This is from another post of mine, I figured it would fit in here.
This is the monitor I just purchased.
Sony FW900
LCDs (liquid crappy displays) do have a nicer picture now, but they still perform badly in games vs a CRT. I could go on all day about why, but I will list the top reasons why I still use CRT. And yes I have tested many "High performance" LCDs made by the top brands, they are all the same.
1. Native resolution - being stuck on one resolution just to get decent image quality is lame.
If you can't run that top of the line graphics game or any game that taxes your system at 1900 by 1200 or whatever your native resolution is, you have to turn your resolution down to 1680 by 1050 or maybe even 1280 by 1024. We all know what the picture will look like at any resolution other than the native. (blurry and distorted)
With the CRT you can go to any resolution and have a crystal clear picture. 800 by 600 can look great with Anti aliasing and Anistropic filtering turned up.
2. Refresh rates - We all know that the LCD is limited in this department, most will run at 60 HZ and maybe 75 if your LCD can do it. CRTs can do over 100 HZ at very high resolutions.
3. Vsync - Gross gross gross. Vsync matches your fps with your monitors refresh rate to prevent image tearing.
Vsync also slows down your systems graphic performance dramatically. Why spend lots of money on a high performance PC and then limit your system to 60 FPS? 100+ FPS feels so much smoother. If you start off with 100 FPS and Vsync disabled and get into a large firefight, your FPS will drop severely but you will still stay ABOVE the 60 FPS mark, not below 60 FPS like with Vsync enabled.
Response times in games are real time without Vsync enabled, just try playing your fps game with Vsync off, it might feel weird at first but you will probably see how much quicker the response time feels. The tearing you will see is what matching your refresh rate to FPS removes. (Which you can't do with an LCD)
Running fps games at 100 FPS and 100 HZ or 120 FPS and 120 HZ produces the smoothness of Vsync being enabled without the performance loss. When was the last time you played an fps game at 1920 by 1200 at 100 HZ, it's a true gamers paradise!
4. LCDs pixels are bigger producing a less sharp picture.
With CRTs the pixels are smaller and create a sharper image, plus smaller pixels in game = smoother movement and aim.
5. LCDs also have input lag where the CRT has none at all.
6. LCDs also have the MS response time, where the CRT has none.
7. LCDs contrast ratios are horrible compared to CRT.
8. LCDs colors are getting better but are not TRUE colors and still can't compete with CRT.
Sure CRTs are huge, consume more power and produce more heat, but so does your massive high performance video card. People don't buy a nice system and then get a tiny slower video card to "save" space and lower tempatures in their tower at the cost of losing extreme performance. So why should you do the same with your display? Obviously the video card isn't nearly as much of a problem as a big monitor on your desk is, it's just an example
LCDs are great for surfing the internet or doing work on your desktop as they save power, produce less heat and mainly take up LESS space. But don't we gamers buy badass systems so our games look "badass"?
And by "badass" I don't mean slow to respond and blurry.
All in all the LCD is great for everything but gaming, and the CRT smokes LCD in every way possible when it comes to graphics and games. If you think your LCD is fast and looks great, then maybe you should stick to XBOX games and leave PC games for the people who know what they are doing!
It seems that only a small fraction of gamers today realize all of the above about LCDs, so i'm prepared for the LCD fanboys flames, flame on!
Facebook
Twitter