Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CRT or Flat Panel for games?

Last response: in Systems
Share
May 27, 2006 3:02:05 AM

What is better, CRT or Flat Panel for games?

More about : crt flat panel games

May 27, 2006 3:22:47 AM

CRT....highly debated question.
a b B Homebuilt system
May 27, 2006 3:56:01 AM

CRT all the way.... I have lcd(Samsung 950b i must say i do like it. but went thru 2 others first...NEVER AGAIN SONY!!!).....but its cause i could not find a good crt(they all suck now)....but when i do.....well the lcd(Samsung 950b) will be my 2nd screen/tv :) 
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 27, 2006 3:56:28 AM

I went to the comp store the other day and the salesman was playing COD2 on a nice viewsonic 19" lcd .... I tried for myself and I would not trade my huge (but awesome!!!) 21" crt ... not yet anyways .... and that's my opinion :D 
May 27, 2006 4:04:25 AM

Depends on how much you're willing to spend. If you're spending more than $400, I'd go LCD.
May 27, 2006 4:42:06 AM

I've got two computers. One uses a Sony 21" CRT, the other uses a new Viewsonic 19" LCD that is supposedly for gamers. No question about it, the CRT is better. But its sure a big, heavy monster.
May 27, 2006 10:23:55 AM

Quote:
What is better, CRT or Flat Panel for games?


Here's another vote for CRT.
May 27, 2006 10:53:18 AM

CRT if you play games only little time 1-2 hours day.
TFT if you work playing games.

Latest LCD have good color and resp time. You can't see the difference bettwen a good LCD and a good CRT.

CRT are big, heavy, power hungry and damage eyes.
TFT have fixed resolution.
May 27, 2006 11:00:43 AM

I'm using a 19" LCD and I must say the CRT is still the best monitor for gaming for CRTs are more bang for the buck.
May 27, 2006 11:05:05 AM

If you're planning on moving the monitor at all, don't get a CRT because the good ones can weigh more than 100 pounds. If you're just going to leave the monitor on a desk, a CRT is okay. If you're going to be staring at the monitor all day, don't get a CRT.
May 27, 2006 11:10:27 AM

Quote:
What is better, CRT or Flat Panel for games?


CRTs, but buy an LCD.


Overall LCDs are a lot better!
May 27, 2006 11:29:50 AM

its also depends on the space u have available on the desk man !!

if get an lcd there are wall mount brackets to attach ur lcd to the wall

thats what i'm willing to do when i get my new rig

bracket 1
bracket 2
May 27, 2006 11:48:16 AM

Another vote for best performance on a CRT. Better "Update time" (vsync rate versus reaction time), better color reproduction (only when properly calibrated), better contrast, etc. I have 2 21" Trinitrons (a Dell and a SGI badged new-old-stock) and they are heavy as sin but great.

That being said, others have said that LCD's are better power-wise, for your eyes, and are approaching CRT's in terms of the areas listed above, so for many it makes sense to get an LCD.

Some promising technologies are just over the horizon that will have the benefits of both technologies like OLED and SED. Looks like the next few years might be very interesting in monitor technology...
May 27, 2006 12:03:32 PM

Yes indeed :-D



LCDs

PROs:


size
weight
power consumption
no dangerous radiation
less heat
geometrically perfect


CONs:

resolution
latency ( improving all the time - we're down to 8ms )
color reproduction
dead pixels
contrast
brightness




CRTs

PROs:


color reproduction
latency
brightness
contrast
resolution


CONs:


size
weight
dangerous radiation
eye fatigue
power consumption
heat dissipation
geometric imperfections
May 27, 2006 5:14:41 PM

Quote:
Depends on how much you're willing to spend. If you're spending more than $400, I'd go LCD.


I agree, LCD's can be alot easier to look at for extended periods of time, but to get one with enough juice for gaming, you have to shell out big bucks.

And another bonus for CRT's is screen size. I still don't think the larger LCD's have as good a response curve as the 19" yet.

If you do go shopping for LCD's though...don't let them scam you with the response time numbers. Most of them report only grey-to-grey numbers that don't reflect real world useage.
May 27, 2006 7:10:12 PM

Also be aware that there are basically two types of LCD monitors; 8-bit and 6-bit.

8-Bit LCDs offers true 16.7 million colors. Each primary color (red, green, blue) is represented by 8-bits which will provide 256 shades of that color (256 = 2^8). Since each color has 256 shades, 16.7 million colors can be produced (256^3). Colors are vibrant, tests are clear, and overall really good image quality for an LCD. The downside is that this are slower and the best grey-to-grey response time you will see is probably 12ms.

6-Bit LCDs do not offer true 16.7 million colors. Each primary color (red, green, blue) is represented by 6-bits which will provide 64 shades of that color (64 = 2^6). Since each color is only represented by 64 shades, these monitors can really on process 262,144 colors (64^3). Colors are upscaled to 16.2 or 16.7 million by interpolation. That means guess the missing colors. This means there could be errors in color reproductionm and artifacts may appear as well. Colors are flatter and images are not as clearly defined as in 8-bit LCDs. But these do provide a low response time. Some manufactures claims are as low as 2ms.

Don't always trust the response times listed, because there is no standard to test or judge them by.
May 27, 2006 9:08:54 PM

Quote:
Yes indeed :-D



LCDs

PROs:


size
weight
power consumption
no dangerous radiation
less heat
geometrically perfect


CONs:

resolution
latency ( improving all the time - we're down to 8ms )
color reproduction
dead pixels
contrast
brightness




CRTs

PROs:


color reproduction
latency
brightness
contrast
resolution


CONs:


size
weight
dangerous radiation
eye fatigue
power consumption
heat dissipation
geometric imperfections


dangerous radiation?
really?
May 27, 2006 9:57:33 PM

CRT FTW!
May 28, 2006 1:39:26 AM

Depends really, the advantages of CRT is that you can play games at any resolution and not suffer from that horrible pixelation you get with LCD's.
But when used at the native resolution LCDs are a much richer, crisper image in my opinion.
If you do decide to go LCD make sure you get one with a good response time (8ms or less) and as others have said make sure its not quoted as grey to grey.
May 28, 2006 1:48:40 AM

Quote:


dangerous radiation?
really?



They emit X-Rays.
May 28, 2006 2:10:24 AM

I also would agree that crt is the best for gaming.
I am not to sure about the high resolution sli configeration.
lcd may be prefered to some .
I have both and admit the crt gets the most attention
May 28, 2006 2:23:28 AM

CRTs gotta go.. no reason not to get a LCD by now if your getting a monitor. as long as you get 8ms and a good brand you shouldnt notice ghosting. and i play C&C scaled back at 1024x768 on my native 12x10 LCD and it looks fine
May 28, 2006 3:03:45 AM

CRTed up until Feb. of this year. Snagged this up Rosewill R912E, while not top of the line, it is a great product, the temp. in my room has dropped atleast 3 or 4 degrees from not having a CRT sitting in front of me, easy on the eyes. I like the fixed resolutions some complain about. As far as gamming quality... this was a big improvement for me. Go for LCD. I <3 CRT too though. Get one of each if you can.
May 28, 2006 3:39:57 AM

Quote:
CRTs gotta go.. no reason not to get a LCD by now if your getting a monitor. as long as you get 8ms and a good brand you shouldnt notice ghosting. and i play C&C scaled back at 1024x768 on my native 12x10 LCD and it looks fine



I agree :-D

LCDs are better overall so I would recommend an 8bpp LCD.
May 28, 2006 3:46:34 AM

A GOOD LCD.. not one of those crappy 200 dollar ones.

I wouldnt trade my philips 190s 19" for any CRT. Just make sure you run it in native resolution (1280x1024) so you don't get fuzzy letters and graphics.
May 28, 2006 3:54:09 AM

Quote:
A GOOD LCD.. not one of those crappy 200 dollar ones.

I wouldnt trade my philips 190s 19" for any CRT. Just make sure you run it in native resolution (1280x1024) so you don't get fuzzy letters and graphics.



I agree :-D

But even a crappy LCD has advantages over most CRTs.

Turning off scaling is a must.

:-D
May 28, 2006 4:09:31 AM

Quote:

latency ( improving all the time - we're down to 8ms )
Actually, here's a 4ms. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...


:-D

True, some MFG's claim as low as 2ms... however those are often just claims.

It's important to get the best 8bpp LCDs with the lowest true latency.

These LCDs have a claimed latency of 2ms:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...


I am not knowledgeable enough about these particular LCDs to be able to comment on the true latency, but I suspect it is gray-to-gray.
May 28, 2006 5:43:59 AM

Quote:

latency ( improving all the time - we're down to 8ms )
Actually, here's a 4ms. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...


:-D

True, some MFG's claim as low as 2ms... however those are often just claims.

It's important to get the best 8bpp LCDs with the lowest true latency.

These LCDs have a claimed latency of 2ms:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...



These are not 8-bit LCD monitors. They are 6-bit LCD monitors.

As I stated in my previous post, 8-bit LCD monitors typically are no faster than 12ms grey-to-grey. Viewsonic and Planar do have some 8-bit LCDs that can do 8ms in "turbo mode", but with a loss of some image quality.

6-bit monitors are typically faster than 8-bit LCDs and cheaper too because the color reproduction do not need to be as accruate. 6-bit monitors typically are listed as 16.2 million colors (interpolated; not real), but recently have been listed as 16.7 million colors to confuse buyers.
May 28, 2006 5:47:07 AM

Quote:


dangerous radiation?
really?



They emit X-Rays.

Yep its true. THat is why they use leaded glass in them. Even still i wont trade in my 21" CRT as i like them better then any lcd for gaming. Like what was also said there is no standered on responce time. Some use gray to gray which is only half a color change. Others have a black to black which is a full color change so take what it says with a grain of salt.
May 28, 2006 7:25:42 AM

LCD prices are dropping and have been. That "cheap" $200 LCD was a 300$ LCD a few months ago.
May 28, 2006 8:55:22 AM

Quote:
What is better, CRT or Flat Panel for games?


I will stublingly holding on to my trusty Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454 for a little while longer yet. Only this morning I was thinking about getting a LCD but its not like my CRT is giving me any grief. Its stable, sharp, runs at super high resolution that even the latest 19”/20” LCD can only dream about having, I don’t get any ghosting or blurry pictures its just prefect for games.

I brought the this monitor 3 years ago and at the time I made the decision that it was going to be the last CRT I would ever buy. LCD are now coming into maturity and a year from now LCD’s that can match CRT’s in games and videos should be affordable for all.
May 28, 2006 10:32:24 AM

Quote:
Yes indeed :-D



LCDs

PROs:


size
weight
power consumption
no dangerous radiation
less heat
geometrically perfect


CONs:

resolution
latency ( improving all the time - we're down to 8ms )
color reproduction
dead pixels
contrast
brightness




CRTs

PROs:


color reproduction
latency
brightness
contrast
resolution


CONs:


size
weight
dangerous radiation
eye fatigue
power consumption
heat dissipation
geometric imperfections


dangerous radiation?
really?

I dont think CRTs give out any ammount of radiation thats properly proven to be harmfull, its just one of those sales jargon crap things to help sell LCDs.. the only harmfull effects from CRTs are the unbearable headaches that result from trying to use one for any ammount of time
May 28, 2006 10:47:12 AM

Quote:
Yes indeed :-D



LCDs

PROs:


size
weight
power consumption
no dangerous radiation
less heat
geometrically perfect


CONs:

resolution
latency ( improving all the time - we're down to 8ms )
color reproduction
dead pixels
contrast
brightness




CRTs

PROs:


color reproduction
latency
brightness
contrast
resolution


CONs:


size
weight
dangerous radiation
eye fatigue
power consumption
heat dissipation
geometric imperfections


dangerous radiation?
really?

I dont think CRTs give out any ammount of radiation thats properly proven to be harmfull, its just one of those sales jargon crap things to help sell LCDs.. the only harmfull effects from CRTs are the unbearable headaches that result from trying to use one for any ammount of time

You would think if there was any real amount of harmful radiation, they would band the sale of them, or at least have lables on them.

Me personally, I have a CRT, and LCD screen, I prefer my CRT. My LCD is a 19” sony screen, it cost over $500, the CRT is a Samsung 19” costing $200. I like my CRT because it has a higher resolution of 1600*1200 vs. 1280*1024 and the refresh rate is higher 85hz vs. 60hz.
May 28, 2006 11:08:58 AM

Quote:

latency ( improving all the time - we're down to 8ms )
Actually, here's a 4ms. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...


:-D

True, some MFG's claim as low as 2ms... however those are often just claims.

It's important to get the best 8bpp LCDs with the lowest true latency.

These LCDs have a claimed latency of 2ms:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...



These are not 8-bit LCD monitors. They are 6-bit LCD monitors.

As I stated in my previous post, 8-bit LCD monitors typically are no faster than 12ms grey-to-grey. Viewsonic and Planar do have some 8-bit LCDs that can do 8ms in "turbo mode", but with a loss of some image quality.

6-bit monitors are typically faster than 8-bit LCDs and cheaper too because the color reproduction do not need to be as accruate. 6-bit monitors typically are listed as 16.2 million colors (interpolated; not real), but recently have been listed as 16.7 million colors to confuse buyers.


Indeed.

I strongly suspected they were 6bpp.

I believe the manufacturers should be required to disclose that.
May 28, 2006 11:16:14 AM

Quote:

I dont think CRTs give out any ammount of radiation thats properly proven to be harmfull, its just one of those sales jargon crap things to help sell LCDs.. the only harmfull effects from CRTs are the unbearable headaches that result from trying to use one for any ammount of time


Quote:

You would think if there was any real amount of harmful radiation, they would band the sale of them, or at least have lables on them.

Me personally, I have a CRT, and LCD screen, I prefer my CRT. My LCD is a 19” sony screen, it cost over $500, the CRT is a Samsung 19” costing $200. I like my CRT because it has a higher resolution of 1600*1200 vs. 1280*1024 and the refresh rate is higher 85hz vs. 60hz.



They emit X-rays and exposure to X-rays and other ionizing radiation is harmful.

That is a fact.

How much actual harm they cause is debatable.
May 28, 2006 11:31:02 AM

A DVI-I plug should contain cabling for both digital and analog signals, so it is a more versatile plug than the DVI-D, which transmits ditital signals only. A presence of a DVI-I connection doesn't automatically mean that an analog connection is used. The analog connection would be used only if either the graphics card or the monitor doesn't support digital standard. I' be surprised though if you can find at least any reasonably new graphics cards that don't support digital graphics. As far as LCD monitors, I don't know.
May 28, 2006 11:40:37 AM

I'd say SED, but they're not due out until Christmas or January 2007..

I would never buy a TFT if I had to get a new screen.
Fixed resolution, low contrast low brightness, black isn't black.

And I will never understand those who say TFT is >better> for the eyes, I've been seated by a few TFTs and they all made my eyes hurt..

A properly grounded CRT with a good shadow mask system beats anything in colour richness, and they don't bleed light at all.

When it comes to wattage they're not that far apart when they start getting
bigger..

I'm currently using two diamondtron monitors, one 21" and one 22"

I don't even want to know how much I would have to dish out for a system that can play all my games in 2048x1536, since a flatscreen 22" would be locked at that resolution..



Edit: and for the love of god, stop using 60hz on those CRTs and you will never have a headache again.

Absolute minimum 85hz, on a good monitor.
A low quality CRT might produce variable refresh rates though..
May 28, 2006 11:56:00 AM

Quote:
I'd say SED, but they're not due out until Christmas or January 2007..

I would never buy a TFT if I had to get a new screen.
Fixed resolution, low contrast low brightness, black isn't black.

And I will never understand those who say TFT is >better> for the eyes, I've been seated by a few TFTs and they all made my eyes hurt..

A properly grounded CRT with a good shadow mask system beats anything in colour richness, and they don't bleed light at all.

When it comes to wattage they're not that far apart when they start getting
bigger..

I'm currently using two diamondtron monitors, one 21" and one 22"

I don't even want to know how much I would have to dish out for a system that can play all my games in 2048x1536, since a flatscreen 22" would be locked at that resolution..



You can always run an LCD at a lower resolution with or without scaling.
May 28, 2006 11:59:35 AM

Quote:
I'd say SED, but they're not due out until Christmas or January 2007..

I would never buy a TFT if I had to get a new screen.
Fixed resolution, low contrast low brightness, black isn't black.

And I will never understand those who say TFT is >better> for the eyes, I've been seated by a few TFTs and they all made my eyes hurt..

A properly grounded CRT with a good shadow mask system beats anything in colour richness, and they don't bleed light at all.

When it comes to wattage they're not that far apart when they start getting
bigger..

I'm currently using two diamondtron monitors, one 21" and one 22"

I don't even want to know how much I would have to dish out for a system that can play all my games in 2048x1536, since a flatscreen 22" would be locked at that resolution..



You can always run an LCD at a lower resolution with or without scaling.

Without scaling and I effectively get a 14" screen? ...
With scaling, massive blurring around edges of everything.. Yeah, right.
May 28, 2006 12:11:55 PM

A 24" LCD typically has a native resolution of 1920x1200 so switching to 1280x1024 or even 1024x768 would not shrink down to a 14" display.
May 28, 2006 12:17:31 PM

Quote:
A 24" LCD typically has a native resolution of 1920x1200 so switching to 1280x1024 or even 1024x768 would not shrink down to a 14" display.


No, but 1920 -> 1024 would give approx a 12" screen..
May 28, 2006 12:28:47 PM

1024x768 wouldn't be that great but 1280x1024 wouldn't be that bad.

Most games should run fine at 1280x1024.

I personally prefer running at a native res without scaling.
May 28, 2006 12:36:19 PM

Personally, go LCD. If you can afford 2 get a CRT for gaming and an LCD for everything else, sure, but then if you have to ask the question you probably can't :)  The biggest difference for me is the TFTs don't strain my eyes as much as the CRTs (which were at 85Hz or higher), and at the end of the day I don't really think any performance/quality aspect is anywhere near as important as the health of my eyes.

I've played games on 21" DiamondTron CRTs, 12ms 17" TFT and my current monitor, 19" 8ms TFT. The only differences I've noticed have been in favour of the TFTs.

The only real way of finding out is borrowing a monitor or two and using them on clone, side by side. The professionals telling you that monitor X is 50x better because it can do A, B and C is all very well, but not if you can't actually notice the difference. One man's "low" quality is another's "good" or "acceptable". If you're talking to someone and they say "Don't get X because it looks like Y", ask them to show you the problem. If they can't, it's quite possible they've never actually seen the problem in operation and are going by peer reviews, which may or may not be applicable.

Synergy6
May 28, 2006 12:59:47 PM

Quote:
Personally, go LCD. If you can afford 2 get a CRT for gaming and an LCD for everything else, sure, but then if you have to ask the question you probably can't :)  The biggest difference for me is the TFTs don't strain my eyes as much as the CRTs (which were at 85Hz or higher), and at the end of the day I don't really think any performance/quality aspect is anywhere near as important as the health of my eyes.

I've played games on 21" DiamondTron CRTs, 12ms 17" TFT and my current monitor, 19" 8ms TFT. The only differences I've noticed have been in favour of the TFTs.

The only real way of finding out is borrowing a monitor or two and using them on clone, side by side. The professionals telling you that monitor X is 50x better because it can do A, B and C is all very well, but not if you can't actually notice the difference. One man's "low" quality is another's "good" or "acceptable". If you're talking to someone and they say "Don't get X because it looks like Y", ask them to show you the problem. If they can't, it's quite possible they've never actually seen the problem in operation and are going by peer reviews, which may or may not be applicable.

Synergy6



Indeed :-D
May 28, 2006 2:12:32 PM

Quote:


dangerous radiation?
really?



They emit X-Rays.

Don't they also contain mercury, lead and baruim?
May 28, 2006 2:28:32 PM

Quote:


dangerous radiation?
really?



They emit X-Rays.

Don't they also contain mercury, lead and baruim?


lead - absolutely!

mercury - possibly

barium - possibly

other hazmat - very likely


The glass contains lead in an attempt to protect against the x-rays emitted by the tube.

This is one of the reasons they are so heavy.
May 28, 2006 3:24:44 PM

Don't forget about good old phosphorous and cadmium.
Synergy6
May 28, 2006 11:16:11 PM

Quote:

I like my CRT because it has a higher resolution of 1600*1200 vs. 1280*1024 and the refresh rate is higher 85hz vs. 60hz.


the refresh rate on an LCD (60 Hz) doesnt mean anything like it does on a CRT.
May 29, 2006 2:28:11 AM

Quote:
Don't forget about good old phosphorous and cadmium.
Synergy6



Indeed, hazmat all around.

CRTs are bad for the environment and hazardous to our health that's all there is to it.
!