Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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.

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by slhck Dec 22 '12 at 16:58

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
Thanks for all the good responses, I certainly feel a lot more knowledgable about DisplayPort now, and wish I could accept more than one answer! –  Sliff Jul 23 '09 at 18:16
    
Well, 2 years later I can tell you that you wrong and looks like DisplayPort is taking shares little by little due to WQHD hi res displays. Instead of figuring out dual link DVI-I, DVI-D for hi res panels, you can just use DisplayPort which is supported by many GPU cards now. PLus you get sound over DP, which is a feature for me since my IPS display has speakers. HDMI is only full HD capable, so no bueno. –  user182100 Dec 22 '12 at 16:32

6 Answers 6

up vote 13 down vote accepted

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.

share|improve this answer
4  
Be aware, the poster "David" is incorrect. You do not need two dvi connections for 30" monitors. You need a single connection, which is dual-link. It is ONE cable, it just has different pin configuration and handles more data. It is NOT two cables. –  user34784 Apr 20 '10 at 23:17
5  
You don't need two DVI connectors, you need a dual-link DVI connector. Same size and backwards compatible with DVI single-link, it simply has more pins. –  Mircea Chirea Jul 4 '10 at 19:33
1  
Update from 18 months later - dual-link DVI to DisplayPort adapters are still expensive. If you need a dual-link resolution (for example 2560x1600), native DisplayPort or native DVI is the way to go - no adapters! –  Shinrai Feb 24 '11 at 15:25

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.

share|improve this answer
    
That's the great thing about standards - there's so many to choose from! –  Mark Henderson Mar 22 '10 at 3:48

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

share|improve this answer
    
Agreed. The $$$ just does not justify a mass switch over to DisplayPort. Most of the people who have already jumped on the DisplayPort bandwagon are the same people that will always pay the early adopter penalty in every technology. –  TheTXI Jul 22 '09 at 17:16

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.

share|improve this answer
    
Standards and licenses are all well and good, but when it is going to cost me X amount of dollars to have a monitor with DisplayPort and my video card able to output in DisplayPort (ignoring adapters for the moment) and it's going to cost me less than that to continue with DVI or the more prevalent HDMI output, I'm going to stick with DVI or HDMI. DVI and VGA may be on the way out, but it isn't going out any time in the near future, and going the early adotper route is just going to end up costing you more money than if you wait until the "standard" actually becomes market standard. –  TheTXI Jul 22 '09 at 17:09

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.

share|improve this answer
1  
DisplayPort supports up to 16 bpc, as does dual-link DVI. You're right that single-link is limited to 8 bpc. Also of note is that it's possible to output an HDMI signal over a DVI cable, and HDMI is up to 16 bpc as well. –  Matthew Read Mar 4 '12 at 3:13

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.

share|improve this answer
1  
I'll give ya credit for mentioning dealing with different cables and compatibility, but your attitude sucks. –  Troggy Jul 22 '09 at 16:16
1  
My attitude sucks because I don't want to shell out lots more money for DisplayPort compatibility that is still in it's infancy when there are lots of other options that are just as good and a lot cheaper? –  TheTXI Jul 22 '09 at 16:58
    
@Troggy: Actually, your comment seems to indicate /your/ attitude sucks. –  Geoffrey Chetwood Jul 22 '09 at 17:01
    
@Rich True, I wont deny that. In the end, the user rules no matter what. It was mainly use of the word "nonsense" that i thought was poor. –  Troggy Jul 22 '09 at 17:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.