Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

when is a cable not a cable - when it's a DVI-D

(1/3) > >>

nudone:
I'm really getting tired of computers; hardware if nothing else. I simply wanted an extension cable so that I can place the monitor about 3m away from the pc.

Apparently this is just too demanding of me. The universe (or the pc hardware subset, at least) has decided that I am not allowed to have a graphics card's digital signal traverse such incredible distances of 300 centimeters.

So, can anyone enlighten me as to why a DVI-D cable that is 2 meters works perfectly well (the one that came with the monitor), and a 3 meter DVI-D cable I've just purchased doesn't work at all?

The connections, i.e. number and shape of pins, that each cable has are identical - but I'm obviously a fool and can't see the blindingly obvious differences. Maybe the one that works has 10,000 angels sitting on the head of each pin (or whatever the phrase is). Somehow I need these angels to migrate over to the new 3 meter cable's pins.

Honestly, I'm just sick to death of hardware not working. This is just a DVI-D cable, how simple a piece of hardware can that be.

As a caveat: I am connecting to a 30" monitor (2560 x 1600) but I don't see why that should be an excuse.

p.s.
Yep, I've tested the 3m cable and it works perfectly well with a lower resolution monitor (1920 x 1200).

cranioscopical:
And does the 2 meter cable still now work with the 30"?

Looks as if you might need a repeater.

You're not having much fun with this machine, are you?  :(

nudone:
And does the 2 meter cable still now work with the 30"?
-cranioscopical (August 19, 2011, 02:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

Yep. The 2 meter one is fine but that came with the monitor and looks kind of "special". It looks a lot beefier than other DVI cables and has lime green coloured plugs - maybe they are made of Kryptonite.

I've also found someone else online stating they've had the same problem - only the cable that came with the monitor works (2 meters).

Can't find anyone claiming they've got a 3 meter cable to work with a 2560 x 1600 resolution screen.

Plenty of 3m cable product descriptions saying they will work at that res - but I can't say I trust them.

Maybe a repeater is the answer - but, again, I'm not sure I trust the claims unless it's from someone that has such a thing working for their own setup.

4wd:
The higher the resolution the more pixels that have to be pushed out and thus a higher transmission rate down the cable, (if you're intending to keep the same refresh rates).

The construction/quality of the cable is a major factor in whether it will work at a higher frequency, eg. thinner conductors or high percentage of contaminants in the materials will cause greater attenuation at higher frequencies.

If where you bought it, specified that it supported 2560x1600, (as this one does), and it didn't work then you'd be fully justified in getting a refund/replacement.

Here's a company in the UK advertising 3 and 5 meter cables that will work up to 2560x1600.  They're also available in a 25 meter length if you want to put the monitor next door.

EDIT: Just realised, make sure you get a DVI-D Dual Link cable.  DVI-D Single Link is restricted to 1920x1200.

nudone:
Good point. And, I am an idiot - it's official.

I did get the 3m cable via eBay, taking a bit of a chance and not spending much, around £5. I've just checked the item description and it DOES only state resolutions of 1920 x 1200 - that will teach me for not reading things thoroughly. I bought it because I just assumed DVI-D was going to work - regardless of the length.

I've now ordered another 3m one from Amazon. This is manufactured by Lindy and DOES claim to support "up to" 2560 x 1600. So, if that doesn't work I will be sending it back - I get the impression Amazon's returns system is quite painless. (This cable is about £25. There are others double the price so we shall see whether I have to resort to one of those yet.)

The repeaters were expensive and only stated supporting resolutions of up to 1920 x 1200.

Thanks for the explanation, 4wd. I'm surprised that cables are so rubbish over such small distances. I thought the "digitalness" would be more capable.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page