LCD or CRT

**Nikon** · June 19th, 2004, 02:32 PM

So I have read alot of reviews about LCD monitors and they seem pretty good. but they are sooo $$$$... But really, are CRT monitors better than LCD's? Is it just that people like that fact that they are smaller. I would rather go for the better quality than for saving space. I like the games, so i want a monitor that will be good for gaming, without the blur and things. Please give me your feed back, what I should look for, what monitors you recomend.. ect... Thanks

**confus-ed** · June 19th, 2004, 02:55 PM

So I think LCD quality in gaming terms has gone 'way up' & for many models motion blur etc is a thing of the past - the 'magic numbers' for this are 'Response Time & Contrast Ratio' at its 'normal' resolution - you want as small a number for response time as you can find (off the top of my head I think 12 m/s is currently as good as it gets, but 20 or less should be 'good') & for contrast ratio anything over 350:1 is 'good', 450:1 'excellent' ..

Model wise I'm particularly impressed with some of the flatron range by LG, but there's lots of manufacturers at it (& I've got to admit with that suggestion being swayed on 'style' rather than cost vs performance) & it really depends on how many $s you've got - as on just price vs performance, CRT is still hands down winner.

Still a 'luxury' for many folks methinks ..

**TripleRLtd** · June 19th, 2004, 03:04 PM

Agreed, and don't forget about default or "best" refresh rates for the two. And the fact that LCD's need to be viewed head on more or less. My setups allow for the larger CRT's anyway: so space is not an issue anyway, but price most certainly is.

**TechZ** · June 20th, 2004, 01:49 AM

Samsung, LG, VIEWSONIC, Sony all exceptional ranges of LCD's. Except for in GTA , amoing the many games I play, the LCD didnt let me down in any of them, Viewsonic are a bit pricier than their Korean friends but have a higher contrast ratio in many models

**Nikon** · June 20th, 2004, 08:30 PM

[QUOTE=confus-ed]as on just price vs performance, CRT is still hands down winner.QUOTE]

That is what I figured. seems like LCD's will catch up to CRT quality in due time. but in the mean time. I have th space, but not the money. I think that I will stick with a LCD. Im going to get a nice vid card and system, so i want a nice crisp picture. I do like LCD's. But just seem slike the CRT's still out due them... any recomendations on CRT monitors? or even a few LCD's I can look at.. probaly stick with a CRT though. my comp is going to cost enough.

**TripleRLtd** · June 20th, 2004, 09:10 PM

There was a monitor review done in the lounge within the last few week which may help. Too tired to do a search for it right now, but it shouldn't be hard ot find.
Any help out there?
Or search yourself. I think it was titled Monitors.
Good luck. CRT imho is the way to go for now.

EDIT:
yeah: here it is:
http://forums.windrivers.com/showthr...light=monitors

**WebHead** · June 20th, 2004, 10:29 PM

I've always loved CRT monitors for gaming, but I recently got an NEC MultiSync LCD1920NX monitor and it completely, full-on rocks! Sharper, cleaner display, no motion blur, more space on the desk, bigger screen. The list goes on. Normally a monitor like this goes for around $700-$900, so yeah it costs a lot more, but well worth it.

The ONLY thing I would question is how long will they last. They've only recently started gaining popularity and I don't think anyone has had one long enough to know exactly what their average lifespan would be. I'm assuming it's nothing to worry about, but I always see notebook screens go crappy after a few years. My CRT monitor lasted me almost 10 years I would say. Maybe 8.

Anyway, yeah. Flatscreen definately.

**WebHead** · June 20th, 2004, 10:31 PM

Also, here is a product ranking guide from Maximumpc.com.

**TripleRLtd** · June 20th, 2004, 10:44 PM

You see: that is helpful to me. I don't do games, so I wouldn't know, so hearing it from you guys helps!
Hey Wrbby: refresh rate doesn't matter anymore?

**WebHead** · June 20th, 2004, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

You see: that is helpful to me. I don't do games, so I wouldn't know, so hearing it from you guys helps!
Hey Wrbby: refresh rate doesn't matter anymore?

I,.. wha wha wha? I do so think refresh rate matters. Why wouldn't it? Without a refresh rate (and other things) we wouldn't see anything on the screen.

Oh,.. you should do games. They are fun. I am all about fun. I will only live once.

**TripleRLtd** · June 20th, 2004, 11:25 PM

Well, cosidering the recommended refresh rate for LCD's is like 60 Hz and CRT's is anywhere from 85 to 100+, that is why a non-gamer would apprecitiate a gamers advice! So: have LCD's come that far where refresh rate is compensated for in other ways, or, do LCD's "accept" refresh rates higher than they used to??
Simple quesion from one non-gamer to a true gamer...don't you think?

**WebHead** · June 20th, 2004, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

Well, cosidering the recommended refresh rate for LCD's is like 60 Hz and CRT's is anywhere from 85 to 100+, that is why a non-gamer would apprecitiate a gamers advice! So: have LCD's come that far where refresh rate is compensated for in other ways, or, do LCD's "accept" refresh rates higher than they used to??
Simple quesion from one non-gamer to a true gamer...don't you think?

Oh ok,.. gotcha. Well this is certainly a complicated topic that depends on the users needs, preferences, what the monitor can support, etc. Most people seem to have some type of 17" CRT which I personally usually set to 1024x768, 32 bit color and 72-85hz. Notebooks are usually content and can only be set to 60hz. However, my TFT is set to 72hz.

But to answer your question, and I am new to using an LCD screen myself so I don't know everything about it so please bare with me, but yes they do accept higher refresh rates.

Here's some specs on my monitor. Perhaps this might help put it in a little more perspective?

**WebHead** · June 20th, 2004, 11:42 PM

Oh wait a second,.. I think I understand what you might be asking. Are you saying that because an LCD has a lower refresh rate that the display performance might not be as good for gaming? If so, then I can definately not provide a solid answer to that as I am not an expert on this at all. But I can tell you that from my experience, I like the LCD over CRT. However, many gamers would probably tell you that they prefer the CRT. It's like AMD vs Intel.

There's another aspect to it to consider. When I used to do AutoCAD stuff, we used to use Aperture grill monitors as those are better for CAD work. My LCD (just like most monitors) is a dot pitch monitor. The games I play are indeed composed of mostly vector images. So because of that, it might make sense to go with an aperture grill. But see, again I still prefer dot pitch. Hopefully this sheds a little more light on it.

**TripleRLtd** · June 20th, 2004, 11:55 PM

Yeah: just a little. ;-)
So: what do all you other gamers say?
I am really interested, as I am sure, other folds are. Remember: we are not ALL big gamers!
So? What do ALL you gamers say about all this?

**Platypus** · June 21st, 2004, 12:09 AM

I'm no gamer, but it will depend on whether you like to run your games v-synced or not. V-sync should give smoother motion on games, as long as the monitor refresh rate is high enough not to slow the frame rate that the game can achieve on that system. As most LCDs still refresh 60-75Hz, I think most gamers would want to run without v-sync to avoid holding back the frame rate, and suffer some video image jarring or tearing as a consequence. So even though the pixel on-off time is down to 12ms as confus-ed mentioned, and this is viable on motion blur, I think hard-core gamers still like the higher frame rates with CRT monitors.

I've found my 19" Acer (25ms) all right for light gaming, but I mostly chose it for its 700:1 contrast ratio for general usability.