What exactly makes HDM or DVI better than VGA? Because I'm

>>58098940
certain things DVI doesn't support

VGA can't do anything above 1920x1080 and I don't think VGA can do sound over it like HDMI can

>>58098954
I'm not sure I believe that VGA has a max resolution.

Audio

>>58098954
VGA can do more than that.
and who uses screen speakers anyway? they are usually shit

>>58098974
>the VGA analog interface is used for high definition video, including resolutions of 1080p and higher. While the transmission bandwidth of VGA is high enough to support even higher resolution playback, there can be picture quality degradation depending on cable quality and length. How discernible this degradation is depends on the individual's eyesight and the display, though it is more noticeable when switching to and from digital inputs like HDMI or DVI.

>>58098940
VGA is an analog standard. It's possible to get arbitrarily high resolution out of it, but you're going to spend a lot on cabling and interconnects to do so. It's practically limited to 1920x1200@60Hz with common cabling and connectors. Even then, the signal degradation is commonly very visible in the picture.

Dual-Link DVI is capable of 2560x1600@60Hz, if I recall. HDMI 2.0 is capable of 4k@120Hz or something like that. HDMI also can carry an audio signal.

>>58099007
>VGA can do more than that.
at the expense of picture quality

>>58098954
VGA can go up to at least 2048x1536

>>58098974
There has to be a max. Higher resolution means higher required bandwidth, which means a higher frequency signal. Sooner or later the connector won't be able to handle such a high frequency without sufficient noise degrading the signal or even making it unusable.

>>58099070
>VGA can go up to at least 2048x1536
see
>>58099056
>>58099016

>>58098940

VGA uses an analog signal, which is strictly inferior to a digital connection such as DVI because there is a possibility of signal degradation.

>>58099070
>2048x1536
Technically correct, but no current monitor supports that resolution natively. 1920x1200 -> 2560x1440.

Also some modern video cards have given up support for 2048x1536, specifying only 1920x1200 for VGA.

>>58099070
There's no max, only practical limits. Analog is like that.

>>58099077
No fucking shit, still capable of it.

>>58099099
Nothing's stopping you from getting a CRT. I've seen 2048x1536 monitors for -$20 (as in you get paid to get a monitor)

>>58099112
At some point the connector simply will not be able to deliver any signal at all due to excessive noise. I'd call that a limit.

>>58099070
>There has to be a max
It depends on graphics card's DAC frequency

>>58099007
Most monitors with speakers also have an audio-out port so you can hook up speakers to the audio routed through HDMI.

>all these retards spoonfeeding OP
hey thanks for helping improve the quality of the board and drive away newfags VERY GOOD JOB THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOU ARE GREAT

>>58099133
That's also a factor but the physical connector itself also has limitations.

>>58099053
This is the correct answer

>>58099166
At least this thread's actually got some damned technical discussion going on unlike the GPU threads and homescreen threads that occupy 99% of the fucking board.

>>58099053
DVI is capable of carrying sound also, although it's rarely used.

Is there any difference in input lag between DVI and VGA? I swear it's either placebo or paranoia but I seem to get consistently better scores on reaction time tests with VGA.

>>58099903
Possibly - depends on the monitors you're using and the specifics of their image processing. If you're talking VGA with CRT then yeah that's the least-possible input lag.

>>58099099
currently on a CRT with a native of 2048x1536 @ 75hz and it looks great

>>58098940
Most monitors won't have built in connections for VGA in the future, so why use an adapter when you don't need to.

>>58100250
Where did he say he intended on exclusively using VGA forever?

>>58100271
Because he would've connected via HDMI or DP or DVI in the first place if he already knew what I said, or if he could.

>>58099828
that was a proprietary AMD feature

>>58100292
You're making far too many assumptions.

>>58100152
>crt
>Hz
Wrong.

>>58100441
What the fuck are you on about?
>CRT refreshes screen 75x per second
>CRT operates at 75Hz
This is irrefutable.

>>58100496
you know what else is irrefutable?
YOUR MOM HHAHAHAHAHAH

>>58100514
This is an 18+ website. >>>/global/rules/2

>>58100529
you know what else is an 18+ website?
YOUR MOM HAHAHAAHAH

I use HDMI 2.0 and or DVI for 144hz

VGA is for people who don't care

>>58100832
Or have VGA only monitors :(

>>58098974
It comes down to the graphics card and capacitance of the cable. VGA is just three analog wires for R,G,B. You could get a million horizontal pixels by changing their state a million times per scanline; but that's a ridiculously fast DAC.