Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

For Games: LCD Monitor or CRT ?

Last response: in Components
Share
August 24, 2006 4:57:09 PM

I need a new monitor to play games and wonder if I should get an LCD 19" or 20" or a CRT Flat Panel of similar size.

If the choice should be an LCD which is a good one?

Also...I have an ATIRADEON 9800 Pro video card and wonder if it is capable of handling the 1680x1050 recomended resolution of an LCD monitor.

Help in this matter will be appreciated.

My system:

AMD 64 Bit 3200 processor
Mobo ASUS K8N 754 socket
1Gig Corsair RAM
ATIRADEON 9800 Pro 128 Mb 256 bit
Western Digital 120 gigs

More about : games lcd monitor crt

August 24, 2006 5:18:38 PM

Quote:
I need a new monitor to play games and wonder if I should get an LCD 19" or 20" or a CRT Flat Panel of similar size.

If the choice should be an LCD which is a good one?

Also...I have an ATIRADEON 9800 Pro video card and wonder if it is capable of handling the 1680x1050 recomended resolution of an LCD monitor.

Help in this matter will be appreciated.

My system:

AMD 64 Bit 3200 processor
Mobo ASUS K8N 754 socket
1Gig Corsair RAM
ATIRADEON 9800 Pro 128 Mb 256 bit
Western Digital 120 gigs


I think most people will reccoment the LCD. They are much easier on the eyes, minimal glare, excellent IQ on the high end models and, of course, they take up a fraction of the space of a comparable CRT. I currently use a Dell 2005fpw 20" widescreen LCD where I could previously only fit a 17" CRT.

As for your system being able to handle games at that resolution, you should have no problem with older games (2004 and earlier), however it WILL struggle to play the more recent titles at that rez. I have a 6800 ultra which is quite a bit faster and it is definately showing its age when I bump up the rez on demanding titles like AOEIII, FEAR, and Oblivion.

The last thing you want to do is get a high rez monitor only to find your games turn into a slide show.

The upgrading rule of thumb is upgrade evenly. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to buy a $500 monitor for a $100 video card.

Hope this helps.
August 24, 2006 5:27:39 PM

What kind of things do you use your computer for? If it is anything other than First Person Shooters or high end photo work then an LCD is most likely the better choice. Even if you mostly play FPS's all you need is a good gaming monitor (I use a Viewsonic VX922 and I love it). Unless you are a super-hardcore FPS player or frequently do high end graphic design, I suggest an LCD.
Related resources
August 24, 2006 5:30:02 PM

Go LCD... I recommend for games to look for a 8ms or lower...

I am running a BENQ|LCD 19" 4MS DVI FP91V... I enjoy it very much and have had no problems with it at all!!!
August 24, 2006 5:35:29 PM

Up till last week, I had a ViewSonic p95f 19" CRT. It was starting to show it's age. Upgraded to a Viewsonic 2025w, so far no complains, very happy with it. Only issue being that black and darker colors aren't as deep as in the CRT. Other than that very happy.

If I had to make a choice between a brand new LCD or CRT, it would be close. But i'd probably go with the LCD. Great for non-gaming aswell.

http://reviews.cnet.com/ViewSonic_VX2025wm/4505-3174_7-...

Wide screen is a plus in gaming as well. very immersive.

specs:

amd64 4000+
2GB ram
2x 7800gt in SLi
Audigy 2

if you go lcd or widescreen check out this link, very helpful:

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com

good luck.
August 24, 2006 5:55:24 PM

Quote:
I need a new monitor to play games and wonder if I should get an LCD 19" or 20" or a CRT Flat Panel of similar size.

If the choice should be an LCD which is a good one?

Also...I have an ATIRADEON 9800 Pro video card and wonder if it is capable of handling the 1680x1050 recomended resolution of an LCD monitor.

Help in this matter will be appreciated.

My system:

AMD 64 Bit 3200 processor
Mobo ASUS K8N 754 socket
1Gig Corsair RAM
ATIRADEON 9800 Pro 128 Mb 256 bit
Western Digital 120 gigs


I would say LCD is best. You can't find many high-quality CRT monitors out there anymore because they are being phased out.

But, what kind of LCD are you looking for? There are tons of good LCDs for tons of different reasons/applications. What are you using your PC for? What is your price range? Do you want Widescreen or not? (many games don't currently support WS, but I think it will become more popular, especially with XBOX360 native WS support).

If you plan on gaming, you are probably going to have to upgrade your graphics card to play any current games in your native resolution.
August 24, 2006 5:57:31 PM

I have a 24" 16:10 WideScreen CRT, and I have a 20" 16:10 Widescreen LCD at work for CAD

I would have to say that I like the CRT W A Y better than the LCD

I like to be able to use more than one resolution and have great looking text and not even be concerned with refresh rates and timeings...

I can deal with the extra heat they throw off, and who cares about the "extra space" the LCD's give you? do you use the "space" behind the new LCD for anything anyway? lol

The CRT's are also cheaper in general, I picked mine up on eBay and did a local pickup to cut out the shipping charges

Just my $.03
August 24, 2006 6:20:27 PM

I personally purchased this monitor last year after doing some research and reading a review of it on Tom's (a great place to start your research). Tom’s still references this monitor as a benchmark when comparing other LCD’s in gaming.

HYUNDAI L90D+ Silver 19" 8ms LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 700:1 Built in Speakers 0.294mm Pixel Pitch - Retail
$213.99 @ NewEgg.com Price has really dropped since this passed winter ($270)

So far it’s great. The review on tom's will tell you all you need to know, except I have seen some reviews on NewEgg that complained about a dead line problem on a batch from last year. Haven’t had problems with mine... yet.
Actually it really is great for gaming, the only negatives would be the narrow vertical/horizontal viewing area, and the narrow range of brightness/contrast available for a good picture (Tom's review has the best recommended setting for a good picture, I used them and concur)

The biggest problems with LCD’s in general are dead pixels. My monitor has none but that’s not always the case. (Some manufactures have a zero dead return policy, but most make you live with 3-7 depending on the manufacture), and ghosting (The refresh speed in ms it takes a pixel to transition from dark to light) which is very important when playing games.
August 24, 2006 6:20:29 PM

Go with the LCD. The best I've found so far is the ViewSonic VX922. Supposedly no ghosting, which was a major issue when I bought my last 17" lcd a few years ago.

check out http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/ViewSonic_VX922/4505-3174_...

If you're primarily looking for a gaming screen this seems to be the best that I can find reviewed. Cnet also has some reviews and the customer reviews at NewEgg are pretty good
August 24, 2006 6:31:49 PM

Quote:
I have a 24" 16:10 WideScreen CRT...who cares about the "extra space" the LCD's give you? do you use the "space" behind the new LCD for anything anyway? lol


Damn, son, you must have a seriously big desk! I don't know too many people who could fit a 24" crt on their computer desk. Also, that thing must weigh a ton!

For the average person, an LCD makes more sense as you can fit a much larger screen in a much smaller case. An average depth computer desk will support a 19" CRT. In that same space you could easily fit a 24" or even 30" LCD.

Plus, there is no eye-damaging glare on LCDs like on CRTs. Though some like CRTs because they enjoy scalable resolutions and their slightly better colour accuracy over LCDs, for the average enthusiast, there is very little to say in favour of CRTs.

They are old technology and are being rapidly phased out of production. As LCD technology is perfected, I doubt you will even be able to buy a CRT within a few years.

If I had the choice between a 17" LCD and a 24" CRT, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the LCD. They are that superior, in my opinion.
August 24, 2006 6:43:54 PM

Quote:
Damn, son, you must have a seriously big desk! I don't know too many people who could fit a 24" crt on their computer desk. Also, that thing must weigh a ton!


LOL

The monitor weighs in at 105 pounds :) 

My computer table setup holds two separate computer stations (with a center section for printers/scanners) @standing height (with two chairs) the whole table is roughly 16 feet long in a half hexagon semi-circle shape consisting grey plastic laminate with a bright orange plastic laminate top

I turn on my CRT & my AC unit and let them fight it out while I game :) 

Did I mention it's in an apartment? hehe
August 24, 2006 6:58:21 PM

You must use more electricity then most third world countries! :lol: 
Actually I used to have a 35" RCA console tube TV that probably weighed 300lbs, and used twice as many watts.
August 24, 2006 7:34:29 PM

Quote:
Just my $.03


Wow, inflation! LOL My $.02 :lol:  is that you should get a Compaq P1220 CRT. I got one of these for Christmas last year and I love it. Great picture, flexible resolution settings, not too heavy, perfect flat screen, very user-friendly. Only downside may be shipping cost if you get it online. I agree with Tuna that the concept of extra space brought on by LCD is somewhat an urban legend. Everyone I know with an LCD just has a lot more unused desktop space in front of or behind their LCD. My corner desk holds my 22" CRT perfectly against the wall.
August 24, 2006 7:57:49 PM

I say go with a LCD unless you are SUPER hardcore gamer and want the absolute best possible picutre/refresh rate/minimal ghosting thta you can possibly get.

*unless u are playing games for a living I wouldnt bother with the CRT. you probably woudlnt notice the difference or care less about it*
August 24, 2006 8:31:41 PM

Quote:
Just my $.03


Wow, inflation! LOL My $.02 :lol: 

I didn't think anyone would notice that! :)  heh
August 24, 2006 9:23:22 PM

A High end CRT at about £300 will be 22", much brighter than any LCD, have a 'response time' so good that its unmeasurable, and happily run in amazing resolutions like 2048x1536@75hz, whereas an LCD of the same price will *only* be any good in 1280x1024

CRTs are not dead.

LCDs are 'pretty', and they take up little desk space. Unless you have £3000 (yes, thousand) to burn on a high end one, or *need* the room, I'd stick with the CRT myself.
August 24, 2006 9:32:51 PM

Thanks very much for all the input. I am not a hard core gamer but I do like a few games which I play almost every night in multiplayer. I also do extensive work with pictures and videos for home use.

Seem's that an LCD is the one for me.

I just wonder why the big difference in prices from one 19" LCD monitor to the next in the same brand. Does it have to do with the response time?

I was wondering which Viewsonic will be the best for me....I also noticed big diferences in the response time' The less the number the better the monitor?
August 24, 2006 9:55:08 PM

Quote:
I also noticed big diferences in the response time' The less the number the better the monitor?


Yes the lower the number the better the LCD but I have read that in real life (Gameing) you can not see any real difference in response time with a 8MS and lower... I recomend checking out warrenties too... Lower response time less chance of ghosting...
August 25, 2006 5:09:23 AM

Read some of the reviews in Tom's (they do a roundup every year) and watch out for some of the newer "OverDrive" LCD's, the ones with less then 8ms. The Overdrive technology has its drawbacks.
August 25, 2006 6:04:24 AM

Is that your setup with the 4000+, Audigy 2, etc.? Cause that's my EXACT setup, except I only have one 7800 GT. Did you get a good boost in performance with the second card?
August 25, 2006 6:32:16 AM

If you want to know what really bad ghosting is, check out the new Apple Imac G5 (the LCD one). Just moving a window around on it results in unreadable text and if you did it long enough you will probably get motion sickness.
August 25, 2006 7:25:28 AM

I own a ViewSonic VX922 and must say it is the bomb! CRTs do have an inherent advantage in the refresh rate department but an LCD is what you need if you are in front of a screen half your life. I definetely recommend the VX922. Right now it's at $265 over at newegg.

Think about why you need the monitor most...
Folow this simple guide..

LCD Pros (to CRT):
Space and Weight
Easier on the eyes
Brighter and non-reflective
Digital input (no more fiddling with the screen controls)

LCD Cons (to CRT):
Price (They are cheap but still more expensive than CRT)
Ghosting (In sub-8ms none)
Native Resolution only does it justice

That's about it from me... Good luck
August 25, 2006 8:49:16 AM

Get a 30" Apple Cinema Display. Probably the most gorgeous PC monitor money can buy.
August 25, 2006 9:29:12 AM

To be quite honest for the system you have it dosent make sense for you to spend that cash on a LCD, why not get a good 19" dell flat screen CRT monitor, and put the rest of the cash into a better graphics card?
No point in having a 19" to 20" LCD with out the system to back it up.
Plus the CRT will be way way way cheaper, like £40 on ebay, and the gaming is great on them, and great colour, but go for whatever suits your needs at this time.
August 25, 2006 12:58:06 PM

i see adifference in more complex games (lots of eye candy), but not so much on older ones.

example:

big differance in:

FEAR
ES: Oblivion
BF2

or games that I max out (aa, af)
- Rome total war
- Titan Quest
- Star Wars Battleground2


not really a difference in older (dx8) games.
i mean is there really a difference between 160fps and 100fps with everything maxed out?

check out the VGA charts on Tom's,
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html?modelx=33&m...
August 25, 2006 11:08:13 PM

go with lcd because of how better it is for your eyes and i personnely like them better. They are sleek.
August 26, 2006 12:34:49 AM

Forget about whats better for your eyes unless you use the computer all day or you play at 60Hz, at which point I'd say to drop your resolution to one that the monitors supports with >70Hz (assuming you already use a CRT). For image quality, a good LCD cant do you any wrong at native res. But considering your current setup, I doubt you will play at native res on any new titles with a 20" or larger LCD LCDs lose image quality once you drop their res from native because of the way they have to stretch the image or employ pixel doubling (or something like that). Basically given your current setup I would say go for a 19" LCD or CRT because both are fine, but the CRT will only give you 17.5-18" of actual viewing area. Dont go any larger than 19" CRT because they are too huge and heavy and use way too much power; it will be cheaper in the long run to get a quality 19" LCD, which will have the same viewing area as a 20" CRT. A CRT can use more than 80W of power when in use against a mere 25-30W (not sure exactly how much) for a large LCD.
August 28, 2006 7:51:56 AM

I'm also thinking of switching to LCD from CRT. I'm currently using a Samsung SyncMaster 955DF, which is 18.1" viewable. I've never had a problem w/ it, but I want something bigger, plus less desk real estate (as this monitor maxes out my comp desk, front to back, not to mention side to side)
vs. LCD and less power draw (because who would rather spend more money
on their energy bill these days). I'm not too concerned w/ my system keeping up as I am building a new one soon. A new monitor is just a way of distracting
me from this need while I wait for Vista/DX10/AMD's response to C2D that doesn't involve buying a dual CPU Mobo AND two CPU's. I would rather spend
that money on graphics, because let's face it graphics can never keep up w/ the games. Yeah you heard me ATI and Nvidia, CPU's can step to the plate and stop being bottlenecks, and what are we supposed to complain about game developers and their constant need to distract us from the fact that they rarely come up with anything truly groundbreaking in the way of content, by increasing iCandy to the point where you need a DoD contract to fully enjoy the latest games graphical fluff.

Sorry sorry sorry. The previous poster has been sacked. I apologize for the previous off topic rant and run on sentence, but whenever I think about how much time and money I've invested/wasted on this industry, I just lose
it. Like when I research what exactly response time tells you about a monitor. First thing I have never seen anything about CRT response times.
Does this mean it is all instantaneous? Secondly, when you try to nail down
a consistent definiton of "Response Time", as it pertains to monitors in general there is no industry standard. You have BTW-Back to White: the time in milliseconds it takes a particular pixel to go from fully black to fully white, BWB-Black to White to Black: the time in milliseconds it takes a
particular pixel to go from fully black to fully white to fully black, and if that is not confusing enough, there is GTG-Gray to Gray: the time in milliseconds it takes a particular pixel to go from some undisclosed shade of
gray to yet another undisclosed shade of gray. Seriously are we all morons here. Can you vague it up a bit more, I almost got an inkling of what you were alluring to. And if that is'nt bad enough, you rarely hear to which standard they are referring. I mean come on ...........
Sorry sorry sorry. The previous poster hired to stand in for the poster which has been sacked, has been sacked. We apologize for any inconvenience.

____________
Case: Llama-master 5000 w/ 5000W PSU
Mobo: Llamsus PRN234CLD645TYE2500t
CPU: Llamtel Twin2DoubleDualDoublyAndAnallyRepititiveCore(s)w/ the sum of two plus two minus two cores (in your face AMD)
GPU: DoubleQuad Twin SLI (PCIe x 256)
RAM: TripleDoubleDataRate5 Llamsair 8GB (2 TwinDual 1GB modules)
running at three times the double data rate of PC2222
HDD: 250 TeraGigaMegabyte Llamagate w/ 3 tripletertiary 3MB Cache(s)
_______________

Let's not quibble over who flamed who, and thanx for allowing the MP homage.
August 28, 2006 9:51:41 AM

The size of an LCD is a double-edged sword. For example, since 19" LCDs have 1280x1024 native resolution, you can usually set Anti-Aliasing, Anisotropic Filtering, HDR and all visual features of the game to maximum. If you have an LCD with a wider display, you will either need to decrease visual settings or get the best and most expensive video card(s) out there because using higher resolution requires more power from the card.

By the way, don't 8-bit (24-bit 16.7M color) LCDs display subtle visual details (e.g., color related nuances of bump mapping, reflections, lightning and pixel shader effects usually found in newest games) better than 6-bit LCDs? At least I noticed this difference right after I switched from CRT to LCD (I have Viewsonic VP930 which is otherwise really great in this respect with its 8-bit colors and 1000:1 contrast ratio). A person who hasn't been doing any graphics (especially 3D-rendering) won't probably notice anything, though, and you get used to image quality of LCDs very fast. I would also imagine that HDR rendering might look slightly less spectacular on an LCD than on an CRT because of the lack of "true black" tones.

Cons of modern LCDs vs CRTs:
1. Black is not exactly "true black". (helps in games like Doom 3 when you wouldn't see a thing on CRT :D )
2. Slightly lower contrast ratio / narrower colour range.
3. Distortion outside native resolution.

Pros of modern LCDs vs CRTs:
1. Weigh less, require less space.
2. Consume ~ 30-50W vs ~100W.
August 28, 2006 11:12:10 AM

i don't think it's an urban legend, i'm waiting toi pick a TFT of the new LG models with the 1400:1 contrast ratio, and one of the reasons it's space, because my desk has 80cm depth, and my mag CRT uses about 50cm of that space wich doesn't leave much space to my keyboard and arms, so if i put a TFT there i can push it further and gain much more desk space ;) 

just my 1cent
!