View Full Version : CRT vs. LCD
Interesting to see the ammount of CRTs vs LCDs at the LANs. My 17" CRT is packing up and I am looking at a 19" to upgrade. Is it worth it to go LCD, especially with a twitch happy game like UT?
Well I've got 2x 19" Gigabyte LCD's 8ms. FPS is fine on them, there's a bit of ghosting but after a few games you don't see it anymore.
I've got a Hyundai L90D+ (19") and I went straight from a pretty good CRT. I can't say I've noticed much/any ghosting. If there is any ghosting, it certainly isn't distracting.
The one down-side you may want to consider is that LCDs generally don't look good in anything other than their native resolution (which is normally 1280x1024 for 19" panels.) Which means that either you have to play at that resolution or accept interpolation (resizing) artifacts. I for one find reading interpolated text especially annoying, but this is really just personal preference.
Compared to CRTs, LCDs are: great for using for long hours, crisp and clear and don't suffer from annoying convergance/power regulation issues.
The biggest concern with LCDs are their colour reproduction. Darker tones, black in particular is usually a cloudy grey on lower end screens. That’s no good for the most part for games and movies alike.
Higher end models usually have very good colour reproduction and with consumer awareness on the rise it's not that much of a concern as long as you go with something reputable these days.
Thereafter I'd be weary of any screens that have any backlight showing around the edges, it's clear evidence of poor build quality.
When you go for something reputable, other features will usually take precedence. I.e., adjustment options and response rate (although I'd pay more attention to contrast ratio). Some people would add speakers to the list, but I think that's rather silly.
The speakers aren't designed primarily with quality in mind, the whole idea behind built-in speakers is to function as a space saver for the general user, not to produce orchestral sound quality, so I’d ignore that aspect entirely.
On the other hand, if I may offer a suggestion, I’d opt for a 20” (widescreen) before I’d consider a 19”, but it does depend on where you’re coming from.
A 17” LCD is quite a workspace increase from a 17” CRT, but a 20” would be exponentially better. In fact I find it a worthy upgrade even from a 19” LCD.
You’d really have to look at a few screens in person to decide, pictures usually don’t do the size difference(s) any justice.
Karnaugh
03 Jul 2006, 19:35
Unless you buy a Sanmuie Scoda or whatever the fuck the LCD colour reproduction is a hell of alot more acurate than CRT. I have my LCD next to a CRT and the difference is staggering.
20" widescreen is fucking huge, and as the owner of a wide screen I can say its not ideal for gaming. It's far more difficult to watch your health and amo etc with such a wide viewing area. For work and stuff its very nice, and also for movies, but not so hot for games.
17" is more than enough, and seriously any name brand (Acer, Sony, Hyundai etc) is going to be perfectly fine. "Ghosting" is really an old problem, with most monitors on the shelf being <12ms response time and you don't notice it after extended use.
The benefits of an LCD these days outweigh everything, they are much much better now, and the very fact that you don't have to go squint after a long time using it should be enough of a deciding factor. Yes, CRT's are alot cheaper though, but so are CD-ROM drives.
Gandulf
03 Jul 2006, 19:45
LCD is really crap for FPS games. I have a 19" 8ms viewsonic VP930b that I use together with a LG Flatron 995FT Plus. The CRT is a must for quake 3, 4 and UT. The LCD is awesome for the rest.
THe best option in other words is to have both, dual view ftw.
Regards
Gandulf
...20" widescreen is fucking huge...
That does depend on what you're putting it next to:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/dell_2407wfp/2005_vs_2405.jpg
24" left, 20" right.
(pictures don't do the size justice, lets just say they really are fucking huge)
Great post though.
I've got a 17" Fujitsu-Siemens LCD.
Excellent screen.
Makes my old 15" CRT look like a pos.:D
You see, no matter how hard and how many people lobby for LCD, everytime 1 respected player claims CRT is better especially for twitch shooters.
So far from this thread:
Even 8ms have ghosting, but you get used to it.
CRT is better for FPS.
Colour is better on LCD and easier on the eyes.
Native resolution restriction on LCD.
Widescreen might be the better option, but might make FPS gaming harder.
Karnaugh
04 Jul 2006, 07:35
You see, no matter how hard and how many people lobby for LCD, everytime 1 respected player claims CRT is better especially for twitch shooters.
Because good players are stubborn. If they played and won with a ball mouse would you use that? It's just what they are used to and obviously if you use a CRT all day every day for the last 2000 years (or however old Gandulf is ;)) then an LCD will feel different and you won't play as well. Honestly though, every player that does actualy use an LCD says the same thing, after the transision time, the benefits are excelent.
Crazychic
04 Jul 2006, 08:10
Here I can say something......
I have the Acer 19" 8ms - works like a dream, I am yet to experience this ghosting thing everyone is talking about......Retails at R2699.
OR
I also have the Acer 19" 4ms - works like a dream...Retails @ R3499.00 - the difference between the two in my opinion is looks..... but then again what do I know? IMO go for LCD Acer if possible ..... purely because I have tried them and out of the LG, Benq and Acer that I tested, I found the acers won hands down. Over and above acer gives a 3 year warranty. I know you can pick up the Benq at a cheaper price R2999 for the 4ms and yeah the warranty is also good, but Acer all the way.
Just my 2c
P.S. It rocks when u lan from the point that ..... u don't kill yourself carting it up and down
I have been looking at the Acer LCD's, thanx Crazy. I see they even have a "Gamers line" 6ms range. How much marketing that is, is anyone's guess. Still, a good old flatron CRT in 19" is only R1500 :p
Maybe I should just wait for Santa and hope my current screen lasts. ;)
I have a 3ms Viewsonic and I have no complaints, I do still prefer my CRT though using my LCD more for LAN due to its light weight
[N]Haja
04 Jul 2006, 17:33
If i were to buy a new monitor, it would be a 21" CRT, purely because they are cheapers than their LCD counterparts, and I never move mine, so I don't really need LCD.
If I had the cash though, I would prob go for LCD (only thing that I do worry about are dead pixels, heard they can be a problem?)
Karnaugh
04 Jul 2006, 21:26
Dead pixels and static pixels can be a problem :( Some manufacturers will give you a gurantee against them though.
Ask for a screen test before you even proceed to the checkout.
Lit pixels aren't too bad, that can still be fixed a lot of the time.
here (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide.html) is an informative article I've been able to re-source after I lost 5 years worth of bookmarks. That's just about everything you need to know about the progression of LCD technology over the last few years.
this (http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=1745344&enterthread=y) post is a little more up to date with regards to newly emerging LCD technology the previously linked article doesn't quite cover.
Crazychic
04 Jul 2006, 23:25
I have been looking at the Acer LCD's, thanx Crazy. I see they even have a "Gamers line" 6ms range. How much marketing that is, is anyone's guess. Still, a good old flatron CRT in 19" is only R1500 :p
Maybe I should just wait for Santa and hope my current screen lasts. ;)
Did I forget to mention that the Acer 19" 4ms is a gamersline
:D
Did I forget to mention that the Acer 19" 4ms is a gamersline
:D
It is also a pro gaming price. :D
So far I have the following stacked up against LCD.
1. Native resolution
1.1 Even worse with widescreen (not all games support wide screen)
1.2 A Quake4 patch actually frying widescreen LCDs (got recalled quickly, but WTF?)
2. Three times more expensive at LEAST.
3. Ghosting even at 8ms.
4. Dead pixels.
5. Contrast still not up to scratch with blacks being grey.
6. Colours fading after a few years.
What you gain is,
1. Less eye-strain
2. Better colour
3. Smaller desk footprint.
My mind is made up. Should I buy a screen now, it will definately be CRT. I can grab a 19" and even a 21" for the price of some 17" LCDs, and don't have to deal with all those negatives. However, I have decided to wait it out. I would love to get an LCD, but until they can beat a CRT in just about every field, I am just not convinced - gamers' line or not.
Sounds like a silly conclusion to me, but anyway, shame, your loss :).
Care to elaborate Shrimpo?
enemyanemone
05 Jul 2006, 08:22
My mind is made up. Should I buy a screen now, it will definately be CRT. I can grab a 19" and even a 21" for the price of some 17" LCDs,
IMO getting the expensive brands is not worth its money. I moved from a 19 inch crt to a no name 17 inch lcd with 8ms response time (medion). It cost 200 Euro (1600 Rand) for a new screen (straight from the supermarket :D), that would even be worth shipping.
I'd never go back, it definately felt like a big upgrade in UT.
I think it would be a mistake to buy a CRT unless they sell it dirt cheap, but here they are hardly available and should you find a place that still sells them in the shops they are only 30 Euro cheaper..
edit: On second thoughts, there is something that annoys me with lcd's... any resolution below 1024*768 looks bad, in games too.
So as long as the graphics card can handle that i'd never go back.... ut2007 most likely WILL lag on that resolution on any pc, so maybe it is a good idea after all to get a crt :S
Well if you can't play a game at 1024x768 I think your money would be better spent on a graphics card :).
Did you read my posts at all? I never once said I can't game at 1024x768, I merely mentioned native resolution being a bitch. What use is a R6000 GPU when you are stuck at that res? Likewise, what help is it if you have to run say FEAR at 800x600 with all bells and whistles (on a lower end GPU), but now the scaling looks crap.
Wow, calm down. I was responding to enemyanemone.
Grrrrr.... I am in upheavel! I can't calm down. :D
Ok ok, I am waiting for Santa. That is the last straw!
Karnaugh
05 Jul 2006, 15:38
Did you read my posts at all? I never once said I can't game at 1024x768, I merely mentioned native resolution being a bitch. What use is a R6000 GPU when you are stuck at that res? Likewise, what help is it if you have to run say FEAR at 800x600 with all bells and whistles (on a lower end GPU), but now the scaling looks crap.
Bare in mind that korpse is an artist. "crap" is what he said about the logo I made
http://www.slipgate.co.za/images/logo.png
But nevermind.
It looks just as crap as running 800x600 on a CRT. With ingame anti aliasing etc its not like the LCD breaks into pieces which stab you in the eye, and it doesn't exactly stop you from playing the game (or doing so well). I played Quake4 at a much lower than native res (thankfully it does support widescreen scaling at lower than native res) and it was fine.
[N]Haja
05 Jul 2006, 16:03
well, in the above case karn, korpse is correct, that is a crap logo :P
The circle thingy on the left looks "wrong somehow, like its trying to do 2 things at one. The writing is nice though.
Karnaugh
05 Jul 2006, 17:39
Thats because Korpse did the writing... :(
I reckon it is quite snazzy actually, but have no idea what or who slipgate is.
I
LCD monitors are classified purley by their Response Times measured in milliseconds (ms).
Currently the Acer 19" 4ms is about the best of the bunch.
It must also be noted that LCD screensize is measured from side to side where CRT's are mesured diagonally, so a 19" CRT is actually smaller than a 17" LCD.
Many people will buy an LCD then use its supplied ADC (Analog To Digital Converter) which now completely nulls out the original speed and quality of the digital signal for which it is designed, thus ending up with a approx 16 ms response time regardless of whether the monitor is capable of better, not to mention the quality degregation.
Not many cards have a digital output, I know the nVidia range have.
The LCD WideScreen can also be a problem when gaming as it has its own resolution which is normally around 14400 x 920.
Current graphic cards do not cater for this as yet so the monitor modifies your standard card resolutions to fit, hence in games it can make things look a little chubby at times.
For gaming a WideScreen is currently not recomended.
In general a 17" or 19" 4 ms or better 4x3 LCD is great for gaming provided you use it digitally and not its supplied ADC.
I most certainly will never buy a CRT again unless it's going for free :)
Karnaugh
05 Jul 2006, 19:50
Most new cards should have a DVI connector :/
|sAvAgE|
05 Jul 2006, 21:01
the best thing to do when in a situation like this is to try & see if you can get a "test" run of sorts with the model you're planning on purchasing (maybe there's one on display or you're good at getting your way with the salesman :rolleyes: ). its the best way to see what you've actually been hearing about all this time; it's the same when purchasing a plasma/lcd TV: take your equipment you're planning on using with the TV (console/dvd/whatever) and have the guys set it up on a test model so you can see what you're getting into (if its possible ofcourse, which is at most AV stores i've been to).
either way, this seems to be a case of (or similar to) the whole "should i upgrade now, or wait for the better stuff later on" ordeal. check out some reviews on toms/anand for your gaming LCDs and you'll see that the whole ghosting issue isnt really a problem anymore and contrast ratios are moving along too.
LCD monitors are classified purley by their Response Times measured in milliseconds (ms).
Currently the Acer 19" 4ms is about the best of the bunch.
It must also be noted that LCD screensize is measured from side to side where CRT's are mesured diagonally, so a 19" CRT is actually smaller than a 17" LCD.
Many people will buy an LCD then use its supplied ADC (Analog To Digital Converter) which now completely nulls out the original speed and quality of the digital signal for which it is designed, thus ending up with a approx 16 ms response time regardless of whether the monitor is capable of better, not to mention the quality degregation.
Not many cards have a digital output, I know the nVidia range have.
The LCD WideScreen can also be a problem when gaming as it has its own resolution which is normally around 14400 x 920.
Current graphic cards do not cater for this as yet so the monitor modifies your standard card resolutions to fit, hence in games it can make things look a little chubby at times.
For gaming a WideScreen is currently not recomended.
In general a 17" or 19" 4 ms or better 4x3 LCD is great for gaming provided you use it digitally and not its supplied ADC.
I most certainly will never buy a CRT again unless it's going for free :)
I'd argue that LCD screens are classified by Panel Technology rather than response time. The attributes of a screen are related to the panel technology behind it.
The standard for all screens is that they are to be measured diagonally.
The difference comes in where:
CRT screens are measured (diagonally) from frame to frame whereas LCDs are often measured (diagonally) within their viewable area. This is the main reason a 17" LCD is comparable to a 19" CRT monitor in viewable area.
The ADC problem you're referring to was a quick fix implemented to keep the cost down on TN Film based panel screens. The conversion was done on the monitor side for many of those screens resulting in a 6-bit rather than 8-bit offering. That practice has been done away with for many reputable brands since then. This however is more to do with colour depth than response time.
Many screens are 8-bit these days because the panel technology behind them is. Many graphics cards do support DVI-I which is the digital DVI out with backwards compatibility for DVI-A (analog). What setting it runs at in this case will depend on the cable and the monitor you're using.
Even the old Geforce TI-4200s could support those resolutions, so unless you're talking about something really old, or something integrated I don't see where you're coming from. The main concern about resolution would be whether the software in question supports it. It's not really a hardware issue if you're using something relatively decent.
Interesting Proasm and Igloo.
I also believe the meassurement of size is still diagonal, but that LCDs doesn't have a casing, concealing part of the actual tube like with CRT.
I never knew about the DVI though. Interesting.
Interesting Proasm and Igloo.
I also believe the meassurement of size is still diagonal, but that LCDs doesn't have a casing, concealing part of the actual tube like with CRT.
I never knew about the DVI though. Interesting.
I’m really just regurgitating a few things I read a few months ago. Mostly in-store browsing through the expensive import magazines.
I'm planning on going big sometime soon, that's the only reason I ever looked.
I've already linked to 2 articles on panel technology previously.
The DVI information can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvi).
Cripple-X
05 Jul 2006, 22:42
Anyone know if those Hanns-G screens are worth anything? I've heard a few people speak highly of them but I doubt.
Nautilian
06 Jul 2006, 00:39
Viewsonic VX922 2ms response panel is incredible ;)
Naut
Cripple, I have only heard good things about Hanns-G, and they certainly are the best bang for the buck. They are priced at about R1500 (check Prophecy.co.za), but note that they are 12ms panels. For gaming, and UT specifically, I am aiming for something below even 8ms like those Gamers' line 6ms or 4ms screens. Naut's 2ms Viewsonic is a bit above budget, although I see Viewsonic have a VX724 3ms panel for ~R3400.
Edit: Ooooh, I stand corrected. The Hanns-G screens I looked at had me wondering what was so great about them, but here is a link to the 700:1 contrast screen everyone is raving about. 8ms response and all. http://www.prophecy.co.za/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=2198&option=com_phpshop&Itemid=6
Less than R2k for a 19"? Nice
Nautilian
06 Jul 2006, 13:01
2ms VX922 2ms is R2500 excl vat :/ Just like my "overpriced" mouse is R69 excl vat... hehehe I like that price :P
R2500? Crikey that is good!
You really play with that R70 mouse? I find it hard to believe you sticking with 1 mouse for longer than...oh, 3 days. :)
[N]Haja
06 Jul 2006, 13:14
LOL, ye, nauts got more mice than most dealers. Razer phone him when they need stock :P
Btw nuts, what size monitor is that?
Nautilian
06 Jul 2006, 13:43
VX922 is a 19" LCD monitor. I got hold of one for Cataphract and have gamed on one before. It is the ideal monitor for someone to make a transition from CRT to LCD.
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/xseries/vx922/
Speaking about mice. I have actually been getting rid of my collection. Funny that you may mention it, I hear that the Boomslang II limited edition is out soon :P. Funny as it may sound the Wheel mouse optical is probably the most stable mouse I have used to date. Remember this is v2.0 and was recently reintroduced by Microsoft, it is the only optical engine to have a 9000 scan rate.
Naut
Cataphract
06 Jul 2006, 16:32
Currently the Acer 19" 4ms is about the best of the bunch.
I seriously doubt it.
Most new cards should have a DVI connector :/
Yes. Most new cards have completely done away with the analog ports. They now come with two DVI ports and a DVI to analog adapter for the legacy cables.
I got hold of one for Cataphract
:D
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.