It's generally recommended to avoid using VGA for computer monitors when possible. While it does work fine for most situations, the image quality can be degraded depending on the quality of the cable, and it's relatively easy to damage the cable which often results in color channels dropping out and requiring you to wiggle the cable around, and eventually replace it. On the other hand, VGA can be useful in some situations for consoles, and for using computers/laptops on TVs, since it usually avoids the overscan problems seen with HDMI (where the desktop is cut off on the edges), as well as HDCP compatibility issues that consoles sometimes have.

• DVI can do up to 1920×1080 at 144 Hz or 2560×1600 at 60 Hz (using Dual-Link DVI)
• DVI has a maximum color depth of 24 bit/px (16.7 million colors)
• DVI does not support any extra features like audio, HDR, or FreeSync

But if your monitor's specs don't go beyond these limitations, then there is no difference between using DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort. For a standard monitor which is limited to (for example) 1080p 60 Hz 24 bit/px, all three will produce identical images.

That's correct. Between DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort, there is no difference in image quality when the same image settings are used. The difference is that HDMI and DisplayPort support a wider range of possible settings, so they can be used for situations that DVI can't be used for, like 4K 60 Hz or 30 bit/px color depth. But these extra capabilities don't make them any better at doing the other things.

Basically it works like this; DVI can do some stuff. HDMI and DisplayPort can do all the stuff that DVI can do, plus some more. But the stuff that they have in common with DVI, they don't do any better than DVI does, it's just that they have extra capabilities beyond that. If you don't have a monitor that actually uses those extra capabilities, then there is no advantage to using DisplayPort or HDMI compared to DVI.

At the moment, the vast majority of displays still fall within the capabilities of DVI, so HDMI and DisplayPort are only necessary if you want the extra features like inline audio, or for higher-end display formats like 2560×1440 at 144 Hz, or 4K.

It's pretty much the same as between DVI and HDMI / DP, just between the different versions of HDMI and DisplayPort instead. There is no difference in image quality between HDMI and DisplayPort. They both produce identical images when the same image settings are used. The choice between HDMI and DisplayPort only matters if one of them (usually HDMI) doesn't support the full specs of your monitor. For example, some 4K displays only have HDMI 1.4 and DisplayPort 1.2. Since HDMI 1.4 can't do 4K 60 Hz, but DisplayPort 1.2 can, you should use DisplayPort. However, if the monitor has an HDMI version which does support 4K 60 Hz (like HDMI 2.0), then it doesn't matter whether you use HDMI or DisplayPort.

You can check the maximum resolution and refresh frequency of each interface and version here.

No, HDMI cables do not have versions. In fact, advertising a cable as an "HDMI 1.4 cable" or "HDMI 2.0 cable" or "HDMI 2.0 compliant" (etc.) has been banned by the HDMI Licensing authority since 2009 and is a violation of the licensing agreement that cable manufacturers and vendors must sign with them in order to legally use the HDMI logo and trademarks. Unfortunately HDMI Licensing does not actively enforce this, since it would involve quite a considerable legal campaign at this point. Nonetheless, the creators of the HDMI specification have specifically prohibited classifying HDMI cables by their "HDMI version", because this is not actually a property that cables have in the first place.

No. There are several different "levels" or "categories" of HDMI cables, rated by maximum bandwidth. This is not the same as an "HDMI version". HDMI version and feature support are not affected by cables. Even a Standard Speed HDMI cable can support an HDMI 2.0 or HDMI 2.1 connection between devices, and while the maximum bandwidth may be limited (the full 48.0 Gbit/s of HDMI 2.1 will not be available, for example), all other version-specific features such as HDR and VRR will still work. Using a so-called "HDMI 1.4 cable" (a High Speed HDMI cable) between two HDMI 2.0 devices will not "downgrade the connection to HDMI 1.4" and prevent all HDMI 2.0 features from working as some people believe; the only feature that is affected by the cable (besides inline Ethernet) is the maximum bandwidth, which is why cables are rated by bandwidth, and not by "HDMI version".


While it is tempting to call High Speed HDMI cables "HDMI 1.4 cables", Premium High Speed cables "HDMI 2.0 cables", and 48G cables "HDMI 2.1 cables" because the ratings of those cables match the maximum bandwidth limits set by those HDMI versions, this should be avoided for the reasons explained above. HDMI versions define more than just bandwidth limits, and calling a High Speed HDMI cable an "HDMI 1.4 cable" implies that it is necessary in order to use HDMI 1.4 features, but this is not the case. You only need it to use the 10.2 Gbit/s bandwidth introduced by HDMI 1.3/1.4, not for the other features. For this reason HDMI cables are simply rated by bandwidth, not by "HDMI version".

Also note that the certifications do not actually tell you anything about the maximum bandwidth of the cable, except that it is at least the listed amount. A High Speed certification simply means the cable was tested at 10.2 Gbit/s and functioned properly at that speed. The maximum bandwidth that the cable can handle could actually be anything above that, be it 10.3 Gbit/s, 20 Gbit/s, or 100 Gbit/s. Of course, you might think "if it could handle all the way up to the next tier of certification, it would just be rated at that tier instead!"; well yes, you'd think so, but unfortunately that isn't always the case, as we'll see below.

Some people say that High Speed HDMI cables (rated for 10.2 Gbit/s) will still work for full HDMI 2.0 bandwidth (18.0 Gbit/s), while some say you need a Premium High Speed HDMI cable (rated for 18.0 Gbit/s). Indeed it turns out many (but not all) High Speed HDMI cables do work for full HDMI 2.0 bandwidth, so a Premium High Speed HDMI cable is not necessarily required. The story behind this is somewhat more complicated than most people realize.

When HDMI 2.0 was first released, there were only two certification levels for HDMI cables, the same ones established back in HDMI 1.3:

• Category 1 ("Standard Speed") HDMI cables, which are tested to work at up to 2.25 Gbit/s
• Category 2 ("High Speed") HDMI cables, which are tested to work at up to 10.2 Gbit/s

The Premium High Speed HDMI certification did not exist at that time. Contrary to what some people believe, the HDMI 2.0 specification does not contain any kind of "HDMI 2.0 compliance test" for cables. No changes were made to the cable testing procedures or to the requirements for passing the certification compared to HDMI 1.3/1.4.

For the next two years following the release of HDMI 2.0, the HDMI Consortium insisted that cables which had passed the High Speed certification would be sufficient for the increased 18.0 Gbit/s bandwidth introduced in HDMI 2.0, and no higher levels of certification were introduced. For the most part, this turned out to be true, and many High-Speed HDMI cables (even ones that had been manufactured before HDMI 2.0 existed) did function with the increased bandwidth. Official statements from the HDMI Consortium together with many real-world examples combined to create a very solid belief that any certified High-Speed cable could handle HDMI 2.0 bandwidth, which is why many people still maintain that position to this day.

While it is true most of the time, it turns out not all High-Speed cables will work at the full 18.0 Gbit/s bandwidth, even if they have a valid High-Speed certification (not to mention the countless counterfeit non-certified cables on the market that are sold as "High-Speed"). This is particularly true with longer cables, in the 10–15 meter range (30–45 ft.). While they may be compliant with the High-Speed certification requirements, the majority of these cables will not work at full HDMI 2.0 bandwidth.

Meanwhile during these two years, a vast number of HDMI cables were manufactured in the knowledge of HDMI 2.0, including longer cables which were capable of handling full HDMI 2.0 bandwidth (18.0 Gbit/s), but only received a High-Speed certification — the highest certification available at the time — despite being more capable than other longer cables already on the market. Due to this, there are many High Speed HDMI cables which do work at full 18.0 Gbit/s HDMI 2.0 bandwidth, despite not having the Premium High Speed certification. Most of these cables were never resubmitted for certification under the new tier once it was released, or were simply sold as a different product if they were.

The failure of some High Speed cables at higher bandwidths was problematic for some though, and did not go unnoticed. Finally after numerous complaints and reports, the HDMI Consortium revised their position on the matter and released a third cable certification tier two years after the release of HDMI 2.0 called "Premium High Speed", which actually tests cables for proper operation at 18.0 Gbit/s.


So while many High Speed HDMI cables will handle the full 18.0 Gbit/s bandwidth of HDMI 2.0, it is not guaranteed, while a Premium High Speed HDMI cable has been tested to definitely work. If you're buying a new HDMI 2.0 device like a 4K TV and you have some High Speed HDMI cables already, you may not need to replace them; you should check to see if they work before buying a new HDMI cable. If you are buying a new HDMI cable though, you should look for a Premium High Speed cable.

For a more in-depth explanations, I recommend reading these articles:
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/note-about-hdmi-2.htm
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/premium-hdmi-cable.htm

Which connections can support 120+ Hz?

Which one should I use?

Isn't HDMI limited to 60 Hz?

Can I use a DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI passive adapter/cable?

Can I use an HDMI to Dual-Link DVI passive adapter/cable?

I have a G-Sync monitor that only has DisplayPort input. Can I connect the DVI or HDMI port from my PC/laptop/console to it with a passive adapter?

I have a 144 Hz monitor that only has HDMI and DVI, and my computer doesn't have a DVI port that I can use. What should I do?

In order of preference:

At 1920×1080 (2K):

• DisplayPort (any version)
• HDMI 2.0 and above(it is unusual for 1920×1080 monitors to support HDMI 2.0+, so don’t count on this option)
• Dual-Link DVI
• HDMI 1.3–1.4b (some monitors do not accept >60 Hz over HDMI, so don't count on this option either)

At 2560×1440 (2.5K):

• DisplayPort (1.2 and above)
• HDMI (2.0 and above)
• Unofficially, Dual-Link DVI can sometimes work via overclocking (i.e. setting custom resolutions), but don't count on this

At 3840×2160 (4K):

• DisplayPort (1.3 and above)

A straight DisplayPort connection is the preferred option in all cases.

At 1920×1080 if DisplayPort is not available, then use Dual-Link DVI. HDMI version 2.0 can also be used, but it is rare for a 1920×1080 display to support HDMI 2.0. Most of these monitors have HDMI 1.4 which you can try as a last resort, but it is not guaranteed to work for 120+ Hz (it depends on the monitor; some work, some don't).

At 2560×1440 if DisplayPort is not available, then HDMI can be used if the monitor and source both support HDMI 2.0 or above. If the monitor does not support HDMI 2.0+, then it will not be possible to use HDMI for 120+ Hz at 2560×1440. In this case, it may be possible to use Dual-Link DVI by setting a custom resolution, but it depends on monitor support and is not guaranteed to work.

At 3840×2160 without compression, DisplayPort 1.3 or 1.4 can be used up to 120 Hz, and HDMI 2.1 can be used up to ≈180 Hz. Frequencies higher than these limits will require Display Stream Compression (DSC), only supported by DisplayPort 1.4+ and HDMI 2.1.

No, HDMI is not limited to 60 Hz. This is a common myth. Sometimes, certain displays will not accept HDMI signals above 60 Hz even when the monitor is capable of 120+ Hz signals over other connections, but that is just a limitation of those particular products. HDMI itself allows unlimited refresh frequencies; this has been the case since version 1.0.

Notable examples of monitors which don't accept >60 Hz over HDMI are the BenQ XL2411(Z) and the ASUS VG248QE (which both use HDMI 1.4a). However, other monitors like the ViewSonic XG2401 do accept 1080p 144 Hz through HDMI 1.4a. The refresh frequency limits of HDMI at some common resolutions are listed in the table here. HDMI 1.3 and above are capable of 144 Hz at 1080p, and HDMI 2.0 is capable of 144 Hz at 1440p.

No. DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI passive adapters/cables do not actually exist. Even though most DisplayPort to DVI adapters you see for sale are “Dual-Link”, all of these are fake, they are only Single-Link DVI adapters in disguise.

The DisplayPort connector has 20 pins, which means it can be used as a Single-Link DVI-D port via a passive adapter. However, Dual-Link DVI requires 25 pins, so a DisplayPort connector does not have enough pins to emulate a Dual-Link DVI connection. The additional DVI pins on “DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI” adapters are not connected to anything at all, they are just for show, for marketing purposes. It is nothing but a Single-Link DVI-D adapter dressed up to appear like a Dual-Link DVI-D adapter.

No, for the same reason as in the above section. HDMI to Dual-Link DVI passive adapters/cables do not exist. HDMI only has 19 pins, like Single-Link DVI-D. Even though most HDMI to DVI adapters you see for sale are “Dual-Link”, all of these are fake, they are only Single-Link DVI adapters in disguise.

These HDMI to Single-Link DVI passive adapters may work for 120+ Hz if used from a DVI output (computer/source) to an HDMI input (display), due to the way passive adapters work, but this does require the monitor to accept 120+ Hz through its HDMI port, so it will not work on monitors like the BenQ XL2411Z or ASUS VG248QE, which are limited to 60 Hz on their HDMI ports.

No, DVI and HDMI outputs do not support passive adapters to DisplayPort input ports. Passive DisplayPort to DVI / HDMI adapters and cables will only work from a DisplayPort output (graphics card) to a DVI / HDMI input (monitor). They will NOT work in the reverse configuration. A DisplayPort input on a monitor will ONLY accept native DisplayPort signals.

Some 120+ Hz monitors don’t have DisplayPort input, like the BenQ/Zowie XL2411Z or the Acer GN246HL; they only have DVI and HDMI. This can be problematic in situations where no DVI ports are available, such as on laptops or some newer graphics cards that don’t have DVI output, or if you want several of these monitors but don’t have enough DVI ports for all of them.

On most of these monitors, the only way to run them at 144 Hz without a native Dual-Link DVI connection is by using a DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI active adapter. Be careful, because DisplayPort to Single-Link DVI active adapters also exist and are often fitted with fake "Dual-Link" connectors to make them look like DL-DVI adapters. True DisplayPort to DL-DVI active adapters are very expensive and bulky. If the adapter doesn't fit this description, it's probably not a Dual-Link DVI adapter.

• Can I use a DisplayPort to DVI passive adapter? — No, because Dual-Link DVI is required for 144 Hz and DisplayPort only supports passive adapters to Single-Link DVI, not Dual-Link. WARNING: Although most DisplayPort to DVI passive adapters may appear to have Dual-Link connectors on them and may say "Dual-Link DVI" in the product title and description, they are still Single-Link DVI adapters. Creating a DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI passive adapter is physically impossible, so if the adapter is passive, then it is Single-Link-only, no matter what the product title and description say.
• Can I use an HDMI to DVI passive adapter? — Exactly the same as above, just replace the word "DisplayPort" with "HDMI".
• Can I use a straight HDMI connection? — Probably not. Although HDMI has been capable of 1080p 144 Hz since version 1.3, some monitors (such as the BenQ/Zowie XL2411Z and ASUS VG248QE) will not accept >60 Hz over HDMI even though they support HDMI 1.4. This is not because "HDMI has a 60 Hz limit" (it doesn't), it's just a limitation of those particular monitors. Other monitors such as the ViewSonic XG2401 do accept 144 Hz over HDMI 1.4.

On these monitors that have no DisplayPort input and don't accept >60 Hz over HDMI (like the XL2411Z), you must use Dual-Link DVI to get 144 Hz, and the only way to do that without a native DVI port is by using a DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI active adapter.

These adapters are very expensive (≈100 USD). You may see many cheaper DisplayPort to DVI active adapters (≈20 USD), but those are only Single-Link DVI adapters and are designed for certain AMD graphics cards which require active adapters for 3+ multi-monitor configurations. Similar to DP to DVI passive adapters, most of these active adapters will be dressed up with fake Dual-Link DVI connectors, so it can be difficult to distinguish them from a true DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI converter. Here are some recommendations, but keep in mind complex active adapters like these are finicky in general and even the expensive ones are not very reliable. My best advice is, in the future when you buy a high refresh frequency monitor, make sure it has DisplayPort input.

DisplayPort 1.1 to Dual-Link DVI active adapter: Amazon US
DisplayPort 1.1 to Dual-Link DVI active adapter: Amazon US
Mini DisplayPort 1.1 to Dual-Link DVI active adapter: Amazon US

What's the Difference? (Preface)

Passive Adapters

Passive adapter compatibility is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with analog and digital

Passive adapter compatibility has nothing to do with bandwidth

Passive adapters are not necessarily limited to the lowest common denominator

Do passive adapters add any latency?

Do passive adapters reduce image quality?

Active Adapters

Do active adapters add any latency?

Do active adapters reduce image quality?

How can I tell if an adapter is passive or active?

Which type should I use?

There are a lot of myths and confusion surrounding passive and active adapters, and there seems to be very little understanding of exactly what they are, how they both work, and how to identify them. Hopefully this article will help clear things up.

First, to make some general points clear since there is a lot of misinformation spread around:

Passive Adapters:

• Compatibility is completely arbitrary and is based on how each interface (DVI, HDMI, etc.) is designed. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether signals are digital or analog.
• Passive adapters are not necessarily limited to the lowest common denominator in terms of bandwidth / feature support, etc.; this depends on the specific interfaces involved.
• Passive adapters may or may not work in both directions; this depends on the specific interfaces involved (DVI, HDMI, etc.), it does not depend on the adapter itself.

Active Adapters:

• Active adapters may or may not require additional power connectors; some do and some don't.
• Active adapters may or may not be expensive or bulky; some are and some aren't, usually it depends on the specific interfaces being converted, as some conversions are more complex than others.
• Any two interfaces can (in theory) be connected with an active adapter, although in practice not every conceivable combination of interfaces has an adapter manufactured for it.
• Capabilities (maximum bandwidth, feature support such as audio, etc.) are limited to the lowest common denominator; if one of the interfaces doesn't support something, it won't carry through an active adapter.
• Active adapters may or may not work in both directions; it depends on the specific adapter. The vast majority of active adapters only work in one direction, but it is not impossible for an active adapter to be bi-directional.

From a technical standpoint, the difference between an active adapter and a passive adapter is in the basic principle of operation. Being able to tell the difference between a passive and active adapter isn't as simple as looking for external features like power cables, bulkiness, or cost. Some active adapters require power cables, but less complex ones can get enough power directly from the port. Some active adapters, like DisplayPort to VGA, can be very inexpensive, compact, reliable, and require no power cables, and for this reason they are often mistaken or mislabeled as "passive adapters". However, these external features are not the criteria which actually define whether an adapter is passive or active.

So what is the difference exactly? Well...

There are many different signaling formats, or methods of representing and transmitting the information that makes up a video signal. Each different interface (VGA, HDMI, DisplayPort, etc.) uses a different format; they represent the information in different ways. If you (as a system designer) want your device to be able to communicate information to another device which uses a different format, there are two ways for this to happen. You can design your device to be able to communicate using the other device's format (make it "multi-lingual" in a sense), or you can insert a third-party device between them to convert the information from one format to the other en route (a "translator" if you will). A passive adapter works via the first approach, and an active adapters works via the second approach.

A passive adapter works via the first approach described in the preface. As it turns out, the ports on your graphics card or laptop or other source device can output signals in multiple different formats. For example, DisplayPort ports are not just limited to sending DisplayPort signals; they can send signals in the HDMI or DVI formats if required. Of course, the only problem is that the DisplayPort port cannot physically morph itself into an HDMI port to allow you to plug in HDMI cables, so this is why the "passive adapter" is needed; the adapter does not do anything at all to the electrical signal, it is just there to change the shape of the port to allow you to plug the correct cable in. When you use a DisplayPort to HDMI passive adapter, the adapter is not "converting" DisplayPort signals into HDMI signals. The electrical signals coming from the DP port are already in the HDMI format, the adapter is just changing the physical shape of the port.

Since passive adapters don't actually do anything themselves, they will only work for some very specific combinations of ports which have been pre-designed with the ability to communicate in other formats. The table below shows which connections are possible using passive adapters:

Every Possible Passive Adapter Combination
Output Port (Computer / Source)		Input Port (Monitor / TV / Display)	Equivalent to
DisplayPort	→	HDMI DVI (any type)	HDMI Single-Link DVI-D
HDMI	→	DVI (any type)	Single-Link DVI-D
DVI-D	→	HDMI	HDMI
DVI-I	→	HDMI VGA	HDMI VGA
VGA	→	DVI-I	VGA

This table is an exhaustive list of all possible connections that can be made using passive adapters between DP, HDMI, DVI, and VGA. If it is not listed above, it is not possible with a passive adapter. For specifics about which versions of DisplayPort and HDMI are supported by what, look up the specific adapter combination using the dropdowns at the top of this guide.

Looking at the table above, there are some interesting things to note.

Although a DisplayPort output on your computer can support passive adapters to Single-Link DVI or HDMI inputs on your display, the reverse isn't true; DVI and HDMI outputs don't support passive adapters to DisplayPort input. This will come as a surprise to many people who assume that it does work because "they're both digital", and go around on forums advising people based on their assumption.

In reality, being "both digital" means nothing in terms of adapter compatibility; DisplayPort supports adapters to DVI and HDMI because it is designed with that capability; meanwhile DVI and HDMI don't support passive adapters to DisplayPort, because they weren't designed with that capability. It's as simple as that, and it can apply to any interfaces, whether they are analog or digital. DVI-I supports passive adapters to analog VGA because it's designed with that capability. HDMI, DisplayPort, and DVI-D don't support passive adapters to VGA because they aren't designed with that capability. It isn't because "one is digital and the other is analog".

There are no "rules of thumb" when it comes to adapter compatibility; it just depends on what capabilities each interface was designed with, which are arbitrary choices by the engineers that designed it. The only way to know whether passive adapters are compatible is to just know which interfaces support which adapters. Referring to the table above is a good place to start.

That's right, because you can't convert any signal to any other signal passively, whether it's digital to digital, digital to analog, or whatever. There is no such thing as "passively converting" signals at all; converting one signal into another is not how any passive adapter works. Instead, when a "passive adapter" is used, the source device outputs the original signal in whatever format is required, so no "conversion" is needed in the first place. This method of supporting adapters can be designed into any interface; there's no reason a port which normally sends digital signals can't be designed to send analog signals instead when an adapter is detected.

DVI-I is a perfect example of this; the port's main signal type (DVI) is digital, and it supports passive adapters to both HDMI (digital) and VGA (analog). When connected to an HDMI display via a passive adapter, the source device (graphics card) detects the HDMI display and starts using the DVI port to send HDMI signals instead of the normal DVI signals. DVI-I to VGA adapters work exactly the same way; when the graphics card detects a VGA display, it starts using the DVI port to send VGA signals instead of the normal DVI signals. Since passive adapters don't work by "converting" a DVI signal into an equivalent HDMI or VGA signal, the characteristics of DVI compared to the other signal are irrelevant. Passive adapters work because the DVI control chips are designed with the capability to output all these different types of signals.

So, just because "one's analog and the other is digital" doesn't mean passive adapters won't work; sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Likewise, just because two signals are "both digital" doesn't mean passive adapters will work; sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.Whether signals are digital or analog actually has nothing to do with passive adapter compatibility. Passive adapters work if the port is designed to send the signal you want, and that's all there is to it. This is completely arbitrary and comes down to the design decisions of the engineers who drafted the standards and designed the chips.

Another surprise to most people is that DisplayPort 1.2 doesn't support passive adapters to HDMI 2.0, or that DisplayPort and HDMI don't support passive adapters to Dual-Link DVI, only to Single-Link DVI. Upon being informed of this, the response is usually something along the lines of "well that doesn't make any sense; they're both digital, and the bandwidth of DisplayPort is greater than Dual-Link DVI / HDMI 2.0, etc. so a passive adapter should work!" But again, this is based on a misunderstanding of how passive adapters work.

People imagine that a passive DP to DVI adapter is "converting" DisplayPort signals into DVI signals, as if the image is originally sent as a DisplayPort signal and an adapter transforms it into an equivalent Dual-Link DVI signal, which should work because any Dual-Link DVI data stream will "fit" inside a DisplayPort signal since the bandwidth of DisplayPort is greater than that of DL-DVI. This is all very sensible sounding, and is a wonderful description of how an active adapter works, not a passive adapter.

A passive adapter does not "convert" a signal from format to another. The original signal is sent in the desired format to begin with, and the adapter is just changing the physical shape of the port so that the correct cables can be plugged in. In a DisplayPort to DVI (or HDMI to DVI) passive adapter, the DisplayPort output port is essentially used as a DVI port; all of the pins are used to send the same electrical signals that a DVI port's pins would. Of course, the DisplayPort port is still shaped like a DisplayPort port and so DVI cables will not fit — that's what the passive adapter is needed for — but electrically it is acting as a DVI port. But a DisplayPort port also only has 20 pins (compared to 19 pins on SL-DVI-D and 25 pins on DL-DVI-D), so it can only send signals that a Single-Link DVI port would send; it is physically impossible for it to send Dual-Link DVI signals in this manner, because it simply doesn't have enough pins to send the same signals that a DL-DVI port would. HDMI ports (which have 19 pins) are also subject to the same restriction; they can only send Single-Link DVI signals, not Dual-Link.

And again a similar concept applies to DisplayPort to HDMI adapters; many people are perplexed when they discover that DisplayPort 1.2 only supports adapters up to HDMI 1.4. "But DP 1.2 has more bandwidth than HDMI 2.0!" Yes it does — but since adapters don't work by "converting" DisplayPort signals into equivalent HDMI signals, it doesn't matter if HDMI 2.0 signals "fit" inside a DisplayPort 1.2 signal. The bandwidth of DisplayPort is irrelevant, because there are no DisplayPort signal involved at all. DisplayPort 1.2 only supports adapters to HDMI 1.4 because the DisplayPort control chips are not designed to send HDMI signals greater than that (mostly because DisplayPort 1.2 was published in 2009 and HDMI 2.0 didn't exist until around 2013 or so). DisplayPort 1.3 (2014) does support passive adapters to HDMI 2.0.

Another bit of seemingly sensible wisdom which turns out to be not always true is that when using a passive adapter, you'll be limited to lowest capabilities of the two interfaces involved. For example, if using a DVI to HDMI adapter, many people will tell you that audio won't work. After all, DVI signals contain no audio, and converting an audio-free signal to the HDMI format won't make audio magically appear. But again, this is based on the idea that an adapter "converts" DVI signals into HDMI signals, so this is information that applies to active adapters, not passive adapters. When using a passive adapter from a DVI source to an HDMI display, the output device detects an HDMI display and sends HDMI signals to it, including audio. Whether DVI signals contain audio or not is irrelevant, because there are no DVI signals involved. The adapter isn't "converting" DVI signals into HDMI signals, the signals are sent in the HDMI format to begin with.

While it is sometimes true that you'll be limited to the lowest capabilities between the two interfaces, it isn't always true. Check the specific adapter combination you are wondering about using the dropdown interface at the top of this guide.

No.

No.

Active adapters (or "signal converters") use the second approach described in the preface; both the source device and the display send/receive signals in their native formats, but there is a device in the middle (the adapter) which converts the information from one format to the other. Active adapters are required for any combination of ports that isn't possible with passive adapters (as listed above). Active adapters have also been used in some situations historically to circumenvent limitations of passive adapters; for example, some older AMD graphics cards could support up to 6 monitors, but only maximum of two could be using DVI/HDMI signals (including sending DVI/HDMI signals through a DisplayPort port via a passive adapter); the rest had to use native DisplayPort output. DisplayPort to DVI/HDMI active adapters were useful in this case to allow additional DVI/HDMI connections, since the graphics card would send native DisplayPort signals, which were then intercepted by the adapter and converted to the DVI/HDMI format en route.

Active adapters have a processor which converts between the two formats, so they are more expensive than passive adapters and may require a power cable, depending on the complexity of the conversion. Since active adapters convert information from one format into its equivalent in a different format, they are limited only to the features and capabilities supported by both formats. This means active adapters won't support anything that isn't supported by both sides of the connection, including limitations on maximum bandwidth, audio support, and any other features such as G-Sync or daisy-chaining. In addition, certain active adapters may have their own limitations depending on what the signal processor can handle. For example, many (but not all) HDMI to DisplayPort active adapters are limited to 1920×1200 at 60 Hz. Even though both connections can go beyond that, the processor used inside those adapters can’t process data quickly enough to do more than that. For 1440p or 4K resolutions, even more expensive adapters with more powerful processors must be used.

Active adapters usually only work in one direction. An active adapter that receives a VGA signal and converts it into HDMI usually isn’t equipped to receive HDMI signals and turn them into VGA instead. When purchasing an active adapter, read the product description carefully.

In theory, any signal can be converted to any other signal with an active adapter, although in practice there is not an adapter manufactured for every conceivable combination of ports.

Depends on the adapter, but usually they do not add any meaningful amount of latency.

No. But when converting between two different formats the image quality will only be as good as the worse format.

Some people think that "active adapter" means it has an additional plug for power, but this is not the case. If an adapter needs a power cable, it is definitely an active adapter, but if it doesn't need a power cable, it could still be either an active or a passive adapter. It is not possible to tell the difference between them by looking at them, because "active" and "passive" aren't defined by any external feature, as explained above. Some active adapters may have conversion circuitry so small that it can be powered from the port and embedded in the cable termination, so that it appears just like any normal passive adapter cable.

Sometimes it isn't possible to tell whether an adapter is active or passive, but there are some steps you can take to rule out one or the other. Only specific combinations of ports are possible with passive adapters, listed in the table a few paragraphs above. If the adapter you are looking at isn't a type listed on that table, it must be an active adapter (or fake). If it is a combination listed on that table, then it could be either passive or active. Usually the product description will tell you, but if it doesn't, you should generally assume it is passive, because companies don't normally make active adapters for port combinations that can already be done using passive adapters.

However, there are some exceptions to this. Even though DisplayPort supports passive adapters to HDMI and Single-Link DVI, there are many active adapters also available for these combinations due to restrictions on multi-monitor configurations on some older AMD graphics cards (see the section titled below "Active Adapter Requirements for Multi-Monitor Configurations"). So DisplayPort to DVI adapters or DisplayPort to HDMI adapters may either be passive or active; reading the product description will usually tell you.

In addition sometimes active adapters may be required between DisplayPort and HDMI depending on which versions you want; for example, DisplayPort 1.2 does support passive adapters to HDMI, but only up to HDMI 1.4; to get a full HDMI 2.0 connection from DisplayPort 1.2, you need an active adapter.

More specific information on what combinations are supported with passive adapters can be found by entering a specific combination of ports in the dropdown menus at the top of this guide.

If a passive adapter is possible for the configuration you want (check using the utility at the top of this guide), then usually you should use the passive adapter. Active adapters tend to be more expensive and less reliable, and only exist for situations where passive adapters won't work.

Resolution: × Frequency: Hz Color Depth: 8 bpc (24 bit/px) 10 bpc (30 bit/px) 12 bpc (36 bit/px) 14 bpc (42 bit/px) 16 bpc (48 bit/px) Color Format: RGB YCBCR 4:4:4 YCBCR 4:2:2 YCBCR 4:2:0 Compression: None DSC (2.0× ratio) DSC (2.5× ratio) DSC (3.0× ratio) Timing Format: CVT CVT-RB CVT-R2 None    Show calculations  Show timing formula   Set to defaults Link with these settings