Hi guys I'm not too conversant with HDMI, DVI and all that - all I know is that my current monitor connects to my GPU with DVI -- that's it. So my question is, why would I need HDMI input on my monitor? My main use will be gaming and the occasional film/tv programme. The monitor's I'm choosing between are these two and the only difference I can find is that one has HDMI and the other doesn't. Therefore, which should I choose? Samsung T240 or Samsung 2433BW Thanks!
In my opinion its not important to have hdmi inputs unless you plan to connect a ps3 for example. (also hdmi also carries audio where as dvi doesnt). If you are just connecting a pc then dvi is better.
GPU's that have HDMI Usually have a Sound Input inside, so you can use just one cable. Also, for Monitors that are 16:9, useful as you have the option to use HDMI equipped devices.
Unless you intend to use the hdmi get the cheaper monitor if that is the only difference you can notice.
Go DVI. That way you can get all the pixels and don't have the audio seperation. Unless the monitor has audio out so you can use features like 5.1 why go HDMI? HDMI is great for out to HDTV (I use it) but for what you see when using your monitor I believe DVI is less a resource hog than HDMI. That could be a big difference with your gaming? For example at 1080 on the HDTV DVI will not allow "Progressive" it runs "Interlaced", 1080I vs:1080P. Since you won't see the difference why use a process that is more demanding? I am looking forward to reading more responces about this because I am also shopping to move up from my 1440X900 19" LG/ws. Since I do use the HDMI out for HDTV a second HDMI for my Monitor? DVI seems like the best answer because I want to use my 5.1 surround out of my Creative X-Fi, even though I can adjust it through sound manager. Let us know how your choice works out.
One thing you can look out for is display Port hich is the future although no grahics cards ( to date) actuallt support it. As for your monitors I had a look at both and cant really see a difference between them. Just look hard for reviews.
hdmi and dvi are identical. there's no difference in resource use. the only difference is that HDMI allows for carrying audio signals. for computer use, this is never that useful. for HTPCs it's very useful, however, as you can easily hook it up to an AV amp with one cable. it's a tossup. if i were you, i'd ignore the HDMI and buy on other merits. this is all with one caveat: ensure any monitor you buy can handle a HDCP signal. otherwise you won't be able to watch HD videos. well, you will, but they will be downscaled
You might want to look at the BenQ E2400HD too, allthough it's only 1920x1080. Got good critiques http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2008/review-benq-e2400hd.html and it has HDMI available aswell.
Great response mate, thanks. I thought that if the monitor was capable of the resolution, then it can automatically reproduce HD images...I guess it's not that simple...? Cheers mate, I'll have a look into that one, but I definitely want the extra screen real estate of a 1900x1200 display.
Only if it's got the content protection flag enabled. There are HD videos (legal ones) out there that don't have the HDCP flag on, and they don't downscale on a normal non-HDCP DVI link. However, every Blu-ray or HD-DVD and probably 99% of the legally downloadable HD movies will require HDCP, so, yes, it's better to look for that. I can't think of any HD-res monitors that don't have the HDCP capable DVI now, though...?
i went for T240 due to HDMI and overall it looks better, also considered the other monitor but it hasn't got the top glass edge nor does it have a USB hub. the monitor itself is fantastic
