LCD's: Are they as good as they're made out to be?

[Athlon4all]

I may be building a PC in the next month or so for someone, and he wants (and has the money) for an LCD Monitor. Now, I have never really used LCD monitors, and to be truthful, after reading Tom's Hardware's comparision of LCD and CRT in the 1st LCD roundup, I am concerned about LCD's lower contrast, poorer image quality, response time (are the last 2 the same thing?), and dead pixels. And to be frank, other than the decrease in size, I cannot see any reason to get an LCD monitor. So can someone who's used LCD and CRT give me some insight? This guy is a gamer. Also, could you give me a recommendation on a good 17" LCD montior prefferably around $600 and at Buy.com, GoggleGear or Newegg? Thanks guys!

 

[JellyBaby]

<< LCD's lower contrast, poorer image quality, response time >>

You forgot to mention LCDs have fixed resolutions and can't display anywhere near the amount of colors a shadow mask or AG tube can put out. Cost is still a concern for the best LCDs, too.

Basically, if you (or he) does any gaming or animation work, avoid LCDs.

 

[Athlon4all]

Yea, that too on the resolution. Anyone else?

 

[dullard]

If you happen to have games that run best at your LCD's native resolution, then you will get crisp looking pictures with the LCD - slightly better than the CRT quality. They weigh less, use less power, run cooler, and give off a "cool" image in many people's minds. I'm ordering a bunch of LCDs for my department's new computer lab. This is so they can be moved to avoid blocking view to the front of the room. So in some rare cases, the smaller depth is useful.

However the problems far outweigh the benefits. These include:
1) Crappy text if your video card/CPU cannot play your game at native resolution (or if the game doesn't give that resolution option).
2) Lower viewing angle.
3) Animation blur.
4) Darker images.
5) Far greater failure rates in my experience (unless you were dumb and put the CRT in a cabinet with no chance of getting rid of the excess heat). The number of LCD's my friend and family has gone through is astonishing. They just keep failing.
6) Smaller screen area when compared to CRT of same price.

So far, it is CRT for me. $600 will get you a good 21" CRT or a high quality 19" CRT. I just don't see enough benefit for personal use.

 

[majewski9]

I have only owned CRT's and probaly always own a CRT monitor. LCD's have peaked my interested based on less space, but there high cost keeps me away. I dont know why oem pc companies are pushing them so hard these days! Justification for higher pc costs?


I think my next monitor will be a 19 inch CRT!

 

[Gunbuster]

<<Darker images.>> ??? My Planar is mighty bright, dark images even get a little washed out but I can live with it


I would take a good LCD over a CRT anyday (Eye strain kills me with CRT's)

I also cant stand having to tweek gemotery on CRT's, with a LCD and DVI it's not a problem

 

[jose]

These are two excellent 17" LCD's with <25ms access times. Both are 1280 x 1024 .

ViewSonic VG171 $816 & the Planar PV174 $749 these are prices from monitoroutlet.com

If you find a cheaper priced 17" LCD, check the access time it will probably be >30ms.

Regards,
Jose

 

[KentState]

I've had the fortune to work with both types and I would take an LCD any day over my CRT. Don't get me wrong, my Sony 19" has a great picture and the text is very easy to read, but I spent the weekend visiting my parents and I'm jealous of their LCD. The picture seemed so much better and I didn't notice any type of animation blur even while running the 3DMark2001 test. It is paired with an ATI 8500 using the DVI output so I'm sure that makes a difference. The biggest thing that impressed me was the lack of eye strain. Stairing at my Sony even at 120hz, I get a headache after a couple hours, but the LCD didn't give me any problems even when I ran it outside the native resolution. I can easily say that the ghosting was not present from what I saw which is great when you compare them to the LCDs on laptops of a few years ago.

 

[Dre]

I bought the Planar 17.4" LCD from Dell for about $580.00 during one of their weekly 15% off sales that they have often.

 

[ShadowDJ]

<< Stairing at my Sony even at 120hz, I get a headache after a couple hours, but the LCD didn't give me any problems even when I ran it outside the native resolution. >>


Oh boy, a few hours? :Q
I go with CRT. I have one pf those laptops from years ago, (okay, not that old) and the image quality is alright compared with some of the new LCDs. If the guy is a big twitch FPS gamer, don't let him get an lcd because of the ghosting. I've used some new lcds, and it is still noticeable. Running only at native res in games is a pain, unless you want to use a portion of the screen or some fraction of the res that gives you decent quality. Too much of a pain.

 

[LH]

The next totally new chips from Nvidia and ATI will make native res a moot point, as they will be plenty powerful to power most monitors at their native res's, except those 1900x1200 ones. Ive never seen ghosting on 10rise and 15fall LCDs, the ones with 15/15 or 15/20, or 20/20 etc it happenes but the highend LCDs with 10rise and 15 fall ghosting just doesnt happen. LCDs are fine for animation and CAD. I mean the MVA 23.1" LCD screens from Figitsu are high quality screens, though, so far only Viewsonic is using them.

 

[tkim]

i just bought a dell 2000fp. it is great!!

very small, very clear, can display many resolutions, and most importantly, HIGH PIMP FACTOR!!! 🙂

i have a ibm p260 and that thing is HUGE!!!! it hurts my back to move it. but now i am back pain free!!

DID I MENTION HIGH PIMP FACTOR!!?? 🙂