crt better for gaming?

J

jedisme

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
141
please feel free to discuss. i would like more input. have to do with the refresh rate of crt as opposed to lcd's?
 
They are better for gaming. But they are all EoL and not in production. Then there is the convenience factor and the fact that even LANs/pros are starting to use them. You have to decide for yourself.
 
All peoples I know (including myself) are happy with their LCD.
CRT might be better for gaming but they are clumsy, heavy and they distort the image at the corners.
BTW, I am not a huge fan of LCD and I just cannot wait to get an 30" OLED...
 
- CRTs have high refresh rates (100-160?), so you are not likely to experience problems resulting from the GFX card sending to the monitor more frames per second then it can display (it is usually max 60, sometimes 75, not more). It his happens, the LCD screen produces tearing. I think it has also something to do with the inability of LCDs to change pixels fast enough.

- And there is the second problem of the input-lag. For the LCD it just takes some time to display a screen sent from the GFX card, both for crystals and for the processor in the LCD. The input lag can be 10-60ms, which is not noticeable for some, but noticeable for someone else. But there are now some TN monitors with zero (or close to) input-lag.

- Thirdly - CRTs have superior blacks, which LCDs can't beat. And this can add to the atmosphere in the certain games.

But LCDs has also evident plusses... the main is that they are LARGE and occupy less space, which is very important for many gamers :)
 
It really depends on the user and the game. For a pro gamer a CRT is fast and the picture is accurate. For a casual gamer that perfers an LCD for other things like text, browsing, programming, then an LCD is a better choice. If the game is not fast action then an LCD is fine, but for things like and FPS or gutar hero a CRT may become necessary. The one nice thing about an LCD is that you can go real big without it getting real heavy.

Dave
 
It is now possible to get an LCD with zero input lag, in which case the CRT would not give you an edge. Otherwise you have a slight edge over someone who has a higher input lag monitor.
 
Don't forget SIZE... a good 24-27 will make most people change to LCD over a 19-22inch CRT.
Atmosphere comes from SIZE and PQ.
 
sethk said:
It is now possible to get an LCD with zero input lag, in which case the CRT would not give you an edge. Otherwise you have a slight edge over someone who has a higher input lag monitor.
Click to expand...

Im not sure any LCD exists with "zero" input lag. Even if one did you still have to factor in response time which is a couple to five ms in most monitors right now (CRT 0). You can find some LCD's now with input lag in the <1 frame range which is pretty speedy. Im using the V2400W and from tests input lag on it appears to be in the 16ms range which while very fast a few (me) can still notice the difference between it and a CRT but it's getting very difficult to tell. I would use my old CRT's (I have 3) but they are so bulky to carry around and I don't really have the room on my desk to house one and it's a mess to take it downstairs (where my consoles are). I can use the V2400W which is pretty fast and it's around 10lbs which is easy to move around and set up quick.

I agree that CRT players (and some with quick LCD's) do have an advantage and sometimes a big advantage against others with high input lag monitors.
 
Faster refresh rate = more fluid image.
CRTs only use VGA (analog). Not Digital (DVI). Digital image has better quality.

Gaming is easier on a CRT, just feels more natural. But advances in LCD technology has closed the gap between LCDs and CRTs. Its becoming harder and harder to justify buying a CRT when you can get the same performance out of a LCD, that is much lighter, prettier, and easier to use.

As far as no LCD's coming close to CRTs thats untrue.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1268063&page=3

A link to the monitor I have, DS-263N, which isn't even a frame behind the CRT.

Regrading refresh rates in multiplayer games... More FPS = more game world updates to the server, you actually lag them, and therefore own them. CRTs can be set to 85hz and up and you experience near fluid image. That feeling of fluid image is as of yet unobtainable from any current LCD monitor. OLED possibly.

My experiance with 85hz on a CRT vs 60hz on a DVI monitor is sad. I felt much more mobile in FPS games at 85hz on a CRT. I could move faster, shoot faster, do crazier shit. Things just felt more responsive, and fluidic. But dont get me wrong the Doublesight is the best comparison so far.

Also consider the following

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Regrading refresh rates over DVI vs VGA on LCD's: I was able to get 75 hz on any LCD and 85hz on others using only VGA. But when I switch over to DVI it locked at 60hz. Image quality is worse with VGA, but it can be cleared up using frequency adjustments on LCD's. As to why the hell I can't get any more than 60hz over DVI drives me insane. I know the monitor can support it over VGA but not DVI. I know of some people getting 75hz with DVI but I have not been able to do it. Even after buying many different DVI cables, different computers, monitors, video cards, and OS's.

Bottom line is -- If you're as good a gamer as you think you are, 2ms, 5ms, 8ms isn't much a problem when it comes to lag. Step up your game if you suspect a CRT opponent. I play on 26 inches of hotness and I have yet to be owned so bad that I feel the need for a CRT.

The Doublesight 26" is the best display you can buy for gaming, being less than 1 frame behind a CRT, and still maintaining top notch image quality. TN like the panels don't come close to IPS monitors. Besides 22" is just so small, 24 inches is close but still not quite there.

Who the hell uses a CRT for Dance Dance Revolution ** Ooops** I mean Guitar Hero. You really think that extra ms is gonna help your game? Gotta be fucking kidding.
 
CRTs are better for gaming, especially for older games.

Not a single CS pro uses LCDs, but a few tournaments now use them, probably because their balls are itchy. I haven't seen WC3 or Starcraft pros use LCDs.

With a CRT at 100hz, as opposed to an LCD at 60hz, especially on a game like CS, your movement is far more fluid and the bullets register more. With an LCD it's like playing under a cage, and your movement is noticeably sketchier. I've actually experienced that the higher the hz the lower and less random the recoil is in CS.

But good luck finding an LCD that can run 100hz at 1024x768 these days.
 
I still don't think crts are better...I've seen people use them, and pro or not, I think LCDs are just as good these days...And as for Blacks, look into OLED monitors, Perfect black.
 
CRTs better for gaming -- yes, at the same screen size...

Why:

Approximately zero input lag.

Higher measured contrast ratio (though this will be most apparent in a darkened room):
--CRT contrast ratio (full on vs. full off): 15,000:1 or more.
--LCD contrast ratio (full on vs. full off): Some TVs over 2000:1 maybe, but more like less than a 1000:1 for computer monitors, often significantly less...

Multiple resolutions.
Multiple refresh rates.

It really isn't a contest at the same screen size. However, LCD's have higher contrast within one frame (i.e., checkerboard contrast), are portable, and can be so very much bigger, which is certainly a PQ factor itself...
 
GodSmoke said:
Bottom line is -- If you're as good a gamer as you think you are, 2ms, 5ms, 8ms isn't much a problem when it comes to lag. Step up your game if you suspect a CRT opponent. I play on 26 inches of hotness and I have yet to be owned so bad that I feel the need for a CRT.
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top