VGA max resolution

Do you think a VGA cable can manage the 2560 x 1440 resolution of a dell U2711?

Thanks!

 

AFAIK, max is 2048x1536 or 2560x1600.

Depends on the graphics card as well.

 

thanks!,
the graphics card specs says that in VGA mode it can handle max 2048x1536, does it mean that it can handle 2560 x 1440 also??

 

There is no theoretical limit to the resolution. If your video card's ramdac is fast enough (it should be) it could display 2560 x 1440. However, the quality of the image is going to be pretty bad. The higher you go, the more susceptible to interference and the lower the quality of the image gets. If you spend over a thousand dollars on the monitor, you are wasting it's capability by connecting to it via a vga cable. At lower resolutions and on crappier displays, you might not perceive a difference between vga and hdmi or dvi, but it might be apparent on that Dell U2711. I'm sure it will work fine, but it will not be all that it can be.

 

Without knowing all the limitations associated with bandwidth and conversions of that now obsolete analogue signal, and how it would degrade long before it reached anywhere near that level, it's highly unlikely since as stated, the weakest link determines the final product. I'd like to think VGA is still around solely to satisfy business/projection purposes. Otherwise, it's not of much use.

Anyway, for quality along the lines of what you would like/expect, it's time to go digital.

 

It's not "now obsolete", there were/still are plenty of Dell tower deals that use analogue connected monitors. I hate to say this but i can't perceive enough difference between VGA and HDMI to go out and pay 50 bucks for a gold plated HDMI cable. Try S-Video for low quality...

 

It is soooooooo obsolete...infinity!

Now then, for the VGA vs HDMI matter. If you can see the difference then you're dealing with a low quality device somewhere in the line.

Still, not all VGA are created equal. Which is it's biggest problem since it's hard to predict what output you're going to get. And last but not least, S-Video. Do they even put that on notebooks anymore?

 

no they don't put S-Video in notebooks anymore... but depending on what card u have , that max res is supported? if u card says that 2048x1536 is max , that is what it can handle..

 

Not anymore, and no they aren't all created equal, true, but essentially i just don't see what the big fuss is about. I'm perfectly fine connecting my laptop up to my 32" LCD via VGA to play a beautiful looking GTA 4 on, i guess i'm a minimalist when it comes to display quality, and put it this way i'd rather spend the money on laptop components like the TV tuner i bought for my (now defunct) T61p, than buying high quality cable for miniscule differences in picture quality.

 

An HDMI cable is $5. What are you talking about?

 

5$?????? No, not where I am they are, 50 bucks here in Ontario,Canada bud.

 

No, it's $4.62 + $5.15 S&H for Ontario, Canada.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10240

 

Yeah, and my local best buy sells generic USB cables starting at $26. Doesn't mean I can't get them for next to nothing somewhere else.

 

well mine cost $30... not cheap if u buy in store... u need to buy online.

 

Lol, that's not the point anyways, i'm saying that i wouldn't pay for the priviledge of having a notebook with an HDMI port, the W700 i'm getting will happen to have it, as well as dual-link DVI, and a DisplayPort, does it mean i'll stop using VGA? Probably not. I'm getting the W700 not for portability with power, but simply for a notebook that i can sometimes be mobile with but rarely, and one that i can update to quite formidable specs (think QX9300 if it ever becomes cheap).

 

The cable debate notwithstanding, it's still possible to use a composite cable/signal if you prefer. My point was simply that if you do, you're using yesterdays technology--and for really no good reason. Still, if that's your choice, then sobeit.

 

HDMI has sound and is digital. VGA is analog and is video only.

I mean if we were talking DVI vs HDMI then I'd get it, but VGA vs HDMI is kind of different beasts. VGA is kinda outdated. Not to say it doesn't get the job done great, but having a 100% digital signal is theoretically "best".

 

I do have to agree.. after using HDMI , i nver want to use VGA.. Its just a hassle and its obsolete.

 

calling something 'outdated' or 'lousy' without correctly explaining your point isn't particularly helpful to others or your reputation.

 

got a superstore grocery store or a walmart close by, its not hard to find them for $12-15

 

VGA does the job fine and I honestly don't see how it's a "hassle" over any other cable. I mean, you plug one end to something and another to something else. It doesn't GET any simpler >.>

Now if you were going to argue that HDMI had sound also ok... but purely speaking of video it's not really night and day for most people.

 

This is a very nice monitor. Current list price is $1099. Given you intend to spend *so* much on a monitor, it's def worthwhile to invest in something with digital video out.

I totally disagree. This issue has been discussed to death. For theoretical explanations, I recommend reading up the articles on ADC, DAC, and quantization error on Wikipedia. From the empirical side, there are hundreds of review that measure inferior display quality when using VGA rather than digital connections for flat panels. Differences are noticable at resolutions as low as 1280x1024 and become even more pronounced at higher resolutions.

 

Depends entirely on the display. My TV gives a MUCH better picture from the HDMI connection than from the VGA. VGA is decent enough, but it does have it's limits and is much more susceptible to noise due to it's analog nature.

For a good technical explanation: http://www.wirelessforums.org/alt-comp-hardware/max-resolution-vga-connector-22437.html#post114279

The more cables you have running near your VGA cable, the more you should think about going with something like HDMI or DVI.

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I know full well that a digital signal like the ones from an HDMI or DVI cable can produce a better image than a VGA cable, but as you said, it really depends on the display.

For most computer monitors, I haven't really noticed all too much difference worth warranting a swap.

 

Ok, I see--so your laptop is quite new. The U2711 is still a great monitor. I'd prolly still get it and just use HDMI for now. It's not gonna look that great but perhaps it's your best option. That's unless you have a SR model with ATI graphics for which you could get a docking station which includes a dual-link DVI port.

 

That's interesting, can you please elaborate a little bit more this docking idea?, my SR does have an ATI card (HD 4570), but I didn't know you can use dual-link DVI through the docking statation at it's full capabilities, That would be fantastic, as the docking is worth around 200$ and would solve the problem.

 

HDMI still gives better video quality period... but it also gives audio... now with VGA , u only get video and if i want audio i need to get more cables etc.. with HDMI, 1 cable does everything... so HDMI is hassle free and in a way cheaper and saves space...

Gee thanks , pops... ur obsolete so i'll throw u away... anyways, we can debate this to death but everyone knows.. VGA is obsolete... i still don't know why it's there on notebooks. DVI , Display port, HDMI are all way better options... giving better picture quality, res etc.

 

If your VGA cable is well isolated the image quality will be hardly discernible depending on what display you're attaching it to as Pitabred said.

HDMI maxes at 1080p though so I prefer DVI, even if HDMI has sound. I always output sound by fiberopticanyways.

VGA does the job and for certain uses like projectors and stuff it's still useful.

 

HDMI maxes at 1080p? Since when? Version 1.3 and later (what many devices support, as that's what was standard when Blu-Ray was released) will do 2560x1600 at standard 24bit color. Even 1.0-1.2 will do 1920x1200.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_comparison

 

Ohh okies thanks for the correction

 

I was using vga on my monitor, until the input on it broke, so i decided to buy an HDMI to VGI cable with 24k gold plated ( for $12) and I think the picture is a lot clearer. I don't know why I was using vga, but I'm happy i bought it (even though I had no choice).

I find my 1680x1050 22" samsung monitor to be just as clear as my 21.6" samsung monitor @ 1920x1080 now. With hdmi to dvi (all digital), it just looks clearer, especially text. The contrast also seems a lot better.

Now this may not be a fair comparison because my vga input on my monitor was pretty buggy (changes colors) until it finally changed to a yellow tint and didn't go back, so I'm sure it wasn't as clear as it cold be, but yes, digital is a lot better.

 

I think you messed up your cable names lol

VGI isn't a cable and both DVI and HDMI are digital signals.

 

Have a look at the manual (sec. "Using Peripheral Devices," subsec. "Connecting an External Monitor")

 

thanks, I did, looks feasible, but don't see any specs so no confirmation on the max possible resolution

I've sent the question to sony, they should know

 

It says it has a DVI-D port with 24 pins. This implies it's a dual link port so it should do 2560x1600 (as well as 2560x1440 as required for the U2711). Waiting for a confirmation from Sony support is reasonable though.

 

lol i meant hdmi to dvi. Sorry, i was at work so i had to type fast.

 

I'm in the same boat. I just ordered a U2410 monitor with 1920x1200 resolution, thinking that my laptop's HDMI would have no problem with it.

This morning I decided to look up the specs on my video card, and it said "HDMI output supports all display resolutions up to 1920x1080"

I think I might be in trouble, since I doubt the picture quality will be as good if I use VGA (vs HDMI).