Is Displayport preferable to DVI for monitor connections?

Question

I'm currently running a single Dell 24" (2408WFP) screen, but am considering adding a second. The problem I've got is that I'm currently using the DVI connector to the on board graphics, so will need to purchase a new graphics card.

The 2408WFP also has HDMI and DisplayPort inputs, so I was wondering if DisplayPort is worth considering at present over DVI? On the same subject, does anyone actually manufacture reasonably priced DisplayPort cards - all I've managed to find seem to very expensive workstation cards aimed at financial/design/simulation markets.

Answer 1

For your use there is no special advantage to DisplayPort, and in some future where all video cards use DisplayPort, there is an easy adapter for DisplayPort->DVI so your monitor won't be obsolete.

The only advantage DisplayPort would give you right now where if you where running a 30" or other very high resolution panel, where you could use a single DisplayPort connector instead of two DVI connectors. If you need to play content protected video (i.e. Blueray) you will be far more likely to get compatiblity with HDMI then with DisplayPort, simply because of the rate of adoption.

DisplayPort is mainly positioned against HDMI, and besides the better licencing arrangement, DisplayPort offers a packet based interface instead of HDMI/DVI/VGAs single serial stream of video data. This means a DisplayPort cable can potentially carry several signals at once (for example a webcam built into a monitor wouldn't need a seperate USB cable). It is also of use in eventually reducing the cost of monitors, since it does not require the LCD to have a seperate controller (this makes no difference until all other connectors are dropped from the LCD, so it's mainly laptop LCDs that benefit).

Except for issues with content protected video, or non-sRGB displays, DisplayPort offers no difference in display quality over DVI.

Answer 2

I would agree with MicTech and add one thing... That DisplayPort is not some "proprietary system" it is a standard. A standard that is only used by a couple of companies but a standard none the less.

I have several DisplayPort items and have had no problems with them thus far.

UPDATE:

As far as inexpensive cards... I found this ATI one on Newegg. No review as of yet but specs seem ok depending on what you plan on doing with it.

Answer 3

I think, DiplayPort is future, but now waste money if you want second LCD.

My recommendation is, buy new graphic card with two DVI ports.

Here is good comparsion for DVI, HDMI, UDI and DisplayPort.

A comparison of next-gen display interfaces

Answer 4

One of the core things about Display Port that many are missing is that displayport does not require any licensing fee's to use. It is free to implement. HDMI requires a usage fee because of its proprietary license.

DisplayPort shares many of the same benefits of HDMI, picture quality is comparable to any of the digital interfaces, and has no silly usage fees.

It is starting to be used, so you should start seeing more and more of it. Dell is now putting in it in by default in some of their desktops for the built on video. I have it on my work computer. I would not go out of my way to get it right now, but it is part of the future. It does have advantages over other interfaces.

Quote from : http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33161/118/1/2/

This is a growing concern in the industry. There are enough talented people working on video standards today that the need for a uniform base is required. So the question becomes: is the specification in the public's domain? Can any corporation just sign up and use it without paying royalties? I was surprised to learn that most popular forward-thinking interconnects today contain some components which are still not free. DisplayPort is the only standard which offer truly free use. The HDCP encryption protocol used by DVI, HDMI, UDI and was recently added also to DisplayPort as an option, requires royalty payments. Philips' PDCP encryption protocol, currently used only by DisplayPort, is not only stronger, but it is also free.

The push is definitely for open, free standards. The newest member of the club and the one recently accepted by VESA as the new standard, DisplayPort, addresses that fact throughout its entire design.

EDIT: This is more from a manufacturing standpoint. From a user standpoint, they will use whatever becomes most popular. The average user doesn't care what the details or the politics are, just as long as it works easily for them. DisplayPort will fail if people decide not to implement/use it.

I have a monitor with display port on it. If it become commonplace, cool, I have it and can take advantage of it. If not, I got 2 dvi, hdmi, and vga to get me through. There are multiple analogies of user adoption and technology options.

Answer 5

I would personally say, no. I would much rather deal with DVI (and not have to worry about finding cables in a local store) and it's wonderful compatibility with other items than have to deal with a proprietary system fledgling standard like DisplayPort.

Give me VGA/DVI or upgrade me to HDMI. None of this DisplayPort nonsense until the costs actually justify making the switch.

Answer 6

You're questions already been answered so I'll go along with the rant. How cheap can companies get? For large corporations, HDMI prices and royalties is insignificant. The consumer truly gets very little (or nothing) out of display port as opposed to HDMI, all so a company can save a nickel on the upwords of 300 dollar monitor they are selling you. I think the reason this didn't catch on, is because companies realized that HDMI is the standard (and DVI to a lesser or equal extent) and that despite the greedy bone in their body, they were not going to change that. This thread is for the most part dead (as apparently is the format, cause it appears that only 7 or so monitors exist for display port, and even fewer for mini-display port) so I doubt anyone will read this. I see apple now includes HDMI on their mac-mini, so why not expand it to every other mac sense they already got the $10,000 yearly fee out of the way. This format is just stupid, and I don't see how anything can back it up. Apple claims that you will save time over alligning pins. Really, HDMI is incredibly easy and only lines up one way, the same as mini-display port (I can see an advantage if mini and normal display port were round or square and could fit any odd way). Don't get me wrong, I have a MBP and and I-Pod Classic, but this format choice at most should be supplementary. Apple is really good at trying to milk their consumers for their proprietary products (find me two more companies that make mini-display port monitors). Here is my source for the low fees imposed on HDMI. I am not sure if similar or more fees are on DVI, but if they are, then whoop dee do.

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/terms.aspx

Answer 7

I am a photographer, and all of you are missing one huge point. DVI is only capable of displaying 8-bit color which is only 256 levels of Red, Green and Blue. DisplyPort on the otherhand is capable of displaying 10-bit color which is 1024 levels of each. HUGE DIFFERENCE when working with images on a professional level, weather you are an illustrator, photographer or animator. You do however need a graphics card capable of displaying 10-bit properly, and if you don't have a 10-bit capable monitor, it's worthless.