Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD vs CRT

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 10, 2006 9:45:33 PM

I think for desktop LCD is better.

which one is better for gaming - LCD or CRT?

More about : lcd crt

March 10, 2006 9:52:14 PM

I've had a 17in lcd for about 2 years and I love the performance that I get on it. I've had no ghosting or any other problems that other people are talking about. I love the picture. And to top it off I got it for like 300 dollars 2 years ago. I used to work at Circuit City so I got it on employee prices. Before my monitor I had a 19in lcd, which was smaller than the 17in lcd. You see they measure the screens differently for them. So yes, I'd go with an lcd if its in your budget.
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2006 10:26:18 PM

I still like a good CRT over an LCD for gaming, BUT would probably buy an LCD next time because of desk space, portability and possibly going wide screen like the 24" Dell. Not to mention the LCD's are down in price while good CRT's have not gone down. Main thing with an LCD is making sure your video card can easily handle playing your games at it's native resolution. If you are buying a 19" LCD with 1280x1024 native, and your video card is beastly enough to prettu much max out eye candy at that resolution...then the LCD will be very nice. If however you are running a GF6600, X700, or lower card, then you don't have the power to play the current titles and will have to already disable eye candy, lower in game details, and/or lower res out of your native setting. Paired with such video cards, I'd rather have a CRT for sure.

I have a 6800 Ultra, and prefer to play at 1280x1024. But in Fear & COD2 I have to lower the resolution, which on my 19" CRT isn't a problem. On an LCD I'd be even more disappointed in turning down the res.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 10, 2006 10:43:18 PM

Yeah CRT compare to LCD are a lot better when it comes to price and performance. LCD is smaller and more portable, which I think cost it the most. Does the saying size matters is true! or not! :?
March 10, 2006 10:52:37 PM

CRT has been dead for years.
Some advantages of CRT are: cheaper and better contrast ratio. Some professional graphics artists feel CRTs have better color representation.

I personally feel advantages of modern LCDs far outweigh the advantages of CRT.
If you go LCD, get widescreen and at LEAST 1280x800 res. At least 500:1 contrast ratio, and at least 19". Responce time is important to some people, but I never had a problem. Modern LCDs have much better viewing angle and responce time than a few years ago.
If you can not afford this type of LCD, then you will get more performance from a CRT.

If you don't care about performance, you can get a cheap/slim 15" LCD some places.
March 10, 2006 11:13:51 PM

I have a 19" viewsonic crt on a radeon x1300 pro. dvd playback is superb on this.
my compaq laptop 15" has built in intel graphics media accelerator 2. the same dvd does not look good at this. I have tried increasing brightness etc but still not good as the crt.
March 10, 2006 11:18:29 PM

means laptop screens are not lcd?
a b U Graphics card
March 11, 2006 12:05:26 AM

Quote:
CRT has been dead for years.


And LCDs will be dead soon too. Long live OLEDs! :tongue:

Quote:
Some advantages of CRT are: cheaper and better contrast ratio. Some professional graphics artists feel CRTs have better color representation.


It's not a question of feeling it can be quantitaively shown, why do you think LCD reviews have so many colour accuracy and uniformity tests, use a good calibrator and find out there isn't the same range period!

Another important advanatage for gaming is the ability to scale. Scan lines can show clear 640x480 and x1920x1440, whereas an LCD will always be best at native and interpolate everything else, even though interpolation has gotten better it's still not there.

Quote:
Responce time is important to some people,


Especially gamers. Slow panels look terrible for fast moving FPS compared to an LCD, especially for things like jump straifing and 180 degree turns. Lots LCD screen wash/trails/ghosting for stuff like that.

Quote:
but I never had a problem. Modern LCDs have much better viewing angle and responce time than a few years ago.


Better but still fall well short of CRTs. Also most of that increase in response time is due to different measuring methods. Heck a '4ms' panel now would likely be classified as 16ms panel then, still faster than the 20-25ms of that era. In fact it was around the time of the 'new' 16ms LCDs that the measurement changed, and 25ms panels were being rebranded as 16ms because they could do grey to black/white to grey in 16ms whereas before it was white to black to white in 25ms. They are better, but they're far from ideal for gaming.

Quote:
If you don't care about performance, you can get a cheap/slim 15" LCD some places.


For gaming, you won't like those panels.
March 11, 2006 4:59:06 AM

Absolutely CRT is better! BUT TOO BIG
March 11, 2006 5:37:15 AM

I have to say CRT's are better especially for workstation use because of the
higer resolutions. I have to agree they are huge.
March 11, 2006 5:44:19 AM

Quote:
I have to say CRT's are better especially for workstation use because of the
higer resolutions. I have to agree they are huge.


CRTs are also better because they give you more eyestrain headaches and keep you warm in the winter. You can cook on the top of the cover. Seriously, how many people died last year alone because they had to live at LCD of 1280x768 rather than CRT of 1600x1200?
Nurse: "I'm losing him......"
Doctor: "Give him 1600x1200 STAT!!"
Try bragging about about taking one of them puppies to a LAN party. So what if a CRT is bigger than your car? You can brag that real men break their backs lugging CRTs to LAN parties.

Of course, here in AZ the CRT heat is not appreciated.
March 11, 2006 7:14:28 AM

CRTs are cheaper and last longer. LCD's consume less power and take up less room.

Which options are most important to you?
March 11, 2006 8:13:06 AM

I've used both LCDs and CRTs before, and at the moment I still prefer using my old trustworthy Iiyama vision master pro 454 19". If not for the no ghosting problem for my gaming, I'd still use it just for the 1600X1200 resolution.

I've been tempted by LCDs recently cos I'm lacking actual desktop space, but it'd take a very very good LCD panel to sway me away from my lovely iiyama :D 
March 11, 2006 11:46:57 AM

CRT is probably better for gaming, but a decent LCD is not far off, i just made the jump from CRT to LCD, been putting it off for months, i got the ViewSonic VX924 3ms, Toms gave it a mixed review, and the 3ms isnt probably accurate but ive been very happy with it, it looks decent, well made, and picture quality is good too, problem with LCD is u need a decent graphics card, because to get the best quality u need to run it on a native resolution, 1280x1024 in my case, which ofcourse requires slightly more graphics oomph, but i got a 7800gt and that handles things fine
a b U Graphics card
March 11, 2006 2:38:23 PM

Quote:

CRTs are also better because they give you more eyestrain headaches


Those people need to learn how to setup a CRT and know the limitations.

I work with both every day, I like them both for diffeent reasons, and I've never suffered from headaches or eyestrain because I know how to setup my monitors/computers.

Seriously, wanna talk about eyestrain try watching an LCD that's interpolating something OMFG, now THAT makes me googley-eyed!

Quote:
You can brag that real men break their backs lugging CRTs to LAN parties.


Here's an idea: do more excercise and less lan parties, the you wouldn't be so weak.

It's quite simple, gaming = CRT, text = LCD, photos/video = CRT. The thing is most people just use their PCs for text, but if you're specializing in gaming, nothing beats a CRT unless you're silly enough to worry about lugging it around, and then a laptop wins anyways, so there's only LCD.
March 11, 2006 5:17:41 PM

Quote:

Those people need to learn how to setup a CRT and know the limitations.

Seriously, wanna talk about eyestrain try watching an LCD that's interpolating something OMFG, now THAT makes me googley-eyed!

Here's an idea: do more excercise and less lan parties, the you wouldn't be so weak.

It's quite simple, gaming = CRT, text = LCD, photos/video = CRT. The thing is most people just use their PCs for text, but if you're specializing in gaming, nothing beats a CRT unless you're silly enough to worry about lugging it around, and then a laptop wins anyways, so there's only LCD.


These people need to learn how to set up an LCD and know its limitations. If you were so smart you could turn the interpolating off. If I were so smart, I could set up my CRT properly?? Are you talking about the display frequency?

Here's an idea: learn how to type; "the you" makes no sense! But I'll get on that exercise thing. Of all the LAN parties, I've NEVER heard someone brag about how nice their CRT was. So while you make some compelling arguments, there is a reason why LCDs are gaining ground fast. Why do you think companies like Dell advertise new computers and mention that you now get an LCD monitor? Because nobody really likes CRTs, otherwise that would be a selling point.

If you are good at gaming, an LCD wouldn't make a difference. For videos, LCDs were bad for that......about 10 years ago! I have had LCDs now for several years, and have NEVER had a video ghosting or any other problem that made me wish for a CRT. With the new LCDs, the human eye really can't distinguish between the current latency times, so 12ms to 8ms really is a moot point.
March 11, 2006 6:40:56 PM

I switched from a 19 inch View Sonic monitor to a Samsung 17 LCD screen and I am happy that I did. I like my new screen alot better and I do all the same stuff that I did on the old one. I am a big time gamer running games like UT2004, Deus Ex (one of my favorites), and Half Life 2. I don't have a problem with ghosting on it at all when I play games or watch my DVDs on it.

HOWEVER, I do have one problem with LCDs, lit or dark pixels. I have a lit pixel on my screen, but I was lucky that it is in a corner and it is lit to green. It still mixes with the other colors, but always looks a shade off, but it is only one pixel so I never notice it at all. I have seen screens that had one lit to red and it was in the middle of the screen, and that was very annoying.

I would not want my old 19 inch back, I like this screen too much, just my 2 cents worth.
March 11, 2006 7:20:03 PM

Dude :)  you hit the nail squarely on the head! Interpolation of screen resolution is the single biggest "problem" with LCD tech ... I use a number of different resolutions depending on what it is I'm working-playing with ... I can't abide the LCD interpolation 'cause I too get googley-eyed :roll:
March 11, 2006 7:56:38 PM

I admit I am no expert with displays, but I have been using a range of lcds and crts for the past few years. I have a few thoughts.

Lcds are quite a bit sharper than crts and look significantly better for text. I cant enunciate exactly what makes a crts colors better, but they just have a more earthy look to them, usually only apparent when watching movies or playing games. Lcd look more zappy and cartoonish.
Lcds also have no geometry issues, while I am always having to calibrate my crt when i change resolutions. Lcds appear to look pretty good no matter what the brightness or contrast/gamma and whatnot settings though a crt looks like crap when the settings are even a little away from what they should be (all guess and check)
Im not sure what interpolation is, but i must admit lcds do look very poor when under the maximum resolution. I made sure to get the 1440x900 display for my inspiron 9300 instead of the 1920xsomeone even though prices was not an issue.

Even viewing my friends vp191b, i still prefer my 22" viewsonic p225fb-5 crt, several years old
oh, and i hate shadowmasks
im always seeings these weird patterns on the screen and the text just doesnt look right
and on my 9300 lcd i notice these blotchy, reflective patterns on solid colors
and all lcds look as though they have less variety of colors in the extreme blacks and whites, worse on cheaper lcds, making games like doom3 and fear look pretty bad
crts also have brighter objects creating moving trails on very black backgrounds which can be annoying
both these problems might be improved with hdr rendering?
March 11, 2006 11:31:06 PM

I have a 15" crt but actually only 14" visable. I still like it better than most lcd's for many reasons. First, i'm not a... careful person and smack the thing a lot when i move around it, and since its a hard surface, it doens't destroy it. Second, there arn't any of the performance issues like on lcd with response time and stuff. Third, looking at this monitor, any icon, pic, anything, it has smooth edges, while on every lcd i've seen, even lcd tv's they have jagged edges if you look close. Fourth, i have a fairly desk, which i'm pretty sure is large enough for the new 19" viewsonic e90fb crt i'mgetting with my new system. Finally, the huge part doesn't bother me, since i only see the front, and even moving it, it takes up along with the rest of the system less than half the car, i know since i just moved. Plus a new high end 19"crt is 250cad, so thats damn good compared to most lower end 19"lcds for 350cad. Overall, unless space is a REAL issue, then get crt, and don't worry about eyestain, since i've been on this all day today about 11 hours and i'm still seeing straight, and theres no burning which i think is a good sign.
March 12, 2006 2:30:32 AM

for gaming, its crt since it has a better response time than lcd's... the only con i see from crt's is its bulky compare to slim and elegant lcd's
March 12, 2006 2:53:40 AM

Quote:
Well, I'm not sure, but I think they're hybrid LCD designed to be thin and use less power to keep the laptop battery life up. I think the basics are same.

Laptops use normal LCD screens.

Pros for CRTs:
More flexable with resolution (Can usually go higher, and never a scaling problem when going lower).
Cheaper initialy.
Quality is generaly good even on lower end models. (More mature technology.)
Never any ghosting.

Cons for CRTs:
Pixels can blend togeather a bit for a less sharp image.
Produces more heat and uses more power than an LCD.
Tube Size is not always the actual usable screen size (17" means 16.1" usable usually for example)
If not a flat screen, can cause eye strain.

Pros for LCD:
Lower power consumption, and gives off less heat.
Very sharp picture.
Screen size is exactly as advertized (17" means 17")
Less space on the desktop.
With DFI input, all digital.
Flat Screen easier on the eyes.

Cons for LCDs:
More expensive than CRTs.
Need to check contrast, brightness, and latency specs.
Potential for ghosting
Dead pixels can be annoying.
Potential issues with using lower than optimal Resolution.

now, LCDs have gotten much better. I love my Hyundai L90D+, and have no complaints about it, even if I run at a lower resolution. A 19" LCD has a better profile than a 17" CRT, uses less power, generates less heat, and looks a lot better in my opinion. I'd go LCD.
March 12, 2006 3:28:10 AM

Quote:
2 questions:

1. Why do some games support my native of 1280x1024, but some (like FEAR) only go up to 1280x960?

2. The human eye sees images at about 60fps. What millisecond response time would be able to display at 60fps?


I believe its your graphics card that is limiting 1280x960. I swear I've seen FEAR benchmarks on THG done @ 1600x1200
a b U Graphics card
March 12, 2006 3:31:37 AM

You need to add a con for LCD's. You left out the Interpolating when not in native resolution. Any advantage an LCD has for text only happens when run in native res. And for gaming, well rule out most midrange and lower cards for having the power to run the newest titles at a 19" or larger LCD's native res.
March 12, 2006 3:39:28 AM

agreed
March 12, 2006 3:41:30 AM

yeah same thing happened to me, ive got a 7800gt aswell, and fear is the same, not sure about command and conquer, will have to check it out next time i play
a b U Graphics card
March 12, 2006 3:57:12 AM

Quote:
Why do you think companies like Dell advertise new computers and mention that you now get an LCD monitor? Because nobody really likes CRTs, otherwise that would be a selling point.


This cracked me up for two reasons. First, we are discussing LCD vs. CRT for gaming, and you bring up Dell. ROFL. Dell's first top of the line gaming XPS systems were advertised for ultimate gaming and had a GF FX5200 in them. :lol: 

Second, is the typical uneducated consumer who buys a computer for looks. LCD's sure are a selling point. I have 3 new CRT's in stock because everyone who wants a build also wants an LCD now. And Dell's LCD loaded ads, paired with their name and seemingly cheap prices...WORK. But Dell will sell you a crappy, bloated, un-upgradeable piece of junk with an analog LCD for a cheap price, and people jump on them only to find out the shortfalls later. All they know is Dell, black, and LCD... it must be new and good. Not to mention all there bundled LCD's and free upgrades are Analog only, and often they charge big bucks for one with DVI inputs.

It's late so I'll ramble. Funny story that goes in line with this is I had a customer buy one of my used beige spare LAN gaming systems. When he picked it up, he saw a few more systems set up near his. He pointed to a one and said "someday I want one of those fast black ones like that". I informed him that while it's brand new and black, everything in his system is far superior to that black internet surfing celeron. But if he wanted to spend $100 more, he could have the new,black,slower one. I still chuckle picturing him point and in awe say fast black ones like that. :p 
March 12, 2006 5:09:25 AM

It can be funny what looks and a name can do. About 2 or so years ago I seen a 200 MHz computer sell for $350 at an auction just because it had gateway on the front. People kept bidding on it, but it was not worth that much money for a used computer running at 200 MHz. I had to laugh.
March 12, 2006 6:21:05 AM

When we really think about it, it comes down to what you’re doing with the monitor. For gaming video editing, photo editing and the like, I would go with a crt. Most of your professional editing systems use crts because they are easier to calibrate using a spyder and can provide a closer match in color. The other main feature in lcd tech. when a graphic is changing, its only the moving graphic, the background and surrounding parts don't change. Very apparent on LCD televisions.

In a business application, lcds are a better choice mainly because of text. But you won't find an lcd that's been around for ten years without a few dead pixels in it. CRTs just don't have that problem. With lcds dead pixels are the name of the game. Most companies still say that a dead pixel right out of the box is still acceptable. In fact you can have up to five dead pixels in different areas of the screen and some companies still won't take them back.

My money, for gaming and editing anyway, is on CRT. Just more reliable
March 12, 2006 7:31:22 AM

i'm kind of a new generation LCD fanboy. after reading all of this and some other stuff i mite actually buy an good old technology CRT for my next monitor, mainly cos its cheaper and will apparently last a lot longer. however for any web surfing @ 1280x1024 i'll prolly get an lcd as well 8)
March 12, 2006 8:11:20 AM

Quote:
You need to add a con for LCD's. You left out the Interpolating when not in native resolution. Any advantage an LCD has for text only happens when run in native res. And for gaming, well rule out most midrange and lower cards for having the power to run the newest titles at a 19" or larger LCD's native res.

Added. I listed resolution changes in CRT, but not the con for LCDs.

Hope that list helps :) 

On a side note, I had my 19" Dell Trinitron (Was a Sony, so very nice) for almost 10 years before it finaly started having problems (Being a bit too blury, and finaly the image begain to shake randomly). Now, while I can't speak much to the longevity of my LCD panel, I've used other LCD panels that have been around for 2 years with little problem. I fully expect my LCD to last at least 3 years, and probably closer to 5. A good CRT can last longer, but it will go eventualy, and at about 5 years, it won't be as good as the day you bought it as far as sharpness is concerned.

CRTs are nice, and work fine for many people. LCDs work well too, and have matured quite nicely in the past 3 years or so. There are some applications that some are better suited for (LCDs work better in multi-monitor setups due to the thin boarders and smaller profile for example). Ultimately, it's a personal choise, and what works best for you may not work well for someone else.
a b U Graphics card
March 12, 2006 9:24:04 AM

Quote:

These people need to learn how to set up an LCD and know its limitations. If you were so smart you could turn the interpolating off.


Whether interpolation is 'on' or not you can't fill a 1280x1024 display with a 1024x768 resolution without interpolation, whether done by your monitor or the card, it's just a limitation of the defined square pixels on an LCD.

Quote:
If I were so smart, I could set up my CRT properly?? Are you talking about the display frequency?


Frequency, colour temp, brightness, contrast, etc.

Quote:
Here's an idea: learn how to type; "the you" makes no sense!


Oh the typo threw you, whopee. Yeah, I guess filling in the blanks for you is something people are going to have to get used to.

Quote:
But I'll get on that exercise thing. Of all the LAN parties, I've NEVER heard someone brag about how nice their CRT was.


And that would matter how? Because people go to LANs doesn't mean they're any good or even good judges of quality hardware. If you argument for which is better is based on portability it simply shows how weak the rest of the features are by comparison.

Quote:
So while you make some compelling arguments, there is a reason why LCDs are gaining ground fast.


Gaining ground means even you don't find them to be equal.

Quote:
Why do you think companies like Dell advertise new computers and mention that you now get an LCD monitor? Because nobody really likes CRTs, otherwise that would be a selling point.


No the reason companies like DELL sell computers with LCDs is that most people use them for text. Also no hardcore gamers buy their desktops from DELL, so I wouldn't use that as a 'pro'.

Quote:
If you are good at gaming, an LCD wouldn't make a difference. For videos, LCDs were bad for that......about 10 years ago!


And they still haven't equalled CRTs after 10years.

Quote:
I have had LCDs now for several years, and have NEVER had a video ghosting or any other problem that made me wish for a CRT.


So, and many people haven't seen the need to move beyond integrated graphics. Probably that you ONLY work on an LCD just ensures you won't know what you're missing.

Quote:
With the new LCDs, the human eye really can't distinguish between the current latency times, so 12ms to 8ms really is a moot point.


You don't know WTF you're talking about. First, the human eye can distinguish between far faster differences, and so can the visual cortex/brain. Next the 12ms and 8ms panels are far from that fast with black to white to black transitions. Look at any of THG's reviews to see the true latency of those panels, even the 4ms panels don't fair so well. Perhaps you should do a little more research, instead of just commenting on your very limited experience.
a b U Graphics card
March 12, 2006 9:53:19 AM

Quote:
2 questions:

1. Why do some games support my native of 1280x1024, but some (like FEAR) only go up to 1280x960?


4:3 is 1280x960, so it's the prefer resolution for a square CRT to not distort the image.

Quote:
2. The human eye sees images at about 60fps. What millisecond response time would be able to display at 60fps?


The human eye is far more sensitive than that. The question is perception of the brain, and that depeneds on many things, contrast, motion blur, angularity, convergent/divergent motion, and similarity of images.

So if a card can do a better job of simulating motion blur you perceive more fluid motion at low rates, but if you have some of the features above which appear alot in things like jump-fragging then the task is harder and the threshold is raised even higher.

As for 60fps and what that equal in milliseconds, that would be about 16.7ms (1000/60).

Quote:
Oh yea, how big can they make real LCDs (not projection)? Last time i remember it was 42".


They just showed off a 100+ inch one (3+ megapixel) last week.
a b U Graphics card
March 12, 2006 10:15:22 AM

To add to list;

Pros for CRTs:
Higher colour range/depth
Higher contast.
Truer blacks and whites.

Cons for CRTs:
Need to warm up for best/true picture quality (5-30mins)
Can have a visible app gril (especially trinitrons)l
Can have sympathetic flicker (can be adjusted though).
Greatly affected by emf

Pros for LCD:
Ease of set-up.
DVI quality is pretty solid, less chance of interference.

Cons for LCDs:
Poor white and black levels.
Poor contrast ratio.
Visible pixel lines, especially on large panels with low res.
Fragile (adjusting the bezel can put pressure on them).

Now these are things to consider, but despite all the pro/cons. I still say neither does everything well, but I can and do work on both. Working on both though I notice the limitations, especially when doing a quick photoshop job on my laptop, then looking at it on the CRT, what looked ok before I suddenly notice the areas that need work. But I prefer reading lotsa text on LCDs, prefect for surfing.
a b U Graphics card
March 12, 2006 1:26:53 PM

Yep, your list along with Grapes additions, make up a very useful list. It's good for people to know the limitations of both as far too often people just 1) believe newer is better and 2) take peoples happiness with their own monitor to be fact and not preference. I won't talk anyone out of an LCD, but I will point out where both excel and struggle and let them decide. Lately most people I deal with seem to still just want the LCD because it looks cool and takes up little space.
March 12, 2006 1:41:50 PM

CRTs will always be better than LCDs for anything. They can more accurately reproduce colors, the picture is uniform across the screen, and look good at any resolution. The downside is its bigger, heavier, and uses more power.

The best LCDs out there are around the same quality of a CRT now. But they're expensive. A good LCD monitor like a Samsung will satisfy almost anyone though. And as long as you get a quality monitor whose response times are below 12ms (actual not some number the manufacturer spouts to sell them), then you won't have any problem in games or watching DVDs.

I have an 8ms Samsung 915N and love it. The colors are good and no ghosting whatsoever. No dead pixels either after 2 years. So as long as you buy quality products and don't get the cheapest piece of crap out there (as most Americans do, I'm American btw), then you'll be fine. You get what you pay for though.

Theres also the aspect of your vision to think about. With a CRT, the image is set behind the screen. With an LCD, its like reading a piece of paper. My eyes have actually improved since I started using an LCD because I'm on the computer all the time (my line of work calls for it).
March 12, 2006 7:16:40 PM

Quote:
CRTs will always be better than LCDs for anything. They can more accurately reproduce colors, the picture is uniform across the screen, and look good at any resolution. The downside is its bigger, heavier, and uses more power.
Actualy a well adjusted LCD does colors just fine, it's just that few people bother to adjust them properly. And a low end CRT will have an identical problem.

Blacks and Whites are more an issue with LCDs, and the newer ones are getting better with this, but due to the nature of LCDs, blacks will likely always be an issue (A black is blocking the backlight instead of being the absense of light, hense the issue).

I'll filter through that other pro/con list and add it to mine later. I disagree about Pixel lines being an LCD only thing, but that's personal preference. Not sure why I confused DFI and DVI input :oops: 
March 12, 2006 8:16:19 PM

LCD monitors are an excelent choice. I have an Samsung SyncMaster 730bf and as soon as i started using it i changed my point of view about CRT.
And, in my opinion, the images look better at a n LCD monitor 8)
March 13, 2006 1:58:25 AM

CRTs offer better performance than LCD, however, LCD consume less power and space (which is why I have one). I personally love my Hyundai L90D+, no ghosting whatsoever, and 700:1 contrast.
a b U Graphics card
March 13, 2006 1:31:58 PM

"Those people need to learn how to setup a CRT and know the limitations.
"

In all fairness, adjusting the 'ole refresh rate from 60 Hz to 85 Hz is not for the technically timid!!!! :-)
March 13, 2006 1:54:41 PM

Quote:
2 questions:

1. Why do some games support my native of 1280x1024, but some (like FEAR) only go up to 1280x960?

2. The human eye sees images at about 60fps. What millisecond response time would be able to display at 60fps?


I believe its your graphics card that is limiting 1280x960. I swear I've seen FEAR benchmarks on THG done @ 1600x1200

I didn't see this added anywhere, but FEAR has a setting.cfg file where you can change the resolution.
March 13, 2006 7:21:16 PM

CRT are the better one's... they say, a friend of mine bought an 17" lcd screen, it looks beautiful even on 1024*768 8O
But they are expensive.

If I had to chose i'd buy an CRT screen for the moment, burn it up and buy a LCD when they dont cost that much anymore for the performance they deliver.

I've seen there are some "flat" CRT screens, not as flat as a LCD but they save allot of space :wink: (the one i have seen was 17")
March 16, 2006 11:48:01 PM

Quote:
So, and many people haven't seen the need to move beyond integrated graphics.


'Tis true. :oops:  I'm a huge fan of integrated graphics. I've never actually purchased a discrete graphics card for any of my system builds (although, when I build my own system I do always make sure the mobo has an up-to-date discrete graphics card upgrade path). Right now I'm on a Dell Optiplex GX100 using an Intel i810 igp . Works okay for me. I know its limitations. :wink: Hey, it was free.

I currently am using a 14" LCD I bought from Walmart a couple months ago for the paltry sum of $125. Sure it's cheap in more ways than one, and the color quality pales in comparison to 15" Samsung lcd on my wife's Dell, but it takes up a lot less space, and only uses a quarter of the power of my 17" crt. I do miss the color quality and size of the crt's screen, but this lcd looks a lot nicer.
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2006 12:52:50 AM

Quote:
I've never actually purchased a discrete graphics card for any of my system builds
Ugh, what are you doing on this forum? Go away! :tongue:

















Just Kidding. :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2006 7:06:17 PM

Quote:

'Tis true. :oops:  I'm a huge fan of integrated graphics. I've never actually purchased a discrete graphics card for any of my system builds (although, when I build my own system I do always make sure the mobo has an up-to-date discrete graphics card upgrade path). Right now I'm on a Dell Optiplex GX100 using an Intel i810 igp . Works okay for me. I know its limitations. :wink: Hey, it was free.


Hey Free can't be beat unless you expect good gaming. And that's the thing, we're talking best case scenario for all these things, for many people the GMA900/950 is MORE than what they will even need. I'm a stickler for 2D quality when I need it, but for surfing and general stuff like text editing a NeoMagic would be fine, let alone the latest integrated options, which truely are finally getting better. For a 2D pro I'd always worry about EMI from using the noisy board, but for probably the majority of users out there integrated will be fine.

Of course like Pauldh say, you are a luddite/heretic and will not be easily tolerated without much grog. Thankfully I'm on alot of cold medecine right now so you're fine. :tongue:
March 17, 2006 10:34:26 PM

hey does anyone know of any 17" CRTs that do 1280x1024 @ 85Hz?
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2006 11:02:38 PM

Quote:
hey does anyone know of any 17" CRTs that do 1280x1024 @ 85Hz?

That's going to be hard to find now. There were some that 12x10 85hz was the recommended res. Not sure just how high quality the current ones are compared to a few years ago.

Samsung 700NF
http://www.samsung.com/Products/Monitor/DiscontinuedMod...

Viewsonic PF775 Supports 12x10 90hz
http://www.viewsonic.com/support/desktopdisplays/crtmon...

Pretty cheap just to grab a 19" as most will run 12x10 85hz.
March 19, 2006 11:04:04 PM

why they need 85 Hz. I have no prob with 60 Hz at 1024x768 on a 19".

Higher refresh rate will shorten monitors lifetime I think.
March 19, 2006 11:22:22 PM

60hz can be painful to ones eyes, had the same problem with crt at 60hz, on a plethora of monitors
March 19, 2006 11:30:36 PM

Quote:
60hz can be painful to ones eyes, had the same problem with crt at 60hz, on a plethora of monitors

I thought if theres no flickering then everything is fine. I didnt know that even if ur eyes dont notice a diff btn 60 Hz and 85 Hz, but still 60 Hz still causes pain.
!