Pure Gaming Monitor (CRT/LCD)

X

Xan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Messages
1,156
I'm really excited! I'm slowly getting pieces to build together my brand new PC. I am a long time gamer, but got really burnt out and quit playing and sold my PC. Its been over a year and I'm ready to get back!!!

I'm having a real hard time choosing what screen (monitor) to game on? This PC is *ONLY* going to be used for gaming...nothing else so I want the best gaming CRT/LCD that I can get within reason. I have no problem spending $1000 if the monitor is right for the job.

Here are a couple CRT/LCD that I've been looking at (not in any special order!)

NEC/MITSUBISHI FE2111SB 22" SuperBright Diamondtron CRT Monitor ($574)
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-002-039&depa=0

SAMSUNG 172X-Silver 17" LCD Monitor ($512)
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-001-146&depa=0

ViewSonic VP201B 20.1" LCD Monitor ($869)
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=24-116-285&depa=0

Any comments and/or suggestions? I'd like to order one of these this weekend. I can't wait to play DooM 3, and HL2!!
 
that mistu is a nice monitor.

22" at that :eek:

Only problem is the weight and heat output. So keep that in mind :)
 
Philips 202P40 is better than the FE2111 and equal to the FP2141SB ;)
 
Sony... the NEC could come with seven dead pixels, right in the center... then you would be stuck with junk.
 
Why did you decide to go LCD? Some will argue with me on this, but if you really, truly, genuinely want a "Pure Gaming Monitor" (note I didn't say "pure LAN every weekend monitor"), you want a CRT. Both of those are nice LCDs but for gaming and only gaming, the NEC FP2141SB blows them out of the water.
 
Astronutty said:
Sony... the NEC could come with seven dead pixels, right in the center... then you would be stuck with junk.
Click to expand...

Um, the Nec is a CRT. How many CRTs have you seen with dead pixels?
 
Xan said:
Alright... I've narrowed it down between two LCD Monitors. No CRT for me!

I want either the ViewSonic VP201B
-----OR-----

This SONY LCD...SDM-HS94P
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INT...roductInformation-Start?ProductSKU=SDMHS94P/B
Click to expand...

huh?

for gaming, you want a CRT, not a LCD..

I have the sony you're considering, and I'm taking it back today. It blows ass for gaming, period. I set extremely high standards for myself though. I'm going to place an order for a FP2141 as soon as I return it.
 
If you want the best gaming monitor you cant use LCD it´s a damn crime. If you need it for the space saving or looks then be it :).

But for CRT get a 22" Philips Brilliance 202P40, NEC FP2141 or Mitsubishi D2070. I would take the cheapest of those three since they are quite equal. Otherwise you could consider the FE2111 which is the little brother to FP2141 too.

Don´t go 19". Less viewable area, worse refresh rates, less max resolution and generally just plainly not as good. They are a lot cheaper with a reason too but if money is no subject do it properly and go 22" directly.

But Diamondtron with Aperture grill is the only one you should think of unless you are allergic to thin lines. Me I am blind to them.
 
I just looked over at Dell and they sell the Philips 202P40 but no Nec Multisync FE2111 or FP2141SB???

They where quite expensive though compared to buy retail. This was in Sweden maybe Dell US have another deal?
 
Sign up for Dell email updates and every once and a while they send 10-25% off coupons which can be used to purchase the NEC 2141FP. I recently got the 2141FP from Dell at 25% off and free shipping which beats the hell out of Neweggs price. However 25% off coupons are very rarely sent and its usually 15% off coupons but that still beats Neweggs price.
 
it was $589 (FP2141) over at Dell a few days ago with free shipping. I would pick that one out of all the ones you listed
 
i agree. i picked up the nec fp2141sb from dell myself(had a 10% off code, free shipping, and another discount ;)) and i love the hell out of it. sweetest monitor i've ever seen for gaming. you don't really notice the two lines unless you're hell bent on finding them, especially in the middle of playing anything. i'd also like to add that the nec monitor adjustment software you dl off their site is the easiest time i've ever had adjusting a crt monitor. i had everything shipshape and ready to rock in no time flat. :) the only thing i'd recommend is that you have a hefty video card to run upcoming games with. after seeing how beautiful games are in 1600x1200 you won't want to settle for lower resolutions and on games like doom 3 and such you'll be watching a slide show at that res unless you have a serious card in there.
 
Simple fact is that CRT still gives the best image display and costs much less. I personally dont see lcd monitors being a viable replacement for the hardcore gamer for another couple years...when/if they finally get the image quality to be equal.
 
I still haven't made a purchase, but I need to sometime early this week. I'm torn over getting an LCD (awesome looking, and small footprint), vs getting another CRT.

I've been reading all the posts in
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=780004

and I must admit that I'm lusting after one of those vs a 22" CRT.

I do think the 22" NEC FP2141 is an awesome CRT, definetly one of the best I've seen, but I just can't make a decision vs the VP201B!
 
Me I am wondering why everyone seem to has/recommend the FP2141SB or D2070 (the same). Are Nec particularly big in the US?

I mean the Philips 202P40 has better specs and is cheaper at least here in Sweden. And Philips is well known for their monitors too?

Maybe Philips is more of a european company?
 
well the nec has a smaller dot pitch and better refresh rates from what i can tell. that would help contribute to it's popularity even though it's a bit more expensive.
 
oqvist said:
I mean the Philips 202P40 has better specs and is cheaper at least here in Sweden. And Philips is well known for their monitors too?
Click to expand...

What are the specs? I checked them out on the Philips site and they list the recommended resolutions/refresh rates and only one maximum (1600x1200 at 104Hz). The Mitsubishi does it at 109Hz.

and specs are just part of what should be considered. The Viewsonics P95f+ has pretty good specs but a lot of people complain that it get fuzzy at high refresh rates...
 
My Philips 202P40 has a bandwidth of 360 and do 2000x1532 at 80 hertz. dot pitch is exactly the same. 1600x1200 is 109 they may be the same.

So they are really very similar though Philips have their own Diamondtron technology named Real flat which in my eyes seem to be a bit better :)
 
oqvist said:
My Philips 202P40 has a bandwidth of 360 and do 2000x1532 at 80 hertz. dot pitch is exactly the same. 1600x1200 is 109 they may be the same.

So they are really very similar though Philips have their own Diamondtron technology named Real flat which in my eyes seem to be a bit better :)
Click to expand...

Philips lists the max (for 1600x1200) as 104Hz

If you compare an "overclocked" monitor to official specs, it doesn't make for a fair comparison. My DP930SB is rated for 88Hz (at 1600x1200) yet it can do 100Hz.

and 2000x1532 is an oddball resolution. NEC/Mit lists 2048x1536 at 86Hz, so I'm not understanding how you see the Philips having better specs. Don't know what the bandwidth is on the NEC/Mit
 
needmorecarnitine said:
Philips lists the max (for 1600x1200) as 104Hz

If you compare an "overclocked" monitor to official specs, it doesn't make for a fair comparison. My DP930SB is rated for 88Hz (at 1600x1200) yet it can do 100Hz.

and 2000x1532 is an oddball resolution. NEC/Mit lists 2048x1536 at 86Hz, so I'm not understanding how you see the Philips having better specs. Don't know what the bandwidth is on the NEC/Mit
Click to expand...

Okay here is the real specs http://www.philipschannel.com/Monitors/pdf/202P40.pdf

I think they have updated this model since on the tweak3d review it says it uses the mitsubishi diamondtron tube and that the video bandwidth was 320 while it´s now is 360.

But this is from Philips homepage and match the ones that came with my monitor cd so those specs should be correct. Quite similar to the FP2141. Thought that had 320 in bandwidth but that maybe was the old model too??

It supports 2048x1536 at 80 is what they rate it for.

Then some pages says 86 and 109 on 1600x1200 don´t know what to believe :p
 
for gaming, look into a NEC or trinitron CRT.

as far as games and movies, CRT are better no contest in my opnion. ive owned a few of both displays..

LCD= usually 16.7 million colors, usually around 450:1 contrast.
CRT= unlimited colors. way better contrast (makes more realistic image)
 
I am just curious to see how many people here have compared a CRT to an LCD side by side on the same vid card. I have. I had thet 2141 next to a 1901fp and I can tell you that you are utterly wrong when you say the CRT has better image quality. The CRT looks completely washed out and looks like crap. The 1901fp did ghost so it did go back for this 2001fp. Now I have more vibrant colors than the 2141, sharper text, perfect geometry, and all for an eigth of the size and weight. I don't even notice any ghosting and I play games like q3, MOH:AA, and even doom3. There will never be another CRT in my future.

I'm not meaning to flame here, but I just see a lot of people saying generic things like "Gaming with an LCD is a crime," or "the image quality of LCDs is not up to par." I just want to know if you've ever actually done a side by side comparison, because IMHO you haven't.
 
Well everyone is different but to me TFT has all wrong colours compared to my Diamondtron or even my old Trinitron monitor. TFT have colorful images but wrong colours not very accurate. Some like it though even if it´s not very realistic.

But image quality is a very subjective matter :) I preferr CRT for the better colours and equal sharpness even if LCD:s is better at text but then I use my monitor mostly for movies and games.
 
well most professional graphics designers use what for color reproduction and better image quality?: crt's plain and simple. as for the washed out colors you claim to have seen, who set the monitor up? you can't just plug a crt in a go on your merry way(although many DO look just fine that way). once the screen geometry and other settings have been set up and tweaked properly it blows away other displays imo.
 
Last night I made my purchase...

VP201B

I'll post my thoughts on it sometime late in the weekend after I get everything setup. I'm real curious about how it will perform.
 
I think he compared to a plain CRT or shadowmask monitor. I can´t use any digital vibrance on any of my Trinitron or Diamondtron monitors without getting silly saturated colours :). Though on my old plain CRT digital vibrance did help :).
 
No, I compared the LCD to the 2141, a diamondtron monitor. Believe me, I spent plenty of time adjusting the monitor (mostly to try and eliminate an imperfection in the geometry that was present near the middle of the screen, talk about annoying). I have a 9800pro, so I had the LCD hooked up via DVI and the 2141 hooked up via analog. Colors were adjusted on both to obtain the most accurate colors possible. The LCD just looked better. It's almost as if there was a haze over the CRT which the LCD didn't have. The LCD was also much sharper and I was having a difficult time reading text on the 2141 after using the LCD. I honestly don't know how people can use the 2141 at any resolution above 1600x1200. I tried using something higher and the text was just too blurry.

Most graphic designers do use CRTs because they have been around a long time and have proven themselves. However, don't fool yourself. More graphic designers are moving towards LCDs as they have made huge strides in color reproduction. Go ahead and actually do a side by side comparison with a new LCD against your beloved CRT and see for yourself.

Xan, you won't be disappointed.
 
No the LCD displays those graphics designers buy is those that cost 10000$ or more. Otherwise they buy CRT monitors if they don´t accept compromises. LCD displays has a limitation of 24-bit colours which is why they can´t output as correct colours as Diamondtron screens like the one you mentioned. I don´t know if you got a faulty one me I haven´t tried that particular monitor but I have been able to compare my old Sony Trinitron and the 202P40 I have now and it´s a non contest really. On neither my old 9700 PRO which has better 2D quality than my 6800 ULTRA very noticeable sadly or on my 6800 ULTRA they where producing as good colours no matter how you tweaked them. Looked good yes but not correct.

And they couldn´t display black very good and bad contrast and brightness in comparison. Geometry issues well none of my 202P40 or the LCD really had any and difference in sharpness depended on what you where comparing. LCD for text otherwise no difference. And if I went for any other than rec resolution for the LCD my CRT was clearly better.
 
BigDH01 said:
No, I compared the LCD to the 2141, a diamondtron monitor. Believe me, I spent plenty of time adjusting the monitor (mostly to try and eliminate an imperfection in the geometry that was present near the middle of the screen, talk about annoying). I have a 9800pro, so I had the LCD hooked up via DVI and the 2141 hooked up via analog. Colors were adjusted on both to obtain the most accurate colors possible. The LCD just looked better. It's almost as if there was a haze over the CRT which the LCD didn't have. The LCD was also much sharper and I was having a difficult time reading text on the 2141 after using the LCD. I honestly don't know how people can use the 2141 at any resolution above 1600x1200. I tried using something higher and the text was just too blurry.

Most graphic designers do use CRTs because they have been around a long time and have proven themselves. However, don't fool yourself. More graphic designers are moving towards LCDs as they have made huge strides in color reproduction. Go ahead and actually do a side by side comparison with a new LCD against your beloved CRT and see for yourself.

Xan, you won't be disappointed.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but you are continually giving bad advice on this subject. I have worked as an Apple Techinician for almost 11 years. Who uses Apple computers? Designers (and a few other scattered people here and there). Designers know about color calibration, and any designer who is serious about color accuracy and output will choose a CRT over an LCD. Why? Because they have better color reproduction than any LCD on the market today, including the one you are praising, NOT because they have "proven themselves" as you say, or because that's what they've been using in past and they don't want to switch. Yes, the LCD's are good and getting better, but unless the technology changes, they will never equal traditional, well designed CRT's. You must have either calibrated your monitor incorrectly, or had a bad one. These NEC/Mitsu monitors and some of the best you can buy for accurate color (along with LaCie and Sony), and LCD's don't come close. I have seen plenty of each, and replaced plenty of LCD's with CRT's for some of our clients after "seeing if they would work out." I know a nice handful who have even switched back to CRT after using the Apple Cinema Displays and Samsungs, which are considered to be pretty nice.

LCD's are great, but if you are SERIOUS about getting the best color and response, CRT's are the better choice. If you don't think you can tell the difference, then by all means go with the LCD - it's smaller and will most likely look "nicer" in your setup. Also, resolution scaling on LCD's doesn't WORK. CRT's can handle TRUE multiple resolutions, LCD's cannot.

Mark my words, LCD's will become less popular and drop severely in price next year when Philips and Samsung introduce their FLAT CRT's. Look it up. They are thicker than traditional LCD's, but combine a shallow form factor with CRT technology for the best of both worlds. Think about that before you drop $1k or more on a huge LCD.
 
I just have to say, the focus adjustments on the side of the monitor proved to be the most important control in my 2141sb...People complaining about sharpness on a high-end or even run-of-the-mill CRT could be quite surprised after fully adjusting everything.
 
when it comes to 20", only 1 LCd meets all 4 requirements:
500:1, 250cd/sq. m, 16 ms, 0.255 pixel pitch

And that's HP. I check NEC, Viewsonic, LG, Sony, Samsung, all the otehr oens are lacking one or more of the above.
 
I did my homework.

Get the Nec Mitsubishi monitor.

No the LCD displays those graphics designers buy is those that cost 10000$ or more. Otherwise they buy CRT monitors if they don´t accept compromises. LCD displays has a limitation of 24-bit colours which is why they can´t output as correct colours as Diamondtron screens like the one you mentioned. I don´t know if you got a faulty one me I haven´t tried that particular monitor but I have been able to compare my old Sony Trinitron and the 202P40 I have now and it´s a non contest really. On neither my old 9700 PRO which has better 2D quality than my 6800 ULTRA very noticeable sadly or on my 6800 ULTRA they where producing as good colours no matter how you tweaked them. Looked good yes but not correct.

And they couldn´t display black very good and bad contrast and brightness in comparison. Geometry issues well none of my 202P40 or the LCD really had any and difference in sharpness depended on what you where comparing. LCD for text otherwise no difference. And if I went for any other than rec resolution for the LCD my CRT was clearly better.
Click to expand...

Lcd better than Crt ... light weight yes, aesthetics sure, lower power consumption and mobility definately.

Color limitation, bad contrast, brightness, and not so good black colors, can't change resolution without images looking looking crappier. The alternative is staying at native resolution.

Ghosting .... 8ms, 12ms, 16ms .... 17'' Lcd monitors are the only gaming Lcds around ....

From what i read 8ms and 12 ms 17'' lcds sacrifice somethings -_-; was it viewing angle and something about color limitations or something ???

Just get the Nec/Mitsubishi crt monitor ok.


Lcds are good for nothing unless you want mobility. a high end 17'' Lcd costs more then even a normal Crt that does better than it -_-;

Maybe it's because the human eye can see a limit of a range of colors... thats why jpeg image compression was made. Saves image file size by removing some colors that eye would not be able to distinguish much anyway :p

Maybe thats why you think the Lcd quality looks better, or maybe you just have bad eye sight, color blind or something lol ... ;)
 
denaps said:
Mark my words, LCD's will become less popular and drop severely in price next year when Philips and Samsung introduce their FLAT CRT's. Look it up. They are thicker than traditional LCD's, but combine a shallow form factor with CRT technology for the best of both worlds. Think about that before you drop $1k or more on a huge LCD.
Click to expand...

I've heard a whisper or two about them, but I don't remember where. My searches for flat CRTs lead me to flat panel CRTs (and thus not shallow). If you have some source links, would you care to share them with us - or me at least?

I'm not asking you to do some research for me, just if you have those links present. If not, oh well. News/details about them are bound to hit mainstream sites sooner or later.

Next year? Are they ready for production so soon?


Oh, and about the whole LCD/CRT thing, I can't really comment on it since the only LCD i've seen is on my father's laptop. However doesn't a tube imply analog? Honest question.
 
I can't remember if it was a Toshiba or Samsung SED, but the prototype display they were showing had a contrast ratio of 8500:1....now that's gunna be fun!
 
Get HP L2335, it is hands down one of the best 23" monitors available. Plus you can hook your xbox HD set up to it. Low 16ms response. and can negotiate for $1300 through HP direct. Do your self a favor, get it! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top