CRT: A Gaming Guru.

[Wolfshanze]

Matthias I'm not trying to stand in the way of progress... I'm not saying LCDs have no right to exist until the meet or exceed all CRT aspects.

I'm just saying, in response to this categorical question (forgive me if I mispelled that, I'm typing on the fly), to COMPLETELY satisfy everyone to the point nobody would ever want a CRT, you'll need to do what I suggest, and meet or exceed every aspect. This doesn't mean that there can't be "transitional" products inbetween... good, better, best is always an allowed process.

For the record, I have been clinging onto various CRTs ever since I bought one for my Amiga computer some years ago (yes, for gaming back then too). I have resisted the Rise of the Machines (errr... LCDs), primarily for response times and scaling issues (important to us "niche" gamers [sorry about the spelling]).

Of course I realize, times change and LCDs have improved considerably since the first generation LCDs. To that end, I just tonight, ordered a Viewsonic VP912B 19" LCD to replace my Samsung 955DF CRT. So you see, I do realize times have changed... I hope I will be satisfied with the results, even if I'm an insignificant minority (niche) gamer!

 

[Regs]

They said the same thing in 98...99...00'...01...02...03..04...and look ! Even 2005! But what's for sure is that the LCD market for Desk Tops has been growing at very high rates every year. Why not?

I just would like to see the gaming LCD's that range from 17-21' inches drop in price. As soon as a 2001FP hits 200-300 dollars, then I would say CRT's are obsolete.

 

[Rhin0]

I have nothing against LCD's and i'd glady take one but they just aren't up to par yet. #1 is cost for me I paid 199.00 for a 930sb 18" viewable and for that price I couldn't even get anything close to this quality on ANY LCD. The weight and space savings is nice, easier to read text is nice but that is all that it would buy me at this point. I have the space and i've never really had a problem reading text on CRT's so I had no reason to even look at an LCD monitor.

Maybe when I build my next computer they'll have an LCD that comes close or is an equal to the 930sb but until then i'm sticking with this beast.

 

[Creig]

Until LCDs come down in price, have non-native resolutions, can guarantee no dead pixels, no ghosting and no washed out colors, I'm sticking with CRT.

Newer is not necessarily always better.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

I'm glad my topic sparked this much conversation / debate .

Personally, I can't stand that my games don't look nearly as good as they could, mainly in reference of LCD's ability to produce black as true black. I guess I could accept a current LCD's color quality, and 12ms response time(or 8ms), but not the black.

I don't see how hard it is too do either, couldn't they just make the backlight less bright, LCD's are too bright to begin with anyway.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze
No problem, it's just that there are things some people say that aren't important to me at all... when I see someone think something is important that I don't care about, I don't say that's anal.

Since the subject is making CRTs a thing of the past, I would put it forward that if you want to make something completely obsolete, it's replacement should be equal to or better then it's predecessor in EVERY category. Otherwise, you're going to have "nitch" people (minority quite possibly) that will cling to old technology because that ONE THING didn't get improved (or at least equal to) that some folks consider important (even if others do not).

Maybe I can't tell the differance between a 6-bit panel and an 8-bit panel... but I'm sure there are those here that think it's important. Maybe I can't tell the importance of UXGA vs SXGA.... but I'm sure there are those here tha think it's important. To me, heat, power consumption and ease on the eyes are more imporant to me then space concerns... but others (such as yourself) will put a premium on desk space... that's fine.

Every person will nitpick about something... that doesn't make them anal, it's just differant strokes for differant folks. If LCDs are to replace CRTs, I think it's important ALL ASPECTS are AT LEAST equal to CRTs... yes... even us silly gamers who want to change resolutions from "native"... we're no less human beings then people who put a premium on desk space or bit levels, or whatever.

No harm no foul... you don't have to agree with us, but don't sling words around loosely if you don't agree. We all have our favorite aspects about monitors, and we all seek that same "utopia", even if we might disagree over what is more important.

Well then, let's try to get more on subject and disregard that ignorant thing I said. I understand people care about different things. I care about those things too. I'm really not saying 'resolution scaling' doesn't matter. If it were bad, I would not have even considered an LCD. However, I use an LCD every day and I can tell you it's very acceptable and something you shouldn't worry about too much.

Okay.. I just have one question for you: Have you tried an LCD at a non-native resolution before? Next time you get an LCD, report back to us. I'm sure you will find the quality very, VERY reasonable, especially for graphics/gaming. The text is the weak point of LCD scaling. Though 640x480 is pretty dreadful, 800x600 is fairly good, and at 1024x768 the difference is negligible. Don't get me wrong, I DO care about resolution scaling. I was just saying it was so good most of the time (for all practical purposes) that it was hardly worth a point against the LCD. If you run at lower than 800x600 though, I can see what you are saying...especially for text. You are right in the way that the CRT is still better and that's the only thing that really matters.

 

[Wolfshanze]

The text is the weak point of LCD scaling. Though 640x480 is pretty dreadful, 800x600 is fairly good, and at 1024x768 the difference is negligible. Don't get me wrong, I DO care about resolution scaling. I was just saying it was so good most of the time (for all practical purposes) that it was hardly worth a point against the LCD. If you run at lower than 800x600 though, I can see what you are saying...especially for text. You are right in the way that the CRT is still better and that's the only thing that really matters.

Well, I'm not exactly a young buck anymore... why "back in my day, we did our gaming on 'high resolution' 640x480... that's the way it was and we liked it!"... in fact, I still like my 640x480 gaming... especially my beloved Pacific General, so yes, scaling all the way down to 640x480 is something I am still considering important, though even I realize that is a really niche concern!

As for looking at recent LCDs... probably the closest two comparisons are my (old) Laptop, which looks wretched at 640x480 (and admitably it is an old LCD screen), and the more recent addition of Dell 1901FP LCDs at my workplace. Since I was interested in getting an LCD for myself, I even went so far as to lug one of my home computers to work just to hook it up to a Dell 1901FP and get a rough idea how well a "modern" screen scales as low as 640x480... wasn't great, but was a lot better then my old laptop, so obviously, progress has been made. I'm hoping my Viewsonic VP1912B with a DVI connect and some software tweaks might even look better.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

The Viewsonic VP1912B has me interested, but I don't want to risk it, knowing me, I probably won't like it. I would need to test it out first, maybe Best Buy will have one I can take a look at...

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Oh wait a minute, I just saw this review saying it's for "casual gamers", I'm not a casual gamer in the least, if I had a new monitor and power supply right now, I would be playing games, not wasting time on these forums.

I don't know for sure, but I think anyone who says this monitor is for hardcore gamers, is kidding themselves. I wish newegg didn't have a 15% restocking fee so I could return this monitor if I didn't like it.

 

[imported_Reck]

CRTs will never dy wtf is NEC thinking? Regardless if the blacks on lcds improve, they still aren't gonna be as good as a crt. Plus *coughs* native resolution you're basically locked into one resolution. Thin crts will rule the future... I'm surprised they didn't really reveal anything at ces this year about that technology....

 

[impemonk]

hmmm... then I guess its safe to assume "AGP: a thing of the past" as well?

 

[alexandernevsky]

Originally posted by: alexandernevsky
Heres what the real answer from Nec / Mitsubishi should read:

"There is still a substantial market demand for CRT products, for their superior image quality. Nec-Mitsubishi has, however, halted all CRT production as of Dec. 2004. The reason for this is that CRT monitors are significantly cheaper at this point in time as customers are no longer paying a "technology premium" as they are on LCD panels. This, coupled with the extremely high weight and size of CRT monitors - making them very expensive both to ship out and to collect and reship when needing service under warranty, create a situation where indeed it is no longer sensible to market the CRT.
For the time being we shall meet the demand for CRT monitors by selling off existing stocks with refurbished monitors sold as new in lesser market share areas (countries), while simultaneously cutting respective production and service staff thus completing a two way economic "pincer movement".

We will, however, continue to manufacture and market our "Full Color Gamut" CRT display - the only CRT in the world to produce 97% of the Adobe......." yap yap yap yap..... " currently retailing for a cool $4,999.

Don't hesitate to contact us for further assistance"

hope its legal to quote myself...

 

[Wolfshanze]

Oh wait a minute, I just saw this review saying it's for "casual gamers", I'm not a casual gamer in the least, if I had a new monitor and power supply right now, I would be playing games, not wasting time on these forums.

That's one review that said casual gamers (without reason for coining that term)... and I'm not even sure that one reviewer meant anything negative about the monitor.

I trust end-users more then "professional reviewers" anyways... have you read all the NewEgg user reviews on the Viewsonic VP912B?

Everything there tells me this is not for "casual gamers"... I would say that term belongs to the 25ms response monitors.

Which aspect would make it not good for gamers? Certainly a 12ms monitor that not one person I know of having any ghosting problems would make this a good monitor for games.

I'm a gamer myself. I've been doing a TON of research on monitors, and if you're going to game on an LCD, then I don't think there are any other LCDs better then the Viewsonic (for the 19" class anyways)... probably several just as good, but not really any better gaming 19" LCDs.

Don't give up based on one loose-lipped reviewer who says "casual gamer". Read what all the NewEgg customers have to say about this monitor and I think you'll see for 19" LCDs, this is a great gaming monitor.

There are some 29 written end-user reviews on this monitor at newegg... 28 gave five stars, and one gave four stars. Most of the reviews are written by admitted gamers. I think that speaks volumes over one CNet review.

Heck, the CNet review you saw yourself gave a 7.4 out of 10... the reviewer deducted points for the glare screen (which is no longer an issue since the monitor now ships with a standard matte screen) and for flimsy cable holders???... yet scroll down a few inches and notice all the CNet user reviews gave it a 94%... once again lots of GAMERS saying this is a great monitor... I really, REALLY think you are giving WAAAAY too much weight to ONE reviewer over all the real people who love this monitor... both on Newegg and on CNet! Heck the CNet reviewer even said "extreme brightness makes games and graphics sing".

 

[Genx87]

LCDs are overpriced and underperforming.

Until the above changes Ill be with CRTs. At least for gaming purposes. Might try to get a 21" LCD about 18 months from now for desktop use. But who knows.

 

[m4ch0dude]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: m4ch0dude
I also remember somebody saying the geforce1 will make the ps2 obsolete, and what a lie that turned out to be. They'd have to make some serious improvements to lcd technology before it can replace crt's, and to be honest I'm not yet willing to trade up my crt for the lcd's out there now.

Check your facts there. The GF1 came out fall of 99, PS2 march of 2000. They both debuted in final form around roughly the same time frame. Additionally, the GF1 does/did top the PS2 in some areas. However, the PS2 as a dedicated gaming machine naturally produced better gfx because of the lack of hardware variables.

However, LCDs do have a ways to go yet before they can top CRTs in all areas. That comment about them producing true black seems like hogwash. That would involve some sort of selective blocking of/removal of the backlight, which I can't see happening anytime soon with LCD technology. However, OLEDs look interesting as an up and coming tech.

I still dig my dual LCDs and really wouldn't want to go back to CRT. They are so much easier on my eyes.

Um, not like it really matters but:

ps2 fillrate w/textures: 1.2 billion texels/sec
geforce : 480 million/s

ps2 geometry setup: 25 million polys/sec (textured)
geforce : 15 million/s

ps2: programmable vector units
geforce: fixed pipeline

do you want to continue?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Perhaps this tech will replace both?

 

[Tweakin]

I think the biggest to overcome is the native res. I have finally switched and went with Samsung 19". I don't use Digital as I like to keep the refresh @ 75Hz for gaming. It is nice to sit behind my backup computer with an old Hitachi 19" SuperScan Elite running 11x8 @ 85Hz. That just seems to be the correct size and aspect for everything I do.

If I could I would have both, the LCD for daily use and a nice 19"+ for gaming.

 

[mwmorph]

OLEDs only last 1/6 as long as say palsma or lcds. they are not ready for market yet because of that and high prices. 2k7 is the expected rollout date for a limited oled comerical release.(popular science). i agree, oleds would kick as5 but its not coming out anytime soon.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: m4ch0dude

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: m4ch0dude
I also remember somebody saying the geforce1 will make the ps2 obsolete, and what a lie that turned out to be. They'd have to make some serious improvements to lcd technology before it can replace crt's, and to be honest I'm not yet willing to trade up my crt for the lcd's out there now.

Check your facts there. The GF1 came out fall of 99, PS2 march of 2000. They both debuted in final form around roughly the same time frame. Additionally, the GF1 does/did top the PS2 in some areas. However, the PS2 as a dedicated gaming machine naturally produced better gfx because of the lack of hardware variables.

However, LCDs do have a ways to go yet before they can top CRTs in all areas. That comment about them producing true black seems like hogwash. That would involve some sort of selective blocking of/removal of the backlight, which I can't see happening anytime soon with LCD technology. However, OLEDs look interesting as an up and coming tech.

I still dig my dual LCDs and really wouldn't want to go back to CRT. They are so much easier on my eyes.

Um, not like it really matters but:

ps2 fillrate w/textures: 1.2 billion texels/sec
geforce : 480 million/s

ps2 geometry setup: 25 million polys/sec (textured)
geforce : 15 million/s

ps2: programmable vector units
geforce: fixed pipeline

do you want to continue?

You apparently missed the point where I stated that the GF1 topped the PS2 in some areas. If you'd like me to dig out examples, I can easily enough. However, raw hardware stats don't really tell the story, as the architecture of the GF1 and PS2 is radically different (not to mention that the GF1 is simply a gfx chip, while the PS2 is a combination of many chips). Anyways, I honestly don't think it's worth us getting in a discussion comparing the hardware for a 5 year old console to a 5 year old PC component.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: Reck
CRTs will never dy wtf is NEC thinking? Regardless if the blacks on lcds improve, they still aren't gonna be as good as a crt. Plus *coughs* native resolution you're basically locked into one resolution. Thin crts will rule the future... I'm surprised they didn't really reveal anything at ces this year about that technology....

Being locked into native res isn't as bad as it sounds when coupled with a quality scaling chip. Additionally, the vector based GUIs of the future will help the situation immensely. The only thing that will be a pain is if games start to significantly overtake gfx hardware, where the latest games can't be run at say 1600x1200 with full on eye candy even with the best hardware on the market at the time. But, as I stated, the negative effects of this are somewhat lessened with a decent scaling setup. Anyways, it's only natural for alternative displays to start taking over the marketplace. We've been on CRT tech for an eternity, especially when compared to other technological advances.

 

[doublejbass]

I love the console argument. People who know jack about software design always love to debate it. Put simply, the entire argument is moot because PCs have to worry about Windows and the entire OS overhead and consoles don't.

One thing I'm curious about is why I don't see any more Sony Trinitron CRTs. I had a Dell 17.5" viewable Trinitron CRT a few years ago that had a pretty exquisite image despite being a beast. I've been using LCDs for a while, and I'll probably stay that way, but I'd love to pick up one of those, it just seems like they've stopped manufacturing them. Anybody know anything about this? I want to know if I should go back home and trade out that monitor I handed down and keep it for myself.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: doublejbass
I love the console argument. People who know jack about software design always love to debate it. Put simply, the entire argument is moot because PCs have to worry about Windows and the entire OS overhead and consoles don't.

One thing I'm curious about is why don't I see any more Sony Trinitron CRTs? I had a Dell 17.5" viewable Trinitron CRT a few years ago that had a pretty exquisite image despite being a beast. I've been using LCDs for a while, and I'll probably stay that way, but I'd love to pick up one of those, it just seems like they've stopped manufacturing them. Anybody know anything about this? I want to know if I should go back home and trade out that monitor I handed down and keep it for myself.

From what I have read, Sony jumped out of the CRT business a while back (or at least was planning to).

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: m4ch0dude
I also remember somebody saying the geforce1 will make the ps2 obsolete, and what a lie that turned out to be. They'd have to make some serious improvements to lcd technology before it can replace crt's, and to be honest I'm not yet willing to trade up my crt for the lcd's out there now.

You mean it wasn't obsolete before it went out of the manufacturing plant?
Show me a PS2 at 1024x768 on a display under $200 and being able to play games effectively w/o a pad.
It's just a bad comparison, m4ch0dude.

 

[Cerb]

When LCDs are under $200 with a 0 dead pixels warranty, I might believe you, Wolfman.

 

[doublejbass]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: m4ch0dude
I also remember somebody saying the geforce1 will make the ps2 obsolete, and what a lie that turned out to be. They'd have to make some serious improvements to lcd technology before it can replace crt's, and to be honest I'm not yet willing to trade up my crt for the lcd's out there now.

You mean it wasn't obsolete before it went out of the manufacturing plant?
Show me a PS2 at 1024x768 on a display under $200 and being able to play games effectively w/o a pad.
It's just a bad comparison, m4ch0dude.

That's also assuming that a progressive television display is noticably inferior in quality to a computer-grade display, and despite the difference in rendering capability, one can easily differentiate the level of performance. I don't necessarily see it as inferior. Also, you're implying that there's a disadvantage to natively being designed around a pad. I appreciate that design, and I spent a long time trying to find an equivalent on my PC before giving up. You're right, it's a bad comparison, but your implication that PC gaming is inherently superior to Console gaming is a bit specious.