I thought that a graphics card with both outputs would run the same resolutions from each. My HIS Radeon 5670 iceq has a max of 2560X1600 through DVI, the HIS spec's don't give a figure for the HDMI. The AMD site gives 2560X1600 for DVI and 1920X1200 for HDMI. I've been thinking of getting a 1440P monitor, would a DVI to HDMI cable work for me or do I need a newer gpu?
Display Port or DVI will both give you what you need. I have a similar card and have used DVI without problems but when I got my new QHD 27 inch monitors I went to display port. Works fine.
The Asus monitor in question only has D-SUB and two HDMI.
The problem is that there are several HDMI standards:
HDMI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Scroll down to the Version Comparison table, near the middle of the page.)
To get 2560X1600 in DVI requires dual link. (Regardless of what it sounds like, It's a single cable.) I believe that there are no dual link DVI to HDMI 1.3 adapters; the best that you can get is single link, which is limited to 1920X1200 max.
I'm not sure, but it sounds like the 5670 doesn't support HDMI 1.3, 1.4, or 2.0.
Sounds like you need a monitor that has a dual-link DVI input.
Or a new graphics card. Or both; I'd recommend DisplayPort. (Supports UHD, 3840X2160, at 60 HZ. I'm using that with a cheapish Samsung 28" UHD monitor. I don't know how people handle higher resolutions than that. I know they exist.)
Sorry that I can't be more encouraging.
I'm not aware of any recent Asus 1440p monitor with just vga + 2hdmi. That "Asus monitor in question" must be a piece of crap. Quality for PC starts from DVI and DisplayPort. Get another one with DVI (it's most-likely dual-link, just like your GPU output)
The piece of crap is the Asus VX24AH, why they had two HDMI and a d-sub which can't reach the native resolution is a mystery to me as well.
HDMI is a consumer grade connector invented to connect mainly TV hardware like a DVD player and a PlayStation etc to a TV without the need of running multiple cables to include sound.
DVI and DisplayPort were developed by the computer industry
technically HDMI and DVI are nearly the same (video only) but for higher frequencies (high resolutions need to be travelling fast) the cable and connector quality of HDMI was not good enough.
With us wanting ever higher resolutions (the human eye can't tell the difference anymore, only our imagination can) there is a technical limitation to what can be achieved without using a fibre in stead of copper.
Why would anyone want a 22 inch monitor on a higher resolution than 1920 x 1200
The viewing distance is 1 meter (3 ft) at the most.... you simply can't tell the difference.
They investigated over 4000 households that have an HD TV and HD TV connection
Standard all receivers are set to 720 and not to 1920 x 1080 to avoid that people using an HD ready TV have no images
In over 74% of the households, the receiver was still in 720 mode
Of course the signal received from the TV cable system was HD and people claimed to be able to see the difference (images sharper, brighter colors etc)
Of course this is RUBBISH... the signal was down converted to 720.... so they is was impossible to see the difference in SD and HD.
Only on (very) large screens you might be able to tell the difference in 4K and 1K, but only if you are so much close to that screen that you would not be able to see the full screen anymore.
...... Just a thought :) :)
2560X1440, IPS. Sounds like real junk. (Sarcasm.)
The HDMI ports on the VX24AH are spec'd to support MHLx. I suppose that includes MHL3, to get resolutions above 1080P.
I became aware of MHL's existence about 30 seconds ago. I'm not sure whether any desktop graphics card supports it. (Computer Parts, Laptops, Electronics, and More - Newegg.com doesn't show any graphics cards when I search. Proves nothing, but it suggests that it's not common.)
To avoid replacing your graphics card at the resolution you want, you'd need a monitor with a dual link DVI input.
If you're willing to replace your graphics card, I'd go for a DisplayPort monitor. I think that technology is unlikely to be orphaned.
Oh, mhl, not so different, as it's still crap. And not meant for PCs, but for phones, tablets etc. Basically microusb-to-hdmi, so you can make a cheap console out of your cheap phone that can't sent a proper wireless display signal. Why would anyone want a long cable attached to their phones beats me. And you can already do this since most phones supporting this can work with a little passive adapter.
There is quite a difference between a TV and a PC MONITOR, it always was, even if the lines are more blurred now. Obvious one is that it requires a computer connection. D-SUB(if your PC predates year2k)/DVI/DisplayPort. Not HDMI (Harpert, you might need to get your technicals straight, as HDMI has tones of disadvantages vs. DVI), and hell not mhl. HDMI is basically the old tv-out replacement, nothing more in computer world.
Quote