i prefer crts when it comes to gaming... it is a lot more crisp than lcds...
for gaming CRTs rule
please bump this thread
for gaming CRTs rule
please bump this thread
Gamers poll LCD Vs. CRT
- Thread starter element2k5
- Start date
i never used an LCD before. but arent LCDs better in terms of refresh rate etc. that are necesarry for gaming?
CRT's have to win hands down for FPS gaming...
I have a planar 17.4", but FPS still look better on CRT than the lcd in terms of being able to play.. Just because of the response times. But that doesn't stop me from playing RA3 on it anyway haha.
I have a planar 17.4", but FPS still look better on CRT than the lcd in terms of being able to play.. Just because of the response times. But that doesn't stop me from playing RA3 on it anyway haha.
CRT for ME:
LCD's vs. CRT's:
Physical dimensions/size: clearly a solid winner for LCD's here. LCD's are far smaller and weigh substatially less. This difference becomes even more noticeable at larger sizes (a 21" monitors, for example). This can very important in some applications where space is of a priority.
Power: another clear solid winner for LCD's. Max power draw of a typical 17" LCD is ~50W. Max power draw of a typical 19" CRT is ~130W.
Viewing angle: this is nearly a draw in my mind, but probably the CRT wins in most cases. Most people want a high viewing angle (ie. the ability to see things on the screen at a wide angle - like looking at the screen essentially from the side), but in some cases the privacy afforded by the smaller angle of LCD's can be very important (ie. laptops on an airplane). In addition LCD's are making rapid progress in increasing the viewing angle. Max. viewing angle on a CRT is pretty close to 180 degrees. Max. viewing angle on an high-quality modern LCD is 160 degrees but usually lower on a typical screen.
Brightness/Lumination: clear win for CRT's. CRT's can reach 500 cd/m2 or more (click here <http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/candela.html> for a definition of a candela), whereas a good LCD screen is closer to 200 cd/m2. Although a 200 cd/m2 LCD screen is "good enough" for most indoor applications, the fact that you can always reduce the brightness of a CRT, but can only increase the brightness of an LCD to ~200 cd/m2 is a clear win for CRTs especially in outdoor applications (if size isn't an issue too).
Contrast ratio: clear win for CRT's. Closely related to brightness, it's the ratio of the brightest white to the darkest black. LCD's are around 200:1. CRT's are around 500:1 (notice the correlation to brightness).
Color saturation: a toss-up, but probably leaning towards LCD's. This is a difficult subject despite a clear definition of the property. Both sides claim victory, but probably the LCD's are ahead slightly. On the CRT side though, the color saturation is far more adjustable.
Refresh rate/switching rate: a win for CRT's. This is an area where LCD displays for displays have a bad rap. LCD screens for desktops have made huge progress in this catagory recently. People who quote that LCD displays are too slow are used to the laptop variety (where switching rate is sacrificed for lower power). Switching rates on LCD's and refresh rates on CRT's should not be compared directly, but the general idea is the same. Switching rates on a high quality LCD display can be as high as 90Hz at the max resolution. A high-quality CRT will be better, but 90Hz is more than good enough for most people.
Emissions: Not many people care about this one, but for what it's worth, LCD's have far lower EM radiation emissions than CRT's. It's pretty much a non-issue for most, but for those paranoid people (like my wife, actually) who worry about this stuff then LCD's are the way to go for emissions. (actually she doesn't trust cell phones or microwaves either... she's a bit of a Luddite, actually, which is bizzarre considering she married me... but I digress).
Cost: A clear win for CRT's which generally cost about 50-75% less than a comparable LCD. The smaller the LCD, the better this ratio gets - and at the high-end (21" or higher), LCD's are far more expensive.
Reliability: LCD's are the winner. CRT reliability has increased greatly over the years. CRT's are currently at a MTTF (mean time to failure) of ~19,000 POH (power-on hours), LCD's have a MTTF of approximately ~200,000 POH. This was a hard number to find, and I'm not sure if this is correct. I can imagine that the LCD value will decrease depending on what you consider "failure" (how many dead pixels constitute a failure) and how big the screen is. Still, based on my knowledge of the electronics involved, my gut feel is that I would bet on an LCD screen to last longer than a CRT.
The fact is that the image on a high-end CRT is simply better in all respects compared to the a high-end LCD. LCD's have been gaining very rapidly, and the race is getting closer, but CRT's are still the winner. But, LCD screens are pretty much past the point of "good enough" for most applications. In applications requiring small size or low power, the LCD will always win out over a CRT (imagine a CRT on a digital camera). If image quality is your highest priority then a high-end CRT is the winner. If the application dictates low power or small size, then an LCD is the winner. And if you are somewhere in the middle (like most) then you may go with an LCD for looks or small desk footprint, or a CRT for price.
Edit: throughout this post I have used a 17" LCD screen and a 19" (18" viewable area) CRT monitor as my points of reference. This is not a fair comparison, but it's the sizes that most people consider. Using other screens sizes will skew the results.
LCD's vs. CRT's:
Physical dimensions/size: clearly a solid winner for LCD's here. LCD's are far smaller and weigh substatially less. This difference becomes even more noticeable at larger sizes (a 21" monitors, for example). This can very important in some applications where space is of a priority.
Power: another clear solid winner for LCD's. Max power draw of a typical 17" LCD is ~50W. Max power draw of a typical 19" CRT is ~130W.
Viewing angle: this is nearly a draw in my mind, but probably the CRT wins in most cases. Most people want a high viewing angle (ie. the ability to see things on the screen at a wide angle - like looking at the screen essentially from the side), but in some cases the privacy afforded by the smaller angle of LCD's can be very important (ie. laptops on an airplane). In addition LCD's are making rapid progress in increasing the viewing angle. Max. viewing angle on a CRT is pretty close to 180 degrees. Max. viewing angle on an high-quality modern LCD is 160 degrees but usually lower on a typical screen.
Brightness/Lumination: clear win for CRT's. CRT's can reach 500 cd/m2 or more (click here <http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/candela.html> for a definition of a candela), whereas a good LCD screen is closer to 200 cd/m2. Although a 200 cd/m2 LCD screen is "good enough" for most indoor applications, the fact that you can always reduce the brightness of a CRT, but can only increase the brightness of an LCD to ~200 cd/m2 is a clear win for CRTs especially in outdoor applications (if size isn't an issue too).
Contrast ratio: clear win for CRT's. Closely related to brightness, it's the ratio of the brightest white to the darkest black. LCD's are around 200:1. CRT's are around 500:1 (notice the correlation to brightness).
Color saturation: a toss-up, but probably leaning towards LCD's. This is a difficult subject despite a clear definition of the property. Both sides claim victory, but probably the LCD's are ahead slightly. On the CRT side though, the color saturation is far more adjustable.
Refresh rate/switching rate: a win for CRT's. This is an area where LCD displays for displays have a bad rap. LCD screens for desktops have made huge progress in this catagory recently. People who quote that LCD displays are too slow are used to the laptop variety (where switching rate is sacrificed for lower power). Switching rates on LCD's and refresh rates on CRT's should not be compared directly, but the general idea is the same. Switching rates on a high quality LCD display can be as high as 90Hz at the max resolution. A high-quality CRT will be better, but 90Hz is more than good enough for most people.
Emissions: Not many people care about this one, but for what it's worth, LCD's have far lower EM radiation emissions than CRT's. It's pretty much a non-issue for most, but for those paranoid people (like my wife, actually) who worry about this stuff then LCD's are the way to go for emissions. (actually she doesn't trust cell phones or microwaves either... she's a bit of a Luddite, actually, which is bizzarre considering she married me... but I digress).
Cost: A clear win for CRT's which generally cost about 50-75% less than a comparable LCD. The smaller the LCD, the better this ratio gets - and at the high-end (21" or higher), LCD's are far more expensive.
Reliability: LCD's are the winner. CRT reliability has increased greatly over the years. CRT's are currently at a MTTF (mean time to failure) of ~19,000 POH (power-on hours), LCD's have a MTTF of approximately ~200,000 POH. This was a hard number to find, and I'm not sure if this is correct. I can imagine that the LCD value will decrease depending on what you consider "failure" (how many dead pixels constitute a failure) and how big the screen is. Still, based on my knowledge of the electronics involved, my gut feel is that I would bet on an LCD screen to last longer than a CRT.
The fact is that the image on a high-end CRT is simply better in all respects compared to the a high-end LCD. LCD's have been gaining very rapidly, and the race is getting closer, but CRT's are still the winner. But, LCD screens are pretty much past the point of "good enough" for most applications. In applications requiring small size or low power, the LCD will always win out over a CRT (imagine a CRT on a digital camera). If image quality is your highest priority then a high-end CRT is the winner. If the application dictates low power or small size, then an LCD is the winner. And if you are somewhere in the middle (like most) then you may go with an LCD for looks or small desk footprint, or a CRT for price.
Edit: throughout this post I have used a 17" LCD screen and a 19" (18" viewable area) CRT monitor as my points of reference. This is not a fair comparison, but it's the sizes that most people consider. Using other screens sizes will skew the results.
Spikesoldier
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2001
- 6,766
- 0
- 0
<< i never used an LCD before. but arent LCDs better in terms of refresh rate etc. that are necesarry for gaming? >>
That is the exact opposite. On a typical LCD, the max refresh rate you can acheive is 60, or possibly even 70Hz. I believe CRT's can go a little higher than this.
minendo
Elite Member
- Aug 31, 2001
- 35,560
- 22
- 81
<<
<< i never used an LCD before. but arent LCDs better in terms of refresh rate etc. that are necesarry for gaming? >>
That is the exact opposite. On a typical LCD, the max refresh rate you can acheive is 60, or possibly even 70Hz. I believe CRT's can go a little higher than this. >>
The max I can do is 75Hz.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
i own a 1600sw (the best lcd on the market) and its got lot crisper picture than any crt that i've seen . But these things retail for $2500 so i dont think its practical.
AS for the refresh rate, its insignificant for lcd. the pixels stay on the screen as theyre supposed to, opposed to being refreshed (re-lit) 60-100x a second. The important factor is response time (how fast can the lcd pixel change). My lcd is under 10ms which creates no ghosting at all.
AS for the refresh rate, its insignificant for lcd. the pixels stay on the screen as theyre supposed to, opposed to being refreshed (re-lit) 60-100x a second. The important factor is response time (how fast can the lcd pixel change). My lcd is under 10ms which creates no ghosting at all.
Evadman
Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 30,990
- 5
- 81
I have both a CRT and an LCD. The CRT refreshes faster, and does not leave "after images" when the scene changes quickly ( like moving a black gun over green grass )
CRT is the way to go. Tribes 2 is almost unplayable on my LCD. I tried.
CRT is the way to go. Tribes 2 is almost unplayable on my LCD. I tried.
<< CRT, but i'm using a SONY SDM-M81 18.1 inch lcd.
CRT=no no for a dorm room. >>
i agree totally but they are considered to be "hot" items... and they are easy to steal...
<<
The max I can do is 75Hz.
eh? thats pathetic, i get like 120hz at 1024x768 and 85 at 1600x1200
>>When it comes to refresh rate, LCD and CRT are NOT possible to compare because LCDs do NOT really refresh!
I thought It was like a given that crts are better for gaming, and lcds are better for like reading text, and better for looking at the screens for long periods of time.
ok, right now i am running on a 17" acer 77e, which is an ancient monitor.... i am looking at picking up a 15" lcd right now (Philips 150S 15" lcd monitor to be exact linked here)... but this post might change my mind. i do a moderate amount of gaming, so i would want a nice picture.
what do you think i should do?
what do you think i should do?
<< I love my Rad 5. I wont give it up for anything, well except for a bigger LCD. >>
you can't be serious.... no offense or anything, but that kds lcd is one of the worst on the market... tried one out for a while and the refresh was so low it made me sick (literally made me dizzy and whatnot)
i've got a dell 17" lcd it's nice... gaming is ok but I like my dell 21" flatscreen crt, lcd's will never touch them
Dude u got a dell...
(couldnt resist)
crts totally annilate lcds in gaming.... but i want to try out some of those plasma displays... those look promising
(couldnt resist)
crts totally annilate lcds in gaming.... but i want to try out some of those plasma displays... those look promising
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter