LCD or CRT? which do you prefer for gaming

[konakona]

i must be some kind of genetic oddball case, never had whats so called 'eyestrain' induced by the monitor yet i spend 18+ hours in front of the monitor daily. my eyevision hasnt degraded for a half decade if that means anything to each his own, but i really dont see any merit of going LCD except the coolness factor. texts look very sharp on my CRT, more than good enough i must say, and colors are undoubtedely richer and better looking (to my eyes anyway)

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: VanillaH
i must be some kind of genetic oddball case, never had whats so called 'eyestrain' induced by the monitor yet i spend 18+ hours in front of the monitor daily. my eyevision hasnt degraded for a half decade if that means anything to each his own, but i really dont see any merit of going LCD except the coolness factor. texts look very sharp on my CRT, more than good enough i must say, and colors are undoubtedely richer and better looking (to my eyes anyway)

Have you used an LCD for an extended period of time before?

But maybe you are the oddball... very rarely is anything 100% in this world, and that includes monitors and it's effect on people. So yes, you could be one of the rare individuals who actually have better experience with CRTs than LCDs... but i would bet you just haven't used an LCD for any extended period of time before.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: glugglug
CRT is better at any pricepoint (or even if you allow up to quadruple the price for the LCD) for ALL APPLICATIONS, not just gaming.

Sure, the 30" Apple 2560x1600 $3000 LCD beats a $200 CRT.... but do you ever see anyone making a "decision" between those?

For most applications you can get a sub-$200 CRT that is better than a $1000 LCD.

Word processing, general usage.... Most people are best suited with an LCD. Main reason is eye strain caused by CRTs, no matter what their refresh rate. Plus the space\power\heat saved.

At the price of any LCD for a given native resolution, you can get a CRT that does that same resolution above 120Hz, and bigger than the LCD - no eyestrain.

I have seen pixel jitter even on Eizo flat panels -- generally doesn't occur at all on a CRT unless your video cart RAMDAC is overclocked. Some LCDs DO FLICKER BTW, just the slow response times reduce this.

I think too many people judge CRTs nowadays based on the pieces of crap that come bundled with a lot of PCs. You can do better than the typical bundled CRT for under $100 -- not exactly a price range where CRT vs. LCD is an issue.

 

[konakona]

well i spend many hours daily at the student center (that 18+ hours i quoted includes that time btw ) behind dell 1800FPs which are regarded quite nice IIRC. they are ok, but not any better in terms of eyestrain than my vx1120, if not worse. and obviously there is no comparison when it comes to the colors. no, i dont use photoshop or any of editing work, just watching video all the time

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: glugglug
At the price of any LCD for a given native resolution, you can get a CRT that does that same resolution above 120Hz, and bigger than the LCD - no eyestrain.

I have seen pixel jitter even on Eizo flat panels -- generally doesn't occur at all on a CRT unless your video cart RAMDAC is overclocked. Some LCDs DO FLICKER BTW, just the slow response times reduce this.

I think too many people judge CRTs nowadays based on the pieces of crap that come bundled with a lot of PCs. You can do better than the typical bundled CRT for under $100 -- not exactly a price range where CRT vs. LCD is an issue.

Eye strain occurs regardless of refresh rate. Your vision degrades due to the constantly flickering and moving projection of a CRT. Your eye is constantly going in and out of focus trying to lock onto the projected images, which it can't do. Some people appear to be immune to this, but look at the vast majority of IT and related people who wear vision correction, and tell me it's not true.

Money saved isn't worth eyesight.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: glugglug
CRT is better at any pricepoint (or even if you allow up to quadruple the price for the LCD) for ALL APPLICATIONS, not just gaming.

Sure, the 30" Apple 2560x1600 $3000 LCD beats a $200 CRT.... but do you ever see anyone making a "decision" between those?

For most applications you can get a sub-$200 CRT that is better than a $1000 LCD.

Word processing, general usage.... Most people are best suited with an LCD. Main reason is eye strain caused by CRTs, no matter what their refresh rate. Plus the space\power\heat saved.

At the price of any LCD for a given native resolution, you can get a CRT that does that same resolution above 120Hz, and bigger than the LCD - no eyestrain.

I have seen pixel jitter even on Eizo flat panels -- generally doesn't occur at all on a CRT unless your video cart RAMDAC is overclocked. Some LCDs DO FLICKER BTW, just the slow response times reduce this.

I think too many people judge CRTs nowadays based on the pieces of crap that come bundled with a lot of PCs. You can do better than the typical bundled CRT for under $100 -- not exactly a price range where CRT vs. LCD is an issue.

well they also judge their several year old pos faded crt running at default 60hz against lcd

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Your eye is constantly going in and out of focus trying to lock onto the projected images, which it can't do. Some people appear to be immune to this, but look at the vast majority of IT and related people who wear vision correction, and tell me it's not true.

Money saved isn't worth eyesight.

The majority of ALL people in developed countries wear vision correction, regardless of whether they are in IT or not. On an evolutionary scale, people read a lot more today than they have in the past, or the vision system was designed for. All the constant focusing on close-up items, whether they be computer screens, magazines, books, or anything else, reduce the ability to focus on more distant items (because it isn't used so much), resulting in the majority of the population being nearsighted. People who read a lot of books tend to need vision correction more so than those looking at a computer screen all day.

I am sitting in front of a CRT in 1920x1440 probably more than 12 hours a day and my prescription hasn't changed in 23 years. And macular degeneration runs in the family.

 

[Pandamonium]

I voted for CRT mainly because I can still pick out motion blur on every LCD to date. (Even my beloved 2001FP)

But the fact of the matter is that for everything else, I prefer the LCD because of its sharpness and impeccable geometry. Since I no longer consider myself a "hardcore" gamer, I'm pretty sure I'll dump my CRT in favor of an LCD.

FWIW, for ~8 months out of the year, I'm restricted to LCD only because I'm on campus, where deskspace is a luxury. But even if I had my own apartment, I'd still stick to an LCD just because I find them much more versatile in terms of usage preference.

 

[Nebor]

There are Ford people and there are Chevy people.

Fortunately, in this analogy, in about 5 or 10 years, they won't make Chevy's anymore.

 

[DarkKnight]

I like LCds better because theres no eye strain and everything is brighter. Also, on the lcd's native resolution, everything looks sharper on the lcd. But CRTs have better color and you can play at lower resolutions without things getting blurry. After switching from CRT to LCD, I have to say overall i prefer the lcd.

 

[StraightPipe]

Originally posted by: AMDHardcoreFan
CRT all the way.

Tried an LCD for gaming and my Trinitron 21" CRT was way better

I've got the 19" Dell Ultra Sharp and a 21" Trinitron.

Both work great (for gaming/movies/typing)

I wouldnt trade my trinitron for anything (except a bigger one).

but the real considerations you should be looking at are space and money.

if you dont have space go LCD, if you dont have money, go CRT

if you have both... I'd buy CRT cuz they last longer, and dont get dead pixels.

but then again LCD's are trendy (if you need to feel cool)


I reccomend CRT, but I dont know your (space/money) needs.
Picture will be great on either if you get a quality monitor, so dont go too cheap. find a good monitor, then find a good deal.

 

[mAsTAd]

I would take crt.

 

[glugglug]

On the space concern (the one real advantage of LCDs, well, that and weight): CRT + bigger desk is still cheaper than LCD. If I bring my 19" CRT down to 19" LCD resolution (1280x1024@60Hz) it consumes only 78W, not much more than an LCD. And it happens to be pretty damn bright too.

 

[konakona]

hmmm on a side note, i never understood why desk space mattered either. do most people like putting all kinda stuff including refirigirator on top of their desks? all i have on top of my desk are a monitor, pc case, cd rack, speaker control unit, tv tuner, mouse/keyboard and a headphone amp. they all fit nice and i dont have ergonomical issues. what are some tangible real-world benefits of taking up less space? i have a pretty tiny desk btw.

 

[sandorski]

Aperture Grille CRT Trinitron or Diamondtron based.

 

[Bassyhead]

i prefer CRTs for gaming

 

[caz67]

LCD is my choice.

 

[Geomagick]

I voted CRT which is my preference for gaming.

However for everything else an LCD is much better, certainly for me.

We have just had LCD's put in at work and the improvement on the old CRT's is huge.

Must admit I use an LCD at home for space reasons and it is still really good for gaming but I still preferred my old Sony 19" for a big fragfest.

 

[So]

LCD (for convenient moving back & forth to college)

 

[Gurck]

CRT is my preference for everything because of price and since footprint and transportability aren't issues for me.

 

[jacktesterson]

i run my monitor at 1280*1024 @ 100 Hz