UKC

So our oldest got his own computer for Xmas; we just got the machine itself and have put together all the peripheries from bits and pieces in the back of cupboards etc. The monitor we already had and his new pc can both have VGA and DVI sockets and I had both cables. Is it preferable to connect them with one or the other? Or does it not make any difference at all?

We also have ethernet sockets in all the rooms, but I need some more short cables to split the incoming internet through an old wireless router that seems to work fine as a 'switch' (I believe it's called). I can buy CAT 5e or CAT 6 cables - both seem the same price, is there any reason why one would be better than the other?

In reply to TobyA: From a position of absolutely no specialist knowledge (!):

DVI allegedly 'better' than VGA (?throughput - not much use when writing essays but could be handy gaming) but AFAIK it's a small gain at best.

CAT6 ditto. Networks are only as fast as the slowest bit in them, which is unlikely to be the cables. Some of the IT guys at work prefer 5e over 6 and mutter stuff about shielding and interference.

HTH

b

In reply to TobyA:
Video: DVI should give you a better picture, if it is noticable however is another matter.

CAT 5e vs CAT 6 in a home enviroment is exactly the same, expecially over the short distance you are talking. CAT6 has a slightly higher throughput, more twists and more insulation, CAT5e will do the job just as well (unless you are running a 100m cable!)

So basically both will do the job, no advantages really.

In reply to TobyA:

DVI is digital, VGA is analogue. So in an ideal world you will get a better / sharper image using DVI at higher resolutions. You probably can't tell the difference at 1920x1080 pixels on consumer equipment.........buy the cheapest cable.

Cat 5 supports up to 100Mbps
Cat5e supports up to 1000Mbps
Cat 6 supports up to 10000Mbps

your internet connection to the outside world will be <100mbps, so unless you live in a data centre, you probably don't need cat6........buy the cheapest

cezza

In reply to TobyA:

Bloody hell, 3 replies and everyone agreeing!

(Looks out the window for the three horse men)

In reply to all:

You are all scholars and gentlemen/women. Thanks so much for super useful answers.

The computer is running Ubuntu so I'm sure I'll be back asking idiot-style how-does-this-linux-thing-work-then? style questions soon!

In reply to TobyA:

You are The Lemming and I claim my $5

In reply to cezza:


Indeed, and, assuming the monitor is LCD, it will have an ADC to convert analogue to digital used by the LCD display, so you're better off bypassing the DAC in the video card and the ADC in the monitor, and driving the LCD digital stream directly from the DVI interface.

As you say, you may not notice the difference, but at least you know that you've eliminated two possible sources of signal degradation in the video path...

In reply to cezza:

DVI can be analogue or digital.
But as everyone else said, can't see any reason why you'll have a problem whatever you use.

In reply to TobyA:
as everyone has said, CAT 6a and DVI.

I am currently running Ubuntu and with the VGA cable linux would only run 16:10 and a lower resolution. My monitor can run at 1920x1080 which only worked with DVI (and prob HDMI, but i dont have a cable). Aparently VGA can take 1080p. I think this was because there isnt enough ADC's in the graphics card to run VGA at 1080p or they spent the money on the DVI hardware which can take 1080p no problem.