![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Exactly how bad are LCDs in gaming compared to a CRT?
- Thread starter retardedchicken
- Start date
[BRO]Alaskan
Gawd
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 954
LCD's have made great strides over the years but a CRT is still better. I can still see ghosting on even the best LCD. If you get headachs using the CRT check the refresh rate of the monitor (default is 60hz) lights in your house flash at the same freq. causing headachs and eyestrain. change it to 72hz+. The screen will be a lot clearer and the eyestrain will go away.
ThreeDee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 11,377
ScYcS said:
yeah ..what he said
I went from a 19"CRT to a 19"LCD and tho my my rez is capped at 1280x1024 ..that is just fine and I would never go back if given the choice.
[H]
banned_user
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 414
Im using a 20" NEC LCD and im never going back to CRT. I've never had a really high quality CRT, but then again my 2-year old LCD has a slow refresh time (25ms). The biggest thing for me is glare and brightness. Flat screen CRT's don't eliminate glare enough for me and the diffrence in brightness makes it hard to go back. The first time i played a game for a couple of hours on this NEC and I tried to go back to my 21" CRT, It was like wtf how have i been getting by. I notice a little motion blur sometimes, but its nothing that bothers me much
[BRO]Alaskan said:
When I had a CRT it was at the max hz and refresh it could put it at and it still bugged me over long periods of time. A crt is constantly refreshing the screen, IE flickering. With and LCD the refreshing is done in a different way and does not produce the flickering. Granted on a better CRT, flickering isn't as noticeable but it is still there.
LCD's are for office and productivity machines. CRT's are for gaming and movies. I would never have an LCD for my primary display.
I am using an LCD at school right now. Yeah, it is easier to look at for long periods of time, it is easier on the eyes. That's about where the benefits end. The colors are dull and muddy, black is not black, white is not white, there is no vibrance or brightness to it. Images look like garbage on LCD's.
Ill stick with my CRT for general use and my HDTV for videos and gaming.
I am using an LCD at school right now. Yeah, it is easier to look at for long periods of time, it is easier on the eyes. That's about where the benefits end. The colors are dull and muddy, black is not black, white is not white, there is no vibrance or brightness to it. Images look like garbage on LCD's.
Ill stick with my CRT for general use and my HDTV for videos and gaming.
You're probably looking at a TN+ panel (most of today's LCDs, especially the cheaper ones and the ones that claim sub 12ms response times, are TN+film panels with only 262,000 true colours). My Dell 2005FPW is an S-IPS panel, with the full 24bit spectrum, and the colours are far better than any CRT I've ever seen.
Sure the black is not black, but it's decent enough for me to not complain. No LCD will ever achieve black, thanks to backlighting. But this is damn close. I agree that CRTs are still better for gaming, but again, you have to outweigh your own pros and cons on the topic.
Sure the black is not black, but it's decent enough for me to not complain. No LCD will ever achieve black, thanks to backlighting. But this is damn close. I agree that CRTs are still better for gaming, but again, you have to outweigh your own pros and cons on the topic.
sitheris
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,733
I would have to say that generally LCD's are better than CRT's .. I have noticed some tearing in WoW with my 2005fpw but it doesn't bother me that much. Enabling VSync fixes it but that really kills your framerate.
I doubt I'd ever go back to CRT at this point..the benefits to having an LCD by far outweigh the benefits (or lack thereof) of CRTs.
Note: These are my personal opinions, please do not flame me. Just giving my honest thoughts.
I doubt I'd ever go back to CRT at this point..the benefits to having an LCD by far outweigh the benefits (or lack thereof) of CRTs.
Note: These are my personal opinions, please do not flame me. Just giving my honest thoughts.
That may be true, it is a dell display, that is all I can tell without turning it around and looking like a wierdo in the lab. Maybe I have never seen the good ones. Even so, to pay so much more money for a display that looks AS good as my CRT is just dumb to me. Desktop space is not really an issue and that is the only benefit for the added cost as far as I can see.
sitheris said:
Enabling verticle sync should not lower your framerate any more than your monitors refresh rate. If you were running at higher than your monitors refresh rate it will drop it down to that (say, 60hz), if you were running less than that to begin with it will not effect it at all. Unless you think that 60fps is too slow, something else is causing the slowdown, not vsync
sitheris
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,733
CodeEx said:
Well considering my normal FPS without vsync in WoW is around 85-95, 60fps doesn't cut it for me
I just don't like my new video card going to waste, that's all....must have all the fps i can get!CodeEx said:
The problem is that most LCDs are 60hz, which means fps capped at 60. Trust me, if you're capped at 60, you'll see the difference if you've used 100fps constantly for 3 years; thus, the reason I had to buy 2 LCDs: one for gaming and the other for office productivity.
All LCDs run at 60hz on the DVI connection, limiting you to 60FPS. Any higher and you'll get tearing. If frames per second matter THAT much to you, you shouldn't be gaming on an LCD, period. A game locked at 60fps is as smooth as it gets, imo, and there is no need to go any higher if the framerate can remain at a constant, unchanging 60FPS. Horizontal tearing, on the other hand, is far more detractive than an FPS counter that doesn't go higher than 60
If you want to use your shiny new videocard, turn the AA/AF/effects on all the way in your native resolution instead, and for the love of God turn on the damn V-sync on LCDs. And turn off the damn counter, too.
If you want to use your shiny new videocard, turn the AA/AF/effects on all the way in your native resolution instead, and for the love of God turn on the damn V-sync on LCDs. And turn off the damn counter, too.
steviep said:
This = true. Couldn't be any more true than that. A lot of folks buy LCDs because they assume it'll get rid of Vsync tearing. Fact is, the tearing looks even worse on a LCD than on a CRT, because the effect is so pronounced. Thus, turn on the damn Vsync!!!
sitheris
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,733
ajm786 said:
So in WoW, if you enable VSync, you also get the option to turn on Triple Buffering...what does Triple Buffering do and should I use it if I choose to enable Vsync?
texuspete00
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 5,625
Seems some fail to mention you are not locked to 60fps with vsync, but instead only capped. Fact of the matter is in any modern game you are jumping back and forth between 30 and 60fps. 30fps every time you drop below 60. Rarely dropping below 60 in games is only somewhat feasible in say CS:S. Not BF2, FEAR etc. Triple Buffering is the cure and is not always available in Direct3d, and for icing on the cake it also creates input lag.
All this is another huge advantage for CRTs in gaming. If forced to use vsync, you may be jumping back and forth between say 85 vrs. 42fps etc. Better still, the faster refresh helps make tearing less noticable. For some like myself, they find it lowers the effect enough to get by without vsync. I didn't bring this up earlier because towards the end it's not a very fair example, but for me it's the difference between a jumping 60 to 30 fps, vrs slight tearing and no vsync, and a 100Hz refresh rate! I agree LCDs are easier on the eyes, but if you can log your work hours on an LCD, gaming on a CRT with a high refresh should be plenty suitable for play. They are just better for your average fps player. Easy.
Better blacks, no motion blur (only certain users are free of this crutch, no panel is to the cursed with the hard to please eye), less noticable tearing without vsync, not being tied to a resolution..... much harder to argue an LCD is better for gaming. Maybe for a general display, but for gaming specifically, it's a really really tough argument that an LCD is better.
Playing BF2 on my GTX and a 2405FPW, the tearing was awful, so I spent 90% of my time at 30fps. 59 goes to 30 with vsync. Input lag without even using triple buffering, LCD induced... no way was that better. Especially if your first LCD experience is going to be one specifically bought for gaming like mine was, you are setting yourself up for dissapointment in a big way.
All this is another huge advantage for CRTs in gaming. If forced to use vsync, you may be jumping back and forth between say 85 vrs. 42fps etc. Better still, the faster refresh helps make tearing less noticable. For some like myself, they find it lowers the effect enough to get by without vsync. I didn't bring this up earlier because towards the end it's not a very fair example, but for me it's the difference between a jumping 60 to 30 fps, vrs slight tearing and no vsync, and a 100Hz refresh rate! I agree LCDs are easier on the eyes, but if you can log your work hours on an LCD, gaming on a CRT with a high refresh should be plenty suitable for play. They are just better for your average fps player. Easy.
Better blacks, no motion blur (only certain users are free of this crutch, no panel is to the cursed with the hard to please eye), less noticable tearing without vsync, not being tied to a resolution..... much harder to argue an LCD is better for gaming. Maybe for a general display, but for gaming specifically, it's a really really tough argument that an LCD is better.
Playing BF2 on my GTX and a 2405FPW, the tearing was awful, so I spent 90% of my time at 30fps. 59 goes to 30 with vsync.
Input lag without even using triple buffering, LCD induced... no way was that better. Especially if your first LCD experience is going to be one specifically bought for gaming like mine was, you are setting yourself up for dissapointment in a big way.FlatLine84
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,521
CodeEx said:
You're comparing an LCD from school, to a CRT. That would be like me comparing my 21" Sony CRT to a school CRT.
The only bad thing I find about the LCD is that it looks like shit when you do not use native res. Howerver, if you do use native and you have 500:1 and 8-10ms LCD it looks prefect alot better than CRT and no image tearing. I like my LCD Cost me $500 4 months ago, its an Viewsonic 19" vx910.
Cost me $500 4 months ago, its an Viewsonic 19" vx910.FlatLine84
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,521
CodeEx said:
I had a couple of friends who attended RIT 2 years ago now. Still comparing school equip to enthusiest isn't the best thing to go by. RIT is great an all, and they always seems to have decent stuff, but it's still a school.
sitheris said:
There are some instances where if you enable Vsync, your frame rate will get cut in half. So if you have a Vsync option and your refresh rate is set to 60, you will get only about 30fps. Triple buffering alleviates this, and gets the frame rates back up to par.
If you have a vsync option and enable it, and then get another option asking if you want to enable triple buffering, enable it by all means. It couldn't hurt.
That's because the Nvidia control panel and the triple buffering option is for OpenGL games. You need download the DXTControl utility, which will truely allow you to use triple buffering in games. I use this utility and it makes a big difference.CodeEx said:
Circuitbreaker8
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,078
Many people will tell you LCDs suck for gaming...and well...thats a load of sh1t. I'm coming from one of the top 19" CRTs ( DP930 ) and even though it looked good, i'd still take my 2005fpw over it any day of the week!
Toilet Duck
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 22, 2005
- Messages
- 190
No problems here on a Sony HS94P LCD. I guess I'm not as sensitive to ghosting as some, or maybe I'm just used to it. Admittedly, I switched from a less than ideal CRT, so I'm probably biased. The colors look fine to me, and with a little tinkering black is as close to black/white to white as I'll ever need it to be. I can tell it's not 100% on either end, but it's good enough. I don't "feel" handicapped by the monitor at all... heh, I have a quite a bit more of an issue with a lack of hand sensitivity (heheh even getting a G5 isn't a cure for overreacting/jitters coupled with a strange feeling of apathy/lack of adrenaline these days).
As for the resolution issues, I guess that's personal preference, too. After spending ages at 1024x768, 1280x1024 is A-OK by me. Hell, I think it's ideal. It's high enough to look decent, even without gobs of AA, yet it low enough that I can turn up the graphics options on a relatively midrange PC without worries.
All of this is personal opinion, of course. In the end, it's all about compromises. If you're happy with the resolution, don't see the ghosting, don't care about "seeing" 140 FPS in a game or having black being pure 100% black instead of like 90%, then a LCD is fine. If you really really really really must have everything at its peak, get a CRT I guess.
PS: This is a moot point, but I wuv the LCD for moving in/out of college dorms. Huzzah for weighing 10 pounds and being carryable in one hand instead of... uh... being too heavy for an atrophied lil person like myself.
As for the resolution issues, I guess that's personal preference, too. After spending ages at 1024x768, 1280x1024 is A-OK by me. Hell, I think it's ideal. It's high enough to look decent, even without gobs of AA, yet it low enough that I can turn up the graphics options on a relatively midrange PC without worries.
All of this is personal opinion, of course. In the end, it's all about compromises. If you're happy with the resolution, don't see the ghosting, don't care about "seeing" 140 FPS in a game or having black being pure 100% black instead of like 90%, then a LCD is fine. If you really really really really must have everything at its peak, get a CRT I guess.
PS: This is a moot point, but I wuv the LCD for moving in/out of college dorms. Huzzah for weighing 10 pounds and being carryable in one hand instead of... uh... being too heavy for an atrophied lil person like myself.
steviep said:
Hmmm...not true the Dell 2405 DOES support 75mzh in certain resolutions....I have gone well over 60 fps in F.E.A.R and other games on my shuttle. I now prefer almost any newer LCD over any CRT...since there getting so much better
EDIT the topic should be "How much better LCD's are getting..."
I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. Color rendition on LCDs is one of their weak spots. Its good enough for most people, but walk into your average graphic design studio and the only person you'll see using an LCD is the receptionist.lesman said:
ScreamingBroccoli
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,117
CodeEx said:
I'm going there in september, maybe we can LAN sometime... I'll have a kick ass new system by then
. I think at this point in time, LCDs are finally catching up the CRTs in the being able to play games part. The ghosting is basically gone on most mid-high end LCDs. And good big CRTs are basically the price of some of dells nice big LCDs (big meaning around 20"). My 21in trinitron crt is just about dead (turns yellow every 20min until I beat it) so this time around I think I'll try an LCD. You just have to watch out and make sure you get one w/ a decent response time and a good contrast ratio.retardedchicken
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,081
Circuitbreaker8 said:
I just played CS:S on my friends 2001fp and I thought that my 19" Envision has quite superior color and sharpness. CRTs/LCDs are really a matter of preference.
LCD's are not bad, but in their current condition, i would never buy one for my main pc gaming screen. I just got a 32" lcd tv for my xbox 360 and it's great, but i have this 21" NEC crt and the quality is far beyond what i've seen with lcd's, i can't stand the way they look for pc games.
DeeFrag
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 8,076
A good way to experience ghosting is the Hardforum, just move this window around and try to read the text while moving. Every LCD I've seen makes all the words blurry because of the black to white to black the pixels have to do. On a CRT, even a lower end CRT, the text is perfectly legible while moving.
IMO CRTs outperform LCDs any day of the week and twice on tuesdays. But then again, I am a CRT whore. Of course I'd never take my CRT to a lan party. So dual head is the way to go, one of each. LCD for web surfing and lan parties, and CRT for gaming at home. Movies should be watched on a real home theater system.
IMO CRTs outperform LCDs any day of the week and twice on tuesdays. But then again, I am a CRT whore. Of course I'd never take my CRT to a lan party. So dual head is the way to go, one of each. LCD for web surfing and lan parties, and CRT for gaming at home. Movies should be watched on a real home theater system.
ajm786 said:
Except for games with built in fps limits, like Doom3/Quake4, you wont find many, if any, modern games that get its fps simply cut in half to a rediculous rate (like your 60->30 example) by enabling Vsync. They will get reduced to a level just around your refresh rate.
Not that it matters that much.. Your monitor can still only display the fps determined by your refresh rate no matter what your vid card does.
Lets look at the cold, hard, undisputable facts.
Until LCDs have a response time of <1ms/insignificant like CRTs there is ghosting. Pixels are fixed on LCDs, anything but the native resolution will not look good.
Depending how taxing a game is on your hardware you will have to raise/lower the resolution unless you want to play at the native resolution which will either require you to play the game at a lower resolution than you desire or a higher one that will give you poor fps.
LCDs black levels are nowhere near as good as CRTs in black levels and color reproduction. Professionals that demand the most accurate image reproduction always use CRTs.
Now for some of my own opinions on the subject. I own a Samsung 930B LCD and a NEC FP2141SB-BK and a Viewsonic A90f. For just plain text I prefer the Samsung 930B. For everything else, I use my CRTs instead. After looking at some pictures on my Samsung and then looking at the same picture on my NEC I just laugh how bad it looks on my LCD. In gaming I can definitely see ghosting, even in slower paced games.
I'm a hardcore gamer, I always want the best in my system and my sig shows that. To me the ONLY advantage, and I mean ONLY advantage I see in LCDs is space and power consumption. In gaming and image quality there is absolutely ZERO advantages.
Whoever said CRTs consume 500w; as arnold said once, cmon don't bullshit me. How about you show some FACTS. Go to the spec sheets of monitors that use Diamondtron tubes you'll see its around 110-130w. My father has been an engineer at IBM for almost 30 years and devloped some things back in the 80s that are used in CRTs today, he said that 500w claim is bullshit.
There really shouldn't be a debate about this. Like someone else on this thread said:
LCDs are for work(text)
CRTs are for play(everything else)
For the purpose of just gaming, a gamer shouldn't have to think twice about this.
Until LCDs have a response time of <1ms/insignificant like CRTs there is ghosting. Pixels are fixed on LCDs, anything but the native resolution will not look good.
Depending how taxing a game is on your hardware you will have to raise/lower the resolution unless you want to play at the native resolution which will either require you to play the game at a lower resolution than you desire or a higher one that will give you poor fps.
LCDs black levels are nowhere near as good as CRTs in black levels and color reproduction. Professionals that demand the most accurate image reproduction always use CRTs.
Now for some of my own opinions on the subject. I own a Samsung 930B LCD and a NEC FP2141SB-BK and a Viewsonic A90f. For just plain text I prefer the Samsung 930B. For everything else, I use my CRTs instead. After looking at some pictures on my Samsung and then looking at the same picture on my NEC I just laugh how bad it looks on my LCD. In gaming I can definitely see ghosting, even in slower paced games.
I'm a hardcore gamer, I always want the best in my system and my sig shows that. To me the ONLY advantage, and I mean ONLY advantage I see in LCDs is space and power consumption. In gaming and image quality there is absolutely ZERO advantages.
Whoever said CRTs consume 500w; as arnold said once, cmon don't bullshit me. How about you show some FACTS. Go to the spec sheets of monitors that use Diamondtron tubes you'll see its around 110-130w. My father has been an engineer at IBM for almost 30 years and devloped some things back in the 80s that are used in CRTs today, he said that 500w claim is bullshit.
There really shouldn't be a debate about this. Like someone else on this thread said:
LCDs are for work(text)
CRTs are for play(everything else)
For the purpose of just gaming, a gamer shouldn't have to think twice about this.
DeeFrag said:A good way to experience ghosting is the Hardforum, just move this window around and try to read the text while moving. Every LCD I've seen makes all the words blurry because of the black to white to black the pixels have to do. On a CRT, even a lower end CRT, the text is perfectly legible while moving.
IMO CRTs outperform LCDs any day of the week and twice on tuesdays. But then again, I am a CRT whore. Of course I'd never take my CRT to a lan party. So dual head is the way to go, one of each. LCD for web surfing and lan parties, and CRT for gaming at home. Movies should be watched on a real home theater system.
Nope nada, that is not the case with either of my LCD's.
So many misconceptions to overcome..to many sterotypes. The fact is almost all the cons to LCD's are quickly becoming yesterdays news.
Fact's aren't stereotypes. Here's a little math to convince you its impossible for an LCD to not blur rapidly moving text. Imagine an 8ms white-to-white monitor displaying white text on a black background at 1600x1200. Now drag the window across the screen at a moderate pace...say 2 seconds to cross the entire screen. Text a single pixel wide has to cross 1600 pixels in 2 seconds time. At 0.008 seconds response, that text winds up 6.4 pixels wide. Oops.
Pixel overdriving can help in some cases...but its a tradeoff that makes other cases look worse. When LCD monitors can reliably boast 2ms or better response times, then fast-motion blurring won't be an issue. Until then, we just have to live with it.