Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Confused about Vsync on LCD Monitors

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 25, 2006 3:35:18 PM

To make a long story short, I have a new Acer 1916w 19" 4ms Widescreen LCD monitor hooked up DVI and a 1900XT video card.

Some games, look awesome and run smooth with no tearing such as Half Life 2, Tomb Raider Legend and Oblivion.

Other games tear like crazy such as Titan Quest and PREY. I enabled Vsync on these games and the frame rate is horrible. So... do I have to pick between tearing and incosistent FPS or am I missing something?
September 25, 2006 3:52:45 PM

V-sync limits your FPS to 60. You cannot have more than 60 FPS with V-sync enabled but it can be lower than that. If you consider this frame rate to be too low then you are one spoiled gamer :wink:

Anyhow, V-sync or not - it is very likely that your FPS would drop below 60 in the same games, depending of graphics/action intensity in a given area. It is unlikely that enabling V-sync would cause a significant drop (or erratic fluctuations) in your minimum FPS.
September 25, 2006 3:59:14 PM

Simple answer is yes you have to pick. Enabling vsync will cap you maximum frame rate to the refresh rate of your monitor which in the case of an LCD is probably 60Hz or 60 fps as each picture drawn is synchrnoized to the display frame. However do you really need more than 60fps? I always run games with vsync on cause it looks so much nicer and most games will drop below 60fps anyway.

LCDs do not really have a vertical refresh rate as such but the graphics needs some way of synchrnoising with the screen. I dont believe LCD have a vertical refresh rate at all but if the LCD reported nothing then graphics card would simple think the monitor was not present. Most LCDs at maximum rez report a vertical refresh rate of 60hz however i know my LCD reporst 75hz at lower resolutions which doesnt make sense to me at all cause the screen is not be driven any harder at high resolutions like a CRT, its just the same pixels.
Related resources
September 25, 2006 4:12:46 PM

Hmmm.. strange thing about all this is, no, I don't need more than 60 FPS but why would same games tear and others not?

I mean, I can run Half Life 2 deathmatch at blazing speeds with vsync off and there is no tearing. Yet I go into PREY and get great frame rates but tons of tearing.

Either way is painful. When I turn Vsync on, the frame rate is horribly inconsistent.
September 25, 2006 4:21:32 PM

Because all games are coded differently and graphics horsepower requirements differ. Google Image Tearing and V-Sync and read up on why this happens.

EDIT: Also read THIS. It specifically addresses image tearing in Prey.
September 25, 2006 4:23:38 PM

Does the minimum frame rate get worse or stay teh same with vsync on?
September 25, 2006 4:28:46 PM

V-sync should not influence minimum frame rates, but your average frame rates will dorp significantly because your maximum FPS will never exceed 60 FPS.
September 25, 2006 4:54:43 PM

Very interesting on the tweak guide. What a pain though to have some games work perfectly and others a total mess.

I totally cranked up all my graphics setting to the max though :) 

EDIT: Is Refresh Force worthless on LCDs?
September 25, 2006 5:20:14 PM

Quote:
EDIT: Is Refresh Force worthless on LCDs?


If you mean Refresh Rate.... LCD technology is completely different from CRT. While for CRTs refresh rate is very important, for LCDs it is pretty meaningless.
September 25, 2006 5:24:12 PM

Ok, I just read and remembered about Refresh Force from my CRT days.

Man, I wonder if it would be better to go to a blasted CRT monitor where I have some more control of tearing.

VSYNC on any game I enable it in just makes it totally unbearable to play. Tearing can be the same way..

Oh well, the only thing left to try is the Triple Buffering in the video driver.
September 25, 2006 5:38:07 PM

Quote:
Man, I wonder if it would be better to go to a blasted CRT monitor where I have some more control of tearing.


LCDs just suck for gaming. Even the most expensive ones are not as good as moderately priced CRTs.
September 25, 2006 5:55:39 PM

I don't agree with you on the matter of LCDs and CRTs for gaming: I went from a IIyama 17" (A702HT) to a Viewsonic 17" - now agreed, there are many LCD screens that are just junk - but I'm hooked on the Viewsonic: no ghosting, blacks are quite deep and the sharpness rivals that of my good ol' CRT.

I'm using a DVI connector, and it's the ultimate thing in regard to image stability and fidelity.

Now, about tearing on an LCD: if it happens to you, then:
- the game does NOT actually implement V-sync,
- you're using a VGA cable with a badly synchronized LCD
I'd say it's the former, so you could try forcing V-sync on at the driver's level. If it's the latter, see if you can't use a DVI cable instead.
September 25, 2006 6:00:24 PM

Yeah, overall, I LOVE the monitor for gaming. It's been fantastic for Oblivion, Tomb Raider Legend and All Source engine games. It's just a few games giving me fits.

I do have it hooked up DVI but I will try the vertical sync on the driver level.

I am using the Chuck patch drivers for Oblivion.. anyway to update those without losing the AA functionality?
September 25, 2006 6:29:00 PM

Ok I know this is kind of of topic but here it goes. I can't go into how good LCD's are for gaming as I don't own one and the ones I do use are not for gaming. But from most of the stuff I have read you are stuck with one resolution the native LCD resolution. Tthe most popular one I have seen mentioned is 1600x1200, it could be that the games you are running you arent running at this res and from some of the stuff I have read that can be a problem weather that problem is tearing I don't know but worth checking. That reason is my main prefrence for CRT monitors, yes they are bulky and hot but you have so much more freedom in settings with them over LCD's. You can run any game and pretty much any res your monitor will support with no problems at all. And if you get a mid to mid-high range CRT 19'' of 20'' in size it will blow away any LCD as far as picture quaility. IMO the colors are richer, the graphics are sharper (at least on mine I have a low dot pitch screen) and the blacks are actually black. For all the obivious draw backs there are with CRT's I just can't belive so many people are moving to LCD's instead with the obvious benefits that you get with a CRT that frankly most any LCD just can't match.
September 25, 2006 7:20:46 PM

Quote:
If you mean Refresh Rate.... LCD technology is completely different from CRT. While for CRTs refresh rate is very important, for LCDs it is pretty meaningless

False.
Sure the technologies are very different, but frames are always sent to the monitor with a serial connection, exactly like a CRT one.
The difference is that LCD have rows and columns drivers that can display one row at a time instead of only a single pixel, because an entire row is first loaded in a shift register and then latched in the column drivers array as a whole.
But you still have a VSynch: there is always a blanking time of 3-7 rows (depending on the particular panel) that the internal logic uses for synchronization purposes.
Of course if you don't synch the image with VSynch you'll notice much less flicker than a CRT monitor, but you still can see it.
September 25, 2006 9:18:23 PM

Alright. LCDs and CRTs, both, have their advantages and disadvantages. However, IMO CRTs are better for gaming. To summarize some of the points mentioned above, here's why I beileve that CRTs are better in general:

1. Flexible resolutions. All else equal you get better image fidelity at higher resolutions. Personally, I play all games I own (except Oblivion) at 1600x1200. Not even sure if you *can* buy an LCD that supports this (or comparably high) resolution, but if you can, I am sure it costs three+ times more than a very good 21" CRT;

2. Decent size high quality LCDs with minimal ghosting are not the rule but rather exceptions to the rule. They are also rather expensive. Personally, I find any gaming monitor smaller than 19" inadequate. And for the price of a top-quality 21" LCD I can have a top qulality 21" CRT + $$ left over for, say another Gig of RAM or something else. And still, with a 21" LCD I will not get to play anything at 1600x1200'

3. EDIT: Oh, just remembered: If you try to change the native resolution on an LCD your image quality will go down the pipes and you'll get all that shimmering and stuff. Say your LCD native resolution is 1280x1024 but your GPU does not have enough juice to play a game smoothly at that resolution. Now, try to set it to 1024x768 and see what happens.

4. Viewing angles. Granted, I have not personally dealt with very many top quality LCDs. However, every LCD I've seen has this problem: If I play a game and my girlfriend wants to sit next to me and watch, and say she is sitting not directly behind me but to my side viewing the screen at some 45 degree angle, she cannot see a damn thing.

There was something else but I forgot and have no time to try to recall it now. If it comes back to me I will post an EDIT here.

So, unless someone can convincingly dispel the above I have to reiterate: Compared to CRTs, LCDs suck for gaming.
September 25, 2006 9:33:11 PM

SLAVA,

I don't disagree with you at all on these points. For example, I can play all my games comfortably at the native resolution of 1440x900 but when I Crysis comes out, I am sure I won't get over 800x600 ;-)

The big things for me right now is:

* Desk space
* Widescreen
* Price

I had a 19" CRT monitor for years.. so going back to that really would be hard after the beauty of 19" Widescreen LCD via DVI.

The only place to even get a good "big" CRT monitor is ebay now. Newegg hardly even has any CRT monitors listed.
September 25, 2006 9:45:43 PM

Quote:

1. Flexible resolutions. All else equal you get better image fidelity at higher resolutions. Personally, I play all games I own (except Oblivion) at 1600x1200. Not even sure if you *can* buy an LCD that supports this (or comparably high) resolution, but if you can, I am sure it costs three+ times more than a very good 21" CRT;

2. Decent size high quality LCDs with minimal ghosting are not the rule but rather exceptions to the rule. They are also rather expensive. Personally, I find any gaming monitor smaller than 19" inadequate. And for the price of a top-quality 21" LCD I can have a top qulality 21" CRT + $$ left over for, say another Gig of RAM or something else. And still, with a 21" LCD I will not get to play anything at 1600x1200'


http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct...
Samsung lcd, 20'' 1600x1200
Dell also had 20 inch lcds that had 1600x1200 but were discontinued.
September 25, 2006 9:52:02 PM

Yeah, LCDs have come a VERY long way in the last few years... and I got my 19" widescreen LCD for $189!!

Either way, the I would like the flexibility of the CRT.. just switching resolutions. Oh well...
September 25, 2006 9:58:29 PM

Quote:

1. Flexible resolutions. All else equal you get better image fidelity at higher resolutions. Personally, I play all games I own (except Oblivion) at 1600x1200. Not even sure if you *can* buy an LCD that supports this (or comparably high) resolution, but if you can, I am sure it costs three+ times more than a very good 21" CRT;

2. Decent size high quality LCDs with minimal ghosting are not the rule but rather exceptions to the rule. They are also rather expensive. Personally, I find any gaming monitor smaller than 19" inadequate. And for the price of a top-quality 21" LCD I can have a top qulality 21" CRT + $$ left over for, say another Gig of RAM or something else. And still, with a 21" LCD I will not get to play anything at 1600x1200'


http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct...
Samsung lcd, 20'' 1600x1200
Dell also had 20 inch lcds that had 1600x1200 but were discontinued.

Thanks. I looked it up. Pretty cool. However, reviews indicate the following:

- average response time;
- subpar screen uniformity (as in various parts of the screen have different levels of brightness and have darker and lighter patches)...
- (in CNET's words) the monitor showed "a nominal amount of ghosting"

It is cool that for some $400 its native resolution is 1600x1200. Yet #3 from my previous post applies.

Also, I watched a video review of this monitor on CNET. Hmmm... the specs indcate that the viewing angle is 160/160. Hmmm ...if they mean degrees then I am puzzled because as that woman who reviewed the monitor in the video turned it left and right and up and down to demonstrate the flexibility of the base I saw the screen become grayed out. So I suppose #4 from my previous post also applies.
September 25, 2006 10:02:39 PM

No doubt there are major advantages and disadvantages with LCD vs CRT. It's too bad that widescreen CRTs never really caught on. I am hooked with the widescreen aspect ratio since I have a 57" Widescreen HDTV and a widescreen laptop.

For future proofing, being stuck at 1600x1200 is not cool. Although, I have noticed some LCD monitors do better "scaling" to lower resolutions. I must test my new monitor on those resolutions tonight :) 
September 25, 2006 10:37:36 PM

Thats incorrect, V-sync does not cap the framerate at 60fps, it caps the framerate at whatever the prevalent refresh rate is in control panel/graphics driver whatever.

Thus, if you have your refresh rate forced to 75hz, then V-Sync will cap your FPS at 75.

Although 'refresh rate' does not apply to LCD's, it still has importance at driver level. Thus, if your LCD supports a higher refresh rate than 60hz being set in the driver (my VP930B does) then setting this higher alongside V-Sync will result in a higher FPS cap.

V-Sync caps the max FPS at the driver refresh rate, simple as that. There is no hard-coded rule that V-Sync is capped at 60fps.
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2006 11:16:28 PM

i agree the best overall picture you can get is crt period.
though i think that plasma and lcd are slowly catching up.
maybee 5 more years. and they will have a better overall
picture than crt.
September 26, 2006 9:44:33 AM

Quote:
i agree the best overall picture you can get is crt period.
though i think that plasma and lcd are slowly catching up.
maybee 5 more years. and they will have a better overall
picture than crt.


Yeah. I hope my 21" CRT ViewSonic (or is it 22"(?) - I am always confused on this one... gotta look it up) lasts another 3-4 years. Hopefully by then they will have resolved this 'native resolution' thing.

Quote:
V-Sync caps the max FPS at the driver refresh rate, simple as that. There is no hard-coded rule that V-Sync is capped at 60fps.


Right, right. Thanks for the correction.
September 26, 2006 9:51:33 AM

I don't have Oblivion, so I can't help you there.
September 26, 2006 1:52:29 PM

Found out how to add custom resolutions on ATI cards. Using Powerstrip you can add the custom resoultion and it saves it in the driver. :) 

Also, I have done extensive testing with vsync, triple buffering etc with completely uncosistent results. Maybe I am just too picky but I am having a rough time getting a completely smooth picture.

I am sure my specs have nothing to do with it:

Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.8 Ghz
2 gig DDR800 OCZ
Sapphire X1900XT 256meg
September 26, 2006 2:21:05 PM

the thing is that a CRT 'draws' a matrice every time a screen refresh is done; depending on the number of lines you make it draw, a CRT can (in theory) display as many dimensions as you want (the speed of the 'pencil' determines the useable resolutions).

An LCT panel is a set-size mactrice: typically 1280x1024 for 17-19", which means that if the video card sends 1280x1024 matrices to display, the screen can match them 1:1.

In the case the graphics card sends different matrices, you need to do either:
-put a black border around the image: this will still match sent and displayed pixels 1:1, but you lose in display size
-resize the image, using filtering: in that case, each frame sent is resized using pretty much the same algorithms used by Photoshop.

The latter is the one most used because it is usually done transparently by the monitor; but like in photoshop, you have several algorithms used:
- linear: one every 4 lines and 1 every 4 column is doubled (in the case of a 1024x768=>1280x1024), creating a square effect on the whole screen (almost unused now). Requires very little logic to work.

-bilinear: this makes things more regular, but introduces a very noticeable blur in high contrast zones (such as black on white writing). Requires much more logic than before to work, but not very heavy considering today's technology (used in low-end panels).

-bicubic: like bilinear, but the blur is drastically reduced due to better pixel weighting (which can be set once and for all, or defined for each resolution transferts to get better results on a particular definition), it requires very heavy logics and processing power - good and very good panels enjoy it.

This can be made better using a correct 'feed' for the monitor: DVI will provide numerical data that the screen can use directly for resize, but analogic (VGA) requires some more work and precision to convert the analog signal back into numeric, introducing errors that the resizing process may exacerbate.

Of course, displaying 640x480 or even 320x240 on such a screen makes little sense, but it still appears as native (due to the divider being an integer)

Personally I'm enjoying immensely a ViewSonic CRT: even non-native resolutions get the best resizing I've ever seen on a CRT, and coupled with good font antialiasing leads to non-native modes being almost unnoticeable.

I'm very sensitive to flickering, and anything under 85Hz on a CRT is unbearable for me, so I find CRTs in general more of a pain than anything else; I enjoy my 17" LCD more than I do my brother's IIyama 19" (which is still quite the reference).
September 26, 2006 2:28:31 PM

Short. Vsync limits the frame rates to that of the monitors refresh rate and also produce good quality no tearing images. Disabling it might improve frame rates but might tear the image as well.
September 26, 2006 2:37:17 PM

The more and more research and testing that I do, I see that LCD gaming is NOT for the super picky... like myself :) 

It is very tough to find a balance between smooth frame rate and too much tearing. I know that if you have a CRT that has a super high refresh rate, you are going to get a lot smoother picture overall.

It is frustrating because my LCD is 19" widescreen that looks GORGEOUS in games but with Vsync on, it still can get choppy at times. While in the same parts, with Vsync off, it runs perfect.
September 26, 2006 4:26:05 PM

LCDs are clearly an inferior technology compared to CRT; what a screen is basically supposed to do is to have an image quality as good as possible; but going from CRT to LCD we lost image quality. So what's the point? Desktop space is an important factor in computer labs, but for a gamer, who cares?

Sometimes I spend the day on a brand new DELL LCD here; when I go back home and turn on my CRT, the difference is astonishing. It's like comparing neon and tungstene lights, or 128kbps mp3 and cd audio. You feel what you've been missing when you turn back to the older technology.
September 26, 2006 4:34:01 PM

Too bad the CRT market is almost non existant.. except for on ebay where you pay $50 for shipping!

I have a Gateway 17" kicking around the house.. maybe I will hook that up and do some comparisons.
September 26, 2006 5:24:23 PM

Everyone can agree there are advantages and disavantages to LCD and CRT. That is fact.
September 26, 2006 11:32:56 PM

Of course there are advantages and disadvantages to either technology but it is a fact that you will get a better picture hands down on a CRT. As far as i know there is not a LCD panel in the world that I have seen or read about that can match a CRT in picture quality everyone knows this. It all boils down to what you want better picture but a big hulking box or subpar (compared to a CRT) picture and thin small light panel. Picture quality aside my main reason for prefering CRT's is the flexible resolution. With an LCD you have to match a video card to the native resolution of your panel, meaning you have to buy a card that can run the games you want at the FPS on the native resolution your panel supports.

Whereas with a CRT you can buy what ever GPU you wish and just change the resolution to get you the performance you want from the particular game. If you are talking a 20" LCD with a 1600x1200 res you MUST buy a high end card, or damn close to it to get good performance on most all games (oblivian not withstanding its just brutal in terms of FPS) Where if you have a 20" CRT you can at least get a cheaper card maybe one or 2 down from top of the line and adjust your res to get the performance you want from the game.

This IMO is one of the few times where you have an almost forced switch from and A+ quality to A- quality. Granted no one is forcing you to move to an LCD but if like alot (there are more OEM buyers than enthusiasts) of people you buy from and OEM like Dell, HP etc. you pretty much have to get an LCD since alot of times they can be included in the price or for a little more cash, so most OEM buyers move to the LCD instead of a CRT even though the CRT will give you a better picture and even though this is a computer site the same applies to televisions as well at least the semi forced progression (yes there are CRT HDTV's they are just not as popular). Everyone knows the benefits of moving to a LCD or similar product (I lump all flat panel products on the same catergory) but even with the most expensive panel a CRT will always beat it in terms of picture quality.
September 27, 2006 7:55:37 AM

Personally I won't follow the advice of someone who uses 'Firefox Myths' as a signature - as this website is probably the less objective I've seen in quite some time (reaches Microsoft's Get The FUD campaign level, but more rude).

From personal use of some of the best CRTs out there (top of the range Iiyama) and some LCDs of the same level, here's what I found:

- CRTs lead the way on colour fidelity and black depht, but LCDs are getting damn good
- CRTs have higher refresh rates and more flexibility, but LCDs are compensating more and more with better resampling and much less jarring
- CRTs pump an ungodly amount of watts and heat up a lot; LCDs use much less and remain barely warm.
- CRTs output an ungodly amount of radiation in your face; LCDs use fluorescent tubes, which irradiate nothing. Personally I want to keep my eyes in good shape until I die. Note: there are protection screens you can fit on a CRT, but they usually tarnish the image and are not 100% efficient.

Please consider that Iiyama CRT monitors are recognized as having the best pixel finesse and the flattest screens one can find with this kind of technology (and they aren't as big as others), and I respect that (got 2 at home), while their colour settings are usually a bit 'cold' (can be corrected with good calibration) - so given the choice between a bad LCD and a good CRT I'd go the CRT way.
However the LCD defects have gotten almost unnoticeable, and they have quite an advantage in the power, real estate and eye comfort departments.
September 27, 2006 1:14:49 PM

Wow.. just wow. I hooked up a crappy old Gateway 17" CRT I had laying around and even though the colors are off, the general "stability" of the picture was absolutely incredible. I though maybe something was wrong with my X1900XT on the LCD because of the tearings, "jerkiness" and other such terms that I am unfamiliar with.

The CRT, even though it was old and low end, was a size monstrosity compared to the LCD but a much better gaming picture.

I also heard the DVI cables shipped with some monitors affect this picture stability. Would it be worth it to try a higher end DVI cable?

I am debating the switch back to CRT...
September 27, 2006 1:30:32 PM

Quote:
I also heard the DVI cables shipped with some monitors affect this picture stability. Would it be worth it to try a higher end DVI cable?



Before you do that, switch to the regular VGA cable with D-Sub connector and try that.

As for the continuing debate on CRT vs. LCD, guys, the original issue was which kind is better for gaming.

I don't know how anyone can argue that LCDs are better with their fixed resolutions. Even if CRTs had no other advantages they would still be better for gaming.

Even if LCDs were better than CRTs in every way except the two technologies had the same level of image quality, scaling does not work very well and gamers' inability to switch resolutions on LCDs cripples the whole gaming experience in general:

Your rig is powerful enough to run something at 16x12 but you are stuck with your 12x9; OR your rig struggles running something at 12x9 and you'd love to try it at 11x8 or 10x7 but you are still stuck with your friggin native 12x9 so you have to reduce details, AA, AF etc..

To me all other considerations, valid or not, are irrelevant because an LCD simply forces me to sacrifice either better resolutions or faster performance or image quality. Period. For this reason alone the overall gaming experience is just better on CRTs.
September 27, 2006 1:37:13 PM

Hey Slava,

I will try the VGA cable on the LCD first... interesting idea.

Yes, I am mostly concerned about gaming. I wish they made a widescreen CRT (I have only found a 24" Sony Widescreen CRT) but oh well. The "stability" of the gaming picture was MUCH better on the old crappy CRT than the LCD. Everything else looks awesome on the LCD.
September 27, 2006 2:08:54 PM

What's good right now is that CRT is being phased out slowly but surely so it's possible to get your hands on a high quality used one for very cheap. That's what I did. I bought a 21'' Sun monitor with a Trinitron tube and I am very satisfied with the result. It's a wide screen model but it's plenty big.
September 27, 2006 2:12:57 PM

Quote:
What's good right now is that CRT is being phased out slowly but surely so it's possible to get your hands on a high quality used one for very cheap. That's what I did. I bought a 21'' Sun monitor with a Trinitron tube and I am very satisfied with the result. It's a wide screen model but it's plenty big.



Hmmm.. where did you get a widescreen CRT? The only one I have EVER found is a 24" Sony Widescreen. It's about $300-$400 used right now.. rare though.

Yeah, I am looking at some online classified ads and there are tons of 21" CRTs going for under $100.

EDIT: LOL.. I am going backwards in time. What is the MOST important spec when looking for a gaming CRT monitor? dot pitch? refresh rate?
September 27, 2006 3:01:21 PM

A Dell 24" LCD would change your mind in a heartbeat. The ONLY problem with it is the price, which for a 24" widescreen is actually very cheap. You can get them for sub $800 now. I also read that you are limited to the native resolution on LCDs, but I have tried just about every resolution on my Dell 24" and there is no difference, so you are definitely not limited to native on it. I run my games at 1900x1440 at 75hz (says 60 max, but I have seen zero probs at 75) and the graphics look absolutely amazing. I also love that I get a lot less glare from lights as compared to a CRT.

I used to use Viewsonic flat CRTs and was hesitant about switching to an LCD. I use my PC strictly for gaming and had the same reservations that most of the CRT lovers have. It would take a lot for me to go back to CRTs now.

Also, one note about viewing angles. Never judge an LCD's viewing angle by what you see on TV. For some reason it is very distorted when recorded. I can see my LCD clearly from damn near sideways, but for some reason on home videos that my wife has made, you can only see the screen at a very small viewing angle and it is otherwise very dark. It is very weird indeed.

In the end it comes down to each person's preference and for the most part I would probably still agree that CRTs are better for gaming. However, there are some LCDs that are right up there with them. I'd love to see how the Dell 30" performs but the price tag is way too high for me on that beast.
September 27, 2006 3:06:02 PM

I did forget to mention that my budget is next to nothing :) 

I am going to try the Acer 19" widescreen with the VGA cable just for kicks.

I am debating heavily between buying a used 21-22" CRT locally for dirt cheap or just living with the 19" LCD issues.
September 27, 2006 3:30:01 PM

What is the most important thing when searching for a "gaming" CRT? Refresh rate and/or dot pitch?
September 27, 2006 3:50:34 PM

Quote:
A Dell 24" LCD would change your mind in a heartbeat.


Ummm... brother, you are talking an exception, not the rule. You are talking top of the line, almost one of a kind 800-dollar LCD. So, no - I doubt it would change my mind, especially considering that there is 24" Sony-GDM-FW900-Widescreen-Trinitron for $485 (see below). So while your Dell is probably the best LCD within consumer price range, this Sony is hands down the best reasonably priced monitor ever made and it's like half the price of this Dell you speak of.

Quote:
What is the most important thing when searching for a "gaming" CRT? Refresh rate and/or dot pitch?


Both :) 

And.. Yeah, I know you are on a budget but I cannot help posting this. I think I will get one.

Sony GDM-FW900 Flat Widescreen 24" FD Trinitron CRT Monitor

"Product Description

Amazon.com Product Description
If you are a professional in CAD or other graphics, you need to get the most out of your monitor: the best image quality, reliability, and all the extras you can ask for. With the GDM-FW900 24-inch CRT (cathode-ray tube) monitor for Mac and PC, Sony has gone all out to bring you everything that you need. A 160 Hz refresh rate and 2,304 x 1,440 maximum resolution will satisfy any professional, while the 24-inch screen (20.5-inch viewable) provides 21 percent more display area than 21-inch monitors.

Digital Multiscan and Active Signal Correction (ASC) technologies help ease setup, while onscreen controls make adjustments a snap. The flatness of the screen, Sony's Enhanced Elliptical Correction System, and 0.25-0.28mm aperture grille pitch combine to bring you superior image quality. A USB hub for easy hookup to peripherals, an Accurate Image Restoration feature that resets your screen to its original brightness and contrast settings, and a three-year parts and labor warranty provide further enticement. If you demand high-end performance, the GDM-FW900 more than provides it.

Product Description
The Sony FD Trinitron Wide Aspect Display meets the exacting demands of graphic artists, CAD/CAM engineers, animators and other professional users who require extraordinarily accurate colors and crystal-clear images. This extra-wide 24" display offers an incredible 22.5" viewable image size in a monitor that requires about the same desktop space as most 21" class models. Its virtually flat screen surface provides more true-to-life images, so lines actually appear straighter and circles look round. Contemporary styling in shades of metallic silver and dark gray will appeal to your refined design sensibilities. The FW900 is perfect for graphic designers, architects, photographers, engineers and other professionals who need as much screen space as possible. Its panoramic 16: 10 aspect ratio means you can easily view double-page layouts with room to spare. Or see your entire design at once?without scrolling! Plus there's room to open more menus, toolbars and applications. Just imagine how much more efficiently you'll be able to work!The FW900 includes its own USB hub to make connecting your USB devices even faster and easier. Rather than fumbling in the back of your computer looking for an available USB port, simply plug your peripheral directly into the monitor's base. Now that's true plug and play!"

SPECS:

24" CRT FD Trinitron wide-screen professional monitor with 16:10 aspect ratio (displays two full-size A4 pages side by side)
Exceptionally fine AG pitch of 0.23 - 0.27 mm
BLC automatically corrects adverse influences of the Earth´s magnetic fields to provide excellent colour purity
Dual signal inputs and input selection switch for easy switching between multiple PCs
Stunning design and colour for professional users with roll-up control panel
Intuitive OSD control for easy picture set-up and adjustment
USB hub (1up/4 down) for easy connectivity to USB-compatible peripherals
Optimal ergonomic resolution of 1920 x 1200 at 98 Hz
TCO´99 compliance
CRT TYPE
Super Fine Pitch™ FD Trinitron tube, 24" (61 cm); DQL (Dynamic Quadrupole Lens)
and MALS (Multi-Astigmatism Lens System) with EFEAL (Extended Field Elliptical
Aperture Lens) and L-SAGIC™ (Low Voltage Small Aperture G1 with Impregnated
Cathode) dynamic focus systems; BLC (Beam Landing Correction); Hi-Con and
AR screen coatings (high contrast, anti-reflection/antistatic)

VISUAL AREA (H x V)
482 x 308 mm (diagonal: 572 mm)

APERTURE GRILLE PITCH
0.23 - 0.27 mm

HORIZONTAL FREQUENCY
30 to 121 kHz

VERTICAL FREQUENCY
48 to 160 Hz

MAXIMUM REFRESH RATES
1280 x 1024/115 Hz, 1920 x 1080/108 Hz
1600 x 1200/97 Hz, 1920 x 1200/98 Hz


USER PRESET SIGNAL TIMING
10 additional settings

COLOUR CONTROLS (OSD)
Fixed (3x): 9300 K/6500 K/5000 K; User: RGB Gain and Bias Control,
variable 5000 K - 11000 K; sRGB

COMPUTER INTERFACE
DDC 1, 2 B, 2 Bi; USB Hub (1up/4 down)

POWER CONSUMPTION
Normal Operation: 170 Watts (max) (w/o USB); Active Off Mode: 3 Watts (max);
Power Off Mode: 0 Watts

USER CONTROLS (ON-SCREEN DISPLAY)
Brightness, contrast, video input selection, H & V size and centring, zoom, geometry,
rotation, pincushion, pin balance, keystone, key balance, H & V convergence, top and
bottom vertical convergence, corner landing adjustment, moiré cancellation, manual
degauss, image restoration, Auto Sizing and Centring, OSD positioning, control lock,
colour control, languages (9), reset

VIDEO INPUT
D-sub 15/5 BNC

DIMENSIONS (W x H x D)
571.5 x 500 x 522.5 mm
September 27, 2006 5:25:35 PM

Quote:
So, unless someone can convincingly dispel the above I have to reiterate: Compared to CRTs, LCDs suck for gaming.


One big counter to that is size/weight/power usage. This is the one area where lcd's are king, and that is why they are taking over. (large offices started that move) Personally (in most cases) I agree w/ you though that they suck for gaming. I currently use a 19" Trinitron that is just butter smooth and crisp. It has a dot pitch that lcd's can only dream of, and a black that can suck in small planets. And the viewing angle? lol... You could probably see it from the back of the monitor, but I have not tested that theory yet. ;) 

I am still going to make the move to a nice viewsonic lcd here soon. I will keep the trinitron for home but the lcd is just so much nicer to pack for a LAN or whatever. Eventually even the mighty trinitron though will be a subject for historical observation... I am fully aware that it is a dinosaur among mammals. (but until that meteor hits this dinosaur can stomp and eat many mammals :)  )
September 27, 2006 5:34:48 PM

man, I remember when those sony's were thousands of dollars! It is monitors like that one that can bring tears to the eye w/ their beauty. Behold the majesty... (and just try to afford an lcd that can do 2304x1440!) ;) 

Man why you gotta show stuff like that? It makes me rethink my whole "gonna get an lcd" thing. :p  (kinda large dot-pitch though compared to my 19" which I believe is .23)
September 27, 2006 6:08:28 PM

One thing that I am suprised no one mentions is the eye strain that CRTs cause. When you switch to an LCD from CRT, you can never go back (I feel like the CRT is shooting painful rays directly into my eyeballs).

So if you work all day at work on a computer, and play CoH all night, you'll be glad you have an LCD and not a CRT.
September 27, 2006 6:32:45 PM

Quote:
One thing that I am suprised no one mentions is the eye strain that CRTs cause. When you switch to an LCD from CRT, you can never go back (I feel like the CRT is shooting painful rays directly into my eyeballs).

So if you work all day at work on a computer, and play CoH all night, you'll be glad you have an LCD and not a CRT.


that is only a problem if you run a refresh that is low. The higher the refresh rate, the easier it is on the eyes. Personally I can't stand anything under 75 or 80 Hz, but prefer 85 and higher. (run mine currently at 85, both at work and home)

cheaper crt's could not run above 60 or 65 at high resolutions (at that rate you can really see the "flicker") so that is probably what you have experience with I am guessing.

For text viewing though, I agree that lcds are much nicer. But gaming, as slava mentioned... they are just not as smooth as a crt. (provided the refresh is above your threshold for seeing the flicker) LCDs are not bad, just for motion graphics and still images they cannot get the same quality when compared side by side to a crt.

:edited verbage:
September 27, 2006 6:35:55 PM

:lol:  :lol: 
September 27, 2006 6:46:51 PM

Quote:
One thing that I am suprised no one mentions is the eye strain that CRTs cause. When you switch to an LCD from CRT, you can never go back (I feel like the CRT is shooting painful rays directly into my eyeballs).

So if you work all day at work on a computer, and play CoH all night, you'll be glad you have an LCD and not a CRT.


Nah, you are talking ancient history. Modern CRTs emit very little or nothing. Matter of fact, as I am typing this I am staring at a Dell LCD in my office and I have teary eyes. At home I stare at my CRT for hours and feel nothing. Could be something else, not the LCD itself, maybe the air circulation in my office or something... but the bottom line is that I've been staring at CRTs for about 17 years and my vision has not deteriorated in that amount of time. I am still using the same prescription as 17 years ago. So... Hmmm... I don't know about all that radiation nonsense.

My friend who has been a computer professional for 20 years now has stared at CRTs for way more hours than myself. He still has perfect 20/20 vison. Hmmm... I wonder.
September 27, 2006 7:04:39 PM

Rofl, who are you trying to fool man? That monitor is $485 refurbished and $499 used. It says no where how much it is for a new one and I couldn't find anywhere that sells it new. It also has no mention of response time and only has a serial and BNC connectors. Plus it would take one hell of a desk to fit that beast on. When was that thing manufactured, the 80s or early 90s?

You had me all excited too (
!