I have been waffling on weather or not to get a LCD or a CRT for my new monitor. I do a lot of gaming and my wife does a lot of power point and word processing. Are LCDs the way to go here? I've narrowed my LCD choice down to the Viewsonic 171b because of the generally good reviews and opinions on the net. Or am I fooling myself thinking that the lighter and smaller LCD will make my gaming experince fulfilling or should I just stick with the big ass CRT, knowing I'll be happy with the overall visual quality? I just don't know what to do?
Getting an LCD! Am I just kidding myself?
- Thread starter nuthinspecial
- Start date
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
You could buy the LCD from a good store that will allow you to return it if you`re not happy with it,LCDs are not heavy so that`ll be easy to carry.
CRT vs LCD is something only you can decide with your own eyes,so any good store should allow you to return it if you`re not completely happy.
CRT vs LCD is something only you can decide with your own eyes,so any good store should allow you to return it if you`re not completely happy.
Viewsonic P95f+b is the way to go! Thats what I would get anyways and the high refresh rates will keep the eye strain away. $284 at newegg.
I have a 17" NEC FE700. I'm looking to order from newegg because they have better prices than any store of the stores in my area. I really haven't found a store or online vendor that doesn't have a restock fee for returns. I just don't want to make a $600 mistake.
I went with a 17" NEC 16ms response time LCD to replace my huge hot 19" Trinitron-tubed CRT and have been quite pleased with it for gaming. I am especially happy to get all that real estate of my desk back. The footprint of the CRT was gigantic compared to the LCD. The LCD is also very bright and very clear. The size difference is not that great either as the LCD's use a more honest way of measuring the size... 17" rated means 17" not 15.8" viewable with a CRT and all that nonsense. 
The response time is the most important thing. The slower response LCD's are the ones that will give you blur. Mine being rated at 16ms gives me a theroritical max FPS of 62.5. (1sec = 1000ms, 1000ms/16ms=62.5) Framerates above 60 are supposedly undetectable to the eye. All I know is that I do not experience blur with my monitor.
The response time is the most important thing. The slower response LCD's are the ones that will give you blur. Mine being rated at 16ms gives me a theroritical max FPS of 62.5. (1sec = 1000ms, 1000ms/16ms=62.5) Framerates above 60 are supposedly undetectable to the eye. All I know is that I do not experience blur with my monitor.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
I picked up an Hitachi 16ms model (forgot model number) when it first came out and was extremely pleased with it. I then picked up the Hot Deal Dell 20" model (16ms also) a little over a month ago and couldn't be more happy!
Beautiful color....and I can't detect ghosting at all. Only downside, if you can call it that, is that you're sorta stuck at the native resolution (or some multiple of it) on an LCD.
Beautiful color....and I can't detect ghosting at all. Only downside, if you can call it that, is that you're sorta stuck at the native resolution (or some multiple of it) on an LCD.
My opinion: Get an LCD if money is not an issue, if it is get a CRT. As far a picture quality goes, you will get a better picture for your money on a CRT then an LCD.
Thanks for contradicting what you just said. Most new games support that resolution. So what if it scales? Its not as bad as you think it is.
The Hitachi CML174(16ms) looks good at 1024x768, the real test for this LCD was in Need For Speed Underground, even when the cars wreck theres 0 ghosting.
LCD's are so much better I used to get headaches all the time from computer use and now I get none, that was worth the price alone.
LCD's are so much better I used to get headaches all the time from computer use and now I get none, that was worth the price alone.
I think you will be much happier with an LCD. About four months ago I bought a Samsung 213t monitor: Review1
The monitor is great 21.3" viewable (more viewing space than Dell's 20" and all 21" CRT's). Gaming is more than adequate even though the listed refresh rate is 25ms. A slight blur at some times with FPS but more than acceptable (and you get used to it). Best purchase I have ever made (not one dead pixel).
You might be able to get the 171b a bit cheaper at Dell. I bought one last year and used an online coupon, plus free shipping. $465 shipped was all I paid, that monitor was going for at least $500 everywhere else.
That is nonsense. There are a few good gaming LCDs out there rght now the 172x being the foremost.
Yeah, thats total nonsense. My LCD is great for gaming. And there are others I hear are great as well.
Okay, no one respond to BFG10k until he answer this.
1)So what if they cant run them properly? Its called scaling, whats wrong with that? It works and it looks good.
2)Explain to me this 'inferior' refresh rate? Why is this important for framerate based games.
I'll second what BFG has to stay on the matter, and add to it that latency compounds the problems of the low refresh rate in games that require a high framerate. I'll let him explain the why as you asked for it(I can assure you he knows what he is talking about and can give you sound reasoning and it has nothing to do with what laymen likely think reading his comment about RR).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter