PDA

View Full Version : LCD monitor vs. CRT monitor


Pages : [1] 2

Kain
04-22-03, 03:53 PM
Which type of monitor is better for gaming?

Smokey
04-22-03, 04:48 PM
I myself would still go for a good 19" or 21/22" CRT, something like Iiyama, flat screen, high refresh rates, vibrant colours etc. LCD panels are getting better and better, but although they may look much nicer, take up less space, I think CRTs are better for gaming :)

nin_fragile14
04-22-03, 06:28 PM
CRTs are better for gaming. I enjoy the look of my LCD much more, but the fact that you're restricted to one good-looking resolution could be a turnoff for a lot of people. I would never trade back my LCD for my 19" Trinitron, but most people would prefer the flexibility of CRTs to LCDs. (Higher attainable framerates with v-sync on, multiple resolution options)

omghi2u
04-23-03, 04:51 PM
Definitely CRTs, LCDs have too much ghosting (kinda like the ghosting in a laptop), even in the latest models. Plus, you can score a 19 CRT' for cheap easy...

-=DVS=-
04-24-03, 04:03 AM
CRT all the way , LCD is good for it is compact but its cost twice as much then CRT and have half the capabilitys :rolleyes:

marcocom
04-24-03, 10:45 PM
you would never get my Sony Trinitron for any LCD anything ever.

SnakeEyes
04-25-03, 09:58 AM
It's funny that this topic came up just this week, because only yesterday my office got all of our Dell PC's (new ones) 19" CRTs replaced with the Dell 2000FP 21" LCD displays. Based on what I've seen with this one so far, I'm sold! (The size, color reproduction, viewing angles, everything are outstanding!)

Somehow they managed to get them at around $600 each (government deal worked out good for once), since the Dell site lists them at $999. If I could get one for home at that price, I probably would be buying one for there this instant. The only real question I had, and it's one I couldn't find the information for, even in the included manual, is the pixel clock (mind blank right now, but the term is technically how long a pixel stays lit before it goes out after a screen is drawn- and the main reason LCDs for the most part aren't great for fast-action gaming, since the pixels stay lit too long and leave the ghost / blur effect behind). I checked online and couldn't find it there either. Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how good the rate is on this monitor (obviously can't test it with a shooter or any other game for that matter, here at work :p), but I know that I don't have to resort to mouse trails or anything else for normal use. As fast as I can move my mouse, the cursor doesn't seem to blur or have a ghost image. I just don't know if that's a valid test compared to what a true FPS would put the monitor through or not. :confused:

BTW, this is a 20" true sized viewing area, and is the largest I've yet used. I actually have to sit back an additional 2 feet further from the display than I did with my 19" CRT, even with the higher 1600x1200 native resolution. :)

threedaysdwn
04-26-03, 01:37 AM
You can have my Sony 18.1" LCD panel when you pry is from my cold dead hands!!!


If I could have any, it'd be their 23" widescreen panel...

/drool

zack
04-26-03, 02:49 AM
I Just scored me a 21" CRT for around $320 bucks after shipping on eBay. SGI branded Sony GDM-5411. This thing is right up there with the GDM-F500R, which was an $1800 monitor. In fact I think it might be pretty much the same on the inside.

Anyways, for the price/performance ratio, you can't beat a CRT. Especially for gaming. LCD's are good for static images. Although they are getting pretty good for gaming lately, CRT's still beat them, unless you want to spend a couple thousand dollars to shorten the gap.

LCD's are only good for one resolution. Using another resolution than it's native degrades the image quality. Certain games run only at a fixed resolution, like starcraft, at 640x480, and you can't change it, so your LCD will be interpolating the image. Certain games might run well in only certain resolutions because your video card is not up to par. CRT's offer flexibility unheard of in LCD's.

LCD pros: take up less space, lightweight, good for static images.

LCD cons: only good at one resolution, not good for moving images (aka games)

CRT pros: compatible with everything, wide range of resolutions/timings, great for games.

CRT cons: heavy, can take a while to properly calibrate.

you pick.


In another 2 years, maybe i'll get an LCD, but for now I'm staying with my CRT.

Fotis
04-26-03, 05:13 AM
Anyone know when this screen will become available?

Samsung 172X (http://www.prad.de/new/news/21032003samsung.html)
http://www.prad.de/new/images/monitore/samsungx.jpg
Resolution: 1280 x 1024 (SXGA)
Contrast: 500:1 contrast
Brightness: 270 cd/cm2
Viewing angle: 160/130 (horizontal/vertical)
Response time: 16 ms
Connections: D-Sub and DVI-D

SnakeEyes
04-26-03, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Fotis
Anyone know when this screen will become available?

Samsung 172X (http://www.prad.de/new/news/21032003samsung.html)
http://www.prad.de/new/images/monitore/samsungx.jpg
Resolution: 1280 x 1024 (SXGA)
Contrast: 500:1 contrast
Brightness: 270 cd/cm2
Viewing angle: 160/130 (horizontal/vertical)
Response time: 16 ms
Connections: D-Sub and DVI-D
No, but /me droolz.. :drooling:

marcocom
04-26-03, 02:30 PM
my Sony G520 Trinitron isnt just impeccable in color and performance, but also runs 1024x768 @ 150mhz and 1600x1200 @ 100mhz.

your refresh speed is exactly that.

Kain
04-26-03, 05:16 PM
What is the difference between the Sony CPD-G520 and the Sony CPD-G520P?

CaptNKILL
04-26-03, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by marcocom
my Sony G520 Trinitron isnt just impeccable in color and performance, but also runs 1024x768 @ 150mhz and 1600x1200 @ 100mhz.

your refresh speed is exactly that.

I think you mean hz :)

Hz= cycles per second
Mhz= MILLIONS of cycles per second

The day a monitor can refresh in Mhz (or even Khz) is the day EVERYONE enables Vsync ;)

SnakeEyes
04-26-03, 08:22 PM
Erm.. when I was talking about pixel refresh, I had the terminology wrong (and knew it, but I wasn't clear enough in the message about it). I mean the latency for the pixels (from that shot / info on the Samsung just above, they use the term response time). Some good LCDs are around 25ms, and the better ones are getting under 20. If a pixel is lit, how long after the pixel is supposed to go black does the LCD actually take for the pixel to change. It's got to do with the way LCDs work, and is also why refresh rates can be handled differently with LCDs. With CRTs, the problem is that a pixel needs refreshed to stay lit (and VERY often, because they go black very quickly once the electron gun has passed their positions). With LCDs, it's almost the opposite- the pixel elements stay lit for a much longer duration, and the real contest among manufacturers right now is to decrease the amount of time the pixel requires to be 'cleared'.

I wish I knew all the techno-jargon and could be more clear. Basically, the ghosting effect on an LCD is because the pixels can't change rapidly enough in response to rapid image changes. A 60Hz refresh rate on an LCD is no problem, because the pixels themselves remain lit between successive refreshes of the image, while 60Hz on a monitor can usually be noticed because the pixels aren't refreshed often enough and we 'see' the black in between as the flicker.

Am I making sense, or should I look up a source that is easier to understand? (BTW, I'm not being sarcastic. I just sometimes have a very hard time saying things in a way that makes sense)

Ramshambo2001
04-27-03, 06:22 PM
Seeing a friend's LCD with a response time of 16 ms, I know my next monitor is definitely going to be an LCD. The colors just look so vibrant compared to my ageing 17" sony. I heard they are coming out with 12 ms ones by the end of the year.

vampireuk
04-28-03, 03:58 AM
My 19" iiyama is some kind of god:D

SnakeEyes
04-28-03, 12:17 PM
So far I've stuck with CRTs for my system at home, mainly because I could afford a really nice larger sized screen that is fast enough to play my FPS on. But the fact that LCDs are finally getting the performance levels I need is going to cause me to change over once I can afford a 17" or larger model that has the 16ms or lower rating (er, and actually meets the rating, vs. PR hype). I can use the desktop space, it's easier to carry them around (LAN parties, or, in my case, since I'm military, moving period).

I can honestly say that even though the dynamic range (between pure white and pure black) is a bit compressed, the overall IQ of the 15" Philips I bought for my wife is still very impressive. It's the fact that hers is relatively slow that has kept me from upgrading to an LCD on mine so far. (I tried UT1 on hers, and the ghosting / stutter that it showed with the GF3 I was using was as bad imo as the experience I had trying to play using my old G400Max with the settings in the game too high).

netviper13
04-28-03, 12:57 PM
I played UT1 on one of my buddy's 17" Dell LCD display, and it was awesome. Didn't notice any ghosting at all, and the colors were very nice.

StealthHawk
04-28-03, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Ramshambo2001
Seeing a friend's LCD with a response time of 16 ms, I know my next monitor is definitely going to be an LCD. The colors just look so vibrant compared to my ageing 17" sony. I heard they are coming out with 12 ms ones by the end of the year.

Aren't most LCDs vastly inferior to CRTs in regards to color? ie, brightness and contrast ratio.

StealthHawk
04-28-03, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by -=Gib-McFragger=-
Oh hellz no, they are far superior in recards to color brightness and clarity.

Sit down in front of a decent one, you will see what I mean. :D

Yeah, actually LCDs don't have a brightness problem. But do they really have the ability to display the number of colors that CRTs can?

Can LCDs display really 24bit color? I have heard most only display 16bit. However this was back in 2002. One of my friends had a ~$700 LCD monitor, and while it was sharp and bright, the essence of colors just didn't seem to be there.

nin_fragile14
04-29-03, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
Yeah, actually LCDs don't have a brightness problem. But do they really have the ability to display the number of colors that CRTs can?

Can LCDs display really 24bit color? I have heard most only display 16bit. However this was back in 2002. One of my friends had a ~$700 LCD monitor, and while it was sharp and bright, the essence of colors just didn't seem to be there.

Oh man, you're missing out. High quality LCDs I have seen, the Hitachi 171, NEC 1760nx, samsung 172t, etc, have color that seems twice as vibrant as any CRT I've ever seen.

threedaysdwn
04-29-03, 02:07 PM
Most good LCDs can display 24-bit color nowadays.

However, 64-bit and 128-bit modes may not have quite the same precision as on a CRT.

Overall I still think LCDs are the way to go, but only if you can get a good one.

DaveW
04-29-03, 03:35 PM
LCDs don't have the precision to really display 16.7 million colors, since positioning the crystals is not an exact science. If you shift the hue of a color by 1% its more noticable on a CRT than an LCD. LCDs also don't display very dark colors as well as a CRT.

LCDs show a crisper and sharper image than a CRT, but only at their native resolution, if you run at anything but the native resolution it looks like a gaussian blur has been applied to the whole frame.

LCDs are still much more expensive than CRTs and to add insult to injury, the manufacturers still consider it acceptible to ship you a screen with as many as 8 dead or stuck pixels on it, without considering it faulty, and refuse you an RMA. If I were going to spend 1000 bucks on a product I want it to be spotless.

Personally I would still like a small LCD for LAN parties, but my primary screen will still be a CRT.

StealthHawk
04-29-03, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by threedaysdwn
Most good LCDs can display 24-bit color nowadays.

However, 64-bit and 128-bit modes may not have quite the same precision as on a CRT.

Overall I still think LCDs are the way to go, but only if you can get a good one.

considering that no consumer video card supports a color depth greater than 32bit I would say that's not a problem. Although Parhelia at least supports 10bit RGB, and this is a place where LCDs should have a definite disadvantage.