Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ASUS MK241H 24" LCD vs. CRT for gaming?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
March 22, 2008 10:05:24 PM

I have a 4 year old Vewsonic g220fb CRT monitor that is excellent for gaming.

I'm wondering if this http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?item=N82E168...

is worth upgrading to for games. I am a hardcore gamer, and I have stayed away from LCD's but this beast looks like it might my CRT killer. 2ms, 3000:1, hd 1080p...

Is it worth it? My CRT is a 22", 21 mm dot pitch shadow mask, excellent quality for games with resolution up to 2048x1536.

This LCD looks amazing but its $537 and I'll only get it if its leaps and bounds above my CRT!

Any advice?
March 23, 2008 11:43:38 AM

No, any LCD is a downgrade from a high end CRT!
March 25, 2008 4:20:01 AM

Hey thanks realzeus, I just can't stand ghosting or slow response times, you're probably right. I'm mad the LCD technology is still not delivering after all these years. I want a nice widescreen display, why can't they just make LCD's with CRT quality for us gamers?
Related resources
March 25, 2008 10:11:15 AM

Cause of technology limitations. LCDs were always going to be inferior to CRTs. The only things they are better at is screen size (CRTs were really limited at 32'' in TV sets and 24'' in monitors), size/weight and radiation emission.
March 26, 2008 1:15:52 AM

So why don't they still make high end CRT's? When my CRT dies am I going to have to switch to LCD?
March 26, 2008 10:42:36 PM

realzeus said:
No, any LCD is a downgrade from a high end CRT!


That's the OLD way (many years ago). The newer lcds are much better. Their response time is the key. Toms had a good article about it years ago. It's the reason CRT monitors are NOT made anymore (duh).
March 27, 2008 7:31:25 AM

I have tried numerous new LCDs and none has impressed me as much as a 10 year old G Series Sony Trinitron (admittedly one of the best CRTs ever). Their clarity is lacking (due to the larger dot pitch). Colours are also not as vibrant (the lack of an actual glass plays its part in that) and let's not even go to refresh rates, maximum resolutions, scaling and response times; LCDs cannot even compare within the context of a bad joke. Also, LCDs have issues with moving images and get blurry at fast paced scenes. That's the reason that many graphics professionals don't change their trusted Trinitrons and Diamondtrons till they die. It's not incidental that a major reviewing website (can't remember which one though) has as its reference a high end CRT and judges LCDs based on that.
March 28, 2008 7:44:42 AM

computertech82 said:
That's the OLD way (many years ago). The newer lcds are much better. Their response time is the key. Toms had a good article about it years ago. It's the reason CRT monitors are NOT made anymore (duh).


Duh? Yet another person regurgitating what they've been told. Please no more of that **** in here.

1) Once again response time measurements are completely useless (duh). The fastest LCDs on the planet (2-5ms) can barely even reach the fabled 16ms requirement.



2) Once again, if the response times above were zero, the panel would still blur much worse than a CRT (duh). Its the nature of LCD. Google "sample & hold". The LCDs above are compared to CRT here http://www.behardware.com/articles/602-11/19-lcd-survey-2-3-4-6-8-ms-and-above.html

3) You're limited to 60hz updates (no matter if the specs say 75 or 85hz - it's untrue)

4) You'll have 32-80ms input lag on any LCD larger than CRT size. Just go to Youtube and type in "input lag" and see how many hits you get (duh).



5) There's no debate that CRT black levels / black detail are way superiour to LCD across the board (duh).

I can go on, trust me but will stop here because the above things are what mostly apply to gaming - which is the topic here.


June 28, 2008 1:09:28 AM

My awesome IBM P275 CRT still works, but I am wondering that myself about being forced to buy a LCD and even though the screen is bigger it doesn't make up for the ghosting in games. Even a 2ms 24" 3000:1 LCD doesn't top my 21" CRT 0.24mm
a b 4 Gaming
June 28, 2008 4:05:21 AM

Honestly, you can say that all you want, but I have never seen any input lag or ghosting on my 2ms Dell SP2208WFP (and I have put it next to a CRT for comparison, both hooked up to the same comp). As for 60Hz? Congratulations, you just stated the most useless spec ever - 60Hz is far faster than the eye is capable of noticing anyways. The reason it mattered on CRTs was because they go black between successive frames. This causes a very rapid strobe effect which bothers some people at 60Hz. LCDs do not do this - they are on 100% of the time. If you take a picture of a CRT with a sufficiently high speed exposure, you can see this:



Now, if you have a good CRT, and you are happy with it, there is no reason to upgrade, but if you are looking to buy a new monitor anyways, an LCD should not be automatically excluded from your decision.

Note: There are certainly some LCDs that still have input lag or ghosting problems to the point of being noticeable. My father has a Dell 2408WFP, which is absolutely gorgeous for colors (his hobby is photography), and it doesn't ghost at all (unlike the older 2407), but it does have a slight but noticeable input lag when compared to my SP2208.
July 23, 2008 6:35:55 PM

This is a difficult topic. People are usually convinced in either direction.

At one time I made the move to LCD. I was happy to read text and do design work with perfectly clear text and the widescreen format. It wasn't until I built my new machine, with gaming as the focus, that I realized how limited it was. I have since moved back to my 21" CRT for gaming. I too long for a 30" LCD with CRT-like performance.

The fact is the percentage of people that are aware of the difference is small. If you are a skilled FPS player and have seen the improvement in scores going from 125fps to 333 (ahem) you know you are part of a small group. The conclusion I came to was, we are ruined. There is no LCD out there that you won't be disappointed in. No matter how many reviews you read, the person writing the review doesn't have the high standards you and I do. Not that the review is bad or misleading, I'm sure it's fine for the majority of users, just not us.

Also, S-PVA and TN panels are so different. There is a real trade off. I've tried both and the TN panel was horrible to look at, but "fast" as the reviews described it. (fast for an LCD I guess) People will disagree and swear that the panel they purchased is perfect and beautiful. All I can say to that is, I'm glad it makes you happy, but it is far below my standards for the reasons listed. The only way to convince someone otherwise is to sit down and show them the difference, and what to look for. Although, it would be a cruel thing to do given they too might become ruined.

All I can say is, baby that CRT and hope it lives long enough to see a major advancement. What I worry about is, if not as many people notice the difference, then maybe it will never be addressed. Why a "pro-gaming" company isn't making 24" widescreen CRTs is beyond me. I know I would buy one.
a b 4 Gaming
July 23, 2008 6:45:20 PM

I guarantee you that going from 125fps to 333 didn't improve your scores in the slightest, and if you think that it did, it's a combination of expectation bias and possibly some other, unaccounted for factor.

As for appearances? Yes, TN sacrifices some compared to S-PVA or S-IPS. I know that and I live with it. A good S-PVA panel or especially an S-IPS gives nothing to CRTs though as far as image quality. The only real problem with any of them right now is input lag, which I don't see as significant at all on any monitor I've tried, but it is within the range of perceptibility, so it could be a legitimate factor for someone. I think (from what I've heard) that S-IPS is better than S-PVA in this respect, but I don't have enough access to a good S-IPS to try it, so I don't have anything to go on there.
July 23, 2008 8:29:04 PM

Like I said, if your TN panel is good enough for your needs, congrats. Even you admit you "live with" the drawbacks. My comment was directed to those out there who are wondering what's wrong with them that they can't live with the performance of a LCD vs. CRT. (small group I know, but still)

As for not believing the increase in score or my ability to see the difference in fps, I'm not concerned with proving. All I know is that my ability to observe is what makes me enjoy and excel at gaming. I trust those observations and enjoy the benefits.

a b 4 Gaming
July 23, 2008 10:36:55 PM

I'll fully admit the drawbacks to TN. S-IPS and S-PVA are much improved though, and better image quality than any CRT that I have ever seen.

As for the framerate in games, unless your monitor has a refresh rate greater than 125Hz, there is zero difference between 125 and 333 fps, and even if your monitor does have a refresh rate greater than 125 hz, there is still zero noticeable difference.
August 4, 2008 8:38:36 PM

I really dont buy into all this crt talk...

CRT is dead. 99% of what pro crt people say is not noticeable and if It is it's only noticeable to a very small amount of people.

but hey... if you want a 40 pound crt taking up half your deskspace... go nuts.


the only selling point on CRT's is that people very often give them away for free on sites like craigslist. heck... i have 5-6 20-22'' lcd's i could do anything with but i'm not going to take one home and lug it up 3 stories just to have it take up space and underperform compared to my lcds
October 14, 2008 8:21:27 AM

I own the beast & YES...it's a CRT's killer...

No dead pixels, full HD 1080p, excellend colors, true 2ms response, 450cd/m2 performs excellent in games....Very nice design.

I was always a fanatic CRT owner especially because of the 0 response time and the more realistic picture.
But todays LCD aren't like the first ones. This technology is at its peak. If you want to buy, buy now. The next step is OLED (In a couple of years OLED will have the bigger piece of the market in monitors).

CRT monitors: 1930-2004. Well i guess this states a lot...Big success.
2005: End of cathode tubes mainly due to lead usage.
Also exposure to CRT monitor for long time can cause eye problems.

LCD monitors: Born about 10 years ago and already companies develop and sell the next technology (OLED). This means (except that they want to make money) that this technology is at its peak. They don't want to spend time & money to make it better and they dont need too...OLED is far beyond...

I don't want to say about advantages and disadvantages of each technology because all of you know them.
Both technologies have their + & -.

I have 2 EIZO 21' monitors and 1 EIZO 17''.
But if i continued buying CRT monitors i would have had to find a bigger house to live in...

Anyway the future is not the past...Move on people.

It was time for us to catch up with the technology and take advantage of it.

LCD monitors like Asus MK241H justify their money and makes you forget CRT's for ever...

PS: I'll keep the one EIZO CRT monitor for my village...
October 27, 2008 8:44:37 PM

I makes me feel sad that the time of the CRT is over, the best display technology to ever exist.

Instant repsonse time
Sharp picture at any resolution
Black is black
Very high contrast ratio
Very high brightness

You may still find some shops selling 14" CRT tvs for £50
look at the 14" CRT, the colours are vibrant, the picture bright and sharp
then look at all the LCDs that are nearby
the pictures dull, colours washed out and the image blurry
most shops now, that still sell these 14" CRTs just have them in boxes and not on display the reason for this is simple
If people could see the CRTs and the LCDs side by side, no one would touch the LCDs!

have you ever played a game with dark scenes, on an LCD they loose all detail and just look grey.

For viewing pixel based graphics and general computing LCDs are fine (maybe better than CRT) but for gaming and watching video the CRT is best, at least CRTs will still be common enough in the next few years so when I get a house I can stock one room from floor to ceiling with them, enough to last my entire lifetime.
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
November 18, 2008 11:13:08 PM

Look tbh at the end of the day 1ms is One millionth of a second... so in terms of gaming else your opponent is about ak 2km away and your sinping and he/she is travling at hundreds of km per hour and you can actually aim at something that fast then yes 7 ms would really hold you back...

But in terms of real FPS's we are talking about people that are moving just faster than walking speed and maybe running speed and at max and who are at maybe 1.5 km away at max... so how far off are you really going to be put off by 7 ms lag... a pixel... well humm maybe not a pixel... maybe like 1000th of a pixel now your mouse cant even move less than a pixel so sort it out guys ok 7MS is nothing

and if you use that as an excuse for sucking when you go around you mates house to play games them maybe you shouldn't play games you noobs

God people are noobs and i am going to put this on a thread of game spot
November 19, 2008 12:13:14 AM

1ms (milli second) is One thousanth of a second! not One millionth.
Still I suppose 7ms would allow 142fps. However there is some level of lag in the electronics in the LCD monitor as well. I very much doubt there would be a noticeable difference in player performance with the adition of say 10ms of lag.
However. If you took two perfectly matched players and set them against each other on a fast paced death match, like the ones on unreal tournament, you would find over a large period of time that the CRT user would have the slight upper hand. An example is this, each player appears in each others view at the same instant, the person with the CRT sees the oponent 10ms before the oponent sees them, which means they have 10 more ms to react and kill there oponent before being killed. The LCD user has effectily had 10ms added to there reation times.

Of course the advantages with crt are the supperior brightness, contrast and all round flexibility of input. LCDs look really blurry when anything other than there native res is used. I hold you all responsable for supporting inthereor viewing tehnology and causeing the downfail of the CRT. Its not to late to undo the damage, the CRT factories still exist for the moment, join with me and take your LCDs, form a large pile and burn them all, they came from hell, and back to hell they shall go.

a b 4 Gaming
November 19, 2008 3:25:19 AM

I'm using an LCD right now with a larger color gamut than any CRT I have ever used, higher brightness, and a perfectly acceptable 1300 to 1 static contrast ratio (not dynamic), and I have to say, I've never seen a CRT that can match it for overall image quality. Not only that, but it's also got a 24" screen at 1920x1200, and yet it weighs less than a small horse, a feat which no CRT could match.

Sorry, but you'll have to come out of the stone age.
June 16, 2009 7:47:48 PM

I'll stick with my CRT for gaming. I know it's an old thread but I just had to comment. I won't go to an LCD for gaming.
a b 4 Gaming
June 17, 2009 9:08:00 AM

Have you tried a good modern LCD, or are you just sticking with a CRT because you've heard it's better for gaming?
June 29, 2009 7:37:11 PM

Well, I guess that would depend on what you mean by a 'good moden lcd.' But it's both really. I've always heard that LCD's can't keep up with how fast CRT are and I also remember going to LAN parties (I use to go a lot) and I liked the way my screen performed much better. But this was maybe three years ago. I've had an NEC FE 2141SB for years now. I would like to see how a CRT looks that has a DVI input.

cjl, what is your model LCD display?
a b 4 Gaming
July 1, 2009 7:57:40 AM

I have two - a Dell SP2208WFP, and a Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP. The Ultrasharp has a very slight lag (only noticeable if you switch directly between the two) compared to the SP2208, and the SP2208 has no noticeable lag compared to a CRT (at least nothing noticeable to me). I prefer the 2408 though - the lag is only noticeable in a direct side by side, and the picture quality is a lot better on the 2408 (In fact, the 2408 beats any CRT that I've seen for picture quality).
August 1, 2009 4:58:01 PM

cjl said:
As for 60Hz? Congratulations, you just stated the most useless spec ever - 60Hz is far faster than the eye is capable of noticing anyways.


Sorry, but I'm just browsing around (looking for an LCD with best response and least amount of input lag) and I read through this thread.

I've been playing FPS games for over a decade (almost entirely quake series). I always had the envied twitch aim and fast reactions times. Even though I barely play them anymore, I still have better aim and playing ability than 99.9 percent of the gamers out there. I mention this because I have always noted a significant decrease in playing ability, reaction times, missing shots (if the crosshair isn't where it displays on the screen due to input lag and response delays...; true, a lot of my aim is reflex based and muscle memory, but the eye does play its part), etc when on LCD. I am not a random noob who can't play well. Even on LCD I'll still be nearly unbeatable to the majority of players simply because I have the game logic and controlling attritbutes required of a good FPS player.

The quote in question here I find ironic, since it is what is useless. Even though the majority of humans don't notice much of a difference going from 60 to 120hz, you shouldn't say 60hz is far faster than the eye is capable of noticing. That is incorrect. If you reword it, perhaps I could let it slip -- say if you were to say 60hz is good enough for presenting a smooth motion. Pilots have been tested at recognizing and giving details on images flashed at over 200fps. This means the human eye is capable of "noticing" things faster than 60hz. Maybe not the average human eye, but just because you don't fall into the category of a minority of people doesn't mean you should say it is absolutely pointless.

I don't particularly care for cake -- something which probably puts me into a minority -- but I don't try to sell my opinions as fact. In my opinion, chocolate is good -- something which probably puts me into the majority -- but I don't try to sell this opinion as fact simply because most people would agree... I think you get the idea.

Why am I looking for an LCD? Not for FPS but for racing. A nice widescreen LCD has more benefits in the racing genre where response time and input lag (at least on the monitor end) don't have nearly as big an impact as in FPS. Granted, I'm not an upper echelon racer -- mediocre at best; whereas in FPS I am upper echelon. So who knows, maybe the top racers, if given the chance to experience the benefits of the CRT monitors' near instantaneous response (as far as displaying what has been received) would prefer it.

Also, I prefer programming on widescreens and LCDs as they seem slightly easier on the eyes (although the only "evidence" I've seen for this is anecdotal, personal experience is what counts here).
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
August 10, 2009 3:00:42 AM

Real issue is... SIZE... and... CRT are really a hassle.....

Image/motion/lag/etc, on LCD are horrible compared to CRT. The best LCD is comparable with the worst CRT.... going from crt to lcd is like going back in time....

Size does MATTER GUYS and... LCD is SOOO LIGHT & SMALLL!!!!!!!! so for that reason.... i'll go for LCD

i wont be playing game or watch movies all day with my computer...
August 26, 2009 7:40:01 PM

That's a good way to put it Kingoffah.

I was going to buy a DLP projector but then I heard about the color wheel and how some people can see a ranbow effect if they look away from the screen quickly. I was told, MOST people won't see it. Once I heard that, I thought 'I'm going with LCD.' Because, I do notice things like that. Over the years, I've noticed I and see and hear things a lot of other people cannot. So when I hear about something like CRT's and LCD's or DLP and LCD, I think for myself.
April 9, 2010 8:41:07 AM

i no this thread is old but people will come across it all the time. if you cant notice a difference between 60hz and 120hz, your retarded. get your eyes checked. like seriously, wtf! if your reading this dont believe these morons who say LCD is fine CUZ IT ******* ISNT. like someone said ealier, everyone has there standards, and some peoples must be SO ******* LOW. like holy *** dont believe these lcdfags there probably secret sponsors trying to make u waste ur money on those terrible ******* LCDs. and LCDs that say there "120Hz" ARE LIES. even the tv lcds EMULATE 120HZ. ITS NOT TRUE 120HZ! i dont no the science behind it but i think the LCD just takes the image and draws it 3 times to make it "look smoother" but its still 60. only crts can emit TRUE 120! AND HIGHER!! i play cs1.6 and i did an experiment. i play at 640x480. i did 120 then 160. 120 is smooth as butter. but 160 just melts. like wow. 160HZ is something that must be seen. im sure most have u done this already. and *** the people who say u cant see above 60 fps. when im high i swear i notice more. just like everyone else who actually still has a good pair of eyes left on them. VIVA LA CRT!!1!!!!!1 and yes i was raging. ya i no i didnt spell everything right or use proper punctuation SO BACK OFF GRAMMAR NAZI RAAAWWWR this isnt english class BITCH
April 10, 2010 1:23:11 AM

This is a wonderful example of why I don't waste my time around here anymore. I stopped by for a minute to see how these forums were doing and you really brought it back into perspective for me. Thank you. Adios.

TrisT420 said:
i no this thread is old but people will come across it all the time. if you cant notice a difference between 60hz and 120hz, your retarded. get your eyes checked. like seriously, wtf! if your reading this dont believe these morons who say LCD is fine CUZ IT ******* ISNT. like someone said ealier, everyone has there standards, and some peoples must be SO ******* LOW. like holy *** dont believe these lcdfags there probably secret sponsors trying to make u waste ur money on those terrible ******* LCDs. and LCDs that say there "120Hz" ARE LIES. even the tv lcds EMULATE 120HZ. ITS NOT TRUE 120HZ! i dont no the science behind it but i think the LCD just takes the image and draws it 3 times to make it "look smoother" but its still 60. only crts can emit TRUE 120! AND HIGHER!! i play cs1.6 and i did an experiment. i play at 640x480. i did 120 then 160. 120 is smooth as butter. but 160 just melts. like wow. 160HZ is something that must be seen. im sure most have u done this already. and *** the people who say u cant see above 60 fps. when im high i swear i notice more. just like everyone else who actually still has a good pair of eyes left on them. VIVA LA CRT!!1!!!!!1 and yes i was raging. ya i no i didnt spell everything right or use proper punctuation SO BACK OFF GRAMMAR NAZI RAAAWWWR this isnt english class BITCH


April 13, 2010 3:03:16 PM

Lol, I just got to comment on the DLP quip. You should have went with the DLP...it is a perfected technology. The color wheel was really only noticeable with the old bulbs. The new DLPs use LED technology and have pretty much quashed this problem. DLPs are far cheaper and can display true black as well. My 63' samsung 1080 DLP was 1200 at techdepot and I paid 200 for shipping and the extra year warranty. This thread is all over the place anyway so I thought I would just add to the chaos :p 
April 13, 2010 3:04:57 PM

Also crt ftw...but led is just much more convenient. Of course if you are using a desktop...its on a desk and how often do you drag your monitor around. You might move your crt once or twice a year SO HEAVY OMG I CANT TAKE IT. Get off the couch once in awhile, maybe you should own a crt to get a workout if you cant handle it (flaming ftw)
April 14, 2010 4:16:15 AM

I have an S-IPS monitor and I do say the color and view angle kicks ass. Completely replaces my old CRT. That thing almost broke my back lol.

Now as for refresh rates. 120hz is definitely noticable, but necessary? Maybe. If I had the choice between having and not having 120hz. I would definitely pay the money and go for it. But there are tradeoffs.

1. My monitor is 30". They don't make 30" monitor with 120hz. Biggest they made is 24" and thats 1920x1080 not even 1920x1200. So trading 6" inches was a deal breaker when I got this monitor.

2. My graphics card can't display over 60 FPS for many games. Probably would be able to if I didn't run at 2560x1600 but the resolution is soooo nice.

3. Only TN panels have fast enough response time (2ms) to prevent ghosting though there is still some at 120hz. TN panels have bad color accuracy, bad color saturation, and bad viewing angle.

4. Some people night not need 120hz. For slow moving games like RTS and RPGs you won't need faster refresh. Same with desktop activities. The only benefit is in shooters when you need to turn around really really quick.

This is why 120hz monitors haven't been introduced into the market until 3D. The benefits of just faster refresh rate is questionable and most people's graphics card can't realise 120FPS. 3D however is something completely different. A new gimmick companies and market. Difference people would definitely notice.
March 4, 2011 8:40:25 AM

I think its important to point out that everyone refers to the 2ms response time as if it was the holy grail for why LCD's are 'ok' for gaming. What none of you have pointed out is that almost ALL 2 ms LCD's are refering to Gray to Gray color change, another important factor for consideration is when you go from black to white to black (b-w-b), or white to black to white (w-b-w)... As this time is quite a bit longer.

This discrepancy proves peoples ignorance in reguards to this technology. As well as the manufacturers willingness to manipulate their customer base for sales of inferior but high profit electronic products.

With a CRT the response times are much faster, and CRTs do not have the same problems with smearing or ghosting. The same is true for plasma displays. However, older CRTs and plasma displays can have problems with flicker at any refresh rate, and even newer ones can at refresh rates less than about 80Hz.

LCD screens with a slow response time are often unsuitable to play fast paced computer games, movies or television. A worst-case response time of <16ms is sufficient for some video gaming (e.g. WOW, or internet poker) and the difference between response times once below 10ms begin to become hard to perceive due to limitations of the human eye.

The pixel response time is often confused with the LCD input lag which adds another form of latency to pictures displayed by LCD screens. An LCD screen with high response time and significant input lag will not give satisfactory results when playing fast paced computer games or performing fast high accuracy operations on the screen (e.g. CAD, or First person shooters). Manufacturers only state the response time of their displays and do not inform customers of the input lag value.

Keep this in mind, the LCD screen itself might have a delay of 8ms to change a pixels color, but there is also a response time on the LCD converter/driver board. The driver board converts a VGA signals into LVDS signals that the LCD can display. So you have to take this into account as well because converting a signal does take time in milliseconds. Depending on how good the driver board is the conversion to LVDS can be short or long and by long I mean another 8ms to 16ms to convert the signal. This problem will go away over time because video cards will be able to output a LVDS signal that directly drives the LCD monitor.


Bottom line is that people with brains that run at half the speed of the top 10% of FPS gamers will never notice the difference, simply because they have inferior gray matter hardware (brains, for those of you that are special). But, for those of us that DO notice, we need a gaming CRT monitor.. PERIOD.
!