• 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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'm curious

What do all you people who play games with medium end hardware do with your 12x10+ LCDs?
Do you turn down the settings so you can run at 12x10+ even though you could possible play with much higher settings at say...12x7 or do you simply let the game get scaled?
 
Originally posted by: Hadsus
You've read wrong. Go to the AVS forum. A couple of years ago the posts in the rear projection forum (DLPs and LCD rear projectors) far exceeded that of flat panels. Now it is reverse. People are going to plasma in droves now that the prices have dropped. And you can't get a flat panel LCD much over 40 inches....the PQ is still inferior to plasma and it costs more. And in the flat panel discussion it's pretty clear what people are buying (plasma>>>LCD flat panels). And DLPs? It's no contest. Many many people still see rainbows and the color is not nearly as saturated and vibrant. People that do the research and have the $$$ go plasma. If you don't have the money you go elsewhere, like DLPs. I have a 50" plasma.
Click to expand...

Oh please. It's not like the prices on all flat panel TV hasn't been dropping. If you can afford an LCD or DLP you can afford a plasma. I'm not going to argue about the PQ and what not, but don't act like people with money go for plasma and everyone else goes with something else--it just makes you look sort of condescending. If you didn't mean it that way, then disregard. 🙂

And my eyes must just be shot because regardless of what anyone says, when I go to Sam's Club or Best Buy and look at the TVs on display, there isn't a major difference between the quality of the picture. They ALL look fantastic to me. I think it depends on the particular model moreso than the technology, because some LCDs look better than some plasma displays, and vice versa.
 
Today we are headed for 108 as a high. I like to keep my computer room at 80 in the summer - and since I switched to LCD - that has not been a problem. Heat and energy consumption are all the reasons I need. LCDs rule!
 
Originally posted by: Imyourzero
Originally posted by: Hadsus
You've read wrong. Go to the AVS forum. A couple of years ago the posts in the rear projection forum (DLPs and LCD rear projectors) far exceeded that of flat panels. Now it is reverse. People are going to plasma in droves now that the prices have dropped. And you can't get a flat panel LCD much over 40 inches....the PQ is still inferior to plasma and it costs more. And in the flat panel discussion it's pretty clear what people are buying (plasma>>>LCD flat panels). And DLPs? It's no contest. Many many people still see rainbows and the color is not nearly as saturated and vibrant. People that do the research and have the $$$ go plasma. If you don't have the money you go elsewhere, like DLPs. I have a 50" plasma.
Click to expand...

Oh please. It's not like the prices on all flat panel TV hasn't been dropping. If you can afford an LCD or DLP you can afford a plasma. I'm not going to argue about the PQ and what not, but don't act like people with money go for plasma and everyone else goes with something else--it just makes you look sort of condescending. If you didn't mean it that way, then disregard. 🙂

And my eyes must just be shot because regardless of what anyone says, when I go to Sam's Club or Best Buy and look at the TVs on display, there isn't a major difference between the quality of the picture. They ALL look fantastic to me. I think it depends on the particular model moreso than the technology, because some LCDs look better than some plasma displays, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Last year, before May when the Panasonics introduced their new line, a 50 inch plasma would set you back $5.5K to $6K. And that was for the cheaper Pioneers and Panasonics. I bought mine last May for $4K (online from TV Authority) and now you can get them for $3K at a B&M. A 50 inch Samsung DLP is $1K cheaper......so to say that plasmas and DLPs are price comparable is just flat out fiction. Go to BB or CC websites and see for yourself. And I mean compare the name brands....not the cheapo bargain brands.

Condescending or not, I held out buying a plasma for a year until prices dropped. I didn't want a DLP or LCD rear projector. It's just not as good plain and simple. Again, go to a BB or CC and watch their live HD feeds. I don't care if DLP owners are offended or not I just think it is a significantly inferior picture or else I woulda have gotten one a long time ago rather than wait for plasma prices to drop. You get what you pay for. And in the case of DLPs that includes poor viewing angles, rainbows, periodic replacement of bulbs, screen shimmer on the face of the screen, dithering, and washed out colors. I don't give a dam* about the technology. So many people just love to gravitate to the new thing.....why get a plasma...it's 'old tech.' But it's a better, more mature tech.
 
I won't reply w/quote because I hate looking at huge posts with 1,000 lines of text, but thank you for the reply. You have some good points and I won't argue that the best plasma panel has a slightly better picture than the best DLP, etc, but what one really needs to do when buying a flat panel TV is look at the pros and cons of each technology and decide what's most important to them. For all-out IQ, a good plasma display may indeed be the best. However, consider the areas in which LCD and DLP displays hold advantages over plasma:

Viewing angle
Weight (LCDs are lighter)
Durability
Installation
Thickness (LCDs are thinner)
Performance at high altitude - once again, advantage goes to LCD.
Power consumption (LCDs consume anywhere from 50-75% of that of a plasma display)

As one can clearly see, there are a LOT of factors to consider besides IQ. For my needs, an LCD TV was clearly the better choice. NOT because I couldn't afford a plasma.

If anyone is interested, here are some links for more info:

http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasma.asp
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/displays_LCD_vs_Plasma3.html
http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv-plasmavslcd.shtml

To me, it seems that LCDs have the advantage in more areas than plasmas. But chances are, anyone coming from a big boxy CRT television or even a big rear-projection screen will be more than happy with ANY flat panel TV.
 
Viewing angle.....advantage is PLASMA. Each pixel is illuminated. Plasma pixels emit light, the other techs reflect or block it.

In regards to the other stuff you cite like weight, installation, thickness, etc. You know it's not like you are going to give your TV a walk every day or move it from room to room every week. It's just gonna sit there and you're gonna stare at it. The fact that LCDs are lighter than plasmas do not give me any pleasure. The fact that they might be an inch thinner does not give me any pleasure. You seem to weigh PQ as much as these other factors. Well......knock yourself out. LOL, most of that stuff is pretty irrelevant IMO. Actually if you go by your criteria verbaitim why don't you get a little 15 inch table top....you know with those little feetsie. Lighter and thinner than heck. Power consumption is great. Installation is easy...........
 
Imyourzero, Hadsusis is pretty much on the money. It sounds like you've got alot of your facts mixed up. Let me go down your list.

1. Viewing angle - Plasmas have some amazing viewing angle, I would actually say the best. No problem here.

2. Weight (LCDs are lighter) - Not neccessarily. Depends on the LCD and plasma. But the best (well what I consider the best, Pioneer Elite series) is just slightly heavier than an equal size LCD. The difference is so small that it shouldn't even be a determining factor. I mean, once you set it up, it will be there for awhile. What, are you going to be constantly moving it around?

3. Durability - ? Once you install a plasma, you're good to go. What durability are you talking about? Do you want it to be bullet proof? LCD screens are pretty delicate themselves.

4. Installation - ? Um, what would be the difference between installing a plasma and an LCD.

5. Thickness (LCDs are thinner) - Nope. Pioneer's Elite 50" comes in at <4" think. Take a look at how thick 50" LCDs are.

6. Performance at high altitude - Ok, if you live on Mt Everest, get an LCD.

7. Power consumption - True, but the benefits more than make up for it.

The only thing LCDs performs better in is power consuption. If that is your main concern, by all means, get an LCD. But if you want the best looking picture and money is not a concern, plasma is the way to go. No doubt about it.
 
Did you guys even read the links I posted?? Obviously not.

Re: viewing angle, posted from the first link:

"Viewing Angle Plasma-Up to 160° LCD-Up to 175° LCD TVs have the advantage here, but by a small margin. Your viewing experience is not going to be ideal at 160 or 175 degree angles. LCD TVs used to have a problem in this area, primarily because LCDs were originally used as single person computer monitors."

"Durability Plasmas are very fragile making them tricky to ship and install. Unlike the commercials where plasmas are mounted on the ceiling, plasmas are best installed by a professional, and should be installed on a wall that can bear a good deal of weight. LCD: Much more durable than plasmas. End users can easily mount an LCD TV themselves if desired. LCD TVs are far less fragile than plasmas."

You can read about the other points in the links if you wish. If you guys like plasma, that's fine, but it sounds like more of a justification for the purchase of a more-expensive-but-not-really-that-much-better-looking-TV if you ask me. Plenty of people are more than satisfied with their LCD & DLP sets. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Imyourzero, Hadsusis is pretty much on the money. It sounds like you've got alot of your facts mixed up. Let me go down your list.

1. Viewing angle - Plasmas have some amazing viewing angle, I would actually say the best. No problem here.

2. Weight (LCDs are lighter) - Not neccessarily. Depends on the LCD and plasma. But the best (well what I consider the best, Pioneer Elite series) is just slightly heavier than an equal size LCD. The difference is so small that it shouldn't even be a determining factor. I mean, once you set it up, it will be there for awhile. What, are you going to be constantly moving it around?

3. Durability - ? Once you install a plasma, you're good to go. What durability are you talking about? Do you want it to be bullet proof? LCD screens are pretty delicate themselves.

4. Installation - ? Um, what would be the difference between installing a plasma and an LCD.

5. Thickness (LCDs are thinner) - Nope. Pioneer's Elite 50" comes in at <4" think. Take a look at how thick 50" LCDs are.

6. Performance at high altitude - Ok, if you live on Mt Everest, get an LCD.

7. Power consumption - True, but the benefits more than make up for it.

The only thing LCDs performs better in is power consuption. If that is your main concern, by all means, get an LCD. But if you want the best looking picture and money is not a concern, plasma is the way to go. No doubt about it.
Click to expand...

....meanwhile.....

Spouse A: "Hey hun, which one of these two dining room tables you want to buy?"

Spouse B: "Come over here and take a look at this spec sheet. You're not going to believe it but this one is ten lbs lighter!"

Spouse A: "Awesome."

Spouse B: "And catch this.....it's got handles under the top. Makes installation a breeze."

Spouse A: "Awesome, awesome."

Spouse B: "Only downside is that the color is green with purple polka dots."

Spouse A: "Yeah, but it's ten pounds lighter! The top is thinner. And it has handles! It's purely awesome."

Spouse B: "Awesome. Our friends will be awe-struck!"
 
Originally posted by: Imyourzero
Did you guys even read the links I posted?? Obviously not.

Re: viewing angle, posted from the first link:

"Viewing Angle Plasma-Up to 160° LCD-Up to 175° LCD TVs have the advantage here, but by a small margin. Your viewing experience is not going to be ideal at 160 or 175 degree angles. LCD TVs used to have a problem in this area, primarily because LCDs were originally used as single person computer monitors."
Click to expand...

Very misleading. LCD panels lose contrast as you get to the edge of viewing angle limits. If you were to see this yourself in demo rooms you would know what I mean. If you have something as simple as a DS or DS Lite do this experiment.....turn it on then view from an angle. Know what I mean. For all practical purposes plasmas better LCDs by a significant margin with regard to view angle.

 
If you're a serious gamer that enjoys attending various LAN parties, you're either gonna get a well speced notebook or a PC with an LCD monitor to keep the weight down, speaking from experience of course. 😉
 
Last year about this time I fell into the "LCD marketting trap" and bought a Samsung 930B 8ms. While the LCD has its pros, it was a definate trade-off in gaming comming from my CRT. While it really improved my desktop and web-browsing experience, gaming was a hassle from day 1. I had to go out and buy a 7800GT so I could run at the native 12x10 resolution. Even then, the black levels, while good for an LCD, were poor enough to cause a noticable decrease in image quality in-game.

I just recently switched back to my old CRT and put my LCD on a non-gaming PC. I dont care what advertisers say, when it comes to image quality, LCDs can't match CRTs "yet", although they are getting closer. The black level on the CRT can't be beat and ghosting on LCDs is far more evident when moving from LCD back to CRT than when first getting an LCD. Everything is just so smooth now and games feel so life-like. Its so nice to be able to play games like Oblivion at 10x7 and turn up the eye candy rather than be stuck at 12x10 resolution with choppy frames and medium settings.

This native resolution issue was the main reason I switched back to CRT, because I'm not ready to do a full system upgrade yet and upcomming games like UT2007 and Crysis will be too much for my 7800GT at 12x10. I have desk room and never move my PC, so size isn't an issue. The only thing I dont like about my CRT is that its "out of style" or "so 90s" as somebody in this thread stated it.

Hopefully in the next few years SED panels or HDR-LCD comes through and brings the great image quality of a CRT to the sleek, stylish, space saving design of the LCD. Today's LCDs have come a long, long way from just a few years ago, I just dont think they are where they need to be yet. A few months ago I could have never imagined myself saying this, but I say if you have room, stick to the CRT for just a little while longer.
 
Problem 1: LCDs STILL don't have the picture quality of a QUALITY CRT.
Problem 2: No one has made a quality CRT in a couple of years (there may be a rare exception or two out there, but they are NOT cheap)
Solution: Go on eBay and find a FW900 or A7217A (same thing). Top of the line 24" wide screen CRT.

These things are GEORGOUS! I've never seen an LCD that can touch it. As for eye strain, turn the stinking refresh rate up! I run mine at 1920x1200 at 85hz. I don't have one bit of eye strain even after very long viewing sessions. Plus, I can set the resolution to what ever I want and get a great picture (great for games that don't support WS resolutions!). Try that with a LCD and see what a steaming pile you get visually. Oh, it IS a heavy mother though!
 
The choice comes down to preference and habits. I watch more movies than games, and yes the contrast issue is noticable and annoying but, to me, the positives outweigh the negatives by a wide margin. PQ is definitely subjective in a lot of ways.

I guess I'm just trying to say, I'm very happy with my LCD display (given my price range) and I hope you are as well with whatever display you have.
 
Originally posted by: Snooper
Plus, I can set the resolution to what ever I want and get a great picture (great for games that don't support WS resolutions!). Try that with a LCD and see what a steaming pile you get visually.
Click to expand...

Some LCDs scale quite well. My 2001FP scales quite well, especially in games. Sure, running it at 1024x768 or something like that in Windows isn't optimal, but I've scaled down that low in games (as well as 1280x1024 and 800x600) and it doesn't look bad at all. It's far from a "steaming pile"...

Of course, as slammy1 pointed out, IQ is subjective.

 
Man, the people here who are bashing CRT's simply don't know how to calibrate their displays. Yeah, it may take a little tweaking to get a CRT perfect, but when you do they spank LCDs. I'm not saying LCDs are bad, I'm using one right now at work, but why all the hate for CRTs?

Either way... DLP, LCD, CRT, Plasma... all their days are numbered. As soon as something like SED hit the market they will all be finished. SED = the IQ beyond that of a CRT in a package the size of a plasma.
 
My LCD was a 19" with a 12x10 res, and it did look like a steaming pile when I lowered the res to 10x7. LCDs are an investment. Not only do you have to shell out a fortune for a monitor that is somewhat close to the quality of a CRT ($500+ for a 19", the $249 special at your local Best Buy doesn't cut it!!), you have to continuously upgrade your graphics card to play at the native resolution.

One thing to remember is neither today's CRTs nor LCDs are capable of displaying HD content under Windows Vista due to DRM purposes.
 
Originally posted by: Hadsus
Viewing angle.....advantage is PLASMA. Each pixel is illuminated. Plasma pixels emit light, the other techs reflect or block it.
Click to expand...

CRT phosphors emit light don't they?
 
I was very sad the day my Viewsonic PS790 lost it's horizontal flyback. So I had to replace the monitor and decided to get a 19" lcd, it looks ok, but I have a stuck pixel... I guess I'll save some cash on the power savings.
 
I swear I see the same threads in general hardware it's starting to get old same questions same problems over and over and over use the search function please for the love of god.
 
Originally posted by: w00t
I swear I see the same threads in general hardware it's starting to get old same questions same problems over and over and over use the search function please for the love of god.
Click to expand...

I know. I was thinking earlier that it's sort of pointless to keep going back and forth...I mean there are a wide variety of reasons why people choose one monitor over another. Image quality, space constraints, power consumption, heat output, style concerns, you name it.

The fact is that I am happy as a clam with my LCD monitor as well as my LCD television, and no one here is going to convince me that they are steaming piles of crap compared to a CRT because I've owned some very nice CRTs before, the G400 being one of them. I'm not so blind that I don't see their advantages, but for ME an LCD or other type of flat panel is just the better choice. I'm willing to give up the few advantages that a CRT has in my eyes, in order to save space and get out of the 19th century.

If people are happy with their CRTs, that's fine too, I don't care either way and I'm not going to try to convince them that their CRT is junk. I just hope that they too know what advantages LCDs hold instead of just reading some flamer's comments about ghosting and assuming that they need to hold off on buying an LCD for another 5 years until they become "acceptable" for day to day use. Whether you're a gamer or a graphics designer, which type of monitor YOU use is most likely due to personal preference and you should just be happy with your choice.
 
I hope SED comes to rule over CRT and LCD.

Until then my NEC 22" running at 1600 x 1200 with rich dark black levels is still blowing LCD's away that cost $1200 and it cost a measly $250.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top