LCD vs CRT

[Kane040]

Well, since my old CRT monitor went up in flames...literally ive been looking for a new monitor. I play games such as BF1942 and Splinter Cell 2 and I'd like to know which kind of monitor would be best for playing games like those? I dont know a whole lot about monitors so I was hoping that I could get some insight as to what would be a good response time on a LCD monitor, and what would be an important factor in determining a good CRT monitor. So far the LCD's I've noticed are these: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...112-148&depa=1

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...005-019&depa=1

Id like to keep the price range from 300-400. Any help would be appreciated.

[Panama Red]

I'm not personally familiar with either, but the specs look similar the one I have. I don't like speakers in the monitor and the LG has a better warranty (3 vs 1), so I'd pick the LG over the Spectre. Keep in mind they both have standard 15 pin VGA analog input which some say is inferior to digital input. I've seen some tests/reviews that say analog vs digital is not a problem. If you want to look at a third option with a more flexible base and similar specs/price, here's the one I'm using (2 actually).

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=232007

Since mine is freight free it's within $1 of the LG.

[james8547]

I also have the Solarism LCD (thanks to him ). However, I can only afford the smaller model

[Panama Red]

Originally posted by james8547 I also have the Solarism LCD (thanks to him ). However, I can only afford the smaller model

And ya luv it, don't ya James?

[ogrerocks]

I have a CTX LCD. Similar to this one:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...103-162&depa=1
Mine doesn't have the USB hub.

I have no dead pixels and the color is great. I love everything about that monitor. I got mine for about $360. I don't use the speakers, so i'm not worried about them.

FYI: Abs computers bundles CTX with their PCs, that's why i decided to trust them.

[James.M]

I have the LG L1710B and is top notch for gaming and image quality i wil never go back to CRT there too big and give me a head ache after a while playing games. my LCD is very easy on my eyes and is perfect

[Jaggannath]

LCD is awesome for the eyes, when I go home to my parents CRT I regret it

[Lynx4Ben]

I happen to love my CRTs. I own a NEC 22" and 19". My 22 runs at 1600*1200 @ 100, which to me is as easy on the eyes as an LCD. Make sure to get a top of the line CRT to keep the refresh rate up, this makes it easy on the eyes. I don't notice any flicker running at 100hertz. Also I still prefer CRTs for gaming over LCDs. They are also still cheaper, you couldn't touch my setup 20in viewable and 18 viewable for under 1000 (in lcds). If you have the deskspace CRTs are still the way to go IMO.

I have attached a pic of the setup.

[Davidoo1]

Originally posted by Lynx4Ben If you have the deskspace CRTs are still the way to go IMO.

....if you want to go blind, stay with a CRT.

Even if you don't notice the refresh it is still there, killing your eyesight.

LCDs are DC and don't actually refresh at all. My son is a big time gamer and has a digital LCD. He plays the new BF Vietnam for hours with great graphics. He had to update the video drivers for Vietnam. His friends with CRTs all come over after a few hours with bloodshot eyes and want to play on his machine.

[Lynx4Ben]

....if you want to go blind, stay with a CRT.

This is a myth. You won't go blind from staring at an CRT. It is no different than people growing up watching TV all day. They didn't go blind. However, some people will have some eye strain if they sit in front of a computer 8-9 hours a day with a poor refresh rate. Reading text all day will cause more strain that gaming since you are focusing on a still object (which isn't really still because of refreshing).

Were you having eye strain before your monitor went? If not then I would stay with CRT for the moment. The key is to buy a top of the line flat panel CRT. Plus CRTs still produce more accurate colors and are still better for gaming/multimedia. The thing I can't stand about LCDs is the viewing angle. My computer doubles as my home entertianment system, I often lay on the couch to watch a movie so I don't wanna have to worry about positioning myself so the image isn't corruped by the viewing angle.

Now if I could do it all over again I would have bought my 22" NEC CRT for gaming/multimeida and instead of a 19" CRT I would have bought a 17" LCD for my second monitor.

[RJ]

Well, it's not a myth. Ok I wouldn't go as far to say that you go blind, but CRTs (and that applies to TVs as well) do have a negative effect on your eyesight over a long period of time.

All people I know that worked for years in front of a monitor haven't an eyesight as good as it used to be. Sure when getting older you do lose some eyesight too, but the ones that were working with CRTs have more problems than the ones who didn't.
Although it's the same with a TV, the effect is not as strong as on a computer monitor because you sit closer to the monitor than to a TV.

You're right on the color accurancy of a CRT, but the TFTs have caught up quite well, but the viewing angle. . oh you haven't seen new top models have you ? They are really impressive, and there is no real difference to the CRT. You don't watch a movie from 80° to the side anyway.
Also most TFTs are good for gaming and the difference to a CRT is not noticeable for a normal user. Maybe hardcore gamers do notice a difference, who knows.

RJ

[Davidoo1]

Originally posted by RJ Although it's the same with a TV, the effect is not as strong as on a computer monitor because you sit closer to the monitor than to a TV.

Exactly...you sit a LOT closer to the CRT.

I have used a computer at work for 8-10 hours per day for years. Recently the company got us all LCD's and everyone goes home much more relaxed. Seems like I am even getting some of my close in reading vision back.

[biglawdog1]

I bought the 21 inch Samsung LCD about 2 mos back. Dropped a grand on it. Best computer purchase I've ever made, bar none.

I heard lots of problems with ghosting on LCD's and if you're buying a 15-19 inch, I'd say ghosting might be an issue- check the refresh rates. Get a refresh under 20 if possible. The colors and quality on an LCD are much more vibrant and as has been noted, I don't get the eye strain I used to get on my 19 inch CRT monitor.

The 21 inch mon is the best I've ever owned. Only game I get some ghosting in is CoD and its nothing that affects game play. UT2004, City of Heroes, Battlefrield Vietnam all play with no ghosting. Only negative is the native reso is 1600x1200 and you need a vid card with horsepower to play games in that reso (hence why I want a 6800- I want the speed in the hgiher resos).

[morriswindgate]

We have one Planer 21 inch LCD and an old 19 inch NEC CRT here at work. Everybody still likes the CRT and complains of eyestrain and headaches with the Planer.
They are also hooked to Small office type Dells. With the LCD you have the screen flicker to black when you scroll the page. I have tried different settings (Both size and freq) and the problem will not go away.
As far as I am concern the LCD technology needs to mature a little bit more to reach the level of a crt and at this time I would rather have a large CRT and pocket the money over an LCD.

[glc]

Morris, I'd attribute that issue to the onboard video - the Intel Extreme Graphics falls apart at high resolutions. If you had high end video cards in them, there would be a world of difference.

[TrippMyTrigger]

I find this all very interesting, and from what I am reading, the majority is LCD. A couple of people I game with have also told me they love LCD monitors. I have been trying to get a handle on the specs to look for, but so far I am as lost as when I first started looking. Can anyone give me the bottom line on specs (response time, refresh rate, MHz, etc.)? UT 2004, Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Ravenshield, Athena Sword and the like are all high end graphics games, and of course you need the proper vid card to handle them. But I am looking for specific info on an LCD that can also handle these types of games. Also, some input on specific brands in 18" or 19" as I have not heard for sure that I am the winner of the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes (the person with the 21" LCD or larger... are you looking for another son? LOL).

[RJ]

Can anyone give me the bottom line on specs (response time, refresh rate, MHz, etc.)?

Response time: Keep it as low as possible. But a low response time alone is no guarantee for no ghosting, so don't neglect the other specs.

Refresh rate: No concern on a TFT. They all run at 60 Hz, usually can be set to 72 Hz although there is no sense in it.

MHz: Dunno what you mean by that.

Brightness: Varies between 200cd/m² and 250cd/m². Haven't seen anything else yet but I think there are some panels that are brighter.

Contrast ratio: The higher, the better. Look for 350:1 or more - provided the panel has the usual brightness of 200 to 250 cd/m² (because brightness affects contrast ratio as well. But 200 to 250 isn't much difference to significantly change the contrast ratio).

Connection: Get one with DVI. They have the VGA connection, too, so you don't need to get a graphics card with DVI right now if you don't have one yet. But DVI has a slightly better picture than VGA, which has a slight loss in quality (although probably only noticeable by quality-freaks like me )

Size: TFTs, unlike CRTs, use their entire area. So a 15" TFT compares to a 17" TFT, a 17/18" TFT to a 19" CRT, a 19" is. . well. . special IMHO, and a 20" TFT compares to a 21/22" CRT.

Resolution: TFTs have a fixed resolution, called the native resolution. That is also the max. resolution. They compare to the recommended resolution of the equal sized CRT.
Example: On a 17" CRT you'd run 1024x768. The comparing 15" TFT has 1024x768 as the native resolution.
So 15" TFT competes to 17" CRT in terms of size and usual resolution (you can go higher on the CRT, but usually you won't). 17/18" have 1280x1024 (comparing to a 19" CRT), and a 20" TFT has 1600x1200, compares to 21/22" CRT.
Now the 19" is different. Judging by size, it can compete with an 21" CRT, but judging by resolution it is no better than a 17", as it has also just 1280x1024.
The advantage of a 19" over a 17"/18" is just the area, not the resolution (same with an 18" over a 17"). IMHO it is just for gamers who want a big picture. For anything else it just doesn't compete with an 21" CRT. I'd go with the 18".

Viewing angle: You want as much as possible. Absolute minimum I'd say is 150/130. Top models do 170/170, you won't notice a difference to a CRT.

RJ

[Floppyman]

I recently upgraded to a Sony SDM-S73/B 17" LCD when they were on sale at newegg. No dead pixels and no noticeable ghosting in the games I've played and movies I've watched. Excellent LCD, IMHO.

[Lynx4Ben]

If you are going to be playing high end games. I would get a 22(20viewaable) CRT. They still offer a better gaming experience. If you want to stay LCD I would recommend staying at 17" The larger LCD you get the worst it is for games. If you go 19" LCD I would get as high quality as you can. I would only get an LCD that has a 16ms or better responce time. A quality 19" LCD will cost you around 700-800. You could also go for the top of the line 22" CRT for 600. Something to think about, it really comes down to what you want out of your monitor. If you are a hardcore gamer I still swear by CRT. If you do not play that many games LCD is the best fit if your budget allows.

[biglawdog1]

FYi Trigger, Hiatchi makes an excellent 17 inch gaming LCD monitor with response time under 20. If I remember correctly from my research , it runs under 500 bucks. If money is no object, the 21 inch Samsung is the way to go.

I did ALOT of research on this subject a few months back, before I bought my monitor and found you really need a nice LCD to play games or the ghosting will be too much. Several companies make LCD's which work for gaming- generally, you're looking for something under 20ms refresh to avoid it the worst of the ghosting.

[TrippMyTrigger]

This first one seems to meet the minimum suggested specs with the exception of the response at 25ms. I do not see that there is a DVI hookup.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...1914&CatId=170

This one I have actually seen at the store and I know it has a DVI hookup as well as "set" brightness controls (one touch/scan button) for games, documents, internet, etc. Also, I don't see some of the specs being detailed (i.e. viewing angle, brightness). Let me know what you think.

http://www.circuitcity.com/detail.js...id=81657#specs

[Lynx4Ben]

Trippy, The responce time is the MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT FOR GAMING. This is the one spec that is essential to meet. I would not consider a monitor with greater than 16ms responce time, as I am a hardcore gamer. Although I would once again tout that CRT is IMO the better (and cheaper) choice for gaiming.

Consider: for cheaper than both the monitors you have listed, you can get a top of the line 22" CRT for 600. This is the best gaming monitor that I have tested.

http://www.securemart.com/cgi-bin/fu...6.html?pcode=2

[TrippMyTrigger]

No doubt CRTs are cheaper and I could probably go BIG with screen size and not have any problems... well, there is a problem... the space it takes up on my desk and the weight to move it around. The 19" CRT I have now nearly comes to the front edge of my desk, and my desk is quite deep in space. So the question would be, does a larger CRT viewable screen take up more space on a desk (as in, is the back deeper in dimensions)?

At this point I can't rule out LCD because I like the fact that it takes up less space and that I can get into DVI.

[Lynx4Ben]

A nice 17" monitor:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...001-146&depa=0

[Lynx4Ben]

I have a 19" and a 22" monitor. I have a desk that is about 2.5 feet deep. The 22" NEC is 18.5" deep. I moved my desk foward to allow the monitor to hang off the end, thus taking up less desk space. If you need to carry it around a lot you better have some muscles, it weighs around 65 lbs. There is no doubt LCDs are better for desk space.

[RJ]

Why 16ms ? What's so special about 16ms that you won't get a monitor with a higher response time ?
It's just because 16ms is the fastest response time that has been achieved ? So a couple of months you'd have said "not higher than 25ms" ?

Well, sure you want a low response time. But 16ms is no guarantee for no ghosting. Response time isn't everything. My old panel had 50ms and neither my friends nor me could see any difference to a CRT for games. But they are not really "hardcore gamer", though.

And about your link for the 19" gaming monitor. It is a 20" and it is from Viewsonic. A friend has a 19" Viewsonic with 25 ms response time. And it had terrible ghosting. I believe that panel will still ghost alot, I wouldn't recommend Viewsonic for gamers. That ghosting was about 2 inch with certain colors. With other colors you didn't see a trail but somehow "double frames".
16ms isn't everything, the screen has to have good other specs, too.

RJ

[TrippMyTrigger]

Hey RJ....

I think you overlooked my question about the 2 examples I posted about 5 or so up there LOL. Easy young Grasshoppa ... take a deep breath and take a look at the 2 LCDs I found and give ME some feedback. Lynx is just trying to help like everyone else . But of course, the more feedback, the better before I make my final decision.

[BigDog19]

I am a hardcore gamer and I just bought a Samsung SyncMaster 172x. It kicks some serious ass. I play a lot of Unreal Tournament and there is little to no noticeable ghosting. I cannot notice the difference between CRT and LCD with this panel. It is sleek, suave, and sweet. I could not be more happy. There is no ghosting and it is just an all around fantastic LCD. It has a 12 ms response time.

Oh by the way, here is two cents.

[Lynx4Ben]

RJ

Yes I noticed after I posted that it was a 20". I thought I did a search for just 19" on newegg. I have removed the link.

Tripp
As I noted in my post I would prefer NEC, Sony, Samsung over viewsonic. However the one thing about LCD monitors is you really want to TRY BEFORE YOU BUY. There is not a garentee that 16ms will always be better than 25ms. However, it should be. Toms Hardware had a recent review of the 16ms models you might want to check it out. If you are going to buy a monitor I would suggest the latest and greatest technology. Any crap brand can say they have a 16ms refresh rate, yet it probably won't hold up against a 25ms Samsung.

Personally, I couldn't stand ANY ghosting while I game. I would buy the fastest monitor possible. I would check out all the 16ms and compare them. (Although the first one I would check is a Samsung I happen to like there LCDs).

The first Sony seems rather cheap at 600. It is probably an older model. The second Sony does not list its refresh rate. I highly recommend going to your local Best Buy (or something like that) and test them out. Also check out the return policy at your local store. See if you return it in a week if you don't like it. If you can bring it home, so some hardcore gaming and check for ghosting.

Here is a link to BigDogs monitor. This looks like a great 17" monitor.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...001-146&depa=0

Please report back when you have bought a monitor and tell us now you like it.

[RJ]

@TrippMyTrigger

Oh well, you're right. . yeah I'm tired. . it's half past midnight here. . I better go to bed
But first I'd give you some feedback about your two TFTs:

The SDM-S93B looks quite good. It has an amazing viewing angle, 16.7 million color support, high contrast ratio and low response time. Only drawback is that there is no DVI port.

The SDM-X93 looks amazing at first view. It has the DVI port and the 16.7 million color support. The contrast ratio of 800:1 looks very high, but the brightness is 400 cd/m². So the contrast ratio isn't better. I believe it is even lower (it can be calculated). The response time is lower (16ms) which is good.
Haven't found any information about the viewing angle but I believe it's pretty high, too.

Overall the second TFT seems to look better. It has a lower response time and a DVI port. The "problem" with it is the brightness. I have never seen a TFT with 400cd/m² yet, but I imagine it to be too bright, so that you need to reduce the brightness and the contrast. Before saying anything definite I have to look at a screen like this first.

RJ