Adapting an old Dell monitor to a new GC - is it possible and worth it?

ReveurGAM

Great
Sep 28, 2022
160
6
85
0
I have been happily using an old Dell P2411H 24" display for quite some time but, unfortunately, it only offers the VGA (blue plug) port and USB. I just got an XFX Speedster Swift 319 16 GB PCIe 4.0 Radeon RX 6800 XT, model RX-68XTAQ., which has DP and HDMI. I'm told I could get an adapter to be able to continue to use my monitor. Is that true and will it be worth it? Or, should I get the adapter first and save up for a worthy display?
 
Last edited:

Aeacus

Champion
Ambassador
HDMI and DisplayPort are only digital, so you have to use active adapter, which costs quite a lot.

Though, overall, digital input displays are better (modern) and i suggest that you retire your analog display monitor.

This is so with all progress. There used to be VHS tapes. Then there were CDs. Now, there are DVDs and Blu-Ray discs for movies. Or at the beginning, there were 5.25" floppy disks. Then 3.5" floppy. Afterwards came CD, DVD and Blu-Ray. While nowadays, USB thumb drives are best for portability.
 
Reactions: ReveurGAM

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
HDMI and DisplayPort are only digital, so you have to use active adapter, which costs quite a lot.

Though, overall, digital input displays are better (modern) and i suggest that you retire your analog display monitor.

This is so with all progress. There used to be VHS tapes. Then there were CDs. Now, there are DVDs and Blu-Ray discs for movies. Or at the beginning, there were 5.25" floppy disks. Then 3.5" floppy. Afterwards came CD, DVD and Blu-Ray. While nowadays, USB thumb drives are best for portability.
We use display port to VGA all the time where I work, and they are not that expensive. Cheaper than a new monitor. Literally just installed some, with new lenovos running RTX quadros.

My IT department orders these.
https://www.cdw.com/product/startech.com-displayport-to-vga-adapter-active-dp-to-vga-video-converter/3359931?pfm=srh
 
Reactions: ReveurGAM

Aeacus

Champion
Ambassador
Aren't most people on cloud by now?
Personally, i don't know any, myself included.

Though, cloud storage never beats local storage. E.g you can't use cloud storage to install OS. You still need local storage. USB thumb drive nowadays. Prior to that, we had DVD/CD with installation media.
And if you don't have wi-fi/cell signal to access cloud storage, what good is it then?

"Everybody" uses spotify and similar services.
Depends on where you live. E.g on my neck of the woods, FM radio is still a thing.

Cheaper than a new monitor.
True. But active adapter is still more expensive than passive adapter.
 

ReveurGAM

Great
Sep 28, 2022
160
6
85
0
HDMI and DisplayPort are only digital, so you have to use active adapter, which costs quite a lot.

Though, overall, digital input displays are better (modern) and i suggest that you retire your analog display monitor.

This is so with all progress. There used to be VHS tapes. Then there were CDs. Now, there are DVDs and Blu-Ray discs for movies. Or at the beginning, there were 5.25" floppy disks. Then 3.5" floppy. Afterwards came CD, DVD and Blu-Ray. While nowadays, USB thumb drives are best for portability.
Thanks for your input! Regarding the adapter, you have stated that they're expensive. Do active or passive ones cost anywhere close to an acceptable monitor? If so, how much? Is there any loss of quality when using an adapter, or is the loss just because of my monitor?

Actually, before 5.25" there were 8", and before that there were tape drives (really, for PCs, cassette players, which was the first thing I ever saved a program to), and before even those were punch cards. After 3.5" were the HDDs and then the optical drives, with tapes always lurking in the background (do they still use tapes for backups?). My first HDD was 100 MB for $100. Ancient facts from an old fart. ;)

Thanks!
 

ReveurGAM

Great
Sep 28, 2022
160
6
85
0
Aren't most people on cloud by now?
"Everybody" uses spotify and similar services.
I only really use "the cloud" (aka storage servers connected to the Internet) because it's pretty much an automated feature of a device I own/use, and certain specific built-in functions (like synced passwords). Other than that, I prefer to save things to my computer and not leave them out in a treasure chest that might be guarded by honeypots and dragons, but might have the doors essentially left wide open, since it has been SOP for several companies to put minimal security efforts into protecting collected data. It is relatively easy to protect my data on my devices, and almost impossible to protect it on a remote server (unless I encrypt it before sending it, which isn't necessarily possible with automated services). Trusting "the cloud" (and the companies and governments involved) to store sensitive data is like putting $1,000 bills into a jar and putting that jar on a street corner.

I don't use Spotify, which doesn't qualify as a storage service since they're just keeping track of your playlists and ownership, nor do I use similar services. I listen to my favorite radio station's stream.
 
I only really use "the cloud" (aka storage servers connected to the Internet) because it's pretty much an automated feature of a device I own/use, and certain specific built-in functions (like synced passwords). Other than that, I prefer to save things to my computer and not leave them out in a treasure chest that might be guarded by honeypots and dragons, but might have the doors essentially left wide open, since it has been SOP for several companies to put minimal security efforts into protecting collected data. It is relatively easy to protect my data on my devices, and almost impossible to protect it on a remote server (unless I encrypt it before sending it, which isn't necessarily possible with automated services). Trusting "the cloud" (and the companies and governments involved) to store sensitive data is like putting $1,000 bills into a jar and putting that jar on a street corner.

I don't use Spotify, which doesn't qualify as a storage service since they're just keeping track of your playlists and ownership, nor do I use similar services. I listen to my favorite radio station's stream.
The whole point of those streaming services is that you don't upload your own files but listen to everything that is available, which is close to everything.

Far as I know cloud means anything you use that is not on your own device and not files that you and only you uploaded.
 
Reactions: ReveurGAM

ReveurGAM

Great
Sep 28, 2022
160
6
85
0
The whole point of those streaming services is that you don't upload your own files but listen to everything that is available, which is close to everything.

Far as I know cloud means anything you use that is not on your own device and not files that you and only you uploaded.
They used to call it the world-wide web, but "the Internet" has largely replaced that, and it's the largest wide-area network (unless the Borg exist LOL). The cloud IS the Internet, too. It's really an obfuscating term that is redundant and mystifies the reality, IMO. Indeed, the Internet is not your own data, but it contains some of your data and data about you (whether or not you intentionally gave it).

When I saw "on cloud," I mistakenly thought you were referring to storage services like Google Drive, Microsoft One, Box, etc. Sorry about that. So, yes, I guess you could say most people are on the Internet, if you don't count the millions who have little to no access. ;) When there are 8 billion on Earth, millions becomes a pretty small percentage. ;)
 

Aeacus

Champion
Ambassador
Regarding the adapter, you have stated that they're expensive. Do active or passive ones cost anywhere close to an acceptable monitor? If so, how much? Is there any loss of quality when using an adapter, or is the loss just because of my monitor?
Passive adapter, which just takes one form of connector to another, essentially costs peanuts.
E.g this DP to HDMI is 8 bucks,
amazon: https://www.amazon.com/DisplayPort-Gold-Plated-Avacon-Display-Adapter/dp/B01FX3K7T2
You can find them cheaper too.

Active adapter, on the other hand, has to have "brain" inside it, to transform digital to analog or vice-versa. Thus, inherently, they cost more.
E.g this DP to VGA, which costs 5x times more than above adapter, at 40 bucks,
amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Accell-B101B-003B-DisplayPort-Active-Adapter/dp/B003HC85D2

Monitors start as low as 70 bucks,
pcpp: https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#sort=price&page=1
You can find monitors on 2nd hand market even cheaper, if not completely free.

As of what is "acceptable monitor", is individual.
To me, and the fact that i can buy brand new monitor, at the cost of ~2 active adapters, makes the active adapter expensive. If the active adapter would cost ~20 bucks, then it would be more reasonable. But then again, the "brain" part of it, at ~20 bucks, may be substandard or not work at all.

Quality loss wise, it depends on how good the active adapter is. If it's cheaply made, there most likely will be quality loss. Well made active adapter costs more and here you need to look at what point the price is "too expensive" for small active adapter.

I haven't used any active adapters to tell from experience. Closest i've used, is DVI-I to VGA, but DVI-I already carries analog signal in it, so the cable i have, is passive adapter.
 
Reactions: ReveurGAM

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
Cheap active adapters also tend to burn out after a few years if not sooner. Quite common for us to use displayport to VGA adapters to connect to old projectors and displays at work. They would die somewhat regularly. That might have changed as the chips they use got more efficient, I'm almost certain it was a lack of cooling.

Agreed, you can probably track down a used Dell monitor 1080p monitor for almost nothing. Hit up your local re-use or donation store. Probably find a used 24" business monitor in no time.

But with a 6800XT, you should be looking at a decent 1440p 144hz monitor at least. Range from about $250-300, but it will be a whole new experience.
 
Reactions: ReveurGAM

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Reactions: ReveurGAM

Aeacus

Champion
Ambassador
$40 for an active adapter is too high. Even the ones we use at work are only $27. Amazon has them for even less, than CDW, at $20. https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-DP2VGA3-DisplayPort-Adapter-Converter/dp/B00JQJV4OC/ref=sr_1_4?crid=133QW8134T40S&th=1
That's the age old dilemma, if to buy expensive hardware (better build quality and reliability) or cheap hardware. That's for each person to decide on their own.

Personally, i prefer to buy reliable hardware, rather than cheap hardware.
 
Reactions: ReveurGAM

ReveurGAM

Great
Sep 28, 2022
160
6
85
0
Thanks! Which is a better idea: DP to VGA or HDMI to VGA? Which is more likely to work correctly with a passive adapter? Any other thoughts on this?

As much as I'd like to imagine that I could get a worthy display for $70, it would be open-box or refurbished, or a crappy brand/model. I got my son an MSI 1800R MAG240CR for $150. I would definitely prefer a contrast ratio of at least 3,000:1, 1000R curvature, 178 degree or more viewing angle, >144MHz refresh, <1 ms response time, high DCI-P3/sRGB %age, >1980x1020 res., and so on, with AHVA/IPS (is there better yet?). Right now I have to fix my car brakes and replace my phone on top of the computer I'm building, so I may have to hold off on a new display. I'm not going to wait for the new LG Xeneon Flex (or whatever the name is), though. ;) I don't need to be on the cutting edge of tech - that's just foolishness for most people to chase after fads and the newest stuff.
 

Aeacus

Champion
Ambassador
DP to VGA or HDMI to VGA? Which is more likely to work correctly with a passive adapter? Any other thoughts on this?
DP/HDMI to VGA is only active adapter. Passive adapter doesn't work.

As of which of the two, i'd prefer DP to VGA. Even my current monitor (very similar to your son's, MSI MAG241CR) is connected via DP to DP cable to my GPU.

HDMI can have issues, namely not working before GPU drivers are installed. Also, with HDMI, there are many revisions of the port and cable itself, defining what it supports. HDMI is more common with TVs while DP is more common on PC monitors.
Here's a bit further reading about the two: https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/hdmi-vs-displayport-which-should-i-use-for-my-pc-monitor
 
Reactions: ReveurGAM

ReveurGAM

Great
Sep 28, 2022
160
6
85
0
DP/HDMI to VGA is only active adapter. Passive adapter doesn't work.

As of which of the two, i'd prefer DP to VGA. Even my current monitor (very similar to your son's, MSI MAG241CR) is connected via DP to DP cable to my GPU.

HDMI can have issues, namely not working before GPU drivers are installed. Also, with HDMI, there are many revisions of the port and cable itself, defining what it supports. HDMI is more common with TVs while DP is more common on PC monitors.
Here's a bit further reading about the two: https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/hdmi-vs-displayport-which-should-i-use-for-my-pc-monitor
Thanks for that info! Very useful!
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
That's the age old dilemma, if to buy expensive hardware (better build quality and reliability) or cheap hardware. That's for each person to decide on their own.

Personally, i prefer to buy reliable hardware, rather than cheap hardware.
I have multiple of those adapters, throughout the plant I work at. Not a single one has failed, and some of them haven't been in the best environments. I still recommend going with the adapter, and getting a nice monitor later.
 
Reactions: ReveurGAM

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS