Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CRT vs wide LCD - Things to consider

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 1, 2008 4:54:40 PM

Right now I have a 19" CRT monitor, but because of the space it takes up, power it uses, and general ugliness it has, I want to replace it with a 22" widescreen LCD. I'm wondering how easy this transition will be.

I know with my CRT, I can change resolutions for different things (desktop vs. gaming vs. whatever). Can the same thing be done with an LCD?

What about picture quality?

Can both Windows Vista, current games (Company of Heroes), and current applications (iTunes, Firefox) be easily used with a widescreen display without having ANY black bars on the sides. I want to be able to use all the screen space for every application.

Anything else I should also consider?

More about : crt wide lcd things

April 1, 2008 5:10:07 PM

Yes you will get full widescreen support for most of todays applications.

However you cannot change resolutions like you can with a CRT.You have to run all your games and windows in the native resolution to get the best picture quality.You will notice the native resolution of a LCD to have smaller text in windows than what you are used to on a CRT.

You will also have to upgrade your PC regularly to keep up with the native resolution and playing in non-native through either scaling or windowed just sucks as far as i am concered.

And lastly most any 22" LCD sucks as it is a TN panel and non TN panels have lag problems and they are much more expensive.I think you are better off with your current monitor.If the colours and all that have faded then just get a new one.Viewsonic still makes there graphics series ultrabrite CRT's which has superb picture quality with a dedicated gaming mode which really looks fantastic.You can get a 19" for $200.
April 1, 2008 5:56:33 PM

Funny you should mention that, the 19" Viewsonic CRT is what I currently have! Maybe it's just me, but it's fuzzy as anything, and text gets hard to read on it. Is there a good program or something I can use to get the best picture quality out of it?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 1, 2008 6:11:21 PM

Just about every game made in the last 2 years can take advantage of a widescreen display. As well as anything like Itunes.

Another thing to consider is whether or not your video card is up to running games (at a playable framerate) at the resolution that a 22 in LCD would need. Usually they're native resolution is 1650x1000 or higher. Which can really bring a mid range card to it's knees.
April 1, 2008 6:22:41 PM

Do you have viewsonic ultrabrite monitor?

As for fuzziness,well completely reduce the miore reduction feature that would be in your monitor settings for both horizontal and vertical.I have not noticed any side effects of doing that.Also if your monitor does not have good refresh rates than gaming is not that enjoyable on a CRT running an uncomfortable refresh rate.
April 1, 2008 6:34:49 PM

I think it is an ultrabright model. It has an "ultrabright" button that you push to increase brightness during gaming or for videos. Sometimes I just find text to be almost unreadable it's so funny.

As for my vid-card, it's currently a 8600GT (factory overclocked). I'm not a big time gamer, but I do game on occasion. I will most likely upgrade the card in the next year to something in the 9xxx range.
a c 173 U Graphics card
April 1, 2008 7:14:22 PM

There is no way an 8600GT can power a 22" LCD with options turned on. I'm not sure how many options you'll be able to turn on, but the 8600GT won't power many games. (You'll be fine on desktop apps, movies, etc.)

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...

Play with this, but make sure you use 1600x1200, as thats close to the native res found on 19" monitors. As you can see, unless you consider almost 9FPS playable, using the 8600GT is not a good idea. Another one you should check out is the Doom3 at 1600x1200. There the 7600GT beats the 8600GT, but both are around 30FPS. Not bad, but more modern shooters (Battlefield 2142, Crysis, COD4, etc, will suffer.)

I'm not saying don't get the monitor, I am saying either upgrade your video card first, or do it together. That way you won't have to suffer through games at 15FPS. Speaking of which, current games shouldn't have a problem with wide screen gaming. If you have any older games that you like to play, you might need a patch of some sort to make it work.
April 1, 2008 7:30:53 PM

I would say it depends how much you really need all the eye candy turned up. While the 8600GT is not a stellar performer, it will be able to run games, assuming you keep things like AA/AF off and other ingame visuals keep to low-med settings. It will all still be playable (except maybe crysis), it just won't be as pretty.
April 1, 2008 7:39:13 PM

To Thinker_145: Have you personally tried gaming on a recent non TN panel ? I have a 24" Benq fp241vw (M-PVA panel) normal response time is 16ms and with perfect-motion technology it goes down to 5ms. Even then my eyes can't tell the difference between 16ms and 5ms ..... if you can then my friend you must have special bionic eyes or something. But I sure can tell the difference between a TN and a non TN panel !
April 1, 2008 8:22:06 PM

Yes you can run different resolutions. LCD's have a native resolution like for a 22inch it is usually 1680x1050. Usually you get the best picture at the native resolution, but it will adjust to any size even non-widescreen formats. One thing you won't miss is having to adjust your picture every time you change resolution at least when you use a DVI cable. I just purchased my second widescreen and the 5th LCD it's a LG L227WTG Flatron and it's pretty impressive. The best LCD I have owned, 2ms response, 10,000:1 contrast ratio, and excellent image quality.
April 1, 2008 9:11:49 PM

smartel7070 said:
To Thinker_145: Have you personally tried gaming on a recent non TN panel ? I have a 24" Benq fp241vw (M-PVA panel) normal response time is 16ms and with perfect-motion technology it goes down to 5ms. Even then my eyes can't tell the difference between 16ms and 5ms ..... if you can then my friend you must have special bionic eyes or something. But I sure can tell the difference between a TN and a non TN panel !
Well no i havent to be honest tried a non-TN panel for some time but what can you do even people I know running SLI 8800GTX are playing with a TN panel it's not even funny anymore.

Well the big drawback of a 24" is the native res but if it indeed does not lag and you do have a capable rig for the screen then more power to you.
April 1, 2008 9:16:12 PM

Thinker_145 said:
And lastly most any 22" LCD sucks as it is a TN panel and non TN panels have lag problems and they are much more expensive.I think you are better off with your current monitor.If the colours and all that have faded then just get a new one.Viewsonic still makes there graphics series ultrabrite CRT's which has superb picture quality with a dedicated gaming mode which really looks fantastic.You can get a 19" for $200.


$200 for a 19" CRT :pfff:  . . . If you get a nice 22" LCD you will not regret it.
April 1, 2008 9:26:22 PM

San Pedro said:
$200 for a 19" CRT :pfff:  . . . If you get a nice 22" LCD you will not regret it.
What's wrong with that?

That $200 CRT will easily beat any LCD in the same price range.
April 1, 2008 9:51:12 PM

I think $200 for a 19" CRT is way too much now days, no matter how good the picture is. I got my 19" CRT about 5 years ago for about $70 and it still has a awesome, crystal clear picture. It is an Envision brand.
April 1, 2008 10:12:38 PM

I think you'll be fine with a 22". I had a ATI x850xtpe (which is an old card) running a 24" monitor before I upgraded to a 8800gt, and it could play Overlord, orange box, and the new Tomb Raider at 1920x1200 at med-low settings. An 8600GT should handle newer games fine as long as you keep in the medium settings. You won't regret moving to a widescreen lcd, there really isn't much reason to stick with crts.
April 1, 2008 10:41:59 PM

@Thinker: A $200 19" CRT is not going to deliver a better gaming experience. The reduced eye strain alone is a good reason to make the switch. Then there is power, heat and space. Most importantly there is the sexy factor and all which are in favor of LCD's. On paper CRT's show their muscle but to most eyes the advantages of the CRT's are less impressive, many casual observers think the high saturation LCD look better in term of image quality.

In the end it's all about personal preference but it is subjective.

For general use and gaming TN panels are great. All this bashing on them is way out of line in the context of gaming. For professional work with graphics they are lacking but all LCD suffer from that to some extent. I have used PVA's and TN's side by side a Samsung 173P+ and 204b and once calibrated there is very little difference that you can tell with your eyes. Before calibration with my Spyder 3 there was a noticeable difference and more work was required to get the TN dialed in but they are real close.

The fact is responce time lag is far more noticeable than 100% accuracy on colors to most gamers. The viewing angle is not that big of deal unless you have friends off to the sides. Now I'm not saying a PVA's isn't better, some of newer ones are more than fast enough but even side by side most wouldn't even know that there was a difference. Once you factor in the cost, TN's make the best gaming LCD's out there. Just take the time to calibrate it
April 1, 2008 11:16:51 PM

Completely agree with ByDesign.
a b U Graphics card
April 1, 2008 11:16:58 PM

I'm not going to get involved in the CRT vs LCD debate until someone actually uses an LCD that can beat this P260 CRT, I'm sitting in front of, for under $1,000.

As for the OP's question, IMO get a 1920x1200 LCD for 3 reasons, A) True HD will let you see all of the 1080P image, B) Larger work space than the 16x10 monitors and lower resolutions, C) when gaming you can drop down to 960x600 and gaming in a 4:1 pixel ratio without interpolation, where the pixel pitch is essentially bigger, but from my experiences it looks better than trying to interpolate a 1024x768 picture onto a 1680x1050 screen.

Anywhoo hope that helps in deciding the LCD to buy, I'm not going to bother defending either CRT or LCD because IMO either you know why you want/need one or you don't.
April 1, 2008 11:25:25 PM

No an 8600GT powering a 19" CRT will provide a beter gaming experience than an 8600GT powering a 22".High settings in a slightly smaller screen>>>>>>medium\low settings in high res on a bigger screen.

LCD's are fine and all that but if you have a high res LCD and dont play games maxed out most of the time then you are only making a fool out of yourself.
April 1, 2008 11:28:09 PM

Do they still make -new- CRT's?

The CRT will give much better color but uses alot of power and emits xrays just like a CRT TV set.
I still have a 17" CRT as well as LCD's and I use the CRT almost all the time and let people use the LCD's on my 7 unit LAN on the weekends if we party and play games.

EDIT: Changed CRT to LCD on the LAN setup.
a b U Graphics card
April 2, 2008 12:15:55 AM

Yeah they still make CRTs, but mainly for proffesional use and even those are dissapearing. I think Samsung are the only ones left but I'm not sure. They're basically rebranded now. When Mitsubishi left the game at the end of 2006 with their Diamondtrons that was the end of the best.

BTW, unless LEDlit, CCFL lit LCDs still emit UVB so they aren't completely harmless, just 'mostly harmless' - Douglas Adams :sol: 
a c 173 U Graphics card
April 2, 2008 1:00:41 AM

Thinker, thats what I was trying to say. If someone tries gaming with a 22" LCD and an 8600GT, they will have to turn so many settings down it will look horrible. Looking at newegg, I see many 22" monitors with a screen size of 1680 x 1050. (I thought it would be higher.) Check out how the 8600GT fairs at 1600x1200.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...

(I picked the x850xt simply because someone else said they had one.) As I play around and pick different games, I don't think I see a single one above 30FPS. (doom3 might, I was looking for newer games.) Thinker does make a point. If you are staying with an 8600GT, I hope you have a CRT as thats the best way to change the res without making it look bad.

Ape also has a nice point. 1920x1080 panels are also nice. I'm not sure playing at 960x600 is very nice, but at least its doable. (without making the LCD use interpolation.) Do games support 840x525? I'm not sure I'd like to play on something that small however.
April 2, 2008 1:12:37 AM

The thing you have to remember is all of those benchmarks are using 4x AA and 8x AF. Turn those down/off will likely double the performance.
a c 230 U Graphics card
April 2, 2008 1:51:28 AM

Ya wanna look at the differences between LCD's and CRT's , here's THE source:

http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html

And yes, there are very noticeable differences between TN type panels and S-PVA or other type panels. TN's claim to fame was response time but on the newer panels, TN only holds a 1 or 2 ms advantage when you use actual measured rather than advertised numbers. many vendors are pulling a fast one tho, starting their production runs with S-PVA panels (which they send to reviews) and then outsourcing once demand rises to a cheaper TN panel.

The only non TN panel I know of with 1920 x 1200 that is under $500 is the Lenovo L220x but it's real hard to find in stock.
April 2, 2008 2:59:20 AM

4745454b said:
There is no way an 8600GT can power a 22" LCD with options turned on. I'm not sure how many options you'll be able to turn on, but the 8600GT won't power many games. (You'll be fine on desktop apps, movies, etc.)

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...




It is pure non-sense to say that an 8600GT can't power a 22" LCD with options turned on. Not sure what options you are referring to as you don't say. :pt1cable: 

I can reasonably run Crysis from a 7600GS on a 19" LCD. Obviously this is not with all the eye candy turned on but it still can be played reasonably well frame rate.

When I'm not playing games the 7600GS is running two of these 19" LCD's. It's not necessary to run everything at the highest resolution. You aren't going to do that on a CRT either so what's the point???

I tell you what if you can find a decent price on an LCD go for it... after I bought the first one it was only a month later till I bought the second one... but what you see out of your eyeball and what I see might be 20/30 different who knows... if so put on shades and swing your head back and forth lol.
a c 173 U Graphics card
April 2, 2008 3:28:15 AM

Basketcase and pip, thats what I'm trying to say. Who wants to play a game at a "low resolution", and have to turn details down to make is get above 30? Worse, Crysis is a FPS, you should be shooting for 60. If you turn off AA and the world detail levels, it looks worse. I, and tinker apparently, would rather play on a CRT so that we can load a good looking game with lots of details. You could have an 8600GT do it, but it won't look at good. (meaning the frame rates will be fine, but you will turn off so much stuff you aren't really playing the game.)

As I said in my first post, this is something the OP needs to consider. If he switches to the LCD, he probably wants to upgrade his video card. (he can test before he takes the plunge. Start playing all your games at 1600x1200, if it looks acceptable, then don't worry about upgrading the video card.) I am simply trying to inform him.
a c 359 U Graphics card
April 2, 2008 3:53:37 AM

Here are some things to consider regarding CRT vs. LCD:

CRT
1. Rich colors and very good contrast
2. Very wide viewing angles
3. You can set virtually any resolution with hardly any (if any) decrease in image quality
4. CRTs can strain your eyes, but increasing the refresh rate should delay strain
5. You will not have any ghosting (after images) issues
6. You eyes get a "healthy" dose of radiation
7. Large footprint

LCD (TN Panel specifically)
1. At native resolution (a.k.a. max res) text is generally very sharp
2. Small footprint, you get back some deskspace
3. Consumes less power
4. $200 will get you a TN panel LCD monitor which is not known for rich colors
5. Colors will not be very accurate (higher end LCD panel tech can produce very accurate colors)
6. Contrast ratio will have a somewhat narrow range
7. Viewing angles will be limited, in the worst scenario simply tilting your head up/down/left/right while staring at the monitor can produce color shift
8. Ghosting, even on the fastest LCD panel, you can still see ghosting from time to time
9. At less than native resolution images and text becomes a little blurry and which in turn causes a noticeable drop in image quality. Still looks "good", but not "pretty".

April 2, 2008 10:29:31 AM

4745454b said:
Basketcase and pip, thats what I'm trying to say. Who wants to play a game at a "low resolution", and have to turn details down to make is get above 30? Worse, Crysis is a FPS, you should be shooting for 60. If you turn off AA and the world detail levels, it looks worse. I, and tinker apparently, would rather play on a CRT so that we can load a good looking game with lots of details. You could have an 8600GT do it, but it won't look at good. (meaning the frame rates will be fine, but you will turn off so much stuff you aren't really playing the game.)

As I said in my first post, this is something the OP needs to consider. If he switches to the LCD, he probably wants to upgrade his video card. (he can test before he takes the plunge. Start playing all your games at 1600x1200, if it looks acceptable, then don't worry about upgrading the video card.) I am simply trying to inform him.


I understand what you are saying, as well. But, first off, the OP never said anything about playing Crysis. Second off, I have an 8600GT that plays everything (except for I haven't tried Crysis) on either max or very close to it. Games like Oblivion, ETQW, Rainbow Six Vegas, NWN2, etc... I play them all on a resolution of 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 16xAF, and most (if not all) in game settings set to max. I don't think the jump to 1650x1000 (or so) would require that they turn everything down to absolutely as low as possible. They may need to turn off AA, and a couple settings, but MOST games should still look pretty good on a high resolution. Would it be as good as getting a new card...? No. But, it would still work.

I just didn't like the way you made it sound like nothing at all would work. The OP doesn't need to IMMEDIATELY get a new video card. They should test it out and see if they need it for their gaming needs.
April 2, 2008 2:37:28 PM

How do you guys thing the Samsung 2493HM? I was thinking about getting this one soon, its 1920x1200 which is perfectly fine for me with 5ms response and 10,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio...I'm kinda debating between it and that Lenovo mentioned earlier....I really would like the 24" though rather than 22".
April 2, 2008 3:18:50 PM

You will be extremely happy with it, though, running games at 1920x1200 is more demanding. However, you will be able to view 1080p material in full resolution.
a c 230 U Graphics card
April 2, 2008 4:20:33 PM

cmmcnamara said:
How do you guys thing the Samsung 2493HM? I was thinking about getting this one soon, its 1920x1200 which is perfectly fine for me with 5ms response and 10,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio...I'm kinda debating between it and that Lenovo mentioned earlier....I really would like the 24" though rather than 22".


If ya have the chance to go out and look at them I'd advise it. Big question is how close to you sit to your screen ? On all my boxes, I'm about 12 -18" away and on "default" LCD resolutions, I can see pixels which I find distracting. 96 dpi was the old minimum "standard" with CRT's. With LCD's 0.250 pixel pitch is considered suitable for professional applications. I'm typing from a screen with 0.191 and I can't see a pixel w/ my eyelash touching the screen. If you sit further back, say 24" or more, then a 24" will suit you better.....assuming you can find a S-PVA in a 24" in your price range.

Here's your 1920 x 1200 screen options:

Screen size Pixel pitch Pixels per inch
15.4 0.173 146.8
17 0.191 132.9
22 0.247 102.8
23 0.258 98.4
24 0.270 94.0
25.5 0.287 88.5
27 0.303 83.8
a b U Graphics card
April 2, 2008 4:41:38 PM

Hey where's 19" and 20" !?! :p 
a c 230 U Graphics card
April 2, 2008 5:11:35 PM

I don't think there is a 19" or 20" monitor offering 1920 x 1200 resolution. I didn't know there was a 15" but it's listed on wikipedia.
a c 173 U Graphics card
April 2, 2008 6:37:37 PM

If I made it sound like it wouldn't work at all, thank you for calling me on that. In my first post I said the 8600GT won't play games with all the options turned on. I stand by that assessment. If you like to have details on, the 8600GT is not the way to go on larger LCD screens.

Quote:
I have an 8600GT that plays everything (except for I haven't tried Crysis) on either max or very close to it. Games like Oblivion, ETQW, Rainbow Six Vegas, NWN2, etc... I play them all on a resolution of 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 16xAF, and most (if not all) in game settings set to max.


Really? Now you are starting to sound like a fanboy.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...

Do you play Oblivion at 1280x1024 with 4aa/8af and "most (if not all) in game settings set to max", or do you just watch the slide show? Note that they tested with no AA, and got just over 12FPS. I realize as a RGP some might call this playable, but I believe that you need at least 20FPS for those games.

I stand by what I said in my previous post, and what you just said. He should test it out for himself. Start playing all games at 1600x1200, the closest res to 1680x1050. If it looks fine to him, then by all means he should keep the 8600GT. All I'm trying to do is warn him that unlike the CRT that he has now, he should take the native res into account when he buys his LCD. The 8600GT is not the best choice for gaming at 1680x1050, he might want to consider getting something a little better.
April 2, 2008 7:41:19 PM

I don't know how I do it, but I do. I will run something to show my FPS in game. I do know that I am not getting 12 FPS in game. I think I probably avg about 20-25 in Oblivion, which is playable to me. I don't know if it makes much difference or not that my 8600 GT is clocked at 700 mhz Core and 1700 Ram.
April 2, 2008 9:32:00 PM

I agree with 4745454b no matter how you cut it playing in 16x10 with an 8600GT is not a wise option.

You are basicaly sacrificing SO MUCH for a few more unnecessary pixels.
April 2, 2008 10:13:07 PM

Widescreen Pros:

- You see more. You can see opponents better then they can in online FPS's. A good advantage.
- Slim. They aren't as butt-ugly as the CRTS were.
- High resolution. Most can go way higher in resolution then an equivalent priced CRT
- Cheap. Face it, they're way cheaper then CRTs anyway.
- Less energy consumption. A LCD will save you on your electric bill! Al Gore will thank you.

Cons:

- Lower quality. A CRT will generally last longer then a similarly priced LCD. LCD's stuck and dead pixels are quite annoying sometimes.
- Retarded native resolutions. Resolutions that are different then anything but the LCD's native resolution will look like crap. I use forceware to run a 1280x800 resolution so my card can bench it in games, and it doesn't look so good...

Things to also consider:
- On a widescreen, older games without widescreen support will look like crap.
- You will probably need a better graphics card to make games look just as good as they did on your CRT.

I've had a CRT way longer then I have had a LCD, and I can say that LCDs are just better. I would definately upgrade to a 22" widescreen. You won't regret it.
April 2, 2008 10:36:22 PM

LCD's going higher resolution that similarly priced CRT's?Where did you get that.CRT's can push more pixels per inch than any LCD can ever do.

And again i dont see how LCD's are cheaper?
April 2, 2008 10:36:32 PM

I wnet from a samsung 19" crt to a benq 24" m-pva panel and I wish I would have done this a long time ago!. The 24 is so much better, I play everything and very rarely do I ever see ghosting. Yes it does take a better gpu to run it at 1920x1200 but who cares it's well worth it IMO.
a b U Graphics card
April 2, 2008 11:47:14 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
I don't think there is a 19" or 20" monitor offering 1920 x 1200 resolution. I didn't know there was a 15" but it's listed on wikipedia.


20" WUXGA on the HP HDX laptop, not sure about the 19", I thought Benq or Planar made one, but can't remember.
April 3, 2008 1:22:04 AM

At JackNaylorPE, if I get what you are saying, I need to do some close up inspection to see what distance I see pixels at? I normally sit about 14" or 15" from the screen...at current I'm on my laptop, hmmm around 18 or 19" probably? Its a Dell Vostro with a 15" screen at a resolution of 1680x1050 and from this distance I really can't see them...but then again that's a pretty high resolution for 15" isn't it? I work at Best Buy so its always on display but I need them to crank up the resolution....they keep it at a measly resolution so that the smaller resolution displays actually run.
a c 230 U Graphics card
April 3, 2008 1:27:53 AM

Now that I think of it, Clevo used to have some SLI laptops at 19" a while back.
April 3, 2008 12:42:56 PM

4745454b said:
If I made it sound like it wouldn't work at all, thank you for calling me on that. In my first post I said the 8600GT won't play games with all the options turned on. I stand by that assessment. If you like to have details on, the 8600GT is not the way to go on larger LCD screens.

Quote:
I have an 8600GT that plays everything (except for I haven't tried Crysis) on either max or very close to it. Games like Oblivion, ETQW, Rainbow Six Vegas, NWN2, etc... I play them all on a resolution of 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 16xAF, and most (if not all) in game settings set to max.


Really? Now you are starting to sound like a fanboy.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...

Do you play Oblivion at 1280x1024 with 4aa/8af and "most (if not all) in game settings set to max", or do you just watch the slide show? Note that they tested with no AA, and got just over 12FPS. I realize as a RGP some might call this playable, but I believe that you need at least 20FPS for those games.

I stand by what I said in my previous post, and what you just said. He should test it out for himself. Start playing all games at 1600x1200, the closest res to 1680x1050. If it looks fine to him, then by all means he should keep the 8600GT. All I'm trying to do is warn him that unlike the CRT that he has now, he should take the native res into account when he buys his LCD. The 8600GT is not the best choice for gaming at 1680x1050, he might want to consider getting something a little better.


OK, I revisted Oblivion on my PC. It had been awhile since I have played it. But, my memory was serving me correct, for the most part.
I have it set up to do
4xAA
8xAF
HDR
25% Exterior Shadows
50% Interior Shadows
Tree Canopy Shadows
Distant Lands
Tree Clip 100%
Grass Clip 100%
Specular Distance 50%
Item/Character Distance is about 50%

Things I do have off:
Grass Shadows
Soft Shadows

All of this is at 1280x1024 resolution. I brought up the FPS monitor in game, and never once did I see it go below 20. Most of the time, it was somewhere between 25-30 FPS, which is completely playable for me.

Here are some screen shots




There are some more here: http://s290.photobucket.com/albums/ll244/basketcase421/

So, I guess I was mistaken in my statement that I had "everything" maxed out. But, I did have all of the important things that make the visuals good in that game (distant lands, large textures, HDR, grass, etc...), along with the 4xAA.

As to why there is such a variance from what THG shows in their tests, I am not sure. It could be the fact that my 8600GT is the XFX "XXX" version and runs at 620core/800mem stock speeds. I also OC on top of that to 700core/850mem. I think the one that THG used was 540core/700mem. Could that be enough to make that big of a difference, I don't know...
a c 173 U Graphics card
April 3, 2008 7:13:03 PM

It probably has everything to do with they maxed everything out, and you didn't. At your res, I would try turning the AA off (or down to 2AA) and try turning the distances on. (I haven't tried it in oblivion, but I didn't like the look/feel of soft shadows on FEAR.) If you turned off soft and grass shadows, and turned many other options down to 50% or lower, this is NOT maxed out. (I like how you get 27FPS in that second photo, the one with NO enemies in the picture...)

Again, for the last time, the OP should test this himself. If he likes how the 8600GT performs for him and his games at 1600x1200, then he can get the monitor and not worry about anything. If he finds it to jerky, then his should get a newer card.
April 3, 2008 8:17:00 PM

I played crysis on a CRT and the 19" LCD and the LCD was way better IMHO. I think I ran both at 1024x768 or something like that but you have to remember I am runnning a lowly 7600GS and crysis is a beotch to run even for a decked out game machine.

I never really tried to push it though I always let the game decided what settings to use and it was playable without a hitch except for check points the video would glitch a bit... but this is normal IMO.

4745454b, you did make it sound like the 8600 wouldn't let you do anything on a 22" LCD... which is really the only reason I responded to this thread.

As far as costs go the only way an LCD is cheaper is after you figure in what you pay for power to run it vs. the CRT + the LCD generates less heat so saves you on the A/C bill as well. Those big CRT's are power hungry behemouths that get roasty toasty after they are on a while. I am probably paying the same to run 2 monitors as it would to run just one smaller CRT. But it's not big savings... maybe $1 or $2 a month if that... over the life of the monitor it is cheaper in the long run... very much like running CFL light bulb vs. the cheaper incandescent.... you don't realize the savings up front.

I could never see myself going back to CRT now.... :D 
a c 230 U Graphics card
April 3, 2008 8:39:45 PM

pip_seeker said:
I played crysis on a CRT and the 19" LCD and the LCD was way better IMHO.


If you drove a Dodge Viper and Ford Taurus would you conclude that all Dodges are better than all Fords ?

If you drove both cars in bumper to bumper traffic would you be able to make any conclusions from how they each perform on an open road ?

It depends on what ya wanna look at. Games are animation .... the video is essentially moving comic books....not exactly "high art". You don't need a good monitor to play games because your colors are all fake. If they vary from a standard, how would you know ?

Now let's say you were doing some mock ups for a make up ad.....interpreting CAD drawings where different underground utilities are color coded in different shades of blue......or reviewing crime scene photos where the color of the blood on the floor was going to serve as the basis of how old the blood was.....would you not want to be able to rely on the colors being accurate ?

If all you are using a monitor for is gaming, there's no reason to invest in color accuracy because it has little bearing on how much you will enjoy the game.

Saying which one is better is like saying which saw blade is better....for rough cuts, large wider separated teeth are better, for finish carpentry, the fine, closer teeth are better.
April 4, 2008 2:51:04 AM

4745454b said:
It probably has everything to do with they maxed everything out, and you didn't. At your res, I would try turning the AA off (or down to 2AA) and try turning the distances on. (I haven't tried it in oblivion, but I didn't like the look/feel of soft shadows on FEAR.) If you turned off soft and grass shadows, and turned many other options down to 50% or lower, this is NOT maxed out. (I like how you get 27FPS in that second photo, the one with NO enemies in the picture...)

Again, for the last time, the OP should test this himself. If he likes how the 8600GT performs for him and his games at 1600x1200, then he can get the monitor and not worry about anything. If he finds it to jerky, then his should get a newer card.


Look, I just didn't appreciate the fanboi comment. The game looks great and runs at perfectly acceptable framerates. I don't have every single thing maxed, I never said I did. But, I have all the important stuff that really makes this game look great turned on, HDR, distant lands, shadows (the important ones) large textures, all with AAx4 and AFx8. And the framerates hold steady with multiple NPCs on screen too. When I have a chance I will post some pics of that too. You are right, they have every single thing maxed on the FPS charts. But, some of the visuals settings are really not needed, like grass shadows (which kills the FPS with little improvement to the feel of the game).
a c 173 U Graphics card
April 4, 2008 6:14:20 AM

basketcase said:
Second off, I have an 8600GT that plays everything (except for I haven't tried Crysis) on either max or very close to it.


Enough has been said on this matter, I have no intention of thread crapping Matty's thread. If you feel like you must change my mind, take it to PM where it belongs.

For the record, this is part of my first post, the one the "fanboys" take exception to. (You might not like the term, but if you behave that way...)

Quote:
There is no way an 8600GT can power a 22" LCD with options turned on. I'm not sure how many options you'll be able to turn on, but the 8600GT won't power many games. (You'll be fine on desktop apps, movies, etc.)

http://www23.tomshardware.com/grap [...] &chart=297

Play with this, but make sure you use 1600x1200, as thats close to the native res found on 19" monitors. As you can see, unless you consider almost 9FPS playable, using the 8600GT is not a good idea.


I told him since my first post to check out the new res for himself. I'm sorry if you read more into this post then is there. As I said before, its up to him. I didn't want him to get an LCD, only to find out that his games look worse because the detail levels are turned down, or he can't play on the native res. Got it?

To answer matty's questions, the transition should be easy. You can change the resolution of an LCD, but it tends to look poor at anything other then the native res. LCD's will also introduce ghosting, which doesn't happen with CRTs. Picture quality is subjective. LCDs don't look bad, but they are different from CRTs. Because they have a back light, they can't show true black. Colors can also looked washed out or faded for the same reason. (this might be been fixed, LCDs are getting better all the time.) You shouldn't have to worry about black bars on the sides, unless you are playing older games. (new ones all support wide screen resolutions.) I hope that answers your questions, its been awhile since you last posted on this matter. Sorry for the crapping, it wasn't my intention.
!