Which monitor connector should I use? HDMI (not 2.1) or DisplayPort?

325xle said:

The user of the computer has hyperacusis. It is a disorder that causes extremely sensitive hearing. That is why I want minimal fan noise. A little bit of additional fan noise would be acceptable if the picture quality was better.

Click to expand...

Maybe use headphones with ANC ?

siliconbeaver said:

DP is for gamer.
HDMI is for home entertainment.

So, your choice should be HDMI.

Click to expand...

Interesting logic. Or is it a joke?

Aside from the specs of different versions of HDMI and DP, there is no functional difference.

It's a common sense for gamer.

Copilot answer.

bobkn said:

Interesting logic. Or is it a joke?

Aside from the specs of different versions of HDMI and DP, there is no functional difference.

Click to expand...

siliconbeaver said:

It's a common sense for gamer.

Copilot answer.

View attachment 130288

Click to expand...

In terms of connecting a PC to a monitor, the main advantage to DP is that it supports DSC, which is a compression format that permits a higher frame rate through a relatively low data rate.

HDMI and DP both support adaptive sync.

But the OP's monitor is 2560 X 1440 @ 60Hz. HDMI 2.0 or DP 1.2 would support that, without DSC. HDMI 2.1 or DP 2.1 can give higher resolutions/refresh rates without resorting to DSC. (Not that the OP's monitor could benefit from either.)

ARC passes TV audio back to an AVR (audio video receiver) through the same HDMI cable that sends the signal to the TV. eARC is an enhanced version of that for multichannel audio. That's not of much interest for a PC-to-monitor connection.

For the OP, flip a coin.

siliconbeaver said:

It's a common sense for gamer.

Copilot answer.

View attachment 130288

Click to expand...

bobkn said:

In terms of connecting a PC to a monitor, the main advantage to DP is that it supports DSC, which is a compression format that permits a higher frame rate through a relatively low data rate.

Click to expand...

HDMI 2.1, which can also use DSC 1.2, is also capable of 8K UHD (7680 × 4320) up to 120 Hz with HDR and 4K UHD (3840 × 2160) up to 240 Hz.

DSC has been declared visually lossless.

DP cables tend to be comparatively more expensive than HDMI cables, but DP is generally more suitable for making longer cable connections.

DP is commonly associated with professional use. However, DP 1.4 does not deliver higher resolutions and higher refresh rates than HDMI 2.1 excepting only maybe if the devices and/or cable connections used have (hardware) limitations that would immediately help to explain differences.

DP 2.1a (UHBR20) is indeed capable to provide a significantly higher bandwidth. Then again, DSC has been declared visually lossless. Either way, for those who will insist that being declared visually lossless is not the same as being lossless, MSI have included the 80 Gbps cable in the packaging: https://www.msi.com/Monitor/MPG-272URX-QD-OLED
The cable will make you a better gamer. Or if it turns out that it doesn't, I guess you could still always send it back.. lol

bobkn said:

HDMI and DP both support adaptive sync.

But the OP's monitor is 2560 X 1440 @ 60Hz. HDMI 2.0 or DP 1.2 would support that, without DSC. HDMI 2.1 or DP 2.1 can give higher resolutions/refresh rates without resorting to DSC. (Not that the OP's monitor could benefit from either.)

ARC passes TV audio back to an AVR (audio video receiver) through the same HDMI cable that sends the signal to the TV. eARC is an enhanced version of that for multichannel audio. That's not of much interest for a PC-to-monitor connection.

For the OP, flip a coin.

Click to expand...

Exactly. At 2560 × 1440 at 60 Hz, even a HDMI 1.4 cable can suffice if the TMDS signal doesn't suffer from too much loss. I.e., if the cable length is kept relatively short and the cable quality is decent enough to make it possible. Still at 2560 × 1440 at 60 Hz, if the HDMI 1.4 cable in question is causing fairly severe TMDS loss, the picture may exhibit intermittent drop-outs (black-screening) and/or flicker. In which case replacing the HDMI 1.4 cable with a standard quality HDMI 2.0 cable can be an excellent alternative to replacing it with a premium quality HDMI 1.4 cable, as a standard quality HDMI 2.0 cable nowadays often tends to be a tad more cost effective than a premium quality HDMI 1.4 cable, yet they both are suitable replacements to solve this particular problem (at least in this particular scenario).

Only real difference between HDMI and DP is that latest DP standard supports higher bandwidth than HDMI (almost twice as much). This is however only relevant in super high resolution with 30 bit colors HDR or with super high refresh rates. Another difference is that DP supports daisy chaining of displays.

Neither is relevant for the OP at this point.

325xle said:

I was under the impression that discrete GPUs have their own fan. That is why I was considering disabling it.

Click to expand...

bobkn said:

If the integrated graphics are used, I wonder whether the CPU fan speeds up audibly?

Click to expand...

Yes, dGPU produces heat, even when it does "nothing". I always disable it as well as NPU.
With dGPU my CPU is at 37C and without dGPU my CPU is at 35C. But 11 will use, if it can.

For the record, I would disable GPU acceleration in all apps, like browsers (=Netflix). Modern CPU's power is wasted all the time, it uses less energy and produces less heat, it lets GPU rest, so it does not run needlessly, thus less noise as well.

When the dGPU is idle, if keeping the dGPU still enabled is causing the CPU idle temps to go up by some 2 degrees, then this is an obvious sign that the system's cooling performance has not been particularly well-optimized─or simply too weak. (Even, if the build in question was tailored more towards silent or near-silent operation anyway in the first place).