DVI vs VGA
in [ATI Video Cards]
|
From: Ken Maltby on 22 Jul 2007 11:48 "Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert(a)gmx.de> wrote in message news:5ggj3mF3go3b4U1(a)mid.individual.net... >* 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). > > 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 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
From: Benjamin Gawert on 22 Jul 2007 18:29 * 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. 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. 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
From: Ken Maltby on 23 Jul 2007 22:52 "Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert(a)gmx.de> wrote in message news:5gi432F39d76cU1(a)mid.individual.net... >* 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. > > 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. > > 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 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
From: Benjamin Gawert on 24 Jul 2007 16:47
* 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. 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? 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 |