Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD or CRT? Need some help Anyone feeling nice?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 8, 2006 1:24:20 PM

Hi guys,

I am pretty new to Toms, so bear with me if I seem a bit green on a few things.

I am designing a rig for after my honeymoon and now that the Nvidia 7950GX2 tech is out I am pretty stoked. I really wanted to try an SLI rig but wasnt overly excited to see most of the board crammed up with the 2 video cards making it nearly impossible to add other things in the future. Now that this is out I am pretty excited :)  I will probally wait till it comes down in price for a while mind you. I tend to buy the 2nd best or 3rd best video card when I build.

Now here is the delemia.

I have been looking at getting a flat panel. I really dont want to spend more than 500 bucks on it though. I had my eye on the Viewsonic VX922 but now I see it really doesnt have a super high resolution option. This new video card preforms BETTER at the higher reso.. and SLI almost requires me to have a really good resolution or its a waste right?

So am I doomed to not be able to have a flat panel? Should I go looking at the Graphics 20 inch model CRT for 499$ that they have on the viewsonic site? I dont like the bulk and weight of a CRT... but to use what tech I have my eye on.. would you say I am probally gonna have to grab a CRT?

Educate me :/ 
Ghost of War

More about : lcd crt feeling nice

June 8, 2006 1:42:50 PM

I like this screen it's cheap and has good specs for more i would go with this one not so sure with this one though heard good things about the viewsonic though I wan't to get it myself. :wink:
June 8, 2006 1:59:11 PM

But what resolution do they get.. thats the key
Related resources
June 8, 2006 2:11:22 PM

Do not go with that 20 inch Viewsonic, with 16ms black to black response time you could see ghosting and if your budget is $500 you can find something better...i personally just bought this BenQ 20.1 Widescreen for only $299 it was a steal, decent reponse time and imagine quality is awesome, BUT if you are willing to spend the money that samsung will be amazing....so take your pick
June 8, 2006 2:21:17 PM

Is the resolution one that SLI would use though? They have built in speakers too.. is that good or bad?
June 8, 2006 2:22:16 PM

lcd screens (ordinary ones) and games simply don`t match...
vx922 is 2 ms grey to grey (who knows how many black to white :D  )..1280x1024 (5/4) .... etc........its simply not good expecially for sli...

just grab a good crt screen...

i`m not going to give you the full story...why tft`s don`t work well with games..there are billions of forums and sites with that.........but i can only tell you this (cause i`m in a hurry).....lcd screens can only display one resolution ..that is the native one 1280x1024 (that`s the case for vx922 and most of the lcd screens).....other resolution (lower of-course) is simply not worthy to watch ... the screen is forced to make an interpolation and the image is very poor.......

crt screens are only limited by the maximum video frequency...and they can display any resolution (incuding resolutions on different aspect ratio than 5/4...ex 1280x960)..also the image quality is natural for any resolutions.....the contrast is max...anything but the power consumption :D  ..... the max resolution is limited ..by te video frequency ....ex one can display 1600x1440 at 100Mhz....this will mean a max vertical scan rate and horizontal scan rate ...... the bigger the surface the higher the video frequency will have to be ..the higher the vertical scan rate...(refresh)...etc...and the story goes on and on.....

if i were to choose now i would go for vx722..it has the same resolution ...lower pitch...(which is better).....

i`ll be back.....
good luck.....

p.s.
lcd .....as screens with universal resolution...and universal app...are still science fiction....i hope i`m wrong....
June 8, 2006 2:26:40 PM

Get a nice widescreen LCD.
June 8, 2006 2:27:15 PM

Here this is a great monitor from Samsung with a 5ms respsonse time which is great for gaming and a max/reccomended resolution of 1600x1200,
Samsung 204B

It would be great for gaming and Im sure you will be happy with it.
June 8, 2006 2:39:28 PM

Quote:
Hi guys,

I am pretty new to Toms, so bear with me if I seem a bit green on a few things.

I am designing a rig for after my honeymoon and now that the Nvidia 7950GX2 tech is out I am pretty stoked. I really wanted to try an SLI rig but wasnt overly excited to see most of the board crammed up with the 2 video cards making it nearly impossible to add other things in the future. Now that this is out I am pretty excited :)  I will probally wait till it comes down in price for a while mind you. I tend to buy the 2nd best or 3rd best video card when I build.

Now here is the delemia.

I have been looking at getting a flat panel. I really dont want to spend more than 500 bucks on it though. I had my eye on the Viewsonic VX922 but now I see it really doesnt have a super high resolution option. This new video card preforms BETTER at the higher reso.. and SLI almost requires me to have a really good resolution or its a waste right?

So am I doomed to not be able to have a flat panel? Should I go looking at the Graphics 20 inch model CRT for 499$ that they have on the viewsonic site? I dont like the bulk and weight of a CRT... but to use what tech I have my eye on.. would you say I am probally gonna have to grab a CRT?

Educate me :/ 
Ghost of War


LCDs are a weird beast. The resolution goes up the bigger the monitor you buy. Of course the bigger the monitor you buy the more it costs you. If you go with a 24 inch widescreen LCD you will be pushing some higher resoultions . If you stick with a 19 or 20 inch LCD not so much.

SLI is really only good for high res gaming. If you buy a LCD in your price range you dont need the high res so you dont really need the SLI. Why buy SLI if you dont need it ?

Either go with the CRT and SLI or save yourself some money and just get a 7900gt now and save the rest of your budget for a DX10 card and new power supply when they come out late in 2006/early2007

Personally I have a 20inch widescreen LCD and I like it. It runs at 1680X1050 and I dont see any ghosting. Its not perfect and in some ways not as good as the 21 inch sony CRT I had but its smaller and lighter and widescreen is the way you should play games.
June 8, 2006 3:24:21 PM

I've got a VX924. Its a better quality monitor than the 922, but still has problems. With anything other than its native resolution, (1280 x 1024) it posts an annoying notice that you are not running in its native resolution and you need to change your settings to match it. It seems to run well enough on its own and is nice and clear, but is just annoying, as I said.

My other computer has a 21 inch Sony CRT and I like that monitor a lot better. I can change the resolution to whatever I want without hastles. The picture is good. Its only problem is that its a great big hulk of a thing.

If you want high resolution, relatively low price, and fewer hastles with resolution, get a CRT. If you desire low weight, minimum space requirement and don't care about the resolution, go LCD. And yes, unless you get a big LCD, there isn't any reason to go SLI or Crossfire.
June 8, 2006 3:46:26 PM

I agree with fainis, get a crt
June 8, 2006 3:55:03 PM

CRTs are yesterday LCDs are today...don't even consider getting a CRT, if you want a higher res and a bigger screen and have the money get a 21 inch widescreen lcd or a 24 inch lcd, the image will look much crisper and sice you will have a powerfull enough gfx card you can run full 1600x1200 resolution or more ...only 19 in are limited to 1290x1024...20.1 and 21 or 24 all run 1680x1050 for widescreen and 1600x1200 for normal, some run even higher than that...
June 8, 2006 4:17:29 PM

i have the opinion that you should go lcd only if you want to save energy or have a limited space. Other than that, i dont see any real advantage on lcd. CRTs have better image, better colors, better viewing angles, better response times. And are cheaper
June 8, 2006 4:36:36 PM

Quote:
i have the opinion that you should go lcd only if you want to save energy or have a limited space. Other than that, i dont see any real advantage on lcd. CRTs have better image, better colors, better viewing angles, better response times. And are cheaper


or want to go widescreen.. and after playing a lot of games on a HDTV with a 360.. widescreen is the wave of the future.. or it should be.
June 8, 2006 4:39:57 PM

I'd rather play on a 5:4 or 4:3 with accurate colors/brightness/contrast than on wide with not so good quality.

Quote:
and after playing a lot of games on a HDTV with a 360

...you keep playing on your 360 on a HDTV. No need for a lcd monitor

of course, these were my personal opinions :) 
June 8, 2006 4:48:44 PM

Quote:
I'd rather play on a 5:4 or 4:3 with accurate colors/brightness/contrast than on wide with not so good quality.

and after playing a lot of games on a HDTV with a 360

...you keep playing on your 360 on a HDTV. No need for a lcd monitor

of course, these were my personal opinions :) 

True but there are some PC only games that come out that I want to play so I like to have a gaming PC as well as a gaming console. I see the advantages to playing in widescreen on both systems.

I really believe that most people after spending some time playing on a widescreen will find the square box monitor/TV restrictive.
June 8, 2006 5:14:46 PM

Dont give into all the "LCDs are today" hype. Sure they are popular, but that doesnt mean they are the best. LCDs dont even come close to CRTs when it comes to image quality, resolution, and price. If you have the space on your desktop to fit a CRT, then go for it.

The only areas that LCDs have CRTs beat is when it comes to space (this can be a major selling point to get an LCD, it was for me anyways), anti glare, and that newer higher tech look, and lower energy costs.
June 8, 2006 6:24:12 PM

Quote:
Dont give into all the "LCDs are today" hype. Sure they are popular, but that doesnt mean they are the best. LCDs dont even come close to CRTs when it comes to image quality, resolution, and price. If you have the space on your desktop to fit a CRT, then go for it.

The only areas that LCDs have CRTs beat is when it comes to space (this can be a major selling point to get an LCD, it was for me anyways), anti glare, and that newer higher tech look, and lower energy costs.


They can also be mounted on walls, are no way near as heavy, don't destroy your eyes and dont explode if you spill water on them :cry: .
June 10, 2006 12:29:41 AM

Quote:
LCDs dont even come close to CRTs when it comes to image quality, resolution, and price.


Wrong. I'll concede on the point about resolution. With LCD's you're basically limited to the native resolution.
Price: The reason CRT's are cheap is because no manufacturer bothers to develop that technology anymore and they're selling refurbished models for next to nothing. They're crap and they're trying to get rid of them because they take up too much space in storage. The only good CRT's left are the high-end, workstation/photographer/graphic designer oriented stuff that's VERY expensive.
Image quality: LCD's are simply better. Perfect geometry, no flickering, crisp and bright images and with today's good quality models more than adequate colour fidelity and v. good viewing angles. Plus they're not so tiring on the eyes which is extremely important if you spend hours in front of the computer. NOTE: with a DVI connection - NOT analog
June 10, 2006 9:23:08 AM

i`m not saying that lcd`s are bad ....

you said ..no flickering..........lcd`s are known for their extremelly bothering effect called twinkling, just google for it and you`ll find out what it is.........not here to argue about vertical scan rate (same persons are soo lets say off the case, that they don`t even know how to modify it, don`t get me wrong my friend no harm intended :lol:  ......read above about video frequency..or simply google for it). the story is more complicated like the crt needs time to change (update) its picture and the lcd needs time to change it`s pixel. when the image it`s still (no change) the vertical scan rate for the lcd is zero.......when the pixel updates (there is a change in the image) ... there is a twinkling effect bothering for same app like movies..for example pva panels are known to have this effect more than tn panels....

the only thing i agree with you is the geometry....nobady said it the other way......

the other things.......colors, quality, angles, ..............pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssseeee you picked up the wrong forum my friend........
June 10, 2006 11:00:49 AM

Let's see.....CRTs are dinosaurs these days.The manufacturers produce very low quality crts these days......If you want perfect picture quality forget viewsonic,samsung,dell cause they are all crap and the viewing angles are disastrous.Have in mind that the lower the response time the worse the viewing angle is.In my opinion if you want the absolute image you get an eizo for 19 inches i recommend L778 if you want 21' go for the S2100.The image quality is stunning.........Of course the above recommendations are expensive but you get what you pay
June 10, 2006 3:45:23 PM

I'm experiencing a deja-vu with this conversation...

Ok, first of all a forum is about exchanging opinions, not about supporting one view dogmatically and refusing to hear the opposite. So, I DIDN'T pick up the wrong forum.
Also, bear in mind that I don't have any vested interests in the LCD business so if I disagree with you or some other people here it's because of the things I've read but MOSTLY because of the PERSONAL experience I've had with both CRT's and LCD's.
I agree that LCD technology is far from perfect. But it's getting better with every generation whereas CRT's are not. You could argue that CRT's are a mature technology and they don't need to get any better but from what I see they are actually getting WORSE (apart from the very expensive models). There are not many models produced today that can display 1024x768@100Hz. Anything under 85Hz is visibly flickering and therefore way below par AFAIC.
As far as twinkling goes, I personaly wouldn't call it extremely bothering because I've NEVER noticed it! Perhaps it's the monitors I've used (an EIZO, an Iiyama & an Apple 20") but when I have to look up the word "twinkling" because I have no idea what it means and what it looks like I for one am not bothered.
And again colours, yes, CRT's are usually better but (decent) LCD's have improved so much nowadays that only professionals will appreciate the difference.
Angles, yes, but IMO the same argument as above applies. There are models with 178o viewing angles. I don't see the problem...
And quality is such a broad term and covers all of the above that it becomes a completely subjective point.
June 10, 2006 3:46:56 PM

Geia xara! Den exw synantisei allon apo tin Athina edw pera :) 
June 10, 2006 4:28:16 PM

Quote:
just grab a good crt screen...
And break your back trying to pick it up. And when you drop it, all the lead, mercury, and other toxic crap will come out and poison you. Just get an LCD.
June 10, 2006 4:31:36 PM

I've got both an LCD and CRT, as long as you buy a good LCD with good response times, good contrast and high resolution you will actually find the picture quality to be better.

Oh, and the whole native resolution thing can be overcome if you buy a Digital input LCD. Rather than using interpolation in the windows control panel, use down sizing. For a 1600x1200 screen using an 800x640 image you'd only use the 800x640 pixels in the center of the screen. You shouldn't be bothered that you are using a smaller image as blowing looking at 800x640 on anything bigger than a 15 inch screen looks blocky.

LCDs aren't too expensive now and they offer good picture quality and at low power consumption. I wasn't keen on lcd originally but found that works great and I would go back to crt now.

http://www.kholonar.plus.com/computer/screens.jpg

This is a picture of my setup, sadly CRTs can't be given justice from photos because of the line scanning and also the window in my room is reflecting off the screen. However, what I am trying to show you is that the lcd image is great even though the camera added some pink to the lcd's picture. Just a shame I didn't buy a widescreen :(  .
a c 362 U Graphics card
June 11, 2006 12:45:05 AM

I have both CRT and LCD. If you are looking for the best quality for both games and watching video then get a CRT. You will may or may not see ghosting while gaming no matter what the LCD's response time is. That's because everyone's brain process what thier eyes can see a little different. Therefore, while I may see some ghosting on a 8ms LCD, you may not (assuming the same game).

For simply surfing the net, or doing work both are good. With the exception of graphics design. CRT is still superior in my opinion. If you are looking for a 20" or larger monitor and/or you have limited desk space, or you want wide screen, then get an LCD monitor. If deskspace isn't a problem even for a 20" or 21" CRT monitor. Then get the CRT.

Also LCDs with fast response time (less than 16ms) are usually 6-bit monitors. That means that color reproduction is not as good as an 8-bit LCD or a CRT. That means you can see artifacts and basically bad color blending. That will be less noticable in FPS games since you are concentrating on running around and shooting enemies. For watching movies and doing graphics design, it can be noticable.

8-bit LCDs can produce 16.7 million colors. 8 bits is use for different shades of Red, Green and Blue, which means there will be 256 shades for each color (2^8 = 256). Since each color has 256 shades that means there will be a total of 16.7 million possible colors (256^3 or 256x256x256).

6-bit LCDs can only produce 262,144 colors. 6 bits is used or each of the three colors, Red, Green, and Blue. That means there will only be 64 shades of each color (2^6 = 64). Therefore, there is only 262,144 actual colors (64^3 or 64x64x64). But many brands list these LCDs as being able to reproduce 16.2 million colors. How? It's done by interpolation or guessing what the missing colors are. Guessing can lead to the wrong shade of color being displayed and can lead to artifacts. But the good thing about 6-bit LCD is that the sacrifice color accuracy for speed. So any LCD listed as faster than 16ms are most likely 6-bit LCDs.

Sometimes brands try to fool the consumer, so instead of listing 16.2 million colors for 6-bit monitors, they list 16.7 million colors. Therefore most people are simply being misled because they don't know what to look for.

I only know of 2 brands that offers 8ms LCDs that are 8-bit LCD. They are Planar and Viewsonic. They use "turbo mode" or "performance mode" to lower the response time at the cost of some visual quality. So when gamimg you can use those modes and for watching video you can use regular mode.

Also 6-bit LCDs are cheaper than 8-bit LCDs because the fewer colors each pixel needs to reproduce, the cheaper it will cost to produce. That's why all of the cheap or inexpensive LCDs are 6-bit.
June 11, 2006 10:18:30 AM

Quote:

I only know of 2 brands that offers 8ms LCDs that are 8-bit LCD. They are Planar and Viewsonic. They use "turbo mode" or "performance mode" to lower the response time at the cost of some visual quality.



You forget eizo who produce 10-bit displays without sacrificing picture quality.Also eizo use overdrive circuit to achieve lower response time without sacrificing viewing angles as well.....
a c 362 U Graphics card
June 11, 2006 5:00:00 PM

Quote:

I only know of 2 brands that offers 8ms LCDs that are 8-bit LCD. They are Planar and Viewsonic. They use "turbo mode" or "performance mode" to lower the response time at the cost of some visual quality.



You forget eizo who produce 10-bit displays without sacrificing picture quality.Also eizo use overdrive circuit to achieve lower response time without sacrificing viewing angles as well.....

Actually Eizo's LCD monitors are not true 10-bit monitors.

From Eizo's website:

Quote:

10-Bit Gamma Correction
Automatically takes 8-bit input signals (256 tones for each primary color) from the graphics board and uses a 10-bit look-up table (1,021 tones) to produce smoother, more accurate gradations of color. Gamma values are also user-adjustable from 1.4 to 3.0 in 0.2 increments.


Eizo LCD are generally too expensive for the average consumer since their primary market is the graphics professionsal. One of their best 19" LCD monitors is the Flexscan L797, and based on the price of lower end and higher end Eizo LCDs, the price is about $900 - $1,000 for this beauty. That's far out of the range for the average user.
June 11, 2006 5:23:14 PM

Actually it is rather strange that people prefer to buy an sli setup for example which costs 900 $ which will be useless in 9 months but think that is too expensive a monitor that will last at least 5 years......
a c 362 U Graphics card
June 11, 2006 6:42:10 PM

Quote:
Actually it is rather strange that people prefer to buy an sli setup for example which costs 900 $ which will be useless in 9 months but think that is too expensive a monitor that will last at least 5 years......


That's because the LCD monitor will not increase frame rates. So they would rather throw their money at Crossfire or SLI.

Me, I think a $600 budget for one of those Planar or Viewsonic 19" monitors with "turbo mode" should suffice for me. But I am pretty tempted by Dell's UltraSharp 2407FPW LCD monitor for $949. A bit pricey, but maybe a coupon or two will knock it down to the high $700's. Looks nice, but waiting for some reviews.
June 11, 2006 7:40:17 PM

Some very good CRTs still exist for under $200 for 19" online. Where do people come up with this stuff that only refurbished and crappy CRTs can still be had? Sure the technology is old, but it still is better for some things, like hard-core gaming. Just because something is new, that doens't automatically make it better. LCD technology is still advancing and I have no doubt that, at some point, you'll be able to play any game without a problem. But that isn't now. It appears to me from perusing these forums that way too many people seem to have this new is always better attitude without thinking or investigating further. Even sometimes when new is better, the price makes it not such a good value. For the price you could get a nice 19" CRT, I'd say get one and have fun gaming. In another 1-2 years LCDs will be better for gaming and the larger screens cheaper than now.
June 11, 2006 8:17:54 PM

if you dont mind 3 or 4 dead pixels after 2-3 years of use then buy and lcd but keep in mind they arent as mature as crts and have many problems still like ie:D ead pixels slow response times stuck at certain resolutions and the list goes on and on
June 11, 2006 8:22:37 PM

lol 700 for an lcd who has that kind of money to blow on an lcd you could buy an 2 7900gtx for that much
June 11, 2006 9:33:59 PM

I own the vx922 and it kicks ass, I mean 2ms response time! It's the best lcd for games period. If you do not wish the monitor to tell you to move the game's resolution to it's native 1280 then you can turn that feature off. I still run battlefield 2 at 800x600 and it doesn't say a damned thing.[/quote]
a c 362 U Graphics card
June 11, 2006 9:47:11 PM

Quote:
Some very good CRTs still exist for under $200 for 19" online. Where do people come up with this stuff that only refurbished and crappy CRTs can still be had?


If you note my first post, msg #26 on page 2 (at the very top), I have stated that CRT is better than LCD.
a c 362 U Graphics card
June 11, 2006 9:49:23 PM

Quote:
lol 700 for an lcd who has that kind of money to blow on an lcd you could buy an 2 7900gtx for that much


Someone who wants a very good LCD for more than just playing games.
June 12, 2006 11:37:33 AM

Quote:
Some very good CRTs still exist for under $200 for 19" online. Where do people come up with this stuff that only refurbished and crappy CRTs can still be had? Sure the technology is old, but it still is better for some things, like hard-core gaming. Just because something is new, that doens't automatically make it better. LCD technology is still advancing and I have no doubt that, at some point, you'll be able to play any game without a problem. But that isn't now. It appears to me from perusing these forums that way too many people seem to have this new is always better attitude without thinking or investigating further. Even sometimes when new is better, the price makes it not such a good value. For the price you could get a nice 19" CRT, I'd say get one and have fun gaming. In another 1-2 years LCDs will be better for gaming and the larger screens cheaper than now.

true
June 12, 2006 11:44:18 AM

it seems that this topic has turned into a crt versus lcd topic.....

the main ideea was to use sli and a lcd.....

you have two options .:
1. use a very expensive 1600x1400 or more lcd....21` 24`
2. use a much cheaper and better crt...19` 21`...

my choice would be a crt 19` or more (lcd are not yet ready for games)
a c 362 U Graphics card
June 12, 2006 8:33:35 PM

Quote:
it seems that this topic has turned into a crt versus lcd topic.....

the main ideea was to use sli and a lcd.....



Regardless of CRT or LCD, in my opinion if you are using at less than 1600x1200 then a single GPU should suffice. Resolutions of 1600x1200 or higher then SLI or Crossfire.

There are a couple of exceptions:

1. Oblivion - This game is very GPU demanding. So much so that even playing at 1280x1024 some people may want a dual GPU setup.

2. F.E.A.R. - Another GPU intensive game, but not as much as Oblivion.

I hear Crysis is supposed to be even more GPU demand than Oblivion, but I haven't really looked into this yet to be released game.
June 16, 2006 6:34:46 PM

Don't most LCDs look like crap when not in their native resolution?
June 16, 2006 6:35:05 PM

Don't most LCDs look like crap when not in their native resolution?
June 16, 2006 7:15:36 PM

There is going to be a downgrade of quality, yes, but i wouldn't say it looks like crap. No difference than a crt IMO.
June 16, 2006 7:19:26 PM

all,

I have been running HL2, Quake4, etc with absolutely NO ghosting for 3 months now with a BENQ 20.1" Wide Screen LCD in 1680 x 1050.
I have been gaming for about 10 years now and this just beats the F**k outta any CRT i had...which is legion.

8O

Cheers
RammGod 8)-~

AMD X2 4400+ @2.7
Asus A8N5X
Field Value
BenQ FP202W 20.1" WXGA 1680 X 1050
4 x 1024 Corsair PC3200
Audigy 2 ZS Platinum
Sony DVD+R/CD Writer
Liteon DVD/CD+R Writer
2 WD 250GB Sata2 16MB cache HDD
Antec 550 Watt True Power PSU
256MB Asus 6800GT
Altec Lansing 2.1 Speakers
Windows XP Pro SP2
June 16, 2006 8:18:32 PM

i also have the BenQ 20.1 Widescreen and was very satisfied with its in game performance as i didn't notice any ghosting at all, but i also have a TV tuner and when watching any movie i notice ghosting alot...my only disappointment
June 16, 2006 8:56:25 PM

Quote:
LCDs dont even come close to CRTs when it comes to image quality, resolution, and price.


Wrong. I'll concede on the point about resolution. With LCD's you're basically limited to the native resolution.
Price: The reason CRT's are cheap is because no manufacturer bothers to develop that technology anymore and they're selling refurbished models for next to nothing. They're crap and they're trying to get rid of them because they take up too much space in storage. The only good CRT's left are the high-end, workstation/photographer/graphic designer oriented stuff that's VERY expensive.
Image quality: LCD's are simply better. Perfect geometry, no flickering, crisp and bright images and with today's good quality models more than adequate colour fidelity and v. good viewing angles. Plus they're not so tiring on the eyes which is extremely important if you spend hours in front of the computer. NOTE: with a DVI connection - NOT analog


Aside from the most expensive Eizo LCD's (which doesn't seem to include th 2100 mentioned a few messages below yours), I don't think ANY LCD's have a gamut as good as a CRT. THe aformentioned top of the line Eizos, as I recall, actually have a great gamut than CRTs, but i suspect you sacrifice speed for quality.

IMO, LCDs just aren't quite there yet. If you want to play games and photo editing, for example, a CRT is still probably your best bet. I only have one monitor, but I have friends both LCD and CRT monitors and they game on the CRT.
June 16, 2006 9:08:43 PM

I say get a good 8 bit LCD, you won't regret it.

I bought the Dell 2005FPW that uses an 8bit LG IPS panel, and its absolutely fantastic. The specs don't look great, but specs are usually skewed to make you buy a crap panel without realizing how bad it really is.

The cheap TN VX922 has crappy colours, crappy view angles, though it is faster, but,

Most cheap screens look like bunk unless you use their native res.

The Dell scales images so i'm not stuck playing at 1600x1050. Whether vga or dvi, i use 6600gt or 9800pro and get almost no ghosting, great colour, and, and, its on a ergoflex arm so i can move it 1m in any direction and any angle for gaming, dvds, pure media heaven.

I was $600cdn, but since your gonna get such a sweet card, maybe even spring for a nice NEC or other 8bit panel (don't get a 6bit, i'd even say get a crt over a 6bit, but tubes are so passe now).

If you want viewsonic, VP930B is really nice, and cheaper, but not wide screen... (I'm not sure how good the dell 2007fpw is since its different).

I almost bought the VP930, but like all computer stuff, wait 6 months it'll cost a lot less or be obsolete because technology is always improving...
June 16, 2006 10:09:43 PM

Quote:

The cheap TN VX922 has crappy colours, crappy view angles, though it is faster, but


"cheap" $265 dollars and I have no regrets on it. Also how many view angles do you intend to be gaming a exactly?? There are four color sets and a manual color setup so I am sorry but it is quite a beautiful screen for the money. I can game and play movies very nicely. Hell if you buy it and don't like it return it, but it is truly the best in the cheap range. I am free of crt headaches!!! it is so nice!
June 16, 2006 10:25:28 PM

What would you like to look at for the next eight years? Sure, at some point, it will get pushed aside for the new hotness... but it will still be on one of your desktops after that video card has been tossed aside.
June 16, 2006 11:38:05 PM

If I never see another CRT in my lifetime, it will be too soon.
June 17, 2006 12:20:17 AM

This thread has just turned into an argument now :lol:  =, I say for your needs get this it owns genrally you cannot see any ghosting on a screen with less than a 25ms response time.

I have a crappy cheapy non brand 19" LCD and still it is bright, has nice colours and is great for playing games. I never really need to go above 1280x1024 but I will soon be upgrading and will be getting the above screen when I do.

If you get any of the LCDs anyone has metioned I think you will be happy with what you get anyway :wink:.
!