xxBlackCrossxx
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 65
Matt126 said:
thx matt for reply. i'll keep my eye on those dell deals. i have a $50 coupon i can use.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why LCDs do not make great gaming monitors
- Thread starter DocWonder
- Start date
- Status
thx matt for reply. i'll keep my eye on those dell deals. i have a $50 coupon i can use.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 25,308
Matt126 said:
Where in NJ are you...Im interested depending on price
TheRapture
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 31, 2000
- Messages
- 6,885
Betauser said:
I second that.
mathesar
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
Axsuul said:
Maybe if you're running 60hz refresh wich you should never do on a CRT,otherwise that statement is typical LCD Zealot BS. Ive been running 1600x1200@85hz on my CRT for 2 years without any eye strain issues.
superlyduper
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 659
or could be that the convergence is off.
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
mathesar said:
thats what I thought. Until I got my 2005fpw. I used to bash LCD people mercilessly when I was running my 19in trinitron. It was a great monitor, but the 2005 fpw blows it out of the water completley in every way fathomable to me. I got so many pm's that made me eat my words after I admitted it....
mathesar
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
computerpro3 said:
I had a 2001FP and sent it back so my experiance was the opposite. It couldnt compete with my 21" Sony CRT .I've got a 24" Sony widescreen CRT on the way next week
While there are facts to support performance differentials between CRTs and LCDs, the entire argument boils down to an individual's opinion.
The only way for one to really decide on which solution is "best" is to try the best of both worlds in their price range and decide from extended use.
Threads like these are great reads and show interesting comparisons, but please people, do not weigh forum threads too heavily in your decision on this topic.
I would encourage anyone partial to LCDs OR CRTs to try the other side of the fence for a good week, if possible.
You may be surprised.
The only way for one to really decide on which solution is "best" is to try the best of both worlds in their price range and decide from extended use.
Threads like these are great reads and show interesting comparisons, but please people, do not weigh forum threads too heavily in your decision on this topic.
I would encourage anyone partial to LCDs OR CRTs to try the other side of the fence for a good week, if possible.
You may be surprised.
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
mathesar said:I had a 2001FP and sent it back so my experiance was the opposite. It couldnt compete with my 21" Sony CRT .I've got a 24" Sony widescreen CRT on the way next week
thats because 2005 >>> 2001. Better response time, colors, and widescreen
2005 ftw
enjoy your 24in though
mathesar
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
computerpro3 said:thats because 2005 >>> 2001. Better response time, colors, and widescreen
2005 ftw
enjoy your 24in though
Considering the 2001 & 2005 use the same Philips IPS panel I cant imagine the response time & especially the colors being much differant, but if you like it then thats all that matters. Im to picky with black levels( wich is a known weakness w/ LCD and was just Awful on the 2001FP) and like the ability to change resolutions without sacrificing image quality. The Sony can run widescreen res's like 1680x1050 ,1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2304x1440.
mathesar said:
This site says otherwise:
http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php
Most already know that 24" isn't even IPS (hence its increased ghosting)...but this is verification of that fact if you didn't know already.
I think we've all tried some CRTs since they are cheaper and been around much longer. Simply put though, LCDs are sleeker, more efficient (uses less power), cleaner, space efficient, and has no considerable effect on gaming whatsoever (especially if you choose to use the lower response time panels). We could get a CRT but we'd rather dish out the extra dough for a LCD not cause we are zealots but because they are simply better monitors.
Liquid crystal displays have alot of room for improvement and have greater potential while CRTs have been pretty much stationary ever since flat screen technology.
Liquid crystal displays have alot of room for improvement and have greater potential while CRTs have been pretty much stationary ever since flat screen technology.
mathesar
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
Axsuul said:
If that were true then why did I send my 2001FP back to dell after running it next to my high end CRT for 3 weeks... considering I bought it with Gaming in mind... Hmmm
Overall Image quality & Response time is priority for me ,im not going to sacrifice it just so I can have a lighter / sleeker display sitting on my desk.
BlindedByScience
More Human than Human
- Joined
- May 26, 2000
- Messages
- 9,225
...you left out personal preference. Long and short of it is that folks will use what they like. Your facts are interesting, but there are a lot of 2005 users on this forum that are pretty avid gamers and are quite happy with the performance of their panel.DocWonder said:
Regards - B.B.S.
mathesar
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
Axsuul said:
I did look at the VX924, As you can see here the response time was actualy pretty bad thanks to the lack of industry standard ratings.
2001FP actualy tested faster on toms hardware, at least they use the same test everytime so its easier to compare actual response times between monitors.
I have a 17" Sony SDM-74 DVI sitting unhooked on my desk. It does ok in my games, even UT2004. The only thing I've noticed is that black isn't black, the backlight washes it out a little. I never notice ghosting on it (it's a 16ms panel)
I'm back to gaming on a Voodoo3 3000 and my 21" Hitachi CM801 (1600x1200x70Hz) CRT. This setup plays UT 99 and Diablo II fabulously. Long live Glide. I still play UT2004 and Warhammer 40K DoW on an AIW 9700 Pro occassionally, but 40fps is fine for me. I am definitely in the casual gamer crowd. Why those games? Because I enjoy the game play
I'm back to gaming on a Voodoo3 3000 and my 21" Hitachi CM801 (1600x1200x70Hz) CRT. This setup plays UT 99 and Diablo II fabulously. Long live Glide. I still play UT2004 and Warhammer 40K DoW on an AIW 9700 Pro occassionally, but 40fps is fine for me. I am definitely in the casual gamer crowd. Why those games? Because I enjoy the game play
gplracer said:
As I have pointed out more than once, it's the 'cool factor' in LCDs that are the primary draw for the LCD owner. Problem with 'cool' is that it wears out. In the end you are left with the imaging performance. Which is why I never buy anything based on cool. Desk real estate doesn't buy me performance, neither does weight. In the end, I think the difference between the LCD and CRT owner is that one wants cool and new technology while the other wants performance.
Also, I think its funny to read these posts and see that the LCD owner likes to argue along the lines of 'you have your opinion and I have mine.' Problem is, Doc's post wasn't opinion.....it was a buncha number crunching showing the performance barrier between the two technologies. And the LCD owner response is along the lines of I like my LCD 'cause its sweet and seXXy.....this is more important the limitations like one resolution, bad blacks, relatively poor response.I like sweet and seXXy too, but I don't look for it in a monitor.
I think that about sums it all up. Greenwit said:Also, I think its funny to read these posts and see that the LCD owner likes to argue along the lines of 'you have your opinion and I have mine.' Problem is, Doc's post wasn't opinion.....it was a buncha number crunching showing the performance barrier between the two technologies. And the LCD owner response is along the lines of I like my LCD 'cause its sweet and seXXy. I like sweet and seXXy too, but I don't look for it in a monitor.
well i agree, as has been stated that it all comes down to what you want from your monitor. I switched cause i could get a good deal on my 2405 and my crt was hurting my eyes (i was certainly running at 85hz). I work from home formatting documents for WASL stuff and when working for 10 hours straight strains your eyes no matter what but this lcd has been a lot softer on em.
Also i think a lot of opinion people have about this issue and any technology issue is that people like what they know and if you use one kind of crt that totaly killzzz then you probably think crts are the better way to go. Personally i know there is a barrier with LCD's it's just how much is that barrier going to come into play on my day to day use? For me very little. I'd like to see better flat panel tech make it to the market but it just isnt there quite yet but what is there shouldn't be disscredited based on pure math. Best thing anyone could do is try both for a while (if they can) and go with what is best for them, that's how any technology will succeed.
sorry to type so much, i had a lot of coffee.
subrandom said:yeah i can see that i suppose, since my 2405fpw is at really low brightness, but i tend to get more eye strain from a display being too dim rather than it being too bright, everyones different i suppose
You gotta watch it with these things. I turned the 2001fp monitor brightness to minimum....which really wasn't all that much of a change to be honest. So I went into the OS display properties and notched down the gamma. But then the colors sucked. I couldn't get to something that I was satisfied with.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 25,308
mathesar said:I had a 2001FP and sent it back so my experiance was the opposite. It couldnt compete with my 21" Sony CRT .I've got a 24" Sony widescreen CRT on the way next week
I also sold my 2001FP after 2 months..Im back on my 22" Cornerstone P1750...
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
Perhaps the longest Troll post in this forums history. Not one word was typed that hasnt been seen here hundreds of times before.
Then reading things like LCD text is too bright ..Try calibration. Half the problems with half the posts here could and can be fixed by simple calibration, but no, that takes time and effort so its easier to blast LCD as crap.
Another fact, having been in the business since about 1985 I get to attend many meetings from many various manufactures ..all and I mean all have one common goal.
KILL ALL CRT PRODUCTION ASAP. There may still be a few special needs units, Ill admit that, but what research is going on in the CRT market? None.
Go to your local TV store, want CRT? Its all el-cheapo junk with the exception of Sony, who like everyone else has already announced they are out of the CRT business in a year or two at the most.
Sorry for the rant, but damn, what a total waste of posting space.
Then reading things like LCD text is too bright ..Try calibration. Half the problems with half the posts here could and can be fixed by simple calibration, but no, that takes time and effort so its easier to blast LCD as crap.
Another fact, having been in the business since about 1985 I get to attend many meetings from many various manufactures ..all and I mean all have one common goal.
KILL ALL CRT PRODUCTION ASAP. There may still be a few special needs units, Ill admit that, but what research is going on in the CRT market? None.
Go to your local TV store, want CRT? Its all el-cheapo junk with the exception of Sony, who like everyone else has already announced they are out of the CRT business in a year or two at the most.
Sorry for the rant, but damn, what a total waste of posting space.
feigned said:
LCD's do not need refreshing, the crystals are either on or off all the time where as CRT"s need the phosorous coating consantly *recharged* by the ray tube. The refresh rate only comes into play when using VSYNC to reduce texture tearing if it goes beyond typically 60hz on most LCD's
mathesar
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
BillR said:
Are you sure you're in the business ...If so you might of heard about SED ? Or perhaps the new Samsung SlimFit CRT HDTV which is on sale now...
Either way CRT offers the best overall image quality , The only reason PC CRT monitors are being phased out is manufactures make a lot more money selling LCD's vs. CRT being they're cheaper to make, This doesn't mean LCD is "better".
"Samsung introduces the new SlimFit television with only two thirds the depth of a conventional flat screen CRT. It never falls behind in in slimness when compared to LCD TV, Plasma or Flat Panel although it is superior in color reproduction, brightness, contrast ratio and other picture quality elements." <-- Read that over and over.
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
mathesar said:Are you sure you're in the business ...If so you might of heard about SED ? Or perhaps the new Samsung SlimFit CRT HDTV which is on sale now...
Either way CRT offers the best overall image quality , The only reason PC CRT monitors are being phased out is manufactures make a lot more money selling LCD's vs. CRT being they're cheaper to make, This doesn't mean LCD is "better".
"Samsung introduces the new SlimFit television with only two thirds the depth of a conventional flat screen CRT. It never falls behind in in slimness when compared to LCD TV, Plasma or Flat Panel although it is superior in color reproduction, brightness, contrast ratio and other picture quality elements." <-- Read that over and over.
Yup, Samsung makes the slim TV alright, and everybody that bought them is cutting price trying like hell to get them out of their stores, have you actually seen one? Check Amazon, they cant dump them fast enough.
SED might be cool, if it was close to affordable and didnt have such horrible geometry problems (like the Samsung).
http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/0/B33D595E46D982A6CC2570120074DD8D?OpenDocument&More=Technology
SED is actually a hybrid tech between CRT and LCD and so far no one but Toshiba and Cannon are supporting the idea.
mathesar
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
The latest revision of the TV has much improved geometry, it was an issue with the first batches.
Wiltshire Tony
n00b
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4
Docwonder, your post is irrelevant to todays gamer.
Once you get a high quality LCD (and a clear desktop) your never going to go back to a CRT.
Once you get a high quality LCD (and a clear desktop) your never going to go back to a CRT.
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
Wiltshire Tony said:
I think that was my whole point, thanks
BillR said:
Yes, it is a rant.....and as is typical with many LCD zombies, convoluted points and arguments. Just senseless things. For example, $$$ spent on R&D should have no bearing production needs or quality of the product. Not when CRTs have been around forever. You think by now that product has been improved to the point were it is quite good. And it is. Also, you are just flat out wrong claiming no research into CRTs, as Mathesar points out. Speaking of R&D and a tech badly in need of it....it's LCDs. Awful quality control (bad pixels, backlighting), one resolution, bad blacks, response. Yeah, the LCD world has a long ways to go.
Bright text and calibration? I tried that...over and over in fact. Problem with LCD brightness is that it can only be reduced so much before the colors look like h*ll. LCD technology requires excessive brightness in order to produce half way decent color fidelity. And you get, as a bonus prize, brightness way beyond ambient room brightness and practically enough to sunburn your face.
So manufacturers want to kill CRT production? What's your point? The product isn't any good? Isn't that what we all want as a consumer? A good product? Or is the margin on LCDs so high along with volume that it just makes more sense for a business to produce LCDs. So, we get your point......we should all buy LCDs 'cause the manufacturers find that they produce better margins and we should help them out as much as possible. Another piece of Guinness driven logic......Brilliant!
LCD fans, I don't want to make this too ugly, so let me offer what i'm saying from a different angle.
A LCD can make a "decent" gaming monitor if the following 3 requirements are met.
1) the lcd must keep its respone time at or below 12 ms over the whole spectrum( grey to greay, black to white, color to color) 12ms response time is equivalent to 83 frames per second.
2) the lcd must be refreshing at 75hz to be able to show 75 frames per second.
3) a graphics card that can sustain over 75 frames per second on any chosen game
This will allow a gamer to play at an OBSERVED 75 frames per second without the bottleneck of a response rate or graphics card. (observed meaning what you actually see and not what the fps meter is telling you. Everything above 75fps on an LCD is meaningless)
Conclusion: At 75 frames per second, I imagine the distinction between choppiness and smoothness falls into the realm of subjectivity. However, it still remains fact that the CRT will update more images per second than a LCD, but whether an observer notices the difference is up to the individual.
Speaking for myself, i can notice the discrepancy between 75 and 100... so for me the lcd would be a poor choice. For others, if you don't see the difference, an LCD may be the perfect choice.
no hard feelings... I didn't mean to upset any lcd fans. Hopefully, you find this post more amiable and fair.
A LCD can make a "decent" gaming monitor if the following 3 requirements are met.
1) the lcd must keep its respone time at or below 12 ms over the whole spectrum( grey to greay, black to white, color to color) 12ms response time is equivalent to 83 frames per second.
2) the lcd must be refreshing at 75hz to be able to show 75 frames per second.
3) a graphics card that can sustain over 75 frames per second on any chosen game
This will allow a gamer to play at an OBSERVED 75 frames per second without the bottleneck of a response rate or graphics card. (observed meaning what you actually see and not what the fps meter is telling you. Everything above 75fps on an LCD is meaningless)
Conclusion: At 75 frames per second, I imagine the distinction between choppiness and smoothness falls into the realm of subjectivity. However, it still remains fact that the CRT will update more images per second than a LCD, but whether an observer notices the difference is up to the individual.
Speaking for myself, i can notice the discrepancy between 75 and 100... so for me the lcd would be a poor choice. For others, if you don't see the difference, an LCD may be the perfect choice.
no hard feelings... I didn't mean to upset any lcd fans. Hopefully, you find this post more amiable and fair.
Sparrow_69
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 776
DocWonder: Anti-lcd?
Lol guys, he is bringing up VERY important points. A bit zealous? Sure, but this is [H].
The 75Hz refresh rate is only truly important in Source-based games. So if you are fan, an LCD might not be best.
The other factors, such as TRUE 12ms pixel response rate is still non-existent. The S-PVA VP191B does get close with an average of 16ms across the board, however.
The 75Hz refresh rate is only truly important in Source-based games. So if you are fan, an LCD might not be best.
The other factors, such as TRUE 12ms pixel response rate is still non-existent. The S-PVA VP191B does get close with an average of 16ms across the board, however.
Doc, I'd first like to say......
You've expressed your noobish, biased and largely out of date opinion, and it was fun. But its time to admit that you have been.....
So now, i'd like to say a goodbye and a little piece of advise from me and all the other [H]ard LCD gamers out there.....
Hate to flame, but Im getting seriously tired of this LCD vs CRT bullshit.
You've expressed your noobish, biased and largely out of date opinion, and it was fun. But its time to admit that you have been.....
So now, i'd like to say a goodbye and a little piece of advise from me and all the other [H]ard LCD gamers out there.....
Hate to flame, but Im getting seriously tired of this LCD vs CRT bullshit.
- Status