• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

LCD Vs. CRT

I

ikickpigeons

Senior member
Hey everyone im planning on building my new computer very soon and im just making sure im getting the best for my money. What im asking is if i nice above average CRT has just has as good IQ as a average LCD. This is the CRT that im planning on buying.
CRT:Newegg
The reason why is because im at my sister's apartment and i se how nice and crisp her laptop LCD is. Im turning into a hardcore gamer now and im trying to learn. Thanks in advance everyone.
 
If you're going to buy an LCD first go and play around with LCD's at 25ms, 20ms, 16ms, 14ms, and 12ms. You need to see which is right for you because everybody detects ghosting at different levels. My eyes seem to be sensitive to motion and streaking/ghosting so I ordered a 710T from Samsung which has a nice 12ms response time.

Just make sure you're comfortable with the level of streaking/ghosting and you should be fine. Typically you'll want 250nits and a 500:1 contrast ratio (or higher) as well as the best color reproduction abilities you can find. Make sure to pay attention to the specs and above all make sure that you like it by testing it or an equivalent out first.
 
CRT is actually better in some ways, since you can change the resolution and not have it look like crap.

If your game won't run well at the native resolution of the LCD, it's not going to look that great.
 
CRT monitors have better image quality in my opinion if you get a nice one 😀 I'm using a 17inch Sony Trinitron and it looks great, much better than your average crt. For gaming a CRT wins due to high refresh rates, I'll take 120Hz at 1024 over 75Hz anyday. Save some money if you don't need the space and go crt.
 
how much would it cost to get an LCD at native resolution of like 1600x1200? probably a lot of money... So i guess its better to have a CRT that runs at a high resolution right?
 
Don't forget, you can play games at lower resolutions without it looking like crap if you turn off the scaling. Only problem with this is you're not using you're whole screen (black bars).
 
Originally posted by: SpitFire
CRT monitors have better image quality in my opinion if you get a nice one 😀 I'm using a 17inch Sony Trinitron and it looks great, much better than your average crt. For gaming a CRT wins due to high refresh rates, I'll take 120Hz at 1024 over 75Hz anyday. Save some money if you don't need the space and go crt.
Click to expand...

The 60-75hz refresh rate of LCDs is not comparable to that of CRTs. LCD refresh rates do not work the same.

You can get 1600x1200 20" viewable LCDs for around $750 from dell.
 
I honestly think that CRTs have better image quality. I used an LCD for about half a year and switched back to CRT. The LCD's brightness was painful, colors sucked, and the viewing angle issue is annoying sometimes. Very bad for playing 2 player games, though most people won't do that.
 
The CRT that i posted, is that a good one? I chose it because it has a high native res cuz im planning on planning on buying a next gen card. One last thing is does an LCD have a better 2D IQ, because i now belive that a CRT has better 3D IQ with games and such. Thanks so much for the replies fellows.
 
Get a CRT, they have print accurate colours, mega refresh rates, provide you with oral sex, cook breakfast and are paper thin.

My thinking is, anyone that comes here and asks what to get deserves whatever's recommended. They don't want to do the research themselves, they can just deal with whatever they end up with.

I'm becoming increasingly bitter by the day.
 
Gamer: CRT.
General computing use and browsing: LCD.

You have to decide what's more important. Use both if you have the means and you get best of both worlds.
 
I've had problems with CRTs and electrical interference from microwave ovens and air-conditioners - the screen would rapid shake a fraction of a mm, but it was VERY noticable. I switched to LCD w/ DVI and have no problems. If you get LCD, be sure to use always use DVI, not analog.
 
Or you could just get a good 17", 1280x1204, 24-bit, >25ms and DVI LCD Monitor and not look at something that gives you eyestrain..... for about $400.... and it will play games without any noticable GHOSTING!
 
LCD gaming IQ looks better IMO. although, without low response time to back it up, it's not so good. 12ms 172X was what I splurged on after trying a BenQ 737S-D with 16ms response time.
 
nebor you do look bitter when you come in and say something about every CRT vs LCD debate. it really doesnt add up cuz you always say you really dont give a damn; if i was ranting in every single thread i would be honest to admit i do care.
 
LCD is good if you are doing a lot of productivity work - word processing, e-mail, etc. The perfect geometry of LCD is ideal for CAD and other design programs - no bendy lines, or circles that look like ellipses. No mis-convergence or misfocussing so lines don't fray or text get blurred at the corners. No screen flicker, which can cause eye strain.

The older LCDs had slow response rate, so in games you may find 'ghosting'. Faster response times have helped greatly. Currently, the state-of-the-art is a 16ms response time. Beware of manufacturers that quote 14 or 12 ms (these are usually measured by a different method and are roughly equivalent to 16-20 ms when measured conventionally).

A CRT can display infinite colours and is limited by your graphics card. Most cards can produce 16.7 Million colours, but some specialist cards (matrox) can produce over 1 billion. LCDs have a specific number of colours - older models could only display 260,000 colours. Most new models are capable of 16.1 million with a few offering the full 16.7 million. Colour accuracy is also better on CRT - so if you are doing photo work you are probably best off using a CRT.

As my CRT has now fixed itself I don't need a new monitor - but I was looking at 2 potential replacements: ViewSonic P95F, and Iiyama VM Pro 454. CRTs don't come much better than these.
 
I still prefer CRTs - no dead pixels, no ghosting, multiple resolutions, sharper image.


LCDs are a step in the right direction, but the technology needs to be refined more.
 
The ONLY way for you to reliabley make this decision for yourself is to try it yourself. Nothing here anyone says matters. You need to look at it.
 
**For the same price point**, a CRT-based monitor will be much higher quality than an LCD-based. Refresh rates, color, variable resolution, brightness.... Everything except weight and size.
 
I was just wondering if there was a big difference inbetween them. Im not a very picky person who is a lil bitch that complains about a one dead pixel or anything stupid. but i am picky about spending my money when i work hard for it. Im also becoming a big gamer and as ive said earlier i am planning on have a 6800 ultra oc in it. Thanks everyone for repling and helping me except for Nebor.
 
Originally posted by: farmerjoe09
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?DEPA=0&description=24-001-119&ATT=Monitors+CRT&CMP=OTC-pr1c3grabb3r
i like this crt better then the one you have listed check it out
Click to expand...


The Viewsonic listed by OP is better monitor than the Samsung 955DF. That Samsung is barely usable even at 1280x1024 @ 75hz. Forget about 1600x1200 with that Samsung unless you like staring at 60hz screen. Samsung 955DF is nice budget monitor and excellent for running 1152x864 max but really nothing more than that. The Viewsonic can easily do 1600x1200 @ 85hz and you shouldn't have any problem gaming at that res .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top