hmm CRT or TFT(yes another one of those)

S

Shay Ken

Weaksauce
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
85
so, 2 choices

Acer AL1717AS TFT 17 inch
http://www.pricerunner.co.uk/computing/peripherals/monitors/511868/details

or the Philips 109B60 19 inch CRT
http://www.epcbuyer.com/products.asp?recnumber=3364

the main advantage of the CRT is that it gets to 1600X1200 at 75 HZ, which sounds rather nice

the rest of the set up will be:
AMD Athlon 3200
Asrock SLI32-eSATA
Asus EN7900GT
Spinpoint P120 200GB

(please no post about the setup, I've talked about it in a different thread and this is what came up)

TIA!
 
You do realize that CRT is out of stock on that website? But If you've found it elsewhere, I'd get that CRT over the LCD anyday. Its got more screen area, can handle higher resolution and a great refresh rate and is much cheeper.
 
yeah, I found it on a dutch site, thought it might be nice to give you an english site so you could understand what's going on :p ,

there's a 2 euro price difference so it's negligable, but if the refresh rate is faster I guess that draws me over the line

thanks
 
Refresh rate doesn't mean much on an LCD. Compairing refresh rates between LCDs and CRTs is a waste of time since its not giving you any good information. I'd get teh CRT because its larger and supports a greater resolution while still maintaining a decient refresh rate. Plus its picture quality is probably better.
 
In this case I'd go with the CRT too. LCDs are pointless unless you go 20" are bigger, the smaller ones just support too low of a resolution, 1280x1024 is going the way of the dinosaur.
 
Whitebread said:
Refresh rate doesn't mean much on an LCD. Compairing refresh rates between LCDs and CRTs is a waste of time since its not giving you any good information.
Click to expand...

Not true if you play games , a higher refresh rate allows for a higher framerate with vsync enabled ,also a higher refresh rate allows for less screen tearing with vsync disabled. You practically have to enable Vsync when using an LCD.
 
mathesar said:
Not true if you play games , a higher refresh rate allows for a higher framerate with vsync enabled ,also a higher refresh rate allows for less screen tearing with vsync disabled. You practically have to enable Vsync when using an LCD.
Click to expand...

There is never a reason to play with Vsync disabled, that is a tired old myth that needs to die.

Plus, I don't know of any LCD that does a refresh rate of lower than 60hz. Most people can't tell a difference above 30 fps, 60 fps is more than enough for anyone when it comes to the monitor. The only people care about ultra-high framerates is so that when things get really crazy on screen it doesn't drop down into the teens or something. If your video card is capable of doing 150 fps though, even if you are only seeing 60, it will look as good as if it was outputting all 150 to a 150hz display.
 
People can tell a difference between 30 fps, 60fps, 150fps. If your doing any fast paced deathmatch games, with a higher frame rate, you will know a little sooner when someone shoots at you with a none hit scan weapon. The being able to recognize above 60 fps myth needs to die. And please don't split hairs with me and argue that I can't tell 150 fps from 155 fps, because your right I can't. Who the heck can tell a 1% speed difference on their computer without a timer beside them? I'm sure a 20% fps difference is definately noticeable with a diminishing rate of return as you go much higher into the fps count.
 
NulloModo said:
There is never a reason to play with Vsync disabled, that is a tired old myth that needs to die.
Click to expand...

Enabling Vsync affects performance in many cases. In some cases it means the difference between 25 and 30 fps. Depends on game, hardware, etc. But its not a myth. It depends on lots of things, but there is definately a difference in many cases in terms of FPS between it being off and being on.

Of course LCDs look a ton better with it on. For me and many others, 60 fps is the sweet spot, but not for everyone obviously.

OP, I suggest the Samsung. Especially if it can do 1600x1200 @ 85 hz instead of the Phillips 75 hz. It also has a finer dot pitch, with the Samsung at 0.20 mm vs the Phillips 0.21 mm. Yah not a big difference, but still better. I've owned a Samsung Syncmaster series CRT and it served me well until I screwed up my cable and had to buy a new monitor.
 
ok, thanks for the post, that helped me make my decision,

now you can carry on discussing vsync fps thingies ;)
 
NulloModo said:
There is never a reason to play with Vsync disabled, that is a tired old myth that needs to die.

Plus, I don't know of any LCD that does a refresh rate of lower than 60hz. Most people can't tell a difference above 30 fps, 60 fps is more than enough for anyone when it comes to the monitor. The only people care about ultra-high framerates is so that when things get really crazy on screen it doesn't drop down into the teens or something. If your video card is capable of doing 150 fps though, even if you are only seeing 60, it will look as good as if it was outputting all 150 to a 150hz display.
Click to expand...

Running with Vsync enabled kills performance in any games that dont support triple buffering, which happens to be a large amount of games. This is why I prefer running without Vsync..I always have and my system is up to date. running without Vsync on an LCD looks terrible so you really have no choice there.

And I can *easily* tell the differance between 30 and 60fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top