I am planning to buy a new Monitor (old one is gone), I had a CRT, this time I want to buy a 22 inch LCD with DVI interface, I am getting DVI-D based LCD monitors here in India. I read at Wikipedia that DVI has much better picture quality than VGA interface and since LCD monitors in India with DVI and VGA ports have same price, I thought have a DVI port is good idea. I am also planning to buy a HD 2400/2600 PRO ATI radeon card to which I will plug in the DVI port from LCD monitor, as my ASUS K8V-MX MOBO only has a VGA port .


PRIMARY Uses:

1) LCD does not kill eyes, when you do programming
2) Watching HD/Blue-Ray movies, formats like Matroska, x264 etc.

Based on my primary uses Will you advise me on buying a LCD with DVI port and a graphic card or I should just save my money and go for a new CRT ?

2nd, How can I know whether my MOBO has a PCI x16 lane required for Radeon cards ?


I got one help from youtube here

Go for the DVI- you built a pretty good case for it yourself. It really boils down to your financial preference though since you must also buy a new video card.

As for your mobo question- either check the manual for the mobo- or google it up.

DVI LCD is the way to go.

My mobo does not have PCI Express , it only has AGP 8x and there are quite a few cards these days that work on AGP. Nearly all of the cards I saw were for PCI Express with x16 lane only. So I guess, I also need to buy a new mobo too, if I want to with DVI based LCD.

*All* of my friends use VGA based LCDs and they have spent lots of money on them. can't understand why. But if I need a new mobo, then I have to go for a new CPU too, Eh.. I will buy new computer anyway, I am not going to use CRT, my eyes just swell up when I work in my office's Samsung CRT just for a few hours, I can't bear it.

You should be able to find an AGP card with DVI outputs. Take some time to look around. You can probably find someone selling a used part in local newsgroups if you have them.

Here is a list of just a few (you do not need to buy from here):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...e=&srchInDesc=

I wonder what's that case with eyes; I haven't met a single display (for now, at least, and I see a lot of them every day) that wouldn't hurt eyes if used for a long time (whereas only very bad displays hurt eyes if looked at for a short period of time). The connector, or the fact that it's built using liquid crystal components (and not some other polarizers, for example) doesn't mean it's good for your eyes; I'm sure it's not difficult to build a DVI-connected LC display that does hurt your eyes more than a regular cathod-ray tube display What matters more is the blinking of the screen (connected to the frequencies used), reflections, correct lighting of the environment and the display and the size of elements on the screen (how much and often your eyes need to squeeze to produce a sharp image of the screen contents) and so on..so if your eyes hurt while working, you should pay attention to your whole working environment and not just the display.

Image quality then is another matter, but (quoting octoberblu3) you should be able to find AGP cards with DVI outputs. There's no sense in paying for a whole new computer if you only want to get a new screen (with a new sort of connector); actually you may get away a lot cheaper if you spend some time looking for "old" cards, which may be surprisingly cheap.

You'll probably also find displays with HDMI connectors, but they don't offer you anything DVI wouldn't, unless you've got a very interesting graphics card (for example one with sound card built-in). The cable itself is nicer to plug in and out, but that's about it..so DVI is the way to go. And since it seems (at least in here) that more and more displays come with DVI and/or HDMI connectors, but not so with VGA, it just might be a good move anyway to get a card that can do DVI as well.

There are also VGA-DVI converters, but if you can find, get a new graphics card instead..

And they are not made that way


you are damn right here about Lighting and display and size of fonts/icons on monitor. In year 2007, when I was facing eye problems, I changed both of them and my eyes started feeling comfortable on my CRT. and trust me on LCD your eyes don't get swollen



I will surely try hard to find AGP 8x based cards. It saved

I bought a 42 inch plasma a month ago, which I run dvi to hdmi, it's crystal clear, dvi out is definitely the way to go. Hdmi is good as well, just that most people will run the audio to another source, like a digital dolby receiver etc. If you run hdmi to the tv first, then your tv (plasma, LCD etc..), it may not transfer the surround sound back out to the digital receiver.

Many nvidia cards support agp + dvi. As far as I know AGP+DVI is supported approximately from GeForce 5500 to GeForce 7900 . It might be difficult to find new card from those series, but purchasing used one shouldn't be a problem.

I think this is a myth.
To my experience LCD kills eyes (makes them tired) much faster than properly tuned CRT, at least this is how things work for me. Before purchasing new LCD monitor instead of CRT, I'd recommend to borrow identical model and work with it for several hours - just to see how it works with your eyes. For me watching a movie on LCD is not a problem, but text makes eyes tired very quickly when compared to CRT.

There is no simple answer. DVI port is recommended for LCD, but if you worry about your eyes, and never used LCD before, then you should seriously test new LCD monitor before purchasing it. Some people claim that LCD are easier for eyes, and some people report that they cause additional discomfort that doesn't exist with CRT monitors. Check this link (and search for more "LCD eye strain with google) for more info.
I suppose that some people are more comfortable with LCD and some people are more comfortable with CRT, so it makes sense to check if LCDs are better for you. You should also take in account that LCD have their own problems that doesn't exist on CRT. Problems include: image scaling to work in non-native resolutions, lack of truly black color, subtle gradients across the screen because picture is sensitive to the angle you are looking for (even if it is said display allow 170degrees viewing), trouble with colors (gamma on LCD monitor is heavily dependant on viewing angle, so it is a bad choice, say, for editing photos), and so on. Basically, the only serious benefits LCDs have are reduced energy consumption, weight and size. So if you are seriously thinking about switching to LCD after using CRT I'd recommend to search internet for more information about LCDs, because using LCD doesn't guarantee reduce eye strain, and technology has serious limitations, that are frequently "forgotten" in advertisements. I'd recommend to compare good CRT and good LCD and then purchase the one which works better for you and your eyes.

ErV

While I think the test drive is an excellent advice, your comparison is really apples and oranges. While a PROPERLY tuned CRT MAY be not be any harder on the eyes than a PROPERLY tuned LCD, it is much easier(in almost all cases) to get that LCD to an acceptable state. Most desktops now allow the user to us sub pixel smoothing which appears to cover the majority of problems found with LCDs. Personally I have only had problems with one LCD monitor (it was a cheapy) but I have had issues with a lot of CRTs were I had to crank up the refresh rate to prevent eye strain(one of the main reasons I liked Veiwsonic's CRTs).

Advice I've written is based on my own experience, that's all. Problem is not in subpixel smoothing (although turning it off might generate headaches & etc), but simply because LCD is damn bright when compared to CRT, even on minimal brightness/contrast settings, and staring (say) into military searchlight for prolonged periods isn't good for your eyes.
Also some people dislike the lamp installed in monitor (it is fluorescent). As for CRT refresh rates, 85hz is comfortable enough. Anything below - isn't (well, you can work with 60hz monitor, but you'll have greatly reduce brightness/contrast to make it dim and comfortable to look at). I don't remember any CRT that ever made eyes tired. But LCD monitors I had chance to work with could be easily marked as "certain death to your eyes (tm)". At least, that is how I feel it. As I said - this might depend on your eyes. That's why I recommend "test drive" with good CRT and good LCD.

Some people are allergic to oranges, so for them purchasing box of oranges won't be a good idea, even if you think that oranges taste better than apples. When you choose monitor, the most important thing is if you are comfortable with it, because if you'll need eyedrops after 15 minutes, you will have problems doing anything serious with that monitor. My advice is based on my own experience. As I said - your eyes might be different from mine, so that is why you have more problems with CRT than with LCD.

VGA is limited. If you want 1080p content, you pretty much can't get that on VGA. DVI is good, but it's a bit dated too. HDMI is in theory better, but you'll end up spending more for the cable than the monitor in some cases. At least that how it works in the US of A. Which might explain the recession. Or business methodology is based on support / cables / adapters rather than the actual product. It's almost sickening at times.

Plasma has issues as a computer screen as the static images burn into the screen. LCD is better for a computer monitor. I have a 1680x1050 LCD for my desktop, but if I want to go higher than that, then I need DVI or HDMI. If you're a video gamer type then LCD might not be for you as the lag between event and results can hinder game play. CRTs are still king for colors and lack of delay. Plasmas a little better than LCDs for game play, but not well suited for static desktop images.

If you're buying anything new / recent I'd look for at least a DVI connector. There are DVI to HDMI adapters if you need that connection. Which is cheaper than a new mobo or video card on an upgrade, but not if you factor that into the original purchase of your motherboard.

HTH

Shadow

If you buy the HDMI cables in a store they do want an arm and a leg, but if you buy them online they are resonable. I just picked up a 10ft HDMI cable from newegg for under $15(regular price not sale price)the local shops wanted $60.

Lots of misconcemptions in there.

I don't believe DVI is dated. The differences are really limited to 2 things: HDMI has HDCP allowing DRM media to be transmitted, and HDMI includes sound in the signal. Most computers don't have a receiver that the video is run too first unless they are HTPC's. In this case, the receiver takes 1 cable in, then splits video off to the TV and audio out to the 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Without a receiver, the only way to get surround sound is via the sound card directly. In this case, you would disable audio over HDMI anyways, making that advantage moot. The sound systems built in to monitors are horrible in my opinion. Everyone I know has external speakers on their computer unless it's all run through their home theatre.

If we look at the HDCP aspect, we're talking ultra-hi-def video. BluRay and the sort. Most people will play that on their home theatres, not on their computers. In this case, you need an HDCP video card, and an HDCP monitor. What happens is that the two establish a secure pair, confirming both are HDCP, and ONLY then will content be played in full resolution. If one or both components are not HDCP compliant, the media is played is SD (standard defintion, not HD).

Aside from those 2 differences, DVI and HDMI are the same. Literally. They are both compatible with each other. Resolution and picture quality are the same. DVI was developed initially involving an analog signal conversion, this is now known as DVI-A. DVI-D is a pure digial signal allowing very clear, very high resolutions (my DVI-D setup involves 1920x1200 resolution) based on DVI-A without the analog conversion. Many computing devices were DVI-I meaning they support both methods although the DVI-I and DVI-A formats are not as common now as everything is going digital. HDMI was designed off of DVI-D and made to include HDCP and digital audio. THat's it. That's the ONLY difference.

So unless you have BluRay or HD-DVD on your computer, and either don't use external speakers or do use a reciever, there is no reason to get "HDMI". HDMI and DVI are 100% compatible and identical with respect to non-DRM (Digial Rights Management) protected video content. As far as cabling goes...if you went out and bought $300 monster HDMI cables, that was your own fault for not doing research. There is no degredation of signal quality on a pure digital signal over standard lengths (I believe it was 50') regardless of the type of cable. An expensive HDMI cable is a waste of money over the cheapest one you can find. Many tests have been done by home users which back up what the experts have always said: "Don't waste your money." You can get $20 HDMI cables just like you can get $20 DVI cables. Why not? They're identical except for the connectors and a few extra wires for audio signals.

As for Plasma vs LCD, your information was correct....a few years ago. Times have changes. Very few plasma's still suffer from burn-in of static images, very few LCD's still have issues with fast-moving video. The main difference between LCD and Plasma nowadays is cost. Other differences include the fact that Plasma can do deeper blacks but not pure whites while LCD's due pure whites but they're blacks are washed out, LCD screens have less glare than Plasma, and LCD's consume less power. The differences are even less marked if you get an LCD with a low response time, 5ms or less ideally, and 120Hz refresh rate. Even then, you end up paying less. Making the true difference the white vs black issue. A true videophile will usually defend the important of deeper blacks, explaining how they're more important, hence making plasmas "more desirable". Watch a space movie on an LCD and a plasma and you'll agree. Watch an ice hockey game on an LCD with 120Hz and a plasma and you'll think whites are more important. It all depends on the media.

The 2 biggest factors in making any display "look right" and not hurt your eyes is lighting and position/size. These have already been discussed so I won't get into the specifics.

A CRT should not hurt your eyes for short term. A CRT remains the highest quality display that is made. Deep blacks and pure whites, response time is controlled by refresh, but most "newer" video cards and montors allow a high enough refresh that it will be as good as a standard LCD. CRT's are also usually the cheapest, despite given the best picture, because their bulk and weight are deemed "undesirable". You can't stick it on your wall.

For computing, DVI is the de-facto standard, and it's not going away anytime soon. LCD's are also the most common. If you require high-quality and/or suffer from eyestrain, it's recommended you stick with a CRT and DVI. If it's a serious problem, composite video is superior to DVI and HDMI, allowing higher resolution and clearer images. It's not a difference that will be noticed by most people however, and eyestrain sufferers won't notice better quality so much as just less soreness.

If your eyes hurt looking at a CRT for short periods of time, I would recommend against both LCD and Plasma. Neither one will provide relief of that by itself. It may feel better due to the placebo effect, but they are not "superior" technology in terms of image quality or effect on the eyes. They're simply "cheaper" technology that sells better. A monitor that's 4 feet deep is a hard sell. A monitor that's 2 inches thick and can be mounted on a wall looks more "modern" and is easier to sell. Size is literally the ONLY reason why LCD/Plasma are more popular than CRT right now.

If you have bad eyes and a current AGP VGA video card, I would get the specs on it. If it can provide a refresh greater than 70Hz at the resolution you need, then invest in a high-quality CRT monitor. It should come with software allowing you to adjust it properly in about 5 minutes. It will save you money and ease your eyes more than any DVI LCD or Plasma ever could.