for it.

>>57344465
sure with an active cable which can cost $100+ by itself

>>57344476
Here's a 15m one for $113.
https://www.startech.com/Cables/Audio-Video/DisplayPort/15m-Active-DisplayPort-Cable-M-M~DISPL15MA

>>57344465

>>57344287
Thunderbolt 3 over Type-C USB connector.

>>57344531
USB type-C in general, since it supports HDMI, VGA, Displayport, and thunderbolt.

>What's the best, A truck or a bike?

>>57344287
out of three, DVI because there is no useless signals.

>>57344287
DisplayPort, nigga.

>>57344287
>VGA

Why even include this deprecated shit and not Displayport? Fuck off.

>>57344531
This.

>>57344287
Displayport.

>>57344287
DVI and HDMI are more or less the same thing and... VGA is really old analog stuff.

I like DVI a little better though as it's a pinch more capable.

>>57344287
>HDMI looks bad after a few feet
>video+audio cable in one
>has HDCP copy protection as standard

>VGA
>older standard
>less sharp
>sensitive to interference


So obviously DVI

>>57344287
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as HDMI, is in fact, DRM/HDMI, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, DRM plus HDMI.

>>57344967
>DVI and HDMI are more or less the same thing and
No they aren't. DVI-D is electrically compatible with HDMI for the most part, but DVI-A signals won't work for obvious reasons. Not to mention HDMI has auxiliary channels for audio and anti-piracy encryption. Even then you may still have issues with DVI-D -> HDMI and vise-versa.
The more accurate thing to say is DVI(-D) is compatible with HDMI.

>>57344287
Dual-link DVI-I with bundled dongle for HDMI and VGA.
> plus 3 or so (mini-)DP 1.3/1.4

>>57345200

Digital is digital, Anon

>>57344471
>HDMI over Ethernet
This is a thing? That sounds like a fun project one of these days. Get a small computer, stash it away in the attic, hook up a TV with only the power connected to it, connect TV to Wi-Fi, and enjoy. Control the computer with VNC via my laptop

>>57345234
DVI isn't always digital, and no, just because things are digital doesn't mean they're compatible with one another. Case in point: DVI and DisplayPort.

>>57345398
"ethernet" is misleading, those are mostly just HDMI signals over a cat cable, and have nothing to do with ethernet

and who said anything about wifi

>>57344297
>I had to set my monitor's DisplayPort version to 1.2 and use a 1.2 compatible cable to use 4K at 60 Hz

What the fuck kind of jew bullshit is this? It's a serial cable. Just send the fucking data through it and the rate is needs to be sent.

>>57345558
Well I assume if it's "Ethernet" then it can travel via Wi-Fi. But now that you say it's just over a cat cable, it just makes me think that it's a cat cable with the ends being hdmi

Eh. There's probably a way to do it. Worst case scenario, chromecast

>>57345600
You're incredibly stupid/naive if you think sending shit over a wire is that simple.

>>57345540

No one said anything about compatibility. We're talking about the integrity of the output. A digital image is a digital image. Unless a given method actually degrades the signal somehow, then one digital output or another is still a 1:1 representation of the same image.

Analog output is more or less an approximation of something, and different analog signals have more or less degradation than others. And none of them output a 1:1 representation.

>>57345607
the only way you're getting hdmi over wifi is if it's packetized and compressed, much like how a chromecast works

this adds latency and quality loss, though

>>57345200

Nobody gives a shit about DVI-A other than you trying to make a smartass comment over here. It's only meant for cases where you need to use it with analog VGA monitors.

So yes, DVI-D and HDMI are still, *more or less*, the same thing as i mentioned.

HDMI because of sounds and internet and shit, also it can be overclocked to 75hz using freesync
VGA is just werkz tier
DVI is useless and adds more confusion with the DVI-I and DVI-D shit

>>57345649
read >>57345200 fully.
Saying HDMI and DVI are the same is plain wrong, even if you assume you were talking about digital vs analog.
For instance, DVI doesn't have the capacity for 10 bit per channel color, not to mention it can't support resolutions like 4k on a single cable, whereas even HDMI and DP can.
HDMI and DVI are two different specifications with HDMI happen to have electrical compatibility with DVI-D signals a feature to get it widely adopted.

>>57345200
okay but most DVI ports are DVI-I unless there's an actual dedicated VGA port as well

i don't really see the point you're trying to make beyond simple nitpicking

>>57344287
HDMI for TVs and modern (2014+) monitors
DVI for older LCDs
VGA for CRTs

What would you use for 120/144hz 1440p?

>>57346154
you would need and be provided with displayport

>>57346154
dvi and hdmi can't actually support those
as >>57346187 already said, you would need displayport

>>57346460
>>57346154
well, hdmi 1.4 anyway

>>57344287
>the current year
>vga

>>57346878
>the current year
>using lcd monitors with single resolution support and motion blur

>>57344287
HDMI

sorry I think DP is stupid why the fuck do i need ethernet in my connector totally dumb idea IMO.

>>57347163
.... you realize HDMI has ethernet...right?

http://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=102&cp_id=10250&cs_id=1025502&p_id=9303&seq=1&format=2

File: 1473527878435.png (67KB, 230x230px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 230x230px

Why would you use Legacy Ports? DisplayPort is objectively better.

>>57345398
its a bad idea. Had try it out for someone who was too stupid to just put the computer next to the monitor and it came out looking like shit at about 100 ft

>>57344287

DVI MASTER RACE

>>57347163
>HDMI 1.4 was released on May 28, 2009
>... adds an HDMI Ethernet Channel (HEC), which allows for a 100 Mbit/s Ethernet connection between the two HDMI connected devices

Retard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

>>57345607
Ethernet is a cable. Your confusing networks with cables.

>>57347221

name one device that can receive or send internet via visual.

>>57347221
>>57347172
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
eh?
Oh well. thanks for for that didn't know honest.

>>57347251
You realize things like AT&T's "U-Verse" are completely done through the Internet, right?

>>57344465
>DisplayPort can be run 100’s of meters

Nope
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

>3 meters for full bandwidth transmission over passive cable.
>33 meters over active cable.

>>57347268

lol thats dial up.

also, still not internet via a visual cable

>>57347268
Yeah, but latency is not a concern there.
>>57347302
Power and ethernet over HDMI is used for things like ChromeCasts. Also, if the HDMI has ethernet, it's one less cable.

File: 1476401778525.png (482KB, 800x784px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 800x784px

>>57344287
Whatever supports lossless transmission of 8K resolution @ 120 FPS (ie none yet).

>>57347436
The new macbook pro could do it, but with 4 cables and probably only @ 60fps

>>57347483
Actually, come to think of it, maybe with just 2 for 60fps

>>57347483
>The new macbook pro could do it, but with 4 cables and probably only @ 60fps
I'm not talking about a multi-monitor setup though. Also why are you even mentioning fagbooks? What are you, gay?

>>57347500
It's probably the only thing that could support it besides a desktop.

>>57347517
>It's probably the only thing that could support it besides a desktop.
You should really cut down how much your boyfriend cums in your ears.
I think you were looking for:
>>>/fa/
>>>/lgbt/

>>57347532
>How can I 8K?
>Why not use a Macbook Pro?
>Are you some kind of faggot?

>>57347590
Please go back to your fag containment boards please, your gay babble is irrtating everyone here.

This might be a dumb question, but if I have a monitor that is dvi but I get a connector to HDMI does that change my monitor into HDMI?