CRT vs. LCD

Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:41 pm

So when I originally set-up my gaming rig here back in Oct 2004, I purchased a 19" CRT monitor because I had read that LCD monitors are not good for gaming, because they did not have fast enough response-times and because their resolution is not as good as compared to CRTs.

Well, recently reading a buyers guide for gaming - the guide has finally changed to recommending a LCD because the response times have gone down to 8-12ms.

I would worry that ghosting would occur in UT. The fact that LCD monitors are becoming more and more affordable, more energy efficient, and take up less room on the desk - I am tempted to invest in one. I have also read the cause less eye-strain, and i get headaches sometimes when playing for longer times.

Does anyone who has played with both types, or with a new LCD, have an opinion on this?

Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:57 pm

HI Cheap here, I use a 20.1 wide lcd for gaming I think its 8ms..No ripping or tearing
its good at close to 100 fps. It looks verry good. I use it at 1360x765.
Had a 12 ms lcd it was ok also, befor that a 25 ms it was usless for gaming.
only good for 30 fps. :gib:

Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:04 pm

When I built my gaming rig I spent about a month on monitor research alone. At the time the Hyundai L90D+ was the best 19" LCD, and recieved great reviews and even props from Tom's Hardware Guide as the best of that time. When I purhcased it the price was about 350, it is now 280. I still have it, and it still runs great. Thin bezel, 8ms response time, no dead pixs... it is just great. No ghosting what so ever.... Ordered from newegg of course. Note that this is the highest review monitor on newegg of alll sizes and styles, hitting a whoping 800 reviews.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824179014

Here is a review I was able to find about it, though I am sure there are more:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/02/15/ ... age13.html

However, there are now more monitors availabe with even better response times: 2ms...JEEZ. I am sure that some will perform better too, especially one of the newer viewsonics I have my eye on. But for now, I could not be happier with my Hyundai 19"

I believe Tom's Hardware Guide Just released a new article about these newer models if you are interested.

Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:36 pm

I have had experiences with both types of monitors, An LCD monitor can be just as good as a CRT for the most part. Definately more energy efficient as a bonus also. From my experiences, I first had a 25ms monitor, and its not fast enough, however my current one is a 16ms and I have no problems with ghosting. Since there isn't a true industry standard for rating an LCD in ms times (some mfgr's measure from gray to gray, some from another method, can't remember what it was again) if the difference between 2 LCD panels MS time isn't very great don't just buy it solely because its rated faster. What is the wisest thing to do is look for reviews of an LCD that you may want, and go from there. I also tend to look at the people's reviews of LCD's from people who have bought the actual products on newegg.com. Also, pay attention if it lists the numbers of color it can display. Some can display 16.2 million, (cheaper LCD panels, and the better ones state they can display 16.7 million colors) It does make a difference, especially if you ever do photo work, a 16.2 color monitor displays photos that just don't seem quite the same as if you had seen it displayed on an LCD that displays 16.7 million colors. Newegg is one of the few sites that tell you this information if the manufacturer states it. Most places don't. What they do to save money and speed up the MS ratings is to use 6-bit color processing, verses 8-bit color processing. I found this out last year when I bought my parents an LCD monitor that was rated fast at the time, and newegg had stated it displayed 16.2 million colors. I Hated the LCD the minute I turned it on. The photos I had taken and displayed on it just didn't look quite right, it looked good, but you can see banding in area's of color gradients on photos. I had even brought my color calibration hardware to calibrate the lcd, and it didn't help much with it.

Hope this helps...

Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:34 pm

Nice write-up Wraith.

DAMNIDGE, in 04 I migrated from a Sony CRT to a NEC 1760NX and I've been satisfied ever since. I highly recommend getting a monitor that supports DVI inputs. Keep on a lookout for some monitors that only support analog inputs. The analog LCD monitors are also known to generate noise along heavy contrast lines. This is mostly caused by signal degradation because the signal is transferred in the following fashion: digital>analog>analog>digital. Another trait of analog monitors is the need to refocus the monitor to the image signal.

Where as a DVI image signal is: digital>digital. This method produces the best image without compromising the image quality and there is no need to focus the monitor. Before you invest money into a DVI based monitor, make sure that your video card supports it.

Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:08 am

Great work jrv2kgt-s. I totally forgot to mention the point of looking for a DVI equipped LCD. DVI is better than the analog connection. Its all I use now.

:cheers:

Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:28 pm

Whoa - thanks guys.

The follow up I have is about the size. Would it ever make sense to buy a 17" over a 19" if the deal is amazing?

Also, I have an S-Video out on my video card as well as DVI. The DVI plug i take it is much better?

Thanks again!

Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:37 pm

Well, Considering that 17" and 19" both have a native resolution of 1280*1024 I would go with the 19". From doing a quick price check on newegg, you are only looking at maybe an extra 30 bucks for that move...well worth it IMHO. Definently go for the DVI input, most include both, but it is nice to have the option.

Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:46 pm

I agree with Namu, you'll better enjoy and be able to play better with a larger screen size. It made a difference when I went from 17" to 19". Get the largest you can afford. It (almost) can not be too big.

Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:52 pm

I think it can be too big. Mainly b/c the bigger your screen the higher your resolution should be for a decent display, and that can result in lower frame rates if you don't have the greatest video card. Gah! So many variables in this seeminly simple monitor question.

Overall, I think a 19" is great for gaming at this point in time. ....I rember back in the day when I was happy if my tv was 19" and monitors were 13".