LCD screens really worth it for gaming?

K

Kaldskryke

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
1,346
I'm interested in upgrading my display from a 17" 1024x768 CRT to something with a higher resolution.

With all the problems I hear about LCDs such as banding, backlight bleeding, greyish blacks, ghosting, input lag, tearing etc. I was wondering if I'd be better off just getting a cheap CRT. I don't move my monitor around much so I was thinking a 19" 1600x1200 CRT would be fine.

But now it seems almost everybody is using LCD monitors and I'd like to hear why people are using them despite all the drawbacks. You may omit comments about portability.
 
LCDs are now cheap enough, they're slim, thin, light and bright. Some models have nice designs, like the Asus PW201, the Acer F-20 or the NEC 20WMGX2. The response time is coming down, and viewing angles are getting better. Text is very sharp and easy to read.

With all that said, if you are really used to the close to zero lag of a CRT, there is no alternative. I've tried 2 LCDs so far, including one with 6ms response times but there is unmistakably something off for people who play Counter-Strike at 100fps with a Razer mouse, for example. Movies look better on CRTs as well, although I don't watch movies much (or at all) on this computer. My solution? Get 2 monitors, a CRT for gaming and LCD for reading web pages, documents etc.
 
I use LCD because in a college dorm there is not room for a huge CRT.
 
CRTs are making a comeback.....in interest at least because the coolness factor of LCDs have worn off and the warts are really in full view now. Unfortunately, CRTs are pretty much gone 'cause the mass market chose form over function. We had to read all this nonsense about CRTs causing blindness, migraines and other crap just so people could justify their LCD purchase.

I was happy with my NEC FE2111sb CRT but when I put together my new Conroe system with a 7900gtx video card, my CRT didn't like it. It didn't like the DVI outputs and the DVI to VGA plug made the screen noisy. Point is, now you pretty much can't get a high end video card that has VGA outputs. Yup, it sucks that LCDs have taken over the video world. My Samsung 215tw LCD is inferior to my NEC FE2111sb but I gotta use the LCD because it is more compatible with the DVI standard.
 
Yes it's worth it if you buy the right LCD and no LCD's arnt worth it if you can find a AG CRT. Either way $600 for the discriminating gamer and the LCD will still be a compromise on motion blur, stuck resolution and input lag.
 
LCDs definitely have their pluses......geometry is pretty much perfect, less energy usage and now, I have my cable modem and router sitting behind my monitor (extra space). And the desktop does look cleaner. But when I'm in a pitched F.E.A.R. DM battle, I don't care about any of that.
 
Greenwit said:
CRTs are making a comeback.....in interest at least because the coolness factor of LCDs have worn off and the warts are really in full view now. Unfortunately, CRTs are pretty much gone 'cause the mass market chose form over function. We had to read all this nonsense about CRTs causing blindness, migraines and other crap just so people could justify their LCD purchase.

I was happy with my NEC FE2111sb CRT but when I put together my new Conroe system with a 7900gtx video card, my CRT didn't like it. It didn't like the DVI outputs and the DVI to VGA plug made the screen noisy. Point is, now you pretty much can't get a high end video card that has VGA outputs. Yup, it sucks that LCDs have taken over the video world. My Samsung 215tw LCD is inferior to my NEC FE2111sb but I gotta use the LCD because it is more compatible with the DVI standard.
Click to expand...

CRT's are not making a comeback, at least any kind you want to use, they are too expensive to make and enviromentaly unsound. Trinitron was discontinured winter 2004. Diamondtron's were stopped in winter 2005. All that's left is garabge invar shadow mask tubes and the blurry text, grainy, darkness the goes with them.$100 monitors destined for third world and lower income.. Any LCD made is superior to those IMO.

SED in few years is the revolutionary tech and will beat CRT's on all thier strenths and LCD's in all thiers.

LCD is a placeholder.
 
I bought S-PVA because it was supposed to have the best blacks. Black does look pretty black, but all the detail of the dark shades between grey and black is lost. It looks very bad, and you often cannot see where you are going in dark areas.
 
The future will be LCD and other forms of it. Hate it or love but that's the truth. CRT will get phase out eventually. Changes is a good thing I dont know why people just want to hang on to the past so much. If you're one of those people then just hold out until another 5 years and then LCD will surpass CRT. Nothing is perfect we all know that. But if you're willing to compromise a few flaws but gain a much better space saving, power saving and better looking monitor; then LCD is the answer you're looking for.
 
syne_24 said:
The future will be LCD and other forms of it. Hate it or love but that's the truth. CRT will get phase out eventually. Changes is a good thing I dont know why people just want to hang on to the past so much. If you're one of those people then just hold out until another 5 years and then LCD will surpass CRT. Nothing is perfect we all know that. But if you're willing to compromise a few flaws but gain a much better space saving, power saving and better looking monitor; then LCD is the answer you're looking for.
Click to expand...

You sound somewhat uninformed.

CRT
+Contrast ratio 15,000:1 for superior black-to-greys
+Perfect viewing angles
+No input lag (look it up)
+No ghosting
+Can run at any resolution
+Better accuracy and more available colors
-Size and appearance
-Heat
-Slight geometry distortion at the corners on all but the best models
-Viewable area is 1" smaller than advertised specs (19 inch = 18 inch viewable
-Refresh rate flicker noticable below 70Hz, some people extremely sensitive and must run at 100Hz

LCD
+Perfect geometry with DVI cable
+Size and appearance
+Energy efficient, so less heat
+No flicker
+Viewable area is as advertised
+/-LCD pixels are razor sharp, versus CRT's slightly anti-aliased look from electron gun means sharper, clearer text (but grainier graphics)
-Input lag and ghosting (minor but still present on new LCD's)
-Fixed resolution
-Average 1000:1 contrast ratio produces very poor black-to-grey transition
-Poor viewing angles on all but the most expensive models
-Fewer colors (TN is 6 bit, noticable, others are 8 bit, almost unnoticeable, CRT is 10 bit)
-chance of dead/stuck pixels
-chance of backlight bleeding or poor backlight uniformity

For me, the only things I care about that LCD's have over CRT, is perfect geometry and better cosmetics. CRT dominates in all other catagories. The purpose of a display is to produce a quality image, and LCD's are a a giant step backward in this respect.
 
Nice post styles some minor points

- No LCD has ever measured above 500 contrast dispite claims on boxes.
- Color shift LCD's have it CRT's don't
- Good LCD's like RTC IPS's use as much power as CRTs for example my 20" NEC uses 90W same

For me, the only things I care about that LCD's have over CRT, is perfect geometry and better cosmetics. CRT dominates in all other catagories. The purpose of a display is to produce a quality image, and LCD's are a a giant step backward in this respect.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%
 
I'm not saying lcd is completely better now. I'm saying it will get better. They both have their bad/good like you said. But what do you think another 10 years from now? Better CRT or better LCD? That's where the technology is heading. Eventually LCD will surpass CRT.
 
syne_24 said:
I'm not saying lcd is completely better now. I'm saying it will get better. They both have their bad/good like you said. But what do you think another 10 years from now? Better CRT or better LCD? That's where the technology is heading. Eventually LCD will surpass CRT.
Click to expand...


They can't get much better on thier primary annoyance, motion blur. The laws of physics and chemical kenetics makes it certain LC's in LCD's can't move any faster no matter how much they try and overvolt them.

Trust me LCD's will have a short history compared to CRTs when SED comes. Google SED displays you'll understand.
 
alrite so not LCD but another form of it SED, VED or whatever.. Basically anything but tube is what i mean. I just cannot go back CRT ever after I got my first LCD. The pro's still outweigh the con's for me. But everybody has their opinions. I just cant wait till they close the gap on CRT performance we have now.
 
Dont mean to hijack the thread.. but for those who have widescreen LCD, is it possible to run games in 4:3 resolution by means of adding black bars on the left & right (like widescreen tv)?

My current crt shows signs of giving up. I'm thinking of getting a 22" widescreen, this will be used pretty much for everything including gaming.

Any comments about how LCD scale non native resolution, specially for gaming?
 
ech3lon9 said:
Dont mean to hijack the thread.. but for those who have widescreen LCD, is it possible to run games in 4:3 resolution by means of adding black bars on the left & right (like widescreen tv)?

My current crt shows signs of giving up. I'm thinking of getting a 22" widescreen, this will be used pretty much for everything including gaming.

Any comments about how LCD scale non native resolution, specially for gaming?
Click to expand...


Depends if LCD supports centered mode option or not. Also Nvidia video drivers can do what you want on any monitor.

And scaling (stretching a non native picture to fit LCD) sux on all LCD's, I never use it.. Blurry master deluxe.
 
I have a nec 20wgx2 and there are gfx settings which let you choose what to do, ie.

1. strech image
2. use black bars on side
3. strech vertical till the screenlimits (black on left and right side)
4. let the monitor do the scaling


Im not sure if that list is correct but it´s something like that ;)


I played Counster-Strike 1.6 using the latest drivers on my old geforce 4600. I played terrible and now I´ve gone back to 44.03 and the game lag/mouse lag that I experienced earlier is almost gone. But it all might be the result of my using a too old gfx card.

Very happy with my nec but havn´t tried many other games.
 
Only certain LCD's have aspect ratio scaling controls. Most do not, and will always stretch the image. You will have to check each model individually to see if it has this feature.
 
gechu said:
But it all might be the result of my using a too old gfx card.
Click to expand...


Ya think? :eek: GeForce4 @ 16x10 ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!

Dude What's your address I feel like kicking your ass buying an awesome $600 monitor and gaming with a $10 card.:D j/k

BTW only euro verison of our monitors supports centered mode.
 
dude.. get an LCD.. they are waaaayyy better than CRTs. even for gaming.. my samsung LCD has an 8 ms reponse time which has no ghosting or any of that other crap you mentioned... don't buy a new CRT... you will hate yourself if you do. LCDs are great for gaming.. I recommend the samsung 730b 17" LCD... it's NICE.
 
skyyfox said:
dude.. get an LCD.. they are waaaayyy better than CRTs. even for gaming.. my samsung LCD has an 8 ms reponse time which has no ghosting or any of that other crap you mentioned... don't buy a new CRT... you will hate yourself if you do. LCDs are great for gaming.. I recommend the samsung 730b 17" LCD... it's NICE.
Click to expand...

You recommend a cheap 17" TN with a manufacturer specified 600:1 contrast ratio for gaming? It would appear that you care nothing for the quality of the image on your screen, but of course I know that you just don't "see" the difference between a 6-bit dithered panel with "600:1" contrast and a 10-bit CRT with 15,000:1 contrast. I'm not meaning to sound insulting, I really feel that people like you make up the vast majority of the population.

If you had ever spent time on a decent CRT display, not even a high quality one (but better than anything Dell sells), then I don't see how you could consider the LCD a step forward in display technology. But hey- if you're totally satisfied with that LCD, more power to you. You're lucky you don't have to deal with the frustrations that some of us picky graphics designer-types deal with.
 
What is this, the crt freaks are lying about the facts about crts? Who would've guessed? :rolleyes:

Crt monitors usually have a contrast ratio of 2200:1. The REASON why it can show good blacks and lcd can't is because crts use colors from red green, and blue to create colors, while lcds use MIXTURES of red, green, and blue to create colors.

This kind of coloring cannot produce blacks.

And crts HAVE flickering. In fact the whole damn screen constantly refreshes 60 times every second, leading to eye strain and tired eyes if you watch for a long time.

With lcds, the only part that refreshes is what changes, which is why we HAVE refresh rates.
 
'CRT freaks'........blah, blah, blah. Many (most?) of us CRT 'freaks' are also owners of LCDs. And we're grown up so save the dude talk and other smack for the kiddies.
 
BTW, the normal desktop crt is actually 700:1 contrast :cool: , so an lcd with 800:1 is actually BETTER, it's problem is that it's subtractive coloring and can't show blacks.
 
http://www.bigbruin.com/techtip.php?file=005

"As a point of reference, CRT monitors may have contrast ratios around 700:1, and using the three 17” LCD monitors currently available from ComputerGeeks.com as examples shows two with contrast ratios of 450:1 and one with a contrast ratio of 400:1. 400:1 and 450:1 are quite respectable values for LCD monitors, but CRTs may still have the edge in this department."

From 2005.

Of course the crt tech improved with the trinitron, but not the super improvement you had hoped huh?
 
I'm sure we can have a balanced discussion without calling each other 'freaks'. You seem to be over-zealous about LCD's, yourself.

Newsboys2004 said:
And crts HAVE flickering. In fact the whole damn screen constantly refreshes 60 times every second, leading to eye strain and tired eyes if you watch for a long time.
Click to expand...

You are speaking of CRT's with 700:1 contrast ratios and 60Hz refresh rates? Do you honestly think that CRT supporters would use this kind of bargain bin trash? You are more bias than I, and your numbers contain misinformation if they are referring to such poor quality CRT's. I believe your source that refers to CRT contrast ratios being 700:1 is erronous (unless we really are talking about bargain bin CRT's).

I own the Gateway FPD2185W. I bought it because of the advertised 1000:1 contrast ratio, and because I researched that S-PVA could produce the best blacks. I'm primarily a gamer. I noticed immediately that all of my colors were washed out at night-time and in dungeons/caves in Oblivion. I have been dealing with it, but it has gotten to the point where it actually affects gameplay. I hooked up my cheap, mid-range Samsung shadow mask CRT in clone mode and was amazed at the difference.

This thread is about LCD's for gaming. I can easily recommend the FPD2185W for web surfing, watching DVD movies and any activity that deals with text. I enjoy using it for everything but gaming and serious color editing with Photoshop.

Please, let's compare the best LCD has to offer with the best CRT has to offer. The original poster is obviously concerned about quality, so let's leave 6-bit TN's and trashy Dell CRT's out of this.
 
Scyles said:
I'm sure we can have a balanced discussion without calling each other 'freaks'. You seem to be over-zealous about LCD's, yourself.

I own the Gateway FPD2185W. I bought it because of the advertised 1000:1 contrast ratio, and because I researched that S-PVA could produce the best blacks. I'm primarily a gamer. I noticed immediately that all of my colors were washed out at night-time and in dungeons/caves in Oblivion. I have been dealing with it, but it has gotten to the point where it actually affects gameplay. I hooked up my cheap, mid-range Samsung shadow mask CRT in clone mode and was amazed at the difference.

This thread is about LCD's for gaming. I can easily recommend the FPD2185W for web surfing, watching DVD movies and any activity that deals with text. I enjoy using it for everything but gaming and serious color editing with Photoshop.

Please, let's compare the best LCD has to offer with the best CRT has to offer. The original poster is obviously concerned about quality, so let's leave 6-bit TN's and trashy Dell CRT's out of this.
Click to expand...

I think the Sammy 215tw I own is pretty much the same panel you have except the brightness is toned down a bit (300 v. 350 cd/m2). Anyway for some gaming these LCDs are perfectly fine. Like, Civ IV and Gal Civ 2 for instance which both BTW have native widescreen support. I also have no problem with Dawn of War or the Lego SW demo I tried last nite. WoW is just magnificient on my widescreen. There is something to be said for widescreen gaming that that is practically the exclusive domain of LCDs. It's the FPSs that are the issue. And it's not just motion blur but the blackness of black. Like last year when I tried a Dell 2001fp with Doom3. It was a joke. That is admittedly one of the worst LCDs you could use for dark games but it illustrates the problem with the technology.
 
Yeah, I play RTS's too. I love Dawn of War especially. RTS's are not dark games. WoW is not dark (maybe in dungeons), Lego SW is not dark -- these games are fine, and I like widescreen aspect.

However,

Nearly all recent FPS's have dark areas
Nearly all dungeon crawlers have dark areas
Nearly all "stealth" games (Splinter Cell/Thief) have dark areas

These happen to be my favorite kind of games, and LCD handles them poorly.

If you want to stick to RTS, MMO and racing games, you'll be fine with an LCD, in my opinion.

There is a lot of confusion with contrast ratios, stemming from manufacturers lying about specs. tightline mentions that no LCD has ever measured above 500:1, and the 15,000:1 ratio for CRT's is apparently hypothetical.

If my 2185 were 500:1 and a Trinitron is 2200:1, then that does sound like a more realistic perspective. I'm sure someone can step in and clear this up some more.
 
Everyone advertises on/off contrast ratios, including LCDs. This is the CR as measured by showing a fully "black" screen in a TOTALLY darkened room using a professional calibrated light meter (not these spyder type consumer level colorimeters), measuring luminance, then a fully white screen, measuring luminance and dividing (full white luminance level) / (full black luminance level).

A fully calibrated professional CRT such as a .24 Aperture Grill Diamondtron where you can properly adjust the black levels at the service menu level can do > 10,000:1 measured not theoretical on/off contrast ratio. Basically the black where brightness level on the grayscale = 0 is really black, i.e. there is no measurable emission or its very very low. Most meters can't measure below 0.01 ft-l and your room has to be pitch black - even a single LED would ruin the measurement. The trick is to get the blacks this dark without crushing much shadow detail (gamma curve needs to be right.) I happen to also be a front projection fan and in the projector world, calibrated CRT projectors can have > 100,000:1 on / off CR. The newer LCOS / SXRD front projectors with dynamic irises (Sony Ruby / Pearl) can do 15,000:1 on / off CR.

What even these CRTs cannot do, however, is have such high ANSI contrast when using a picture with both full black and full white in it (eg black / white checkerboard pattern). Here, a good flat panel LCD is competitive (LCD projectors have poor ANSI contrast for reasons that dont affect LCD flat panels). I don't have figures for ANSI contrast, but no manufacturers advertise ANSI contrast because they sound very low.
 
No, the point is that crt people seem to think everything in crt world is god.

My example is showing that only the high end crt stuff is good, just like the case with lcd.

Now high end crt is probably better then high end lcd, but that's another argument in itself...

I would kill for a 24" trinitron myself, which is probably the best monitor you can get, but that is beside the point...

Guess you can't handle the truth...

And as far as contrast ratios, I do notice a big difference between 500:1 contrast on my neices pc and my 800:1 contrast. Sorry to say it again, but I think it's more 'crt freak' nonsense...
 
Please, let's compare the best LCD has to offer with the best CRT has to offer. The original poster is obviously concerned about quality, so let's leave 6-bit TN's and trashy Dell CRT's out of this.
Click to expand...

I agree that high end CRT's are the only way to go when it comes to CRT's.

crt people seem to think everything in crt world is god
Click to expand...
That was a very stupid thing to say. People that are serious about image quality know to look no further than a Trinitron tube, and only a Trinitron tube.

Guess you can't handle the truth...
Click to expand...
And what truth is that? That only the high end CRT stuff is good, just like only high end LCD's are good? Duh.
 
Well... Okay. Try going to some forums. People brag about how any crt is better then any 'crappy' lcd and they are willing to take any crt you give to them...

It's like a bunch of dirty hippies... :rolleyes:

I guess maybe I've been hanging out on the wrong (stupid) forums. I apologize for calling you crt freaks.
 
tightline said:
All that's left is garabge invar shadow mask tubes and the blurry text, grainy, darkness the goes with them.
SED in few years is the revolutionary tech and will beat CRT's on all thier strenths and LCD's in all thiers.
Click to expand...

I've heard of SED technology before and considering how many times it has been delayed, I'm not going to hold my breath and wait for it.

So invar shadow mask CRTs suck terribly? The CRT stopgap I was considering is an invar shadow mask type, so perhaps I'll just end up going LCD despite their issues.
 
Well... Okay. Try going to some forums. People brag about how any crt is better then any 'crappy' lcd and they are willing to take any crt you give to them...

It's like a bunch of dirty hippies...

I guess maybe I've been hanging out on the wrong (stupid) forums. I apologize for calling you crt freaks.
Click to expand...

Its fine, I've found that most people here are a lot more informed and mature than the people you find on the popular hardware sites. There's certainly a lot less flaming and a lot more relevant discussion here.
 
Well for one thing, the mian problem is sadly most crts don't have dvi output, needed to use monitor with a new video card.

If you go with an older video card, and a crt, there's really no exception: Get a 24" sony trinitron for $200 off ebay.

If you want to go lcd, pick one with lower the 8ms refresh rates, and one with s-ips output to prevent glare. That'll take care of most of the problems you'd face.

BTW, MAKE SURE that the lower then 8 ms lcd is 8bit, not 6bit, otherwise it will look like crap!
 
It hasn't been discussed a lot in here, but for me, one large benefit of LCD is the fact you can have much larger display sizes vs the weight factor..

specifically, the chances of you getting and using a 37" CRT is probably pretty low..

the only reason i choose 37" is because the 37" Westinghouse is a very decent large LCD monitor that , if it were a CRT probably wouldn't work as well (considering space and weight constraints)..


although bigger != better.. in this case, at least for me, bigger is nice when gaming..

you still have the drawbacks of the LCD itself, but if having a larger display is important to your gaming then the LCD tech is probably well worth it.. (i guess it boils downto the Size arguement of LCD vs CRT)
 
Kaldskryke said:
So invar shadow mask CRTs suck terribly? The CRT stopgap I was considering is an invar shadow mask type, so perhaps I'll just end up going LCD despite their issues.
Click to expand...

Appeture Grille is the way to go. Shadow masks mostly range from awful to decent, there may be some really good ones out there that I don't know about.

Anything you upgrade to, whether CRT or LCD, is a big step up from an old 17" at 1024x768. If you're considering LCD, take a long look at the IPS panels. They're more expensive, but you get what you pay for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top