Gaming on 16:9 vs. 16:10, benefits?

[toyota]

CRTs are obsolete crap. They are inferior in a dozen different ways that die hards refuse to acknowledge, their advantage (which wasn't enough to offset all the bad) was that they could do higher than 60Hz earlier than LCDs could, and didn't require time to change pixel colors (which was not necessarily an advantage, since flickering is as bad as ghosting). Modern LCDs can do 120Hz and on a PC (only on a PC, it must have dual link DVI which makes it not suitable for TV's HDMI interface, where they are limited to ~130HZ) they can even do 240.

Besides all of that, CRTs are also completely obsoleted by plasma. In CRTs you excite phosphorous compounds to produce light, the specific phosphorous being excited is controlled via powerful magnets which divert the electron stream across the screen (aka, scanning it). A plasma also uses phosphorous which is being exited, except each pixel has its own micro "pit" generating its own electrons...

Plasma is a direct evolution of CRT and eliminates most of its drawbacks.
LCD is a competing technology that has drawbacks and advantages compared to plasma, but demolishes CRTs in all aspect, although early on it had advantages and disadvantages (mostly advantages, very few disadvantages).

in dark games my cheap LCD is garbage compared to my old cheap 17 inch CRT. my panel has very little backlight bleeding compared to others I have seen but it is enough to ruin games like Dead Space and Amnesia Dark Descent. it also has more color banding compared to my CRT. I am so ready for a plasma but I cant afford one at the moment.

 

[taltamir]

in dark games my cheap LCD is garbage compared to my old cheap 17 inch CRT. my panel has very little backlight bleeding compared to others I have seen but it is enough to ruin games like Dead Space and Amnesia Dark Descent. it also has more color banding compared to my CRT. I am so ready for a plasma but I cant afford one at the moment.

1. You are unfairly comparing two random specific low end models on a very specific issue. You are not compared the best vs the best, you are not comparing "the best in a price range", you are not comparing "average" you are not comparing overall performance... you are comparing one aspect of one randomly selected CRT to one randomly selected LCD.
2. You completely ignore the part where I explain that plasma is a direct evolution of CRT and superior in every way. That the competition is between plasma and LCD with CRTs being a relic of the past.

 

[toyota]

1. You are unfairly comparing two random specific low end models on a very specific issue. You are not compared the best vs the best, you are not comparing "the best in a price range", you are not comparing "average" you are not comparing overall performance... you are comparing one aspect of one randomly selected CRT to one randomly selected LCD.
2. You completely ignore the part where I explain that plasma is a direct evolution of CRT and superior in every way. That the competition is between plasma and LCD with CRTs being a relic of the past.

you cant just pick and choose which models you consider to be a fair representation of a certain technology. the majority of LCDs out there are no better than mine. I am giving a realistic scenario where nearly all LCDs suck at which is dark scenes in gaming. all LCDs have backlight bleed too so again it is a fair comparison.

 

[taltamir]

you cant just pick and choose which models you consider to be a fair representation of a certain technology. the majority of LCDs out there are no better than mine. I am giving a realistic scenario where nearly all LCDs suck at which is dark scenes in gaming. all LCDs have backlight bleed too so again it is a fair comparison.

1. Please forgive me, I have gotten only 1 hour of sleep last night and managed to misread your statement.
If we are comparing the overall difference in darkness levels between LCDs and CRTs then it is a fair comparison.
It is a fair assessment and a point in favor of CRTs which I indeed forgot to mention. Yes, CRTs are indeed a little better on black reproduction.
Although this is not enough to balance out all their myriad drawbacks.
2. My point that CRTs are completely obsoleted by plasma still stands though, as plasma are the direct successors to them.

I realize I phrased things in a rather garbled manner so let me clarify my points:
A. CRTs are obsolete, plasma is a direct evolution of the technology, being very similar in its fundamental principles and superior in every way.

B. Modern LCDs are better than CRTs overall, I argued that CRTs used to get a win on refresh rate, and get a draw by replacing flickering with ghosting, and lose on everything else. This was a mistake, I forgot to mention that overall CRTs produce deeper blacks due to lack of back-light. My bad.

C. Modern LCDs should be compared overall to plasma, where the two trade blows (although to fair, I should have mentioned that this is due mostly to the high price of plasma, which is generally superior)

 

[Genome852]

16:9 gives you a wider FoV than 16:10 or 4:3 in games... so probably that. If you mainly play CS 1.6 or some older games you'd want a standard non-WS monitor though. Instead of increasing FoV, a lot of older games simply crop off the top and bottom of your screen to make it WS resolution... the result is that you see less.

OT:
I have found refresh rate to be much more important though. I used to think it didn't affect LCDs, but after going from 75hz to 60hz, it felt very much like microstutter... I thought something was wrong with my computer. I've gotten used to 60hz again though and can't see it anymore. But an LCD's "refresh rate" is basically the maximum amount of FPS your screen can display.