LCD vs CRT v. for gaming...

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Bigsnake, Apr 4, 2006.

  1. Bigsnake

    Bigsnake OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    34,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Baton Rouge
    I've never played a game on a good computer with an LCD screen so I'm not sure what to expect. Are they as bad as some people make them out to be for games and videos? People keep saying LCDs aren't fast enough yet for gaming.

    Also, what's a good dot pitch for LCDs? i've always through .25 or so for a CRT is good but I see LCDs have like a .293

    Basically, I can't decided to go with a CRT or an LCD.

    These are the LCDs I'm between right now...
    The Dell UltraSharp 1907FP 19-inch
    http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...&sku=19073YR&category_id=4009&c=us&l=en&cs=19

    And the Viewsonic VX922 (recommended by Tomshardware):
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824116375R
     
  2. lowfat

    lowfat 24/Mac/SciFi/PC Crew OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    63,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Grande Prairie, AB, Can
    People overrate how LCDs are for gaming. LCDs don't 'ghost' near as much as people say. Just make sure the LCD has a good contrast ratio (i'd try to stay above 500:1) , and a decent response time (16 will be sufficient, however i game daily on a 25ms screen and have no problems).

    That dell LCD is pretty decent.
     
  3. Bigsnake

    Bigsnake OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    34,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Baton Rouge
    Thanks..

    Have any comments on that viewsonic? Tomshardware recommends it and it has a lot of positive reviews on newegg.
     
  4. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    It depends on the gaming. If the game has a lot of fast motion, that's when you will see artifacts, but they aren't so bad.
     
  5. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    newegg comments are fucking bullshit... And Tomshardware is about as biased as can be.

    Viewsonic does make good LCDs, but they arn't the best. Personally, I prefer BenQ for an excellent balance between performance and cost.
     
  6. Bigsnake

    Bigsnake OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    34,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Baton Rouge
    Who has good LCD reviews then?
     
  7. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    honestly, go look at the LCDs at a store... your eyes will be the one using teh LCD, so let them decide what they like.
     
  8. Grelmar

    Grelmar New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Great White North
    You can also look up a lot of monitors and stuff at epinions.com

    As for all the "problems" people have gaming with LCDs - That's with older LCDs. At 16Millisec response time or better, you just aren't going to notice anything.

    I've got a 19" Viewsonic (VX924), with a response time of around 3-4Millisec, and I just don't see any ghosting. You can get 19" monitors now with 2 millisec response time. That's way beyond what the human eye/mind can detect, as far as ghosting is concerned.

    I'm really happy with the monitor, overall. Beautiful color and brightness, though it did take a bit of fiddling to get it to look/work right.

    LCDs also tend to suck horribly if you don't install the drivers for them. Don't just accept that Windows says it has the drivers. Install the drivers that come on the CD, and then go to the manufacturers website to make sure you have the latest version of the drivers. Believe me, it really makes a visible difference with LCDs.
     
  9. urbanride

    urbanride Vodka Powered

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,759
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ottawa, canada
    the real truth: crt vs lcd

    IT WILL NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER OR WORSE GAMER!!!
    unless you buy a 12" 234234ms lcd

    but buy anything 8ms and lower is good from a namebrand ... i mean if you find ghosting you will forget its there in under an hour
     
  10. jbuffethed

    jbuffethed Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maxwell AFB
    I have several friends that had nothing but good things to say about BenQ, especially their customer service. I bought as my first LCD http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824014090

    No dead pixels, pictures are very clear, and I play BF2 alot and have no problems whats so ever with ghosting or anything.
     
  11. dew

    dew Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    47,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MIA
    i cant tell the difference..lol
     
  12. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    A couple of things.
    Response rate. The numbers you see in advertisements of 2ms, 10ms,
    are fiction.
    Find a true "white paper" test of an lcd monitor, and they aren't even in the same galaxy as a crt. What they do, is take the very highest sampling point of the monitor and give it out like it's the general spec.
    It's kind of like how the engine in a car produces 300 horespower at 5,000 rpm. But nowheres near that at 1,000 rpm.
    Well you except that with an engine, but you shouldn't except that with an lcd.
    There is simply no comparison between a 21" Princeton graphics crt
    to any lcd out there. The higher they crank up the resolution/response rate of an lcd, the lower the refresh rate gets. You just can't have it all with lcd's right now.

    As far as the different companies go, they all use the same 2 or 3 screens in their product lines. One of the highest end ones right now, is the 23/24 inchers from Samsung. That screen is being used by just about everybody.
    Another one that you might not know of is White Westinghouse, the appliance company. They are working on some large screen lcd's with 1080i spec.
     
  13. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    *edit* accept, not except
     
  14. Aimless

    Aimless Resident drunkey

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2001
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I like my VX922
     
  15. dorkultra

    dorkultra OT's resident crohns dude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    22,755
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    yinzer / nilbog, trollhio
    some people swear that crts have more accurate color, i think it has to do with the fact that lcds are backlit.
    also some people talk about native resolution on a crt compared to an lcd and have a shitwar over it.
    i doubt you'll notice a huge difference between the two
    just get an lcd, you'll kick yourself for getting a bulky crt
     
  16. Grelmar

    Grelmar New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Great White North
    While true, you just can't compare the performance of a LCD with a CRT, if you really want to get down to the math of the issue, there are some real points in favor of LCDs.

    1. Desktop Real-Estate: A 19" or 21" CRT is frickin' huge, and weighs a ton. The size of the gun in those things is so big, you're going to be looking at a monitor at least 18" deep, probably more.

    2. Actual Screen Size: CRTs report screen size based on the size of the tube, not the actual viewable area. A really good 21" CRT is actually only going to have a viewable area of 19.5"-20". With LCDs, what they report, is what you get. A 19" LCD has a 19" viewable area.

    3. Stroboscopic effect: Even though it's too fast for you to consciously see it, a CRT has a stoboscopic effect, similar to the effect in Fluorescent lights. This either may, or may not, be important to the user. Some pople are just more susceptible to eye strain and headaches from this than others. Some family friends have a child who has epilepsy, and they have no choice. Because of the stroboscopic effect in CRTs, they HAVE to use LCD monitors.

    In the end though, it's a matter of preference. For most people, the best plan is to get the monitor that you like looking at best. For me, I'm stuck in the middle. For various reasons, I have to test things out against both screens, so I ended up with a multi-monitor system, with one 19" LCD and a 17" CRT. Screen size aside, I just plain like looking at the LCD a lot more than the CRT. But that's just me. Some people hate "the look" of an LCD.

    If you can't decide, spend some time at a friend's who's got a nice, decently high end LCD. Give it a few hours then ask yourself, "Is this really what I want to stare at for hours on end, for the next 2-5 years?"
     
  17. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    Stroboscopic effect = refresh rate. If you have a high end crt, you can crank the refresh rate way past the point of eye strain. Lcd's by the way, also have refresh rates. And they are lower than crt's.
    I think the average person would have a good viewing experience with
    an lcd, I'm just saying that if you really compare the two, crt's are still superior.
     
  18. CrispyGame

    CrispyGame Stop staring at my avatar.

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    5,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UCSB
    with response times as low as 8ms, today's LCD's get rid of every negative stigma there was about LCD gaming. unless you're just extremely used to CRT monitors, i'd definitely go LCD. the improved clarity is phenominal
     
  19. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    Read my comment above about response times. 8ms response times are fictional. It's like when an audio company rates an amp on peak power instead of rms. Yes lcd's look good. But they simply are not up to the level of crt's yet.
     
  20. Aimless

    Aimless Resident drunkey

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2001
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    :ugh: Swing and a miss. Refresh rates don't have anything in common between CRTs and LCDs. They are completely different technologies, and LCDs only have refresh rates because graphics cards require them. In LCDs the individual transistors are either charged or uncharged to determine how much backlight they let through. A CRT has an electron gun blasting the entire image at phosphor at least 60 times a second.

    I'm just saying that if you really compare the two, floppy disks are still superior to flash drives. :jerkit:
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2006
  21. Grelmar

    Grelmar New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Great White North
    Umm... you fundamentally don't understand how LCDs work.
     
  22. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    Stoboscopic effect = refresh rate. If you have a crt that is not a piece of shit, you can crank up the refresh rate and the stroboscopic effect disappears. This is far and away from a floppy vs flash drive comparison.
    If you guys are buying into the 8ms times, then you're the ones not understanding how lcd's work. Or at the very least, not understanding how the companies are distorting the numbers on them.
    I would say that at this time the real estate of a good lcd has become cheaper than a high end crt, but a high end crt spanks an lcd's ass.
    And anyway, I'm not telling anybody to not buy an lcd. I think they're great, and I'm considering buying a 24" Samsung.
    I want to be able to watch dvd's on my desktop at similar proportions to a cinema screen. :)
    But in the world of lcd's being equal to crt's, the emperor has no clothes.
     
  23. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    One other thing. I would bet dollars to donuts, that almost everybody reading this has never seen the two side by side. The reason is simple. The stores know better than to display the two together.
    I have a Best Buy, Circuit City, Microcenter, Comp Usa, HH Greg, and Sam's Club, all within a 20 mile radius of me, and not one of them puts the lcd's near the crt's.
    I would say to the average person reading this to make sure you see them side by side before you believe the hype.
     
  24. Grelmar

    Grelmar New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Great White North
    Actually, if you'd read my earlier post, you'd realize that I run both, side by side, as part of my environment.

    As for the stroboscopic effect:
    At 60Hz (standard refresh rate for CRT) - The stroboscopic effect is invisible to the naked eye. But even at 120Hz, it's still there, and can affect people with severe epilepsy (the only reason I know this is because I know someone who is affected by it).

    LCDs refresh far differently. There is no strobe involved. Each pixel is either on or off (with color gradient, that's a little simplified). The refresh rate applies to how quickly the pixel can shift from one state to another.

    The refresh rates posted by the manufacturers are the best refresh rate at grey scale, (actually, shift rate, from one state to another) which will be considerably faster than the worst refresh at colour gradient.

    In my case:
    Viewsonic VX924 LCD with an "advertised" refresh rate of ~3millisec sits right beside a Samsung SyncMaster "Perfectly Flat" CRT. Both monitors have been finely tuned against a physical colour wheel and grey gradient sheet.

    And I much prefer looking at the Viewsonic LCD. It just appears crisper and more defined, the colours more vivid, and it's far less headache inducing than the SyncMaster.

    When I first got the Viewsonic, I nearly packed it back up and took it in for a refund, because the performance sucked. But after I installed the drivers for it (don't trust the ones that come native to Windows), and got it fully adjusted for colour and grey scale, it was a night and day difference.

    Most Big Box stores haven't got employees who've got a clue how to set up a monitor properly. If they did, they could put those LCDs side by side with the CRTs, and the LCDs would still sell.
     
  25. dorkultra

    dorkultra OT's resident crohns dude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    22,755
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    yinzer / nilbog, trollhio
    i went from a 7 year old failing packard bell 14" crt to a 17" samsung lcd. so, the difference for me was huge.
    the lcd is so much brighter and clearer, plus i don't get headaches from it. also, the color is awesome compared to what i had before.
    my lcd has an auto adjustment button that does everything for you. simple. i'm sure it's not giving me the best possible tweaked picture, but it works for me.

    doesn't really apply to you though, sorry
     

Share This Page