Are the latest LCDs any better than my old CRT/LCD?

[rockyou]

I just upgraded my gaming rig to the specs in my profile so I want the best LCD to go with that config. I read the LCD thread here and set out to buy the Samsung 226BW but it looked like crap at Best Buy.

Perhaps it was bad video input but I am a little hesitant since earlier this year I purchased a Dell 1907FP and it did not compare to the color quality for movies or gaming on my very old 1999 CRT, a Sony 420GS.

I am ready just to put the old CRT back on my desk for this new rig but maybe someone can answer some questions.

1. Should I just not expect today's LCDs to be as good as my old 1999 CRT?

2. With LCDs must I sacrafice color quality if I want gaming performance? Therefore should I be looking at 8-bit 5ms rather than 6 bit 2ms? How much of a hit will I take in doing this for gaming performance in doing so? (I am assuming there are no 2ms, 8bit LCDs)

3. Should I expect these newer LCDs not to be much better than the Dell 1907FP? Therefore I am I just wasting money in making another purchasing.

 

[JASTECH]

rockyou, Welcome to Anandtech! I understand your woes about the LCD monitors. I too share this with you. I am building a new gaming/graphics computer and I am still using my Sony G520 but am hoping to find a 24" LCD with the same performance. I will be revisiting this thread to also find the answers to our delima. Once again Welcome. Thanks, JAS

 

[NanoStuff]

I am still using my Sony G520 but am hoping to find a 24" LCD with the same performance.

Not gonna happen.

 

[fluxquantum]

i am also looking for a decent lcd. i'm tired of playing the waiting game but i may not have a choice.

 

[JASTECH]

fluxquantum, I agree. Prices have come down alot but the performance is just not there yet as NanoStuff put it as short as possible, lol

 

[apoppin]

my suggestion to the OP ... put the CRT in the closet and forget about it
-pretty soon you'll really forget ... and your LCD will start to look almost perfect to you. It worked for me and i began to appreciate WS. i actually set my CRT back on the desk not long ago ... but there's no going back now.


If you are able, buy two LCDs and compare them in your home. It really helps to have them side by side and you can test your theories on your games. Just make sure you have "return privileges" for the other.

Also, take a lot of time and "tweak" it ... adjust everything the best you can ... there are a few advantages to LCD.
-and eventually technology will bring much better displays to light

 

[Pacfanweb]

I'm thinking about replacing my Viewsonic P95f+, which still looks great.

So if I'm understanding correctly, I should just change to an LCD, even though it'll never look as good, and just get used to it?

Is there an LCD that's even close to a good CRT yet? They look really good in stores, but compared to my CRT, not so much.

I guess getting a wide screen is the only real advantage?

 

[apoppin]

don't mind me ... i am just bitter

... there are some really nice and pricey LCDs that are damn close to CRT and also some that are not quite as perfect but excellent value. You need to take one home and audition it; tweak it try to see if you can live with it ... take TWO home and really compare them to your CRTs [just make sure you can return them]. Each type of LCD has its strength and its weaknesses. Some more suited for gamers perhaps.

i think reading text is an advantage on a LCD. Black is much better then before but still not as black as a CRT but it isn't like you are constantly distracted by it at all. After a time, you never notice the differences ... or even remember them and you start to appreciate you reclaimed desktop ... and YES, WS is nice.

 

[MyLeftNut]

I switched from a Viewsonic P95f+ to my HP f2105 (S-PVA Panel) lcd over a year and a half ago and I can say that in terms of image quality, the CRT was still a lot better. I would've stuck with the CRT if only I had more room in the area to work with. Next for me is an LCD TV which I'll use as a monitor. A good LCD TV seem to be significantly better in image quality than computer LCD monitors, but compared to CRTs I wouldn't know...

 

[SilentAssassin]

I've been trying to decide on a WS LCD monitor as well and it seems like a hard choice. The two I'm looking at right now are the Samsung 226BW and the HP w2207. The HP seems like a better bet as there's no gamble between which panel you will get and from everything I've read it looks better then the Samsung but the default colors aren't perfect. That can probly be fixed with a windows color profile which I'm sure there's many to find on the web. The Samsung should be good too but only if it's an "S" panel. The rest will look like crap compared to the original panel.

 

[wittangamo]

Another LCD worth looking at is the LG 226WTQ. It's a 22" widescreen 22", 2ms response-time monitor that looks great after a little tweaking or with a good ICM profile.

The LG and the Samsung 226BW (I wouldn't get the 226CW now, there are some quirks that counterbalance the wider color gamut,) are both fine choices.

I'm not an expert, but games and movies on a big widescreen can make you forget the tech specs of CRTs in a hurry. The two models listed above are the best picks in the $250-400 range, imho. I got the LG on sale for $280 recently and love it.

Not perfect, viewing angles and black levels aren't as good as the best CRTs, but the overall reproduction is very good and no matter what they tell you -- size DOES matter.

 

[MyLeftNut]

I wouldn't even consider any of the 22" panels since they're all TN panels. The problem with TN is with colors and horrible vertical viewing angles, which are more pronounced the larger the panel is. Only thing even worth considering are the VA and IPS type panels at this time, and even those have problems keeping up with CRTs.

 

[wittangamo]

That is the conventional wisdom. But all the big names, Samsung, LG, Dell, HP, Acer, etc, have been working hard to make the TNs look their best. I think they've gotten close enough with color reproduction that you'd never know the difference unless you're a calibration freak or a graphic artist whose living depends on color toning photos and matching printer output.

You're right about viewing angles, but how many times do you play games standing up? If you're straight on to the screen and a few feet away like most of us, you'll never notice.

If you want to spend $700+ for a 24" VA or IPS, be my guest. Half that for a well-tuned 22" TN is not a bad compromise, IMHO.

Your money, your choice.

 

[rockyou]

1. Should I just not expect today's LCDs to be as good as my old 1999 CRT?

So from the responses it sounds like were not there yet. 1999 CRT technology is still superior than any of the current LCDs. Considering that it is odd that the retailers do not have much of a selection for CRTs.

But what about the other 2 questions below:

2. With LCDs must I sacrafice color quality if I want gaming performance? Therefore should I be looking at 8-bit 5ms rather than 6 bit 2ms? How much of a hit will I take in doing this for gaming performance in doing so? (I am assuming there are no 2ms, 8bit LCDs)

3. Should I expect these newer LCDs not to be much better than the Dell 1907FP? Therefore I am I just wasting money in making another LCD purchase?

 

[LOUISSSSS]

Originally posted by: rockyou
1. Should I just not expect today's LCDs to be as good as my old 1999 CRT?

So from the responses it sounds like were not there yet. 1999 CRT technology is still superior than any of the current LCDs. Considering that it is odd that the retailers do not have much of a selection for CRTs.

But what about the other 2 questions below:

2. With LCDs must I sacrafice color quality if I want gaming performance? Therefore should I be looking at 8-bit 5ms rather than 6 bit 2ms? How much of a hit will I take in doing this for gaming performance in doing so? (I am assuming there are no 2ms, 8bit LCDs)

3. Should I expect these newer LCDs not to be much better than the Dell 1907FP? Therefore I am I just wasting money in making another LCD purchase?

sorry bud i'd take any popular LCD on the market today over a CRT just because of the size, bulk, weight, analog input, and non-WS.
widescreen really looks better in gaming and desktop usage.

and i dont think it makes too much difference to you, i highly doubt your eyes can see the diff between 5ms and 2ms


got for the LCD and put that crt away.

 

[PingSpike]

The trouble is, they aren't making CRTs anymore...aside from a handful of shitty low end units. I guess no one wants to sell them, or the market just isn't big enough. I gave up the fight myself when I released I was shopping for refurbed and used monitors. I thought to myself "What happens when that one dies?"

 

[rockyou]

I was looking at the HP w2207 which the color seemed to look a bit better than the Samsung in the store but it is rated 5ms. So I am thinking buying that would defeat the purpose of the hard core gaming rig I have.

There is also the HP w2408 which looked even better but it did not even make the LCD thread list.

 

[formulav8]

Originally posted by: rockyou
I was looking at the HP w2207 which the color seemed to look a bit better than the Samsung in the store but it is rated 5ms. So I am thinking buying that would defeat the purpose of the hard core gaming rig I have.

There is also the HP w2408 which looked even better but it did not even make the LCD thread list.

Well, I have a 19" Samsumg 930b and it has a native 1280x1024 resolution and 8ms response time and I NEVER see anykind of ghosting with it(Ghosting used to be the biggest complaint with LCDs). I've played Battlefield 1942, BF2, Kotor, MOH, SP3, ect.. and have never had a ghosting problem. My wife watches movies and shows everyday using the lcd and never complained.

But that is just in my experience. You could get the same lcd and see the ghosting that I wouldn't see.


Jason

 

[CP5670]

I have pretty much given up on LCDs and can hardly wait for the OLEDs to come out in 2009. Not only are they still inferior to CRTs in many respects, but they have basically stopped improving. There has hardly been any progress with high end LCDs for well over a year now. The market is moving towards cheaper, low end TNs and the higher end models are gradually being phased out of the consumer market.

If you don't have a decent CRT, you should definitely look at LCDs only since it's next to impossible to get a good CRT now. Even many of the old flagship models that you can still buy are defective in some way, and the time and frustration it would take to get a good CRT is not worth the hassle. On the other hand, if you already have a good CRT that you don't have any problems with, the only reasons to replace it with an LCD are the ergonomic aspects (size, portability, etc.) and the screen size, as it's a significant downgrade in other ways. That may or may not be a worthwhile tradeoff to you.

and i dont think it makes too much difference to you, i highly doubt your eyes can see the diff between 5ms and 2ms

That largely depends on the type of game and the framerate. I can see a ton of ghosting on the fastest current LCDs in certain situations, and the ghosting is only one of multiple motion-related issues that come up on these monitors.

However, I agree that it's not a good idea to look for the absolute best response time, as you usually start having to compromise a lot on other factors. I would always take a slightly slower (and possibly more expensive) 8-bit LCD over one of the fastest 6-bit ones, for example.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

My new 20" widescreen LCD actually looks as good or better than my old 19" CRT. That thing had dark spots all over it and it just felt cramped compared to widescreen. In fact, maybe I'll plug it in just to see if it really is that much worse...

Edit: Ok, I plugged in my old CRT (Viewsonic P95f+) and it looks horrible in comparison. It may just be because it's old, but everything looks all faded and blurry. I'm going to go back to clarity now.

 

[wrangler]

Yep, CRT till OLED or SED.

I am lucky to have 21" Dell/Sony Trinitron that will do up to 1880 @ 75Hz. My wife has a fancy Samsung 2ms 1000:1 and it looks nice but no contest. The Trinitron is so much more vibrant and you can almost forget that your looking at a monitor, almost like your looking at stuff happening through crystal clear glass.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: rockyou
I was looking at the HP w2207 which the color seemed to look a bit better than the Samsung in the store but it is rated 5ms. So I am thinking buying that would defeat the purpose of the hard core gaming rig I have.

There is also the HP w2408 which looked even better but it did not even make the LCD thread list.

anything below 15ms should do fine, and unless you have some super human eye and only play games to see if you can find faults in games you're not going to spot the difference between 5ms and 2ms. I'm really happy with the 2207w, but I'm no expert and some say other panels are better and more expensive, so they're probably right. I went from my 19" Iiyama VisionMaster454 pro (Triniton), and is very happy with the sharper text on my LCD.

 

[SilentAssassin]

Originally posted by: rockyou
I was looking at the HP w2207 which the color seemed to look a bit better than the Samsung in the store but it is rated 5ms. So I am thinking buying that would defeat the purpose of the hard core gaming rig I have.

There is also the HP w2408 which looked even better but it did not even make the LCD thread list.

You can't just go by the numbers. A 2ms lcd could still have worse ghosting then a 5ms if the panel isn't well manufactured. There's 3 versions on the Samsung 226BW I think? If you get anything other then the "S" panel it's gonna respond slower and look worse then the HP w2207. Samsung's "S" panel might be slightly better but I doubt your gonna notice a difference in games and the HP should perform just as good even though it's 5ms. The real question is wether or not you like the glossy screen the HP uses.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SilentAssassin

Originally posted by: rockyou
I was looking at the HP w2207 which the color seemed to look a bit better than the Samsung in the store but it is rated 5ms. So I am thinking buying that would defeat the purpose of the hard core gaming rig I have.

There is also the HP w2408 which looked even better but it did not even make the LCD thread list.

You can't just go by the numbers. A 2ms lcd could still have worse ghosting then a 5ms if the panel isn't well manufactured. There's 3 versions on the Samsung 226BW I think? If you get anything other then the "S" panel it's gonna respond slower and look worse then the HP w2207. Samsung's "S" panel might be slightly better but I doubt your gonna notice a difference in games and the HP should perform just as good even though it's 5ms. The real question is wether or not you like the glossy screen the HP uses.

Let's add something else to the mix ... something i haven't see commented on yet - i believe you can buy two identical models off the same manufacturing line - made the same day - and still find noticeable quality differences between them.
i am a big fan of being able to return it without penalty after auditioning it in my home. That means buying B&M mostly for me. i would also suggest buying two different LCDs models to compare against each other to satisfy yourself.

 

[Midnight Rambler]

To the OP :

For me, the biggest adjustment has been the loss of clarity, esp. with movies/vid clips. Text, graphics, and photos are just fine, though nothing compares to my recently-departed 21" Sony Trinitron, may it R.I.P. :brokenheart::brokenheart:

For example, I have a large collection of .AVI's/MPG's/WMV's of vintage F1 racing and other series. One of the first things I tried on my new LCD, an NEC 20WMGX2-BK, was viewing one of my favorite clips ... a breathtaking onboard video with Ayrton Senna driving one of the late 80's-vintage turbo McLarens on a "hot" pole qualifying lap of Monaco. Viewed on the Trinitron, the image quality was excellent. On the LCD, it's a nightmare. Lots of blockiness/blur, weird EM field-like effects (not an interference, but rather the "patterns" in the images sorta remind me of EM fields), and just an overall nasty image that at times looks akin to bleeding or chroma keying gone haywire.

I think the biggest part of my disappointment in LCD's stems from the larger pixel "pitch" vs. the CRT's much smaller dot pitch ???