LCD vs CRT

silvine

If you buying monitor for gaming would you buy an LCD or a CRT?

Willymuncher

LCD for me, once you make the leap theres no going back to CRT.

red_ice

Willymuncher wrote:

LCD for me, once you make the leap theres no going back to CRT.

the leap into a poor quality piece of hardware when it comes to performance? LCD monitors are only good for 3 things, and thats the lack of space consumption, looks and its life as a paper weight. Otherwise LCD monitors are absolutly useless in my books and most people who know about computers would agree, they are not ready to match up to CRT.

CRT offers better performance and quality in all aspects. They are less likely to cause headaches too!

CRT wins hands down for gaming... actually, as far as using a pc goes, CRT wins hands down.

no arguement.

challengemaster

LCD's are only able to reach about 75mhz refresh rate at best. CRT's can do much better so you see more fps in games compared to what you're getting. eg, in UT2k4, online its maxed to 85 fps. with a LCD you will only ever see about 75fps, then again the human eye doesnt really notice much above 30 or so fps.

leeroybrown

red_ice wrote:

the leap into a poor quality piece of hardware when it comes to performance? LCD monitors are only good for 3 things, and thats the lack of space consumption, looks and its life as a paper weight. Otherwise LCD monitors are absolutly useless in my books and most people who know about computers would agree, they are not ready to match up to CRT.

CRT offers better performance and quality in all aspects. They are less likely to cause headaches too!

CRT wins hands down for gaming... actually, as far as using a pc goes, CRT wins hands down.

no arguement.

For absolute colour definition and image quality a good CRT is better but I think that for most users a good quality LCD is just as good. I've used some horribly bad LCD units that ghosted badly, had poor colour representation and interpolated really badly but I've also used units that do these really well too. I think that people seem to get overly caught up with the response rate of LCD's and overlook the fact that the most important thing is the image quality before you think about anything else.

Also, I disagree with any claim that you are less likely to have headaches with an CRT. I find the direct opposite to be true. I used to run a decent flat CRT at 100Hz and I still find my LCD to be a definite improvement.

If I was doing a lot of graphics/photoshop/CAD work I'd prefer a high end CRT but otherwise I think the advantages of an LCD far outweigh the minor drop in image quality. I don't think there is a major difference while gaming with my current LCD compared to my previous CRT.

One very important point to note here is that when buying an LCD monitor you should always read some reviews carefully. There is a huge difference between a good one and a really crap one (thankfully there are a lot less of these now). If your main use is gaming then you'll want a low (gray-to-gray) response time but it's important to check that the manufacturer did not get this at the expense of image quality, viewing angle, etc. Also, if you won't be able to run at a native resolutions LCD resolutions in games then a monitor that interpolates well is a big advantage.

DublinWriter

I use an LCD, but I'd prefare a CRT were it not for the heat/footprint that I'd need to replace my current 20" IIyama LCD.

Response rate is everything when using LCDs for gaming. Don't even look at anything under 15ms.

Secondly, as any PSP2 owner will tell you, LCDs are notorious for developing 'dead' pixels. All manufacturers won't even consider replacing a unit unless it develops between 15 to 25 of these, and one is enough to seriously annoy you.

pred racer

LCD

unless space is an issue, CRT all the way ive a 19"crt thats great and cost 20 euro! ive got a 19" dell lcd which cost the same and is utter sh1te! why would you pay more (alot more) for technology which is in general inferior??

Khannie

LCD

challengemaster wrote:

then again the human eye doesnt really notice much above 30 or so fps.

It does yeah. I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 75Hz non interlaced. Easily.

Last I heard, around 200fps was where people couldn't notice inserted blank frames.

challengemaster

tbh i heard it off antonio_b , khannie

SouperComputer

Ive stuck with CRT over the years. Even bought another 21" Trinitron CRT when I came to the US last month.

I tend to be a bit of a resolution slut so LCD is out for me. Space is not a major deal for me so for $65 ill stick with CRT. Ive often considered LCD for myself, but for me on a price\performance ratio, CRT wins.

Its a personal choice, if you dont mind using up exta space on your desk, using a bit more juice and like to use lots of different resolutions then CRT is a good way to go.

In terms of image quality, the gap between CRT and LCD is smaller than ever though.

CRT offers better performance and quality in all aspects. They are less likely to cause headaches too!

LCD panels are fundamentally different to CRT's. As a result the lower refresh rates of LCD panels are not a contributing factor to headaches.

An image is always being displayed on an LCD, even if it has not been updated. However in a CRT the phosphor needs to be hit with electrons to stay lit. This makes CRTs at low refresh rates literally a headache, however it is not critical with LCD panels.

Anti

20.1" lcds ftw. All i can say. And bull**** can you see the difference over 40-50 fps. There is no difference at all. absolutly NONE.

I find it almost impossible to see anything over 38fps.

All this " i needz mah monitorz to runz 120hz , as i will haf teh 120fps in mi eyz "

Rubbish.

K.O.Kiki

CRT's give me headaches.
I got a headache from one running at 120Hz (I wasn't even using it, just watching!), but 75-85Hz LCD's are no problem. Strange, huh?

Anti

I seen a program on this before. And there is some scientific reason behind it, why some people can stare at it all day, And others get a migrane.

But even when i had crts i never went about 80hz.

leeroybrown

K.O.Kiki wrote:

CRT's give me headaches.
I got a headache from one running at 120Hz (I wasn't even using it, just watching!), but 75-85Hz LCD's are no problem. Strange, huh?

When a CRT is refreshed each pixel on the screen physically flickers. Hence the way a lot of people notice the difference between 60Hz and 75Hz. In my case my eyes are fairly sensitive to flicker and I can spot the difference between 60Hz, 72Hz, 75Hz, 85Hz and on a very bad day 100Hz. Conversely the refresh on an LCD does not result in change/flicker on all pixels - just a change in those that have altered.

Typically an LCD will have much greater image brightness though which may tire some peoples eyes if not adjusted down.

green123

LCD

lcd monitors and tvs are a waste of money
nothing wrong with a crt-crystal clear images

DublinWriter

anti wrote:

I find it almost impossible to see anything over 38fps.

All this " i needz mah monitorz to runz 120hz , as i will haf teh 120fps in mi eyz "

Rubbish.

Maybe if you knew the difference between fps, hz and response times then you could argue the point better.

TerrorFirmer

LCD, massive space savings, looks tidier, and to be honest is close enough in performance to give preference to one in my opinion.

I would use a crt of a larger size if I had room for it though, given how cheap they are nowadays second hand though compared to buying a 19 or 21" lcd.

mathias

Judging by sales figures and the amount of CRT's stocked by major sellers ( eg komplett stocks one model of each size !! ) this would seem like a moot point.
CRT is a dying technology regardless.

Laptop sales are the biggest in terms of computers ( even gaming laptops are on a par with desktop sales at the moment )

In Intel FAB 24 there is not a CRT to be found , these can only be found in the office space , and the standard eye test given each year is appliable only if you use a CRT.

CRT's are a known ergonomic issue , this is because the screen is created by firing a high voltage electron gun at a phosphor screen , the danger being that some of this electromagnetic radiation hits you directly in the eyes no matter how good the CRT is and this will eventually affect your eyesight ( "it'll ruin your eyes" is not just a wives tale ) . That and the flicker can give people headaches.
This is not a problem with LCD , so for me ( who has to work in front of a computer screen all day ) that is the number one reason for using an LCD.
http://www.ladybugelectronics.com/ergo.html

In terms of quality , LCD's are so good these days that this is hardly an issue any more , my own Samsung screen has a 4ms refresh rate and is outstanding for photo work and games as far as Im concerned.

BadCharlie

Have the dell 21inch CRT and its great. Have used lots of LCD monitors and lots of other CRT's and my dell comes out best. The big drawback is that the weight must be 25kg or more. It takes up a lot of space as the back of the monitor is huge, Cant bring it to lans and it uses 100watt. This is why i will prob end up buying in the next year a LCD 21inch or bigger.

astrofool

I used to be a resolution person, using large CRT's, mostly because the first LCD's were awful, about two years ago I was building a machine for someone, with an LCD, and decided to go for an LCD there and then, haven't looked back since, and am using a multi-mon setup. My next purchase will probably be a 24" LCD (up from 20"), which offers a higher res than most CRT anyway. Now i'd have been a serious gamer at the time, but using an LCD for a fast paced FPS was perfect. (the PC supporting all games at the native res was great as well )

People who still flagellate themselves with CRT's are closet S&M freaks

Stephen

Yeah, modern LCD's are the business. I only have a 17" 8ms one (2 years old now, soon time to upgrade I think ) but I really prefer it to the huge 19" Sony trinitron monitor I had before it. I just run everything in its native resolution and it all looks excellent.

I have a nice 19" dell one in work, very sharp etc, but I'm sure its got an awful response time. Given that its only used for work, that doesn't matter. I had an older Dell 15" one before it in work that was awful. Crap blurry image, 1024x768, dead pixels etc. I haven't seen dead pixels on a new LCD screen in a VERY long time.

Sparky

I have a 17" 4ms samsung and it's excellent. The CRTs will always have that slight better look with images, but LCDs are getting better.

LFCFan

I wouldn't dream of going back to CRT. My eyes were in bits because of the damn things. After a few days of using LCD's in work my eyes cleared up. Had to use a CRT again for a few months and my eyes were screwed again. Got rid of the CRT for a switch box and LCD and my eyes are fine again.

Sure, anytime you see a news piece and they are in an office or something with CRT's in the background you can see the screens flickering but never if there are LCD screens there. It's no wonder CRT's cause so much eye strain!

Khannie

LCD

LFCFan wrote:

Sure, anytime you see a news piece and they are in an office or something with CRT's in the background you can see the screens flickering but never if there are LCD screens there. It's no wonder CRT's cause so much eye strain!

The reason they flicker is that they're at a different frequency to the TV display signal.

The reason they cause so much eye strain is that people have them at 60Hz (ouch) which is the default. At 80+ Hz they're rock solid.

LFCFan

I had mine set to 85 Hertz and 100 Hertz and my eyes were still in bits. Guess I just have fcuked up eyes

DonkeyStyle \o/

anti wrote:

And bull**** can you see the difference over 40-50 fps. There is no difference at all. absolutly NONE.

Why would we make it up?

Cuddlesworth

LCD

I have a 19inch Viewsonic 2ms and a Crt that does 100hz at 1280*1024. I have used both extensivly for gaming. And I will never go back to the Lcd untill they improve the tech. As for people who have said that Lcd is better, what sort of crt were you using?

seraphimvc

i am missing the comparison diagram of LCD and CRT in my book now:o

cant really remember details that much...but i am sure the colour and pixels
of (most)LCD has no match to (most)CRT at all.A simple theory,you buy a 200euro LCD,a 100euro CRT may has the same visual effect for you(i still remember when the LCD first came out,a approximate 300 euro LCD quality = a 100+ euro CRT),it's about the tech trends nowdays;)

of course ,it look thin and cooler;) ,but your eyes may feel very after hours looking to it (especially in dim light) since the refresh rate of most the LCDs wont be more than CRTs.

but i wont say that there is no LCD is as good as a CRT out there.it’s just a matter of comparison(eg. a very good LCD compare to a **** CRT).Just as the theory that I said above,you always pay more for a LCD.

Since it is for gaming , since you may not like to hear some words from your know-nothing-about-tech relations say :”wah??that’s your new pc??”,I would recommend to get a good refresh rate + good quality LCD(which may cost you 20~50 euro than average price),and don’t look at it in dim light too long and take good care of your eyes.Of course ,if we are ‘rich ‘enough, who would care for CRT anymore??just get the best LCD in the market!!

leeroybrown

seraphimvc wrote:

of course ,it look thin and cooler;) ,but your eyes may feel very after hours looking to it (especially in dim light) since the refresh rate of most the LCDs wont be more than CRTs.

Rubbish! As has been pointed out on more than one occasion in this thread the refresh rate on an LCD has no effect on a persons eyes. Unlike a CRT where every pixel has to be refreshed each time, on an LCD it only governs how often a pixel can change if necessary. You don't get the same flicker on a LCD that causes tiredness or headaches with a CRT. The only thing about an LCD that is likely to tire your eyes is that they tend to be a lot brighter by default.

bazpaul

challengemaster wrote:

tbh i heard it off antonio_b , khannie

you know antonio banderas? Wow

andy1249

LCD is the future regardless , There is no pretty much no choice from most sellers as to what type of CRT you can get , all thats left is the rubbishy cheap ones anyway.

Current estimates are that there will be no one manufacturing CRT's by 2009 and sales figures pretty much back that up. I would go out on a limb and say that that will be even sooner.

By that time the only decent CRT's will be specialist items for artists and will cost double the price of an LCD , pretty much the same way vinyl record players are now. A decent one will cost a bomb.

I personally use an LCD now , have done for years , I stick with Samsung cos I never had a problem with em.
My first LCD was a cheap no brand one from argos though , and it sucked.
Its still a new technology and there is still a big difference between brands but a good LCD and a spyder calibration unit is good enough for photo work.

Im happy with it anyway.

Also ergonomically , there is no EMR from an LCD , which has to be a good thing.
I work in IBM , they test everyone that still uses a CRT for eye damage every year , and while they are a little slow about it , all CRT's are due to be replaced in the next year , for a number of reasons , mostly the ergonomic factor and the high power usage , ISO14001 and all that !!

Cuddlesworth

LCD

Since crts last a good 5 years at least, not a big worry for me since by 2009 I hope that Lcd's will be up to my standards.

As for companys and eye checks. Nearly every crt in the companys I have worked in have been both cheap and set up for 60hz. Every Crt user in my company now gets set to 75hz when I see them and a few have come back 2 or 3 weeks later and thanked me.

DublinEvents

For me, the native resolution problem with LCD’s is just unacceptable and I simply don’t see myself using an LCD unless that problem is solved somehow. I'm a poor gamer and I have conditioned myself to like 640x480 resolution for gaming. The jaggies and the ugliness simply does not bother me now. But I have seen how an LCD running at a non-native resolution looks like. I don't want that.

Capt'n Midnight

Space - if you put it in a corner at 45 degrees the LCD takes up nearly as much space as a CRT

Probably less radiation off an LCD panel.

For the same price CRT beats LCD of the same actual size

LCD come in two flavours, with and without a digital input. Only with the digital input at the correct resolution are you guaranteed to get the full benefit of the crisp resolution

Sam Vimes

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Space - if you put it in a corner at 45 degrees the LCD takes up nearly as much space as a CRT

then don't put it in the corner at 45 degrees. and that's not really true anyway. when i had a crt, in order to have any room on my desk i had to put the desk at 45 degrees to the wall as well as the monitor. 90% of the monitor was off the back of the desk resting against the wall so it wouldn't fall off. when i got an lcd i could put the desk back against the wall and the lcd took just about as much space in the corner as the crt did, except it didn't have a foot of cathode ray tube sticking out the back. definitely far less space used.


and you shouldn't put monitors in the corner of the desk anyway, unless you turn the desk so you're directly facing it. i had terrible headaches at the back of my head for months and i could never figure out what it was. thought it might be a tumour at one point. then i moved my monitor from the corner to directly in front of me and the headaches went away in a few days. it was just that i had my head turned to the left for hours at a time