Going back to Gaming on CRT monitor

I use a TN panel and I am satisfied with the results. I recognize that IPS screens are better, but in my case, I could not justtify 2-3 times the price. It wasn't that much better for me. If cost were not a factor, I would buy IPS... Seems a little odd to call people Sheeple for buying a satisfactory panel for a decent price.
Here's some similar analogies.
I could buy an ipod, but other MP3 players do just as well (or better) for lower prices.
I could have bought a $40-50K BMW or a Mercedes (sedan) for my last car, but I bought a $20K US made Sedan. Same quality, no, but the car is good enough and performs 99% the same capacity.
 
nubbin77 said:
I use a TN panel and I am satisfied with the results. I recognize that IPS screens are better, but in my case, I could not justtify 2-3 times the price. It wasn't that much better for me. If cost were not a factor, I would buy IPS... Seems a little odd to call people Sheeple for buying a satisfactory panel for a decent price.
Here's some similar analogies.
I could buy an ipod, but other MP3 players do just as well (or better) for lower prices.
I could have bought a $40-50K BMW or a Mercedes (sedan) for my last car, but I bought a $20K US made Sedan. Same quality, no, but the car is good enough and performs 99% the same capacity.
Click to expand...

Those analogies are inaccurate for this case, though, because a TN panel does not perform 99% the same capacity as an S-IPS: it has far worse color reproduction (and thus a far worse picture), worse contrast/black levels, poor viewing angles causing color shift if you're moving your head at all and not dead-center, etc. They've improved but theyr'e far far worse still. Whereas an iPod is going to play music at the same quality and the same music, as a generic MP3 player that's any good/decent and much cheaper, the TN panel isn't going to deliver the same results as an S-IPS/similar.
 
I can easily see the blurring in the window and in FPS games, even after over a year with my LCD. I'm used to it, so it doesn't really bother me. Some people are more sensitive to it, I guess.
 
Disconnect said:
I can easily see the blurring in the window and in FPS games, even after over a year with my LCD. I'm used to it, so it doesn't really bother me. Some people are more sensitive to it, I guess.
Click to expand...

I can just as I do in anything in life if I don't track movement with my eyes (this is due to a human trait called retinal retention). Some people's eyes retain light for longer than others which would make you see it more easily or less easily depending on the person.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I can just as I do in anything in life if I don't track movement with my eyes (this is due to a human trait called retinal retention). Some people's eyes retain light for longer than others which would make you see it more easily or less easily depending on the person.
Click to expand...
I am definitely tracking the text with my eyes. Unless you are moving the window very slowly, or your LCD is much faster than both my home and work monitors (2209WA@75Hz and 2232BW @75Hz), I have a hard time believing the text stays crisp while moving. Perhaps you haven't used a CRT in so long that you don't know how it's supposed to look.
 
GoldenTiger,
This isn't meant as a response directly for you ( I respect your opinions on this site as they are generally very good and respectful if memory serves well.).

The analogies are good FOR ME. Anyone could come along and say that a generic MP3 player doesn't have itunes which makes it way more different then 99% the same... Same with cars, if you were someone who has to entertain client's with glitter and flash, a toyota isn't going to be 99% the same as a BMW.
However, when I look at my TN panel, by itself, I don't notice any color problems, I don't see any ghosting, I'm not looking for contrast ratios... I would only be doing these things if I had an IPS panel side by side or a reference photo with perfect color clarity.
So for MYpurposes, the analogy is still valid. This whole thread is based on opinion. I'm not debating the difference in quality. IPS is CLEARLY superior. I am only pointing out that, for some people, we have to balance cost vs. performance and in some cases...good enough is good enough. My comment was directed at those who were indicating that people satisfied with TN panels were Sheeple / somehow inferior. I actually consider myself fortunate that I don't have superhuman vision like many of the posters here, and that I can be satisfied by not having the highest end product available.
BTW, I do intend to get an IPS panel at some point, but big brother is always watching (my wife).
 
nubbin77 said:
GoldenTiger,
This isn't meant as a response directly for you ( I respect your opinions on this site as they are generally very good and respectful if memory serves well.).

The analogies are good FOR ME. Anyone could come along and say that a generic MP3 player doesn't have itunes which makes it way more different then 99% the same... Same with cars, if you were someone who has to entertain client's with glitter and flash, a toyota isn't going to be 99% the same as a BMW.
However, when I look at my TN panel, by itself, I don't notice any color problems, I don't see any ghosting, I'm not looking for contrast ratios... I would only be doing these things if I had an IPS panel side by side or a reference photo with perfect color clarity.
So for MYpurposes, the analogy is still valid. This whole thread is based on opinion. I'm not debating the difference in quality. IPS is CLEARLY superior. I am only pointing out that, for some people, we have to balance cost vs. performance and in some cases...good enough is good enough. My comment was directed at those who were indicating that people satisfied with TN panels were Sheeple / somehow inferior. I actually consider myself fortunate that I don't have superhuman vision like many of the posters here, and that I can be satisfied by not having the highest end product available.
BTW, I do intend to get an IPS panel at some point, but big brother is always watching (my wife).
Click to expand...

Fair enough... I can see your analogies now :). Sorry for the somewhat-rude response, and thank you :).
 
Disconnect said:
I can easily see the blurring in the window and in FPS games, even after over a year with my LCD. I'm used to it, so it doesn't really bother me. Some people are more sensitive to it, I guess.
Click to expand...

I can't see any blurring or ghosting with any of my panels.
 
Some people were also fine with CRTs at 60Hz. For me it's almost like looking at a strobe light.
 
I don't think that most people (most, being the majorety of TN panel users) are unable to see the difference, the difference is quite clear in a side by side demonstration. It's their standards are lower, some people are happy with "good enough" and some aren't.

There is a group of people who do want better screens but simply cannot afford it, at some point you have to balance cost vs quality, I love my 30" S-IPS panel but I use my PC all day and dont have other hobbies outside computer so for me it makes sense to invest, these panels are extremely expensive in the UK they start at £1100.
 
Disconnect said:
Some people were also fine with CRTs at 60Hz. For me it's almost like looking at a strobe light.
Click to expand...

The majority of officer workers I see with LCDs leave their monitors are resolutions that aren't native and with CRT's they never adjusted the refresh rate at all. I don't know how they can stand it.
 
I've really only had high end CRT's. I've never been impressed with crappy low end LCD's. Even many of the popular ones are terrible. Really high end IPS panels are all I've been satisfied with.
 
Dan_D said:
I've really only had high end CRT's. I've never been impressed with crappy low end LCD's. Even many of the popular ones are terrible. Really high end IPS panels are all I've been satisfied with.
Click to expand...

I can understand that, unfortunately I really can't justify the price of a high end IPS monitor. When you get down to the mainstream stuff, the mainstream CRTs looked far better than what passes for a mainstream LCD these days.
 
Since I sit behind 2 LCDs all day for several years now I honestly forgot what video and gaming looked like on a CRT monitor. The only games I played with my son up to this point was cheezy flash games because of the ancient video card in his. But when I upgraded it to a HD2600 I played some of the same games loaded on my machine. What made me say WOW? The image delivered by the CRT was BETTER. Real blacks, truer color, better contrast.
Now LCD has it's advantages. For my job, I would prefer a LCD (looking at text all day).
But for video and gaming? NOPE, CRT wins.
"Flat screens" as everyone called them were slim and sexy and futuristic. That drove the demand. NOT image quality. I recall people complaining when we replaced their CRT monitors with Samsung SyncMasters LCDs that they don't look as good. TRUE, anything other than the native resolution, they look like garbage!
The demise of the CRT monitor is NOT because it was inferior to LCDs. They are more expensive to produce. And the opinion of the sheeple is cheaper=Better. There you have it.
 
Last edited:
Tudz said:
I can understand that, unfortunately I really can't justify the price of a high end IPS monitor. When you get down to the mainstream stuff, the mainstream CRTs looked far better than what passes for a mainstream LCD these days.
Click to expand...

Meh, good IPS monitors can be found for $270-300, depending on what size you want. If you want a 30" Dell IPS, well yea, bring money. A good TN at 22-24" will cost you ~$200. Not that big of a difference.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Meh, good IPS monitors can be found for $270-300, depending on what size you want. If you want a 30" Dell IPS, well yea, bring money. A good TN at 22-24" will cost you ~$200. Not that big of a difference.
Click to expand...

A 24" S-IPS monitor is generally $320-350 on deals that are around every week or two, so it's not hard to get a good price... if you're willing to go refurbished I've seen some as cheap as $200 from HP (L2465w) which are S-IPS with a pivoting/rotating/swiveling/height-adjustable stand from newegg.
 
Last edited:
Get with the times peeps. lol. CRT's are power hogging, ugly, big, fish bowled crap.
 
GoldenTiger said:
A 24" S-IPS monitor is generally $320-350 on deals that are around every week or two, so it's not hard to get a good price... if you're willing to go refurbished I've seen some as cheap as $200 from HP (L2465w) which are S-IPS with a pivoting/rotating/swiveling/height-adjustable stand from newegg.
Click to expand...

I've only recently really started to care about panel quality (read: have enough $ to care :D). In the last several months I've seen $269 deals on U2311h, $259 on 2209WA (not 1080p) and similar eIPS setups. Obviously when you get up to the U2410 level, price starts to jump considerably, but the more IPS panels they sell, the cheaper they will get.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
Get with the times peeps. lol. CRT's are power hogging, ugly, big, fish bowled crap.
Click to expand...

Despite their advantages (which I believe are mitigated by their drawbacks) that's largely how I feel about them. I never liked CRT's that didn't have a flat viewing surface. Most of them had that fish bowl look to them which I can't stand. They do weigh a ton, generate more heat, and take up far more space. Plus they have thicker and larger bezels than most LCD's do now. Lets not forget that over time their image quality seriously degrades. Its almost impossible to find one in decent shape with picture quality like they had when they were new.
 
OK OK people... let's settle this once and for all. I introduce Exhibit A: the CLEVERBOT.com chat program and Exhibit B: the log I made of my discussion with it!
User: Which is better? A CRT monitor or an LCD monitor?
Cleverbot: What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?
User: Well, I'm talking about for gaming.
Cleverbot: Oh, I thought you were talking about Lego. Food is stil fun to play with though.
User: This is true. Anyway, answer my question, please.
Cleverbot: Ask your question, please.
User:Ok, I'll repeat it: Which type of computer monitor is best for gaming in the year 2010?
Cleverbot: The type like you.
User: I'm not a monitor.
Cleverbot: No, but sometimes your antics mimic the behavior of one!
User: Just answer me already.
Cleverbot: What's your question?
User: I just told you the question.
Cleverbot: Can you repeat it please?
User Which type of computer monitor is best for gaming in the year 2010? An LCD or CRT?
Cleverbot: I would like to talk about romantic love.
User: No. Not until you answer me!
Cleverbot: Ok, what is your question.
User: LCD or CRT?
Cleverbot: 'Search engine who?'.
User: I tried to google for the answer, that's how I found you.
Cleverbot: What did google tell you about me?
User: It tells me you have answers to questions of this nature.
Cleverbot: What is my name?
User: Cleverbot.
Cleverbot: No, what is my name?
User: Cleverbot.
Cleverbot: What is your name?
User: GoldenTiger.
Cleverbot: No..brown hair.
User: No... Crt or lcd?
Cleverbot: Nice name! How old are you?
User: CRT or LCD?
Cleverbot: How crazy am I?
User: CRT or LCD?
Cleverbot: Am I crazy?
User: CRT or LCD?
Cleverbot: That's old.
User: Choose.
Cleverbot: Choose you or him?
User: CRT or LCD?
Cleverbot: You are so human.
User: I give up.
Cleverbot: That's very human.
Click to expand...

I think we can glean from this, that... I'm not exactly sure... (wanders off, confused).
 
Last edited:
CRT is still better for gaming, but I've since moved on to inferior LCD as well.

LED is inferior to WCG-CCFL backlighing in LCD's. LED's are simply not capable of creating full spectrum light. It wasn't all that long ago that finding a blue LED was impossible. If its lit with multiple LEDs of varying spectrum then uniformity becomes an issue. LED's are smaller, last longer, and are brighter for the wattage, but they suffer from color gamut.

TN's made in 2009 and later can be 8-bit, which means there are no color gradient issues. It still suffers from some odd angle issues, but they are sometimes preferred for their quicker response time.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Meh, good IPS monitors can be found for $270-300, depending on what size you want. If you want a 30" Dell IPS, well yea, bring money. A good TN at 22-24" will cost you ~$200. Not that big of a difference.
Click to expand...

The few cheaper IPS screens I've looked at didn't really impress me all that much, not enough to buy them. I've bought a few TN screens in the $250-400 AUD range (probably the equivelant of $200-300US). I keep buying them and either reselling or returning them because all the ones I've bought so far look like crap.

Most cheap LCD screens have some combination of flaws such as bad blacks, bad colors, bad backlight bleed, poor consistency across the screen of color, contrast and/or brightness. I've stopped buying screens because I've given up trying to find a mainstream one which doesn't have one or more deal breaking flaws and frankly I can't afford a high end LCD (they cost more than I spent on the rest of my whole computer :p).

CRTs had their flaws, but even mainstream CRTs were miles better image quality than mainstream LCDs. I can't speak for the high end because I've never owned a high end LCD nor a high end CRT. :p
 
Meh.
Not a single LCD can multi-sync. Unless everything you do is at the native rez, CRT has not been dethroned, yet. I dare anyone to say 640x480 looks GREAT on their LCD, whatever tech you got on it. Not gonna happen.
 
I have to admit, when my GDM 500R monitor died. Something died inside of me :(

But I have to admit, I can't go back to non widescreen monitors now.

This LCD monitor is good but not good enough when compared to a CRT.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Meh.
Not a single LCD can multi-sync. Unless everything you do is at the native rez, CRT has not been dethroned, yet. I dare anyone to say 640x480 looks GREAT on their LCD, whatever tech you got on it. Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Your argument is about 640x480? I haven't seen or used that in forever. Doubt I will ever see it again either. Even my out of date workplace uses higher rez.

According to the retailers and manufacturers of said CRTs and LCDs (and LEDs), CRTs are dead. :D
 
I don't think anyone is arguing for CRT's still being alive and well in the market. They certainly aren't. Just go out and look at your new CRT options. You'll find very few and what you will find will be expensive and expensive to purchase and ungodly expensive to ship. Additionally the biggest CRT's aren't anywhere near as large as LCD monitors.

I wouldn't quite say they are dead but they are certainly dying. There aren't many new options left and the used options are getting worse and worse all the time.
 
Before I managed to (accidentally) revive mine, I was looking for another CRT... and realized that it's game over. If I could get another brand spanking new fw900 today, I'd slap the $2500 down faster than you can say "ghosting".

Admittedly I haven't tried any LCD over $500 I believe... what is the LCD you're singing praises for, Dan? I might have to look into it.
 
Dan_D said:
The majority of officer workers I see with LCDs leave their monitors are resolutions that aren't native and with CRT's they never adjusted the refresh rate at all. I don't know how they can stand it.
Click to expand...

I find that older folks (like my dad, for instance) have trouble with their eyesight and that combined with computer illiteracy prompts them to use lower resolutions to make everything big enough for them to see easily. They don't realize that there are a lot of options to make everything bigger without simply lowering the overall resolution.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
The demise of the CRT monitor is NOT because it was inferior to LCDs. They are more expensive to produce. And the opinion of the sheeple is cheaper=Better. There you have it.
Click to expand...

Actually CRTs are really cheap to produce in comparison to LCDs. The latter are excessively expensive and complicated to manufacture. The real reason why LCDs got picked was because of the form factor and associated hype, and CRTs were being produced at virtually no profit margin due to there being so many manufacturers. Instead they could charge a premium for those sleek LCDs and make a handsome profit.

I got 17" CRTs for around 40 Euro years ago, brand-new, made by Philips. They were and are miles better than any LCD you can get for 150 Euro these days. And those are the cheap LCDs.
 
I guess I'm one of the people sensitive to blurring.. I've used pretty all the modern types of LCD panels, and, while something is razor sharp while static, any movement at all and it blurs. I though I'd get used to it, but it's been almost 2 years and in certain games it'll give me a migraine.

Only type I haven't tried were ones that are supposed to have an actual refresh that mimics CRT blanking, although I've only heard about those in relation to HDTVs, not PC LCDs. I think it's a lack of refresh at all with LCDs that is the problem.. With LCD when you have movement you have one frame overlaying another, instead of wiping the previous image from the retina before displaying the next one.
 
UrielDagda said:
I guess I'm one of the people sensitive to blurring.. I've used pretty all the modern types of LCD panels, and, while something is razor sharp while static, any movement at all and it blurs. I though I'd get used to it, but it's been almost 2 years and in certain games it'll give me a migraine.

Only type I haven't tried were ones that are supposed to have an actual refresh that mimics CRT blanking, although I've only heard about those in relation to HDTVs, not PC LCDs. I think it's a lack of refresh at all with LCDs that is the problem.. With LCD when you have movement you have one frame overlaying another, instead of wiping the previous image from the retina before displaying the next one.
Click to expand...

Have you tried a 120Hz screen?
 
WasntMe said:
Your argument is about 640x480? I haven't seen or used that in forever. Doubt I will ever see it again either. Even my out of date workplace uses higher rez.

According to the retailers and manufacturers of said CRTs and LCDs (and LEDs), CRTs are dead. :D
Click to expand...

Arguing? I was stating fact. You didn't disprove me either....
I'm not talking of market share. The technology STILL, hasn't been beaten.
Every rez looks native, because it is. No LCD will ever do that.
 
Dan_D said:
Despite their advantages (which I believe are mitigated by their drawbacks) that's largely how I feel about them. I never liked CRT's that didn't have a flat viewing surface. Most of them had that fish bowl look to them which I can't stand. They do weigh a ton, generate more heat, and take up far more space. Plus they have thicker and larger bezels than most LCD's do now. Lets not forget that over time their image quality seriously degrades. Its almost impossible to find one in decent shape with picture quality like they had when they were new.
Click to expand...

I have to say I dont care about many of those problems, I dont stand there holding it so weight isn't a problem, mine is a flat screen so looks good, a glass front is something I miss on my LCD actually. My 30" LCD generates more heat at max brightness than my CRT does, by far. Space has never been an issue, neither has bezels since I never used it in multimonitor configuration.

You're right though, finding a good CRT today is basically impossible, they're all old and degraded, they don't age well.
 
UrielDagda said:
I guess I'm one of the people sensitive to blurring.. I've used pretty all the modern types of LCD panels, and, while something is razor sharp while static, any movement at all and it blurs. I though I'd get used to it, but it's been almost 2 years and in certain games it'll give me a migraine.

Only type I haven't tried were ones that are supposed to have an actual refresh that mimics CRT blanking, although I've only heard about those in relation to HDTVs, not PC LCDs. I think it's a lack of refresh at all with LCDs that is the problem.. With LCD when you have movement you have one frame overlaying another, instead of wiping the previous image from the retina before displaying the next one.
Click to expand...

The problem stems from pixel reponse time, the pixels are quite slow (relatively) at changing colour, although some modern TN panels are very good at 1ms. My 30" ISP has 8ms response time and ghosting is very slight, not enough to irritate me though.

Some of the older panels with 15ms+ response times had really awful ghosting, black on white was unbearable.
 
I really have come to the conclusion that few people have actually seen a side by side comparison between a descent CRT monitor and the equivalent (size and price) LCD.
I would guess their sick CRT finally died and was replaced by a new LCD. When you say CRT to that person they remember the junk they just got rid of. That opinion is hardly objective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top