HDMI or Displayport

My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080,
I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

Rene

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080,
I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

Rene

I ended up using HDMI, because if I put my computer to
sleep, when it wakes up, it makes the daft decision
(sometimes) to drive the signal out on the HDMI connector,
even when no cable is plugged into that port. Me leaving
the thing cabled with DisplayPort, would thus not end well.
Eventually I would wake the computer, then have to fiddle with
cables to get a picture back again.

So while normally the choice would be arbitrary at
low resolutions like 1920x1080, sometimes your
video card will "wobble a bit" and make the
decision for you. Mine chose HDMI, for reasons known
only to itself.

Each of the connector standards has a version number,
and the max res changes with that version number. If
you had a 5K or 8K monitor, it might be rather difficult
to drive one of those monitors in any case. DisplayPort
might currently have the edge, at those lofty heights.
There are some monitors that you drive with two
HDMI connectors, for comparison. If your monitor of choice
is 4K (or higher), you need to consider your
options a lot more carefully (to avoid the "my computer
can't drive that, and I can't upgrade it either" problem).

At 1920 though, it would take a pretty crusty computer,
to not be able to drive that.

There are other minor issues.

There is color depth (8 bit versus 10 bit).

There is refresh rate (85Hz CRT provided the performance
equivalent of 60Hz LCD, due to the phosphor persistence
of the CRT being different). LCD monitors today, are
available up to 144Hz (for "gamers" or something). A 144Hz
monitor could also be used with red/green or shutter glasses
kind of thing.

Each of these options take their toll on the clock rate
required on the cable, and the ability of a given
digital standard, to transmit that.

And as the clock rate goes up, the max cable length gets
shorter. On digital standards, you get "colored snow"
when the transmission error rate is bad. And that's how
you know the cable is too long, or of poor quality
(mis-matched on impedance or high dielectric loss).

As you've already noticed, there's no difference. They
could bugger up the gamma if they wanted, but my
non-discerning vision cannot see any disparity there.
So I presume the lookup table is the same for both
paths.

It's possible for a monitor to have an ICC color calibration
table. And there's some "trick" in Windows, to supporting
more than one monitor properly. You can purchase a Spyder to
calibrate each monitor, but the question is, how do you
get Windows to accept the custom calibrations on more than
one monitor. There was some web page out there with details,
but it's been a long time since anyone asked a question
about that.

Paul

On 2019-05-24 1:54 p.m., Paul wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x
1080, I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

Rene

I ended up using HDMI, because if I put my computer to
sleep, when it wakes up, it makes the daft decision
(sometimes) to drive the signal out on the HDMI connector,
even when no cable is plugged into that port. Me leaving
the thing cabled with DisplayPort, would thus not end well.
Eventually I would wake the computer, then have to fiddle with
cables to get a picture back again.

So while normally the choice would be arbitrary at
low resolutions like 1920x1080, sometimes your
video card will "wobble a bit" and make the
decision for you. Mine chose HDMI, for reasons known
only to itself.

Each of the connector standards has a version number,
and the max res changes with that version number. If
you had a 5K or 8K monitor, it might be rather difficult
to drive one of those monitors in any case. DisplayPort
might currently have the edge, at those lofty heights.
There are some monitors that you drive with two
HDMI connectors, for comparison. If your monitor of choice
is 4K (or higher), you need to consider your
options a lot more carefully (to avoid the "my computer
can't drive that, and I can't upgrade it either" problem).

At 1920 though, it would take a pretty crusty computer,
to not be able to drive that.

There are other minor issues.

There is color depth (8 bit versus 10 bit).

There is refresh rate (85Hz CRT provided the performance
equivalent of 60Hz LCD, due to the phosphor persistence
of the CRT being different). LCD monitors today, are
available up to 144Hz (for "gamers" or something). A 144Hz
monitor could also be used with red/green or shutter glasses
kind of thing.

Each of these options take their toll on the clock rate
required on the cable, and the ability of a given
digital standard, to transmit that.

And as the clock rate goes up, the max cable length gets
shorter. On digital standards, you get "colored snow"
when the transmission error rate is bad. And that's how
you know the cable is too long, or of poor quality
(mis-matched on impedance or high dielectric loss).

As you've already noticed, there's no difference. They
could bugger up the gamma if they wanted, but my
non-discerning vision cannot see any disparity there.
So I presume the lookup table is the same for both
paths.

It's possible for a monitor to have an ICC color calibration
table. And there's some "trick" in Windows, to supporting
more than one monitor properly. You can purchase a Spyder to
calibrate each monitor, but the question is, how do you
get Windows to accept the custom calibrations on more than
one monitor. There was some web page out there with details,
but it's been a long time since anyone asked a question
about that.

Â*Â* Paul

Thanks Paul, I am hooked up with a 6 foot HDMI to HDMI cable at present,
So will leave it as is as it looks great, My old Spyder II gave up on me
a couple years ago so I did not buy another one.
By the way, the problem I was having with the Intel Graphics Commander
Center program for Intel UHD 630 a couple weeks ago was not an Intel
problem, It was a Windows 10 1809 or some program associated with it
problem, Since I Did a complete new install of 1903 the problem is gone.

Rene

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080,
I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

Rene

My vid card and monitor can do DP 144 Hz which is noticibly better than
120 Hz for my games. The bad part, at least for me, is that the DP
driver must be loaded before Win7 starts in order to make uefi/bios
visible and I have not found a way to do that. So, for changing the
bios I have to either change the cable to hdmi, do the bios work, and
then remove the hdmi cable (since the monitor or vid card will default
to hdmi) or use a small monitor just for hdmi (prefered method).

On 2019-05-24 4:37 p.m., Paul in Houston TX wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080,
I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

Rene

My vid card and monitor can do DP 144 Hz which is noticibly better than
120 Hz for my games.Â* The bad part, at least for me, is that the DP
driver must be loaded before Win7 starts in order to make uefi/bios
visible and I have not found a way to do that.Â* So, for changing the
bios I have to either change the cable to hdmi, do the bios work, and
then remove the hdmi cable (since the monitor or vid card will default
to hdmi) or use a small monitor just for hdmi (prefered method).


My monitor only does 60 Hz so that is not a problem, But I play mostly
Older games, Such as Half-Life and half-Life 2 and mods for both, So the
Intel UHD 630 graphics on the i7 8700 CPU work great with plenty good
frame rates. so I will not need a graphics card now.

Rene

On Fri, 24 May 2019 12:16:48 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080,


CPU? That doesn't sound anything like a CPU to me!


I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

Rene

On Fri, 24 May 2019 15:13:07 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2019 12:16:48 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080,


CPU? That doesn't sound anything like a CPU to me!

LOL

Yes, CPU. The Intel 8700 (like many Intel CPUs) has the UHD 630 Graphics
(GPU) included or embedded, whatever it's called. I have the same CPU as
Rene and like him, I use the CPU as my 'video card'.

On Fri, 24 May 2019 16:54:35 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

My monitor only does 60 Hz so that is not a problem, But I play mostly
Older games, Such as Half-Life and half-Life 2 and mods for both, So the
Intel UHD 630 graphics on the i7 8700 CPU work great with plenty good
frame rates. so I will not need a graphics card now.

Rene,
I remember discussing the video topic when you were getting ready to
build your new system. I recommended that you try the UHD 630 graphics
before spending money on a dedicated video card. I'm glad it's working
out for you! You can always add a dedicated video card later, of course,
if your needs change.

On 2019-05-24 5:13 p.m., Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 12:16:48 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080,


CPU? That doesn't sound anything like a CPU to me!


I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

Rene

Hi ken, Yeah the new CPUs have built in graphics cards, so to speak,
This i7 8700 has 6 cores plus hyper-treading which gives it virtually 12
cores plus a GPU built onto the same die thus eliminating the need for a
separate video cardfor general use
Not meant for heavy gaming but works great for the lighter and older Games.
I was happy with my old HD5850 card but this onboard CPU/GPU benches
about twice as fast for graphics.
Makes me quite happy (in the wallet) as I don't have to buy a new Video
card.

Rene

On 2019-05-24 5:59 p.m., Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 16:54:35 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

My monitor only does 60 Hz so that is not a problem, But I play mostly
Older games, Such as Half-Life and half-Life 2 and mods for both, So the
Intel UHD 630 graphics on the i7 8700 CPU work great with plenty good
frame rates. so I will not need a graphics card now.

Rene,
I remember discussing the video topic when you were getting ready to
build your new system. I recommended that you try the UHD 630 graphics
before spending money on a dedicated video card. I'm glad it's working
out for you! You can always add a dedicated video card later, of course,
if your needs change.



Hi Char, Now that I have the Intel Graphics Commander program working
right with the new Windows 10 1903 And Intels support help, I am
completely satisfied with the UHD 630 Graphics and will not need a new
video card, $300 saved which makes me happy. :-)

Rene

On Fri, 24 May 2019 18:07:45 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 2019-05-24 5:13 p.m., Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 12:16:48 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080,


CPU? That doesn't sound anything like a CPU to me!


I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

Rene

Hi ken, Yeah the new CPUs have built in graphics cards, so to speak,
This i7 8700 has 6 cores plus hyper-treading which gives it virtually 12
cores plus a GPU built onto the same die thus eliminating the need for a
separate video cardfor general use
Not meant for heavy gaming but works great for the lighter and older Games.
I was happy with my old HD5850 card but this onboard CPU/GPU benches
about twice as fast for graphics.
Makes me quite happy (in the wallet) as I don't have to buy a new Video
card.


Thanks for the explanation (and thanks to Char too). That's new to me.

On 2019-05-24 7:25 p.m., Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 18:07:45 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 2019-05-24 5:13 p.m., Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 12:16:48 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080,


CPU? That doesn't sound anything like a CPU to me!


I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

Rene

Hi ken, Yeah the new CPUs have built in graphics cards, so to speak,
This i7 8700 has 6 cores plus hyper-treading which gives it virtually 12
cores plus a GPU built onto the same die thus eliminating the need for a
separate video cardfor general use
Not meant for heavy gaming but works great for the lighter and older Games.
I was happy with my old HD5850 card but this onboard CPU/GPU benches
about twice as fast for graphics.
Makes me quite happy (in the wallet) as I don't have to buy a new Video
card.


Thanks for the explanation (and thanks to Char too). That's new to me.



Your most welcome. :-)

Rene

Rene Lamontagne wrote in
:

On 2019-05-24 5:13 p.m., Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 12:16:48 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x
1080,


CPU? That doesn't sound anything like a CPU to me!


I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

Rene

Hi ken, Yeah the new CPUs have built in graphics cards, so to speak,
This i7 8700 has 6 cores plus hyper-treading which gives it virtually
12 cores plus a GPU built onto the same die thus eliminating the need
for a separate video cardfor general use
Not meant for heavy gaming but works great for the lighter and older
Games. I was happy with my old HD5850 card but this onboard CPU/GPU
benches about twice as fast for graphics.
Makes me quite happy (in the wallet) as I don't have to buy a new
Video card.

Rene

I built my system six years ago with an AMD A10 5800K APU [CPU+GPU]. My
gaming level runs to SimCity, so that setup worked for me until I started
transcoding a bunch of my video files from 1080p to 720p. [You may
remember the discussion a while back]. I went ahead and invested in an M
SI GEFORCE GTX 1050, which worked great.
I hadn't heard that Intel was doing the combined processor/gpu
combination with their new chips.

lonelydad wrote:

I hadn't heard that Intel was doing the combined processor/gpu
combination with their new chips.

Since the Arrandale/Clarkdale CPUs released in early 2010

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
My new CPU with UHD 630 graphics and Asus z390 MB output either
Displayport or HDMI to my Asus MX279 27 inch IPS monitor at 1920 x 1080,
I don't use the sound on the display only video.
I have tried both hookups and do not see any difference, Is there a
preference or does it really matter?
Thanks for any input.

For that setup? No.