Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Monitor Speed: CRT Vs. LCD

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 3:01:29 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Can anyone tell me from experience whether or not there is a
perceptible difference between playing games using a regular CRT
display and playing them using an LCD display, as far as the speed of
the display?

I'm wondering if an LCD display would amplify problems with regard to
reaction time lag on a game where reflexes are important.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

More about : monitor speed crt lcd

Anonymous
September 11, 2005 9:19:26 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Thanks.

Also, I'm thinking of getting a laptop and playing older classic games
on this via MAME.

Since the turning on of the pixels are more important than the turning
off, I was thinking a TFT screen wouldn't be a problem as far as
response time.(But correct me if I'm wrong).

I'd like to point out that the laptop will be for practice because I'm
getting back into competitive gaming on golden age games.

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 9:26:50 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

<Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:1126461689.172806.276820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>


In terms of the speed of the display goes, I think it is somewhat
subjective. It may vary from display to display. I have a BenQ FP737s-D
LCD which is 17" and has a 16ms response time. I'm using a DVI cable with
it, although it was almost as good with analog. The only time I've seen any
sort of ghosting with my LCD was with NHL 2005 where there was a small
streak behind the players as they moved on the screen. However, it was very
minor and did not distract from my playing experience. Other than that,
I've run a gauntlet of different games on my LCD and never saw any ghosting.

About the biggest issue with my LCD is it's ability to display true black.
Dark games (like Doom 3) are better experienced on a CRT. However, it's my
understanding that some of the better LCD's do a better job of black.
Still, games like Doom 3 are still totally playable on my LCD, they're just
not quite as good as a CRT. Keep this in mind as you shop around. For me,
I didn't care very much since I got a great price on my BenQ.

That said, I do not regret making the switch from CRT to LCD. I even bought
an LCD for my second computer here. You'll get devotees of both CRT's and
LCD's, but I personally feel the advantages of LCD technology outweigh CRT.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 2:27:11 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Depends on the monitor. Yes there can be problems playing certain kinds of
3D games LCD monitors. You'll see "ghosting". The LCD can't change the pixel
colors fast enough to keep up with the movement o a fast turn or looking up
and down quickly.
Newer LCD monitors are coming out that keep up much better with pixel
response under 12ms. There are other compromises with LCD's and 3D games
too. Contrast is a biggie. Low contrast will make everything dark.

<Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:1126461689.172806.276820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Can anyone tell me from experience whether or not there is a
> perceptible difference between playing games using a regular CRT
> display and playing them using an LCD display, as far as the speed of
> the display?
>
> I'm wondering if an LCD display would amplify problems with regard to
> reaction time lag on a game where reflexes are important.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.
>
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 2:22:36 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

<Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:1126461689.172806.276820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Can anyone tell me from experience whether or not there is a
> perceptible difference between playing games using a regular CRT
> display and playing them using an LCD display, as far as the speed of
> the display?
>
> I'm wondering if an LCD display would amplify problems with regard to
> reaction time lag on a game where reflexes are important.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.
>
I have an Samsung Syncmaster 930B. 19" and 8 ms response time. You don't
see any lag. :) 
McG.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 8:13:16 PM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

As long as the LCD has a rated Response Time under 12 msec you should be OK
as far as ghosting goes during motion on the screen.

--
DaveW
__________

<Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:1126461689.172806.276820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Can anyone tell me from experience whether or not there is a
> perceptible difference between playing games using a regular CRT
> display and playing them using an LCD display, as far as the speed of
> the display?
>
> I'm wondering if an LCD display would amplify problems with regard to
> reaction time lag on a game where reflexes are important.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.
>
November 29, 2005 11:45:42 AM

From other forums, I've heard it best summed up as ghosting will bother only those with a real attention to detail. This has prevented me from purchasing an LCD. As far as the "refresh time", I've seen new LCDs with an incredible 2ms time. That SHOULD alleviate the ghosting, but until confirmed, I'll stick with my garantuan 50lb 19" CRT.
January 4, 2006 1:31:05 PM

LCD makers have strained the boundaries of the definition of response time. be careful to understand fully what each maker means by reponse time. This is a lesson i learned after reading up on it. I can't actually remember the article.
January 15, 2006 7:48:57 PM

Hey Man,
Self experience right here. I was too reluctant @ first but I really wanted the incresed monitor size. I got the Samsung SyncMaster 930b and I personally love it. I am not sure what u will be doing on yours but foe this monitor i have no ghosting problems at all and I play all types of Fps and what not. The only bad thing about LCDs are that they tend to make the game world look a little bit more jagidy, but if u have a good enough computer some AA will fix it. But reguards to response time i would say dont get something above 8 ns respones time.
Hope this helps
February 6, 2006 3:01:36 AM

i've used both and the picture quality (mainly color depth) is slightly better on a quality CRT but not by much and I would not go back for anything. I would say you want to get one with the highest contrast and the fastest response time you can afford. I own a 19" Dell and response time sucks, its like 20-25ms which is unexceptable. I see some ghosting when gaming but it doesn't cause a problem. In general you want to stay at least 16ms or below. It is not hard to find 8ms now. And samsung has a 2ms which would be great for gaming.
February 6, 2006 4:31:05 PM

2ms equates to 500fps. I don't know of any CRT that even comes close to that. Good stuf. 8ms is good enough for solid gaming for the majority of us mortal game freaks.
February 6, 2006 9:02:27 PM

I'm curious how you get that math. 2ms is actually probably around 20 average. Check out the reviews on Toms, they do a very good job explaining how these specs are inflated, and they do a very good job of showing what lcd's are good. I personally have a 22" NEC CRT and a couple 19" and 17" LCD's from Viewsonic and Samsung, they are all good for everyday use, the CRT has better color saturation and more accurate colors in programs like photoshop and a perfect black level. All the LCD's have black level issues which affect everything to a small degree, DOOM is horrible on all but the samsung. Colors are good and there is no lag on the samsung, but the viewsonic has an almost imperceptible ghosting effect, though you have to look hard to see it. I don't use LCD's for gaming, just the CRT but I use the LCD's for everything else.
February 7, 2006 1:46:22 PM

The math is simple really but feel free to correct me.

There's 1000 milliseconds in a second (like thousand milliliters in a liter). There's 1000 microseconds in a millisecond, and there's 1000 nanoseconds in a microsecond. And to be complete: a decisecond is a tenth of a second, and a centisecond is .01 seconds. These last two are never used in practice. You see them occasionally in combination with liters (volumetric measurement).

If you have a refresh rate (in case of LCD response rate is the proper term really) of 2 milliseconds, then you can refresh/change the pixels on the screen 1/0.002 = 500 times a second, hence referred to as 500 frames per second, or 500 fps. (8ms rr = 125 fps, 12ms = 83 fps, etc). Sending over all pixel related information to the LCD in order to get it displayed is a lot faster than milliseconds, so effectively all pixels of the LCD are changed/updated in parallell (if it wasn't you'd get to see all kinds of weird mismatches on parts of the screen; the actual problem with older screens was "ghosting", a sort of afterimages of pixels not getting refreshed in time for keeping up with the game framerate).

There used to be a difference between frames and a full screen in analog television, where a frame is only half a screen and two frames interlaced make a screen (PAL, NTSC). This is not the case with monitors (CRT's or LCD's): a frame is a full screen.

Now that I am at it, there is some common misconception as to that your eyes can only absorb about 25 to 30 fps. This is utter nonsense. Two things are confused here, the framerate required to give the human visual system the suggestion of fluid motion (on the screen, which is indeed 25 to 30) and the ability of the human visual system to detect changes on the screen within a certain timeframe. I've read on the web somewhere that jet fighter pilots are specifically tested for this, and there are known cases of people having a detection rate over 300 fps (meaning they detect changes between two frames when the screen is refreshed over 300 times a second).

So if some gamer is complaining about getting shot or missing shots because of his 100 fps, there is a (slim) possibility that he's not bragging. Needless to say, the 2ms LCD's will make an end to that debate from the LCD side of the equation. Then framerates will really be determined by only the cpu and the gpu.
February 7, 2006 10:28:40 PM

Very nice explanation! I was assuming you meant from the system as a whole.

CRT's refresh at 60hz minimum non-interlaced these days, so that's 60 times a second. On my monitor I run at 95hz thus 95 times a second. Based on this you're saying the LCD's are five times faster. Ok i get that, but then why do LCD's show the ghosts? Because of the delay between pixel state change, the liquid crystal can't purge itself of the light as quickly as phosphore on the crt correct?

And if we take into account the true ms delay of the lcd's, 20-30ms typical, 15 on real good ones, that makes your 500 considerably lower, though this is an average that may or may not apply depending on the particular application. Does that sound correct?

I've heard the 30 fps is a measurement of how quickly the eye can be fooled into thinking the image is full motion without a lot of concentration, i.e. a quick glance. I can see scan lines on a crt that's under 90hz so I completely agree with that point. I have to say though, if you run at 100fps and miss a shot, I think the average 1/10 second human response time might be more to blame. :) 

Thanks for the great thought provoking response!
February 8, 2006 12:19:49 PM

Quote:
Ok i get that, but then why do LCD's show the ghosts? Because of the delay between pixel state change, the liquid crystal can't purge itself of the light as quickly as phosphore on the crt correct?


Google is your friend. There's a couple of great pages out there that explain it better than I can, just google "ghosting LCD" and you're set.

The ghosting effect is purely based on the physical characteristics of your LCD. If there are other reasons for dropping framerates (lousy gfx card for example) it will not show as ghosting.

Quote:

And if we take into account the true ms delay of the lcd's, 20-30ms typical, 15 on real good ones, that makes your 500 considerably lower, though this is an average that may or may not apply depending on the particular application. Does that sound correct?

Yes. I like the way Tom's tests LCD displays. I think the 2ms LCD generation outperforms any CRT out there but I haven't seen an actual test of one yet. If we can extrapolate the performance degration in non ideal situations, then the actual testable figures will come between 4 and 8ms, which is well in range of very good to perfect gaming quality. Personally I haven't seen a CRT out there that can sport a 250 fps (4 ms rr).

Quote:

I have to say though, if you run at 100fps and miss a shot, I think the average 1/10 second human response time might be more to blame. :) 

Of course. But you can be sure that people like Fatal!ty may get awefully close to the figures that have been measured for jetfighter pilots. It's not just about being able to detect a change, it's the whole chain of observing, processing the information and acting on it that makes a real winner. Good technology is only a part of that equation.
February 8, 2006 4:57:19 PM

Ahh, the wonderful 2ms LCD screens.

There's a major problem with your logic.

That 2 ms response time is the lowest possible ammount. If you take a look at the LCD reviews here on the site, you will see that "8ms" displays only hit that rate at certain points, when their average response time over the full gamut of colours is around 20-25 ms.

Even scaled down to 2ms you are probably still looking at a 10-15 ms average response time, which a CRT will trounce easily.

Also, depending on the drive circutry, those 2ms times may also come at the price of image brightness/contrast, and to me that's unacceptable.

So far the only LCD that has impressed me was the one THG reviewed a while back, although a $40,000 LCD is a little out of my price range.

Another fact that people happily ignore, is pixle SIZE, people refer to LCD's having rougher edges. This isn't because of the program or anything like that. It's the phsyical size of the pixles. The average LCD pixle is about 45% taller than their CRT counterparts, and about 15-20% wider. This lowers the overal image quality by imparty a "grainy" texture to all sufaces.

I am a proponent of a CRT, but that's because I do a lot of graphics/design so a perfect black is important, and the colour saturation is also a plus. I have also gamed on the VS p190b and it's decent but I still prefer my NEC 1250FE+ (22" CRT).


That's my $0.02
February 8, 2006 5:42:10 PM

Did you actually read my previous post? I think I covered the non ideal situation there.
February 8, 2006 9:38:44 PM

Ahh yes, you did...

I think the actual response times will be slower than 4-8ms, maybe 8 but not as low as 4...

Anyways I'm a CRT guy for picture quality, not because of response times. That's only one peice of a very big and complex puzzle. The smaller pixel size, no "native" resolution and colour depth are more what I am looking for.

But to each his own. Just try to make an informed choice for your needs.

For graphic artists I would still hands down suggest CRT's. For gamers who want that snappy picture and deep saturated tones CRT. For those who have limited desk space, or want that "slick" look I would say LCD's.

but that's my humble opinion.
February 9, 2006 2:21:44 AM

Same 22" NEC as me, that's kinda funny. My viewsonic G19, which cost as much, isn't nearly as nice.
February 27, 2006 3:22:49 PM

I've been using a Samsung 953DF (flat CRT) for many years... Very good quality.

I recently bought an Acer LCD 20" widescreen (ferrari f-20).

I'm in love.

Image quality is crystal clear and gaming experience is awesome!@
February 27, 2006 11:18:50 PM

I'd prefer a nice CRT annnd a wicked video card for the same price a
a very good LCD.
March 5, 2006 8:27:40 PM

My Samsung SyncMaster has a response time of 4ms, so no ghosting for me.
March 6, 2006 1:32:13 PM

I had a Samsung with 25 ms response time which I thought was OK for gaming until I got my 16 ms display. When I gamed on the older monitor it was clear just how horrible it was. The 16 ms display seems quite acceptable to me with almost no ghosting.

The gray to gray response time (those really small response times) is *not* a helpful measure of gaming goodness. The number is a best-case number and is also *not* a measure of maximum refresh rate. That is typically limited to 75 Hz or so independent of the response time of the LCD panel.

Finally, beware of the really low response time monitors - they typically display 6 bits per color component which severely limits the image quality.
March 7, 2006 7:34:21 AM

You are only talking about fps, refresh rates... But let's talk about the greatest, in my opinion, improvement that an LCD has brought. The comfort. The comfort for the eyes. I have a Sampo LCD, a really old one, that I bought quite a few years ago. I don't know exactly what refresh rate it has, i think is somewhere around 32 or so. But i will NEVER switch back to CRT. I don't have any headaches anymore, when i'm staying for hours in front of it. Of course it has a pretty big ghost effect, but it doesn't bother me. Plus u save a lot of space. At work I have a CRT and I really see the difference between them. Of course, for some applications (e.g. ArhiCad) a CRT is better. But anyway, for me, LCD rules :D .
March 10, 2006 1:51:42 PM

I dont know how it works, but:

I have Samsung 193T with 25 ms
my friend have got normal CRT.

I cant see differenc between the screens.
My friend says that he cant play on my lcd becaouse he cant see anything in shooters :?

Dont know why.. i dont see it!
I think it is very personal, if u dont see it, get LCD if u cant stand this shit.. CRT :) ..
but whatever LCD 2ms is great.. but i still cant see the difference LOL :) 
March 12, 2006 12:20:59 AM

my viewsonic has an 8ms response, it looks great, and no ghosting
March 13, 2006 12:05:54 PM

Quote:
The math is simple really but feel free to correct me.

If you have a refresh rate (in case of LCD response rate is the proper term really) of 2 milliseconds, then you can refresh/change the pixels on the screen 1/0.002 = 500 times a second, hence referred to as 500 frames per second, or 500 fps. (8ms rr = 125 fps, 12ms = 83 fps, etc). Sending over all pixel related information to the LCD in order to get it displayed is a lot faster than milliseconds, so effectively all pixels of the LCD are changed/updated in parallell (if it wasn't you'd get to see all kinds of weird mismatches on parts of the screen; the actual problem with older screens was "ghosting", a sort of afterimages of pixels not getting refreshed in time for keeping up with the game framerate).

There used to be a difference between frames and a full screen in analog television, where a frame is only half a screen and two frames interlaced make a screen (PAL, NTSC). This is not the case with monitors (CRT's or LCD's): a frame is a full screen.

Now that I am at it, there is some common misconception as to that your eyes can only absorb about 25 to 30 fps. This is utter nonsense. Two things are confused here, the framerate required to give the human visual system the suggestion of fluid motion (on the screen, which is indeed 25 to 30) and the ability of the human visual system to detect changes on the screen within a certain timeframe. I've read on the web somewhere that jet fighter pilots are specifically tested for this, and there are known cases of people having a detection rate over 300 fps (meaning they detect changes between two frames when the screen is refreshed over 300 times a second).

So if some gamer is complaining about getting shot or missing shots because of his 100 fps, there is a (slim) possibility that he's not bragging. Needless to say, the 2ms LCD's will make an end to that debate from the LCD side of the equation. Then framerates will really be determined by only the cpu and the gpu.



I think I understand that you are making that point, but it is confusing how it is writen.

I've seen those same things you mention about fps and the human eye. Here is one site, but there are others.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.ht...
May 4, 2006 2:22:23 PM

There seems to some confusion on this thread.
Pixel response time (or what some mean by Monitor response)
has nothing to do with frames per second.
Pixels respond individually. Unless you are looking at a single color screen, the ghosting is a pixel falling behind the color change it is required to make. You get a blur because you are seeing a confused pixel (or many that didn't respond quickly enough). It is about motion. 8 to 12 milliseconds should be fine. This time is measured differently by manufacturers. White to black and back to white or whatever. None of this has anything to do with game fps or refresh rate.

Crt are cathode ray BEAM devices and operate as hertz or cycles per second. At a low refresh rate, the screen flickers because you can see the scan against the frames, like when you see car wheels go backwards on tv. Because youare seeing the refresh, it is irritating and gives you a headache. Because CRTs have different possible refresh rates available, you adjust the refresh rate till its comfortable. MORE is NOT better.
LCDs don't have a refresh rate, but operate at 60 hertz. You will never see a flicker because there is NO beam scan.

FPS is how many Frames per second your cpu/video card is producing and sending to the monitor. Here more is better! Televisions produce 30 frames per second because that is broadcast standard. Because TV has a small # of big pixels, it can only look so good, but is presentable and smooth. FPS of your game varies from second to second, depending on how much information is in the frame and your CPU/GPUs ability to produce it. Play COD2 -the Russian portion with lots of snow and soldiers and gunfighting- most cards that arent the newest 7800/7900/1900s, will lag and slow badly. Games have a cap of possible FPS. At some point, your eye will not notice any differnce in a game at higher FPS, probably something better than 30 to 60 FPS, depending on the game code.

The latest SLI setups are great because you can have the latest lighting effects and shaders running at high resolutions with smooth frame rates.
At some point, it is not about MORE FPS or smoothness, but effects and 3d quality. Any good CRT OR LCD will show it off.

The point is that 2 ms doesn't have anything to do with 500 frames per second. No game or PC produces 500 FPS anyways! It is a question of what your eye can see and be comfortable seeing and smooth game play.

I had an NEC 22' CRT
that was looking dull. It had great color correctness or saturation, but didn't look that colorful! It was huge. It was an energy hog. It raised the temperature in my PC room! I replaced it with a Synchmaster 930 B and couldn't be happier! 8 ms and there is NO discernable blur or ghost. Whats strange is some games are ADDING in motion blur, because that is what your continuous vision sees with rapid movement. That is the point of the link posted on this thread(Thanks, a good but difficult read).
Does it have a problem with Doom 3 and all the black? You bet. Some of the shadows are so dark the lcd makes them look slightly shiny, like a negative. It's not a huge problem because its not that bad and DOOM 3 sucks anyways.
The LCD is cooler, uses less energy, takes up way less room, and the 19' has the same viewing area of a 21-22 inch CRT. No Ghosting and it has a brighter and more lively color quality. The display IS grainier, but it LOOKS GOOD! FEAR, COD2, HL2, SWAT4 all look fantastic.

In short, My LCD has a slightly grainier but more lively in your face quality.
It doesn't do well with the black shadows, but is only noticeable in DOOM3.
Shadows in HL2 look fine. The price is now down to around 299.00 (dollars) for the Samsung 19"" 930B and along with my AMD 4400 and X-FI card, are the best purchases i have ever made (of all purchases)!
May 17, 2006 8:08:15 PM

Wow, there is some confusion about response time and refresh rates, here's the deal:

As previously mentioned, response time has little to do with frame rates in the sense that fps can be determined in two ways, the framebuffers fps and the monitors physical display. There is a threshold when comparing response to actual fps, because respones dictates how quickly the pixels on an lcd can change. In the case of a 3ms monitor having over 500fps, it is not likely to achieve this visual, but it can NOT go above it. As for the whole "I got over 200fps playing this certain game" rant, your graphics frame buffer achieved this, not your monitor, which may be confusing.

Overall, yes, response time in lcds can limit fps being displayed in a game, but this doesn't really matter when people can't see any difference in the frame rates when they go higher than a certain level.
May 18, 2006 6:15:49 AM

There are many LCD monitor that suits for gaming but a lower ms response time is better. Mine has 12ms and it is fast for gaming and if you want something lower then you could find one for 2ms response time like the one from ViewSonic.
June 11, 2006 10:03:46 PM

Well there is one test on toms with 2ms monitors.Is the viewsonic vx922 , and from what i have seen it`s the fastest monitor on the market and it`s better then the samsung 940BF which has 2ms also
the real response time of the viewsonic vx922 is around 5-10ms, and that is really fast compared to other lcd monitors , also it has a good contrast and the AMA accelerator is the best , it took an A in the test.For gamers is the best LCD out there....
June 12, 2006 5:15:37 PM

thanks for finding that article pain.. it was great reading.. (and it was not that hard to understand =P.. i dont speak english everyday, but i understood it.. - never mind.. just me showing off =P)
anyway, it showed that it is not as simple as one number (used to think they eye took something like 60 pics a sec.) but there is alot of variables..
maby this could teach us not to generalise (though i doubt it).
June 12, 2006 6:58:37 PM

CRT pwns LCD when it comes to FPS's. That response time is 'in addition' to your lag/ping. There is no response time with CRT's because the light is adjusted at the gun and no pixel signal is required to change colors as with lcd's. Video editing and other color-intensive programs work better with CRT's. For surfing the net, RTS's, RPG's and just about everything else, you'll want an LCD.

I'll say this though - If I ever had to choose one or the other (my Benq 19" LCD, 8ms that I spent over $350 on, or my Viewsonic 19" CRT that weighs over 350lbs AND costed less) I'd choose my CRT hands down.

A couple other things I want to mention - I personally can see the difference between 60 frames per second and 150 (or even 100 and 300 for that matter). Gaming with my crt and gaming with my lcd is like night and day when it comes to fps's and lets be honest - that's what everybody plays (*when they're not stinking up their house with WoW*). I think if you are a quick-twitch player like I am, and you are moving from CRT to LCD you tend to notice the switch a lot more than most people. I guess I cannot speak for everybody, but I never got used to my LCD's slow response (even if it is only 8 ms - probably morel ike 15 to 20, realistically).
Also - Most games can achieve just about any fps you want, assuming you know how to tweak your configs and remove the max fps ceiling implemented by default. I've found that anything over 300 is pointless, however.
June 13, 2006 6:10:48 AM

i am personaly going to move from a Medion 19" CRT to an Acer 19" LCD..
if the LCD is alot worse to play at then the CRT, then i will return it and buy a new CRT (the other one is my mom's)
June 15, 2006 8:59:37 AM

A couple other things I want to mention - I personally can see the difference between 60 frames per second and 150 (or even 100 and 300 for that matter). Gaming with my crt and gaming with my lcd is like night and day when it comes to fps's and lets be honest - that's what everybody plays (*when they're not stinking up their house with WoW*). I think if you are a quick-twitch player like I am, and you are moving from CRT to LCD you tend to notice the switch a lot more than most people. I guess I cannot speak for everybody, but I never got used to my LCD's slow response (even if it is only 8 ms - probably morel ike 15 to 20, realistically).




The human eye can see at 30fps ,so you really can`t see a real difference between games that play at 150fps or 300fps...
March 12, 2012 12:25:15 AM

BigMac said:
2ms equates to 500fps. I don't know of any CRT that even comes close to that. Good stuf. 8ms is good enough for solid gaming for the majority of us mortal game freaks.



Not sure what you mean on that. CRT'S have no input latency and absolutely no ghosting which would mean close to around 0 for a response time. There is no way any lcd screen can beat an electron gun as far as performance.
March 12, 2012 12:28:22 AM

Not sure why you would necro a 5 and a half year old thread, but CRT's in 2012 are too expensive to justify purchasing anymore. Any quality CRT monitor is also serious dough these days.
March 13, 2012 6:48:02 AM

Throw away CRT Monitors
March 13, 2012 8:25:36 AM

Dark games (like Doom 3) are better experienced on a CRT. However, it's my
understanding that some of the better LCD's do a better job of black.
Still, games like Doom 3 are still totally playable on my LCD, they're just
not quite as good as a CRT. Keep this in mind as you shop around. For me,
I didn't care very much since I got a great price on my BenQ
!