Jump to content

[Monitors] LCD or CRT


Ruff_Ryder

Which do you prefer  

34 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I know we all are true gamers around here, but what type of monitor do you prefer for your gaming?

And feel free to state why.

 

Let me start by saying that I really like the space saving size of a LCD, but the CRT still reigns supreme when it comes to graphics and smooth gameplay.

Edited by Ruff_Ryder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have dead pixels on CRT...I am looking at one right now on my work Trinitron 21" but I still prefer CRT over LCD. LCD wins out in color brilliance but the response time is better on CRT. But mind you, the lead CRT has over LCD is dwindling every day. In a year or so, I believe LCD will have the advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does anyone here who says a CRT owns own a NICE LCD.

 

Cause I agree with those who say good LCD's kick all over CRT's.

 

It is true for gaming CRT's are better. But if you do any reading on a LCD (DVI) there is no way a crt can even come close unless you run it in like 800x600...YUCK!

 

samsungs 910t is AWSOME by buddie CS's with it and its near flawless except its got better saturation that any CRT can even come close to.

 

With that in mind CRT's on the high end (expensive) are very nice too.

 

and CRT size sucks bad.

 

but Im wondering if anyone owns like a 500-700$ 19" LCD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dad just bought a 19" lcd for about $550 at Best Buy, i've yet to see it, but he did alot of research before he bought it and he says it's perfect for gaming, no lag, or blurriness under fast fps madness, so my vote could change after I check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

preach,

my NEC 1920nx is 19ms and its great. While I admit it has a tiny tiny bit of ghosting if I move rapidly back and forth its so minute I dont miss my 21" at all.

 

Tis true the faster the response time but beware of analog lcd they seem to ghost more even with faster response times.

 

My experience has been the dvi is much much better but if someone knows more about that please expand...

 

Auggy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The signal delivery type won't effect response time, as that's measured by the components in the display itself and signal doesn't matter. However, DVI allows a straight digital signal to go through from the computer to the monitor. This means (1) No digital to analog and then analog to digital conversions (like VGA) and (2) more bandwidth on the same copper cable. This is why digital technology is being pushed as so great on things like cell phones, HDTV, etc...You can push more information digitally on the same frequency bandwidth than you can through analog.

 

However, I don't think either of those would effect signal transmission noticeably. The A/D converters are so efficient nowadays they're pretty much realtime and the VGA cable should have significant enough bandwidth to push most screen resolutions at most color depths...Though as screen resolutions and color depths rise, that might contribute.

 

Bottom line, DVI certainly isn't a step backwards.

 

--edit-- Auggy, did you mean quality of signal? I'd bet that's better, because the A/D conversion, while pretty darn good by now, simply is not a lossless conversion -- If you convert, signal quality decreases a bit.

Edited by appalachian_fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own both a nice CRT and a nice LCD, I can say that I like my LCD more for gaming then the CRT. I've got a 19 inch SCEPTRE X9G-Komodo2 LCD, and a ViewSonic A90F+ 19 inch CRT and a Magview 19inch CRT.

 

The LCD I have is a gaming LCD and has a response time of 12ms. I love everything about it, it doesn't ghost flicker, it's always perfectly sized. I've got it hooked up from the DVI out on my video card. It's absoultely amazing.

This is my monitor http://www.sceptre.com/Products/LCD/Specif...c_x9g_Gamer.htm

 

It has a retail price of 799$ from their site, but you can pick one up at Sams Club right now for 399$ You won't be dissapointed.

 

I found some additional information on comparing the two:

 

 

"The ones who talk about it are usually comparing to CRT refresh rates, which isn't apples to apples.

 

A 16ms response time corresponds to a 60hz refresh rate on a CRT, which most would say is the bare minimum acceptable value a CRT should run at. Most like to see at least 75hz (13ms) for gaming. But, LCD's don't refresh. Once a pixel is set, it stays that way until it's told to change. This is different from a CRT where a pixel has to get set every scan, or it blacks out. The time it takes to black out is the maximum refresh period you can run before the screen starts visibly flickering.

 

Since the screen isn't being refreshed on an LCD, there is no flicker of a screen returning to black then being refreshed. But, there can be a delay for a pixel that does need to change from one screen to the next. If that delay is too long, it won't be changed by the time the next pixel is changing, so you get a blurring effect while everything catches up. Years ago, this was horrendous. You could almost time it with a wristwatch. This is no longer the case.

 

Your TV runs at a 30hz (33ms) refresh rate. You don't see any flickering because the phosphors on the CRT are more persistent than they are with a typical computer CRT. But, even with this slow refresh and increased persistence, you don't see any flickering or blurring. The human eye isn't fast enough. It has it's own response times. You'll notice with pictures of TV screens, you'll see a bar across the screen in the picture. This is because the camera is fast enough that it sees the part of the picture that hasn't been drawn yet, and is returning to black. So, things are happening. You just can't see them.

 

So, there are some realities you can use to decide whether 25ms is a bad refresh or not. There are those who'll tell you it's too slow, and those (like me) who'll say you can't see it anyway at that speed. Once you get to a certain point, your own physiology makes any improvement a waste. Keep in mind the better specs cost more, and will cause opinions to shuffle in their direction regardless of reality. For another example of that sort of thing, look objectively and dispassionately at RAID on the desktop."

 

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1736064,00.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hit the nail on the head there. The differences in technology make it an "apples to battleships" comparison when comparing pixel cycles. It also depends on how they report the response time for an LCD. What is often not reported is the rise time and fall time. The rise time is the time it takes a pixel to light up, usually measured (in other industries) from 10% to 90% luminance. The fall time is just the opposite, and as you have probably guessed, the more important of the two because that's what causes "ghosting" -- If the fall time is slower than the refresh rate, then a bright white dot moving across the screen will be drawn in the new place, the background will be set on the old pixel, but it will still be "falling" from brightness, causing the ghosted image.

 

From what I understand there is no set standard for specifying a response rate for LCDs yet, and I've read some say that some manufacturers use rise time, because it is usually faster, and some add both rise time and fall time (the total "cycle time" of a pixel) and thus some "slower" LCDs respond better than "faster" LCDs. I don't know this for a fact, just read it on the oh-so-reliable Internet, but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

I personally won't consider LCDs I can't test out in a store first, which limits my choices, but I'm only dreaming about them whenever I go play anyway...Couldn't afford one if I wanted to.

Edited by appalachian_fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...

Wow....it's nostalgic reading these old posts. I almost completely forgot that CRTs were better than LCDs for gaming, and for a while too. Let's see, back in 2004 I had a 17" LCD from Samsung. Then in 2005 I bought a 19" LCD from View Sonic with a 3 or 4 ms response time (best monitors back then!). 2006, I had to replace that because I broke it, and got a 19" Samsung. That monitor lasted me till 2011...then I built my new PC and also bought 2 - 27" LCD monitors from ASUS. Imagine what I'll have 5 years from now. I can already say that I'm planning on using my 46" Samsung LED as my center monitor once I move into a bigger place. Damn times have changed!

Edited by Fenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they even make CRT's any more? I'm sure Bestbuy doesn't have any lol.

 

I really doubt it. Maybe some technical stores with used CRT's or maybe refurbished/assembled from several pieces into 1 CRT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Since LED displays are basically LCD's with slightly better technology I think I'd go with LED. Depending on which one you get the response time can be extremely low. The SA950's have only a 2ms response time, a gorgeous display, and smooth 120hz. However at 1920x1080 per monitor the display resolution is, albeit, a little lower than a CRT. And even though asthetics and size aren't technical specs, I think they make a massive difference in what you'd rather purchase and have on your desk. I can make a three screen 27 inch display with LED's on a desk and have only 4mm bezels but trying to do that on a CRT would result in 6 inch bezels and be ugly as all get-out (not to mention the bulk of size that would result). All-in-all my sa950's are much better for gaming (2D only. never use one in 3D) than any CRT monitor.

Edited by Animal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since LED displays are basically LCD's with slightly better technology I think I'd go with LED. Depending on which one you get the response time can be extremely low. The SA950's have only a 2ms response time, a gorgeous display, and smooth 120hz. However at 1920x1080 per monitor the display resolution is, albeit, a little lower than a CRT. And even though asthetics and size aren't technical specs, I think they make a massive difference in what you'd rather purchase and have on your desk. I can make a three screen 27 inch display with LED's on a desk and have only 4mm bezels but trying to do that on a CRT would result in 6 inch bezels and be ugly as all get-out (not to mention the bulk of size that would result). All-in-all my sa950's are much better for gaming (2D only. never use one in 3D) than any CRT monitor.

 

Nine years too late you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...