Topic: HDMI vs Component

As the title suggests, what's the difference between the two?

We have an HDMI cable hooked up to our PS3 which is nice, but we also use a Component cable (the cable with the 5 connectors, instead of the usual 3) for the 360 (came with the system) that looks just as good.

What's the point in having two different types of cables for HD picture?

Linky

There is no vs. HDMI is just superior.

Thanks for the informative link, @Dreamz.

Based on what that article said, since our TV is only 720p, that's probably why I haven't noticed much (if any) of a difference between the two. (with HDMI's superiority coming down to being able to display a certain quality of 1080p/i that component can't, which isn't applicable in my case).

This. It supports stereoscopic 3D and 5.1 PCM. Component can't do that.

One big factor is also the size of the TV. If you have a 32 inch lcd, for all intensive purposes no one is going to tell you difference between 1080P and 1080i.

@Bambeezie With a 32" LCD, assuming that you're sitting several feet away, it's unlikely that you would be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, much less 1080p and 1080i.

HDMI>Component>S-Video>Composite>>>>>>>>>>RF

For most people it's just if you'd rather have one simple cable to plug in or 5 for HD

@Dreamz that is what I meant. 720p and 1080i are pretty much one in the same.

HDMI will give you the superior video quality, but some people prefer component video for gaming to reduce lag since component video is analog. I did try using component video on my Wii U at first so that I could reserve my HDMI port for my blu-ray player, but at 1080p I found the image wavered around so much that it was necessary to either use HDMI or set the Wii U to a lower resolution.

Component is for old tvs, right?
Component wins for me then.

I think they only started putting component video on TVs when HD CRTs came out. Before that it was S-video, composite video, and RF.