LCD's vs CRT's

[Kingrat]

I'm pushing 50, and last year, I had to make a change from the two monitors I had at home, a 19" Dell Trinitron, and a Sony (can't remember the model) that was very very similar. I was having too much eyestrain trying to read smaller fonts, I had a crappy Dell 15" at work, and it was laggy as hell, but text was great. One of the younger guys brought his new 17" Princeton Senergy714 in, and I was on newegg less than an hour later ordering one. The ghosting is slight, and doesn't bother me, and text is so much better than CRTs, it's no contest, the CRTs went to other people for a cheap price, and I haven't missed them at all. This room went from near 90 degrees on a hot day to about 80, just by getting the Sony out of here, and my UPS reported about a 100W power draw reduction.

The only complaint I have is that the speakers suck, but they suck on all of them anyway, and I have a 12" sub and 4 speakers hooked up to a 70W per channel Surroud Receiver for games..

 

[Elstaf]

I recently purchased a 20.1" lcd with 8ms response time. I put my 21" flat trinitron CRT away in a closet and I will not take it out unless the LCD breaks. Its time has passed. Try a "good" lcd and use whichever one you prefer. I personally will never go back to a CRT. No one else's opinion really matters...

 

[wolvyne]

LCD's are nice looking but they do not perform as well as CRT's hands down. If you notice when they mention the 4 or 8+ms response time on LCDs it is usually the grey-to-grey coloring that has that response time not the full color image. Yes CRT's are heavier and bulkier but assuming you are at home this usually shouldn't be an issue. Typically in an office environment. Ghosting has already been mentioned even though that is getting better. And unless you want to pay a lot the contrast ratios are not as good as CRT. I'm waiting for that new TV with the 200,000:1 ratio, its only $35k.... Also the dot pitch is better on CRTs. If you get a CRT flat that has a very fine dot pitch the displays looks sooooo good where LCDs still look a little piled up close, and yes I know they are getting close to what CRT is but it's still not there yet.

 

[mathesar]

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.

I'm willing to bet large sums of money that I could tell the differance between 30 & 60fps every single time. I remember 3dfx had a 3d demo called "30/60" which showed the same graphic demo running via split screen ,one half was 30 fps and the other 60 fps, Very very noticable differance. Maybe they were using LCDs at the lan party but on a CRT 30 vs. 60fps is easily noticable.

 

[texuspete00]

Sure, because you still need to remind people of the topic. An Lcd being better for fast paced games, has nothing but subjective opinions to back it up. Sure, that's fine and all. But there are plenty of technical reasons a CRT is better at this particular task, and pretty much no one who has seen an FW900 against there lcd would say their lcd is better for fast paced games. There is really not much to go on about.

Sure lcds ghost but.....

Well.... fuck that "but." Unless you honestly think the better geometry is worth input lag, the real unsugarcoated response rate, decent but not great blacks, and being at a stuck native res, you are absolutely ignoring the topic. Wise, since this one plays into a high end CRTs hands at least.

CRTers have there poster boy picked. So have at it. Avoid the specifics because in all likelihood for most lcds a nice graph lucky to be 16ms. Someone care to tell me what LCD is better for faced paced games than an FW900?

At the end of the day we are going to have our opinions. But I think if you read post1, the important one, it's pretty hard to argue otherwise. The guy is worried that lcd's haven't caught up to CRTs for faced pace games. Have they? Ok... so now say that again with a straight face.

LCDs are pretty but if the dinosaur demands any prize it's this one. Most know it too.

 

[vexter]

Have they? Ok... so now say that again with a straight face.

I play BF2 and CS. I toss in other games that people rave about if I have time. I used a CRT until Black Friday of 2005. I now have a Samsung 914v LCD. No where close to high end. For me, any anomalies I did notice blended away in a day or so. The qualities far out weighed the disadvantages, for me that is.


Answer to tread question, No, LCDs are not as good as CRTs. But LCDs are SO much better at other things, the small difference in gaming performance is overshadowed.

 

[Samhorns]

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.

Boy people get heated on this topic. Anyway all this debate aside IMHO test drive one and see if it matters to you. Here's my story:

Had a Sony G400 19", colors so vivid you can swim in them, gorgous CRT that I swore by for years. Was at the same crossroad as you a few weeks ago. Got my tax return coming, nice chunk of money not already accounted for, and a fist full of fatty reviews about the 2405FPW from Dell. Their flagship gamer LCD, widescreen, fast refresh, all the bells and whistles. What to do.......well I did it and bought the beast hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Was pleasently surprised to find it was acceptably in the middle of all the hype. Sure you can't fool me, this isn't black, it's grey. Sure there is ghosting no matter how much the reviews talk smack. Sure my colors look washed out compared to a SONY trin. However for me, a few hours in the seat and all was forgiven. NOTHING compares to playing WoW at 1920X1200. Headshots in CSS are a tad easier when your targets head is the size of a quarter. Pretty nice to have two entire websites up side by side with no sideways scroll bar. Would I have switched for any LCD less then this monster? Hell no, CRT is king for gaming. But widescreen is a whole nother world chief, trust me. Unless your competing, the ghosting is not that big a deal after an hour or so. I tested them side by side and the trade offs were worth it to me. What you need to do is test drive one in your price range and see if it is for you. As I said it would not be worth it if I went anything less then a widescreen with this much realestate, but that's just me. Oh one more thing, don't do it unless you have enough machine to run at the native rez, LCDs look like poop otherwise IMO.

 

[revgen]

I just bought an LCD because it was the only 22" + monitor being sold that had a warranty and a high resolution.

Now I'm starting to regret it. CRT's just looked better.

1) They don't interpolate pixels at different resotions

2) They are fast for gaming.

3) They have better balanced color reproduction.

4) They also help bad video look better. I use a TV tuner too watch my TV programs, and now they look awful. The tube on the CRT has a unique ability to discard the noise coming from the video signal, kinda like vacuum tubes do with older audio vinyl records.

 

[Weazmeister]

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.

Amen, and LOL.

 

[desolatax]

I like LCD's for gaming, I play games in a decent amount of light, and I don't notice any ghosting. It depends on which LCD though, I have played on a 25ms LCD monitor, and it was ok, but that was over 3 years ago, LCD's have improved much. I own a Viewsonic VA1912wb, a nice widescreen I purchased for $300 with coupons and PM (staples), and I LOVE it. I play around 15-20 hours of games per week, and about 10 hours on the internet, and my only complaint is I have one lit pixel at the far bottom left, I notice it whenever I look at my flashlight battery level on F.E.A.R, its about 4 pixels up from the middle fo the bar. Other than that, I see no ghosting, and it is a 8ms monitor. It's bright enough for me (although i have it set on a darker mode, but thats the way i have every monitor and tv here at).
I sit far away enough that scaling, even though I do notice it, it does not bother me even if I am playing a game at 1024x768.

As of right now, LCD's have gained a lot of ground on CRT's, but one that suits gaming is upwards of $300, while you can pick up a CRT for $100 that is good.

But I prefer LCD's

 

[ChingChang]

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.

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.

I agree completely.

People who think ghosting matters are just ignorant, or they use a shit LCD.

Ghosting does not make or break a player. It hasn't affected me in any way, right after switching from a CRT.

 

[Dan_D]

I have both on my computer. I'm running three monitors. One LCD and two CRT's.

If I could, I'd replace all the CRT's with LCD's. Given time I will. It just costs too damned much.

 

[texuspete00]

I play BF2 and CS. I toss in other games that people rave about if I have time. I used a CRT until Black Friday of 2005. I now have a Samsung 914v LCD. No where close to high end. For me, any anomalies I did notice blended away in a day or so. The qualities far out weighed the disadvantages, for me that is.


Answer to tread question, No, LCDs are not as good as CRTs. But LCDs are SO much better at other things, the small difference in gaming performance is overshadowed.

And that's fine. Don't get me wrong... guys that say you are not real gamers and stuff are being overly opinionated that's for sure. Like FYI ChingChang, blurring for me is about my eyes and the fine detail Im paying for. If it cost me a frag a year I'd be surprised.

 

[mathesar]

Boy people get heated on this topic. Anyway all this debate aside IMHO test drive one and see if it matters to you. Here's my story:

Had a Sony G400 19", colors so vivid you can swim in them, gorgous CRT that I swore by for years. Was at the same crossroad as you a few weeks ago. Got my tax return coming, nice chunk of money not already accounted for, and a fist full of fatty reviews about the 2405FPW from Dell. Their flagship gamer LCD, widescreen, fast refresh, all the bells and whistles. What to do.......well I did it and bought the beast hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Was pleasently surprised to find it was acceptably in the middle of all the hype. Sure you can't fool me, this isn't black, it's grey. Sure there is ghosting no matter how much the reviews talk smack. Sure my colors look washed out compared to a SONY trin. However for me, a few hours in the seat and all was forgiven. NOTHING compares to playing WoW at 1920X1200. Headshots in CSS are a tad easier when your targets head is the size of a quarter. Pretty nice to have two entire websites up side by side with no sideways scroll bar. Would I have switched for any LCD less then this monster? Hell no, CRT is king for gaming. But widescreen is a whole nother world chief, trust me. Unless your competing, the ghosting is not that big a deal after an hour or so. I tested them side by side and the trade offs were worth it to me. What you need to do is test drive one in your price range and see if it is for you. As I said it would not be worth it if I went anything less then a widescreen with this much realestate, but that's just me. Oh one more thing, don't do it unless you have enough machine to run at the native rez, LCDs look like poop otherwise IMO.

Hi my name is Sony FW900 , im a 24" 16:10 Widescreen CRT with a max widescreen resolution of 2304x1440 , Have we met?

 

[Shodin10k]

alittle off topic, but is there any lcds that do +75hz vsync?

My 19" Used Trinitron (Dell Branded) picture quality is good, but thats not why I got it. I love my crt cause it can display 1280x1024 85hz, which is only important to me in FPS'. Even though people not might notice the importance (to me, and to many) of vsync, fps' just play so much smoother when its on. I have a 17" Sony SDM-X73 on one of my other systems which I have had for 2-3 years, and it only has a max refresh rate of 75hz, and I do notice the difference. I notice slight ghosting, but the smoothness of 85hz+ is gone.

 

[ChingChang]

And that's fine. Don't get me wrong... guys that say you are not real gamers and stuff are being overly opinionated that's for sure. Like FYI ChingChang, blurring for me is about my eyes and the fine detail Im paying for. If it cost me a frag a year I'd be surprised.

So.. are you agreeing with me? or does that small blur mess you up when you should be paying attention to the guy running around instead?
Don't really understand what you're saying.

 

[texuspete00]

Right, agreeing for the most part. The gaming bit. I don't mean to insinuate a little fine detail blur would cost me frags. Like when I play BF2 it looks decent on LCDs to me but when I hope in the buggy and start flying around I will see all the little speckles on the mountainside morph and blur. Meanwhile of course I am aiming the ol' buggy at the pedestrian I can see plenty good enough to try and splat! Though to me, the so-called dinosaur does demand the fast paced motion crown.

I felt like with my prometia, x1900xt, etc... my decision was made easier. All hypothetical numbers to get my point across: Like I told my friend i sold my 2405 FPW too, if my FW900 got a 10 in gaming and a 7 in everything else, I'd be keeping that. Even if my departed Dell was the opposite. All 10's, 7 in gaming. Soon as i fired up the Fw900, I saw where LCDs were superior like in sharpness. Told myself is that prometia for something other than gaming? Surely you can see me disregarding things like heat and electicity. I do all of my work on LCDs.

So while I'm firmly on the side of the CRT guys, I don't always relate with the wannabe Fatal1tys. But I guess my eyes are really that good folks. I don't go looking for blur. I bought a big screen for imersion factor and it's pretty damn close to my face while playing. Ever since I got into PC gaming I felt the textures and detail there are usually a step ahead of other systems. So i do marvel at the eye candy sometimes.

 

[zerog83]

My 24" Sony GDM-FW900 sitting in front of me pretty much guarantees that I won't be buying an LCD monitor any time in the near future. I've used the 24" Dell LCD, and I can't tell tell you enough how much that thing doesn't even compare to the CRT. Not to knock LCD monitors. For windows/*nix 2d graphics and applications (even some movies), LCDs look every bit as sharp. But when it comes to 3D graphics and fast-moving objects, I'll stick with my CRT.

 

[somecallmeTim]

My 40yo eyes like a nice LCD. Plop me in front of a CRT - even a "high end uber" one running with a 120Hz horizontal refresh and my eyes will twitch. Yes there are some trade offs, but I prefer an LCD. The one I have is "only" a 16ms, and I use DVi to connect to it and I don't think I've ever seen any ghosting or blur. Then again I don't STARE at my screen and I trun up the eye-candy until my system can't handle it anymore and enjoy the ride.

I do know a couple people that can see the ghosting on my monitor - they are also younger. On a 12ms or 8ms LCD, they don't see it. If you say you can see it, then you can see it and I believe you... I can't see these horrible issues, so don't tell me I'm in denial.

Some poeple have eyes that respond differently and are more sensitive, and as mentioned I know several. For graphics, I would reccomend a CRT - many artits I know use 22" CRTs (two or three), but a few are moving to the high end widescreen LCDs.

The honest answer is there is no right answer. Anyway - use what the hell you want, use what YOU like, use what YOU think looks better. But don't tell ME that what I have is inferior - it has nothing to do with how good a gamer I am, it has nothing to do if I have AMD or INTEL., nVidia or ATi...

I'm old, cranky, and like what I like - you like what you like, we'll have a beer or two and have a good time Oh, and after years and years of hauling CRTs around to LAN parties, the LCD is wonderful, which is why my entire family has LCDs! (I even have one for the servers... hehe) - The family that LANs together stays togehter... hehe.

Peace,
Tim

 

[chrisf6969]

NO LCD's are still not as good as CRT's for gaming or color reproduction. They have made huge progress and are SO CLOSE.

So close that they are good enough for most people, especially non-gamer.

Maybe 1 or 2 more years and we'll have good enough for everyone. (gamers & graphic artists included)

Granted I haven't played on an 8ms (with shitty color reproduction) screen. But I've played on 12ms, 16ms, & 25ms screens. (claimed specs).

While the 12ms is barely noticeable, its still not ghost free for high speed action packed FPS games.

 

[nilepez]

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.

CRTs are better for digital dark rooms too. Unless you're spending thousands on the Lacie (which I believe actually has a greater gamut than most (all?) CRTs) you're not up to CRT quality for color. I believe theApple Cinema LCDs (other brands may have similar quality displays) are very close to CRTs in that respect.

But for those who aren't spending more on their monitor than they did for the rest of their PC, the CRT is better.

As for gaming, I coudn't say. I've never played a game on an LCD. I have seen a tv show, playing directly off the antenna on an LCD and a CRT side by side, and it was obvious that the CRT displayed the picture before the LCD. Would it affect my gaming? Probalby not, but I'm incredibly bad at FPSs.

 

[Fuzzy Logik]

I believe the bottom line is that CRT monitors are the best for gaming.

That does not say that LCDs suck for gaming at all. It simply states a CRT is superior to an LCD in regards to gaming.

If you don't notice ghosting, streaking, tearing, dead pixels, and the plethora of other plagues a LCD contains... then that is AWESOME! LCDs consumeless power, thank you LCD people for being conservatist.

The main problem I find, is locating a brand new trinitron or diamondtron even. If you can find a brand new CRT FD Trinitron, especially made by CTX, go for it, I run 100 MHz refresh rate at 1024x768 and my games are beauitfully smooth, on 768MB of pc133 ram, 1.4 TBird, and a friggin Geforce 3 ti200.

If I can still play WoW and CoH/CoV with that rig and say it's beautiful... it -HAS- to be the monitor!

Go CTX PR960FL FD Trinitron! They cost around 375 - 450 brand new, even though they are discontinued, this monitor PWNS! the FD stands for flat display. I am buying another one, probably the 21" version the CTX PR1400F FD Trinitron.

 

[nilepez]

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


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?

It's been my understanding that burn in on CRTs hasn't been an issue since the days of CGA or maybe EGA video.

I've certainly never experienced it on any monitor I've owned. And I guess I may have seen it on monitors that have the same image 20-24 hours/day 7days/week. Not an issue for home users/gamers.

 

[nilepez]

These LCD/CRT arguments are retarded. They never end, and no one can ever agree on anything.

With that said,
- CRT's are usually less expensive, although LCD prices are not bad (my 19" was $200 after rebate)

The key is what is the resolution? To me, anything under 1600x1200 is unacceptable.

I want lots of real estate, and 19" monitor that does 1280x1024 is worse than a 19" CRT that does 1600x1200, or a 21" that does 1920x1440.

I believe one stat where LCDs are better than CRTs is power used, which I believe is quite a bit less.

One downside to LCDs is that when the back light dies, you have to buy a new monitor (they need tomake that replacable....do we really need to fill our landfills with crap that could be used if only we could change the light bulb?), though I suppose the bulb may last as long (or longer) as a picture tube.

 

[XeroHouR]

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.

Also if you want to use these as examples, these are also the same kids who won't play CS:S because its new, and they're just not as good at it as they are 1.6, so they make up excuses how source is a worse game and how there's so much wrong with it and so on. Anyone who isn't willing to make the next step in one place is less likely to do it else where(not good logic but neither is yours...)

Also not all pro CPL players can afford nice monitors. Often the nice systems they have are won in smaller lans than CPL. A lot of teams just end up covering expenses(hotel, travel, food etc) when they compete. You don't win every CPL you go to, but the costs are way through the roof. Its a lot like pro poker players, only with smaller winnings. The profits oft don't outwiegh the costs. Enter sponsorships. These help to cover expenses, often don't fully cover them. Sometimes shelling out the nearly 2x cost of a good CRT just isn't a viable solution for pro gamers, who are often quite poor(spend all ur time being a pro and see if you can hold a job, or be a full time student, personally speaking its impossible...)

the key problems with LCD's is native res and getting hardware to support a native LCD res that is respectable, 1600x1200..contrast ratios are sort of a problem, but getting better. Getting a low enough response to completely not see it is somewhat a cost too, but my 8ms was something like $280 shipped, and I have good reflexes, better than a lot(humble pie mmmm), and I don't see it, though 16ms and 12ms I can very much see it.

the point of the human eye seeing 200 and the mind reducing it to 30....if that IS the case, why does it matter, thats like having a 4000+ overclocked to 2.9, but having a GF3...either way one being faster doesn't help the other...percieving 30 fps is 30fps.

And anyone who says they notice 30 fps and 60fps is often talking about a difference of the two. If you start playing at 30fps constant and it stays constant, you won't notice it in firefights and with everything else going on. If the FPS CHANGES 30 or so you will certainly notice it. Consistant FPS is much more important than actual rates.

Google persistance of vision for more details on the human eye

 

[ChingChang]

If you don't notice ghosting, streaking, tearing, dead pixels, and the plethora of other plagues a LCD contains... then that is AWESOME! LCDs consumeless power, thank you LCD people for being conservatist.

LOL! dead pixels!

they're really not noticable at all. I have never noticed any of the 4 dead pixels on my monitor aside from the one time I was checking for them with different programs.

Sometimes I see a spot on the screen and think it's a dead pixel, then I wipe it off and realize it's just dust.

Dead pixels are nothing.

 

[suhr65]

LCD's use less energy are easer on the eyes and take up less space and will last over 10 years.
CRT are bulky use more power harder on your eyes have reflections on the glass and will last only on average of 5 years.

Liquid displays like lcd and plasma will be th future crt are dead. Go to a televison shop and i garentee that there will be more liquid displays than crt or the old projection displays. Its pretty much the same thing.

CRT's are dead and will be gone in 10 years.

also ppl who have ghosting problems or somthing that they say is laggy bought a cheap lcd *cough viewsonic cough*. you get what you pay for. 200$ pc from walmart = crap. 150 lcd form walmart = crap. get the point dont buy a cheap lcd get a good 8ms or 4ms 350$ lcd and ill put money on that you wont go back to a crt.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I would say YES not NO, why? because I can't notice any ghostingand I'm very very picky, I use an S-IPS panel which is rated 16MS black-white-black and i'm more then happy with it =) only thing I'm lacking is better contrast ratio! otherwise im happy XD

btw I play CS:S BF2 FEAR NFS MW SWEAW L2 =p

 

[mathesar]

LCD's use less energy are easer on the eyes and take up less space and will last over 10 years.
CRT are bulky use more power harder on your eyes have reflections on the glass and will last only on average of 5 years.

Liquid displays like lcd and plasma will be th future crt are dead. Go to a televison shop and i garentee that there will be more liquid displays than crt or the old projection displays. Its pretty much the same thing.

CRT's are dead and will be gone in 10 years.

CRTs are dead huh? ,Funny I just ordered this last week and gaurentee it has better image quality than anything else currently out there ,For those of us that care most about image quality the extra weight / power usage etc. on CRTs isnt an issue, Yea CRTs are on a decline and will (in time) not be around anymore ..but that certainly doesnt mean LCD is "better", in fact when it comes motion blur, black level performance , watching Movies etc. *everything* is better than LCD at the moment .. CRT, Plasma , DLP , SXRD etc. LCD is bottom of the barrel. The only reason I would want one is if I was working with mostly Text all day long. And SED Will be the king of HDTVs when it finaly comes out (which is based on CRT technology).

 

[texuspete00]

Forget the eyes can only see 30 fps guys. Not even close to correct. Our good eyes is why the hunt for better display techs themselves needs to continue. Now I could spend all day debunking that but I'd like to get something done today.

Google and find out without the need for publc proof. TV is not games, TV employs tricks to get away with less frames etc.... Eyes don't see fps they see fluid vrs. not etc. So xxx fps is all you can see, will never be an acurate blanket statement.

edit: CRTs are dead was a thing I didn't want to get into before either. But yeah, LCDs won't last much longer. When SEDs comes both will start to die. The CRT will die sooner but it was a hell of a reign. It still kicking around to this day because it has some undeniable adantages. CRT blacks and motion in a thin package will lead to RIP. Pick it apart how you want but LCD has a fair amount of difficulties with it. It WILL die before it's cons are rectified. Maybe we can all live in peace then.

 

[Fuzzy Logik]

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

Ok ok ok...

Wait a second...

How do -YOU- of all people who posted, get off calling somoene ignorant?

This is comming from the person who uses words like irregardless.
It is a word despite popular belief; a very ignorant variant of regardless. The "ir" is pointless and redundant. It makes it all the worse when it is used in a post with the word reckon appearing twice.

I think you got it backwards bud... That guy was the arrogant one, -YOU- are the ignorant one.

People in this thread listening to your advice -------> 0

and dropping...

 

[Fuzzy Logik]

LOL! dead pixels!

they're really not noticable at all. I have never noticed any of the 4 dead pixels on my monitor aside from the one time I was checking for them with different programs.

Sometimes I see a spot on the screen and think it's a dead pixel, then I wipe it off and realize it's just dust.

Dead pixels are nothing.

Just like a woman and or a liberal.

You can't just dissect a statement and argue one point as if the rest were moot.

So are you accepting the fact of ghosting, streaking, blurring, ect?

Well if that's the case i laugh at dead pixels too, because if you are using LCD you obviosuly have a host of issues to deal with despite the awesomeness of dead pixels not being noticeable.

 

[prtzlboy]

The key is what is the resolution? To me, anything under 1600x1200 is unacceptable.

I want lots of real estate, and 19" monitor that does 1280x1024 is worse than a 19" CRT that does 1600x1200, or a 21" that does 1920x1440.

I believe one stat where LCDs are better than CRTs is power used, which I believe is quite a bit less.

One downside to LCDs is that when the back light dies, you have to buy a new monitor (they need tomake that replacable....do we really need to fill our landfills with crap that could be used if only we could change the light bulb?), though I suppose the bulb may last as long (or longer) as a picture tube.

You bring up a good point there. Be wary of 19" lcd's, as they mostly only run 1280x1024. Since lcd's are LARGER than their crt counterparts, you could probably say this would be the equivalent of running 1280x1024 on a 20" or 21" crt. Needless to say it won't look very good without lots of AA. I'd recommend either a fast 17" or high quality 20" or larger widescreen. Larger than 17", I really wouldn't even consider something not widescreen. And don't even THINK of using a vga cable.

I bought an 8ms 17" LCD, which has about the same real estate as my old 19" crt, and I was extremely nervous about all these crt people's EXTREMELY harsh comments. I'm an extremely satisfied customer after almost a year. The black level isn't QUITE as good as my crt, and the colors don't quite 'pop' like on the crt, but without the crt right next to the lcd I don't even notice. The whole 6bit vs 8bit color thing (banding) I haven't noticed at all. I suppose if you had a particular gradient of color you would notice it, but my desktop wallpaper is plain old black. I even decided to watch some dvd's on my pc lately and still didn't notice it.

Tradeoff? I get to use my desk as more than a monitor stand, the temperature in my room in the summer drops 5 degrees, and I don't get a headache from reading blurry text. The image is soooo much sharper, and if you're here reading this then I'm sure text sharpness is probably important to you.

Ghosting? Haven't noticed it, and I'm a fairly hardcore gamer, coming from years of q1dm, q2ctf and q3dm/ra3. You don't get much more fast paced than that. I won't be switching back to CRT.

A while back I bought a logitech mx500 mouse because everyone was creaming their shorts over the new mx series, but I find it uncomfortable and much too bulky. The point being that you simply MUST try it yourself to see. And give it a couple days, too, because if you're picky you probably will notice some differences like I did, but in my case I found the good to outweigh the bad. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't.

Are crt's still better gaming? Yeah, I guess so. But seriously, is your monitor only running games from the moment you turn it on to the moment you turn it off?

 

[Atamido]

I know of an excellent way to demonstrate if there are still major issues with ghosting/streaking. Do like this guy and use a video camera to record a CRT and LCD side by side. Most video cameras record at 60fps, so should be able to display any problem.

At least he can prove without doubt that the Dell 2001FP had a significantly higher refresh delay than a comparable CRT in September 2004.

Oh, and if you do that, post the video here.

(remember, make sure to try VGA, DVI, both video ports on the video card, etc to ensure it is the display and not the system)

 

[elm669]

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.

I agree with this, to me I see no difference between 31fps and 310fps on my crt, but the second it drops under 30fps it loses it fluidity.

On the subject of lcd text quality. Call me a pixel size nazi but I visited frys last night and was looking at the lcds. On every one of them 17-25" and including the notebook I type this from the text looks like crap because of the pixel size which makes the text look jagged. On the subject of ghosting my brothers 15" dell lcd mfg 9/05 had no noticeable ghosting when I hooked it up my system but once again the pixel size makes it look like crap. So far the only lcd that I like was a 13" on my old compaq armada 7792dmt. The pixels are so small and close together that it looks to me like a high end crt.

 

[mathesar]

I know of an excellent way to demonstrate if there are still major issues with ghosting/streaking. Do like this guy and use a video camera to record a CRT and LCD side by side. Most video cameras record at 60fps, so should be able to display any problem.

At least he can prove without doubt that the Dell 2001FP had a significantly higher refresh delay than a comparable CRT in September 2004.

Oh, and if you do that, post the video here.

(remember, make sure to try VGA, DVI, both video ports on the video card, etc to ensure it is the display and not the system)

Couple vidoes of a 2405FPW next to a CRT:

Video 1

Video 2

I also noted input lag on a 2001FP with it sitting next to my CRT,but when I ran 2 CRT's there was absolutely no lag as shown here , So it was definately the fault of the LCD itself.

 

[prtzlboy]

I agree with this, to me I see no difference between 31fps and 310fps on my crt, but the second it drops under 30fps it loses it fluidity.

On the subject of lcd text quality. Call me a pixel size nazi but I visited frys last night and was looking at the lcds. On every one of them 17-25" and including the notebook I type this from the text looks like crap because of the pixel size which makes the text look jagged. On the subject of ghosting my brothers 15" dell lcd mfg 9/05 had no noticeable ghosting when I hooked it up my system but once again the pixel size makes it look like crap. So far the only lcd that I like was a 13" on my old compaq armada 7792dmt. The pixels are so small and close together that it looks to me like a high end crt.

Might be a silly question, but you HAVE turned on smooth text, right?

 

[mr_zen256]

I just moved from 19" CRT to 23" widescreen LCD and I dont regret that move one bit. I am an avid gamer and graphic designer and it works beautifully in games (I cant see ghosting and the monitor is rated at 12ms) and looks great even at non-native resolutions IMO. It's just fantastic for photoshop and other graphics applications also. LCD over CRT? For me, anyday....

 

[mathesar]

I agree with this, to me I see no difference between 31fps and 310fps on my crt, but the second it drops under 30fps it loses it fluidity.

I'm 100% certain you can see the difference between 30 and 60fps ,If you have Quake 3 try this test, load it up and bring down the console then type /cg_drawfps 1 which should display a framerate counter , now type /com_maxfps 30 in the console and move around the map for a bit noting the slightly 'choppy' framerate, now bring the console back down and type /com_maxfps 60 ,Assuming your PC is powerful enough (framerate counter should be pegged at 60fps) The difference is quite noticeable and is much smoother @ 60fps ..also be sure Vsync is enabled for the best effect (although its still noticeable w/ vsync disabled).

I just tried it before typing this and honestly it baffles me when people claim they cant see the differance.

 

[GotNoRice]

I have a 21” Trinitron and couldn’t be happier. I plan to use it until it breaks. I can not honestly see any advantage other than heat and power consumption that I would get by going to a LCD. My laptop has an excellent Samsung LCD with a native res of 1680x1050 and I use it all the time, and I don’t have any problems using my CRT again on my desktop after that. On the other hand when I go to LANparties, I take a 15” DVI LCD that I got all the way back in 1999, which seems almost about as old as it gets when it comes to desktop LCD’s. I have ZERO problems gaming on it, and I can’t imagine the newer LCD’s are any worse.

I still love CRT’s but I don’t know how practical it would be for someone to buy a new one at this point. I think that if you can score a used 21” for really cheap that remains an excellent option, and if you already have a good CRT you probably shouldn’t be in a rush to replace it, but if you are only looking at new monitors, LCD’s are the way to go.