Bang for your buck? Look at cost to own man. You can't even use Bang for buck and CRT in the same sentence because of that. My old 21" ones used well over 100watts. A 30" must be 150watts plus. Compare that to an LCD, that's probably 15-40watts.
I'm on a 2005fpw. 3 years old. I'm sure the technology has VASTLY improved. There is no ghosting. There is no response time difference in games (And I play 99% FPS). The picture is sharper and in every way better than my old 21" trinitron. Hell, that monitor is on my folks rig, and colors look washed out to me when I use it (but I mostly blame their desktop settings for that).
I'm on a 2005fpw. 3 years old. I'm sure the technology has VASTLY improved. There is no ghosting. There is no response time difference in games (And I play 99% FPS). The picture is sharper and in every way better than my old 21" trinitron. Hell, that monitor is on my folks rig, and colors look washed out to me when I use it (but I mostly blame their desktop settings for that).
Fixed.
A 21" CRT typically uses about 90W, which is similar to what 24" LCDs use. Smaller LCDs are very power efficient but the power usage grows very fast beyond the 22" size, and the large screen sizes is easily the biggest advantage that LCDs have today.
Ahh I wasnt aware large LCD's required so much more power to run. (Daaaaamn yeah, 3007 requires absurd amounts of power).
Dell 2005FPW = 55watt typical
apparently only above 24" do they shoot up though,
2407fpw is only 57watt... 2 watt more than 20".
Dell 30" 3007fpw = 147watt typical
Sony 21" trinitron = 145watt typical
Cant find any 30" CRT specs, so no clue how they scale
And by no ghosting, I mean that of the several hundred people who've seen my monitor and dozens who've gamed on it, not one has seen any ghosting.
Dell 2005FPW = 55watt typical
apparently only above 24" do they shoot up though,
2407fpw is only 57watt... 2 watt more than 20".
Dell 30" 3007fpw = 147watt typical
Sony 21" trinitron = 145watt typical
Cant find any 30" CRT specs, so no clue how they scale
And by no ghosting, I mean that of the several hundred people who've seen my monitor and dozens who've gamed on it, not one has seen any ghosting.
I don't know where you are getting those numbers, but just about every 24" LCD listed on Newegg has its power usage rating between 90W and 130W. The 30" ones are generally between 150W and 180W.
If that was actually true, we wouldn't be seeing faster LCDs today as there would be no demand for them. The 2005FPW is slow even by modern LCD standards.
If that was actually true, we wouldn't be seeing faster LCDs today as there would be no demand for them. The 2005FPW is slow even by modern LCD standards.
That was kind of my point. Modern monitors are much faster, there's not ghosting on my old monitor. Ghosting is a placebo in the minds of CRT proponents. Hell, back in the day people said 25ms or less and you wont see ghosting. Now you've got 2ms monitors and people are trying to say it's still noticeable. Any actual ghosting I'd be much more likely to blame on some hardware or configuration error than on an inherent trait to LCD's.
This is like saying that CRT flickering at 60hz is a placebo in the minds of LCD proponents.
I can see it easily on the fastest 2ms TNs in just about any older game that runs at a constant 60fps. You simply aren't very demanding with this.
I can't imagine what kind of "configuration error" would result in motion blur. Want to give an example?
Ugh... so much disinformation in this thread.
First of all, all LCDs have motion blur - it is an inherent trait in the way LCDs are built. The crystals can only rotate at a certain speed and the longer it takes them to do so, the higher the perceived effect of motion blur is. However, nowadays many "gaming" LCDs have reduced this switching time to the point where the end user can barely perceive any blurring. Nonetheless, a new factor has sprung up - refresh rate. Many people might say that LCDs don't have a refresh rate, and although they are correct in the context of CRT technology, in more general terms the refresh rate is still present. By refresh rate I am referring to the number of different images per second. The higher this number, the smoother the motion (just like frames per second in games). If you were to theoretically reduce the response time of an LCD to zero (which is impossible) the first thing you'd notice is that motion would strike you as choppy and jittery - this is due to the refresh rates of LCDs which rarely exceed 70hz. I can't stand playing fast-paced games at 60hz regardless of what monitor I'm using, but that's just me.
By comparison, the refresh rate of a CRT is resolution-dependent. I run my fast-paced games at 1024x768 @ 120hz, my slow-paced games at 1280x960 @ 100hz, and my desktop at 1600x1200 @ 85hz on a Sony G420 19" trinitron. In none of these cases is the flickering and eye-strain associated with CRTs present. This flickering is caused by too low of a refresh rate, since the phosphor strips in the CRT panel used to create the image have a limited amount of time that they stay bright. If you trigger them more often, it's only logical that the resultant image will be more flicker-free.
An LCD monitor on the other hand uses the same refresh rate in nearly all cases regardless of the resolution being used. This is due to the inherently digital nature of LCDs as opposed to the analog nature of CRTs. The input lag someone mentioned earlier in this thread is a real issue but it's not big enough to make a fuss over. Similar to the refresh rate problem, input lag is caused by the fact that a lot more work has to be done to go from your video card to your eyes if you use an LCD versus a CRT, and this work takes a lot of circuitry and time.
Why can't they just build better circuits to increase the refresh rates? It's not that simple. Some effort is being done to make 120hz TVs and such, but a lot of the problem lies in stuff like DVI bandwidth and other random issues like that. This is why SEDs looked so promising but unfortunately those would never see the light of day.
I'm not a blind proponent of any technology, but it bugs me when people post random crap that they can't justify or sometimes even understand. LCD technology is absolutely fantastic for a lot of things (office work, movies, less weight/space, and often lower power consumption) but it also has a lot of problems (black levels, blurring at non-native resolutions, response time, low refresh rates, input lag). Does that mean it's an inferior technology? Definitely not. It all depends on the application. If you consider yourself a hardcore gamer, I would wholeheartedly recommend checking craigslist for a decent CRT, preferably a trinitron or diamondtron or some sort (read about aperture grille vs. shadow mask for more information on what makes certain CRT monitors better). If you do some gaming on the side while using your computer for a slew of other things, then getting an LCD is the better choice.
First of all, all LCDs have motion blur - it is an inherent trait in the way LCDs are built. The crystals can only rotate at a certain speed and the longer it takes them to do so, the higher the perceived effect of motion blur is. However, nowadays many "gaming" LCDs have reduced this switching time to the point where the end user can barely perceive any blurring. Nonetheless, a new factor has sprung up - refresh rate. Many people might say that LCDs don't have a refresh rate, and although they are correct in the context of CRT technology, in more general terms the refresh rate is still present. By refresh rate I am referring to the number of different images per second. The higher this number, the smoother the motion (just like frames per second in games). If you were to theoretically reduce the response time of an LCD to zero (which is impossible) the first thing you'd notice is that motion would strike you as choppy and jittery - this is due to the refresh rates of LCDs which rarely exceed 70hz. I can't stand playing fast-paced games at 60hz regardless of what monitor I'm using, but that's just me.
By comparison, the refresh rate of a CRT is resolution-dependent. I run my fast-paced games at 1024x768 @ 120hz, my slow-paced games at 1280x960 @ 100hz, and my desktop at 1600x1200 @ 85hz on a Sony G420 19" trinitron. In none of these cases is the flickering and eye-strain associated with CRTs present. This flickering is caused by too low of a refresh rate, since the phosphor strips in the CRT panel used to create the image have a limited amount of time that they stay bright. If you trigger them more often, it's only logical that the resultant image will be more flicker-free.
An LCD monitor on the other hand uses the same refresh rate in nearly all cases regardless of the resolution being used. This is due to the inherently digital nature of LCDs as opposed to the analog nature of CRTs. The input lag someone mentioned earlier in this thread is a real issue but it's not big enough to make a fuss over. Similar to the refresh rate problem, input lag is caused by the fact that a lot more work has to be done to go from your video card to your eyes if you use an LCD versus a CRT, and this work takes a lot of circuitry and time.
Why can't they just build better circuits to increase the refresh rates? It's not that simple. Some effort is being done to make 120hz TVs and such, but a lot of the problem lies in stuff like DVI bandwidth and other random issues like that. This is why SEDs looked so promising but unfortunately those would never see the light of day.
I'm not a blind proponent of any technology, but it bugs me when people post random crap that they can't justify or sometimes even understand. LCD technology is absolutely fantastic for a lot of things (office work, movies, less weight/space, and often lower power consumption) but it also has a lot of problems (black levels, blurring at non-native resolutions, response time, low refresh rates, input lag). Does that mean it's an inferior technology? Definitely not. It all depends on the application. If you consider yourself a hardcore gamer, I would wholeheartedly recommend checking craigslist for a decent CRT, preferably a trinitron or diamondtron or some sort (read about aperture grille vs. shadow mask for more information on what makes certain CRT monitors better). If you do some gaming on the side while using your computer for a slew of other things, then getting an LCD is the better choice.
My take on this:
I had a 22" NEC CRT, and feared the "input" lag and less dark blacks.
I am hear to tell anyone reading this that I would cut off my left foot if that was the price of the 3007 WFP-HC and NEC 22"CRT's came with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders and a $10,000 mail in rebate.
There is no comparison whatsoever to gaming on little square CRTs and a 30" WS at 25X16. The level of immersion having the screen fill your field of vision, and the level of detail 25X16 provides make gaming worthwhile. I'm typing this on my son's 24" WS and I keep noticing the borders of the screeen- that is how much a difference it makes.
Screen and graphics to drive it are the only considerations in PC gaming anymore. I don't see "motion blur", I don't notice "input lag", and I for sure don't notice refresh rate. Read any review of any 25X16 monitor and you will only see the kudos I just heaped on LCDs repeated.
The tiny advantages of CRTs are totally inconsequential compared to the HUGE advantages of LCDs.
If I had to go back to CRTs, you wouldn't see me on the internet anymore- I'd be using my kids 360 on one of our HD TVs. The days of a tiny little window into the virtual world ended years ago.
I had a 22" NEC CRT, and feared the "input" lag and less dark blacks.
I am hear to tell anyone reading this that I would cut off my left foot if that was the price of the 3007 WFP-HC and NEC 22"CRT's came with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders and a $10,000 mail in rebate.
There is no comparison whatsoever to gaming on little square CRTs and a 30" WS at 25X16. The level of immersion having the screen fill your field of vision, and the level of detail 25X16 provides make gaming worthwhile. I'm typing this on my son's 24" WS and I keep noticing the borders of the screeen- that is how much a difference it makes.
Screen and graphics to drive it are the only considerations in PC gaming anymore. I don't see "motion blur", I don't notice "input lag", and I for sure don't notice refresh rate. Read any review of any 25X16 monitor and you will only see the kudos I just heaped on LCDs repeated.
The tiny advantages of CRTs are totally inconsequential compared to the HUGE advantages of LCDs.
If I had to go back to CRTs, you wouldn't see me on the internet anymore- I'd be using my kids 360 on one of our HD TVs. The days of a tiny little window into the virtual world ended years ago.
Ok, crapfest; There is no PERCIEVABLE ghosting on my monitor. And with the massive number of people who've used it, I'm gonna say that anyone who says otherwise is either in the X-men or full of crap. As for the refresh rate... well when I've got guys telling me how <20fps is totally playable in Crysis: no offense, but there you go. I notice it clearly if my fps in ANYTHING (even Strats) drop below 40fps. But there is absolutely no issue with my 61hz lcd. There was actually a study done over a decade ago that determined that CRT's run flicker free at ~72hz (if it's a TRUE 72hz). LCD's due to some technical gibberish I dont have memorized and think you can look up yourselves do so under 60 (hence why 60hz is almost universal in LCD's despite there being no technological reason for that limitation).
"I had a 22" NEC CRT"
Wow, I had that same monitor for years... and before that a >90lb NEC 17"... that fell on me during a move and bruised my ribs. That sucker was a tank. It got dropped and spilled so many times. The faceplate was held together by duct tape when I finally trashed it, and it still worked perfectly. The 22" wasn't nearly that kind of beast, but it looked good.
"I had a 22" NEC CRT"
Wow, I had that same monitor for years... and before that a >90lb NEC 17"... that fell on me during a move and bruised my ribs. That sucker was a tank. It got dropped and spilled so many times. The faceplate was held together by duct tape when I finally trashed it, and it still worked perfectly. The 22" wasn't nearly that kind of beast, but it looked good.
The world must be full of X-men then.
As for the Crysis framerates, you certainly won't be hearing that nonsense from me. I have held off playing that game until the next gen cards come out since it doesn't run well at any settings I try on my old X1900.
LCDs do 60hz essentially because of DVI limitations. Any of the lower resolution 17/19" ones accept a 75hz signal, although only a couple of those will actually show 75fps properly.
Well, you don't notice any of the motion-related artifacts from SLI either, so I wouldn't be surprised. I find those issues just as blatant and annoying as you find a small screen.
Although I do agree with you that having a large screen is not something to pass up lightly, and the big screen sizes are by far the biggest advantage of LCDs. Of course, a good projector would provide a much better experience in that respect than any monitor.
Exactly. :thumbsup: Both have their advantages in different usage patterns.
Originally posted by: CP5670
The world must be full of X-men then.
As for the Crysis framerates, you certainly won't be hearing that nonsense from me. I have held off playing that game until the next gen cards come out since it doesn't run well at any settings I try on my old X1900.
LCDs do 60hz essentially because of DVI limitations. Any of the lower resolution 17/19" ones accept a 75hz signal, although only a couple of those will actually show 75fps properly.
Well, you don't notice any of the motion-related artifacts from SLI either, so I wouldn't be surprised. I find those issues just as blatant and annoying as you find a small screen.
Although I do agree with you that having a large screen is not something to pass up lightly, and the big screen sizes are by far the biggest advantage of LCDs. Of course, a good projector would provide a much better experience in that respect than any monitor.
Exactly. :thumbsup: Both have their advantages in different usage patterns.
A picture is worth a 1000 words
I have a 19" LCD TV on my desk sitting next to my 30" monitor, the 19" TV is the same size and aspect ratio as a 20" CRT.
Notice how you can see all around the tv in the first pic, and the LCD pic at the same distance doesn't fit in the picture? Or how when I back up in the third pic it looks like the 19" would fit in about 40% of the 30"?
A couple ms here and there of input lag, average difference in screen refresh, and color to color response time don't blow your level of immersion near as much as looking at a tiny little square window in a ginormous device that looks like something out of the 60s.
There's just no comparison anymore- CRTs annoy me so much I want to put the one in my bedroom (the last one in the house) at the curb every time I go to bed.
This is only your opinion. Those issues do blow the immersion to me.
I sit fairly close to my monitor when playing games, which compensates for the smaller size to some extent.
"The world must be full of X-men then. "
I think it's more full of guys who are full of crap. Every single one of my friends refused to go LCD (I was the first of us to get one) because they believed wholeheartedly that gaming would have ghosts. Now every single last one is on LCD and they ALL agree that there is no such thing as ghosting. Literally, every single one went from "Well I'll get a LCD for my server rig since I don't game on it/ LCD's are fine on my work rig but not my home rig" to "WTF, this ghosting nonsense is utter BS!" the first time they gamed on a LCD. Hell a couple of em came over to see my 2005 when I got it and Stopped on the way home to buy a LCD. That's how fucking ridiculous this ghosting crap is.
"I think it's more full of guys who are full of crap. Every single one of my friends refused to go LCD (I was the first of us to get one) because they believed wholeheartedly that gaming would have ghosts. Now every single last one is on LCD and they ALL agree that there is no such thing as ghosting. Literally, every single one went from "Well I'll get a LCD for my server rig since I don't game on it/ LCD's are fine on my work rig but not my home rig" to "WTF, this ghosting nonsense is utter BS!" the first time they gamed on a LCD. Hell a couple of em came over to see my 2005 when I got it and Stopped on the way home to buy a LCD. That's how fucking ridiculous this ghosting crap is.
G500 love! I also had 2 of these bad boys for a long time!
They were un-freaking-believable. Sadly, mine were very old (1999 vintage), and in desperate need of adjustment. I couldn't find anyone to do this, so I gave them away
I switched to a single BenQ 24" LCD, that has been truly wonderful. The usual LCD advantages (size, convenience, better versus the worn out CRTs) applied, but I've never been totally satisfied.When I first got them in 2005, they were an upgrade from a single 17" CRT. I will never forget the sight of jacking both these monsters to 1920x1440 at 96 Hz, and watching 1080p for the first time. Truly fantastic.
All the merits of good CRTs have been mentioned - their color accuracy, refresh rate / resolution flexibility, sharpness, brightness. If I had a large workspace, and found a good source of high quality, refurbished CRTs I would switch back. Sony and Sun both sold really fantastic 24" wide CRTs, with 1080p as their recommended resolution. I would get two
Sadly, VGA starts to get fuzzy above 1600x1200. If you use BNC connectors (or really fat VGA cables), you can alleviate this, but the really sad part is that most video cards don't have the best analog outputs anymore. Nobody cares these days
CRTs aren't going anywhere though. There's a reason they're still used for color correction in the broadcast industry. Sony's rack mounted Trinitrons are absolutely unbeatable.
~MiSfit
I can see that.
Motion blur on LCDs is a documented fact. You might as well say that there is no such thing as gravity.
It's one thing to say that you don't notice the effect or it doesn't bother you, but to claim that it does not exist simply shows that you have no clue what you're talking about. There are many people like me who do notice it and find it annoying.
And I have seen plenty of people who can't tell the difference betwen 20fps and 60fps, who don't notice the difference between a TN and IPS LCD or who can't tell the difference with AA turned on. Does that mean everyone sees things the same way?
I used to have a pretty fast LCD on my work system by the way (now on my brother's rig), a 90GX2 which runs off the same panel used in a lot of 2ms monitors and does true 75hz, and I have a fair amount of experience with it. There are certain types of games, not necessarily fast-paced, that exhibit the blur much more than others. Space sims are the worst offender in my experience, more than most FPSs.
Many professionals with budgets that could go either way still stick to crt's for video editing, 3d animation etc.....as far as people not being able to tell flicker at 70 something hz? Come on....I can do that . Take a montior even at 85 and look to the left or right of the screen while concentrating at the corner of your eye, if you don't see flicker, your vision is pretty poor, Doubt you hit too many fast balls either. The point is whether you perceive it or not your eye does and it does cause eye strain. I normally use 120Hz on my fe2111sb.
I remember once a report saying it was physically impossible for baseball players to keep their "eye on the ball" on a 90 mph pitch, till they tested some professional athletes...guess what? They could track objects that fast, which is why their playing in the majors.
Not all people are equal, and neither are eyes. I get a headache on any CRT that is below 95, even 85 will bug me over time. Also I have seen friends nice LCD, and I deffinately see ghosting. The colors are just not as accurate as my diamondtron, I have in a previous job made it my buisiness to edit photographs for a catalog, and while I'm no expert, I learned very quickly how not all monitors are created equal in presenting true colors taken by the camera.
Medium to low end CRT's are probably out classed by the newest LCD's. However it is my own personal experience that my Fe2111 has much better color saturation and contrast then any LCD.
In any case after looking around I am not going to get another fe2111, or an lcd......why? I just found out you can pick up a Sony Trinitron 24" widescreen for like 300 bucks......The KING of CRT's can be had for the price of a budget LCD, and there is No WAY a Lcd is gonna match this bad boy in image quality, I don't care what your budget is.
http://www.accurateit.com/details.asp?iid=1133
Yeah it weighs 92 lbs, but shipping is free, and that was a 1500 monitor not so long ago.
SONY 24" GDM-FW9012 FD Trinitron Flat CRT Monitor oem HP A7217A
It's identical to the Sony FW900 except for a different extrior body in a different color.....
Try and tell me you can get a LCD even close to that sort of technical quality for even twice that price.
That's an awsome site, gamers who want to see the best image quality would do well to take a look there. Unless your more trendy then technical.
I remember once a report saying it was physically impossible for baseball players to keep their "eye on the ball" on a 90 mph pitch, till they tested some professional athletes...guess what? They could track objects that fast, which is why their playing in the majors.
Not all people are equal, and neither are eyes. I get a headache on any CRT that is below 95, even 85 will bug me over time. Also I have seen friends nice LCD, and I deffinately see ghosting. The colors are just not as accurate as my diamondtron, I have in a previous job made it my buisiness to edit photographs for a catalog, and while I'm no expert, I learned very quickly how not all monitors are created equal in presenting true colors taken by the camera.
Medium to low end CRT's are probably out classed by the newest LCD's. However it is my own personal experience that my Fe2111 has much better color saturation and contrast then any LCD.
In any case after looking around I am not going to get another fe2111, or an lcd......why? I just found out you can pick up a Sony Trinitron 24" widescreen for like 300 bucks......The KING of CRT's can be had for the price of a budget LCD, and there is No WAY a Lcd is gonna match this bad boy in image quality, I don't care what your budget is.
http://www.accurateit.com/details.asp?iid=1133
Yeah it weighs 92 lbs, but shipping is free, and that was a 1500 monitor not so long ago.
SONY 24" GDM-FW9012 FD Trinitron Flat CRT Monitor oem HP A7217A
It's identical to the Sony FW900 except for a different extrior body in a different color.....
Try and tell me you can get a LCD even close to that sort of technical quality for even twice that price.
That's an awsome site, gamers who want to see the best image quality would do well to take a look there. Unless your more trendy then technical.
Ghosting is not a fallacy and it is bothersome for many people, particularly for gaming. If you're making judgments before trying one however, you're probably ignorant. If you've tried one and it wasn't for you, there's nothing wrong with you for still liking the natural smoothness of CRTs. I can still say I prefer CRTs for gaming alone, but for anything else it'd have to be LCD. I don't have a decent CRT to game on so I just deal with it.
You do realize that the monitor you just bought only does 85 hz @ the recommended reso right? And you just said 85HZ bugs you.
Guys talking about 85hz giving them headaches must not have used computers fifteen years ago, when 60-70hz was standard on CRTs.
And I'd personally take a 2407fpw over that CRT any day of the week... and they've been under $600 @ dell with hot deals more times than I can count. But yeah, for $300 you won't beat that for size and performance.
"And I have seen plenty of people who can't tell the difference betwen 20fps and 60fps"
They're called blind people. The kids claiming Crysis is fine @ 20fps are so jacked up on Epeen about running high details in crysis, they'd call 2 fps playable if that's all their rigs managed.
Guys talking about 85hz giving them headaches must not have used computers fifteen years ago, when 60-70hz was standard on CRTs.
And I'd personally take a 2407fpw over that CRT any day of the week... and they've been under $600 @ dell with hot deals more times than I can count. But yeah, for $300 you won't beat that for size and performance.
"And I have seen plenty of people who can't tell the difference betwen 20fps and 60fps"
They're called blind people. The kids claiming Crysis is fine @ 20fps are so jacked up on Epeen about running high details in crysis, they'd call 2 fps playable if that's all their rigs managed.
Rubycon
Madame President
- Aug 10, 2005
- 17,768
- 485
- 126
Back in those days we used P31 phosphor terminals (Visual50) which were green screens. Characters were drawn on the a dark mask so flicker would never be an issue. When VGA displays fired up running Windows I kept them at 800x600 (85Hz) or 640x480 (100Hz) to keep the flicker down. One could reduce flicker by using a phosphor with a longer persistence. Problem is a bright object moving across a dark background would have a tail like a comet!
Not that long ago ruby. I dont think I ever owned a 15" that managed more than 70hz @ 1024x768. Most did 50hz or 60hz... and these are SVGA's were talking about, not green screens. Hell I know a ton of the things still in use on buddies servers and various alt rigs... they even get used for a touch of gaming every now and then when people show up unexpected.
My buddy does have a number of 11" and 13" greenscreens still, but I don't think they're even compatible with modern rigs.
My buddy does have a number of 11" and 13" greenscreens still, but I don't think they're even compatible with modern rigs.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
the biggest issue with CRT is that noone is developing them anymore. LCDs just keep on getting better while CRTs are standing still.
Not only that, very few companies still manufacture CRTs.
There are pluses and minuses to both technologies, but LCDs are taken over the market and are cheaper and more available then any CRT. They offer huge displays at reasonable prices (24 inch @ <300$, and they actually measure the display, not the plastic around it like CRTs)
Try some LCDs from costco, you get to return them to any store for a full refund if you are unsatisfied for the first 90 days. INCLUDING the amount you paid for shipping!
(don't buy any at a place that has a "minimum X dead pixels for return" policy, like newegg, don't buy the ones IN the costco store, there are too few to select from, buy it from costco.com and have it delivered).
I am currently using a dell ultrasharp 24 inch (it takes 50watt, just an FYI). Much improved over my older 19 inch ultrasharp. And both were better then my older CRTs (it is unfair to compare the best CRT on the market to the cheapest LCDs.... compare those in similar price brackets, and consider the saving on electricity)
Not only that, very few companies still manufacture CRTs.
There are pluses and minuses to both technologies, but LCDs are taken over the market and are cheaper and more available then any CRT. They offer huge displays at reasonable prices (24 inch @ <300$, and they actually measure the display, not the plastic around it like CRTs)
Try some LCDs from costco, you get to return them to any store for a full refund if you are unsatisfied for the first 90 days. INCLUDING the amount you paid for shipping!
(don't buy any at a place that has a "minimum X dead pixels for return" policy, like newegg, don't buy the ones IN the costco store, there are too few to select from, buy it from costco.com and have it delivered).
I am currently using a dell ultrasharp 24 inch (it takes 50watt, just an FYI). Much improved over my older 19 inch ultrasharp. And both were better then my older CRTs (it is unfair to compare the best CRT on the market to the cheapest LCDs.... compare those in similar price brackets, and consider the saving on electricity)
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter