LCD's vs CRT's

T

Top Nurse

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
7,344
As the title implies I would like to know whether the LCD's are up to par with CRT's yet in high speed game play. Been using a Viewsonic PF790 for quite a while and got a hankering for some more real estate.
 
no

(getting better, but still no)

they never will, and even if you think time will tell, i think SED will tell

ghosting, streaking, native res, lower reses, lower color amounts, bleeding, dying pixels, etc. etc. make for LCDs downfall

although im quite satisfied with my 2005
 
Nope they arent even close. Anyone who says they are isnt a good enough gamer to notice.
 
Chewbacca said:
Nope they arent even close. Anyone who says they are isnt a good enough gamer to notice.
Click to expand...

A person's choice of monitor does not reflect upon how good of a gamer they are any more than their choice of keyboard or computer case. Anyone who says otherwise is just an ignorant prick who feels inadequate around their LCD using peers.
 
Chewbacca said:
Nope they arent even close. Anyone who says they are isnt a good enough gamer to notice.
Click to expand...

You sound like you spend too much time gaming to be able to afford an lcd so you protest how great CRTs are to make yourself feel better.

I may be arrogant, but your just ignorant.


a 8 or 4ms panel is perfect for fast games and i reckon better than crts, irregardless of what some people like to think.

Get an LCD and you wont regret it.

As for those who reckon crts are better, try using an 8 or 4ms one for a couple of days, you wont touch a crt ever again afterwards
 
and the 4ms lcd also cost an arm, leg, spleen, and RIGHT testicle. The left ones just do not cut it anymore.
 
Top Nurse said:
As the title implies I would like to know whether the LCD's are up to par with CRT's yet in high speed game play. Been using a Viewsonic PF790 for quite a while and got a hankering for some more real estate.
Click to expand...
If it ain't broke don't fix it, I just prefer CRTs because of their ability to change resolutions and LCDs for some reason hurt my eyes :confused:
 
ZOMGWTFBBQ said:
You sound like you spend too much time gaming to be able to afford an lcd so you protest how great CRTs are to make yourself feel better.

I may be arrogant, but your just ignorant.


a 8 or 4ms panel is perfect for fast games and i reckon better than crts, irregardless of what some people like to think.

Get an LCD and you wont regret it.

As for those who reckon crts are better, try using an 8 or 4ms one for a couple of days, you wont touch a crt ever again afterwards
Click to expand...

You're in complete denial if you think a 8 or even 4ms LCD doesnt have any motion blur ,You should know the ms ratings on LCDs arent very accurate and never actualy perform at the rated speeds,For example this review of the supposed 4ms Viewsonic. Not only that but so far all of the faster panels only have 6bit color which means they're dithering colors (banding). No thanks ;)

I already tried an LCD and quickly went back to CRT. (my fault for falling into the LCD hype)

I strongly believe there is no better gaming monitor than the 24" Sony FW900 CRT.
 
I'm so tired of this entire arguement. LCDs are great for certain things. Quite simply for text they cannot be beat. For gaming, they bluntly suck. Those of you who cannot see ghosting on an LCD need to come to grips with the fact that other people CAN. In the same manner that some people have better hearing within the norman human range, some people have better eyesight. I've met people who cannot see ghosting on 20+ms LCDs, while everyone around them can. I personally can see it quite noticeably even on the good 8ms unit I'm on now.
If you cant thats fine and dandy, but do not sit and tell the rest of us it doesnt exist, it does. If I had any inclination to play games as much as I did in the past there is no way I would have bought an LCD, but for what I do now its fine. Its just a matter of what your personal needs are, and what you personally can or cannot see on screen.

There is no "RIGHT" answer to this debate. Get over it.
 
Chewbacca said:
Nope they arent even close. Anyone who says they are isnt a good enough gamer to notice.
Click to expand...

Wrong... Look at Viewsonic's press release section. They ahve come out with 4ms and 1ms rise/fall times this means 240fps and not many games needs that speed! or movies for that matter.

Sunin
 
Well, he was flame baited there but the 4ms comment is moot. The montiors with that spec vary greatly, and big screens aren't rated that low. At least I hope not, they should have a thread of dignity when rating the things. Even if the OP may be happy with an LCD he's doing the right thing. When I was looking not too long ago the bigger ones were certainly lagging behind the smaller displays. Being a CRT guy myself after getting an FW900 I can say I would have wanted the big guys to at least have caught up to the best smaller LCDs. Like staying below 16ms for all transitions.

Maybe there is one that has all but caught up and inquiring minds want to know. I wish we could get away from the discussions whereby some people seem to believe there is not much to be careful about anymore. Most of the bigger screens can ride up into 20ms territory depending on the color change. For some a CRT, or perhaps only one of the best smaller LCDs, are quick enough.

We looking at big like >20"?
 
I have been using a 21" Trinitron for several years now, and love it. That said, I have used some LCD's lately that I did not notice many issues with. So I have ordered a Samsung 214T.... Should come in tomorrow from NewEgg. I'll report back with my findings.
 
the only reason to get an lcd is if size or weight or aesthetics are more important to you than anything else. I just bought an lcd because i'm moving a lot recently and my 21" trinitron just isn't practical.
 
CRT's are nice for gaming and... thats about it. For general day to day usage, a LCD is a far better option and the very minor ghosting that you guys are complaining about is a minor trade off in comparison to the blurry text and waste of desk space and electricity from a CRT. Really though, it boils down to preference. If you like your CRT, hey, great, more power to you. I just don't see why we need to start saying crap like "you're an idiot" or "you're not a gamer" if you don't notice or care about the minor ghosting on an LCD. Really, statements like that add nothing constructive to the conversation and make you CRT guys look like a bunch of assholes.
 
easy answer: get a decent LCD to hold you over until SED is mainstream or stick with ur CRT until SED is mainstream
 
Xeero said:
easy answer: get a decent LCD to hold you over until SED is mainstream or stick with ur CRT until SED is mainstream
Click to expand...

SED still has some issues that CRT had. Burnin being one of them and LCD's are still easier on the eyes.

Sunin
 
ZOMGWTFBBQ said:
You sound like you spend too much time gaming to be able to afford an lcd so you protest how great CRTs are to make yourself feel better.
I may be arrogant, but your just ignorant.
a 8 or 4ms panel is perfect for fast games and i reckon better than crts, irregardless of what some people like to think.
Get an LCD and you wont regret it.
As for those who reckon crts are better, try using an 8 or 4ms one for a couple of days, you wont touch a crt ever again afterwards
Click to expand...

I am glad you didnt get the first post, and i cannot disagree with every word in your post more than i already do.

Do not take anyone elses comment or opinion about lcds too seriously. Get one, try it for yourself. Fire up BF2 or your favorite online shooter on an lcd. Prepare to be disapointed. Unless you dont notice the streaking and choppy animotion, compared to your old crt. Nothing to make your $400 video card seem slow like the jerky refreshing display of an lcd!

This discussion is pointless. Some will say that lcds cannot touch crts in motion, and some will say their blah blah 2405 930BF viewsonic gaming monitor KICKS ASS OMG, because they need to justify their purchase and cannot admit that crts are simply better at showing a white moving ball on a black background because they refresh the screen 60 times every second at the absolute minimum. Giving us a refresh rate(ms) of less than .1. Much much less than the real world lcd refresh of 8-16(best case scenario).

Try playing BF2 on an lcd a couple days. You'll go back hugging and kissing that trinitron CRT because you get a terrible headache from the harrier streaking its way across the sky.

I bought a samsung panel, attempting upgrade from my 15" trinitron CRT. I was pissed off that i spent $500 for blurring and twitching. I'll say it again. Its like tieing a string to my 7800GT and pulling it through a swamp. Same fps, but the screen cannot display it fluidly as it can on a crt because of how the screen refreshes slower than crt.
 
Im using a Samsung 930b LCD panel, 8ms refresh and 700:1 contrast ratio, and I have absolutely no problems with blurryness or ghosting playing BF2 @ 75hz with DVI.

The only thing which is far different from my CRT is trying to read players names when you and the other players are moving.
 
Sunin said:
SED still has some issues that CRT had. Burnin being one of them and LCD's are still easier on the eyes.

Sunin
Click to expand...

CRT's have burn in? holy shit, that must be alot of extensive usage in order to get it to burn in. in all the times i've used CRT, i've never burned it in. i guess i'm not as hardcore as some people are.
 
"LCDs are bad for gaming....."

While Im sure that some people have issues with them, they are really not bad IMO. I think its a matter of personal taste. I would personally hate to have a 90 lb, monitor sitting on my desk, and LANs would be out of the question.

Remember back in the day when everyone used to say, "AMD processors are no good, intels are so much faster."? While there may have been some truth w/ heat and interface issues, it was really a matter of people's ingrained perceptions from bad word of mouth and innacuracies from advertising.

Get one, if you like it great, if you don't return it. If you return it it won't cost you $100 in shipping vs. a CRT :)

Personally you couldn't pay me to switch back to a CRT.
 
Sunin said:
SED still has some issues that CRT had. Burnin being one of them and LCD's are still easier on the eyes.

Sunin
Click to expand...

sure, a crt could burn in if you left the same image running endlessly for months...
:rolleyes:

as long as I had CRTs I *never* had any amount of burn in. I would guess youd find that kind of thing incredibly rare.

I'm also wondering how you are magically coming up with lcd being easier on the eyes than SED?
 
These LCD/CRT arguments are retarded. They never end, and no one can ever agree on anything.

With that said,
- I do notice ghosting on my LCD, but that doesn't affect my gameplay in any way.
- LCD is easier on the eyes (I used to get headaches) for some people.
- LCD's don't produce nearly as much heat. Mine is only slightly warm on the back.
- CRT's are better for professional image editing, colors are slightly better on CRT's.
- LCD's take up much less room.
- CRT's are usually less expensive, although LCD prices are not bad (my 19" was $200 after rebate)
 
ZOMGWTFBBQ said:
You sound like you spend too much time gaming to be able to afford an lcd so you protest how great CRTs are to make yourself feel better.

I may be arrogant, but your just ignorant.


a 8 or 4ms panel is perfect for fast games and i reckon better than crts, irregardless of what some people like to think.

Get an LCD and you wont regret it.

As for those who reckon crts are better, try using an 8 or 4ms one for a couple of days, you wont touch a crt ever again afterwards
Click to expand...

I have a 2405fpw and a fw900 sitting right here. Have you tried both?
 
There would be a lot of, ok... even more FW900 !!!!!!s if people went side by side. :D

Professional grade CRT vrs. LCDs at today's prices for uh... fast paced games? !!!!!!sms aside, I just think the topic plays into it's hands. It's faced paced games... not WoW, and certainly not weight, text, and electricity.

Oh well.
 
I had used 19" Trinitrons for the past 6 years (Dell and Sony brand), and recently got a couple 2005FPWs. Quite frankly, I'll never go back. Yes, you will notice ghosting in the beginning, and it may take a while to get past that, but once you get used to it you'll no longer care. Black levels are better (yes, I said it, so people who continue pulling the 'LCDS CANT DO BLACKS!!!' argument out of their asses can just shut up), text is 100x sharper, and you'll get over ghosting and motion blur. It exists, yes, and you'll notice it heavily at first, but will get over it very quickly.

CRTs are quickly dying. Buy a monster 24" Trinitron if you want (and lose 800% more desk space), that's your call. But personally, and this is coming from a long-time Trinitron fan, I'll never go back.

And just FYI to everyone talking about Viewsonic and their BS response times: Viewsonic has been known to use a 16 ms (or 12 or 8) panel, take it to their labs and pull some BS "gray-to-gray" times out of their asses, and advertise that panel at 8 ms or 4 ms or 2 ms (and soon to be 1 ms). Kind of how Dell continued using the same 16 ms panel but changed the "response time" listed on the 2005FPW to 12 ms.
 
While you'd probably end up still feeling that way anyway, I'm sure the FW900 is a step above the trinitrons you have. Just bringing it up because I think people just assume they are the same to some older trinitrons they had before there LCD for years. These are some of the best and last that sony made in 2002 or so. They sold "trinitron" monitors for several, several years. There is even a little bit older 24 incher. They are not all the same, and this one is the best. I have a 21" trinitron that just isn't as late of a model and it's certainly is not as good as this one, just kind of makes me wonder. Maybe the last 21 inch models were as good, not sure. These FW's used to be 2000 smackers. :eek:

Just saying. Enjoy our lcd anyways. :)
 
From what I hear, the FW900 is probably the best gaming monitor available, and if I had the space I'd love to have one in addition to my LCD, but its certainly not impossible to game on LCD nor do you have to be nothing more than a casual gamer to get enjoyment out of it. That's all I'm trying to say.
 
Just pray that crt doesnt die because if it does...It will find the nearest dumpster because you can buy three new ones for the cost it takes to fix the one that broke on you! Keep in mind, by the time it breaks you cant buy a new one because they dont make them anymore! Paging NEC multisync FE series CRT consumers! (typical desk life was months past their warranty)
 
RegisteredToPost said:
Just pray that crt doesnt die because if it does...It will find the nearest dumpster because you can buy three new ones for the cost it takes to fix the one that broke on you! Keep in mind, by the time it breaks you cant buy a new one because they dont make them anymore! Paging NEC multisync FE series CRT consumers! (typical desk life was months past their warranty)
Click to expand...

Yea its a shame LCDs are being forced upon consumers, but the FW900 can be bought used or refurbished off Ebay for $300-400, Although its a bit of a gamble, So far I've had no problems with mine after 5 months.
 
Trust me I use an 8ms response LCD, there is no blurr unless its cold. If there is any, then only someone who is anal would notice. If you're looking for blur while playing, then you're probably losing too, so you shouldn't worry about whether or not you're getting blur.

Like contrary to popular blief the human eye sees about 25fps, and that is pushing it in lots of action where they eye has to sweep about and not focus on a particular object. If you're staring at a big white wall and it flashes to black yea sure u'd see over 50fps...however in action(gaming) you'd not notice.
 
Two points:

The pros (CPL) ALL use CRTs. While the tournament itself is going to LCDs this year, I don't know a single high-level FPS player who uses an LCD. Of course, I'm hardly close to the stars, but i do know that when my friend's team brought home 5 19" 4ms LCDs after a tourney, the all went up on eBay the day after.

Second, they may be about the same in performance...but a 4ms 19" LCD cost almost double what a good CRT did last time I looked months ago.

personally, I just don't like the looks of LCDs, but I know most people do. Test-drive osme and find out if you really want to spend the premium.
 
I have to say my l90d+ is quite nice for me. Lucky for me I don't notice the ghosting so for me my LCD is looks the same as my old crt but brighter and crisper. Playing CS:S I still dominate (lol) so I doubt it has effected me negatively. Also its nice not having a 65 pound weight taking up most of my desk space so I can actually get work done when its not computer related
 
I've got a 21" Trinitron flat-CRT and a 17" Acer 6ms LCD. I don't mind the LCD at all. It ghosts just a little, nothing distracting. I usually use my CRT at home and haul the LCD to LAN parties and such. It's image quality is good enough that it's portability makes it a winner. Different monitors with different purposes, I guess.
 
XeroHouR said:
Like contrary to popular blief the human eye sees about 25fps, and that is pushing it in lots of action where they eye has to sweep about and not focus on a particular object. If you're staring at a big white wall and it flashes to black yea sure u'd see over 50fps...however in action(gaming) you'd not notice.
Click to expand...


Which is odd of you to say, since the research I've seen shows that people can detect changes at a much higher rate than that (~200fps). Our brains do some smoothing for us, that allows us to view slow (20fps) things as fine, but you can still notice quite the difference.

Heck, I can certainly tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps in games.

P.
 
mathesar said:
I already tried an LCD and quickly went back to CRT. (my fault for falling into the LCD hype)
Click to expand...

Yeah, the same happened to me. I returned the LCD after a couple days of use, I couldn't stand the bad colours and the feel of "lagging", besides who said a LCD is good for the eyes ? auts.. :(
I wish that the upcoming SED displays will have the good sides of both CRTs and LCDs.
 
One huge point missed. Everyone will use LCD. In 5 years you wont be able to buy a CRT. Why you ask? Simple. The materials that make up an LCD cost 25% of what it costs just to SHIP a crt. It all comes down to economics.

Now, CRT users, when you are forced to use LCDs at work all day long, you to will understand and make the switch. Even if you switch becuase CRTs are too expensive in 5 years.

I switched in December. I was diehard CRT.
 
My experience has recently improved with LCDs. My First and Second were a Samsung and Viewsonic LCDs (earlier generations, though the Viewsonic was one of those early 'claimed' 8ms). Both of these ghosted badly in action games, although increasing the brightness helped reduce ghosting. One thing I seemed to notice was converting the second LCD from VGA to DVI cable may have helped a bit too.
But my current, the Gateway FPD2185W has shed new hope into LCD for gaming. Just as important, the addition of widescreen.
Ran through the color calibration tool, tweaked colors a bit, got a good DVI cable, and set to native resolution of 1680x1050. Adjusted all games to that res too.
Wow! Brillant picture, and no noticable ghosting. Only, one flaw with it I've seen was the blacks are not correct, or truly black. Then again I use a high brightness in games so that could have been part of it. I placed a 17in CRT next to it to do a pseudo compare, and then when looking really hard I started to notice a slight ghosting on the dark blacks. The picture quality and color were the same. Once I removed the CRT and played on LCD for a minute or two, I couldn't notice the ghosting. I must also say, the widescreen (once configured properly) was a much more enjoyable and immersive game play.
Here's a good technical review of the Gateway and Dell's 2405FPW: Extreme Tech

As others mentioned, each LCD has it's own level of ghosting, no matter what the specs may say. But I feel it's getting reeallly close to CRT. As an regular gamer, I won't be going back to CRT.
 
R0N1 said:
Yeah, the same happened to me. I returned the LCD after a couple days of use, I couldn't stand the bad colours and the feel of "lagging", besides who said a LCD is good for the eyes ? auts.. :(
I wish that the upcoming SED displays will have the good sides of both CRTs and LCDs.
Click to expand...


But, LCD will be as common as CRTs are now, and SEDs will be elitist and over priced for many years.

LCDs produced in the last 6 months have come along way from those only a year old. Wait another year, and CRTs are dead.
 
Pneuma said:
Heck, I can certainly tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps in games.

P.
Click to expand...

You may think this to be true. But Ive seen truely blind tests at a lan party. And nobody could tell the difference short of a lucky guess.

What you DO notice is when you go below 24 fps. Its very hard to game at 30fps, without dropping to 24. Almost impossible to recreate in a game. This test was set up specifically to stay around 25-40, but never drop below 25.

It was really interesting to say the least. Lots of pissed off gamers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top