Have LCDs caught up with CRTs yet for gamers?

[Andvari]

Last I checked on this subject was about a year ago, and the general consensus seemed to be that CRTs were better for gaming than LCDs. Now a year later, I figure technology might have changed things and am in the market for a new monitor.

I was wondering if I should be leaning towards CRT or LCD. Suggestions/recommendations and info will be appreciated.

 

[Edward Lee]

The short and simple... No..

 

[Alptraum]

As far as I am concerned they caught up and surpassed CRTs last year

A little over a year ago I got my first LCD (Samsung 192t) while I still had a Mitsu Diamond Pro 2040u and a Sony G520p. Now both of those are gone and my main remaining CRT (19" Diamond Pro) will be going soon as I get another LCD. For more specific info you can search for recent threads about LCDs. I and many others have written a number of them.

 

[Rip the Jacker]

The really expensive ones have almost caught up. But I doubt they will ever compared to the best crts.

 

[svi]

Kind of. Streaking and ghosting simply aren't issues on good LCDs, but you still have to deal with image quality degradation when a game (or anything, really) isn't run at the LCD's native resolution. There's also color reproduction, but LCDs are close enough these days that I doubt that'll bother you unless you do desktop publishing for a living.

Keep in mind that you'll get people on both sides of the fence who will say all sorts of things. Weight opinions as you see fit, and compare good LCDs and CRTs in person if you can. FWIW, I use both LCDs and CRTs regularly, and the only thing that really bothers me about LCDs is the resolution thing. The only thing that really bothers me about CRTs is sheer bulk, of course.

 

[Edward Lee]

I love the picture quality of CRTs. Hate the Bulk.
I love the size of LCD, Hate the picture quality.
The only LCD I saw I liked was the Apple 33". You can get that for about the price I paid for my house. j/k

 

[Maverick2002]

LCDs are the way to go. Color reproduction is getting better and ghosting is gone. The new 8ms monitors are a testament to that.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Some thoughts that I posted in a similar thread in OT:

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: BD2003
Ive used some 16ms panels, and while theyre *good enough* for games, they are still far off from CRT quality. If saving a little space on your desk is worth it, then by all means go for it, but every time I try an LCD, no matter how fast and newfangled it is, it still doesnt even close to how good my average CRT looks for games.

I'm basically of the same opinion, but I've actually just ordered an LCD for myself...I'd tried a $600 CRT before (this past week), but in addition to it weighing 65lbs and my living on the fourth floor of a dorm, it just wasn't as clear/crisp as an LCD at the higher resolutions that I wanted to use it at (not to mention some geometry/convergence problems). It seems that neither my video card nor a friend's 6800 could really drive it like it was meant to over analog, so what's the point? While I still think that even everyone's favorite 2001FP (16ms) exhibits ghosting problems, it just isn't practical for me to be moving around a huge CRT often (I go to LAN parties), especially if the picture quality does not make it worth the hassle.

Edit: The LCD I just ordered is the Dell 2005FPW...seems to basically be the best thing out there right now, so I'll have to settle for it. At least I won't pull a dozen muscles trying to move it.

(And I'll probably end up buying another monitor in a year anyway when something new and better comes around, that can match the refresh/frame rates of CRT's....)

 

[coejus]

I have never experienced ghosting on my 25ms monitor.

That said, a good larger CRT is going to be cheaper than a good larger LCD.

 

[walkure]

Any of those crazy $150 off coupons around for Dell LCD's? You could score a 2001fp for $450 shipped I think. I really don't want to spend more than $400 for a new monitor, but if I'm getting the "top of the line" for just a bit more, maybe I'd do it...

 

[Farmer]

Well, there are 12ms 17" and 19" LCDs.

 

[jterrell]

Originally posted by: Andvari
Last I checked on this subject was about a year ago, and the general consensus seemed to be that CRTs were better for gaming than LCDs. Now a year later, I figure technology might have changed things and am in the market for a new monitor.

I was wondering if I should be leaning towards CRT or LCD. Suggestions/recommendations and info will be appreciated.

Yes.
If you go out to a Frys or wherever and check out the top of the line Samsung or Sony widescreen 23' LCDs you will cry tears of unadulterated gaming joy, then they ring the friggin thing up and those tears are for another reason.

I can't see using a CRT anymore except for test bed purposes or because you have a really good one in the exact spot you want it. Its just not worth breaking a back over. LCD's arte actually cheap enough to ship and you can find a great deal on a Dell, Samsung or Sony if you shop on the net for a few months.

You will need to spend about 300 bucks for a very good gaming LCD but you had to spend that much on CRTs 4 or 5 years ago anyway.

 

[bjc112]

If you go out to a Frys or wherever and check out the top of the line Samsung or Sony widescreen 23' LCDs you will cry tears of unadulterated gaming joy, then they ring the friggin thing up and those tears are for another reason.

This 2005fp is AWESOME for gaming.. Aside from the hit and miss games that don't support WS AT ALL, it is wonderful. Better than my e540 21" Sony.


If you can afford it, get a LCD.

The only LCD I saw I liked was the Apple 33". You can get that for about the price I paid for my house. j/k

30"

I don't know what other LCD's you saw, but i hooked this Dell next to the 20" Apple Display and it looked as good or better. On a DVI connection the image quality is stunning.

I don't think there is a CRT I would take over my current screen.

Except maybe the 22" NEC.

 

[Edward Lee]

All you LCD fans can't really be serious. LCD's are no where near the picture quality of a top of the line CRT.
This is not a flame, but in terms of overall picture quality there is a night and day difference between CRT and LCD.

Actually, let me restate what I meant. There is a Dusk and Day difference. LCD have gotten better, but even the great LCD's are still not up to par with the good CRT's

 

[Alptraum]

Originally posted by: Edward Lee
All you LCD fans can't really be serious. LCD's are no where near the picture quality of a top of the line CRT.
This is not a flame, but in terms of overall picture quality there is a night and day difference between CRT and LCD.

Well, we will just have to disagree on that. Having owned multiple nice CRTs (The Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2040u and Sony G520p among them) over the years I can tell you for sure that my 192t looks better. And I have spent lots of time with all of them.

 

[Edward Lee]

I have a Viewsonic A90f and a Samsung 912N. Both are good monitors. Just looking at the picture quality and comparing them side by side. I CANNOT honestly say the Samsung is near as good. The picture quality of my Viewsonic is crisp clean and clear compared to the LCD and the shading is much more uniform. The
912N is a highly rated LCD near tops in picture quality.

 

[Farmer]

Edward Lee:

Yes, if you use a DVI connection with the 912N's panel, you will get very nice picture quality, well, better picture quality. Yes, the DVI connection does make a huge difference.

 

[Mr P]

I'll be honest, I can notice the response difference between a typical CRT and my 193P. But it honestly doesn't bother me a bit. And the thing about switching to LCD is that once you adjust to LCD there's no going back to CRT, unless you want a severe migrane. Well, at least in my case...

 

[Rami7007]

im on the sony SDM-74 17" LCD... I LOVE IT... its got a 16ms refresh rate... i dont get any ghosting... I used to have a 17" CRT and i just think the quality is much better on LCD (depends on the one you get, some are crap)... AND IT DOESNT WEIGH 50 $)$%ing pounds


But i must agree with svi that for games you have to run at native resolutions with LCD... Most 19" and 17" have a native res of 1280x1024... so you need a pretty decent PC to run FPS games on it... Im building a pc and i bought my monitor early so i could use it on this PC before i get my new one built... I tried playing cs source and because this PC is so bad i have to run it in 800x600 to get 30 fps and it looked really crappy... it was better on my old CRT...

bottom line LCD's are great but if your going to game you should have a decent gaming PC

 

[w00t]

overal perfomrance no, but i here they are good enough no ghosting and quality good. i am still iffy about it

 

[Andvari]

Ok, let's say I order the Dell 2001FP LCD. It's max resolution is 1600x1200. Is that also the native resolution? What would happen if I were to play Stracraft on it? A game that is only in 640x480.

And as someone else mentioned earlier, if I'm forced to play games in higher reoslutions, will my computer be adequate (see sig for specs)?

The primary game I play is World of Warcraft. I don't think it has a 1600x1200 option either. I think the max is 1280x1024. Unless that's what my video card is assuming my dinosaur of a monitor can handle at max.

Oh, and does the monitor come with a DVI cable? If not, how much does that cost? I'm assuming my video card even supports that.

 

[Regs]

LCD's were made for office use, plain and simple.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Andvari
Ok, let's say I order the Dell 2001FP LCD. It's max resolution is 1600x1200. Is that also the native resolution? What would happen if I were to play Stracraft on it? A game that is only in 640x480.

And as someone else mentioned earlier, if I'm forced to play games in higher reoslutions, will my computer be adequate (see sig for specs)?

The primary game I play is World of Warcraft. I don't think it has a 1600x1200 option either. I think the max is 1280x1024. Unless that's what my video card is assuming my dinosaur of a monitor can handle at max.

Oh, and does the monitor come with a DVI cable? If not, how much does that cost? I'm assuming my video card even supports that.

1) Max resolution == native resolution
2) You can usually tell your video drivers (or the monitor itself) to either scale the 640x480 image to fullscreen, or have it mapped to the corresponding number of pixels (in the center of the screen). Either way, the 2001FP is actually pretty impressive for an LCD as far as scaling. Obviously non-native resolutions will not be as clear as 1600x1200 (except in theory for 800x600), but it's not bad either.
3) Your computer will probably be able to play some games at 1600x1200 (with maybe less than max details), but newer games (FarCry, HL2, Doom 3) would probably bitchslap your video card at that resolution.
4) Yes, the monitor comes with a DVI cable, and yes your 9800 Pro should have a DVI port.

Hope this helps.

 

[imported_Reck]

Sure LCDs would be good if you didn't have to deal with the backlites washing out the image and the image degradation of not running at native resolution. I do not think those things will ever be fixed, it's a pretty limited technology. i did hear a little rumor though that the next generation of lcds won't need backlites. With ultra slim crts with image quality better than older crts just around the corner lcds will be on the way out I'd guess.

 

[Andvari]

^ That helps a lot, thanks!

I'll be able to afford a new graphics card soon anyway, so if 1600x1200 is too much for WoW, or if I'm not happy with the image quality scaled down to a resolution I CAN use, then I'll get a new vid card some day in the near future.

What about my processor? It's still good to go right?

Sorry to get off-topic heh. I think I'll be ordering that 2001FP today.