DVI vs. VGA, what decision should I make?

I know that DVI is better than VGA, but I'm in a bit of a predicament. I am going to order a laptop in a couple of weeks, and I think I've narrowed it down to the Asus G1S and the Dell 1520. The only problem is that for the Dell, there is no DVI out, only VGA out. I'm planning on eventually hooking up a 22" monitor to my NB, so my question is, will I notice a big difference if I hook it up through the VGA than DVI; is this difference worth not getting the dell?

 

DVI is newer and generally better quality and sometimes better controls. You can always pick up a converter for less that £2. The future's DVI and I DON'T LIKE DELL - THEY'RE RUBBISH. On the other hand, I like Asus - go for them. Are you going to be using the 22" instead or dual view?

 

Difference is noticeable, and it can be reduced by high-quality VGA cable.

Getting DVI is better option, because there is always DVI to VGA adapter.

Plus, a HDCP-capable DVI port is a feature more.

 

For lower resolutions (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768) you'll be just fine with VGA. For any higher resolutions than that, there will be a noticeable decline in quality on the VGA port. The higher the resolution, the more noticeable the difference becomes.

I would not consider any new notebook that was lacking a digital monitor interface.

This is particularly important since you intend on using an external monitor (and a large one at that). If you were just planning to use the laptop's internal LCD with no plans for an external monitor, then it really wouldn't matter. But from your description, this is not a good laptop for your intended use.

 

Yes, this is a good point. While you can pick up moderately good both way adaptors for a couple of pounds, really good VGA to DVI converters are a couple of hundred pounds.

 

"I'm planning on eventually hooking up a 22" monitor to my NB, so my question is, will I notice a big difference if I hook it up through the VGA than DVI; is this difference worth not getting the dell?"

Yes, you will see a difference between DVI and VGA...

VGA, the signal from the CPU is converted to VGA by the video adapter and sent to a monitor with VGA input.

The conversion to VGA causes some loss of quality.

With DVI the signal is not converted (kept digital) and sent to the DVI input on the monitor.

So... Less quality loss.

BUT.. It would also depend on what you're using it for...

For example, if u watch movies, u will see more details with DVI than with VGA but if u are just using for word documents, excel etc... Not much of a improvement in quality.

Steve

 

Thanks for the replies guys. Basically my situation is that I'm going off to college in a year, and I'm looking for a laptop now. I recently purchased a Samsung 216bw 21.6" Monitor (1650X1080) and I was planning on bringing it to college with me to watch movies, word process, and game. Based on what you guys said, it seems like it would make the most sense for me to go for the Asus since it has HDMI. My only concerns about the G1S is that it will be too loud, heavy, and hot, and I'm not so enthused by the looks. Ideally I would get the V1S, but no new information has come out and I'm not keen on waiting until mid-August.

 

It's not just the conversion to analog for the VGA adapter. It's the double conversion from digital->analog by the video card, and then another conversion from analog->digital by the circuitry in the monitor. Any time you convert signal types you lose quality, but with a VGA connection to a flat-panel monitor, you're converting twice so it's even worse.

With DVI, it's all digital, no conversions are taking place anywhere.

This is not correct. The difference in quality will be even more noticeable with word processing and spreadsheets than it will with DVD's, games, and movies. All those tiny letters and punctuation marks are so much more crisp with a DVI connection, the difference is not subtle.

Remember that an NTSC DVD video has a native resolution of only 720×480, far far less than the native resolution of a 22" flat panel display, so all those letters, numbers, and punctuation marks in your documents, emails, and spreadsheets have more intricate details to them than a DVD video ever will.

 

Well I just received my Samsung 216bw and have it hooked up to my desktop via DVI. I have to say, after viewing the picture quality through DVI there is a slight increase in quality. I'm definitely not going to get a laptop without DVI now, like most of you said, its not future-proof. Thanks for your help, and by the way, Samsung makes awesome monitors.

 

Not necessarily. It depends a lot on the monitor, the cable and the GPU. (And apart from everything else, VGA is just not as crappy as some people like to think))
I'm running 1600x1200@120hz on VGA and getting excellent quality. I'm not sure if DVI even has enough bandwidth to do that.

So it's not quite that simple.
That said, I'd still generally speaking prefer DVI over VGA. Especially if you're going to hook it up to a LCD, there's not much point in VGA.

 

Sure, with high-end components that's a piece of cake. Visualization companies like SGI have been running high-res & high refresh rates over VGA for many years. But OP's question was in reference to a system for use by a college student - hardly the demographic for high-end analogue VGA. For $$ spent, a cheap DVI setup will give much better quality than a cheap VGA setup.

I don't know if single-link DVI could handle 1600x1200@120hz but dual-link DVI certainly could. Besides, no point in using anything greater than 60hz on a flat-panel monitor since LCD's don't have the 'flicker' that CRT's do.

 

I'm a college student. So it's not that unlikely.

Anyway, my point was just that VGA isn't the useless, obsolete piece of junk it is sometimes made out to be. In the end, both standards are perfectly capable of good image quality, so the choice of which to use just depends on convenience. If you want to hook it up to a monitor that accepts DVI, might as well go with that. If a laptop with VGA has better specs otherwise, or is cheaper, might as well go with that.

And true about the refresh rate. My point was just that running at this refresh rate eats up more bandwidth, which my VGA connection is still perfectly able to keep up with.

At the end of the day, I'd say your choice of laptop shouldn't depend on this. (Unless you have specific needs, that means it's *very* important that it can get the best possible image quality when hooked up to one specific monitor)

 

My 10 years+ CRT from Dell can output 1280x1024 just fine(through I believe a TNT2) so these analog <->digital component shouldn't be some rocket science thing.

For the very very picky, I believe they would spot the quality right on and for the less picky, they may notice the difference when putting side by side. But for most people, unless the LCD is really cheap, most won't notice.

In fact, I have read some where that if one has to buy a LCD with VGA interface, get one with only VGA as if that interface can't give an acceptable quality, it would almost get returned right away. Those with dual(DVI/VGA) can dance away with "oh, LCD is designed with DVI so VGA is guranteed to be lousy".

 

Agreed, digital->analog for a CRT has been the standard for many many years, and a decent video card can perform that conversion efficiently, and with very good quality. But that's a CRT.

An LCD panel is digital, therefore, a second conversion has to take place, from analog VGA, back to digital again, the quality of which is highly dependent on the ADC circuitry in the monitor. I've seen more than a few LCD panels, that when used with VGA, exhibit pixels that flicker, mis-colored pixels, and other artifacts from this second conversion. Rather unpleasant for reading text IMO. Maybe newer LCD monitors are getting better, just sharing my experience.

Agree 100% - unfortunately there's a lot of 'really cheap' LCD monitors on the market.

Very good point, a VGA-only LCD would likely give better results. Unfortunately, it's also obsolete sooner since it doesn't give you the option to go digital later on.

 

The cheap converters do not convert anything, they are just passive connector adapters. VGA to DVI adapters exist but in the best case they preserve the VGA quality, you can never gain quality by that conversion.

And 1600*1200@120Hz will never work on single link. It's also pointless on a LCD monitor.

 

I really hope you're correct about this!

Just purchased one of the Dell 1720s. I actually am finding it hard to believe that they don't have a DVI connector, since the 9300 I bought over 2 years ago does. Why the backwards step, Dell??

I went with the 1720 due to the better specs and cheaper price compared to other laptops. I just hope I don't regret it due to the VGA out only, since I use an external Dell 20" monitor (at 1680 x 1050). I guess maybe I'll head home after work and plug my 9300 in using both VGA and DVI and switch compulsively between them until I can no longer tell the difference (I hope).