CRT vs. LCD

[Wilki29]

Do LCD's require more power than CRT monitors?

 

[gneGne]

I believe LCD's actually use less power than CRTs, but I couldn't find a link to it. It is only with bigger LCD TV's (somewhere between 32 inch and up) that LCDs take up the same amount of power as CRTs due to the backlighting. I'm sorry I dont have any sources at hand.

 

[Muse]

I found my CRT (22" NEC) was using around twice the juice of my 19" LCD. 80 watts vs. 40 watts.


I use a multimeter to determine energy usage on stuff in my house. I soldered some leads onto an extension cord to enable me to do this. It's safe as long as you are careful to plug the leads into the multimeter BEFORE you plug in the extension cord. The multimeter in question has a fused 2 amp and unfused 20 amp circuit. If I use the fused circuit, I better not be measuring anything that uses over 2 amps or I blow the fuse. It's happend 2-3 times! If I use the 20 amp circuit I better not plug in anything that uses over 20 amps or I can say goodbye to my meter.

 

[Wilki29]

Originally posted by: Muse
I found my CRT (22" NEC) was using around twice the juice of my 19" LCD. 80 watts vs. 40 watts.


I use a multimeter to determine energy usage on stuff in my house. I soldered some leads onto an extension cord to enable me to do this. It's safe as long as you are careful to plug the leads into the multimeter BEFORE you plug in the extension cord. The multimeter in question has a fused 2 amp and unfused 20 amp circuit. If I use the fused circuit, I better not be measuring anything that uses over 2 amps or I blow the fuse. It's happend 2-3 times! If I use the 20 amp circuit I better not plug in anything that uses over 20 amps or I can say goodbye to my meter.

Wow I didnt realize they used that much more power. I guess I should switch to a LCD and save some energy. Using a multimeter isnt a bad idea either. Where would one obtain an item like that?

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Wilki29

Originally posted by: Muse
I found my CRT (22" NEC) was using around twice the juice of my 19" LCD. 80 watts vs. 40 watts.


I use a multimeter to determine energy usage on stuff in my house. I soldered some leads onto an extension cord to enable me to do this. It's safe as long as you are careful to plug the leads into the multimeter BEFORE you plug in the extension cord. The multimeter in question has a fused 2 amp and unfused 20 amp circuit. If I use the fused circuit, I better not be measuring anything that uses over 2 amps or I blow the fuse. It's happend 2-3 times! If I use the 20 amp circuit I better not plug in anything that uses over 20 amps or I can say goodbye to my meter.

Wow I didnt realize they used that much more power. I guess I should switch to a LCD and save some energy. Using a multimeter isnt a bad idea either. Where would one obtain an item like that?

Multimeters capable of measuring AC amps aren't very expensive. My own cost me in the neighborhood of $40-50 and is a Metex. The extension cord is just an ordinary $2 cord but I spliced in leads to one of the wires that divert to banana plugs (soldered on) that plug into the multimeter. It's pretty simple, cheap and it works. But you have to pay attention to those two caveats I noted.

The energy savings of LCD is nice, but I appreciate even more the sharpness of the image, in particular text. Since most of what I do on a computer involves reading and writing text, that's a first priority. LCD's are much friendlier to my eyes.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Wilki29

Originally posted by: Muse
I found my CRT (22" NEC) was using around twice the juice of my 19" LCD. 80 watts vs. 40 watts.


I use a multimeter to determine energy usage on stuff in my house. I soldered some leads onto an extension cord to enable me to do this. It's safe as long as you are careful to plug the leads into the multimeter BEFORE you plug in the extension cord. The multimeter in question has a fused 2 amp and unfused 20 amp circuit. If I use the fused circuit, I better not be measuring anything that uses over 2 amps or I blow the fuse. It's happend 2-3 times! If I use the 20 amp circuit I better not plug in anything that uses over 20 amps or I can say goodbye to my meter.

Wow I didnt realize they used that much more power. I guess I should switch to a LCD and save some energy. Using a multimeter isnt a bad idea either. Where would one obtain an item like that?

Unless you are are the senior IT at a big company, switching monitors to save power is the absolute WORST reason you can think of.

If you wanna spend money to save money over the long run, get flourescent bulbs for the house. They take energy use down to about 1/5th, not just 1/2. And even if you use your computer all day, you are probably spending more on lighting than the monitor.

As for the sharpness, I have one of the best LCD's you can get (HP L2335) and its still not as sharp as my Phillips 19 inch CRT.

(The LCD is an experiment and I use it on my office system. The CRT is a known quality component and is hooked up to my game system.)

 

[gneGne]

Just the fact that my LCD causes less eyestrain is worth it for me.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Wilki29

Originally posted by: Muse
I found my CRT (22" NEC) was using around twice the juice of my 19" LCD. 80 watts vs. 40 watts.


I use a multimeter to determine energy usage on stuff in my house. I soldered some leads onto an extension cord to enable me to do this. It's safe as long as you are careful to plug the leads into the multimeter BEFORE you plug in the extension cord. The multimeter in question has a fused 2 amp and unfused 20 amp circuit. If I use the fused circuit, I better not be measuring anything that uses over 2 amps or I blow the fuse. It's happend 2-3 times! If I use the 20 amp circuit I better not plug in anything that uses over 20 amps or I can say goodbye to my meter.

Wow I didnt realize they used that much more power. I guess I should switch to a LCD and save some energy. Using a multimeter isnt a bad idea either. Where would one obtain an item like that?

Unless you are are the senior IT at a big company, switching monitors to save power is the absolute WORST reason you can think of.

If you wanna spend money to save money over the long run, get flourescent bulbs for the house. They take energy use down to about 1/5th, not just 1/2. And even if you use your computer all day, you are probably spending more on lighting than the monitor.

As for the sharpness, I have one of the best LCD's you can get (HP L2335) and its still not as sharp as my Phillips 19 inch CRT.

(The LCD is an experiment and I use it on my office system. The CRT is a known quality component and is hooked up to my game system.)

Whoa! I'd like to see your CRT. I've never seen a CRT that's anywhere near as sharp as any LCD I've ever used, and that certainly includes the 3 I have (two 19", a Planar and a Hyundai and the 14.1" on my laptop). I definitely use less energy lighting my computer room than in driving even one 19" LCD much less the 22" NEC CRT, which used 80 watts and I've since sold. CRT's may well be very superior for games but for my usage, they are certainly inferior. As I said, my main reason for getting rid of the CRT (besides the fact that it took up a LOT of room on my desk) was that the image (in particular text) wasn't sharp. The higher energy usage was secondary, but by no means insignificant.

 

[corkyg]

Not only do they use much less power, but in turn, they generate much less heat. And here in the summer, less heat means less A/C cost.

 

[CP5670]

Whoa! I'd like to see your CRT. I've never seen a CRT that's anywhere near as sharp as any LCD I've ever used, and that certainly includes the 3 I have (two 19", a Planar and a Hyundai and the 14.1" on my laptop). I definitely use less energy lighting my computer room than in driving even one 19" LCD much less the 22" NEC CRT, which used 80 watts and I've since sold. CRT's may well be very superior for games but for my usage, they are certainly inferior. As I said, my main reason for getting rid of the CRT (besides the fact that it took up a LOT of room on my desk) was that the image (in particular text) wasn't sharp. The higher energy usage was secondary, but by no means insignificant.

If you're looking at a high end model that is not defective in some way, it's sometimes just a matter of turning the internal focus knobs. Mine has looked as sharp as any LCD ever since I adjusted those controls a year ago.

As for the original question, there are some power savings with LCDs but they rapidly diminish as the monitor sizes get larger. In any case, as was remarked earlier, switching monitors just because of the power savings doesn't make much sense.

 

[shortylickens]

Philips 109B.
Awesome CRT in all respects. Made back in the day when people were still trying to construct quality CRT's.
Though in that sense I guess I understand why folks would prefer an LCD. Once they became fashionable, companies started working less at improving the quality of old monitors and started producing crap. Your really cant find a new, good one anymore.
In a few more years they might not even exist.

 

[Rottie]

If you are a gamer then stick with CRT monitor they are better than LCD especially with ghosting, etc.

 

[Metaluna]

Originally posted by: Wilki29
Wow I didnt realize they used that much more power. I guess I should switch to a LCD and save some energy. Using a multimeter isnt a bad idea either. Where would one obtain an item like that?

It's always nice to have a multimeter around (One of these days I'll spring for a Fluke 87V, but my cheapo Velleman 890 is more than good enough for most things). But if all you want to do is measure power consumption of household devices, I'd recommend getting a Kill-A-Watt meter instead. These cost about $30 and are a snap to set up. You just plug it in between your [computer|monitor|air conditioner|etc] and the wall outlet. Then just by pushing a few buttons you can read out power, current, and voltage, as well as cool things like power factor. You can also set it to accumulate kilowatt-hours over time, which is useful for something like an air conditioner where you have a compressor that is cycling on and off in response to changing ambient temps, making it hard to estimate consumption over the course of a day.

Anyway, I used to have a 19" Viewsonic LCD that only drew about 25W. My current Samsung 21" is around 40, IIRC. Similarly-sized CRTs can draw 100W. The last several PCs I've owned idled in the 130-200W range depending on the hardware configuration.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Whoa! I'd like to see your CRT. I've never seen a CRT that's anywhere near as sharp as any LCD I've ever used, and that certainly includes the 3 I have (two 19", a Planar and a Hyundai and the 14.1" on my laptop). I definitely use less energy lighting my computer room than in driving even one 19" LCD much less the 22" NEC CRT, which used 80 watts and I've since sold. CRT's may well be very superior for games but for my usage, they are certainly inferior. As I said, my main reason for getting rid of the CRT (besides the fact that it took up a LOT of room on my desk) was that the image (in particular text) wasn't sharp. The higher energy usage was secondary, but by no means insignificant.

If you're looking at a high end model that is not defective in some way, it's sometimes just a matter of turning the internal focus knobs. Mine has looked as sharp as any LCD ever since I adjusted those controls a year ago.

As for the original question, there are some power savings with LCDs but they rapidly diminish as the monitor sizes get larger. In any case, as was remarked earlier, switching monitors just because of the power savings doesn't make much sense.

You must have one great CRT. I'm not saying you're wrong. My 22" NEC was the sharpest CRT I ever saw, and I was therefore very pleased when I bought it 3-4 years ago. It never occured to me that I could adjust the fuzziness out of it. When I finally got my Planar PX191 19" LCD there was no comparison for sharpness. The LCD blew the CRT out of the water. I wanted to dual screen, but dual screening those two monitors was just plain weird. Apples and oranges. So, I got another 19" LCD.

I've seen and used many CRT's and not a one of them came close to the sharpness of my LCD's, or any I've inspected. That includes my Nanao F2-17EX, for which I paid $1000, and it was a great deal at the time. It was a professional level CRT, but although it was the finest CRT I'd ever seen, it wasn't as sharp as my NEC. I don't really game on my computers. If I did, I might prefer a CRT, at least for gaming.

 

[inveterate]

CRTs are great but not digital. And so they'll never be as sharp. get a 3007wfp. Best money can buy.

 

[Xyclone]

Originally posted by: Rottie
If you are a gamer then stick with CRT monitor they are better than LCD especially with ghosting, etc.

Most decent LCD's don't have ghosting or tearing problems. My Dell 2005FPW doesn't... Look for a 2005FPW or 2007FPW in FS/T. You can pick it up for quite cheap these days. Nicely sized and has great quality (image quality/LCD base). :thumbsup:

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: Muse
You must have one great CRT. I'm not saying you're wrong. My 22" NEC was the sharpest CRT I ever saw, and I was therefore very pleased when I bought it 3-4 years ago. It never occured to me that I could adjust the fuzziness out of it. When I finally got my Planar PX191 19" LCD there was no comparison for sharpness. The LCD blew the CRT out of the water. I wanted to dual screen, but dual screening those two monitors was just plain weird. Apples and oranges. So, I got another 19" LCD.

I have a Mitsubishi 2070SB. To be fair, I haven't seen any others as good as this one, and I had to exchange it three times before I got this one, back when I bought it in mid-2005 (the others all had multiple defects). A lot of CRTs could look much sharper if they were properly calibrated though. On most models, the focus controls are somewhat difficult to access since you need to remove the cabinet, but many of the NEC/Mitsu units have holes on the side through which you can insert a screwdriver and adjust the knobs fairly easily.

This is assuming you don't simply have a dud. The quality control on the Sony and Mitsubishi tubes (who made the AG tubes used on almost all the high end models) was atrocious during roughly the last year of their production, and the few good CRTs still on the market have a large percentage of defective units among them. If you manage to get a good sample of one of the later CRT models though and spend some time tweaking it, I think it can usually be made to look as sharp as an LCD, leaving aside its other IQ advantages.

Most decent LCD's don't have ghosting or tearing problems.

That depends on the user's tolerance to these things. I have an NEC 90GX2 (which is still among the fastest LCDs available according to the LCD thread in Video) and I find that the ghosting is unacceptable in pretty much any game with a constant 60 framerate. It's great for school/office work though, which is primarily what I got it for.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: inveterate
CRTs are great but not digital. And so they'll never be as sharp.

I wont insult you or start a pissing contest here, but I disagree with your statement.

 

[montypythizzle]

tbh my color on my lcd is pretty darn comaparble with crt and WAYY smaller
dvi or vga both look GREAT

btw lcds look more visually pleasing in your room due to their small size
and i am probably in the top 10 here in terms of time gaming and i have nor problem with this ghosting

i use a benq 17" forgot model (not at home right now)

1024x768 has nothing on 1280x1024

now i have to admit crts were WAYY better than lcds of yesterday my ole 400mhz compaq laptops lcd sucks balls ghosting sooo bad cant find the cursor sometimes...

 

[inveterate]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: inveterate
CRTs are great but not digital. And so they'll never be as sharp.

I wont insult you or start a pissing contest here, but I disagree with your statement.

I'm quite serious. I've had the NEC 22". and that thing was Great but i had to live with alittle blur here a little blur there, Tune it,, calibrate colors,, then 20 minutes after turning it on, it's different again.

The only way the settings would "REALLY" stick was when i never turned it off. Now this thing is like an oven, so that was not convienient.

I find CRTs to have this "BLURR" about them just consistently. Kinda like Free AntiAliasing, but not clear, just a blur.

 

[d1e1m]

You had a terrible CRT then, inveterate. Sony Trinitrons, which is what I've always bought and was last purchase over 5 years ago, has the clearest image of any monitor I've ever used, and I stand in front of $1000 ViewSonics for PC and Mac that my Uni. bought for TV and Photo labs.
Flatscreen CRT's are especially beautiful and I've never had to calibrate except to degauss twice a year and reposition. I've never had blur and color is perfectly displayed without having to use a Spyder.

 

[Mem]

I wont insult you or start a pissing contest here, but I disagree with your statement.

I disagree with your statement too,I think good LCD in native res in DVI mode is as sharp as you can get in my experience,LCDs for obvious reasons ,don't lose focus quality over time like CRTs do.

Flatscreen CRT's are especially beautiful and I've never had to calibrate except to degauss twice a year and reposition. I've never had blur and color is perfectly displayed without having to use a Spyder.

How do you know the colours are setup right if you have no professional calibration software to compare it too?


Btw lot of players now use widescreen LCDs for gaming.You can argue both have their Pro's and Con's,I know my 21" Samsung CRT is boxed away since I started using my LCD for gaming.

 

[w00t]

I use a widescreen LCD for gaming and enjoy it much more than my old CRT.