Going back to 4:3 CRT for pc gaming... what should I expect?

[coolhandm3]

So my friend sold me a Sony 21 inch G520p, this montior I actually had originally and had sold to him back in 04 ha.

Anyway, what I wanted to know is what can I expect going back to this crt? I had been using an Apple 27 inch cinema display and before that a Samsung f2380mx. I can't stand blur on lcds, it really takes me out of the game so to speak and input lag is a trouble playing FPS and racing games.

Can most modern games like NFS Hot Pursuit, F1 2010, Crysis 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2 all be played in 4:3 resolutions? I was hoping to play the games at 1600x1200 at 85 hz. Last time I had this monitor my grfx card could only do games at good framerates at 1280x1024, so its going to be interesting using this monitor at a much higher resolution.

My main concern is will my gtx580 play nice with the crt? I was going to get a dvi to vga cable , will that work?

Thanks in advance guys for all your insights This post is not intended to be a crt vs lcd so please dont take it that way

 

[aL Mac]

Your computer will likely catch on fire.

 

[gmohr]

Look man, its your time and money, and I dont mean to be a troll... but wtf? A high quality LCD with good resolution and low enough pixel pitch is 100x sharper than the best CRTs ever. And there's a bevy of super fast LCD's these days, both TN and IPS, so you can take your pick and I seriously *seriously* doubt that lag will be an issue for you.

Going back to CRT is just unthinkable to me.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

 

[mls1995]

Look man, its your time and money, and I dont mean to be a troll... but wtf? A high quality LCD with good resolution and low enough pixel pitch is 100x sharper than the best CRTs ever. And there's a bevy of super fast LCD's these days, both TN and IPS, so you can take your pick and I seriously *seriously* doubt that lag will be an issue for you.

Going back to CRT is just unthinkable to me.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

+1. Going back to a CRT = face palm

 

[100inch]

blacks arent grey, better color, no blur

smaller, ugly, 4:3.


both options kind of suck and there are some terribly CRTs

Youll be fine but you'll probably end up going back to LCD

The samsung wasn't a good choice if u are sensitive to blur. Its a VA if i remember correctly.

 

[gmohr]

blacks arent grey, better color, no blur

smaller, ugly, 4:3..

The "blacks aren't grey" is the only legitimate +1 for CRT's IMO. An IPS LCD has better color than a CRT, and any fast panel will have no noticable blur (and I'm talking about what can be perceived in real time, not what is debated for bragging rights). The only thing you really lose in LCD world is contrast ratio.

As for sharpness, CRT's are the very worst. Convergance error alone will cause more blur than the thickest AR coating money can buy

 

[spaceman]

What is a good LCD then? I went back to crt due to blur and tearing. I would not mind getting rid of the old clunker but I do enjoy the blacks, color and smooth response.

 

[gmohr]

If you can live with the lower contrast ratio of an IPS, the ZR30w from HP is about as good as life gets. Fantastic colors, very clear without harsh AR, and tons of tiny little pixels.

I also have an ASUS VE278Q TN Panel, and that is about the best TN I've seen to date if you are in for a 1080p display. Decent color (not great, none of them are), dark blacks, big enough for most. No motion blur or anything like that, but you'd have to go out of your way these days to find an LCD with visible motion blur or input lag.

Tearing is fixable by enabling vsync, you shoud have that on all the time, unless you are performance testing.

 

[xenkw0n]

If you decide to stick with the Sony G520 and use a DVI to VGA adapter your computer will be fine. I have a GTX 285 that I still use along with an old NEC MultiSync 1250+ and they work great. The only thing I had to do was load my own EDID override driver for the monitor so I could put it at my desired refresh rate. You might not have this problem but for me to play games @ 1280 x 1024/960 100hz I had to override the setting. I believe 1600x1200 is the native resolution for that monitor so you will most likely have a very clear image using it that way.

I still love my CRT and plan on using it until it won't turn on... Although I have been very impressed with TN LCD's these days... specifically the ve278q and some of the Samsung's...

Bottom line: your CRT will work just fine.

 

[nhtalbot]

I would take a good look at the 120Hz lcd monitors. I will probably get the Samsung S27A950D or S27A750D.

 

[mathesar]

I used to have a G520P it was a fine CRT, very sharp corner to corner, To bad it only lasted 4 years (bought it new too).

 

[BanDeodorant]

If you decide to stick with the Sony G520 and use a DVI to VGA adapter your computer will be fine. I have a GTX 285 that I still use along with an old NEC MultiSync 1250+ and they work great. The only thing I had to do was load my own EDID override driver for the monitor so I could put it at my desired refresh rate. You might not have this problem but for me to play games @ 1280 x 1024/960 100hz I had to override the setting. I believe 1600x1200 is the native resolution for that monitor so you will most likely have a very clear image using it that way.

I still love my CRT and plan on using it until it won't turn on... Although I have been very impressed with TN LCD's these days... specifically the ve278q and some of the Samsung's...

Bottom line: your CRT will work just fine.

+1 for CRT

 

[rudy]

Most likely everything will be fine. I have alot of CRTs and LCDs. A few of the CRTs do not give me options to set the refresh rate high as I want to go. This is because the industry thinks everyone runs at 60hz. But in all cases I was able to do a custom resolution and get the refresh rate I wanted. Currently I have a GTX480 and I run these CRTs on a wide range of cards from both ATI and nVidia.

Don't listen to the haters LCDs can't compete. Look at it this way I currently have 3 LCDs and I have a $1000 budget to buy any monitor I want I have 7 computers in my house and I have freedom to take whatever I want from any one of them. In all that I choose to run 2 CRTs side by side.

I will try a 120hz gaming LCD soon to see how they fair though but everything else I tried I returned. The main reason is my main CRT is a fw900 and it has the angled white lines problem. But I can say it is really hard picking. A CRT just so easily performed even at reasonable price points. LCDs just have nothing that is no compromise. You can have speed that is almost as good as CRTs but not quite there with TN panels but the picture is garbage. Or you can have a decent picture but no speed with IPS. CRTs just put it together and it works. But now days it is just hard to find CRTs so if you have one I say you are lucky use it till it dies then see what display technology is available at the time.

 

[100inch]

Most likely everything will be fine. I have alot of CRTs and LCDs. A few of the CRTs do not give me options to set the refresh rate high as I want to go. This is because the industry thinks everyone runs at 60hz. But in all cases I was able to do a custom resolution and get the refresh rate I wanted. Currently I have a GTX480 and I run these CRTs on a wide range of cards from both ATI and nVidia.

Don't listen to the haters LCDs can't compete. Look at it this way I currently have 3 LCDs and I have a $1000 budget to buy any monitor I want I have 7 computers in my house and I have freedom to take whatever I want from any one of them. In all that I choose to run 2 CRTs side by side.

I will try a 120hz gaming LCD soon to see how they fair though but everything else I tried I returned. The main reason is my main CRT is a fw900 and it has the angled white lines problem. But I can say it is really hard picking. A CRT just so easily performed even at reasonable price points. LCDs just have nothing that is no compromise. You can have speed that is almost as good as CRTs but not quite there with TN panels but the picture is garbage. Or you can have a decent picture but no speed with IPS. CRTs just put it together and it works. But now days it is just hard to find CRTs so if you have one I say you are lucky use it till it dies then see what display technology is available at the time.

and what is your reason to want to go higher than 60hz?

 

[rudy]

Because it is faster and smoother? I am biting on a troll post I guess.

 

[gmohr]

Because it is faster and smoother? I am biting on a troll post I guess.

But thats just the thing, it's not faster nor smoother. Is your video card pumping out over 60fps regularly in games you play?

CRT's need the faster refresh to avoid flicker, as they draw each screen fully each cycle. LCD's work differently, they only change the pixels that differ each cycle. So you see, there is no benefit from A faster refresh than your game's fps.

 

[NCX]

High refresh rates means we don't need to use Vsync in a lot of games, and there won't be screen tearing+extra smoothness of higher FPS.

It is really annoying when games cap their engine @62fps=Screen tearing regardless on Vsync on 60hz panels.

 

[Freiya]

I can't imagine going back to 4:3

 

[sprak74]

If you can find a deal locally on an Sony FW900 that would be your best choice. It's CRT and 16:10 ratio, which is what I'm gaming on, but I can't see myself going back to 4:3 CRT though.

 

[rudy]

Yes my setup regularly pushes more than 60fps. And even if it doesnt sometimes it goes above that for most people in mostthan the top highway speed which is 70 mph here. Well if you notice almost no one has such a car. Sometimes you need to pass someone over th games. For that time it is worth having. Also even if you are just in windows moving around or other programs anything that can run faster is nicer. On top of that even if your games are running slower it can still be faster to have a faster display. You have the posibility to see each fram sooner. At 60hz on an LCD plus any ghosting you could see the fram 16ms late. At 120hz that frame could be 8ms sooner.

What you are saying is like why should anyone even buy a car that can go faster e speed limit. Other times you just want to go faster. Still other you just like the feel and response of a faster car.

Displays are the same for alot of reasons faster is better.

 

[defiant007]

So my friend sold me a Sony 21 inch G520p, this montior I actually had originally and had sold to him back in 04 ha.

Anyway, what I wanted to know is what can I expect going back to this crt? I had been using an Apple 27 inch cinema display and before that a Samsung f2380mx. I can't stand blur on lcds, it really takes me out of the game so to speak and input lag is a trouble playing FPS and racing games.

Can most modern games like NFS Hot Pursuit, F1 2010, Crysis 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2 all be played in 4:3 resolutions? I was hoping to play the games at 1600x1200 at 85 hz. Last time I had this monitor my grfx card could only do games at good framerates at 1280x1024, so its going to be interesting using this monitor at a much higher resolution.I

My main concern is will my gtx580 play nice with the crt? I was going to get a dvi to vga cable , will that work?

Thanks in advance guys for all your insights This post is not intended to be a crt vs lcd so please dont take it that way

I run my main machine (with a gtx 580) using a 19" viewsonic crt and have had no issues using a dvi adaptor. I also have not encountered problems with any games not displaying 4:3 properly, other than the ass creed games.

A gtx 580 should easily handle 1600x1200 and higher, I personally run mine at 1920x1440 as it is just so damn powerful.

As for the naysers, ignore them and see for yourself whether you prefer the image quality offered by crt. You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[dustNbone]

You could also run your 520 at say 1600x900, and set the vertical size so that you're effectively painting a 16:9 image, if whatever game you're trying to run refuses to do a 5:4 or 4:3 resolution. It's an option, I used it on my 21" CRT sometimes prior to getting a widescreen CRT. I think that you could actually pump 1920x1080 with the 520 but I'm not sure. A 4:3 21" Sony was my first 1080p display actually, and a damn good one at that.

 

[quantum112]

So my friend sold me a Sony 21 inch G520p, this montior I actually had originally and had sold to him back in 04 ha.

Anyway, what I wanted to know is what can I expect going back to this crt? I had been using an Apple 27 inch cinema display and before that a Samsung f2380mx. I can't stand blur on lcds, it really takes me out of the game so to speak and input lag is a trouble playing FPS and racing games.

Can most modern games like NFS Hot Pursuit, F1 2010, Crysis 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2 all be played in 4:3 resolutions? I was hoping to play the games at 1600x1200 at 85 hz. Last time I had this monitor my grfx card could only do games at good framerates at 1280x1024, so its going to be interesting using this monitor at a much higher resolution.

My main concern is will my gtx580 play nice with the crt? I was going to get a dvi to vga cable , will that work?

Thanks in advance guys for all your insights This post is not intended to be a crt vs lcd so please dont take it that way

I'm using a Sony GDM-FW900 on a 4870X2 and it works perfectly fine in everything, everywhere. The only thing I had to do was add custom resolutions which was easy enough. It even works in Linux, I just played Quake 3 in it @ 1920x1200.

4:3 will work equally fine. If you're going to 4:3 from 16:10 it might feel a bit cramped, but you'll get used to it. I had a 4:3 high-end EIZO for a few months and it was alright.

DVI to VGA cable is good, you can also look into a BNC cable if the G520P has it, should be a bit better.

You can expect improvements in input lag (virtually none on CRT's), no annoying "pixel response time", everything will look and feel more smooth and fluid, especially at higher refresh rates. Even working in the OS feels smoother on 85 Hz as opposed to 60, games are not the only measure here.

The colors on the good CRT's are still (and will likely forever be, LCD development is barely progressing anymore) far ahead of most modern LCD's, save for top-tier EIZO's which cost about $5000 or upwards, and even then those are only geared for professional image editing and have response times of 14 ms or so; this was confirmed many times by resident experts such as LAGRUNAUER, who has stated that there are very few LCD's he would put up next to top-tier SONY monitors and others using the same Aperture Grille technology. This explains why broadcasting stations have held on to their CRT's all this time and are only now being offered replacement professional OLED panels, because these will likely actually surpass CRT tech.

The negatives I can think of are increased heat output, weight, analog picture characteristics (the CRT image adjustments can be fun for the first few times, but once they go haywire for the n-th time it's not amusing anymore), warm-up times.
And of course, maintaining the thing if you plan to keep it around for a few years.

Just to put things into perspective for some readers here... newer =/= better and there are plenty of us here who still have a high regard for display quality because we spend a good portion of our day looking at it.
Referring to CRT tech as something from the past that no one uses and a downgrade, is making you look rather ignorant.

 

[gmohr]

What you are saying is like why should anyone even buy a car that can go faster e speed limit. Other times you just want to go faster. Still other you just like the feel and response of a faster car.

What I'm saying is that everything has a cost. You are giving away the benefits of LCD, partially for some nebulous speed issue, which I contend is a non-issue for 99.9% of us. It's a matter of prioritization of your needs. People put too much emphasis on what is really a bragging rights issue.

To extend your car analogy, choosing CRT due to speed is like picking a Ferrari with no seat over a Porsche with a seat. Yeah the Ferrari is faster, but does it really matter when you are trying to actually drive the thing whilst sitting on an upturned 5 gallon bucket?

Just to put things into perspective for some readers here... newer =/= better and there are plenty of us here who still have a high regard for display quality because we spend a good portion of our day looking at it.
Referring to CRT tech as something from the past that no one uses and a downgrade, is making you look rather ignorant.

The audiophiles use the same argument about vinyl records. I suppose for some, you can throw enough money and time at an old technology to make it perform as good if not better than the newer technologies. But that takes a lot of both time and money, and often the gains are not material to the 99%. If you are a stuido professional, or someone else for whom perfection in a few critical areas is needed, and some super high end CRT fills that need, great. That does not describe the vast majority of us.

The negatives I can think of are increased heat output, weight, analog picture characteristics (the CRT image adjustments can be fun for the first few times, but once they go haywire for the n-th time it's not amusing anymore), warm-up times.
And of course, maintaining the thing if you plan to keep it around for a few years.

Understand that the vast majority of CRT monitors that were sold had *crappy* convergence and other analog flaws (pincoushioning, anyone? ). The first time I looked at a good LCD, I just couldn't believe how clear the "focus" was, and how perfectly square the geometry. This to me is the biggest plus for LCD, perfect image geometry and focus the first time and every time.

 

[quantum112]

The audiophiles use the same argument about vinyl records. I suppose for some, you can throw enough money and time at an old technology to make it perform as good if not better than the newer technologies. But that takes a lot of both time and money, and often the gains are not material to the 99%. If you are a stuido professional, or someone else for whom perfection in a few critical areas is needed, and some super high end CRT fills that need, great. That does not describe the vast majority of us.

Well, they may argue as they see fit, digital audio reproduction is measurably better than anything in the analog world, some people however have problems getting to grips with scientific reality.

In the same way I have no trouble believing that digital display technology is superior to analog display technology, unfortunately, not with LCD's. If OLED had been in development for the past 20-30 years instead of LCD's, I doubt many people would still be talking about CRT's.

My point however is, in a thread such as this where the OP asks for opinions on his particular situation, it is a good idea to think outside the boundaries of one's own needs and offer objective advice that would actually help the person in question. People posting replies in the form of "lolol, 90's called they want there monitorz back" aren't putting forth much proof of their intelligence.

Understand that the vast majority of CRT monitors that were sold had *crappy* convergence and other analog flaws (pincoushioning, anyone? ). The first time I looked at a good LCD, I just couldn't believe how clear the "focus" was, and how perfectly square the geometry. This to me is the biggest plus for LCD, perfect image geometry and focus the first time and every time.

I understand that the various aspects of image quality have different priorities for each given person, and for myself, the FW900 offers 90% of the focus of an LCD, and the geometry, after some tweaking, is set and forget, and due to the fact that I'm not an architectural engineer, more than good enough for my demands.

Therefore I'd much rather enjoy better black levels, more natural-like colors and the resolution and time-domain benefits that come from having an analog monitor.

That said, I'd have no trouble replacing it with a $700-800 or so OLED right now, were it available, as it would likely outperform it in most aspects.

 

[gmohr]

Unless you're extraordinarily wealthy, a *healthy* aperture grille CRT will shit all over any LCD you can afford.

Unless you are extraordinarily fortunate, a *healthy* CRT does not exist. In all my years of looking at CRT's in PC applications, I recall seeing just a single unit that had geometry that didn't make me want to vomit (and that was this awesome 17" Nokia).

The day I never had to look at another hourglass shaped desktop or wavy lined toolbar was a liberating moment indeed.

So you see, we have different experiences with CRT's.

 

[gmohr]

And by the way, "without numbers, we know nothing". Here's some empirical data on the speed of the HP ZR30w, which is among the fasted IPS panels out there (but not quite the fastest).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3754/a-new-30-contender-hp-zr30w-review/8

As you can see when compared to the gold standard input latency, our much beloved CRT, this IPS panel lags about 10ms. That's less than 2/3rds of one frame. Further down the page you can see that the "ghosting" test reveals one frame worth of mild persistence. If you can perceive this, you are a very rare specimen.

 

[10e]

OP,

Most games still support 4:3 resolutions, but even if they don't you can switch to a 16:10 resolution on the video card and then adjust the monitor accordingly for horizontal and vertical aspect ratio, though you might need a ruler

AND these pictures:

http://forum.tigerdave.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=357&sid=2bc3e0e9a33a358150b121455ed9f664

Most analog monitors "remember" the setting for a particular frequency so vertical/horizontal adjustments you make should be saved on the screen.

A DVI to VGA adapter should work perfectly fine.

I don't know how happy you will be playing at 4:3 if you are used to 16:9 and 16:10 gaming though, so this would be my biggest concern is that. By nature we see with two eyes meaning our field of vision is wider than it is tall, so I'm thinking this will be the most un-natural aspect of your gaming.

I would probably suggest you game on the CRT and keep an LCD for text reading/surfing etc.... I think once you are used to widescreen and how you organize your viewing habits around it, it may take a little getting used to the 4:3.

In response to your input lag question, both the 27" ACD and the Samsung F2380 are low input lag displays so it's probably motion blur that is bugging you more than lag, unless you are doing something strange with your system.

 

[quantum112]

Still though, displays had no measurable lag 80 years ago, I don't see why they should in 2011.

It does not fit the definition of advancement, in any way.

The only improvements (sharpness, geometry, form factor) LCD tech has brought to the display industry have solely been the result of it being a digital display technology. When compared to other digital display tech such as;

-FED/SED
-OLED
-Plasma

All of which likely have: a wider color gamut and better reproduction, better black levels, higher refresh rates, a lot less input lag/response time, power consumption, better viewing angles, no TN/IPS/VA artefacts etc...

Let's face it. They suck.

LCD is to modern digital displays what the Daimler motorized carriage was to cars (since we're so keen on using car analogies). It had 1 hp, 1 gear and a top speed of 17 km/h and it couldn't outrun a regular horse carriage. Yet it had an engine, and was one of the crucial developments in motorized vehicles that brought us to the point where we can have the cars that we drive today.

Same thing with LCD's; they're digital, thin, light, and that's why they were quick to replace the lumbering CRT. Unfortunately, image quality has to take a back seat during this period until we can develop and move on to something much better.

 

[Dan_D]

Look man, its your time and money, and I dont mean to be a troll... but wtf? A high quality LCD with good resolution and low enough pixel pitch is 100x sharper than the best CRTs ever. And there's a bevy of super fast LCD's these days, both TN and IPS, so you can take your pick and I seriously *seriously* doubt that lag will be an issue for you.

Going back to CRT is just unthinkable to me.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

Good monitors have no perceivable input lag. My Dell 3007WFP-HC's don't. The text is so much sharper than any LCD and the resolution higher. I used to hate the ghosting on old LCD's but I don't see it on these. CRT proponents often argue about color and black levels, but the sad fact is that every CRT I've ever seen since production of CRT's basically died has looked washed out. Yeah you can adjust the black levels so the black looks good, but then in many cases the entire image is too dark. Then you can't see shit. Let's not forget the bad geometry of image that CRT's provide. Yeah they can be adjusted but border to border images with perfect geometry are far better. When I used to buy crappy LCD's I yearned for CRT's. Once I got a good LCD, I never wanted to go back. CRT's generally don't age well. They tend to either end up with images that are too dark, too light, and fuzzy. You can only do so much to keep them alive.

 

[100inch]

There were crappy CRTs just like there were crappy LCDs. CRTs had a long lifespan. Near the end of the life the popular brands had amazing quality.

You can always pull out an old LCD with its 200:1 contrast ratio and compare it to a poor quality crt to make it a fair comparison. People had a right to stick to CRTs when LCDs first came out and LCDs have come a far way but still have trouble with the problems inherent to the technology(blacks/blur)

The vast majority wanted an uber washed out looking LCD when they first came out. To some of us they were unacceptable. For some of us we would rather have a plasma than a westinghouse LCD. Or the 3 or 4 year old Kuro....... older isn't always worse.


I do believe that LCD has for me passed up crt by a wide margin. Mostly due to size/space. But Samsung new technology is measuring 600:1 contrast?

 

[reaper12]

So my friend sold me a Sony 21 inch G520p, this montior I actually had originally and had sold to him back in 04 ha.

Anyway, what I wanted to know is what can I expect going back to this crt? I had been using an Apple 27 inch cinema display and before that a Samsung f2380mx. I can't stand blur on lcds, it really takes me out of the game so to speak and input lag is a trouble playing FPS and racing games.

Can most modern games like NFS Hot Pursuit, F1 2010, Crysis 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2 all be played in 4:3 resolutions? I was hoping to play the games at 1600x1200 at 85 hz. Last time I had this monitor my grfx card could only do games at good framerates at 1280x1024, so its going to be interesting using this monitor at a much higher resolution.

My main concern is will my gtx580 play nice with the crt? I was going to get a dvi to vga cable , will that work?

Thanks in advance guys for all your insights This post is not intended to be a crt vs lcd so please dont take it that way

For gaming, the CRT cannot be beaten. I moved back to CRT for FPS games and it's so much better. And I have tried a lot of different monitors/HDTV's, even tried two 120Hz monitors.

Yeah there are some things LCD's are much better at, but your question is about gaming and I presume that's your priority? Well you made the right choice and you will not be disappointed at all. You can do what I do, play FPS games and the like on the CRT and watch movies etc on a HDTV.

 

[coolhandm3]

If you can find a deal locally on an Sony FW900 that would be your best choice. It's CRT and 16:10 ratio, which is what I'm gaming on, but I can't see myself going back to 4:3 CRT though.

I had a Sony Fw900, got it from Unkle Vito, was mint, less then 100hrs on it so he said. it died a week after having it... I got the Sony G520p from my Friend for $50, I had paid $600 for it when it was new in 03.

All the games I play on my pc go well over 60 fps, so having a t 85hz refresh rate , my games can take advantage of it.

Im sorry.. I never meant this to be a lcd vs crt war BUT now that some trolls have come and said somthings I feel I need to kinda fight back here.

I own a Apple 27 inch cinema display( ips), the blacks are HORRIBLE on it, the blur is horrible, its IMHO unusable for gaming. Also have a Samsung f2380mx, the blur is insanely bad for games.

I also own a Sony 52HX909 lcd, it is 240 hz, it with motion flow on clear 1 and local dimming on standard has crt type motion handling, bascially no blur but with those settings it has just over 100ms input lag vs crt.. again unacceptable for gaming.

I also have in my house a Pioneer elite Kuro, its close to crt in most respects but the phosphor lag and in input lag still cant touch crt.

How anyone can say LCD is better for gaming when it comes to contrast and motion blur over crt... well.. I would love to see a lcd do both. TN panels have horrible contrast. IPS has blur, the 120hz lcd panels do good motion but the contrast on those is a joke.

My main concern still stands, can I play current pc games at 4:3 resolutions like 1600x1200??

 

[coolhandm3]

I run my main machine (with a gtx 580) using a 19" viewsonic crt and have had no issues using a dvi adaptor. I also have not encountered problems with any games not displaying 4:3 properly, other than the ass creed games.

A gtx 580 should easily handle 1600x1200 and higher, I personally run mine at 1920x1440 as it is just so damn powerful.

As for the naysers, ignore them and see for yourself whether you prefer the image quality offered by crt. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Thank you for your response my friend! I remember how crt's looked, and I personally love them! They look MILES deep if you know what I mean.

Glad to hear I can play current games in 4:3, my gtx580 should be able to handle any game at that res, and hopefully at 85hz, did you use a custom edid or no?

Any good dvi to vga cable? The best out there preferably

 

[coolhandm3]

OP,

Most games still support 4:3 resolutions, but even if they don't you can switch to a 16:10 resolution on the video card and then adjust the monitor accordingly for horizontal and vertical aspect ratio, though you might need a ruler

AND these pictures:

http://forum.tigerdave.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=357&sid=2bc3e0e9a33a358150b121455ed9f664

Most analog monitors "remember" the setting for a particular frequency so vertical/horizontal adjustments you make should be saved on the screen.

A DVI to VGA adapter should work perfectly fine.

I don't know how happy you will be playing at 4:3 if you are used to 16:9 and 16:10 gaming though, so this would be my biggest concern is that. By nature we see with two eyes meaning our field of vision is wider than it is tall, so I'm thinking this will be the most un-natural aspect of your gaming.

I would probably suggest you game on the CRT and keep an LCD for text reading/surfing etc.... I think once you are used to widescreen and how you organize your viewing habits around it, it may take a little getting used to the 4:3.

In response to your input lag question, both the 27" ACD and the Samsung F2380 are low input lag displays so it's probably motion blur that is bugging you more than lag, unless you are doing something strange with your system.

I have both the 27" ACD and the Samsung F2380 b/c of the low input lag, input lag is a non issue on those two. It like you said is the motion blur that bothers me on them and the blacks on the Apple. Of course the geometry and convergence is perfect on the lcds mentioned, but I can get the crt withon 90% of that for both easily. The g520p is a tad sharper corner to corner then the fw900 I had.

 

[RadXge]

LCD vs CRT??? Welcome back to 2005!

For me, the only advantage of CRT over LCD is contrast ratio.
I cannot image a 30" CRT lying on my computer desk.

 

[coolhandm3]

LCD vs CRT??? Welcome back to 2005!

For me, the only advantage of CRT over LCD is contrast ratio.
I cannot image a 30" CRT lying on my computer desk.

30 inch? the largest crt monitor made was 24 inches... With lcd, its either good motion and bad blacks (TN) or good blacks and bad motion (VA). Would be nice to have both together.

 

[quantum112]

LCD vs CRT??? Welcome back to 2005!

For me, the only advantage of CRT over LCD is contrast ratio.
I cannot image a 30" CRT lying on my computer desk.

LCD vs OLED? Welcome back to 2014!

Oh wait, non-existant debate...

 

[100inch]

For me, the only advantage of CRT over LCD is contrast ratio.
.

is contrast ratio the only measure of a monitor that you know? Because there are far more things that CRT has over most LCDs.

 

[kumquat]

I'd love to own a widescreen CRT.