Advantages to LCD over CRT?

[Cawchy87]

CRT:

- Better picture quality
- Higher refreash rates
- No ghosting
- Less expensive ( A LOT )

LCD:

- Light
- ???

 

[whistleclient]

i used to get headaches with my CRT because of the refresh rates. I don't with LCDs.

 

[darkswordsman17]

No offense, but this topic has been beaten to death in like a million threads.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
i used to get headaches with my CRT because of the refresh rates. I don't with LCDs.

some people are the opposite, i was using a 15" LCD at 1024x768 and it begun to hurt my eyes, i think it was the brightness perhaps? I really dont know, but there are otehrs out there who say the CRT is easier on the eyes. some obviously think the LCD is easier. it's odd......

 

[darkswordsman17]

I know that I get a lot less eyestrain from my LCDs than my old CRT or the ones that we used to use at work. The brightness doesn't seem to bother me (2001FP and 2005FP, both of which are very bright).

Granted I'm using two very good LCDs, but we had 21" Trinitrons at work, so its not like I haven't seen some good CRTs either.

 

[VIAN]

CRT has better color, but LCD has crisper picture.
CRT has higher refresh rates, but only truely useful to avoid flickering, which LCD does already.
CRT are less expensive, but LCDs have also dropped down a lot on price where you can get a high quality 17" LCD for about 370 bucks.

LCD technically saves you more money over the long run anway because they last longer and consume less power... that is unless you take into account the heat that you won't need to use during the winter because your CRT's contribution.

CRT has great viewing angles. no dead pixels.

LCDs have perfect geometry.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: VIAN
CRT has better color, but LCD has crisper picture.
CRT has higher refresh rates, but only truely useful to avoid flickering, which LCD does already.
CRT are less expensive, but LCDs have also dropped down a lot on price where you can get a high quality 17" LCD for about 370 bucks.

LCD technically saves you more money over the long run anway because they last longer and consume less power... that is unless you take into account the heat that you won't need to use during the winter because your CRT's contribution.

CRT has great viewing angles. no dead pixels.

LCDs have perfect geometry.

I agree with almost all of those points, except the refresh rate one. True, higher refresh rates will avoid flickering on a CRT (and LCD's don't flicker), but they'll also allow higher frame rates in games, as should be intuitive. There's a big difference between 60fps and 100fps...

However given all that, I still finally decided on an LCD as my new monitor, even though I'm a gamer. Partially because of the size/weight, and partially because I was just really pushing my luck trying to run 1600x1200 @ 100Hz over an analog signal on a 22" CRT...

There's still some ghosting on my 2005FPW, but IMO it's not bad enough to be a deal breaker, and it seems better than the 2001FP as well.

 

[Matthias99]

I agree with almost all of those points, except the refresh rate one. True, higher refresh rates will avoid flickering on a CRT (and LCD's don't flicker), but they'll also allow higher frame rates in games, as should be intuitive. There's a big difference between 60fps and 100fps...

This is irrelevant on LCDs until the response times get lower. If your minimum response time is 12ms (as on the best displays you can get today), you're only showing a max of ~80FPS, and realistically, you would be lucky to have an average real-world response time under 20ms even on the best displays (which would give a max of only ~50 viewable FPS, regardless of refresh rate).

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

I agree with almost all of those points, except the refresh rate one. True, higher refresh rates will avoid flickering on a CRT (and LCD's don't flicker), but they'll also allow higher frame rates in games, as should be intuitive. There's a big difference between 60fps and 100fps...

This is irrelevant on LCDs until the response times get lower. If your minimum response time is 12ms (as on the best displays you can get today), you're only showing a max of ~80FPS, and realistically, you would be lucky to have an average real-world response time under 20ms even on the best displays (which would give a max of only ~50 viewable FPS, regardless of refresh rate).

That's what I meant...they have other benefits on CRT's than just reduced flickering.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

I agree with almost all of those points, except the refresh rate one. True, higher refresh rates will avoid flickering on a CRT (and LCD's don't flicker), but they'll also allow higher frame rates in games, as should be intuitive. There's a big difference between 60fps and 100fps...

This is irrelevant on LCDs until the response times get lower. If your minimum response time is 12ms (as on the best displays you can get today), you're only showing a max of ~80FPS, and realistically, you would be lucky to have an average real-world response time under 20ms even on the best displays (which would give a max of only ~50 viewable FPS, regardless of refresh rate).

My LCD tops out at no more than 20ms response time, I believe. People overestimate how 'bad' LCDs really are. If you (not you Matthias) have never tried an LCD I don't think you should list that as a con unless you've tried it and seen how overhyped that issue really is... I think my LCD's average is about 18 ms...which equates to 55.5 fps...not horrible. With 8ms coming, you can put a flat panel in a CRT monitor and nobody would even notice because it was so fast.

 

[Matthias99]

I think my LCD's average is about 18 ms...which equates to 55.5 fps...not horrible. With 8ms coming, you can put a flat panel in a CRT monitor and nobody would even notice because it was so fast.

The 8ms displays get close to that: THG 17" monitor review (the "FP17E" in the latency charts is an '8ms' display). The average would depend on what you're displaying (higher contrast = faster refreshes), but the average for them is probably ~18-20ms. A "12ms" display is probably more like 20-25ms average refresh, depending on the exact panel.

So, basically, until LCDs get under ~15ms average response time, a 60Hz max refresh will not be a handicap.