Monitor Speed: CRT Vs. LCD

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.
>

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.
>

 

[mr_trotta]

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.

 

[redstar]

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.

 

[sirawesome]

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

 

[cisco]

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.

 

[BigMac]

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.

 

[michaelahess]

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.

 

[BigMac]

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.

 

[michaelahess]

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!

 

[BigMac]

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.

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).

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.

 

[penguin_d]

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

 

[BigMac]

Did you actually read my previous post? I think I covered the non ideal situation there.

 

[penguin_d]

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.

 

[michaelahess]

Same 22" NEC as me, that's kinda funny. My viewsonic G19, which cost as much, isn't nearly as nice.

 

[mito]

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!@

 

[KingLoftusXII]

I'd prefer a nice CRT annnd a wicked video card for the same price a
a very good LCD.

 

[Caboose-1]

My Samsung SyncMaster has a response time of 4ms, so no ghosting for me.

 

[spwatkins]

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.

 

[rival]

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 .

 

[Atais]

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