LCD or CRT? Followed by LCD suggestions

[archcommus]

Check my Pics page and my Systems page to see my current monitors and what the setup looks like. Basically, I've realized lately that I do not really need or utilize dual monitors. I primarily use just the Philips for internet, gaming, almost everything. All I keep on the left is music and Trillian, which I could easily start putting back on the right again. And lately I've been very tempted to get an LCD, although I don't have much of a reason to. I really can't decide.

So many people say that LCDs look just as good if not better than flat screen CRTs nowadays, however I really don't want to get one and then find one that I'm one of the few people that still prefer the picture a CRT produces. I think the dual monitor setup looks cool, and I love my Philips 19" flat CRT, but I've been so tempted lately, I guess just because I like the idea of having a monitor that doesn't weigh 200 frickin' pounds and that is easier on my eyes, and maybe that will look cool on my desk and possibly produce a nicer picture.

On the other hand, I definitely couldn't afford two LCDs, nor would I want to have one LCD and one CRT. So, I'd be switching back to a single-display setup. Despite the coolness factor of an LCD, perhaps one monitor just wouldn't look as cool as two now. And as I said, maybe I'll really think my CRT's image is better, since some people still do believe that.

So what should I do? If I got an LCD I'd probably get the BenQ FP931 19" for $385 over at Newegg.

 

[Alptraum]

Well, if you really don't need two monitors I would say switch. Partly just for ergonomic reasons. For me personally your set up in the pics looks not so great. I say that for a few reasons. One being the placement of the mouse, though that could probably be fixed by just moving your tower. And then in the pic where your chair is angled for a straight on view to the monitor on the right it looks like your keyboard is at a weird angle to your chair. If you had a single monitor you could just orient your chair/kb/mouse to all point the same way. Of course both of those may be non issues (either do to it being fine for you, or just the fact that I am looking at pics and not sitting at the chair to see for myself) for you, but it looks like it would bug me.

Having said that I think what it comes down to is not so much a dual monitor question, but a CRT versus LCD question (since you can not get two LCDs, and you said you don't really need two monitors). I happen to be firmly on the LCD side.

I went from having a Mitsubishi 2040u and Sony G520p (22" and 21" respectively, though both having the same viewble size,and I slightly favored the Mitsu) to having a Samsung 192t (19" LCD) paired with the Mitsu. Without going into lots of detail on why I like the LCD more (search and you will find many posts on CRT versus LCD, including a number from me where I go into detail) I have now gotten rid of both the big monitors and am currently running the 192t with a Mitsubishi 900u (19" CRT) that I had on another system. And I just ordered another 19" LCD (Samsung 910t) to replace my last big CRT which I'll be selling to a friend.

Once I got one LCD I couldn't wait to get rid of the rest of my CRTs, and I am almost done. I still have a 15" Sony CRT I'll need to swap too, but I am not in a big rush for that one.

You may not like an LCD as much though. If I were you I would do this =

Order a nice LCD from a retailer that has a good return policy
If you like it, just keep it and get rid of your CRTs
If you don't like it return it for a CRT better then the ones you have now like a 22" Diamond Pro and then get rid of your CRTs.

Either way you upgrade and free up some space.

As far as LCDs brands go I plan on sticking with Samsung. Though I'll be looking at maybe Dell as well soon. I figure pretty soon I'll want both my LCDs to match so I'll either sell whichever one I like least and get another one to match what I have. Or get two totally new ones (Would probably be Samsung 193p's or Dell 2001fp's/2005fp's). Or go in a different direction and get one big LCD (Samsung 213t probably) and one non matching smaller one (like a 17", or maybe one of the 2001fp's/2005fp's since they have such great deals on them from time to time). Benq is generally not a name I associate with quality monitors, but thats just me and many people seem to like their LCDs.

 

[beatle]

I had a Dell 2001FP alongside my 2 CRTs. I really wasn't blown away by it overall, but I hear that I'm in the minority. My next purchase will be a 21-22" CRT. The contrast and vibrance just wasn't there for me.

 

[archcommus]

Thanks for the responses.

As I said, I don't really use my secondary all that much. But then again, I think, well it still has its advantages at times, so why PAY money to LOSE a monitor? (Since I'd be going from two CRTs to one LCD if I got one.)

Then the next question was, well if I like my 19" flat Philips now, why am I even thinking about this? The answer? Because it keeps popping up in my mind, tempting me. I'm trying to determine what about is making me think about it, but I can't pinpoint what. I've heard some say that LCDs even have better quality than the best CRTs, but considering I can't even imagine that, I'm not in a rush to see. So why do I want one? Just because it's light? That's not much of a reason is it?

And then we have people like beatle, who actually wants to go back to his CRT. I wonder if I may be one of those people and then, even if I could return the LCD, it'd be a big hassle, especially if I got it online.

As for my setup, the mouse really isn't too far away, at least for me and my dad. My chair is usually angled at the keyboard, and so my body/head is turned slightly (and I mean VERY slightly) to look straight at the primary monitor. It works for me.

As for the LCD issue, we'll see what other's opinions are.

 

[Alptraum]

Well, for me personally the quality difference favored the LCD by a large margin in just about everything. But , thats me and other people differ. By far the majority of people I know that have switched liked their LCD(s) more. Though Beatle is in the minority inmy experience that doesn't make his feelings any less valid though.

Have you played around with any quality LCDs? If not do you have a retail store or something nearby you could do that at? If so that may help answer some of your questions one way or another.

I believe Dell has a great return policy, 30 days no questions asked I believe (though I have no experience with this so you would want to check).

Even if you end up not wanting an LCD you might as well get a better CRT if you want to upgrade I loved my 21"+ ones before I went LCD.

As far as your setup goes it may just be the way it looks in pictures. While it looks like I wouldn't like it, without having been able to sit in it I have no idea.

Whatever you decide to do I hope you like it

 

[LED]

I have no problem running my LCD with 2 CRTs...I see no reason to go one way or the other...in fact I prefer the both of best worlds and so may you...

 

[archcommus]

I wouldn't see myself liking that route, because if I have a nice, flat LCD, I think a big, bulky CRT would just mess up the look. If that one monitor is small and sleek, both should be if there are going to be two in the first place, at least that's what I think.

I do have a Best Buy, Staples, and Office Max not too far from my home, however they don't have much of a selection. Check Best Buy's website, you'll see what I mean.

From what I've been hearing, it seems like the only people that say CRTs are better are those that have never used a quality LCD. And it seems like everyone who has switched to LCDs love them and would never want to go back to a CRT.

As I said, I've been trying to figure out why this is nagging me so much. I put it out of my mind, tell myself that it would offer no real advantage, but then I read about someone saying how they LOVE their LCD and they would NEVER want to go back to a CRT after having one, and it makes me want to try it. But as I said, besides being smaller, lighter, and easier on my eyes, what advantage would it offer me? My 19" flat Philips is as crystal clear and bright and rich in color as could be.

 

[Alptraum]

But as I said, besides being smaller, lighter, and easier on my eyes, what advantage would it offer me? My 19" flat Philips is as crystal clear and bright and rich in color as could be.

Well, I think thats totally wrong. Some of the areas LCDs totally surpass CRTs in is brightness and sharpness. My CRTs are nicer then yours and my LCD blows them away in those areas. However, my (Or your) CRTs have better color reproduction, can easily change resolutions, and have 0 ghosting. Those are the areas CRTs shine, but not in sharpness.

I got lucky (though its only part luck I suppose since I read tons of reviews before I got my LCD) that the color on my LCD is great (though not quite as accurate as my CRTs. I can only really notice that though when they have the same images on both side by side), I don't really notice any ghosting it does, and its resolution is fine for me and I never change it.

And while I think they are in a small minority there are people that have used quality LCDs and still prefer CRTs for one reason or another. Beatle would be one example, while not top of the line the LCD he had/has is generally considered quie nice.

Anyways, I know what you are going through. It was about 6 months between when I started thinking about getting an LCD and actually getting one.

 

[archcommus]

I don't even think that going to Best Buy or something would solve my issue, since they most likely do not have the LCDs that I'd want, and thus it really isn't showing me how the one I'd get would look.

 

[archcommus]

Bump.

Would like to hear more opinions on what you prefer and why.

 

[archcommus]

Okay, it's been decided that I need an LCD for college next fall, and since I want to upgrade in the summer, I'll want to get the LCD well before summer.

I might even buy one now as long as the warranty's good enough.

I'm still really considering the BenQ FP931. It can be had for under $400 and I have not read a bad comment or review on it yet.

 

[Porter21]

i would buy a nice lcd. i just got one or christmas and love it.

 

[akira34]

I have a Samsung 910T and LOVE it... I had a ViewSonic VG175 (also a LCD) that I was using along with it (a two headed monster) until I realized how little I really used the older 17.5" LCD. The Samsung is leaps and bounds ahead of other LCD's in many ways. First off, the contrast ratio. At 1000:1 the Samsung beats the rest with room to spare. My old ViewSonic had a brightness very close to the Samsung (within 10 nits I believe) but the Samsung was at least twice as bright (where the contrast ratio comes into play). White pages are VERY white on the Samsung, but were not on the ViewSonic.

From what I've heard, read, and researched, BenQ is a CHEAP brand. At $400, that's not all that much less than you can get the 910T for. At $459 for the black model or $449 for the silver model you really can't go wrong. That's only $50-$60 more than the benq one your thinking of.

I like my 910T so much that I purchased a 15" LCD for a family member. If I wasn't confident in it's quality, there's no way I would have done that (you can imagine the amount of crap I'd catch if it wasn't a great display).

Something else to keep in mind... The 910T is only about 16.5" across (including the bezel/cabinet) so it will probably take up as much, if not less, space than your current CRT's do. With wall and desk mount VESA arm/mount options, you can have them hover over your desk and give you even more space back. Also, read the customer reviews about the 910T on newegg... It's got an average rating of 5 (of 5) stars there (only saw one 4 star rating, ALL others are 5 stars).

I'd get the 910T again, even if it was close to (or over) $600... THAT's how much I think of it.

 

[archcommus]

BenQ is CHEAP in price but cheap in quality? From what I've read no. So with a three-year warranty and good reviews can you really go wrong?

The 910T does seem excellent. My only doubt would be the 25ms response time. Of course I've never gamed on any LCD at all, but everyone tells me to not settle for anything more than 16ms. What's your input on that?

 

[akira34]

I've played games on the 910T and I have NO problems with it. I also have every game set for the maximum resolution of the display (1280x1024) and I'm feeding it with a good card (6800GT noted in my sig).

I hope you noted that the contrast ration on the benq LCD is only 450:1 where the Samsung is 1000:1. Even at the same brightness, the 910T is going to wipe the floor with the benq unit. For only ~$100 difference (or less, since mail-in rebates BLOW so don't even factor that into the cost) I'd get the Samsung in a heartbeat (or less).

Something else to note. The 910T can have two different systems connected to it, and you can toggle between them with the onscreen controls. Can the benq model do that?? There's no mention of it on either their site or on newegg. Also note that the benq has just a 130/130 viewing angle where the Samsung has a 170/170 viewing angle. Also, I just read some product literature on both displays (thanks to my main distributor) and the benq has NO mention of allowing two systems or dual input. Where as the Samsung is even listed as a "dual input" display...

The above listed items are just some of the reasons the benq IS a cheaper (both in price and made) display compared to the Samsung.

 

[archcommus]

Well I have absolutely no care of being able to hook up two systems to my monitor simultaneously, so that's not really a concern.

What does contrast ratio affect visually? What improvements will I see with 1000:1 versus 450:1?

I will consider what you have said, and it does seem like a very nice monitor. But I can assure you, even if it appears to game fine, that many people on the boards here and elsewhere will recommend me not to get it simply because of the response time. So of course, that leaves me in a position of whose opinion to judge more highly.

Lol the typical case of one who's asking for opinions.

 

[Juno]

Go with LCD if you want some space on your desk.

 

[akira34]

How about this... Go to a store that has the same models, or ones with the same spec's, on display and COMPARE THEM...

Oh, and don't come crying to us (or here) when you're disappointed with the cheap benq display with it's short viewing angle and low contrast ratio. As long as you have at least a decent video card I don't see any problem with getting the 910T. If you have some crappy, cheap, or old video card, then you'll have issues no matter which LCD you pick up.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: jewno
Go with LCD if you want some space on your desk.

That has been decided long ago.

akira34, don't get me wrong, I'm not ignoring what you said. I have not decided to go with any monitor yet. I realize what you're saying about the BenQ. All I'm asking is what visual difference will a better contrast ratio make, and I was stating that other people will likely disagree about the response time issue. Just saying that everyone will say something different about it, so personally I can't be sure if gaming would be fine on a 25 ms LCD or not until I do it myself.

 

[archcommus]

Also, I was reading over the recent LCD guide here an Anandtech. They seem to think that 25 ms is most likely no problem for gaming. However, they also say to not trust those contrast ratio numbers too highly.

In their testing, the FP931 didn't do too bad. The best was the 2001FP, but of course that's pretty hefty in price. But in the end they ended up recommending the cheaper ViewSonic!

Hmm.

And I would love to compare these monitors and buy one at an actual retail store, but have you looked at Best Buy's website lately? The selection sucks, and what they have in the store usually pretty accurately reflects what they have online.

 

[akira34]

I've been using computers for years (probably for more years than many people here have been alive) and there are a few brands that I've come to know and trust.

ViewSonic
Plextor
LaCie
AMD
Seagate
Western Digital
MSI
Samsung <- new addition

For displays, I've seen NEC and Sony models crap out long before ViewSonic ones do. My first LCD was a ViewSonic, and it was fine for it's day. BUT, with the new Samsung I have (the ViewSonic had a 250-260 brightness and a 400:1 contrast) it beat the crap out of the ViewSonic. The brightness levels were close, if not identical, just the contrast was different. The QUALITY of the image on screen was more than 2x better on the Samsung compared to the ViewSonic. The refresh rate on the Samsung is also better than on the ViewSonic. I've played games on both, and never had any issues caused by the screen (most of the time it was either the video card needed replacing/updating or the helper codes caused the issues).

Even if Samsung's claims are 5-10% off, they STILL beat the crap out of the benq in other areas (including contrast).

BTW, I have tried other brands for products, but if they don't hold up they get dumped. I can't make a recommendation to a customer for them to purchase a make and model of something and not have full confidence that it WILL perform as expected and last beyond it's warranty period by at least a repectable period (items with 3 year warranties should last at least 4-5 without issue). Especially when they often mention another brand that's cheaper (without sales or specials) but I know isn't even close to the same quality. Ultimately, it's their choice, but I let them know what I think, and know (from experience) about the products I recommend. If they get the cheaper item, and it fails fast, they get no sympathy from me. Especially when it fails outside of warranty and they now need to replace it and end up spending more than they would have if they had just gone with the recommended item.

AS I've said... Get the one you want, but you won't get ANY sympathy/empathy from me if you get the benq model and it's crap. Especially compared to the Samsung and/or ViewSonic products.

 

[archcommus]

I will definitely go with the Samsung as long as I can assure myself that the response time is okay. As I said, I've never gamed on any LCD, but so many people have told me to accept no higher than 16.

 

[akira34]

Until very recently, there was nothing better than 25.

Those people are probably the same ones that want higher refresh rates on CRT's. I've gamed at 60-75 on a CRT before and it was no worse than at a higher refresh rate. If anything, the higher rate gave more artifacts than the lower one, that the display liked better.

For the LCD, IF you keep it at the max/native resolution you'll be fine. Go below that and the display looks worse (at least to those that care). Go above that (you'll have to keep the drivers for the display off your system) and it could also degrade. I've not gone above, since I'm very happy with the max/native settings on my Samsung.

 

[archcommus]

Well, here's my thread about this over at PCPer. A few raves about the FP931, along with rants about 25 ms response time. I'll either have to believe one person over another or go try a game at Best Buy!

 

[archcommus]

You know why I think you must be right about 25 ms being perfectly fine for gaming? Because the people who have 25 ms displays say it's fine, and all the people who tell me NOT to get one are people who have read they're bad elsewhere but who have not actually used one.