FW900 or 2005FPW

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tristanic

n00b
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
43
I'm building a new fps gaming rig at the end of the month (my first build) and am having a hard time picking a monitor. I'll probably get a 1900xt. Basically I am trying to decide if it is better to go with an lcd (never had one) like the 2005fpw or one of those FW900 off of ebay. Any ideas? I know the fw is super heavy but the price kinda helps make up for that in my mind. I have never owned or used either so would really appreciate some input here!!
 
Spending close to $400 on a CRT in the year 2006? Doesn't make much sense to me. In few years, it'd be hard to find CRT's. I would seriously think about the resale value. I wouldn't recommend getting a 2005FPW right now, because their sale ended, but look into other 20" widescreen LCD's.
 
If you're building a rig particularily for FPS, then by all means go with the FW900; the best crt ever made. LCD's are not bad for gaming in general, but they will perform the worst with FPS.

And who gives a rats balls if crt's are going out, and that it is 2006. All that is moot when it comes to aquiring the best picture quality.
 
Foe-hammer said:
And who gives a rats balls if crt's are going out, and that it is 2006. All that is moot when it comes to aquiring the best picture quality.
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother you that you are spending $400+ on something that will go absolete in few years, maybe even sooner? I certainly do. I didn't say anything about LCD's being better than CRT's in gaming although benefits of having an LCD over CRT outweighs the cons in my opinion.
 
I own two LCDs and much prefer the FW900 for gaming and movies. Fixed pixel displays just don't cut it for me when using current technology, such as DVD players and video game systems. The native rez is just too high! Maybe when the PS3 or blu-rays are on the market will I consider using an LCD as my primary display. Everything is obsolete in a few days anyways, but when you buy a display that is compatible with everything YOU want to throw at it... why upgrade? I do prefer my 2405 for general computer work (text crisper), but the FW900 absolutely blows it away in every other department. To each his own.

Eddie
 
Well the poster is getting a 1900xt which is more than enough to run all games at the 2005fpw's native rez.


IQJUMPuw does have a point about the resale value. If you get an FW900 now, it's unlikely you'll want that same monitor in 2 years. And the resale value will be close to nothing by then. On the other hand if you pay $450 for a 2005fpw now, you should be able to get around $200 for it in 2 years. But Foe is correct; if all you care about is the best response time RIGHT NOW then there is no substitute for the FW900.


Going from a CRT to an LCD you WILL notice an immediate difference in ghosting and if you are not willing to make that sacrifice then you'll have to stick with a CRT (which excels in response time but does poorly in almost everything else.)

For me the 2005FPW was my 3rd LCD. By now I don't notice the ghosting at all and I enjoy FPSs (HL2, BF) etc. and not once in hours of gaming will I even think of ghosting or notice it on my monitor. Now that is a result of two things 1) me using LCDs for several years now and my eyes adjusting to it and 2) the 2005fpw being an excellent monitor that has very little ghosting when compared to other panels.

Eventually you'll end up with an LCD or equivalent, whether that’s now or later is up to you. Personally I could never go back to a CRT as I've grown spoiled by the text clarity, eliminated eye strain, less radiation, increased desk space and versatility, and overall aesthetics that LCDs offer.
 
The best fps gaming monitor for your money is the FW900. You don't buy a lesser monitor for your task because it will net you a couple extra bucks... "down the road." How silly is that. Smaller viewing area and not as good at gaming, makes a lot of sense. What a mistake it would be to get a 2005FPW over an FW900 as an "FPS" monitor as stated. The weight and power and crap is all secondary bullshit. If you have the room for it, sounds like he does, get it. Easy.
 
I've had 21" Trinitron FD monitors for the last 5 years or so. They're so cheap that I just buy a new one everytime I move :p . Anyway, I finally broke down and got the benq 20" WS lcd.

Upsides of the switch : EXCELLENT picture quality. easier to look at for extended periods of time. vibrant colors ( can also be a negative : i do picture editing quite often and a few of my pictures looked a little more oversatured then they really were in CS2 )

Downsides: vibrant colors ( see above ), ANNOYING BRIGHT GREEN PIXEL in the center of the screen ( stuck pixels do occur, even in 400+ screens :rolleyes: ) , Stuck with one resolution ( lcd's look terrible in non-native res ).

I suppose I don't play faced paced games too often, but I have yet to notice any kind of ghosting on my benq (8ms response i think). I used to notice on my laptop quite frequently but it never really bothered me much...who knows how it'll suit you

another factor is...you can move an lcd lol....

food for thought, no reccomendation....i tried to be bias-less but I think its obvious which one i like more ;)
 
IQJUMPuw said:
It doesn't bother you that you are spending $400+ on something that will go absolete in few years, maybe even sooner? I certainly do. I didn't say anything about LCD's being better than CRT's in gaming although benefits of having an LCD over CRT outweighs the cons in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Just like spending $400+ on the latest video card, or double if you go SLI? :eek:
 
Get a CRT. Why would you settle for a smaller screen that has ghosting (just because you can't notice doesn't mean it's not there, try reading text as it moves by fast in a game), less accurate colors, interpolation at non native resoulutions, and costs more? If you have the space get a CRT. LCDs are better than CRTs for the average user for checking mail and writing papers, but not for a good FPS gamer. And the resale value... most people stick with one monitor for about 5 years, where your 2005fpw will be worth about as much as the CRT.
 
Excessive heat, power consumption, radiation and wieght = a bad choice. Todays' LCDS have little to no ghosting. The ghosting argument is a non issue in my mind.


I think its foolish to drop 400 on a large CRT. The fW900 will cost you 18 dollars a month in electricity for God sake lol

Well maybe foolish is a strong word , to each his own i guess
 
Some people notice it, some people don't I guess. My brother was playing CS:S on his 25ms LCD and he noticed no ghosting. When I came over I had a headache from all the blurring.
 
It's a monitor, not the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center. If you're that concerned, turn off the bathroom light once in awhile!! As for the radiation, I've been using a CRT since I was five and have yet to notice an arm growing out of my head.... yet.. The thing is, people on these boards are smart enough to know what their needs are. Figure what you're using the monitor for, and then buy a suitable screen that fits your budget. It's personal preference.....

eddie
 
jacuzz1 said:
Excessive heat, power consumption, radiation and wieght = a bad choice. Todays' LCDS have little to no ghosting. The ghosting argument is a non issue in my mind.


I think its foolish to drop 400 on a large CRT. The fW900 will cost you 18 dollars a month in electricity for God sake lol

Well maybe foolish is a strong word , to each his own i guess
Click to expand...

Im tired of idiots saying the heat and power comsumption are an issue. They arent! My 2405 is rated at about 80 watts per hour while it is running and the fw900 is rated at 170 BUT it does 15 watts per hour in standby... take this into account and they just about even out if you leave them on. Even if you dont use the crt's standby... guess what, were talking about the difference between 2 lightbulbs or one.... its really so small.


SO STOP SAYING FW900 IS A POWER HOG!!!!

As for heat I have a fw900, four 21 inch trinitrons, a fw900 and a sony LCD right here... the crt's are about twice as warm... but guess what, I bought it to look good not to cool my room...
 
No comparison to be made, FW900.

Contrast ratio, response time, colour accuracy, viewing angle do you want me to continue.... not even the most expensive and future LCD's will ever be able to match any of those characteristics.

Tried the 2405 and left dissapointed with the sheer delay/lag and ghosting/bluring, LCD's are for viewing still images period.
 
IQJUMPuw said:
Spending close to $400 on a CRT in the year 2006?
Click to expand...

What does the year have to do with anything? When you have a monitor capable of the insane resolutions and refresh rates of the FW900, not to mention the true to life color accuracy, the age doesn't matter. LCD's have SOOOO many more drawbacks than good ol' CRT, and are also MUCH more limited(refresh rates/resolution) for a higher price! And you would think that for such a high price issues such as dead pixels and backlight bleeding wouldn't exist but they do! There is no reason not to get an FW900, except for the fact that you take a risk buying them used.
 
IQJUMPuw said:
Spending close to $400 on a CRT in the year 2006? Doesn't make much sense to me. In few years, it'd be hard to find CRT's. I would seriously think about the resale value. I wouldn't recommend getting a 2005FPW right now, because their sale ended, but look into other 20" widescreen LCD's.
Click to expand...

The FW900 used to retail for $2,300 ,that being said $400 for a used or refurbished one isnt a bad price ..especially considering (IMO) its the best gaming monitor currently available and the best PC CRT ever made, the only downside is the slight gamble when buying on Ebay .Although my experiance was good and the FW900 I recieved is in excellent condition your milage may vary.
 
If you have the room, the FW900 will probably be better for gaming.

That said, I never felt comfortable buying a used monitor, and own a 2005FPW (after 6 years on a couple of 19" Trinitrons) and would never go back.
 
Wow, what a hard choice you have put yourself up to.

A. Used CRT

B. LCD with very prevalent and common quality control issues.


Either way you stand to get royally scrood. :eek:
 
I find it laughable when I see an idiot spending 500 dollars on a LCD monitor at frys when I know I could go on criagslist and get a used 21 trinitron crt that would blow it away for 60$.

Just goes to show you that people will go for "stylish and modern" over sheer performance.
 
Chewbacca said:
I find it laughable when I see an idiot spending 500 dollars on a LCD monitor at frys when I know I could go on criagslist and get a used 21 trinitron crt that would blow it away for 60$.
Click to expand...
More CRT's for the rest of us ;)

Buy LCD's i say ! :p
 
Chewbacca said:
Im tired of idiots saying the heat and power comsumption are an issue. They arent! My 2405 is rated at about 80 watts per hour while it is running and the fw900 is rated at 170 BUT it does 15 watts per hour in standby... take this into account and they just about even out if you leave them on. Even if you dont use the crt's standby... guess what, were talking about the difference between 2 lightbulbs or one.... its really so small.


SO STOP SAYING FW900 IS A POWER HOG!!!!

As for heat I have a fw900, four 21 inch trinitrons, a fw900 and a sony LCD right here... the crt's are about twice as warm... but guess what, I bought it to look good not to cool my room...
Click to expand...


Please read the forum rules; insulting your fellow forum members is a violation. oh and i owned a large Sony 21 and the heat dissipation was almost unbearable in the summer time prompting higher ac settings and subsequently even more power consumption. I stand by my comments on Real World power consumption. I suppose you believe gas mileage stickers too.

CRT's are dinosoars. Regarding radiation, your vision will feel the effects as you get older as mine have. One thing about getting older though. You are less likely to feel the need to insult people about their views or at least you correct yourself as i did regarding my "foolish" remark.

PS : the cost of a second light bulb will pay for the additional cost of the lcd over a 4 year period if not sooner depending on the cost of the 2005 at time of purchase
 
Power consumption, environmental issues, size, re-sale value, and atomic radiation aside :rolleyes: .....the fw900 will give a better quality of image for gaming and movies over the dell 2005 lcd.

Wasn't the quality of the picture, between the two monitors, the topic question to begin with? I don't know how all this other rediculous stuff became the issue.
 
IQJUMPuw said:
It doesn't bother you that you are spending $400+ on something that will go absolete in few years, maybe even sooner? .
Click to expand...

First off, a CRT certainly will not be obsolete* in a few years, even after SED is released. Why? A CRT has better picture quality than a LCD, near instant response times, and a non-native resolution. So any resolution will not give you that ugly look from interpolation. Even SEDs will have to interpolate, though they will probably look slightly sharper due to the nature of fixed pixels.

In regard to CRT radiation issues, many newer CRTs have significantly reduced radiation compared to the old tubes. My eyesight has not deteriorated at all after more than 10 years of staring at a tube for many hours. You just need to set the screen to an appropiate refresh rate and remember to blink occaisonaly and take a small break every so often. Things that you should do anyways. A major reason people see CRTs as a "dinosaur" is because they don't look "cool" and trendy, maybe not to many of us but certaintly the average consumer, where the real money is made. Power consumption and heat are blown way out of proportion, many high end CRTs operate at 120w peak.

Who knows, maybe if large companies continued with CRTs there could have been a breakthrough? Oh well, form over function won again.

The FW900 is a great deal at $400, and if you get a good one you will certainly not regret it, even many years down the road. If you are looking for a brand new monitor there is a kick ass 4:3 CRT I'd suggest, the Sony GDM-5411 21". There are a bunch of SGI overstock monitors running for $350. I bought one myself, it was a killer deal.
 
People argue all of these small points to justify the 500+ they wasted on their lcd HAHAHA
 
2005FPW

Sharper image + less eye strain > ghosting you'll get used to or won't notice.
 
Bop said:
If you are looking for a brand new monitor there is a kick ass 4:3 CRT I'd suggest, the Sony GDM-5411 21". There are a bunch of SGI overstock monitors running for $350. I bought one myself, it was a killer deal.
Click to expand...
Let us know how your new monitor works out after some tweaking and calibration. They turn up on craigslist every once in awhile, would be nice to know if they are a yeigh or neigh...

end off topic/
 
Bop said:
Who knows, maybe if large companies continued with CRTs there could have been a breakthrough? Oh well, form over function won again.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't write off the LCDs that quickly. They have many real functional advantages.
 
waddles said:
I wouldn't write off the LCDs that quickly. They have many real functional advantages.
Click to expand...

Iam not writting LCD's off, for pure gaming CRT wins hands down. Also DTP, Photo/Video etc... again CRT's wipe the floor. LCD's have had their associated problems since their introduction and even future LCD's will continue to suffer from the same problems, they will get better however by the time that ever happens SED displays will be everywhere.
 
I love how people mention eye strain with CRT's. With 60 Hz, yes. But who runs CRT's at 60Hz? 85Hz and above is comfortable as anything. Not to mention smooth! And with monitors like the FW900 you will be capable of running at 100Hz!

There's another advantage of a CRT. You pump it up to 100Hz and everything feels so much smoother, like moving the mouse cursor, and sliding windows around your desktop.
 
I've had my FW900 for like 5 years now... paid over $3k for it when i first got it, and don't regret it a single bit. But if i had to get a monitor RIGHT now, it would be a 2405. I just love LCDs much more than CRTs, but that's a personal preference... since i use my monitor for text about 5 times more than i do for gaming.
 
jaguax said:
There's another advantage of a CRT. You pump it up to 100Hz and everything feels so much smoother, like moving the mouse cursor, and sliding windows around your desktop.
Click to expand...

Man, you must have some CHEAPASS LCDs if moving the mouse cursor and sliding windows around your desktop isn't smooth.
 
moralpanic said:
since i use my monitor for text about 5 times more than i do for gaming.
Click to expand...

cant argue with that, sounds like an LCD is more to your taste.
 
jaguax said:
I love how people mention eye strain with CRT's. With 60 Hz, yes. But who runs CRT's at 60Hz? 85Hz and above is comfortable as anything. Not to mention smooth! And with monitors like the FW900 you will be capable of running at 100Hz!
Click to expand...
You would be surprised at how many people are coming off 1) low-end shadow mask crts, 2) small crt's 3) old crt's, 4) uncalibrated crt's (i'm not counting those who had defective high-end crt's). These people imho had every reason to buy new monitors and LCD's have become their choice by default.

I have a feeling that a good chunk of current lcd proponents had previously owned a crt that fell into one of the four categories above. I don't blame them for hating crt's because they likely had a poor basis for comparison ;). And before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, i'm not saying all LCD proponents fall into these categories, but a certain percentage of them certainly do...
 
I agree with kleox64, if you're doing mostly text work then LCD is the better choice.
 
SJetski71 said:
You would be surprised at how many people are coming off 1) low-end shadow mask crts, 2) small crt's 3) old crt's, 4) uncalibrated crt's (i'm not counting those who had defective high-end crt's). These people imho had every reason to buy new monitors and LCD's have become their choice by default.

I have a feeling that a good chunk of current lcd proponents had previously owned a crt that fell into one of the four categories above. I don't blame them for hating crt's because they likely had a poor basis for comparison ;). And before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, i'm not saying all LCD proponents fall into these categories, but a certain percentage of them certainly do...
Click to expand...
You're right. I had a craptacular 17" (more like 15" viewable) noname (does "ZIMON" ring any bells?) CRT that I just had to get rid off. It wasn't even flat. It was so bad that even at 85hz (its max refreshrate at 1024x768 :rolleyes: ) I got a headache after an hour or two. I just had to get rid of it but the only choice was LCD, since I couldn't find any high end 20"+ CRTs from reputable stores (Newegg and ZipZoomFly). I would never buy a monitor off ebay so an FW900 is out of the question. I'm quite happy with my Samsung 940b, but then again I have never used a good FLAT CRT, so I have no basis for comparison. But those of you who say LCDs suck, you've probably never used one or used a cheap crappy one and based all your opinions on it.
 
Whoever says a used 21" Trinitron will offer better picture quality than a 2005FPW has obviously either never seen one or is blind, literally.

I used 19" Trinitrons for 6 years (Dell P991 and Sony E440) and the image quality on both 2005FPWs in my house blow those monitors out of the water. Response time and scaling are the only advantages CRTs have. Not going to make a call on that, as to some response time is much more important as well as the ability to use different resolutions that is overall image quality, but to say that CRTs are better in every way over LCDs is disgustingly ignorant and ridiculous.
 
Just a quick update for you all, I just now got an fw900 off ebay for a touch over $300. I justified it by it was going to be used mostly for gaming and photoshop etc, and also it was MUCH cheaper than I think I would be able to get a decent widescreen LCD for. Who knows, I am buying it online so I may get horribly burned by this whole thing. I will definitely keep you posted though!
 
live2sk8 said:
but to say that CRTs are better in every way over LCDs is disgustingly ignorant and ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Truth spoken, hopefully whoever inferred that didn't really mean it :p



live2sk8 said:
Whoever says a used 21" Trinitron will offer better picture quality than a 2005FPW has obviously either never seen one or is blind, literally.
Click to expand...
The phrase "21" trinitron" can be viewed as a blanket statement as there were probably dozens of different 21" trinitron tubes made and at varying degrees of quality i'm sure....(won't get into higher end diamondtron and hitachi tubes since we've veered so far off topic already). I will also not comment on high-end Trinitrons vs 2005fpw because i've only spent about a total of 1 hour behind a 2005fpw ;) (poor basis for comparison imho).

But the OP is interested in the FW900 and not 21" trinitrons so i guess i'm making a moot point here....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top