DVI vs VGA

  • Thread starter Thread starter JethroUK©
  • Start date Start date
J

JethroUK©

Just bought a new machine (base unit only) - opened the box - plugged my VGA
monitor in - 'No Signal'

Fearing this was a faulty unit & i don't want blame for twiddling i re
packed it in the box - sealed it up ready to post back tomorrow morning

Done a little research on the web i discovered it has ATI Radeon x1650se
video card & on reflection i remember glimpsing x2 DVI ports near the bottom
of the machine & paid them no heed - the only reason i know they're DVI
ports is because my TV has one - i'm still reluctant to unpack it all again
until i'm sure i'm right - my questions are:

A/ Does this sound like a video card and is this where i should've plugged
my monitor in? sounds crazy but i just happen to have a DVI>VGA adaptor that
came with my TV

B/ Shouldn't the std VGA port have worked anyway - this was blanked off and
half way up the machine (so nothing to do with the ATI card)

C/ i read here http://tinyurl.com/34z79h that ATI Radeon x1650se also has
VGA slot but i didn't see one at all - Is that right or must i connect using
DVI
 
JethroUK© said:
Just bought a new machine (base unit only) - opened the box - plugged my
VGA
monitor in - 'No Signal'

Fearing this was a faulty unit & i don't want blame for twiddling i re
packed it in the box - sealed it up ready to post back tomorrow morning

Done a little research on the web i discovered it has ATI Radeon x1650se
video card & on reflection i remember glimpsing x2 DVI ports near the
bottom
of the machine & paid them no heed - the only reason i know they're DVI
ports is because my TV has one - i'm still reluctant to unpack it all
again
until i'm sure i'm right - my questions are:

A/ Does this sound like a video card and is this where i should've plugged
my monitor in? sounds crazy but i just happen to have a DVI>VGA adaptor
that
came with my TV
Click to expand...

Yes you should connect monitor to the video card.
They should really have supplied it with a DVI to VGA adapter fitted.

B/ Shouldn't the std VGA port have worked anyway - this was blanked off
and
half way up the machine (so nothing to do with the ATI card)
Click to expand...

Only if you take out the video card, which would be pretty daft as the built
in VGA is probably rubbish compared with the ATi card.
C/ i read here http://tinyurl.com/34z79h that ATI Radeon x1650se also has
VGA slot but i didn't see one at all - Is that right or must i connect
using
DVI
Click to expand...

It's probably supposed to come with a DVI to VGA adapter.
 
thanks - i'll get it back out of the box and try again with my DVI>VGA
adaptor


| | > Just bought a new machine (base unit only) - opened the box - plugged my
| > VGA
| > monitor in - 'No Signal'
| >
| > Fearing this was a faulty unit & i don't want blame for twiddling i re
| > packed it in the box - sealed it up ready to post back tomorrow morning
| >
| > Done a little research on the web i discovered it has ATI Radeon x1650se
| > video card & on reflection i remember glimpsing x2 DVI ports near the
| > bottom
| > of the machine & paid them no heed - the only reason i know they're DVI
| > ports is because my TV has one - i'm still reluctant to unpack it all
| > again
| > until i'm sure i'm right - my questions are:
| >
| > A/ Does this sound like a video card and is this where i should've
plugged
| > my monitor in? sounds crazy but i just happen to have a DVI>VGA adaptor
| > that
| > came with my TV
|
| Yes you should connect monitor to the video card.
| They should really have supplied it with a DVI to VGA adapter fitted.
|
|
| > B/ Shouldn't the std VGA port have worked anyway - this was blanked off
| > and
| > half way up the machine (so nothing to do with the ATI card)
|
| Only if you take out the video card, which would be pretty daft as the
built
| in VGA is probably rubbish compared with the ATi card.
|
| > C/ i read here http://tinyurl.com/34z79h that ATI Radeon x1650se also
has
| > VGA slot but i didn't see one at all - Is that right or must i connect
| > using
| > DVI
|
| It's probably supposed to come with a DVI to VGA adapter.
|
| --
|
| Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
| (e-mail address removed)
| To email me remove the letter vee.
|
|
 
First, don't confuse the video CHIP (x1650se) with a video CARD using
that chip (of which there could be dozens made by different manufacturers).

From your description, we would infer that the back of your computer
has THREE video sockets ... on VGA and two DVI. This is an EXTREMELY
non-standard configuration, and if that's what you have, it's almost a
certainty that you either used the wrong socket and/or that you don't
have the video subsystem(s) configured properly.

I'm going to guess that you have a configuration consisting of both
onboard video on the motherboard (could be either chipset video OR a
discreet video chip (including possibly an x1650se) AND also a separate
video card plugged into some video slot (could be AGP or could be PCI
Express).

In any combination of those cases, one of the video chips is "primary"
and if one of those chips is on a board with two ports, one of those
ports may be "primary" or, alternatively, the board may just detect
which ports you have something plugged into.

Whatever, this looks FAR more likely to be a configuration issue and not
anything defective. I'd try all 3 ports. Once you do get a picture,
you may be able to go into the BIOS and/or the Windows display
properties and select how you want to use this [confusing] plethora of
options.
 
Barry said:
From your description, we would infer that the back of your computer
has THREE video sockets ... on VGA and two DVI. This is an EXTREMELY
non-standard configuration
Click to expand...

Is it?

I would have thought that a motherboard with on-board graphics and a VGA out
slot, plus a graphics card with twin DVI outputs, was a remarkably common
configuration these days.

I agree he probably used the wrong port, but I don't see why you would think
this to be EXTREMELY non-standard?
 
* (O)enone:
Is it?

I would have thought that a motherboard with on-board graphics and a VGA out
slot, plus a graphics card with twin DVI outputs, was a remarkably common
configuration these days.

I agree he probably used the wrong port, but I don't see why you would think
this to be EXTREMELY non-standard?
Click to expand...

It's not. In fact, this is EXTREMELY common if you have a computer with
on-board gfx (which often can be found in entry level PCs) that gets
upgraded with a gfx card.

I also can't see which standards this configuration should be against.

Benjamin
 
(O)enone said:
Is it?

I would have thought that a motherboard with on-board graphics and a VGA out
slot, plus a graphics card with twin DVI outputs, was a remarkably common
configuration these days.

I agree he probably used the wrong port, but I don't see why you would think
this to be EXTREMELY non-standard?
Click to expand...
 
I didn't say it was "against" any standard. But what I am saying is
that if you looked at all PCs that exist, and asked "how many have three
video connectors on the back", the answer would probably be less than 1%
(considering in part that probably 95% have only one video connector).
 
* Barry Watzman:
I didn't say it was "against" any standard. But what I am saying is
that if you looked at all PCs that exist, and asked "how many have three
video connectors on the back", the answer would probably be less than 1%
(considering in part that probably 95% have only one video connector).
Click to expand...

No. If you look at all PCs that exist the first thing you will find out
is that the majority of all PCs has on-board gfx with mostly only one
VGA port (that's btw. why intel still is the biggest manufacturer of PC
gfx hardware). And when looking on all these PCs with on-board gfx you
will find out that probably at least 30% have been upgraded with a gfx
card at any point, usually because their owners want to add a widescreen
display (most integrated gfx offer very limited or no widescreen support
at all), because the signal quality of the integrated gfx solution is
very poor, or because the need for better 3D performance has shown up.

And this even doesn't include PCs without integrated gfx but with
triplehead gfx (i.e. a dual head PCIe/AGP gfx and an additional PCI gfx
with only one output) which are used in lots of applications (medical
imaging, stock dealers etc). The majority of AGP and PCIe gfx cards do
have two video outputs (VGA+VGA, with the advent of TFTs becoming
VGA+DVI and today often DVI+DVI), most addon PCI gfx cards for multihead
solutions (i.e. Quadro NVS) only have one gfx connector (VGA, DVI or DMS59).

So no, having three video connectors on a computer is far from being
"EXTREMELY non-standard", and the percentage of computers with three
connectors on the back is very likely much more than 1%.

Benjamin
 
Benjamin Gawert said:
* Barry Watzman:


No. If you look at all PCs that exist the first thing you will find out is
that the majority of all PCs has on-board gfx with mostly only one VGA
port (that's btw. why intel still is the biggest manufacturer of PC gfx
hardware). And when looking on all these PCs with on-board gfx you will
find out that probably at least 30% have been upgraded with a gfx card at
any point, usually because their owners want to add a widescreen display
(most integrated gfx offer very limited or no widescreen support at all),
because the signal quality of the integrated gfx solution is very poor, or
because the need for better 3D performance has shown up.

And this even doesn't include PCs without integrated gfx but with
triplehead gfx (i.e. a dual head PCIe/AGP gfx and an additional PCI gfx
with only one output) which are used in lots of applications (medical
imaging, stock dealers etc). The majority of AGP and PCIe gfx cards do
have two video outputs (VGA+VGA, with the advent of TFTs becoming VGA+DVI
and today often DVI+DVI), most addon PCI gfx cards for multihead solutions
(i.e. Quadro NVS) only have one gfx connector (VGA, DVI or DMS59).

So no, having three video connectors on a computer is far from being
"EXTREMELY non-standard", and the percentage of computers with three
connectors on the back is very likely much more than 1%.

Benjamin
Click to expand...

Apparently, in your world. From what I've seen the use of
on-board video is pretty much restricted to corporate cubicles
or cheap "e-machine" type starter systems. Anyone with enough
interest to frequent these newsgroups, will have a motherboard
that supports a real video card.

With no numbers to work with, I would say that it would be
very rare that anyone reading this, is buying a MB with built-in
video. Now there are probably still more units sold to
corporations than to individuals, so there is a base of such MB,
but I don't know how many are getting upgraded to multi-head
vid cards by a corporation that supplies the on-board video, in
the first place. 1% could be a high estimate, in my opinion.

Luck;
Ken
 
* Ken Maltby:
Apparently, in your world. From what I've seen the use of
on-board video is pretty much restricted to corporate cubicles
or cheap "e-machine" type starter systems. Anyone with enough
interest to frequent these newsgroups, will have a motherboard
that supports a real video card.
Click to expand...

Apparently, in your world.
With no numbers to work with, I would say that it would be
very rare that anyone reading this, is buying a MB with built-in
video. Now there are probably still more units sold to
corporations than to individuals, so there is a base of such MB,
but I don't know how many are getting upgraded to multi-head
vid cards by a corporation that supplies the on-board video, in
the first place. 1% could be a high estimate, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but your opinion is still wrong. As I already said intel is the
leader in PC gfx regarding volume. They don't make separate GPUs any
more but only integrated gfx within their chipset. Of course you're
right when saying that a lot of PCs with these chipsets go into the
business market, but not all of them. Besides that, companies like SiS,
VIA and also Nvidia are producing chipsets with integrated gfx for
several years now, and most of these chipsets address the entry level
home PC and not the corporate market (which only until one or two years
ago was mainly reluctant when buying anything else than intel).

You just have to see what the majority of entry level PCs uses - right,
chipset gfx. And you often also find chipset gfx in mediacenter PCs
(livingroom computers).

And yes, that's apparently in my world. But at least in this case this
world is the reality.

Benjamin
 
Benjamin Gawert said:
* Ken Maltby:


Apparently, in your world.


Maybe, but your opinion is still wrong. As I already said intel is the
leader in PC gfx regarding volume. They don't make separate GPUs any more
but only integrated gfx within their chipset. Of course you're right when
saying that a lot of PCs with these chipsets go into the business market,
but not all of them. Besides that, companies like SiS, VIA and also Nvidia
are producing chipsets with integrated gfx for several years now, and most
of these chipsets address the entry level home PC and not the corporate
market (which only until one or two years ago was mainly reluctant when
buying anything else than intel).

You just have to see what the majority of entry level PCs uses - right,
chipset gfx. And you often also find chipset gfx in mediacenter PCs
(livingroom computers).

And yes, that's apparently in my world. But at least in this case this
world is the reality.

Benjamin
Click to expand...

I'm somewhat surprised you didn't include all the laptops in
your "integrated GFX" tally. With that, you could even claim
posting your opinion in "alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati" can be
stretched to make a little sense.

So, how many home PC users would you say are using VM
motherboards? You must have some practical estimate to base
your posting on, what is it? A percentage of the home PC MBs
currently in use? Personally I think lumping in the livingroom
appliances, to be cheating, but go ahead.

Since I don't respond to surveys, it would be hypocritical to
suggest one here, but I wonder how many readers would opt
for integrated/MB video over a discrete videocard? Or
perhaps how many have?

Luck;
Ken
 
* Ken Maltby:
I'm somewhat surprised you didn't include all the laptops in
your "integrated GFX" tally. With that, you could even claim
posting your opinion in "alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati" can be
stretched to make a little sense.
Click to expand...

Intel is also the volume leader in the desktop gfx market.
So, how many home PC users would you say are using VM
motherboards? You must have some practical estimate to base
your posting on, what is it? A percentage of the home PC MBs
currently in use? Personally I think lumping in the livingroom
appliances, to be cheating, but go ahead.

Since I don't respond to surveys, it would be hypocritical to
suggest one here, but I wonder how many readers would opt
for integrated/MB video over a discrete videocard? Or
perhaps how many have?
Click to expand...

Simply a lot of users that either don't have the necessary knowledge to
see the difference between integrated gfx and a gfx card or that just
want a system for 2D work.

You just have to open your eyes and have a look on what most entry level
computers (the part with the biggest growth rate) are powered with. No
matter if brand name or custom built.

Benjamin
 
Back
Top