crt vs. the lcd displays of today. are crt's finally surpassed?

LCDs are fine, plus i'll take the cons with the pros of being thin, widescreen, light etc. Save for a 20'' ;)X360PS3AMD05

Check out Acer and LG as well, look around for reviews n such. Everyone will bash TN panels but they're the only ones that are affordable and they're just fine for gaming. I wouldn't consider going back to that hunk of junk CRT i used before, it was 17'' and my LCD is 20'' widescreen FTW!X360PS3AMD05

Agreed! I'll take my 22" LCD over my old 19" CRT anytime!

also. the reason why i ask is they say that 8ms monitors are fine. so i tried to play on a monitor with an 8ms response time. a samsung syncmaster 632n to be exact. and gosh.. i said to myself "is this what they say "OK for gaming? 8ms?!" extreme ghosting...aoshi_shinumori

I would recomment 2ms for gaming.

samsung 2253bw... I am so glad i spent the monies on this baby... try teh lw too.. that usually goes a little cheaper but is basically the same thing.itsatrap23

I have the 225BW and couldn't be happier. It has a 5ms refresh, which could be better, but I've had no noticeable ghosting so far. There is a little backlight bleedthrough at the top and bottom; that would be my only complaint. And, running a native 1680x1050 resolution, my HD4850 pushes it just fine.

I'll take my 24" Dell widescreen LCD monitor over my previous 19" CRT Dell monitor anytime of the day!

hahaha. you guys always say that.. "i'll take my lcd blah blah blah over my crt blah blah blah anytime!"

LCD surpassed crt long ago, otherwise people would still buy crts. I mean with a 2ms response time and much better quality... why would you prefer a crt?TerroRizing

2ms is still many times slower than a CRT's response time (which is usually measured in microseconds). The image is also better on CRTs and you don't have to deal with a native resolution. LCDs have the advantage of being much smaller and lighter and far more practical.

[QUOTE="TerroRizing"]LCD surpassed crt long ago, otherwise people would still buy crts. I mean with a 2ms response time and much better quality... why would you prefer a crt?bungie93

2ms is still many times slower than a CRT's response time (which is usually measured in microseconds). The image is also better on CRTs and you don't have to deal with a native resolution. LCDs have the advantage of being much smaller and lighter and far more practical.

I have to disagree, I have yet to see a crt monitor that looked better than a good lcd. And response time less than 2ms is something you dont notice. Its not 2005 anymore, crt is dead and always hurt my eyes lol.

[QUOTE="bungie93"]

[QUOTE="TerroRizing"]LCD surpassed crt long ago, otherwise people would still buy crts. I mean with a 2ms response time and much better quality... why would you prefer a crt?TerroRizing

2ms is still many times slower than a CRT's response time (which is usually measured in microseconds). The image is also better on CRTs and you don't have to deal with a native resolution. LCDs have the advantage of being much smaller and lighter and far more practical.

I have to disagree, I have yet to see a crt monitor that looked better than a good lcd. And response time less than 2ms is something you dont notice. Its not 2005 anymore, crt is dead and always hurt my eyes lol.

I have to disagree. My brother's crappy 5 year old Dell CRT looks better than my brand new Samsung LCD. I'm simply amazed every time I see a game on his computer.

Usually its a matter of preference and cost. There are some things that LCD's still can't do as well as CRT's. Though same can be said about CRTs. How often do you see a CRT that supports HD resolution like 1680 x 1050?!threepac81

Umm...almost every CRT I have seen supports AT LEAST 1600x1200.

[QUOTE="threepac81"]Usually its a matter of preference and cost. There are some things that LCD's still can't do as well as CRT's. Though same can be said about CRTs. How often do you see a CRT that supports HD resolution like 1680 x 1050?!bungie93

Umm...almost every CRT I have seen supports AT LEAST 1600x1200.

I prefer LCD's, but I have never really used a quality CRT, so I bet they are good, just BIG.

[QUOTE="bungie93"]

[QUOTE="TerroRizing"]LCD surpassed crt long ago, otherwise people would still buy crts. I mean with a 2ms response time and much better quality... why would you prefer a crt?TerroRizing

2ms is still many times slower than a CRT's response time (which is usually measured in microseconds). The image is also better on CRTs and you don't have to deal with a native resolution. LCDs have the advantage of being much smaller and lighter and far more practical.

I have to disagree, I have yet to see a crt monitor that looked better than a good lcd. And response time less than 2ms is something you dont notice. Its not 2005 anymore, crt is dead and always hurt my eyes lol.

I agree that crt's cant match the image quality of lcd but even 2ms lcd's have a huge amount of motion blur.

Strafe back and forth at 60fps in a shooter, the image remains clear on crt, lcd's get blurry.

I have an D£LL Triniton 21" autocad CRT, the picture is awsome, it can take very large pitcure at high frequency, One giant step ahead of LCD´s is the resolution, I can play at evry size and the picture still look great.

I find no reason to go LCD over this CRT at all...

I have an D£LL Triniton 21" autocad CRT, the picture is awsome, it can take very large pitcure at high frequency, One giant step ahead of LCD´s is the resolution, I can play at evry size and the picture still look great.

I find no reason to go LCD over this CRT at all...

swehunt

LCD's can look good at all resolutions as long as you dont use scaling. I have a 24" 1920x1200. I use 1600x1200 on old games without scaling and the quality is just as good as the native res.

I use 1680x1050 on Crysis, without scaling the monitor mimics a 20" widescreen so I end up getting a smaller viewable area. I just pull the monitor a few inches closer and problem solved.

a 2ms can still show blurr, yes. Actually there is no true 2ms LCD, they all use some form of tech that just helps with the blurring to be able to advertise it as 2ms + a 2ms rated monitor doesnt mean it averages at 2ms, they get away with it becuase it hits 2ms in their "lab" test.. Not to mention thats 2ms Grey to Grey(GTG), not BTB(Black to Black),basically not the full color spectrum.

But the main reason LCDs still lack compared to CRTs is the input lag, and yes input is horrid on just about all LCDs. Even the "2ms" monitors can have upwards to 30ms input lag. Which even if you can adjust to the semi-blurr or cant even see the blurr, the input lag is there no matter what.

Granted if you dont play fast paced games, these factors wont be much of use. LCD's are good for portability, less heat, less power, and should be easier on the eyes. As for hardcore fast paced games, you have to stick to CRT until there is better technology such as SED, or the more likely OLED.

The only thing about LCD's that appeals to me is the lower radiation from the screen, so it's better for your eyes. When my motherboard died and I ordered new parts for my system, I had to use my dad's LCD to surf the net, and boy, did my eyesight improve.

However, native resolution ensures I'll stick with CRT instead. It's just a stupid restriction, having to use only one resolution for everything in the world if you don't want it to look like garbage.

a 2ms can still show blurr, yes. Actually there is no true 2ms LCD, they all use some form of tech that just helps with the blurring to be able to advertise it as 2ms + a 2ms rated monitor doesnt mean it averages at 2ms, they get away with it becuase it hits 2ms in their "lab" test.. Not to mention thats 2ms Grey to Grey(GTG), not BTB(Black to Black),basically not the full color spectrum.

But the main reason LCDs still lack compared to CRTs is the input lag, and yes input is horrid on just about all LCDs. Even the "2ms" monitors can have upwards to 30ms input lag. Which even if you can adjust to the semi-blurr or cant even see the blurr, the input lag is there no matter what.

Granted if you dont play fast paced games, these factors wont be much of use. LCD's are good for portability, less heat, less power, and should be easier on the eyes. As for hardcore fast paced games, you have to stick to CRT until there is better technology such as SED, or the more likely OLED.

crazymonkey092

i plan on buying a samsung t190. so i just wanted to ask if it's ok to get it for gaming from a crt monitor. because all of the sites that i see regarding a "crt vs lcd" always date back to 2004-2005. i just wanted to ask you guys what is the state of displays now. specially the model i'm planning to buy. thanks!aoshi_shinumori

No, CRTs are still better. They can be viewed perfectly fine from all angles. And it's not possible to get perfect black on an LCD - annoying in dark movies and games. Backlight bleeding is a common problem also. Dead pixels is not as much of a problem today as it used to be some years ago though. But response time is worse than in CRTs.

I don't know about that particular monitor, but get a TFT-panel and not a TN, as they are practically worthless. Be cautious of 22" LCDs, or look up the particular model you are considering to buy first, as they're almost always TN-panels. Steer clear of 2 ms screens as they are TN-panels.

a 2ms can still show blurr, yes. Actually there is no true 2ms LCD, they all use some form of tech that just helps with the blurring to be able to advertise it as 2ms + a 2ms rated monitor doesnt mean it averages at 2ms, they get away with it becuase it hits 2ms in their "lab" test.. Not to mention thats 2ms Grey to Grey(GTG), not BTB(Black to Black),basically not the full color spectrum.

But the main reason LCDs still lack compared to CRTs is the input lag, and yes input is horrid on just about all LCDs. Even the "2ms" monitors can have upwards to 30ms input lag. Which even if you can adjust to the semi-blurr or cant even see the blurr, the input lag is there no matter what.

Granted if you dont play fast paced games, these factors wont be much of use. LCD's are good for portability, less heat, less power, and should be easier on the eyes. As for hardcore fast paced games, you have to stick to CRT until there is better technology such as SED, or the more likely OLED.

crazymonkey092

If you see blur with a 2ms lcd, turn your sharpness down...

you guys always say to steer clear of TN panels as they have limited viewing angles. it is a pc monitor and i don't go to the sides or under the monitor while using it. so that con of a TN panel is ok for me. anymore problems with TN panels?

and mr. Lach0121. what model is your LG? is it really flat out 2ms? show us proof.

you guys always say to steer clear of TN panels as they have limited viewing angles. it is a pc monitor and i don't go to the sides or under the monitor while using it. so that con of a TN panel is ok for me. anymore problems with TN panels?

and mr. Lach0121. what model is your LG? is it really flat out 2ms? show us proof.

aoshi_shinumori

Yeah, tilt your head a bit to the side and the colours change. Not that they're very natural to begin with.

Get glasses, is all I say. The only merits of LCDs that you mentioned that I can agree with is convenience and less heat. An LCD is also easier on the eyes. I know that someone was on about a general bluriness of LCD monitors. I wasn't; I only said that the picture will be blurry if you try to run in another resolution than the native resolution.

I can't really agree with the pro-CRT mentality here.

Now if you have a somewhat new, good quality LCD, with a response time of 2ms (by new I mean 2006 or later), you will never EVER be troubled by dull blacks, lumps of dead pixels or blurring.

I have simultaneously used a 2005 years model of CRT and a similarly aged LCD on my two computers.
The LCD (a Samsung syncmaster) displays an image just as good, doesn't after 2 years intensive use have a single dead pixel, and takes up a lot less space.
My only complaint is the native resolution.

As for the CRT, well, I would not use it unless it was for that I have a restricted budget and will use it for as long as it works.
There is no real noticeable improvement in the blacks, I can't honestly say that the LCD is blurrier in motion.
The only real strong point of the CRT is the flexible resolution, that is why I would recommend it only to someone with a weaker graphics card, that will have to turn games down often.

Unfortunatley, when it comes to estethics and heat dissipation, the LCD blows the CRT out of the water.


Now everyone should judge for him/herself, but no one should ever believe that new LCDs are plagued by the same weak points as the first models with response times of up to 20ms were. That is just not really true, and the syncmaster I'm refering to here isn't even very new, it is several years old. haols

How true, and newer lcds are even better now. In articles on the net people were comparing crt monitors are their peak vs lcd monitors when they were new tech, things have changed since then. Now there are no new comparisons, because well crt monitors arent even an option now.

[QUOTE="haols"]I can't really agree with the pro-CRT mentality here.

Now if you have a somewhat new, good quality LCD, with a response time of 2ms (by new I mean 2006 or later), you will never EVER be troubled by dull blacks, lumps of dead pixels or blurring.

I have simultaneously used a 2005 years model of CRT and a similarly aged LCD on my two computers.
The LCD (a Samsung syncmaster) displays an image just as good, doesn't after 2 years intensive use have a single dead pixel, and takes up a lot less space.
My only complaint is the native resolution.

As for the CRT, well, I would not use it unless it was for that I have a restricted budget and will use it for as long as it works.
There is no real noticeable improvement in the blacks, I can't honestly say that the LCD is blurrier in motion.
The only real strong point of the CRT is the flexible resolution, that is why I would recommend it only to someone with a weaker graphics card, that will have to turn games down often.

Unfortunatley, when it comes to estethics and heat dissipation, the LCD blows the CRT out of the water.


Now everyone should judge for him/herself, but no one should ever believe that new LCDs are plagued by the same weak points as the first models with response times of up to 20ms were. That is just not really true, and the syncmaster I'm refering to here isn't even very new, it is several years old. TerroRizing

How true, and newer lcds are even better now. In articles on the net people were comparing crt monitors are their peak vs lcd monitors when they were new tech, things have changed since then. Now there are no new comparisons, because well crt monitors arent even an option now.

You haven't researched enough. Keep googling.

CRT monitors aren't "an option" because - well, let's face it: People tend to value convenience more than quality.

you guys always say to steer clear of TN panels as they have limited viewing angles. it is a pc monitor and i don't go to the sides or under the monitor while using it. so that con of a TN panel is ok for me. anymore problems with TN panels?

and mr. Lach0121. what model is your LG? is it really flat out 2ms? show us proof.

aoshi_shinumori

[QUOTE="TerroRizing"]

[QUOTE="haols"]I can't really agree with the pro-CRT mentality here.

Now if you have a somewhat new, good quality LCD, with a response time of 2ms (by new I mean 2006 or later), you will never EVER be troubled by dull blacks, lumps of dead pixels or blurring.

I have simultaneously used a 2005 years model of CRT and a similarly aged LCD on my two computers.
The LCD (a Samsung syncmaster) displays an image just as good, doesn't after 2 years intensive use have a single dead pixel, and takes up a lot less space.
My only complaint is the native resolution.

As for the CRT, well, I would not use it unless it was for that I have a restricted budget and will use it for as long as it works.
There is no real noticeable improvement in the blacks, I can't honestly say that the LCD is blurrier in motion.
The only real strong point of the CRT is the flexible resolution, that is why I would recommend it only to someone with a weaker graphics card, that will have to turn games down often.

Unfortunatley, when it comes to estethics and heat dissipation, the LCD blows the CRT out of the water.


Now everyone should judge for him/herself, but no one should ever believe that new LCDs are plagued by the same weak points as the first models with response times of up to 20ms were. That is just not really true, and the syncmaster I'm refering to here isn't even very new, it is several years old. doubutsuteki

How true, and newer lcds are even better now. In articles on the net people were comparing crt monitors are their peak vs lcd monitors when they were new tech, things have changed since then. Now there are no new comparisons, because well crt monitors arent even an option now.

You haven't researched enough. Keep googling.

CRT monitors aren't "an option" because - well, let's face it: People tend to value convenience more than quality.

but as far as which one is better for what reasons.. both have pros and cons.

color contrast- crt

response time-crt but not by much and same for the color contrast.

price- lcd

resolution-lcd (if kept at native resolution)

resources to actually locate a monitor-lcd

but in oled tv's are gonna be much better, but that still has a few yeasr to go before you can get them at a reasonable price.

Plasma displays: they combine the fast response time, color accuracy, and contrast ratio of a CRT with the sleek, modern look of an LCD panel. Too bad they start off at 40".