Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CRT v.s. LCD

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • LCD
  • Monitors
  • CRT Monitors
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
December 4, 2006 11:01:56 PM

SUP, I'm in the market of getting a new monitor, i was wondering what r the average specs of a CRT so i can compare them to a couple LCD's i'm interested in. i went to Google and didn't get far, can anyone help?

Thanks, l8er :) 

More about : crt lcd

December 4, 2006 11:42:38 PM

CRT monitors are big and boxy. LCDs are thin. both monitors measure size diagonally. also in both cases, the higher the contrast ratio will give you a better picture. CRTs can display lots of resolutions, while LCDs are known for displaying one resolution clearer than the rest it supports (known as it's "natural resolution"). LCDs are more expensive, but are said to last longer.

you mentioned something about "average CRT specs", please try being more specific.

hope this helps.
December 4, 2006 11:48:34 PM

SUP, LCD's have response times, contrast ratios, vewing angles, dot-pitches, etc. when i check out CRTs they dont have all those specs that LCDs have. i've heard that CRTs have thebest pictures but i haven't seen any specs to back them up like LCD's do. i know CRTs have them, i just cant find them, thats where i need help. i would like those specs so i can compair them to some LCD's i have in mind.

Thanks l8er :) 
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 4, 2006 11:56:11 PM

A CRT doesn't have some of those properties simply because of the way each technology works. Just a heads up that you shouldn't try to find back-to-back comparisons for every aspect of the monitor.

As far as my knowledge goes, which I admit isn't much in terms of monitors, CRT's have response times in micro-seconds, while most LCD's are measured in milli-seconds. CRT's take the prize in that regard in almost any comparison.
December 5, 2006 12:00:45 AM

Get LCD/TFT/...

The picture is a lot brighter
The viewable area is the size it is sold as.
Large sizes are available for very cheap nowadays.
The response time's are very quick nowadays. Not an issue unless you are anal.
They don't weigh a ton!
December 5, 2006 12:01:50 AM

If I were you I would go with an LCD and forget the CRT. there are some nice crt monitors still but the selection is not that big. Google (CRT monitor) and you should be able to find some differnet info on crt monitors available.

If you purchase an LCD get at least a 19 inch. That will support a resolution of 1280x1024 which is nice. Also I would get it at your local store like bestbuy staples comusa etc. Get one on sale that is a good name brand look up some reviews and find a nice one.

The advantage of getting one at the department store is that you can have them open the box and try the thing out before you buy it so you can make sure you are getting one that does not have any dead pixels. I did this at staples and they were very happy to do it for me before I purchased it.
December 5, 2006 12:13:02 AM

A highend cathode-ray tube is way better than any LCD,better than everything, except maybe an DLP.
December 5, 2006 12:15:23 AM

If you decide on getting an LCD try to buy one with a Zero-dead pixel guarentee. It would really suck to buy one and get a nasty dead pixel in the middle like my friends' and not be able to return it.

LCDs are easier to fit on a cluttered dorm desk :D 
December 5, 2006 12:20:21 AM

CRT is the way to go, they have the best picture, it doesn't have the specs as a lcd is because you can see it from any direction if they did have a viewing angle it would be 179.9 degrees
December 5, 2006 12:39:45 AM

crt,s have a better picture overall but are bigger and heavier.
lcd,s slim light weight.
December 5, 2006 12:43:52 AM

Where's your sig :roll:
December 5, 2006 12:49:40 AM

so what are you doin tonight?
maybe a little bit of this

December 5, 2006 12:50:49 AM

Not that I had a high quality crt before, but I really saw an improvement when I switched to lcd. No more flickering display and no more crowded workspace. With the crt it was also impossible to get the picture sharp all over. No matter what I did, the picture would always be out of focus somewere.

The only drawback I can see with the lcd is that I must have it at it's native resolution, or it will be slightly blurry. This is not so good, when my graphics card is getting old.
December 5, 2006 1:14:11 AM

same here :b much better picture in games .. tho mine sucks for movies :\ but so clear in games.. my old crt couldnt pull that
December 5, 2006 1:19:29 AM

All you forgot to note that CRTs hurt my eyes!!! After I get done on CRT my eyes are all read. :(  I like LCDs easy on the eyes and look better, also alot easier to transport.
December 5, 2006 1:20:53 AM

What do you have your refresh rate at? 60hz will definetly (to me) cause headaches.

Which is another reason I like LCD's better. A 60hz refresh rate on an LCD feels like 100hz+ CRT refresh rate. It has to do with how the image is actually produced. I don't know the specifics of it, I just trust my eyes and how they feel.
December 5, 2006 1:25:06 AM

There's pros and cons for both
LCD= easy on the eyeballs 8O
CRT= sharper image :wink:
December 5, 2006 1:35:49 AM

Hey, i was wondering if u guys had any input on the LCD i chose? its an LG L204WT, link ( http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=...;cat ). if u guys think its weak in any areas or if its a good LCD please input, i don't plan on upgrading my display anytime soon after my purchase. thanx :) 
December 5, 2006 1:38:42 AM

Note: I use the term LCD in a generic manner here to refer to all types of flat-screen displays, regardless of the specific type.

LCDs have the following advantages over CRTs:

1) they use a lot less power than a CRT.

2) a 17" LCD gives you 17" of actual display. A 17" CRT gives approximantely 15.6" of viewable disply. The discrepancy is due to the way CRTs are built and the fact that that the outer edges of a CRT distort so much that they are essentially unusable for viewing. A 17" LCD has the same viewable screen area as a 19" CRT monitor.

3) LCDs are much more compact than CRTs. The shallow front to back depth means much less space used on the desk. They are also much lighter than CRTs.

4)CRT is considered to be obsolete technology. It is getting difficult to find brand new CRT monitors. You may not have much of a choice here.


Main disadvantages of LCDs vs CRTs are:

1) All LCDs operate at a specific native resolution. Usually, this is a pretty high setting. 15" LCDs usually work at 1024 x 768, 17" & 19" usually run at 1280 x 1024 (or higher). This means that your text and icons and many other items are pretty small. This may not be an issue if you are young and have good vision, but if your eyesight is less than perfect, there will be a problem. If you are older (over 40) this will definitely be a concern. The weakness of LCDs is that if you don't run them at the native resolution, image quality deteriorates noticabley very fast. Text gets fuzzy when the font is large and illegible when small. All other screen elements also degrade. Sometimes, overall performance can also degrade. Note that on many LCDs, text in particular is rendered poorly even at the native resolution. This can lead to vision problems down the road. CRTs produce sharp and clear images regardless of which resolution they run at, with no loss of performance.

2) LCDs really don't like colour depth settings below 32-bit. This is not normally an issue, except for one significant segment of software. Specifically, kids software. It is amazing how much of the current product will not run in anything other than 256 colour mode. The reason is that most of the software for kids was originally produced to run under Windows 3.x. The manufacturers have repurposed the software to run under more current versions of Windows, but have not recoded the video portion of the application. This may not be a concern for you at this time, but it likely will be in the future. CRTs work just fine at all colour depths, including monochrome.

3) CRTs have refresh rates, LCDs have response times. These relate to how quickly the image on the screen is redrawn, and have an impact on image clarity and eyestrain. Until fairly recently, LCDs with response times of less than 10 milliseconds were not that common and quite expensive. This is an issue when moving images are displayed and when scrolling through text quickly. Moving images tend to be blurred, and have "tails". Scrolling text tends to be blurry, especially in File Manager, which slows down searches. Even the LCDs with response time below 10 ms don't perfrom as well as CRTs.

4) LCDs are limited in the legible viewing angle at which the contents of the display are clear. This why LCD specs include horizontal and vertical viewing angle - the numbers tell you at which point you can no longer see the image on the screen clearly. CRTs don't have this limitation.

5) LCDs do not work well under very bright lighting eg sunlight. See digital camers for simple example.

6) Lose a few cells and the entire screen needs to be replaced. The number of dead cells relative to the total number is surprisingly small.

For an interesting perspective, you may wish to compare the price difference between LCD Computer monitors and full-on televisions. Where I live Future Shop is charging $220 - $400 for 19" LCD monitors vs $600 for 19" LCD televisions. There's a very good reason that LCD TV's of the same size are significantly more expensive than computer LCD monitors. If you are a serious gamer, then getting an LCD monitor would be a very serious error. For most applications, LCD is perfectly fine, as long as you are aware of the issues and can live with the limitations of LCDs. Otherwise, get a good 19 or 21 inch CRT.

You should also search THG site - they have a number of descriptive articles and reviews that would help.

Hope this helps.
December 5, 2006 1:43:35 AM

WOW, that's going to help me and everyone who's going to visit this thread for info, thanx a lot man. :) 
December 5, 2006 1:43:36 AM

I own both a Philips 107P+3 professional CRT monitor and a Viewsonic 702 LCD monitorThe CRT can do up to 1920x1440 @ 60Hz or 1152x864 @ 100Hz which is what i usually run it at. Its simply fantastic. On the other hand the LCD can do 1280x1024 native at 75Hz. I like both for different reasons.
December 5, 2006 1:51:29 AM

Quote:
Hey, i was wondering if u guys had any input on the LCD i chose? its an LG L204WT, link ( http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=...;cat ). if u guys think its weak in any areas or if its a good LCD please input, i don't plan on upgrading my display anytime soon after my purchase. thanx :) 


Don't get me wrong, I have an Princeton 1700 LCD. And i like the look & weight of it(plus it was new)but i think the CRT has a better pic.

As for the one you chose, looks good to me :wink:
December 5, 2006 1:54:08 AM

Wow, I'm amazed anyone would still recommend a CRT short of anything like medical imaging or high-end video/graphics work. LCD's are the wave of the future. They are smaller, offer the screen size they are advertised at & have dropped tremendously in price.
True that CRTs have a faster refresh rate, but almost all new monitors no longer have issues with ghosting as the older ones with refresh rates more than 12-16ms did.
Dude unless you are looking at MRI's & CAT Scans go with an LCD. LG is pretty good I just bought a 55" Plasma TV by them & its amazing. Out performs all the Sony's etc that it was setup next to. Samsung also makes good monitors, I've got 3 of them, an Asus & a NEC they all are great. The NEC is older and has a slow refresh but its a home office PC & not a gaming one so space saving was of more concern.
December 5, 2006 2:06:51 AM

Would you care to elaborate on an assumed correlation between a company's LCD technology and its plazma technology?

In particular, please examine this situation - Sony's plasma TVs are generally very well regarded, while their LCD monitors are generally considered SUCKY. Don't mean to yell, but they SUCK (in terms of performace. Quite well designed, though).

I am listening quite attentively.
December 5, 2006 2:26:03 AM

Where do you even buy a nice CRT anymore? The brick and mortar stores around me seem to have a single low-end 17" for people on a strict budget and even newegg only has a handful of models larger than 17". It also appears that many companies don't even bother to make them anymore. I went through the whole LCD vs CRT thing about a year ago and I thought I was one of the last ones.

Anyway, to the OP - CRTs are a dead technology. You can get a nice 19" LCD for under $250 easily. Like a few other people have mentioned although CRTs do usually provide better picture, it's not even noticable to most people on a modern mid-range LCD.
December 5, 2006 2:46:28 AM

CRTs wil only produce a better image if they are high quality, unlike my 19" compaq with a sony trinitron tube. Its polarized almost, bluish at the top left and redish at the top right. And it kind of has streaks that come down from the top corners.
December 5, 2006 2:49:38 AM

Quote:
CRTs wil only produce a better image if they are high quality, unlike my 19" compaq with a sony trinitron tube. Its polarized almost, bluish at the top left and redish at the top right. And it kind of has streaks that come down from the top corners.



then yours is getting old/wore out.=broke
December 5, 2006 2:54:39 AM

Actually its less than 1 year old I think :?
December 5, 2006 2:56:12 AM

Quote:
they use a lot less power than a CRT.


This is the main reason I got the LCD

22" Wide, light weight was another
December 5, 2006 3:03:04 AM

Quote:
Actually its less than 1 year old I think :?


damn i have multiple 15, 17, and 19inch monitors that
range from 3 years to 7 years that are better than any lcd ive seen.
overall color and picture that is.

the best pic i have ever seen is my 32 hdtv sony trinitron 5 years old.
better than my cousins 47inch projection hdtv, my moms dlp projector
my other cousins 46inch hdtv, my friends 60inch crt projection tv.
and all lcd computer monitors ive seen.

plasmas have good color and decent blacks but thats it as far as i have seen.
December 5, 2006 3:04:47 AM

Quote:
they use a lot less power than a CRT.


This is the main reason I got the LCD

22" Wide, light weight was another



a good reason for lcd :) 
December 5, 2006 3:08:34 AM

Plasmas get image burn-in too easily and too fast i think to (correct me if I'm wrong), although it's definitely been improved since they first came out at $20000 each. Thats why you dont really see plasma pc monitors because most home pcs sit on the same screen for ages, like if you do word processing alot. *sigh* I need to look into upgrading my 19" CRT, rather than buying high end graphics that will look bad regardless :(  Sucks to be poor... :cry: 
December 5, 2006 3:08:46 AM

Quote:
Would you care to elaborate on an assumed correlation between a company's LCD technology and its plazma technology?

In particular, please examine this situation - Sony's plasma TVs are generally very well regarded, while their LCD monitors are generally considered SUCKY. Don't mean to yell, but they SUCK (in terms of performance. Quite well designed, though).

I am listening quite attentively.


That funny considering Sony no longer make plasma TV's. Sony's higher end LCD's are among the best made. They are also quite pricey which is the way it's always been for them. I am no big fan of Sony but the broad brush bashing is misleading.

To the poster I have a Samsung 204B while not perfect it show no ghosting and as long a you have the GPU (1600x1200) the games rock. I don't watch movie on my pc so I can't comment there.

The picture quality it not up to par if you need high color accuracy of full time graphics work but they do have LCD for that purpose as well. At this point CRT's are dead as no CRT out performance a high-end LCD in any area of picture quality to the point you would want to deal with the beat. Cost and black level were the last hurdles that LCD's had to cross which for the most part they have.
December 5, 2006 3:17:46 AM

160Hz... v-sync will be no prob there 8)
Musnt have much space left with that thing, and I hope you dont carry it with less than 3 people :lol: 
December 5, 2006 3:21:14 AM

Quote:
Plasmas get image burn-in too easily and too fast i think to (correct me if I'm wrong), although it's definitely been improved since they first came out at $20000 each. Thats why you dont really see plasma pc monitors because most home pcs sit on the same screen for ages, like if you do word processing alot. *sigh* I need to look into upgrading my 19" CRT, rather than buying high end graphics that will look bad regardless :(  Sucks to be poor... :cry: 



true :) 
December 5, 2006 3:25:02 AM

A pack mule, a flatbed truck and a sherpa were all involved in transporting my old 21" Samsung CRT. I loved it to death but my desk space was crying out in my dorm and the call was answered when Best Buy had the 22" Westinghouse Widescreen LCD with 5ms response time and 1680 x 1050 native resolution.

I now love this LCD...
December 5, 2006 3:26:23 AM

Quote:
Plasmas get image burn-in too easily and too fast i think to (correct me if I'm wrong), although it's definitely been improved since they first came out at $20000 each. Thats why you dont really see plasma pc monitors because most home pcs sit on the same screen for ages, like if you do word processing alot. *sigh* I need to look into upgrading my 19" CRT, rather than buying high end graphics that will look bad regardless :(  Sucks to be poor... :cry: 



true :) 
What the stuff on plasmas or the "sucks to be poor" part? (or both :lol:  )
December 5, 2006 3:27:10 AM

Good luck finding a CRT.

When my CRT died about 3 years ago I was forced to buy a replacement from whatever Office Max, Office Depot, Circuit City or Best Buy had in stock.

Collectively the group had a selection of 15" CRT's and 1, I repeat ONE, 17" CRT.

Gosh darn, I was using a 19" CRT, there was no way I was going down in size.

So I grabbed the first LCD that was semi reasonable in price that I could tolerate the display.

That was 3 years ago.

I was walk the aisles picking out my Xmas presents the selection doesn't look any better.

It is a LCD world (at least for off the shelf customers). I would kill for a 21" CRT.

From my perspective (with a 3 yr old monitor), LCD's sux swamp water. Black text is a shade of gray. LCD monitors are bright. Too bright. I am constantly tweaking the brightness/contrast setting.

Would I buy another LCD? Do I have much of a choice?

The flip side of the coin. LCD's are quiter. Yes many CRT's can and do generate a bit of hum that can be audible. Surprisingly LCD's appear to be as durable, or maybe even more durable than CRT's. I may really, really want a 21" CRT, but size is an issue. My 19" LCD takes less physical space than my old 19" CRT took. Granted my desk is in a corner and I have the corner depth to play with, but the old 19" CRT took up quite a bit of real estate. With the LCD I am able to eat my favorite snack foods right at my desk and even have space to have my cold beverage properly placed between my keyboard and the front of the monitor.

And LCD's consume less electricity. Like who cares, it aint that much juice. Well electricity consumed that is not released as visual energy is released as heat energy. Having a huge CRT in front of you requires more cold beverages or turning up the AC.

Would I go back to a CRT? Yep, in a heart beat. But if somebody was to buy me the 30 wide screen Dell LCD I would not throw the unit away.
December 5, 2006 3:28:33 AM

Since th OP hasnt been around lately, I think I will hijack this thread :twisted:
Current topic = cats vs dogs :lol: 
December 5, 2006 3:30:53 AM

Quote:
A pack mule, a flatbed truck and a sherpa were all involved in transporting my old 21" Samsung CRT. I loved it to death but my desk space was crying out in my dorm and the call was answered when Best Buy had the 22" Westinghouse Widescreen LCD with 5ms response time and 1680 x 1050 native resolution.

I now love this LCD...


http://www.compfused.com/directlink/4264/


lcd,s and crt,s
kinda like gracie and severn from old ufc. :lol: 
December 5, 2006 3:32:06 AM

Quote:
Plasmas get image burn-in too easily and too fast i think to (correct me if I'm wrong), although it's definitely been improved since they first came out at $20000 each. Thats why you dont really see plasma pc monitors because most home pcs sit on the same screen for ages, like if you do word processing alot. *sigh* I need to look into upgrading my 19" CRT, rather than buying high end graphics that will look bad regardless :(  Sucks to be poor... :cry: 



true :) 
What the stuff on plasmas or the "sucks to be poor" part? (or both :lol:  )


uhmm all of the above. :wink:
December 5, 2006 3:33:46 AM

Big cats, like Lions and Tigers, RULE.

Just don't tell my house dogs that there are something better than them.
December 5, 2006 3:34:51 AM

Gee, thats real nice... 8)
December 5, 2006 3:38:05 AM

Yes, my hijack was successful, at least for the moment :D  Ah, only 5 more posts and I'm up to 400 pointless, random and unhelpful additions to the TGFZ database, ha ha!
December 5, 2006 3:47:13 AM

Quote:
Gee, thats real nice... 8)


what is?

did you check the link i posted?

its an oldie but a goodie
December 5, 2006 3:48:59 AM

Quote:
A pack mule, a flatbed truck and a sherpa were all involved in transporting my old 21" Samsung CRT. I loved it to death but my desk space was crying out in my dorm and the call was answered when Best Buy had the 22" Westinghouse Widescreen LCD with 5ms response time and 1680 x 1050 native resolution.

I now love this LCD...


http://www.compfused.com/directlink/4264/


lcd,s and crt,s
kinda like gracie and severn from old ufc. :lol: Gracie was the best fighter ever. Like a boa-constrictor. If you think about it, most fights go to the ground anyway(grappling), and that's where the Gracie Jiu-Jitsu(as well as other Jui-Jitsu, Judo, etc.) rule. Tai Kwon Do and other "show" disciplines are just that....show. :wink:
December 5, 2006 3:56:39 AM

Quote:
Gee, thats real nice... 8)


what is?

did you check the link i posted?

its an oldie but a goodie
You said true to:

Quote:
What the stuff on plasmas or the "sucks to be poor" part? (or both :lol: )


uhmm all of the above.:wink:
But nevermind. Anyways I saw that ad in your thread that you started on it, the AMD vs Intel thing, or was it ATI vs Nvidia, I cant remember.
!