• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

CRT vs LCD

stonedwaldo420 said:
I agree with the CRT guys out there. I have a Samsung 997DF that I got for only $150 at BestBuy (they had like 20 of them that they couldn’t get rid of). For the price it is simply amazing. Anyway, I was planning on going to the dark side and getting the Dell 2407, but after seeing those SED’s, I am thinking otherwise.

But can I wait? I know the article says end of 06 or beginning of 07, but I will be amazed if there are no production delays or shortages with such a radical new technology. And besides, if it is as good as they say, demand will be staggering at first and even with good production prices will be high.

Another thing to consider is the investment that most major display manufacturers have made in LCD. It is in their interest to keep SED prices artificially high to maintain strong LCD sales and get their moneys worth out of the new LCD production facilities.
How much more expensive do you think SEDs will be compared to LCDs? (Dell 2405 for only $799 right now :) .
Click to expand...

More like early 2007 you will see the first consumer SED TV and it will cost $10,000 like plasma TV's did. The first computer monitor will probably be 2008, and wont be affordable like LCDs are today until 2009. Can you wait that long?
 
I prefer CRTs. Good CRT monitors like Samsung Syncmaster 959NF are very cheap right now. I actually have had one for 2 years now. I would like to have a 19" widescreen LCD but they are way too expensive right now.
 
CRTs only cause of ghosting issues and those dam dead pixels. and the fact that my really old Panasonic PanaSync S70 looks good at any res
 
killerD said:
More like early 2007 you will see the first consumer SED TV and it will cost $10,000 like plasma TV's did. The first computer monitor will probably be 2008, and wont be affordable like LCDs are today until 2009. Can you wait that long?
Click to expand...

That is just speculation, anything can happen.

What is known is that other than having native resolutions, SEDs will rock! The interpolation might look better compared to LCDs due to the way SEDs work, but I'm not getting my hopes up. nVidia/ATi need to crank out more fillrate for these 1900x1200 displays!
 
Only problem I might have about SED's is that CRT's kill eyes!!!! and SED's are CRT's :)
 
I'm currently running my setup on a 19" Trinitron. I have tried multiple LCD's and none of them to date have the image quality, refresh rate, and clarity that I am used to on it. Not to say that I wouldn't mind going to an LCD. Christ, the weight loss alone would be pleasant. However, no matter what ammount of tweaking, I still have eye strain. Hopefully with SED's that will change. However, SED's are vaporware, and until they evolve, or LCD can offer comparable effects, I'll stick with my ole' trusty Trini...
 
I prefer LCDs. With my LCD I have substantially more desk space and if I want even more I can push my LCD back. When I had a large CRT I could not do this. This is incredibly handy when I'm doing work on the computer.

If you get a decent LCD the effects of ghosting are fairly minimal. Yes, it is there even on the best of LCDs despite what some people say, but after using it for a while you will become used to it and it's not such a big deal.
 
LCD wins it for me, they take up less space, they also create allot less heat. I used to own a 21” Trinitron and while it looked sweet it ran so hot, my monitor easily increased the temp in my room by 5 degrees and I don’t have a small room by any means. I will never go back to CRTs again, also size matters what is the largest CRT out there? The biggest LCDs are 30” plus. Of course I only own a 21” LCD lol.
 
GabooN said:
LCD wins it for me, they take up less space, they also create allot less heat. I used to own a 21” Trinitron and while it looked sweet it ran so hot, my monitor easily increased the temp in my room by 5 degrees and I don’t have a small room by any means. I will never go back to CRTs again, also size matters what is the largest CRT out there? The biggest LCDs are 30” plus. Of course I only own a 21” LCD lol.
Click to expand...


I agree... Most people who prefer CRT probably haven't seen the true differences, or they don't live in a desert climate like I do.
 
Sooner or later you gotta give i nand throw away your CRT

:D

Once you go LCD, you will never go back, i am a hardcore games, and this is 100 times better then crt, people who say LCD are no good for games, dont know what they are talking about.

66mp.jpg
 
1920x1200

Powered by Nvidia 6600GT 128. Runs HL2 on full settings + full HDR


128tj.jpg

132jf.jpg

146rz.jpg

153vu.jpg
 
id love to have one of those 20+ inch lcds but they cost around £350 plus for a good one in england...and id rather spend that on an opty 170 and a sli ultra-d...but yeh i used my m8s 30inch dell lcd when he asked if he could mail it to my house whilst he was on holiday and it was BLISS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
GJohn said:
Sooner or later you gotta give i nand throw away your CRT

:D

Once you go LCD, you will never go back, i am a hardcore games, and this is 100 times better then crt, people who say LCD are no good for games, dont know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Not better than the FW900, but looking at that tiny CRT next to it I can see why you would say something like that. I have 3 LCDs(including my TV) myself, and I went back. :p

None of us said LCDs are bad for games, CRTs are just better.
 
Bop said:
Not better than the FW900, but looking at that tiny CRT next to it I can see why you would say something like that. I have 3 LCDs(including my TV) myself, and I went back. :p

None of us said LCDs are bad for games, CRTs are just better.
Click to expand...

i see what your saying, but how much are CRt's better? Do you even notice a difference? maybe difference just in colors.
 
I was also getting annoyed , again, by this presumption. I HAD a 2405FPW. I now have an FW900 because when I put them side by side, for a pure gaming rig, the LCD had to go. It's great that you love your 2405, but if you want to know why I didn't: Well, it doesn't ghost, but it smears. Apparently many can live with this... Great. Is it that hard to believe I can't? I would give up power and space on my desk, and gain faster refresh and flexibility of resolutions, because I hate smearing?


Another guy before you put it worse than you did.
"I agree... Most people who prefer CRT probably haven't seen the true differences, or they don't live in a desert climate like I do."

Guess what, it's alot easier for the FW900 guys to pompously claim he just hasn't seen IT yet. Contrast ratio, better by what, a factor of 10? REAL world response, factor of 10 not even enough : 4ms exists LCDs exist on paper, no where else. Toms graphs out real response over the whole color spectrum.... take a gander. If you can live with the lines and perhaps improper geometry in the corners, the rest is landslide victories.

I try to be ginger because everyones tastes are different but WTF already. Tell me boys, what the shit is so hard to believe that:

milky blacks are unacceptable

input lag (nothing to do with response rate), usually around 20 to 40ms, is unacceptable

Real response rate - where the best of the best only realistically stay under SIXTEEN ms for all transistions - is unacceptable. My point on trying to be ginger before: That's right guy that brought up difference is like 1ms vrs. 4. Sorry, research for you. What a tell tale sign that is, that a display debate would be easy pickings. Just because Gillete says "it's the best a man can get." Doesn't mean it's true. :D

Then I have flexibility in resolutions and obscene refresh rates to boot. Really hard to believe.. NOT.
 
Hawk said:
Only problem I might have about SED's is that CRT's kill eyes!!!! and SED's are CRT's :)
Click to expand...

Could you document that somehow?
It sounds very like the old myth that reading in dim light will hurt your eyes...

Terra...
 
CRTs do cause eyestrain.
some people have very healthy eyes (occipital lobe actually) that react very quickly to the constant brightening and dimming that happens with CRTs, and the eyes muscles get overstrained. dot pitch, pixel size, brightness, and refresh rate contribute to the level of this.

and then some people have very unhealthy eyes that cant stand all the radiation and amino acid/ essential nutrients deprivation happens on the retina causing some starvation of other things needed by the eye, causing pain. (side note: images of the retinas are proving to be extremely good indicators of total body vascular health)

wondering if the brightness aspect of CRTs will cause similar pain is within reason.
i think the refresh rate issue will go away with a 1000mhz equivilant and being on individual pixels whenever as opposed to being the entire screen

and yes reading in the dark can damage your eyes, any action having pupils very dialted while eyes are focused at a set difference can cause eye damage. with so little light, your eyes need to stay perfectly focused (not natural) and usually causes near sightedness, through weakening of the cilliary muscle/ stretching of the cilliary tendons.

if you read in the dark/ make sure you take breaks between every page turn, focusing at least 40 feet away and cycle back and forth, near and far, 5-10 times. and that should curb the degridation significantly.
 
I love my two Dell 1901 lcd's. They take up so little room and are so freaking awesome (I still feel this years after the purchase).
 
Terra said:
Could you document that somehow?
It sounds very like the old myth that reading in dim light will hurt your eyes...

Terra...
Click to expand...

I'm short sighted... Noone in my family or relatives have glass's and I needed glass's after I started using a CRT for a year.
 
texuspete00 said:
Then I have flexibility in resolutions and obscene refresh rates to boot. Really hard to believe.. NOT.
Click to expand...

Well the refhresh rate "discussion' is the most bogus around right now. The refresh rate of a monitor is related to how often per secon the electron gun traverses the picture mask to drav the picture. Due to the way our eyes and mind work, the image is not faded yet before the picture is refreshed a second time. Like a stroboscope light.

Slow refresh rate gives flickering. But an LCD updates its cells in rows and columns I believe, and there's no refresh rate as such. No flicker. It could be 10 hz or 600000 hz, it wouldn't matter. The light is provided by a sort of nylong tube I think, and its just a sophisticated light bulb, constant light on the entire screen, no stroboscoping. The 60hz is probably just an arbitrary value chosen to give drivers and games something to work with, lest they go crazy because there is no refresh rate.

Im not saying that lcds have unlimited ability to change the picture as fast as you want, but refresh rate is just not the right word.
 
This probably should have been moved before it hit 5 pages. But the Displays subforum is a far better match for this discussion.
 
SoLiD_MasteR said:
LCD has long...long way to reach the quality of CRT..
Click to expand...

it wont reach it, given how long LCD's have been on the market thier problems should be non-existant by now yet they are strugling on the original problems that came since day one.

1) Contrast Ratio.
2) Response time.
3) Colour Gammut/accuracy.
4) Lag.

SED wipes these attributes in one swoop and adds lower power and a thinner profile, now tell me if LCD's even have a future.
 
Immacolata said:
Well the refhresh rate "discussion' is the most bogus around right now. The refresh rate of a monitor is related to how often per secon the electron gun traverses the picture mask to drav the picture. Due to the way our eyes and mind work, the image is not faded yet before the picture is refreshed a second time. Like a stroboscope light.

Slow refresh rate gives flickering. But an LCD updates its cells in rows and columns I believe, and there's no refresh rate as such. No flicker. It could be 10 hz or 600000 hz, it wouldn't matter. The light is provided by a sort of nylong tube I think, and its just a sophisticated light bulb, constant light on the entire screen, no stroboscoping. The 60hz is probably just an arbitrary value chosen to give drivers and games something to work with, lest they go crazy because there is no refresh rate.

Im not saying that lcds have unlimited ability to change the picture as fast as you want, but refresh rate is just not the right word.
Click to expand...

I understand the difference. The refresh rate for an LCD is merely the amount of time it requests the data from the graphics card a second. It "polls" the graphics card 60 times a second to get an updated image. It doesn't flicker. Now, there are still advantages to requesting the data 100 times or more. For one, your first vsync point on an LCD is 30 fps. 30 fps is just the easiset way to talk about vsync at 60Hz. It just means the majority of the time it's holding the frame over one extra Hz because the next frame isn't ready. 100Hz gives you smoother gameplay. It's like always asking... are you ready gpu? are you ready? are you ready? When I play BF2 on an LCD, I'm playing the majority of the game at 30fps for instance. Unless you have issues with CRT's "flicker" at 100Hz, 100Hz is naturally better than 60.

Subjectively, tearing is also less noticable for me at really high refresh. I don't play with vsync anymore. So though i might not be a fatality, quite the opposite, I need all the help I can get. :D The choice was based on myself being sensitive to smearing. However, no input lag, and 100Hz are bonuses. Though yes, on paper, because of the way an LCD works 60Hz is ok. Probably because of the real life response rate, 100Hz and so on would be pointless.

There are plenty of wrenches like triple buferring. I'm just trying to explain my thinking abit. Hey not flickering is a bonus too, but so is 100Hz. It's not moot. With no input lag, no response time to care for, and a 100Hz... a CRT is getting my actions with my mouse to my eyes in the fastest manner possible. 100Hz might not be the clincher, but I'm into computers to build exotic gaming machines. Every hardwre purchase for my beast is based on NOTHING else. I don't even really watch movies on my machine. So an lcd would be better for a lot of things. But for my "gamer" rig, I like my FW900.
 
Mrwang said:
CRT. Faster refresh rates = more viewable frames per second your monitor can display for gaming. Refresh rates are extremely important to any serious gamer.
Click to expand...

Uhm CRT's have LOWER refresh rates. Let me explain: An LCD that has 60hz refresh rate is capable of refreshing EACH pixel 60 times a second.

A CRT refreshes the ENTIRE screen 60 times a second, or 75, or 85, etc.

I will buy CRT's until I can't buy a decent one enymore for gaming. I hate LCD's for gaming, but I like LCD's for general use other than gaming or watching videos or DVD's.
 
LCD's have thier purpose however are they better for stills i.e. nothing that has moving images for example games/movies.

85/100Hz is a requirement for me whether LCD, CRT or whatever anything below wont feel slick smooth.
 
i just bought this Sweet LCD by Sony... omfg... haha i had a 19" Viewsonic A90f+ i think it was... i loved it... and thought i would never change over to LCD knowing that everytime i played on one i got a headach from the damn Refresh time... just seem to blurry and through my eyes for a loop... but i went out and bought this sony 19" LCD for my Girlfriends computer not thinking it was going to be the BEST damn thing i have ever seen... the damn thing was so crisp and so clear that it almost nocked me out of my chair... i got back in the car drove back to BestBuy whipped out my BestBuy Credit Card and said "Another one Please!"


Its the Sony SDM-HS95P 19"
Although the resolution is much lower (1280 x 1024) than my CRT (which was 1600x1200)... i didnt mind tweaking my desktop to look close to what it was on my CRT....

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...t&productCategoryId=cat01011&id=1099390028727
 
The problem with the refresh rate on LCDs, if you play games, is screen tearing.

Of course this is only a problem if your computer renders really fast.

Don't tell me vsync solves this problem because another problem arises by using vsync, the half fps effect.

And don't tell me the half fps effect will be solved by using triple buffer. Using triple buffer makes games feel sluggish.
 
I own a high end CRT at home, and used a high end lcd at work. Both running 1600x1200.
After doing the same things in both locations (cad, rendering, photoshop, gaming, dvd watching, and the rest of all of the regular computer stuff) I can honestly say I prefer the lcd by a wide margin.
...a VERY wide margin.

Yeah, everything has pros and cons and everything is a tradeoff for something else.
But I wish I had that lcd for my home as well. I don't think I'd ever miss my high end CRT.

That doesn't mean that everybody else has to have the same opinion. It's kinda like me telling you what you are hearing when you listen to a set of speakers. It's a personal preference thing.
 
I dunno what I prefer, I looked at both lcds and crts and I own both but am currently running a crt as I like playing games in other resolutions then 1280x1024 or 1600x1200.
 
LCDs because they are not blurry, do not flicker, small and the color contrast is better than any CRT I have every had. Well, on the 16ms ones and up at least, I have a few 8ms ones and the colors are not too good.
 
kleox64 said:
it wont reach it, given how long LCD's have been on the market thier problems should be non-existant by now yet they are strugling on the original problems that came since day one.

1) Contrast Ratio.
2) Response time.
3) Colour Gammut/accuracy.
4) Lag.
Click to expand...

LCDs are getting better, if you have seen a good LCD it will compete with a really good CRT.
CRT is old they cant get much better then they are...thats why they are coming out with SED
surprise surprise LCD in a year or two will be much better then any CRT youve ever seen.
 
a year or two? dude the LCD problems will not be solved in 1,2 or 5 years.

Yes they do not flicker but the 60Hz refresh rate makes everything look jerky and also cause tearing in games. Ive never seen an LCD to date which matches any of the 4 things Ive mentioned
 
I stopped using CRTs because I was sick of the focus and convergence problems. The geometry problems. And then there's the weight, dimensions, power, etc..

I've had top of the line Sony trinitrons (GDMF500 series) and I'll take an 2001FP over those things any day.
 
anything with motion CRT wins hands down its not even debatable, if all your doing is watching still images, pictures, text, web etc... then LCD will obviously be better.
 
Can't deny that CRTs don't suffer from any motion blur - so yes they are better in that regard.

However some of us aren't bothered by the slight blur you get when panning. Some people are just pickier about some things than others. In my case I'm more picky about geometry and focus. Others are more picky about motion blur.

YMMV.
 
whats the point in having perfect geometry and sharpness when the moment you actually move the mouse everything ghosts and blurs? Like I said LCD's are better for viewing anything static, put motion into the equation and all you get is ghosting and blur.

High-end CRT's dont suffer from motion blur, response time is measured in micro seconds for CRT's so you wont actually see ghosting/streaking etc... even though it does actually happen. .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top