-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
CRT vs. LCD
- Thread starter wchou
- Start date
SynthDude2001
Lifer
There are still advantages to each type of monitor...we cannot yet say that either CRT's or LCD's are better across the board, for everything and everyone's purposes.
imported_Kensai
Lifer
Erm.. *Good* quality CRT's don't ghost.
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
CRT: better color and contrast, better support for multiple resolutions, less/no ghosting, much cheaper.
LCD: Half the weight and size, sharper.
LCD: Half the weight and size, sharper.
die
Anyway, it really depends on your priorities. If you want the best performance and color quality, a nice CRT is required. They can scale resolution very well (in case you old graphics card can't handle doom3 at 1280x1024). Good LCDs are superior in displaying 2D images and text. They are not *that* much more expensive than comparable CRTs as well (though there is still a premium). They are lighter and easier to move around. The main issue I have with LCDs is possible blurriness in other resolutions (mainly noticeable with text).
Just decide whether you want 3D performance and good resolution handling over good 2D/text performanc at native resolution in a MUCH lighter package.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
when 17" 8ms viewsonic lcds are 240 dollars at microcenter... crt is dead. there was a 17" viewsonic*dunno what response rate for 200 flat at frys this weekend too. 300 dollars gets you a 19" lcd now. thats a 20" crt. add the fact that they last atleast twice as long...use less power etc. crt is dead for most people.
Yes..for most people...LCD is better than CRT..but like SrGuapo said, it depends on what you want. LCDs are lighter, smaller, use less power, and have perfect geometry instantly. However, they look BEST on their native resolution, refresh rates aren't as good when compared to CRT, they don't have "perfect" blacks, and color isnt as good.
I would really prefer to have both, but instead I opted for an LCD due to being in a dorm room, and moving my computer more often.
I would really prefer to have both, but instead I opted for an LCD due to being in a dorm room, and moving my computer more often.
imported_rod
Golden Member
CRTs like all resolutions, dont ghost and refresh faster.
I'll be sticking with CRT until LCD's get better and cheaper.
RoD
Yes it is a fact that LCD's usually last longer.
Lack of black performance was already listed in the fact that he said "better contrast". He also already listed "Better color" As a plus for CRT. So I don't know what you are complaining about. Fact is he left out many advantages of LCD's so I added them. They are pretty big deals if you ask me. If your feelings were hurt because someone mentioned that LCD's might beat your CRT at certain things, I suggest you get a hobby.
All I did was add many advantages he left out, I don't think I tried to deceive anyone as the major disadvantages are still listed as advantages for the CRT.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
lcds are getting better and cheaper. down to like 200 for a 17".. 240 for a 8ms. makes spending money on a crt rather hard to justify.
and crts can do all resolutions, but it matters less and less the faster video cards get. as for refreshing, its not comparable. 60hz refresh is essentially flicker free for lcd as the whole screen redraws at once and doesn't fade. heck, 1hz would be absolutely flicker free on an lcd. but animation would be at 1fps😛 and in the end, lcd has less eye strain, theres no denying it.
actually lcds will last longer. half brightness for crt is 10-20k. half brightness for lcd is 50k. makes the useful life of the lcd far longer. makes justifying spending money on crts even harder. http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm
I haven't even read the rest of the responses, but I will say this:
My 17" viewsonic LCD 16ms response time, native res. 1280x1024 is the best thing that has happened to me.
The image does not get any sharper than this and with a 16ms response time, no ghosting, ever!
You get what you pay for. If you want the sharpest image that oney can buy and save your eye sight a little bit, get an LCD.
My 17" viewsonic LCD 16ms response time, native res. 1280x1024 is the best thing that has happened to me.
The image does not get any sharper than this and with a 16ms response time, no ghosting, ever!
You get what you pay for. If you want the sharpest image that oney can buy and save your eye sight a little bit, get an LCD.
Funny...I have a Gateway 17" FD Trinitron (rebadged Sony) that came with a 200mhz Pentium Pro system circa '95 or so, and it still works great. I will say it might be a tad dimmer, but most FD Trinny's are really bright to begin with. All of the ones I've had I generally keep the brightness @ 0% - 5%.
I'll agree most LCD's are better than most CRT's today, other than true high end CRT's like the NEC/Mitsubishi Diamondtrons. 1600 x 1200 @ 100hz and 2048 x 1536 @ 85hz, along with Superbright modes, software calibration, and 100% accurate color reproduction = teh win.
😉
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
