Are there any other die hard CRT fans here?

[taltamir]

BFG, efficiency is not A vs B. its performace/watt of A vs performance/watt of B...
In this case, watts per square inch or watts per lumens or anything concrete...

How can you tell me a very large LCD has power consumption similar to a much smaller CRT? The idea is to compare equal sized ones. A 19 inch (viewable) CRT vs a 19 inch LCD, a 21 vs 21, a 30 vs 30. And so on. LCDs are vastly superior for power consumption... yes, the biggest LCDs approach the power consumption of the smallest CRTs, that just proves my point.

Also... 21 inch CRT is less then 19 inch of real area. You can get some very high quality 19 inch LCD screens for 500$, you can get them for much less actually. And while they might not exceed THOSE specs, they will exceed the other specs of the CRT that you did NOT mention.
Remember, I gave a whole list of things that LCDs do better.

 

[Tary88]

I like the picture quality on the new lcd's, they are great for browsing the net, photoshop, C.A.D etc. But for high paced shooters, a crt is the only way to go.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: taltamir
BFG, efficiency is not A vs B. its performace/watt of A vs performance/watt of B...
In this case, watts per square inch or watts per lumens or anything concrete...

How can you tell me a very large LCD has power consumption similar to a much smaller CRT? The idea is to compare equal sized ones. A 19 inch (viewable) CRT vs a 19 inch LCD, a 21 vs 21, a 30 vs 30. And so on. LCDs are vastly superior for power consumption... yes, the biggest LCDs approach the power consumption of the smallest CRTs, that just proves my point.

Also... 21 inch CRT is less then 19 inch of real area. You can get some very high quality 19 inch LCD screens for 500$, you can get them for much less actually. And while they might not exceed THOSE specs, they will exceed the other specs of the CRT that you did NOT mention.
Remember, I gave a whole list of things that LCDs do better.

The problem with CRTs is focus and geometry are crap compared to LCDs,I hate damper wires on Trinitron's etc..rather look at pixels on my LCD which display what the image is supposed to be,bottomline CRTs are outdated and I won't even consider an CRT nowadays for my gaming needs,give me a good quality WS LCD anytime,sharpness in DVI mode is also another plus point .

CRTs have too many real issues compared to LCDs IMHO,I won't tell you how many CRTS I had to rebox and send back due to the common issues like out of focus,poor geometry etc..thankfully with LCDs you only have to worry about the odd dead pixel or so and a lot easier to send back not to meantion desk space.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

As for now, $499 for a 21" CRT that does 2048x1536 @ 80 Hz and has a .20 mm dot pitch:

http://www.viewsonic.com/produ.../graphicseries/g225fb/

Show me any modern LCD that costs less and matches (or exceeds) all of those specs.

BFG what quality are you speaking of exactly on that Viewsonic? As far as I am aware, Viewsonic doesn't even make true flat screen CRTs. That tube is actually convex behind a flat glass screen. Also, if people are going to focus on black levels for an LCD, how come no one is mentioning the poor quality of whites on a CRT?

Also you can't just compare dot pitch of a CRT to an LCD. I sit 3-4 feet away from my 37 inch LCD. There is no way a human eye can detect the difference between 0.27 and 0.20 dot pitch at a distance that far (if you can then you should join the airforce ). So while for a CRT the dot pitch is more relevant since you'll be sitting so much closer, I think it's important for us to compare things in context.

There is also little mention of the immersion factor of gaming on a larger screen. So many people talk about how they want the greatest possible resolution. But how many have actually tried gaming on a 37 or 42 or 46 inch LCD? Sure 2048x1536 resolution is nothing to sniff at but even a lowly 720P xbox360's gears of war on a 46 inch looks a lot more impressive to me than higher rez game on screen more than 2x smaller. Of course this is a personal preference. But come to think of it, while IMAX has inferior resolution to say a 30 inch Dell/most home setups and far inferior pixel pitch, hardly anyone would argue that IMAX isn't vastly superior to most people's home cinemas setups simply due to the larger screen.

We can't forget that a 21 inch CRT only has a viewable image of 20 inches. While CRT is still superior for refresh rate and black levels, the ability to use a large LCD monitor for both gaming and HD movies simply puts it on another level. Of course if one has a larger plasma screen and a high quality CRT monitor, then it's another matter. But from this perspective $1000 LCD as has been mentioned is actually a bargain since it has a dual role. If one were to keep it for only 5 years, that's just $200 a year.

Finally, for someone who uses 2 screens, 2 x 22 or 2 x 24 inch LCDs offer great real estate. Also, for picture editing you can rotate these monitors vertically. It's not only impractical to use 2x21 inch CRTs for work but they do not have the same level of flexibility.

 

[CP5670]

Also, if people are going to focus on black levels for an LCD, how come no one is mentioning the poor quality of whites on a CRT?

That Viewsonic seems to be a shadow mask, but white on an extended brightness AG tube is better than most LCDs. The lack of screen door effects means that a white object looks totally uniform unlike on an LCD, and they can typically get around 400cd/m^2 on the highest settings, which is a little lower than what the VA and IPS LCDs do but still pretty good.

Also, black and dark colors in general are far more important than white for most FPS games due to the dark palettes that the vast majority of such games use.

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

As for now, $499 for a 21" CRT that does 2048x1536 @ 80 Hz and has a .20 mm dot pitch:

http://www.viewsonic.com/produ.../graphicseries/g225fb/

Show me any modern LCD that costs less and matches (or exceeds) all of those specs.

wow they still sell these?? thanks for the memory jog!

Just thought I point this out. While the horizontal dot pitch is .20, the diagonal dot pitch is actually .25. It is the diagonal dot pitch that is important. Marketing always love to put in the lower "dot pitch" number to make things look good. Look at the specs again.

This monitor doesn't look like it's an aperture grill type tube, because aperture grill monitors would not have listed different dot pitch sizes. It only list one dot pitch size.

This Viewsonic is probably a shadow mask tubes because it advertised multiple dot pitch sizes. I remember back in 1998 shawdown mask tubes had .22 diagonal dot pitch already. If this Viewsonic is one of the shadow mask variant like I think it is, then it's a step backward compared to my 1998 Mitusubishi shadow mask.

And I see that the power consumption of the viewsonic is 125W. Boy things have really changed in the CRT world much! My 21" Mitsubishi used 130W back in 1998. A decade later, CRTs of similar size consume the same power! for viewable screen size of probably a tad over 19". My 24" Dell LCD (with 24" viewable) use 57W typical and 110W maximum, according to Dell specs.

If was looking to pay $499 for a 21" CRT, I would definitely consider this 24" LCD from Dell for $599. This one doesn't use a TN panel. Response time is 6ms which is typical of most non-TN panel, and will be fine for gaming. Most LCD TVs have a 8ms response time and they are fine for even fast actions, so 6ms is suffice for gaming.

http://accessories.us.dell.com...dhs&cs=19&sku=320-6272

The Dell has a .27 dot pitch which is above the cheaper 24" LCDs which normally have .28. I know .27 sounds bigger than .20 or .22 or .25 often advertised in CRTs, but trust me, .27 on a 24" LCD will give you fine text that not even the best LCDs under $2000 can hope match.

And seeing that the CRT uses 125W, the Dell uses 57W (typical). That's a huge difference. I'll bet in 2 years, you'll make up this $100 in electricity cost! Somebody do the math, I'm too lazy!

And although you didn't mention it, but I'm going to say that the 24" Dell will give you back half your desk! May not be important for you, but for those living in crampy houses, it can make a world of difference between an nice looking room and a trashy looking room... trashy because you have no room on your desk with the 21" on it and you're forced to put your stuff on the ground or shove them elsewhere aroung the room!

 

[CP5670]

Not all of us have space problems. I have a big desk. Even when OLEDs come out and I get one of those, my giant Stacker case will probably still remain there.

 

[v8envy]

Had a nokia 21" (trinitron tube) manufactured in 2002-2003 or so. After five years it was having convergence issues that recalibration just wasn't going to fix. I recycled it and got an acer 22" TN LCD.

What a hunk of flaming crap. Luckily I have no live/dead pixels and fairly even backlighting. But the 'black' level isn't, gradient banding is horrific, colors are washed out and generally poo.

And that's not even getting into fixed resolution, display lag, ghosting and 60 hz limitations which make it unsuitable for gaming.

If it were possible I'd have forked over $600 for a replacement CRT. As is this $200 eyesore is a temporary stopgap until display technologies improve.

 

[tno]

The reason to compare TN's to the $1200 CRT's is that the two are now competitively priced. I got my 21"er for $50, and the user, a developer and graphics guy, had just paid to have the mainboard replaced and have the thing recalibrated. He could afford the loss because he got his new client to pay for a gorgeous 30" screen.

Now, again, all of the CRT guys have said, we are willing to sacrifice our CRTs for LCDs with equivalent image quality. But not till they're affordable (as in not $700+).

Originally posted by: taltamir
why do you keep comparing TN panels, the cheapest of the cheap in LCD technology, to 1200$ CRTs like the trinitrons?

yea, the TN panels do suffer from that and other problems... but they make up for it by being half the cost of a quality panel (per square inch) which is even less then half the cost of a quality CRT per square inch...

 

[CP5670]

Well, I would be willing to pay for something that does everything my CRT does but gives me a bigger screen. Such things don't exist, however. Even the absolute best $7000+ LCDs for professional graphics and medical imaging are still going to be limited to 60hz and will still have too much motion blur in space sims for my liking.

 

[tno]

The power draw from those huge LCDs comes from those equivalently huge backlights.

And now you're picking on screen size as the point of comparison but that hasn't really been our gripe. We want high image quality, inclusive of the high resolution, and versatility. Those high quality 19"ers rarely put out more than 16x10, no where near the 20x15 of top CRTs of that size, and that's in the 16:10 market, in the 4:3 market LCD's are 12x10 only.

Plus you still haven't touched on the versatility and the inherent limitations of LCDs. Plus, few companies are really going to waste top panels on small screens, it just wouldn't be worth it for them, and those top panels would go to the bigger screens.

Again, someday flat panel displays will reach or surpass the visual fidelity of top CRTs, at affordable prices. When that day comes you'll see this thread moved to the antique computing section. Until then, CRT guys will not change our ways for the convenience of a smaller footprint at the cost of compromised image quality.

tno

Originally posted by: taltamir
BFG, efficiency is not A vs B. its performace/watt of A vs performance/watt of B...
In this case, watts per square inch or watts per lumens or anything concrete...

How can you tell me a very large LCD has power consumption similar to a much smaller CRT? The idea is to compare equal sized ones. A 19 inch (viewable) CRT vs a 19 inch LCD, a 21 vs 21, a 30 vs 30. And so on. LCDs are vastly superior for power consumption... yes, the biggest LCDs approach the power consumption of the smallest CRTs, that just proves my point.

Also... 21 inch CRT is less then 19 inch of real area. You can get some very high quality 19 inch LCD screens for 500$, you can get them for much less actually. And while they might not exceed THOSE specs, they will exceed the other specs of the CRT that you did NOT mention.
Remember, I gave a whole list of things that LCDs do better.

 

[tno]

The focus and geometry issues are based on calibration and age. Yes, as CRTs age their magnets start to go and suddenly you can't get the image focused or straight. But during a good CRTs prime or after a careful calibration, a CRTs focus and geometry is as good as an LCDs, plus you get all the pros.

I'm not immune to your point though. I have a 34" CRT WS HDTV that I love. The picture is amazing, enough to impress drop my wife's jaw when she first saw it, MY wife who cares little for these things. And yet I am constantly bothered by a small geometry problem in the lower left corner and by a small light band that travels across the screen, all symptoms of my TVs age and frailty. But I couldn't've afforded a cheap 34" LCD, let alone one with a picture this good.

tno

Originally posted by: Mem
The problem with CRTs is focus and geometry are crap compared to LCDs,I hate damper wires on Trinitron's etc..rather look at pixels on my LCD which display what the image is supposed to be,bottomline CRTs are outdated and I won't even consider an CRT nowadays for my gaming needs,give me a good quality WS LCD anytime,sharpness in DVI mode is also another plus point .

CRTs have too many real issues compared to LCDs IMHO,I won't tell you how many CRTS I had to rebox and send back due to the common issues like out of focus,poor geometry etc..thankfully with LCDs you only have to worry about the odd dead pixel or so and a lot easier to send back not to meantion desk space.

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

We can't forget that a 21 inch CRT only has a viewable image of 20 inches. While CRT is still superior for refresh rate and black levels, the ability to use a large LCD monitor for both gaming and HD movies simply puts it on another level. Of course if one has a larger plasma screen and a high quality CRT monitor, then it's another matter. But from this perspective $1000 LCD as has been mentioned is actually a bargain since it has a dual role. If one were to keep it for only 5 years, that's just $200 a year.

I'll touch on the white level issue briefly, IFS calibrated to a 6500k color warmth any display, even LCDs should have some reddish hue to its natural white, this is intended to match the whites witnessed in film. This is, of course, a bit of an outdated method since modern cinema has moved predominantly to digital cameras which can properly capture pure whites.

As far as the flexibilty of being able to view movies on an LCD, I have, and I hated it. Even fast LCDs have some motion blur, which is why the best LCD TVs are moving to 120Hz. My wife makes fun of my pickiness, we'll be at BB and I'll gawk at a 60+" plasma playing a BluRay disc at 1080p24 when a fast paced pan occurs and the whole screen becomes a hideous blur with horrible ghosting when the image finally settles. I have never had this problem on either my TV or monitors.

 

[CP5670]

What they currently call 120hz on LCDs is just an example of stupid marketing. They still run at 60hz.

The fastest LCDs right now support 75hz, and those do look significantly smoother than 60hz to me (the ones that don't skip frames, that is), but as far as I know they only exist among 19" screens with a relatively low 1280x1024 resolution. Single link DVI prevents 75hz from being used on larger screens, but dual link DVI should support it up to at least 1920x1200.

The refresh rate is not an inherent limitation of LCD technology like motion blur. It's just that the manufacturers think that people won't notice anything higher than 60fps and prefer to cheap out on their input DSPs.

 

[kmmatney]

IMO, the problem the OP made was getting a 19" LCD. I think that's too small, especially with the wide aspect ratio - it's about the same height as a 17" CRT. You really need at least a 22" LCD for a better overall experience, and better yet a 24" LCD.

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: CP5670
Well, I would be willing to pay for something that does everything my CRT does but gives me a bigger screen. Such things don't exist, however. Even the absolute best $7000+ LCDs for professional graphics and medical imaging are still going to be limited to 60hz and will still have too much motion blur in space sims for my liking.

Ugh... medical image LCDs are not design for gaming. Speed and refresh rate is the last thing they worry about.

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: tno

... Those high quality 19"ers rarely put out more than 16x10, no where near the 20x15 of top CRTs of that size, and that's in the 16:10 market, in the 4:3 market LCD's are 12x10 only.

My 20" Dell professional is 4:3 with 1600x1200

BTW, can you see anything on a 21" at 2048x resolution???? I swear, my 21" Sony Trinitron was a blur at that resolution and my eyes would go blind in 10 minutes trying to read text at that resolution on a 21" CRT. The highest resolution that I could use and not go blind is 1600x1200 on a 21" CRT, and even then, my eyes still go watery after 5-6 hours of continuous ussage.



Well, guys, I'm stepping out of this thread. It was a fun "time-machine" thread, but I'm leaving yall it's pretty useless to keep debating. Those who insist on CRT will not be convinced to get an LCD (and not sure why they ask to be convinced), and those who have moved on to LCD will never go back to LCDs.

I'm looking forward the debate between LCDs and LED LCDs in the near future and see what's the better bang for the bucks!

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: taltamir

How can you tell me a very large LCD has power consumption similar to a much smaller CRT?

Um, because it's true?

The 30? LCDs that are required to beat 2048x1536 CRTs in terms of pixel count often have comparable (or higher) power consumption and/or heat generation. Using the argument ?LCDs use less power? is often a fallacy.

The idea is to compare equal sized ones. A 19 inch (viewable) CRT vs a 19 inch LCD, a 21 vs 21, a 30 vs 30. And so on. LCDs are vastly superior for power consumption

What a load of nonsense. Let's take it further using your reasoning: is an LCD with a max resolution of 4x3 "superior" to a CRT @ 1920x1440 as long as both devices are 19"?

Of course not.

A 2048x1536 CRT is lighting 37% more pixels than a 1920x1200 LCD. Also if it?s running at 80 Hz it?s refreshing the screen at least 33% more often, or more if the LCD takes longer than 16 ms to update pixels.

Screen size means squat; it's what?s displayed that counts.

 

[taltamir]

the fallacy is yours, not mine. Because you think a 30 inch LCD is equal to a 19.3 inch (21 inch claimed) CRT because they reach similar pixel counts.

Its not that a 30 inch has greater power consumption then a 19 inch (real, 21 claimed) CRT because they have the same number of pixels.
But that 19 inch LCD is superior to a 19 inch CRT in power consumption and inferior to it in pixel amount.

I rarely ran CRTs at maximum resolution because text became far too small to read.
linux, unix, mac, and windows type operating systems (which is all of them... BSD and solaris are types of unix, etc), all without exception can not properly scale to allow you to run a higher resolution with larger text. Text bleeds out of boxes, web pages get distorted, etc.
Now, I personally got used to the native resolutions in LCDs, but most people I know run below native (again, for text size) on LCDs.
So I find a lower dot pitch / higher resolution on a small screen detrimental, not beneficial.

If screen size meant squat, then people would have enjoyed a movie more on a computer monitor instead of tv, tv instead of threatre, and theatre instead of imax. Now there are other factors that might make watching at home more convenient, but I am talking about the video experience. (aka, the movies look better there, but I prefer to watch at home for other reasons).

In reality it is the other way around. Screen size comes first, resolution second. It might be different for YOU, but if that is the case you are the extremely rare exception.
PS. best gaming experience I ever had was a sanyo Z2 displaying on a white wall... 150 inch of pure awesomeness... only 720p resolution, but best gaming ever.

 

[bangmal]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Um, because it's true?

The 30? LCDs that are required to beat 2048x1536 CRTs in terms of pixel count often have comparable (or higher) power consumption and/or heat generation. Using the argument ?LCDs use less power? is often a fallacy.

Unless there is a 21'' 2048x1536 LCD that you can compare, it is very cheap of you to use something does not exist(2048x1536 LCD) to "prove" your point, can you go cheaper?

By following your logic,
how about comparing an 8'' LCD screen with 1280x1024 to a 15'' CRT with the same resolution? 15'' CRT is required to beat 1280x1024 LCDs in terms of pixel count.
which consumes less power?

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: CP5670
Well, I would be willing to pay for something that does everything my CRT does but gives me a bigger screen. Such things don't exist, however. Even the absolute best $7000+ LCDs for professional graphics and medical imaging are still going to be limited to 60hz and will still have too much motion blur in space sims for my liking.

Ugh... medical image LCDs are not design for gaming. Speed and refresh rate is the last thing they worry about.

Exactly the problem. The ones that have good image quality are not fast enough, and the ones that are reasonably fast and do proper 75hz are low resolution TNs. You can't get everything in one package with LCDs, which is why I am waiting for OLED monitors.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: bangmal

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Um, because it's true?

The 30? LCDs that are required to beat 2048x1536 CRTs in terms of pixel count often have comparable (or higher) power consumption and/or heat generation. Using the argument ?LCDs use less power? is often a fallacy.

Unless there is a 21'' 2048x1536 LCD that you can compare, it is very cheap of you to use something does not exist(2048x1536 LCD) to "prove" your point, can you go cheaper?

By following your logic,
how about comparing an 8'' LCD screen with 1280x1024 to a 15'' CRT with the same resolution? 15'' CRT is required to beat 1280x1024 LCDs in terms of pixel count.
which consumes less power?

that is much better phrased then what I was going for. Awesome point bangmal...

If a 21 inch CRT beats a 30 or 40 inch LCD in power consumption (because we are going by resolution)
Then an 8 inch LCD beats a 15 inch CRT much much harder (again, same resolution).

Ofcourse the entire comparison is ludicrous.
Nice one bangmal

 

[CreasianDevaili]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: bangmal

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Um, because it's true?

The 30? LCDs that are required to beat 2048x1536 CRTs in terms of pixel count often have comparable (or higher) power consumption and/or heat generation. Using the argument ?LCDs use less power? is often a fallacy.

Unless there is a 21'' 2048x1536 LCD that you can compare, it is very cheap of you to use something does not exist(2048x1536 LCD) to "prove" your point, can you go cheaper?

By following your logic,
how about comparing an 8'' LCD screen with 1280x1024 to a 15'' CRT with the same resolution? 15'' CRT is required to beat 1280x1024 LCDs in terms of pixel count.
which consumes less power?

that is much better phrased then what I was going for. Awesome point bangmal...

If a 21 inch CRT beats a 30 or 40 inch LCD in power consumption (because we are going by resolution)
Then an 8 inch LCD beats a 15 inch CRT much much harder (again, same resolution).

Ofcourse the entire comparison is ludicrous.
Nice one bangmal

Hey since we are going this route in power consumption..

Living in the north I have rather cold winters. Very cold to be more to the point. So with the heat output of the CRt I have, being the FW900, I save some money on my monthly heating bill by not needing one room heated as much.

Since we are trying to make points about heat and power then maybe someone can measure the money saved on a monthly heating bill if each room is climate controled against the added power consumption on a CRT. Take the extra money in power, take the money saved from power heating, and take that number against the LCD power/heat and see how it really goes.

In the end no one is going to be able to tell someone that the image quality of the FW900 can be beat, in both gaming and professional 3D editing, period for the 22.5 viewing size. I have gone and seen the 24inch LCD monitors and the size difference isnt noticable for me. 26inch it is, but to the point of actually being too big.

Taltamir, you've never had the FW900. Have you even seen it in action? I have seen the LCD's in action. I have seen my friends IPS and plenty of TN. I have taken a disk over and let them run it and seen the difference. Your taking the experience of your CRT which is low-grade compared to the FW900. It would just be like someone coming on here with low grade 22inch LCD with horrid backlight, angles, and shameful color quality, and saying that all LCD's are like that. It isnt true right? So why dont you stop putting all CRT's in the same bag.

The FW900 is what is holding most people onto their CRT. Or buying one instead of a LCD. It isnt a normal CRT. I personally cannot stand huge monitors. I would never go with a 30 inch. I am having a hard enough time considering a 26 inch and only because it is the DS 265W which just MIGHT be tolerable for me.

I am sure if you could go somewhere and see the FW900 in person you would just to see. I am sure alot of us would go somewhere to see the high quality panels in action as well. But neither of us can. The market is saturated with low grade pieces of crap and you must buy online to get the really nice ones unless you live on the coast. I can drive to get another FW900, and see it in action before I buy with a 12 month warranty with a company that has done me right many times.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Because you think a 30 inch LCD is equal to a 19.3 inch (21 inch claimed) CRT because they reach similar pixel counts.

No, I never said that. What I said was it takes a 30" LCD to beat a 2048x1536 CRT in terms of pixel count. I also said comparing a 1920x1200x60Hz LCD to a 2048x1536x80Hz CRT in terms of power consumption is flawed because the LCD has less pixels and is doing vastly less work.

But that 19 inch LCD is superior to a 19 inch CRT in power consumption and inferior to it in pixel amount.

It might be "superior" but that's because it's doing vastly less work. If I take a Mini and a Ferrari to a race track I can say the Mini uses less fuel but when the performance results are in the Mini will be left in the dust.

If screen size meant squat, then people would have enjoyed a movie more on a computer monitor instead of tv, tv instead of threatre, and theatre instead of imax.

But IMAX has a much bigger resolution than regular theater so you?re backing my stance without even realizing it. People like IMAX because for lack of a better term, it?s doing more work than regular theater.

Likewise, are you going to claim theater is superior to IMAX because it uses less power? Of course not, because IMAX is doing a hell of a lot more work than regular theater, just like a 2048x1536x80 HZ CRT compared to a 1920x1200x60 Hz LCD.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: bangmal

Unless there is a 21'' 2048x1536 LCD that you can compare, it is very cheap of you to use something does not exist(2048x1536 LCD) to "prove" your point, can you go cheaper?

That it doesn't exist isn't my problem, it's a problem with the technology. It?s not my fault you need to hit 30? to exceed 1920x1200 on an LCD.

LCD proponents always run around claiming how cheap LCDs are now and that big CRTs are expensive but when it comes to compare the specs and price CRTs are still far ahead providing you can find new ones.

By following your logic,
how about comparing an 8'' LCD screen with 1280x1024 to a 15'' CRT with the same resolution? 15'' CRT is required to beat 1280x1024 LCDs in terms of pixel count.
which consumes less power?

Find me such devices and then we can discuss them. In any case the CRT will still run a lot faster than 60 Hz, unlike the LCD.