Getting an LCD! Am I just kidding myself?

[Mem]

If you're a gamer you're basically wasting your time with LCDs.

Hmmmm wrong,LCDs are ok for gaming,but it depends on how you use it in gaming,in my case I always stick with one resolution where posssilbe(even on my old 19" CRT that I just sold)so running at 1280x1024 is fine for me,as to real games well I play CS,TFC,DoD,UT,UT2004,Quake 3 etc and lots of slower RPGs and just love the crispness of the image quality in DVI mode.


Oh did I say I`m a gamer ,ghosting wise it depends on the game and the LCD question,on mine it`s not enough to bother me and I`m talking about in fast paced FPS games where I`m looking for ghosting,now in a real game online you`re too busy killing or being killed to really notice it .

It`s important that the user really try the LCD in question for himself to see how he likes it or not,I`m just glad I don`t listen to anyone except my eyes or I would be back with my flat 19" CRT that can`t hold a candle to the crispness of my LCD,my eyes thank me that`s for sure .

My Samsung 191T is not even the best LCD for gaming with 25ms which equals to around 40 FPS(1000/25ms).Btw LCDs don`t refresh like CRTs,they have pixel response times,most use the black to white then back to black response time,not the gray to gray which is changing from colour to colour so to speak which would give slower response time specs.

I`ll say it again you need to test LCD monitors with your games and your own eyes to see if you`ll like them or not,CRTs do have the advantage of being more flexible with different resolutions and no ghosting.

 

[Slammy1]

I agree completely with Mem, and I'm surprised to see people still arguing refresh rates on LCDs.

If you spend a lot of time on the computer, and money is not a primary factor, then LCD is the way to go. Like all component purchases, it comes back to how you use your computer. It really is hard to determine PQ from electronics outlets. I remember when I was shopping for LCDs CC had 5 hooked through the same line and BB had none on display. I really do live in a computer illiterate area. My brother in law accused me of risking breaking his computer because I deleted his internet cache (he'd been surfing porn), and I set up a system for my best friend and he argues that you cannot listen to music through the computer since they're not designed for that (also thinks computers are mainly for d/l'ing porn). They're both good at arguing cases they lack clues on, but I think perhaps we're all guilty here of that at times.

 

[Tab]

Yet again, we have no response. C'mon BFG10k you must know!

 

[BFG10K]

LOL Tabb, you're very keen to continue the discussion aren't you?

1)So what if they cant run them properly? Its called scaling, whats wrong with that? It works and it looks good.

LCD pixels are a fixed size, unlike a CRT whose size changes according to resolution. That means that when running an LCD out of its native resolution you'll get a wide range of scaling artifacts, possibly including bluriness and/or black borders on the edges of the screen.

For a typical 3D gamer who enjoys mix-and-matching resolutions to make the game run how he/she likes it, this gives CRTs a major advantage for gamers.

2)Explain to me this 'inferior' refresh rate? Why is this important for framerate based games.

What is FPS? Quite simply, frames per second. Now, the higher the refresh rate on a device, the more full frames it can display. Taking a 16ms LCD that's around 60 FPS; at most you'll be able to see 60 full frames per second on such a device. OTOH most CRTs operate around 75 FPS -120 FPS and again, that puts the CRT gamer at an advantage because their users can see more full frames per second.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
LOL Tabb, you're very keen to continue the discussion aren't you?

1)So what if they cant run them properly? Its called scaling, whats wrong with that? It works and it looks good.

LCD pixels are a fixed size, unlike a CRT whose size changes according to resolution. That means that when running an LCD out of its native resolution you'll get a wide range of scaling artifacts, possibly including bluriness and/or black borders on the edges of the screen.

For a typical 3D gamer who enjoys mix-and-matching resolutions to make the game run how he/she likes it, this gives CRTs a major advantage for gamers.

2)Explain to me this 'inferior' refresh rate? Why is this important for framerate based games.

What is FPS? Quite simply, frames per second. Now, the higher the refresh rate on a device, the more full frames it can display. Taking a 16ms LCD that's around 60 FPS; at most you'll be able to see 60 full frames per second on such a device. OTOH most CRTs operate around 75 FPS -120 FPS and again, that puts the CRT gamer at an advantage because their users can see more full frames per second.

0)I take threads seriously, unless some flamer made it or its P&N. I am sick of all the LCD Bashing, I am using one. Play me 1vs1 UT2k4 I will kick your ass.

1)Yes, they are to a fixed size. That doesn't mean they can't scale them down or up. I'd like to see evidence of scaling artifacts on a brand name LCD. We are talking about gaming LCDs anyway. How about NEC,Sony,IIayami,Dell,Planer and Hitachi? Do you see any 'scaling artifacts' on those moniters? Then we have possible blackness or darkness. Well, do you have any proof of this? My LCD doenst look darker or have black edges when I load up in 640x480. I haven't seen that happen on my friends hitiachi or my friends HP Notebook.

2)Can your eyes even comprehend more than 60 FPS consecutivily? Isn't 60 FPS beyond playable? CRTs can operate at 75Hz to 120Hz. However, their defaults are 60Hz. Strange how my NEC LCD says my Refresh Rate is currently at 70Hz.... It looks different I'll agree to that.

Your turn to roll the dice.

 

[Engineer]

The human eye can only see somewhere around 30 frames per seconds...hence why anything above 60Hz on a CRT monitor (interlaced) is harder to detect (flickering). If you ran 2000 FPS, the human eye can't detect it (that I know of...and I've been wrong before! ).

LCD's don't flicker...and DVI does't even use refresh rate (does it?)?

 

[ZombieJesus]

You do not understand how an LCD monitor refreshes. It does not refresh the screen in a line by line fashion, transistors in the LCD remain open or closed as needed until the image changes. An LCD with a good responce time of 20ms or lower running at 60 Hz refresh will out do most crts running at a higher refresh.

 

[BFG10K]

Play me 1vs1 UT2k4 I will kick your ass.

Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case it means precisely nothing in this discussion.

Yes, they are to a fixed size. That doesn't mean they can't scale them down or up.

They scale and that's when the artifacts come into play. The scaling is done by approximation since the LCD's pixels cannot change size. OTOH scaling on a CRT is exact because the pixel physically resizes to exactly what is required.

I'd like to see evidence of scaling artifacts on a brand name LCD.

All LCDs have fixed sized pixels and that size is determined by the native resolution.

My LCD doenst look darker or have black edges when I load up in 640x480.

What is your native resolution?

(And BTW I didn't say it would look darker.)

Can your eyes even comprehend more than 60 FPS consecutivily?

Yes.

Isn't 60 FPS beyond playable? CRTs can operate at 75Hz to 120Hz.

That's like paying more for a car that can only do 100 Km/h and then asking whether you can see the extra 20 Km/h from the cheaper 120 Km/h car. The real question is: why pay more for less?

However, their defaults are 60Hz.

Their defaults are whatever you make them to be.

 

[BFG10K]

You do not understand how an LCD monitor refreshes. It does not refresh the screen in a line by line fashion,

Actually I've heard claims to the contrary (which could explain why they tear with vsync disabled) but that's not really relevant. I just thought I'd throw that in for throught.

An LCD with a good responce time of 20ms or lower running at 60 Hz refresh will out do most crts running at a higher refresh.

20 ms is 50 FPS or a maximum of 50 updates per second; such an LCD cannot display more than 50 full images per second. It doesn't matter whether you measure it in Hz, ms or whatever, EVERY display device has a maximum limit to how many times it can update per second.

 

[Mem]

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?

I find it enjoyable in gaming,I don`t like to boast but I always finish near or at the top in TFC with my LCD online , so I show those CRT gamers a thing or two ,as to resolutions I stick with native 1280x1024,I`ll go down to 1024x768 if the game only supports that,mind you it still looks good on my LCD,perfect geometry is another good point with LCDs,you don`t want to know how many 19" CRTs I had to return due to being either out of focus or poor geometry.
At my age I don`t want to start moving big 19" boxes around anymore .

when OLED monitors get here in around 2006 or so things can only get better .

Remember what I said & try and play some games on the LCD if possible with your own eyes,only YOU can judge the final verdict.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Compare a high end LCD to a high end CRT running 1280x1024 looking at effective input(when you move versus when something happens on screen)

LCD 70Hz RR 16ms latency-

If your vid card is pushing 200FPS-

One frame 'delay' between buffers(double buffered, no need to get into tripple)- .01 second
RR hit- .014 second
Latency- .016 second
Total .04 second Latency between control input and screen update- equal to 25FPS and that's not the maximum latency(that's a white to black latency, green to gray would be much worse).

CRT- 120Hz RR

Buffer delay- .01 second
RR hit- .0083
Total- .0183 second latency equal to about 54FPS

If we disable VSync

LCD- buffer delay- .01
Latency- .016
Total .026 about 39FPS

CRT- buffer delay- .01
Total .01, about 100FPS

VSync enabled on the CRT has ~38% faster response time then VSync disabled on the LCD.

 

[Tab]

I'd like to see evidence of scaling artifacts on a brand name LCD.

All LCDs have fixed sized pixels and that size is determined by the native resolution.

Okay.

That means that when running an LCD out of its native resolution you'll get a wide range of scaling artifacts, possibly including bluriness and/or black borders on the edges of the screen.

What are scaling artifcats exactly? Are you saying bluriness and black borders are artifacts? Black Borders would just be the screen reszing itself and not nessicarlly are artificats. Anyway, show me LCDs that put black borders. Of course its possible that CRTs do this too.

I don't notice any excessive bluryness, however when I do change resolution I do have a auto-adjust button that fixes it

Yes, they are to a fixed size. That doesn't mean they can't scale them down or up.

They scale and that's when the artifacts come into play. The scaling is done by approximation since the LCD's pixels cannot change size. OTOH scaling on a CRT is exact because the pixel physically resizes to exactly what is required.

Uh, okay. Thanks for explaining yourself again.

That's like paying more for a car that can only do 100 Km/h and then asking whether you can see the extra 20 Km/h from the cheaper 120 Km/h car. The real question is: why pay more for less?

Your leaving out other details. Maybe I want a compact car? Maybe I want something more effiecent energy wise? Maybe I am willing to let go other benifits of one car for the other?

Intresting how you brought up the the vsync issuse. I find that intresting as well, I haven't had any problems myself. I wonder if LCDs have ever had this problem? Ben and BFG10k I like to understand how your doing this math conversion between the pixel reponse time and FPS. How are you working this out exactly?

 

[sharq]

All technical jargon aside, a good (ie Viewsonic) 19" flat screen CRT (18" viewable) is for ~$200. A good gaming 17" LCD (17" viewable) is for twice that? (I don't keep up with LCD prices)
Even if the difference is only $100, you're getting 1" more to work with, and paying less. Only situation I understand getting an LCD is if desk space is a factor, heat is a factor (my 19" heats my room ), and if you've got very sensitive eyes and get a headache sitting at a CRT for more than an hour or two. Most of us are immune to that last one by now, and not sure about the other 2 factors. Anyways, I know a good LCD can display text better than my 19", but I am not willing to pay twice as much for one, with less space to work on. Then again, that's just me.

 

[VIAN]

Nonsense? No, what is nonsense is paying double the price to get a display device of the same size that can only run one resolution properly and has an inferior refresh rate as well (which is important for framerate based games).

It does make a lot of sense. Why do you pay two times the amount for something that limits you so much? Limitation is never good.

So what if they cant run them properly? Its called scaling, whats wrong with that? It works and it looks good.

I hate scaling. I don't watch video on windows media player at 200% for a reason. I always watch them at 100%. The quality loss is pretty big.

Explain to me this 'inferior' refresh rate? Why is this important for framerate based games.

I think he meant "pixel response time" instead of refresh rate. Pixel response time limits how many full frames can be shown per second. In FPS, a high framerate is always good and sometimes could be the difference between life and death. Say you have a ping of 25ms in an online game, which is pretty damn good, then if you have a 25ms LCD, you have just added another 25ms to that. Now you have a 50ms ping.
Refresh rate is also very important. If you use Vsync, which makes the IQ better by preventing tearing, but at the same time may effectively reduce framerate by 50% in certain occasions, then refresh rate is important. 85fps is flicker free and is pretty much the best refresh rate. CRTs are able to run higher, but not perfect. Notice when you bring up your OSD with 85Hz, you get the resolution and the refresh rate shown at the bottom. If you use a refresh rate higher, it will not display the resolution because it has to show other information, which leads me to believe it is not showing a correct refresh rate. Most monitors, you get best picture quality running optimal. Most monitors optimal is 85.

Taking a 16ms LCD that's around 60 FPS; at most you'll be able to see 60 full frames per second on such a device. OTOH most CRTs operate around 75 FPS -120 FPS and again, that puts the CRT gamer at an advantage because their users can see more full frames per second.

Sometimes, I can only hope for constant 60fps. Also look just above for refresh arguement.

1)Yes, they are to a fixed size. That doesn't mean they can't scale them down or up. I'd like to see evidence of scaling artifacts on a brand name LCD. We are talking about gaming LCDs anyway. How about NEC,Sony,IIayami,Dell,Planer and Hitachi? Do you see any 'scaling artifacts' on those moniters? Then we have possible blackness or darkness. Well, do you have any proof of this? My LCD doenst look darker or have black edges when I load up in 640x480. I haven't seen that happen on my friends hitiachi or my friends HP Notebook.

LCDs may not show more pixels than are built into it. All LCDs that have to show pixels less than optimal amount, may have it stretched - which everything look blurry, or may have it shown in its original amount of pixels surrounded by the blackness of the unused pixels.

2)Can your eyes even comprehend more than 60 FPS consecutivily? Isn't 60 FPS beyond playable? CRTs can operate at 75Hz to 120Hz. However, their defaults are 60Hz. Strange how my NEC LCD says my Refresh Rate is currently at 70Hz.... It looks different I'll agree to that.

You're eyes can notice more than 60fps. 30fps is a minimum. 60fps is desired. But, the amount of fps that is best should be equal to the amount of refreshes tha is most comfortable to you - non-flickering. Their default is not 60Hz. Windows is the culprit here. Microsoft forces it in software, or else they would run at their maximum/ optimal for each resolution.

The human eye can only see somewhere around 30 frames per seconds...hence why anything above 60Hz on a CRT monitor (interlaced) is harder to detect (flickering). If you ran 2000 FPS, the human eye can't detect it (that I know of...and I've been wrong before! ).

LCD's don't flicker...and DVI does't even use refresh rate (does it?)?

You are wrong. You are talking about a TV. They show 30frames per second which when you interlace, it becomes 60fps. The thing in the decision to interlace was that 30fps progressive doesn't look very fluid. On the other hand, 60fps does. So there you have it. If you've ever seen a watch with ms counted. You can notice that the ms change, proof that you can at least see 100fps. I guess maybe double or triple the speed willl make the digits look solid. But who can tell.

Bottom line, CRTs are more flexible and much, much cheaper. Top of the line 19" CRT may range from 250-300 dollars. Top of the line LCD which has response time compareable to a CRT, 16ms, which needs to be 17", will cost 500-600 dollars. Exactly twice the price.

 

[Tab]

Oh, god. I'd figure I'd have to deal with you.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense? No, what is nonsense is paying double the price to get a display device of the same size that can only run one resolution properly and has an inferior refresh rate as well (which is important for framerate based games).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It does make a lot of sense. Why do you pay two times the amount for something that limits you so much? Limitation is never good.

Depends what you consider, limiting. Maybe I don't want eyestrain? Maybe I don't have enough deskspace? Maybe I want to save energy, maybe I am a IT Tech at a large office building and want to limit power consumption.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what if they cant run them properly? Its called scaling, whats wrong with that? It works and it looks good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I hate scaling. I don't watch video on windows media player at 200% for a reason. I always watch them at 100%. The quality loss is pretty big.

Yes, but is 1024x768 and 1280 x 1024 a big difference? Is it really going to distort that much?

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain to me this 'inferior' refresh rate? Why is this important for framerate based games.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think he meant "pixel response time" instead of refresh rate. Pixel response time limits how many full frames can be shown per second. In FPS, a high framerate is always good and sometimes could be the difference between life and death. Say you have a ping of 25ms in an online game, which is pretty damn good, then if you have a 25ms LCD, you have just added another 25ms to that. Now you have a 50ms ping.
Refresh rate is also very important. If you use Vsync, which makes the IQ better by preventing tearing, but at the same time may effectively reduce framerate by 50% in certain occasions, then refresh rate is important. 85fps is flicker free and is pretty much the best refresh rate. CRTs are able to run higher, but not perfect. Notice when you bring up your OSD with 85Hz, you get the resolution and the refresh rate shown at the bottom. If you use a refresh rate higher, it will not display the resolution because it has to show other information, which leads me to believe it is not showing a correct refresh rate. Most monitors, you get best picture quality running optimal. Most monitors optimal is 85.

Congrats VIAN! You can repeat what someone said! Show me proof that LCD response time and bandwidth speed (I dont know if that is the correct term). Now, show me evidence that vsync reduces framerate by 50% and tell me what certain occasions these are. What the hell? 85fps is flicker free! Uhuh, you got me there VIAN! What other information is it showing VIAN?

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Yes, they are to a fixed size. That doesn't mean they can't scale them down or up. I'd like to see evidence of scaling artifacts on a brand name LCD. We are talking about gaming LCDs anyway. How about NEC,Sony,IIayami,Dell,Planer and Hitachi? Do you see any 'scaling artifacts' on those moniters? Then we have possible blackness or darkness. Well, do you have any proof of this? My LCD doenst look darker or have black edges when I load up in 640x480. I haven't seen that happen on my friends hitiachi or my friends HP Notebook.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LCDs may not show more pixels than are built into it. All LCDs that have to show pixels less than optimal amount, may have it stretched - which everything look blurry, or may have it shown in its original amount of pixels surrounded by the blackness of the unused pixels.

Horray, VIAN can read and recite what other people said! Okay, they MAY have it scretched? Uhuh, okay...

You're eyes can notice more than 60fps. 30fps is a minimum. 60fps is desired. But, the amount of fps that is best should be equal to the amount of refreshes tha is most comfortable to you - non-flickering. Their default is not 60Hz. Windows is the culprit here. Microsoft forces it in software, or else they would run at their maximum/ optimal for each resolution.

[/b]No, 60hz is the default. AC Power in the states runs at 60hz thats why our moniter's default is at 60hz. This is the optimal refresh rate. Not to mention, your eyes must be fscked up. I dont see flickering at 30 fps or 50fps. Hell, desired FPS should be a 1000![/b]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The human eye can only see somewhere around 30 frames per seconds...hence why anything above 60Hz on a CRT monitor (interlaced) is harder to detect (flickering). If you ran 2000 FPS, the human eye can't detect it (that I know of...and I've been wrong before! ).

LCD's don't flicker...and DVI does't even use refresh rate (does it?)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are wrong. You are talking about a TV. They show 30frames per second which when you interlace, it becomes 60fps. The thing in the decision to interlace was that 30fps progressive doesn't look very fluid. On the other hand, 60fps does. So there you have it. If you've ever seen a watch with ms counted. You can notice that the ms change, proof that you can at least see 100fps. I guess maybe double or triple the speed willl make the digits look solid. But who can tell.

Bottom line, CRTs are more flexible and much, much cheaper. Top of the line 19" CRT may range from 250-300 dollars. Top of the line LCD which has response time compareable to a CRT, 16ms, which needs to be 17", will cost 500-600 dollars. Exactly twice the price.

Okay, a interlaced tv is 60FPS? Yea, right! Oh lets find some 16 ms panels...

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-172-042&depa=1

Opps looks like your wrong! AGAIN!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Opps looks like your wrong! AGAIN!

Won't be the last time either. Not sure of the 100 FPS being viewable of not...and don't really care. As long as I don't get noticable ghosting and the LCD fits much nicer onto my limited desktop (also coolness factor), then I'm in!

P.S. I still love both my Hitachi and Dell LCD's (all 4 of them) ...they go nicely with the 18 PC's at my house.....even if I'm WRONG!!! :Q

 

[VIAN]

Depends what you consider, limiting. Maybe I don't want eyestrain? Maybe I don't have enough deskspace? Maybe I want to save energy, maybe I am a IT Tech at a large office building and want to limit power consumption.

What I meant by, "limiting you so much," was that LCD have more limitations.

Yes, but is 1024x768 and 1280 x 1024 a big difference? Is it really going to distort that much?

Yes it is, not even including the fact that you are trying to fit a 4:3 ratio inside a 5:4 ratio screen. Now it doesn't matter what you change be it resolution or refresh rate, the screen will look blurry.

Congrats VIAN! You can repeat what someone said! Show me proof that LCD response time and bandwidth speed (I dont know if that is the correct term). Now, show me evidence that vsync reduces framerate by 50% and tell me what certain occasions these are. What the hell? 85fps is flicker free! Uhuh, you got me there VIAN! What other information is it showing VIAN?

I did repeat, but I answered as I went along not reading the entire thread first, so these are my own words and of my own thought. Maybe my answer can provide a better explaination. Well, for the ping, I am just making up a number. 25ms ping is very low. You have to wait for information from the server which will take 25ms to reach you, then the computer will have to process all the information and the graphics information. That will also take some more ms, exactly how much is beyond my knowledge. Then you make a move that takes 25ms, so that you know where you are and where the oponent is. It can be anywhere from 100ms+ before the server gets information that it has to exchange and then the process repeats. You can lower your response time by having more fps so you can react quicker.
Say you give your graphics card a complicated seen and it needs 26ms to draw and you only have a 25ms which is 40Hz refresh rate. If you have Vsync on, which makes the graphics card wait for the Vsync to display the frame buffer, then that means you have now cut you frames per second in half since it can only draw one frame every 2 refreshes because of the limitations place on the card.
I don't see any flickering at 85Hz. More officially, in Europe, Idk about the US, flicker free is 100Hz.

Horray, VIAN can read and recite what other people said! Okay, they MAY have it scretched? Uhuh, okay...

Again, it was from my own head, and stated that all LCDs have this scaling problem, which is an artifact itself.

Okay, a interlaced tv is 60FPS? Yea, right!

OK, what was the point of this, you don't believe me?

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-172-042&depa=1

Opps looks like your wrong! AGAIN!

Ok, ok, 19" CRT - 200-300; 17" LCD 400-600. Still the same.
And I provide a link

 

[VIAN]

Won't be the last time either. Not sure of the 100 FPS being viewable of not...and don't really care. As long as I don't get noticable ghosting and the LCD fits much nicer onto my limited desktop (also coolness factor), then I'm in!

P.S. I still love both my Hitachi and Dell LCD's (all 4 of them) ...they go nicely with the 18 PC's at my house.....even if I'm WRONG!!!

Well, I'm not wrong. And go ahead and pay twice the price, just because it looks cool. It's like buying a Porshe with a Echo engine. Well, maybe not that bad. Maybe more like a Camry with an Echo engine, but anyway, you get the point.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: VIAN

Won't be the last time either. Not sure of the 100 FPS being viewable of not...and don't really care. As long as I don't get noticable ghosting and the LCD fits much nicer onto my limited desktop (also coolness factor), then I'm in!

P.S. I still love both my Hitachi and Dell LCD's (all 4 of them) ...they go nicely with the 18 PC's at my house.....even if I'm WRONG!!!

Well, I'm not wrong. And go ahead and pay twice the price, just because it looks cool. It's like buying a Porshe with a Echo engine. Well, maybe not that bad. Maybe more like a Camry with an Echo engine, but anyway, you get the point.

It also fits my desk(s) much better. And people do buy Porshe's, BMW's etc even though they don't need anything but basic transportation. Nice thing about being in America (and the rest of the free world), it's not wrong to buy it if you want it (legal items of course).

MY OPINION: If you can afford an LCD and want one, go to the local stores and play with them before buying. CRT's are cheaper, faster, and maybe a tad sharper (clearness). But they do consume more energy and definitely more desktop space. IN MY OPINION.

P.S. I'm not here to argue with anyone...I just wanted to give my opinion of LCD's vs CRT's. It's best to play with them and decide for yourself. Sort of like ATI vs NVidia! :Q

 

[BFG10K]

Are you saying bluriness and black borders are artifacts?

Yes.

Black Borders would just be the screen reszing itself

No, black borders are caused by unlit pixels as some LCDs do when they're requested to run resolutions lower than their native size.

Anyway, show me LCDs that put black borders.

How exactly am I supposed to do that?

Of course its possible that CRTs do this too.

Actually it isn't because CRTs will light all of their pixels regardless of the resolution.

I don't notice any excessive bluryness,

Then you're probably getting black borders.

Your leaving out other details.

No other details are important for gaming.

I haven't had any problems myself.

That doesn't really mean much.

Ben and BFG10k I like to understand how your doing this math conversion between the pixel reponse time and FPS. How are you working this out exactly?

1/response = framerate.

 

[Nebor]

While I do agree with Tabb, I simply don't care enough to argue about it. If you're willing to dismiss LCDs as unusable for gaming, or not worth the money, or whatever, that's fine with me. You don't deserve an LCD. Simple as that.

But what about the innocents who come here looking for advice you say? Who will shepard them to the warm backlight of the LCD?

Well, if they can't figure out that our resident CRT nazis are extremely one sided (I mean honestly, you haven't said a positive thing about LCDs) then they deserve to share their fate.

I know that CRTs are better for some things. But taking out money as an issue, LCDs win enough battles for them to be king of my desk(s).

 

[BenSkywalker]

You get everybody else BFG, let me get this one(I want at least a little fun )

Nebor-

If you're willing to dismiss LCDs as unusable for gaming, or not worth the money, or whatever, that's fine with me. You don't deserve an LCD. Simple as that.

LCDs are inferior to CRTs for gaming, that is pretty much the entirety of our line of discussion. In this forum particularly you are mainly dealing with people who will drop $1000 or so each year making sure their rigs can run games in an absolute optimal fashion, and that's before they start paying for games. LCDs instantly negate a good chunk of this spending due to their inferiority for the most demanding task most of us use our computers for. It's not about them being expensive, and speaking for myself I will pay extra for a CRT, cost isn't the issue. LCDs are inferior for gaming, period.

resident CRT nazis

Would you care to be called a LCD pedophile? If not, drop the nazi bullsh!t.

I know that CRTs are better for some things. But taking out money as an issue, LCDs win enough battles for them to be king of my desk(s).

And do you see BFG or myself arguing that LCDs aren't better at some things? We are pointing out that they are inferior, and very clearly so, at gaming. His initial post in this thread was, paraphrased, if you are a gamer don't buy a LCD. Now, if you happen to be a computer user who plays some games, that doesn't make you a gamer. My Mother plays some games on the computer, and even she knows the difference between that and being a gamer(she's a grandmother of seven, not exactly of the tech generation ). LCDs suck for gaming. CRTs suck if you want to save space. There are a lot of other problems that could be brought up about LCDs, dead pixels being a major one, less then optimal color ratios, some people dislike the cost of them. I have told many people to pick up LCDs that aren't gamers, for them it's a suitable alternative to CRTs, but not for a gamer.

If you want to dispute this, I'd gladly compare my 2141SB-BK to your 1760 for gaming.

 

[VIAN]

In the world where price/performance issue is very important: why would you even buy an LCD.

Would you buy a 9800 XT. I looks cool too and is smaller than even the 9700 Pro.

 

[Mem]

In the world where price/performance issue is very important: why would you even buy an LCD.

Would you buy a 9800 XT. I looks cool too and is smaller than even the 9700 Pro.

I`ll answer that,I want perfect geometry,I`m tired of repacking 19" CRTs that are either out of focus or that`ve bad geometry(believe me I`ve had a few in my time) also I game online everyday and have around 200 games in my bookcases, however I still spend more time out of gaming then in,probably 98% of users here probably spend more time doing other things with their PCs rather then mainly gaming time.

Price is not a factor, if I want something because I like it and it fits my needs then I`ll spend the money,it`s not a question of "cool" or" mine is better then yours",to be honest I don`t give a damn what other users have.I could make a list of why LCDs are good or bad, but I could also do the same for CRTs as well.

In the end it`s my money my choice and only thing that matters is what I want .I`m very happy with my LCD,I can play all my online games in native res and having no dead pixels in my case is a plus point as well,as for my non gaming well text is razor sharp in DVI mode .

I can finally take off my radiation bio-suit as well .

 

[VIAN]

I can finally take off my radiation bio-suit as well .

Just remembe to put on sunglasses, so you don't get blinded by the off-beat red.