LCDs fine for gaming?

[NACZ3]

I am a "serious" gamer (enough so that my mom threatened to go back home from visiting at Christmas if I didn't stop playing BF2 at 12:30 am--I told her that was her decision and kept playing).

I had 2 NEC 1375x CRT's as my main setup. These are awesome monitors and they had DVI inputs- which I have always used on them. I still have these monitors but they're in boxes now. I bought a Dell 2001FP when it first came out and I didn't experience any ghosting/streaking problems. I mainly play FPS such as all versions of UT. UT is fast paced enough where I think I would see streaking/ghosting.

The Dell converted me over to LCDs. I had an LCD and CRT dual monitor setup for 2 years and I had tried gaming on both and ended up prefering the LCD. The thing that won me over was the brightness of the LCD vs the CRT without the image being washed out.

My setup now is a Dell 2405 and the 2001. I thought at first that the 2405 would be too big to game on but now that I've gotten used to it, it's my main gaming monitor. I have to keep myself from getting the 30 inch Dell, I'll need a new desk .

I don't think you'll regret going LCD even if you are a "serious" gamer. Consider the 2001FP if you can get a good deal from Dell. Also, if you don't like it, you could always return it.

 

[mathesar]

I would steer clear of the 2001FP if you plan on gaming or watching movies on it ..I had one sitting next to my CRT for awhile and the black level performance was quite possibly the worst Ive seen on any display no matter how I adjusted the videocard brightness/gamma / monitor brightness etc. There are much better LCDs out nowadays with better black levels (still not CRT quality black levels tho) ,The 2001FP is only rated 400:1 contrast ratio and believe me it shows.

Some pics I took:

2001FP:

Sony G520P:

 

[NACZ3]

The 2405 has better black levels than the 2001FP but my 2001FP has been pretty decent (doesn't seem to look the same as in your photos but that could just be because of the camera). CRT's in general will have the best black levels, that cannot be denied. Even for high def tv's and projectors, CRT's will give the best black levels.

 

[xeefus]

I would steer clear of the 2001FP if you plan on gaming or watching movies on it ..I had one sitting next to my CRT for awhile and the black level performance was quite possibly the worst Ive seen on any display no matter how I adjusted the videocard brightness/gamma / monitor brightness etc. There are much better LCDs out nowadays with better black levels (still not CRT quality black levels tho) ,The 2001FP is only rated 400:1 contrast ratio and believe me it shows.

Some pics I took:

http://ded.zenblue.net/g520p_2001fp.jpg

2001FP:
http://ded.zenblue.net/LCD_Closeup.jpg

Sony G520P:
http://ded.zenblue.net/CRT_G520P_Closeup.jpg

Wow, the game looks really good on your G520P.

 

[RegisteredToPost]

I've always been skeptical about how people rave about those damn dell LCD's. I can't stand playing a game on an lcd. i tried the samsung 970p, and it had nice blur. Sometimes it wouldnt be as apparent as other times, but you can still tell your fancy new $400 video card doesnt look as good as it did on that old crt. My 970p was defective so i got a refund and currently am using an old trusty 15" sony 100ES trinitron . I'm saving my money until technology advances a little...Or this puppy dies. Found it at a yardsale for ten bux lol

It seems like every manufacturer abandon the crt technology. I dont want something refurbished and unsupported. LCD's piss me off, and am not sure about SED. Meh, i dont know what im talking about!

 

[Svperstar]

I would steer clear of the 2001FP if you plan on gaming or watching movies on it ..I had one sitting next to my CRT for awhile and the black level performance was quite possibly the worst Ive seen on any display no matter how I adjusted the videocard brightness/gamma / monitor brightness etc. There are much better LCDs out nowadays with better black levels (still not CRT quality black levels tho) ,The 2001FP is only rated 400:1 contrast ratio and believe me it shows.

Some pics I took:

[/IMG]

haha thanks for the pic I also dig the silence from the LCD fans.

LCDs are not good for gaming yet, period.

 

[TheRapture]

IMO, a 400:1 contrast ratio on LCD sucks for gaming....blacks aren't, well...black...at all...

I just recently got happy enough with LCD to stay with it, the 1000:1 contrast ratio of my display is MUCH better than the fp2001 series....and looks much better in games....

 

[Tengis]

haha thanks for the pic I also dig the silence from the LCD fans.

LCDs are not good for gaming yet, period.

Not for gaming my ass. One crappy screenshot doenst prove anything. The 1000's of people that buy them for gaming = more proof than anyones opinions on these boards.

The bottom line:

Apparently people dont want to accept the fact that LCD monitors have come along way. Its obvious that there are a few differences, its a completely different technology. Not having 100% pure blacks is the trade off to have unmatched image sharpness and vibrancy. Also, playing on an LCD monitor in a room with lights on is a good way to make the blacks seem blacker. My monitor may ghost SLIGHTLY but its absolutly rediculous to say a dead technology like CRTs (Im SURE they will all be replaced in the future) is better, considering... well... they are going to be replaced. LCDs are cheaper to produce, cheaper for the consumer, and produce a much better image per $ spent.

You WILL SEE A DIFFERENCE when going straight from a CRT to an LCD like I did. I considered sending mine back a few days after buying it because I saw ghosting... but the truth of the matter is, the only reason that 90% of the people even probably see ghosting is because they are looking for it [H]ardcore after making the switch. I cannot see anything when playing games anymore, its just a matter of getting used to what little difference there is when the monitor is displaying a moving image.

And dead pixels... I had ONE dead pixel when I recieved my monitor. I was furious... but I cant even find the pixel now if you asked me too.

Trolls, give it a rest, LCD monitors are here to stay and are a much more viable option then any CRT considering you get a better picture and more real estate per buck (although thats argueable because CRTs can have a higher res, although its not always useable because things end up being too small).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16824116281
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824168005

Smaller viewing area, more expensive after shipping, less sharp, less vibrant... but the blacks look a little better? Sounds like a great deal.

 

[Tutelary]

trolls? people arent trolling you, they are giving you the truth. An lcd is horrible for gaming. I've moved away from fps gaming and the few things I might play now will be more sim cityish, so I have no complaints about my new Samsung 930B, but it is far and away good to play ANY kind of fps game on, dont kid yourself, I've already tried a few just to see. I will say at just 700:1 this monitor does have incredible blacks though, and recommend it to people looking for an lcd with great blacks, that has no "twinkle" effect when video is playing. (I do a great deal of video on this machine).
That said: Dell = lolz.

 

[Shottah_king]

Yea, you do get used to the blurring and ghosting and after a while you don't see it. Other LCD panels have great black levels and they don't look anything like the picture of that dell. CRTs are good but they don't have the vibrance like lcd's and super text quality. The only advantage CRTs really have is their response.

 

[mathesar]

Smaller viewing area, more expensive after shipping, less sharp, less vibrant... but the blacks look a little better? Sounds like a great deal.

A very ignorant comment to say the least. For people like me that have compared a *High end* CRT to LCD side by side the answer is clear. Good CRTs still produce the best overall image quality / color accuracy / black levels / fluid motion and actually have VERY sharp focus, Plus ever since Nvidia introduced Digital Vibrancy adjustment to there video drivers you can adjust the color vibrancy / saturation to your liking as well , Im typing this with my desktop set at 1920x1200 and text looks great. The CRT in the pics above is my 21" G520 which is an awesome CRT , But Im even more impressed with the FW900 im using now.

 

[Tengis]

An lcd is horrible for gaming.

Thats obviously an opinion, so people can only take it with a grain of salt. Ive at least given reasons to back up my arguement. LCDs have definite advantages over CRTs... CRTs just dont have any ghosting. Also, low end LCD monitors (with DVI) can directly compare to high end CRTs which cost more money... anyway, here are some things to think about:

Sharpness
LCD > CRT

Vibrancy (this one could be subjective)
LCD > CRT

Ease on the eyes (seems to be the general agreement)
LCD > CRT

Blacks (depending on the contrast ratio)
LCD </= CRT

Moving images/Games (subjective)
LCD < CRT

Price and performance (performance being screen size and weight... could swing either way once you consider huge displays)
LCD > CRT

LCD = a possible 5 out of 7
CRT = a possible 2 out of 7

 

[Tengis]

A very ignorant comment to say the least. For people like me that have compared a *High end* CRT to LCD side by side the answer is clear. Good CRTs still produce the best overall image quality / color accuracy / black levels / fluid motion and actually have VERY sharp focus, Plus ever since Nvidia introduced Digital Vibrancy adjustment to there video drivers you can adjust the color vibrancy / saturation to your liking as well , Im typing this with my desktop set at 1920x1200 and text looks great. The CRT in the pics above is my 21" G520 which is an awesome CRT , But Im even more impressed with the FW900 im using now.

"High end" crts are also a bit more expensive then a comparable LCD... that monitor is what... $400+? LCDs are just getting cheaper and better from here on out

Unless you have a specific reason or a hatred toward LCDs, there is no reason to get a high end CRT. Graphics designers say CRT because colors are more true, right? Thats a a good reason... and really the only reason I can think of.

Im not trying to get all hardcore over this... but LCDs are not bad monitors. Im not trying to bash CRTs its just that all of the obvious things you look for in a monitor point toward getting an LCD over a CRT almost every time when considering price.

 

[mathesar]

"High end" crts are also a bit more expensive then a comparable LCD... that monitor is what... $400+? LCDs are just getting cheaper and better from here on out

Unless you have a specific reason or a hatred toward LCDs, there is no reason to get a high end CRT. Graphics designers say CRT because colors are more true, right? Thats a a good reason... and really the only reason I can think of.

The FW900 retailed for $2,300 new but I got mine for $400 ..anyhow I've already listed my specific reasons a few times in this thread ,other reasons would be dithering / banding of color which I noticed when comparing photos side by side, I also dont like the dull matte screen surface on most LCDs, it gives the image a slightly 'grainy' look, I started noticing this after looking at the LCD for awhile then back at the CRT.

If I were doing mostly web browsing and text work then I dont see why an LCD would be a bad choice at all, but I do a lot of gaming and like to watch movies ..this is where LCD quality starts to falter vs. CRT. (black levels / motion fluidness / resolution flexibility)

These same discussions go on (of course) with HDTVs as well, go take a look at the CRT vs. LCD threads on a Home theater forum such as AVS and you'll see how strongly most people agree about CRT being the best overall.

I guess in the end Im just really picky about image quality (Maybe a bit to much?) Take a look at this example, A snippet from a review of the well respected Westinghouse 37" LCD:

"Overall, the Westinghouse LVM-37W1 delivered above-average video quality for a flat-panel LCD. Right out of the box, it served up a color temperature very close to the reference 6,500K.

As we expected from a flat-panel LCD, the Westinghouse LVM-37W1 didn't produce a very deep black and surprisingly truncated some detail in white areas. This combo was visible when watching one of our favorite test scenes, "Chapter 3: Awakening" from Alien: The Director's Cut. When the door to the hibernation room opened, the Westinghouse's poor black level buried much of the detail in the dimly lit scene. Once the lights came on, the bright highlights on the windows of the hibernation pods became blown out and difficult to view.

The good: 1080p native resolution; accepts 1080p sources; sharp high-def images; accurate out-of-box color temperature and color decoding; dual DVI inputs.

The bad: No tuner included; subpar video processing introduces some noise; poor black-level performance; crushes details in whites.

The bottom line: We'd choose the high-res Westinghouse LVM-37W1 LCD for displaying HDTV or computer signals in a bright room, but less expensive plasmas still win for home theater.


Now heres comments made by the same review site about my current Sony 32HS510 CRT HDTV:


"The HS510 delivers a great picture. Video processing is top-notch; our test patterns revealed excellent detection of film-based material, and we saw smooth lines in the opening pan of Star Trek: Insurrection. Our major complaint is that the color decoding isn't as good as it should be right out of the box.

Prior to calibrating the HS510, we set it to the warmest color-temperature preset and selected the Pro picture mode. At that point, the grayscale measured 6,406K at the bottom and 6,177K at the top. While those readings are quite close to the NTSC standard of 6,500K, we were able to adjust the color temperature to achieve nearly perfect scores: 6,450K at the bottom and 6,500K at the top.

The HS510 showed its true colors on the Tears of the Sun DVD. During the helicopter flyover, complex variations of green tinged the jungle canopy. As the chopper sets down, the grass parts, and the blades were sharp and well detailed, with hints of brown beneath. Adjusting the color decoder really paid off in skin-tone accuracy. In one scene, Monica Bellucci blushes, and her cheeks reddened while the rest of her face remained pale.

The set also did an exemplary job with black reproduction. Regardless of the brightness of surrounding images, blacks were consistently inky. We saw a wealth of detail in the dark interior of one of the African huts; we could make out the features of the idol in the shadows.

The good: Great black-level performance; excellent video processing with 3:2 pull-down; HDTV-compatible PIP; DVI input.

The bad: Color decoder pushes red; inputs don't have independent memory.

The bottom line: This Sony HDTV delivers top-flight video quality and features at a non-Sony price.

Ive had this HDTV for 3 years now and it still impresses the heck out of me everytime I game on it & Watch movies (Especially Xbox360 in 1080i) Ive yet to see an LCD HDTV that compares.

 

[ChingChang]

I would steer clear of the 2001FP if you plan on gaming or watching movies on it ..I had one sitting next to my CRT for awhile and the black level performance was quite possibly the worst Ive seen on any display no matter how I adjusted the videocard brightness/gamma / monitor brightness etc. There are much better LCDs out nowadays with better black levels (still not CRT quality black levels tho) ,The 2001FP is only rated 400:1 contrast ratio and believe me it shows.

Some pics I took:

http://ded.zenblue.net/g520p_2001fp.jpg

2001FP:
http://ded.zenblue.net/LCD_Closeup.jpg

Sony G520P:
http://ded.zenblue.net/CRT_G520P_Closeup.jpg

Doom 3 doesn't look anything like that on my LCD. Maybe you should adjust the brightness or something?

trolls? people arent trolling you, they are giving you the truth. An lcd is horrible for gaming. I've moved away from fps gaming and the few things I might play now will be more sim cityish, so I have no complaints about my new Samsung 930B, but it is far and away good to play ANY kind of fps game on, dont kid yourself, I've already tried a few just to see. I will say at just 700:1 this monitor does have incredible blacks though, and recommend it to people looking for an lcd with great blacks, that has no "twinkle" effect when video is playing. (I do a great deal of video on this machine).
That said: Dell = lolz.

LCD's aren't horrible for gaming. Low quality LCD's might be though.
I do just fine with my $300 LCD (that fujiplus one, 19"). I'm almost always in the top 1-5 in a 20 player game of CS:S.

A very ignorant comment to say the least. For people like me that have compared a *High end* CRT to a *Low end* LCD side by side the answer is clear. Good CRTs still produce the best overall image quality / color accuracy / black levels / fluid motion and actually have VERY sharp focus, Plus ever since Nvidia introduced Digital Vibrancy adjustment to there video drivers you can adjust the color vibrancy / saturation to your liking as well , Im typing this with my desktop set at 1920x1200 and text looks great. The CRT in the pics above is my 21" G520 which is an awesome CRT , But Im even more impressed with the FW900 im using now.

fixed
seriously, that LCD looks like it's being played outside with the sun shining directly on it.

CRT's are very good for web design, or any image editing, but anything else I'd rather use an LCD. Watching dark movies (fight club?) might be better on a CRT , but that's all I can think of.

Low quality CRT's are not good for gaming either. I've used a ton that are way too dark, even after adjusting contrast ect.
Low quality LCD's are probably not good also, but anything decent should be fine for gaming. There is very little ghosting on my $300 19" LCD, and it doesn't distract me or affect me in any way while I'm gaming. I rarely even notice it.


Arguing this seems kind of pointless. I don't think I'm going to change any CRT guy's opinion, and I doubt they're going to change any LCD owners opinion.

 

[mathesar]

Low quality CRT's are not good for gaming either. I've used a ton that are way too dark, even after adjusting contrast ect.

Well yea thats why I've always steered clear of Shadow Mask based CRTs, Unfortunately thats what the majority of people owned, They're much darker and less vibrant than Aperture grille based CRTs.

seriously, that LCD looks like it's being played outside with the sun shining directly on it.

Did you even look at the closeup shot of the LCD before typing that? Sun doesnt cause faded washed out blacks like that, LCDs do. Yes I understand not all LCDs look that washed out but even a 1000:1 contrast ratio LCD isnt approaching CRT black levels especially if you game at night.

I took this shot at night with the lights out in my room , of course my camera settings exaggerated the LCDs brightness & overblown contrast (even tho the LCD was set at Brightness 0) The LCD looks overall pretty damn bad compared to what it looked like in person ,but yet at the same time the CRT still shows proper black levels in the shot (Go figure! and no Sun to blame here!)

You're right these LCD vs. CRT debates are pretty pointless but at least im being honest.

Also take a look at this where they demonstrate SED black levels vs. Plasma / LCD.

"Ok, competing monitor’s adjustment probably weren’t optimum. Still, by looking at images displayed next, Canon seemed to have used accurate parameters for the plasma TV. Image displayed was superb. The LCD’s was a little bit less nice. Still, we already said that many time, IPS monitors’ black level is far from being as good as competing technologies and in particular VA LCDs. It is also true that we have never been really convinced by big LCDs: washed away black level, twinkling effect etc. But here, it really gets a good trashing for all “tests”.

 

[masher]

LCDs are cheaper to produce, cheaper for the consumer...

I'm suprised you didn't sprain a finger typing out this boo-boo. A $17 CRT can be had for under $100, and even a 22" for $400. That's with lower economies of scale, and higher shipping costs between manufacturer and distributor. Cheaper to produce? What planet are you from?

do just fine with my $300 LCD (that fujiplus one, 19"). I'm almost always in the top 1-5 in a 20 player game of CS:S.

The logical flaw in this conclusion is so glaring, I can't even bring myself to point it out.

... but the blacks look a little better? Sounds like a great deal.

A "little" better? Even the very best LCDs today have black levels roughly 2,500% worse than a CRT. Fact, not opinion-- roughly 0.01 nits vs. 0.25 nits.

These are the facts. CRTs win on black levels, response time, color accuracy and rendition, and viewing angle. LCDs win on form factor, brightness, and sharpness on static or slow-moving images. The OPINION portion is how important any of these factors are to you.

 

[RegisteredToPost]

Currently witing for SED. Stuck in between an lcd that i would not be satisfied with, or a crt that would likely fail in a couple years. I wonder how much this technology will cost?

 

[Tutelary]

Thats obviously an opinion, so people can only take it with a grain of salt. Ive at least given reasons to back up my arguement. LCDs have definite advantages over CRTs... CRTs just dont have any ghosting. Also, low end LCD monitors (with DVI) can directly compare to high end CRTs which cost more money... anyway, here are some things to think about:

Perhaps you missed the whole part about me having an lcd? Dont kid yourself. An lcd is not fast enough for fps games for those of us who are not visually impaired. In other words, those of us who can actually see blur/ghosting tearing, etc.

 

[masher]

Currently witing for SED. Stuck in between an lcd that i would not be satisfied with, or a crt that would likely fail in a couple years. I wonder how much this technology will cost?

SED is due out end of this year...but only in a 55" panel TV format to start, and that will be in the $5-$7K range to start most likely. Expect at least two years for volume monitor production.

Why do you think a CRT would fail you in a couple years? I bought both my 21" CRTs new 7-8 years ago. Both are still going strong.

 

[masher]

For those still claiming that the newest LCDs exhibit no ghosting and blurring, take a look at this article...which has some high-speed photos on display to prove their conclusions.

 

[djnes]

Someone needs to explain something to me.

Why is it so hard to grasp and understand, that those of us who have good LCDs, are very happy with the performance of them in games and for regular usage? Many of us wouldn't dream of ever going back to a CRT. We can argue day in and day out about the technical specs, but you have to face facts. One of those facts is, a good LCD can handle gaming at more than acceptable levels.

You guys are all splitting hairs of the technical details. Those of us who use a good LCD have our reasons for doing so, and the list is long. Those of you who still use a CRT, that's fine...you are the ones who have to stare at it all day, so if you are happy with it, so be it. I won't ever go back to a CRT, and I don't use one at home or at work. My HP F1905 looks beautiful in games and during regular usage, and at no point have I ever wanted to go back to my Sony Trinitron CRT.

This is an opinionated matter, where people make up their own minds. You can trot out all the technical details you want, but if love our LCDs, we aren't switching. If you still use a CRT, that's fine, but you need to understand others don't share your opinion. Deal with it. It's assinine to sit and try to influence people of your personal opinions that games don't look that well on LCDs. This thread could be ended at anytime because of the ridiculous amount of arguing. Facts remain, that people have their own reasons for choosing CRTs or LCDs, and no one is going to convince them otherwise.

 

[mathesar]

Someone needs to explain something to me..

These debates are still good for people who are looking into switching to LCD or vice versa. I wish I would've read threads like this before buying my LCD , I wouldn't even have bothered buying one if I did. But its also worth noting Dell has a very good return policy, if you wanted to give one of their LCDs a try you can just return it for a refund if you don't like it.

 

[masher]

Someone needs to explain something to me...Why is it so hard to grasp and understand, that those of us who have good LCDs, are very happy with [them]...

It's very simple. If you say "I love my LCD", that's a subjective opinion, and thus not subject to debate. If you even say, "To me, LCDs look better than CRTs", that's also an opinion.

But when someone begins claiming that LCDs do not exhibit ghosting or streaking, or that their color fidelity, black levels, or viewing angles are equal or superior to CRTs, they've stepped over a line. It's no longer opinion...its opinion masquerading as fact.

Your opinions are your own. But when you attempt to present erroneous views as fact, expect to see them challenged.

 

[djnes]

Your opinions are your own. But when you attempt to present erroneous views as fact, expect to see them challenged.

I understand the difference between stating a fact and opinion, but I've seen some arguments in this thread centering on opinions. I'll say that I feel my HP F1905 is good enough for gaming that I am very happy with it. I'll defend that all day long. Does it match up to a good CRT statistically? No. Is it good enough to tell CRT !!!!!!s to STFU, that CRTs aren't the only show in town for gaming? Absolutely. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but flaming someone for saying they love their LCD is ridiculous. If my monitor ghosts in CoD2, than it's not enough to really notice.

 

[masher]

I'll say that I feel my HP F1905 is good enough for gaming that I am very happy with it

A point on which I agree. Unless you're a real stickler for image quality, LCDs are indeed "good enough" for gaming.

Does it match up to a good CRT statistically? No.

Another point on which we agree. Solid progress.

I've seen some arguments in this thread centering on opinions...flaming someone for saying they love their LCD is ridiculous.

I haven't noticed anyone doing this; if I missed it, please post the message number and I'll correct myself. I have noticed a lot of flaming in the other direction, though. Why doesn't that bother you? Isn't this a curious inconsistency?

Additionally, I've noticed many LCD lovers presenting opinion as fact. Some recent examples in this thread, (paraphrased slightly for brevity):

> "CRTs cost more than LCDs of the same size"
> "CRTs break down faster than LCDs"
> "LCDs have equal black levels to CRTs"
> "CRTs have less dark-level detail than LCDs"
> "Modern LCDs don't exhibit ghosting or streaking"
> "LCDs have superior image quality, even in fast-motion video and gaming."
> "Viewing angle doesn't matter on modern LCDs"
> "The only advantage CRTs have is response time"
> "Anyone who knocks LCDs has never seen a 'good' one"

All false, and all presented as fact. And anyone who posts evidence to the contrary is mindlessly labelled a "jerk", a "troll", or worse. And you're asking why the poor old LCD lovers are being harrassed?

 

[djnes]

I was taking the side of the LCD people mainly because the CRT !!!!!!s seem so hell bent on converting people back to CRTs. Generally, the attitude is, the people who prefer LCDs are morons because statistically, they aren't as good for games as CRTs. I also don't have a problem being on the LCD side because that's what I prefer.

I'm not going to disagree that some of the logic above you stated (quotes from others) are ridiculous. Some are flat out wrong, such as the cost example, and others I partially agree with, but not to the factual extent as stated. For example, most "gaming" magazines have done recent reviews of certain LCDs. I wouldn't say ghosting is non-existent, but according to their reviews, it's not noticeable to the point of mentioning it. I personally don't notice any ghosting on my monitor. I partially disagree with the comment that the only advantage CRTs have is response time. CRTs also scale to different resolutions better than LCDs.

 

[ChingChang]

This thread is retarded.

 

[TheRapture]

This thread is retarded.

It got that way pretty quick.....