HDMI versus Displayport cables

I have an Nvidia 1080 ti and a non-any-sync Samsung curved 27" monitor. When I set it all up a while back, I used the HDMI cable because that's how my older monitor was connected. On a lark the other day, I decided to switch over to a Displayport cable and see if it made a difference.

To my surprise, it did. FPS remained the same. But the colors changed dramatically. I had to adjust them in the Nvidia control panel to brighten them up.

It may be my imagination, but the anti-aliasing seems to be markedly smoother than before, and I'm spotting balloons at a far great distance. I use to have a problem with spotting them and I'd find myself on top of them, or even flying right over them. Now, depending on conditions, I'm picking them up at a range of 2-4 kilometers.

Anyone one else experimented with different connections? Any hints?

Nowi

The Displayport cable passes a lot more information over it's cable versus the HDMI cable. That is why they tell you that at a 4k resolution you need a DP cable to get 60 FPS versus a HDMI cable that can only give you 30 FPS for the same game.

I believe HDMI 2.0 delivers 60 FPS at 4K or am I mistaken PR
But I have a 2k dell and I use Dp over hdmi ..dunno why but I find it "better" guys.

True, but I bet he does not have that on his monitor yet.

When they update the new monitors to HDMI 2.0 (which handle 4k monitors at 60 FPS), they will also update those monitors to DP 1.4 (which handle 8k monitors at 60 FPS).

So again DP is twice as good as HDMI for passing information over it's system.

^^ Very true PR

Hello gents, also if you have the necessary ports, try DVI-D (dual link). A bit old school but it gets the job done, and gives accurate colors - also good FPS.

Happy flying,
Von S

IIRC, a single DVI-D can only handle up to 1920x1200, which is why they went to other means for transferring your graphic info from the GPU to the monitor and I do not know of many monitors or GPU's that have dual DVI-D link to handle the higher bandwidth.

Bit old but still usefull info from Linus guy.



I did use, displayport, DVI and HDMI, on my 2560x1440 monitor and I did never notice any difference. Think as long as you are not have an more then 60hz, 1080i, G/Free-sync monitor and not using the monitors speakers, it does not count on what you connection is, as long the cable and connectors are not been damaged.

Well, for a while I had a really weird problem where the display would kick back to low resolution, and Windows saw my nice Samsung SyncMaster SA550 as "Generic Non-PnP monitor", which is quite silly. Tried a couple of different HDMI cables, but on the advice of the guru at work switched to a DVI cable (I think) and the problem hasn't returned. That's what I'm running, Dutch, 60 Hz, 1080i.

But then again, my "register level" computing days are long, long ago...

Sounds more like an driver issue, you did have.

I keep reading that the cable choice makes no difference, but it does, at least on my rig. With the display port cable the picture is better, and I get an option for 3140 display, whereasbefore the top choice was 1900! Clearly, something is different with Display Port.

That is because the old HDMI versions can not run 3140 by xxxx resolution, its limited to HD, so your monitor is trotling to 1920x1080. But that has nothing to do with the cable type but the version number. I know in my country lots of shops are still today selling old versions because that is sufficient for most HD tv & HD monitors and ofcorse are cheap.
I can imagne that if you use an old DP, like V1, you also will face limits.

Well, dutch, thanks, but I tried driver updates and all that, Some said that some monitor information that is stored in the monitor got corrupted, but I found a little utility to check it, and it was fine. My buddy at work (who is to this point the only fellow I know with a server rack running his house), said change to the pinned cable and that worked. I dunno. i used to be better at this stuff, but they're supposed to be making things easier... Silly Windows 10 (I have more appropriate terms but forum rules, you know...) decided my printer wasn't worth writing a driver for, so off I went to replace a perfectly good printer... And I tried about everything up to insatllingan XP virtual machine, it wasn't worth that.

I believe dutch is spot-on in his assessments. The DisplayPort stuff mentioned earlier doesn't matter at all if you're running non-Gsync, 1080p 60Hz. And these cables are all digital (as long as you're not talking the older, typically blue, analog "VGA" cables). The colors being different/brighter is likely subjective, since these are all digital connections. (Of course, if you have any kind of analog VGA adapter in the line, then it's not all digital). Mind you, once you go beyond 1080p 60Hz, then yes HDMI (prior to rev 2.0) will only support 30Hz. I didn't see where the OP specified exactly what resolution, but there is mention of "an option for 3140 display", which seems to indicate a 21:9 aspect ratio, which isn't technically supported by HDMI before 2.0, like dutch said.

EDIT: I should point out here that the actual electronic connections, at the physical display panel level, are not HDMI, nor DVI, analog, or any of the rest of it. They are actually a totally different spec called LVDS (Low Voltage Differential Signalling). This applies to any kind of flat panel I'm aware of; it is the 'native' form of signal at the input to the panel hardware. The reason I mention this is because, in order to communicate with the LVDS panel, obviously any of the various peripheral interface types (DVI, HDMI, DP...) will require some kind of conversion - even if it is digital-to-digital conversion. What that means is that it's possible some variation in what you see on the screen is entirely possible just by using the different interface, not because any one is "better" than the other, but just because they're possibly different, and it has nothing to do with DP vs HDMI specs at all. For example, the digital HDMI-LVDS converter in one person's Samsung monitor might produce what they see as different colors, compared to the converter which handles conversion from DisplayPort to LVDS in the same monitor. The fact that there are two different signal paths involves means the result can obviously be different.

It is possible, though, that the cables in use were low-quality, because even with digital cables, poorly designed or constructed cables can cause problems with signal transmission. Just because the computer store sells it doesn't make it good - they sell all kinds of connectors and adapters that are not just often incompatible, in some cases they are outright forbidden by relevant specs. One example of this is (was) USB extension cables - explicitly forbidden in the first USB specification, but you could buy them all day long. As these specs become more complicated, the cables/connectors become more important. I have a USB 3.1 drive cradle that is very picky about it's connection to the PC - but, with a proper cable, the connection is reliable and speed is measurably improved. A different cable I had, which looked OK otherwise, was constantly dropping the connection.

Moral of this story is don't buy cables based strictly on what's cheap.



HumanDrone, that kind of issue comes along sometimes, but it's not limited to computer monitors. I have a TV which used to decide every now and again that it couldn't recognize the cable box (before I switched to DirecTV). Hasn't happened since I switched to DirectTV (and thus, have a different receiver connected to the TV). Same TV, same cable, but obviously changing the receiver made the problem disappear.

What's at issue there is not HDMI v DVI or whatever, it's about what is called (deep breath, yet another acronym inbound) HDCP (High-definition Digital Content Protection). Yup, your old pal Digital Rights Management, finding another way to intrude on every form of electronic entertainment we have. It exists to prevent unauthorized playback/recording of copyrighted media. In this case, the remarkable thing is that it's part of the hardware; that is, each device - computer (GPU), monitor, and the cable connecting them MUST all support a compatible version of HDCP. When these devices are powered on, there is a requirement for a digital communication between them to check/verify HDCP. This is called the "handshake".

I would bet money that your monitor not being recognized was related to HDCP handshake. Interesting article here, though technically deep: https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1273716 You can also just google HDCP connection issues etc and you'll find lots of stories about it.

Also, since you have an older GPU (the 580 - great card, but long in the tooth) it appears that drivers (much as what Dutch described) changed at some point and caused HDCP handshaking issues. https://www.overclock.net/forum/69-...vers-now-gtx580-not-hdcp-compatible.html I believe both HDMI and DVI support HDCP, officially, but any part of the chain that isn't fully compatible (the driver for example) and you start having goofy problems.

And oh, BTW: You now know (or know of, more accurately) two guys who have server racks running in their house. Well, did have anyway, before my last move. Too much work to put it all back, and I haven't used the features that made it a good idea since the move, so I bought a little NAS box; way cheaper to run, doesn't generate as much heat etc. Not perfect, but close enough that the benefits outweighed the few limitations.

Anyhow just some thoughts FWIW.

kksnowbear:

WOW! What a treatise! I have to wonder, though, if it may have been cable quality. If I change nothing about the situation but the cable, it says there is something about the cable. I mean, I'm still running my 580. I assume they've fixed the driver issue by now though, so this one may be lost in the digital dust. First things first: at least I can WOFF!

If i can whine a little, it bugs me about this stuff that "the better it gets, the worse it gets." Like you said, here comes another acronym. I'm probably above average in my computing skills, and I cannot keep up with this stuff. Only the rare few like you who really have the aptitude and skill set can get to the bottom of these things; the rest of us are hoping one of you are around on a forum or else paying dearly and clueless as to whether they are being sold a bill of goods or not. It isn't a personal computer anymore. You must accept cookies; God help you if you need to do anything in the registry - like I said, at one time I worked at the register level flipping gates on breadboards and programming in hex, and I avoid the registry like the plague. What do grandma & grandpa do? And we have to face it - we have no idea what's going over that wire. But enough whining, I guess. I appreciate your time & explanations!

Right, I see what you're saying - but (and do tell me if I'm wrong here) when you changed the cable, wouldn't that mean you also changed from the HDMI port to the DVI port, on both the GPU and the monitor? Remember: Different converters, different signal paths. Possibly the HDMI converter in either the GPU or the monitor had some issue that you've avoided by changing ports.

It could also be that, while technically both the GPU and monitor HDMI connections are "compatible" they just don't play well together. This is what was happening with my TV - it would work most of the time, but sometimes just decide not to. Specifically, I think there was a timing issue in the HDCP handshake...like Maxwell Smart used to say: "Missed it by that much". The fact that it worked most of the time means they had to have been at least somewhat compatible/compliant with the spec. In my case, I would get a black screen saying "Unrecognized device" or something to that effect. I could turn it off and back on, and *poof* problem solved. If I had a dime for every time I've seen something like this...*whew*

Since you did try several HDMI cables, it is likely that the cable wasn't at issue (unless we assume each cable had the exact same problem). And, since there is at least some evidence to suggest drivers caused HDCP handshake issues, I can't help but wonder if that's not where your troubles began.

The fact that you're still running the 580 doesn't rule any of this out, because you're also still using the DVI port. It is possible (at least as I understand your description), that using the HDMI connection with your computer would still be problematic (you just aren't seeing it anymore because you're not using that connection).

Or at least, that's what I think is possible


Yes, it's enormously frustrating to have to keep up with it. And I have to, because it's my livelihood. Seems like every time I've gotten halfway comfortable dealing with some aspect of the technology, they change it, and I start over.

Believe me, I'm definitely no happier than you about it not being a personal computer any more. Nothing short of outrage to me, TBH...but then, yeah, I'm an older guy - so if I start about Windows 10 for example, it's just a matter of time before some millennial smarty-pants feels compelled to tell me I just need to accept it and move on. They really fail to see the point; where (I feel) people like you and I learned about computers in a way that included the importance of privacy and being 'stand-alone'. Nowadays, people - especially younger people, it seems - have no problem agreeing to give up this info or that, subscribe to this or that...all so they can watch stupid cat videos for "free" or what-have-you. It's not free; the commodity, as they say, is now the user.

Anyhow, like you said, I'll stop whining about it now, otherwise I'll get in trouble for discussing this stuff outside the proper forum or whatever.

Something else that should probably be mentioned here concerning all that stuff about cables/specs that support 4k resolution: Most of the desktop monitors in use (worldwide) are not 4k. And by a fairly big margin; according to a source I found*, 1080 accounts for about 20%, and when 1366x768 and 1440x900 are added to 1080, it accounts for over 53%. Throw in all the other various resolutions, and it winds up that roughly 82% of desktop monitors in use are less than 4k resolution.

Not only that, but you also have to consider that most people also don't have (and possibly cannot afford) GPUs that would effectively drive such a resolution. For example, one setup gamers often use is to have three 1080p monitors side-by-side (5760x1080); this would equal 6.2 million pixels. By comparison, going to a single 4k display increases that to 8.3 million pixels - that's 33% more than what was already a fairly stout load for even high-end GPUs. Although prices will continue to come down, GPUs that will run 4k at frame rates most gamers expect are still fairly steep. I would venture that the overwhelming majority of people here are using GPUs that are not capable of running 4k at 60FPS, and further that many if not most don't wish/plan to spend the kind of money on a GPU that would be required to do so.

Of course, I do realize things will change over time, but I think it's still a long time before 4k becomes any sort of standard. If you're one of the fortunate ones who can afford all that, good on ya. And if you have a GPU that can drive higher than 1080p @60Hz, or if you're using G-Sync etc, then yes, you will need DIsplayPort. But I think the evidence shows most are not in that range yet. I honestly believe even G-Sync users are still in the minority by far, for that matter.

* source: http://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/desktop/worldwide

Thanks for the info! I suspect, based on what I've read here, that my old HDMI cable was the problem.

Whatever the problem, I'm damned glad that it's working now and looks great.

Nowi