LCD or CRT? [Archive]

JaMBo

11-15-2005, 10:25 PM

I'm thinking about buying a new monitor for myself. Now when I was talking to my friend about this like 6 months ago he recommended CRTs and I personally like CRTs better but I know things change and I was wondering which puts out the best look (is better).

I have no problem moving my CRT and have plenty of deskspace so don't take into consideration any of those factors, just the quality of its picture.

If you just want to post some links that would be awesome, I love long reads I just haven't mastered the ways of searching on google and finding good, solid, truthful information that I can sink my teeth into.

Orlun

11-15-2005, 10:29 PM

I ran my CRT next to my new Dell widescreen LCD for a few months. I quickly saw that the picture on the CRT sucked. It seemed dull and so much less vibrant. I always felt like you... I had room and why switch. Now, I'll never go back. Also, having the extra room is much nicer. First, I pushed the monitor back about 10 inches and love the writing room.

I'm considering getting a second LCD because I also fell in love with dual monitors. Once you switch, you'll never go back. :p

JaMBo

11-15-2005, 10:37 PM

Alright, yea I finally got my googling skills down by searching for CRT vs LCD ;) sounds like the LCDs are really do have a lot more advantages than I previously thought, but like I also thought, they still aren't as far in color range as CRTs.

With 8-bit (as I've been reading) I'm sure I would be happy but do I want to spend all that money is the question.

I could keep my $40 monitor I got from the state surplus ;) or buy a $500 LCD...thats not too hard.

EDIT: Make that $600, reading another article I get the idea that if you just have a high enough refresh rate (around 85Hz) a 19" CRT can provide better visual color also I read in this article that LCDs only have 1 resolution, is this true?\

"A CRT ages in two ways: An oxide layer forms on the cathode of the electron gun, decreasing beam current; and the phosphor ages and becomes less efficient. The typical CRT half-brightness point occurs between 10,000 and 20,000 hours."

Hmm, that would explain why all my friends seem to always dog on the brightness of my monitor. Its still got a few more years...

Fozzik

11-16-2005, 04:13 PM

Comparing an old and well-used CRT with a new LCD isn't necessarily the best way to decide. ;) But that's pretty obvious...

CRTs are getting very hard to find, and going forward...a good quality LCD is going to give you all the performance and picture goodness you could ask for. It doesn't really make much sense to compare...because CRTs aren't even being made anymore by most monitor manufacturers. Unless you are getting an extremely high-end CRT for some very specific purpose...your next monitor will probably be an LCD.

The thing about one resolution is that LCD's have a "native resolution", which is when one physical pixel is representing one pixel. This gives the sharpest picture, and depending on the LCD, you generally want to use the native res all the time (a lot of them will start to look kind of crappy at other resolutions). This does limit you somewhat, and decisions you make about the rest of the computer should take into account the resolution you will be gaming at. CRTs can display multiple resolutions with equal clarity...so they were somewhat more flexible.

JaMBo

11-16-2005, 06:59 PM

Yea, even with the way the market is heading I will probably go with a CRT because I can't stand not being in 1600x1200 because of the room and the ability to view more for desktop purposes. I also like that resolution in gaming, and I really haven't seem any cheap LCDs that can display at that resolution. I am currently looking at this ViewSonic (though I will admit I do miss the Diamondtrons and Trinitrons) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824116282 .

Fozzik

11-16-2005, 07:48 PM

I've always been really happy with Samsung CRTs... I actually liked their invar shadow mask flat CRTs much better than the Trinitrons back in the day. I've got two Samsung CRTs still running here next to me, and couldn't say a thing bad about them.

Check out this one, just as another possibility...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824001110

Another thing to keep in mind when deciding between a CRT and LCD is contrast ratio. A flat panel can never be truly black unless it's turned off...because of the backlighting. Because of this, CRTs still hold a big advantage in the contrast department.

nubbins

11-21-2005, 05:16 PM

LCD's are great less space and "cooler" looking

altho the price for LCD's are way to high, you're better off going CRT for now and spend that save money on something that matters like more memory or a processor with a greater OF or FSB

Eclipse

11-21-2005, 05:56 PM

I have a monster of a CRT flat screen from LG.
It works great, never have any issues with it at all, but it weighs about 50 pounds. haha not exactly a monitor I'd take for group-play.

Fozzik, what about the rumor I heard one time that LCD monitors are not quite as good for gaming because they leave "ghosting streaks" or something like that when you're moving fast in a game? I don't know how else to explain it, so if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about I will just shrug and move along.

-Eclipse

Gurf

11-21-2005, 07:03 PM

I bought the Samsung Syncmaster 940B (http://www.samsung.com/uk/products/monitors/lcd/digital/ls19habtsqedc.asp) and I love it!

The "Ghosting" you are talking about Eclipse has to do with the monitors Response Time. It's basically how quickly a pixel can change color. Sometimes the picture just changes too fast for the screen to keep up (a fast FPS game for example) and you end up seeing the same object (another player, a bullet etc) in it's previous locations, you se ghosts.

For gaming you want a monitor with less then 12 ms response time, mine has 8 and I've never seen evena hint of a ghost, nowadays you can get as low as 2, atleast thats the lowest I've seen.

Fozzik

11-22-2005, 12:12 PM

Gurf is quite right about response time. However, as I've mentioned many times here on the boards... the numbers you see for response time are rubbish. There is no set way to test response time, and also no set way to report the results...so monitor companies are going to do some wild and wooly things with the numbers. 12ms means absolutely nothing unless you know the type of panel used (type of technology) and have some independant verification of the number using standardized test methods. Hardware review sites are your friends here.

moonglum

02-28-2006, 12:39 AM

LCD all the way for me. Im never going back to CRT just like I hope will never have to go back to dial up. Well..at least I hope not.
Plus CRT's are bad for your eyes.

xi0nic

02-28-2006, 11:35 AM

The word on the street (and by street I mean the intarweb) is that Dell's LCD screens are really great, especially at a P:P standpoint.

Would you agree with that Fozzik(and other people)?

Fozzik

02-28-2006, 12:44 PM

Some of them are quite good, but quality control is an issue. Sometimes you may get a bad one with either backlight bleeding issues, or dead pixels. Dell's dead pixel policy wasn't so good the last time I checked... so that's something to think about. They are very cheap, which is also a big factor. ;)

They use good panels made by the best manufacturers, and generally this leads to good results when they don't get screwed up when they are assembled.

rabb1t

02-28-2006, 03:10 PM

Yap yap, and I hear they are about to 1-up themselves with newer panels (which will be designated by 2xx7.)

Fozzik

02-28-2006, 03:18 PM

If anyone is planning on purchasing a large LCD in the near future, it would probably be good to either wait a bit, or else make sure the one you pick has HDCP support. An HDCP compliant monitor will be required (along with all the other HDCP devices) in order to display full-res HD video (blu-ray and HD-DVD). If you don't get one now with HDCP support...you're probably going to want to in a year or two.

It's a little frustrating... I've got a monitor that could display 1080p in all it's glory, but I won't be able to...because the happy hollywood crapheads are forcing copy protection onto all next-gen high def video.

rabb1t

02-28-2006, 03:34 PM

Also watch for HDMI if you are goin with HDCP. Likely they will be paired together when they start to appear.

Demmic

03-01-2006, 08:07 AM

Okay so which will I get overall better performance out of?
Space is not an issue and costs are relatively close. So if it was you, which one would you get and why/why not, if not what alternative and why?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824001194

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824133165

rabb1t

03-01-2006, 02:32 PM

if not what alternative and why?

Dell 20.1" 2005FWP (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=20053YR&category_id=4009) ~$440

1680x1050 16:10 aspect
VGA / DVI-D inputs for regular signal
S-Video, Composite inputs, useable as main signal or for pic-in-pic

Wide screen 16:10 aspect for the win. :D

Although, you have slightly lower resolution options when in 4:3 aspect. If you can afford it, the 24" would have 1920x1200 16:10 aspect max, as well as 1600x1200 4:3 max.

Fozzik

03-01-2006, 04:40 PM

Out of those two choices, the CRT would be my choice, definitely. Much better contrast and color reproduction, and a great choice of resolutions.

Like I said, I would be looking at a wide-aspect monitor with HDCP support (and as many different inputs as possible)... but those are pretty expensive right now so I'd wait for them to come down a bit. There is new technology coming that may replace the current LCD monitors... so It's hard to say. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't pick either of those that you linked, though.

rabb1t

03-01-2006, 05:02 PM

There is new technology coming that may replace the current LCD monitors... so It's hard to say.

There are a couple of different techs in the works, but they are all estimated to be bleeding edge around 2008 (currently they are just in testing and reference stages only). LCD tech is constantly improving and we should continue to see better and better LCDs as time goes on.

But yeah, as Foz said, if you don't have an immediate need it would be far better to wait and see which incorporate both HDCP and HDMI. We should see those monitors out by the end of the year I'd think.

There is supposedly an ATi card out there that supports HDCP and rumors are that the nVidia 7900 GTX could have an HDMI connection.

Unless, of course, you don't care about that and would have no problem replacing your monitor in 3-5 years when they are a more common standard.

Demmic

03-01-2006, 08:33 PM

I am building 4 new systems for vanguard. I haven’t upgraded computers for about 6 years so I am due. I am needing 4 monitors and I suspect release of vanguard is prolly due later in the fall so I have until then to decide. What would you all suggest for monitors about the 400.00 range?

rabb1t

03-01-2006, 10:49 PM

Lord_Vyper

03-02-2006, 01:47 AM

If you are buying 4 you should contact the manufacturers, as that would likely get you a decent price reduction. And/or you should see if anyone around has a business connection you could get 4 monitors through them (thus getting the business discount).

Again, in the $450 range I'd recommend the Dell 20.1", but that's me. :D
My company usually gets 10-15% off each time we buy Dell stuff, so if you can, definitely go that route. And I'll seocnd the 20.1" monitors as well.

Fozzik

03-02-2006, 06:58 AM

Nubb

03-02-2006, 08:02 AM

2005fpw is $549, bit over a $400 budget. Looking at Dell.com now but yet to see any news about an upcoming HDCP version.

I think for the stated budget ("$400") you'll be looking at 19" LCDs, which are, imho, fine and dandy (what I'm using!). I recommend the Viewsonic VP191b, IF you can find it (it is no longer manufactured :( the VP930b replaced it, and is pretty much the same deal, although not quite. The VP930b goes for $379
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=231791

If you do find a VP191b, it'll cost a bit more, prices for them climbed when Viewsonic stopped making that model. (last I looked they were at least $100 more than the VP930b)

Samsung's 930BF (same panel as the VP191b I believe) is a good gamer LCD, perhaps even better than the VP191b, but not as good at doing Video, if memory serves me correctly. I do know when I bought my VP191b, I highly considered the Samsung as well. I didn't see the "930BF" listed, but a "960BF" is, I assume it's a newer model now. $379
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=232476

Thanks,
Nubb

Demmic

03-02-2006, 08:23 AM

I will never use it to watch movies etc. So really for me high def is negligable. I am just looking for a solid gaming monitor.

Nubb

03-02-2006, 08:53 AM

Just for gaming I'd still recommend the two I listed, and perhaps lean more towards the Samsung (mostly because you can't find the VP191b anymore). 19" are still the best performing gamer LCDs (but that's quickly changing, as the larger screens are quickly catching up in performance/quality). Definitely can't be matched on price though. There's a large price jump going to 20+" LCDs.

I should note that I'm not familiar with Dell's monitors in general (other than the BIG ones), so it's likely they have a contender as well -- although no Dell monitor sticks in my head, at 19", as a choice for gaming (vs. the above two which I believe are the gamer monitors).

Thanks,
Nubb

rabb1t

03-02-2006, 03:08 PM

2005fpw is $549, bit over a $400 budget.

Snap. Up until your post it had been at ~$435 since the 30" launch. Just went up when you looked it looks like. Follow my link above though, it takes you to a $529 version. ;)

Even still. If 1280x1024 is your option on 4:3, I'd still say pay the slightly higher price for the 1680x1050 16:10 aspect Dell. That gets you inputs, 16:10 aspect, and all the resolutions the lesser priced monitors would have.

Looking at Dell.com now but yet to see any news about an upcoming HDCP version.

I don't know if the 2xx7 version will have HDCP. It could though. I don't see why it wouldn't have both HDCP and HDMI. I haven't heard anything on when it is due to hit though.

So really for me high def is negligable. I am just looking for a solid gaming monitor.

16:10 is where it is at for gaming.

JaMBo

03-02-2006, 06:01 PM

what would be a good LCD that is 1600x1200 or close to that aspect ratio (I really like this resolution on my 19" CRT)??? Price must be under $600.

rabb1t

03-02-2006, 06:09 PM

1600x1200 or close to that aspect ratio

That's 4:3. There should be lots to pick from.

I still say go 16:10. :rolleyes: Sadly, you won't get a 1920x1200 for $600. Dell 24", on sale, at $850, yes, $600, no.

Though... you may find one on ebay if you look carefully enough. I got my HP 23" for 1250 on ebay (supposedly new, not refurbished) when it was retailing at 1600. Hum... there do appear to be a few, but they are mostly in the ~750 range.

sunsfury

03-02-2006, 06:41 PM

Good LG Phillips panel. If Dell doesn't screw up putting it together, they are superb from a quality and performance standpoint.

There's a new version coming, isn't there? It would probably be more expensive.

I know I read somewhere that the new panels on upcoming versions is going to be Samsung. Might have even been in this thread lol. If so sorry I just walked in the door and am feeling lazy.

Spirit

03-03-2006, 02:17 PM

I've had my eyes on a NEC LCD20WGX2 20" Widescreen for a while now. A lot of people seem very pleased with theirs. I was considering getting the Dell 20", but this NEC really sounds awesome.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3208

Seasiu Laitya

03-03-2006, 06:33 PM

You guys recommending the 2005fpw? If so, yeah... I guess I would agree with that. Good LG Phillips panel. If Dell doesn't screw up putting it together, they are superb from a quality and performance standpoint.

There's a new version coming, isn't there? It would probably be more expensive.

Once again, though... buying 4 monitors without HDCP support is a big outlay of cash for something that you're going to replace in a year or two. Unless you can honestly say you have no interest in ever buying a cheap HD-DVD/blu ray drive for your computer and watching high def movies.

I'm not sure whether I would ever watch high def movies...but it's certainly nice to have the option just in case.
HDCP aside, the Philips 200w6cs can sometimes be had cheaper than the Dell 2005fpw, and is rated at 8ms instead of 16ms. Several users have commented that there is backlight bleed, but nowhere near the Dell or Belinea levels. As of yet noone knows what panel it uses, though if Philips aren't using an LG-Philips IPS panel we'd all be surprised.

Spirit, have you got any bleed on the NEC? That's what I've got my eye on atm. Although it is much more expensive than the Philips, the colours, viewing angles and responce are known to be exceptional. But some users have reported bleed, and I'm trying to suss how common and how bad it is. Cheers.

Fozzik

03-03-2006, 06:53 PM

Spirit

03-03-2006, 08:02 PM

Spirit, have you got any bleed on the NEC? That's what I've got my eye on atm. Although it is much more expensive than the Philips, the colours, viewing angles and responce are known to be exceptional. But some users have reported bleed, and I'm trying to suss how common and how bad it is. Cheers.

I haven't took the plunge yet and bought it, but everything I've read has so far been favourable. Although I have read of one or two people having trouble with bleed, it does seem rare -- I think NEC have got fairly tight quality control in regards to this.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17535077

That's a link that has the same review by the same guy but it's worth a read through as many people replying have bought the NEC and are giving feedback on it.

Nubb

03-04-2006, 03:26 AM

I tend to take reviews (personal ones) with a grain of salt when it comes to monitors. Because, imho, people just see things differently. Some see bleed/ghosting/tearing where others don't. I do however look at the general opinions, in particular over color quality and general game-playability.

I look more at tech reviews (primarily tomshardware.com's tests) to compare actual hardware quality per the spec sheets (well typically NOT per the manufacturer's spec sheets heh). Downfall is reviews lag behind and you can't always get a good hard look at the monitors you're currently considering -- thus one looks at manufacturer claims (typically bogus!) and user reviews (unfortunately just that and rather limited in scope).

It certainly makes shopping for LCDs tough. I didn't get my first LCD until just about a year ago -- because I just couldn't find good solid reviews (well and my CRT is good quality so I wasn't in a hurry anyway).

Seasiu Laitya

03-04-2006, 07:41 AM

Everywhere I looked, the 200w6cs was stated to be a 16ms panel. It's very likely the exact same panel that's in the Dell.

If you do a search here on my forums (anyone reading this thread who's interested), you'll find lots of posts I've already made about shopping for TFT displays. Most of the numbers are complete nonesense, and one should never pick out a display based on the manufacturer's stated specs.

At any rate, most consider the LG Phillips panels to be just slightly better on the quality side than the Samsung competition...but the difference I think is generally slight and probably unnoticeable. That panel (the one in the phillips and Dell 20" widescreens) is supposed to be exceptional as far as response and quality, so I wouldn't pay a huge amount of attention to the 16ms response time spec. As Seasiu mentioned, the only issue that seems to crop up a lot of times is with badly manufactured backlighting which bleeds in the corners.
According to Philips (as referenced on forums.overclockers.co.uk), the original Philips panel for the 200w6cs was indeed 16ms. They have stated that all the current batch of monitors are using a new, improved panel, rated at 8ms GTG. Although, like you said, the numbers on their own mean very little, they are helpful. GTG is a valid estimate of responce time, since very few transitions are from black-to-white (the ISO measurement of responce time measures black-to-white transitions.)

Then, according to xbitlabs, you have to look at the quality of the RTC implementation too. Bad RTC timings on a fast monitor can produce as much "ghosting" as a slow monitor, from what they say.

But I'd take either the new Philips or the NEC over the Dell any day of the week :) NEC's dead-pixel warranty is the ISO 13406-2 standard (pretty good), and Philips is even better than that and much cheaper than the Dell too.

http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/catalog/catalog.jsp?fhquery=fh_secondid%3D200w6cs_00_gb_co nsumer%26fh_location%3D%2F%2Fconsumer%2Fen_GB%2Fca tegories%3Ccatalog_gb_consumer%2Fcategories%3Cmoni tors_pc_peripherals_gr_gb_consumer%2Fcategories%3C lcd_monitors_ca_gb_consumer%26&productId=200W6CS_00_GB_CONSUMER&activeCategory=MONITORS_PC_PERIPHERALS_GR_GB_CONSU MER&fredhopperpage=detail.jsp&language=en&country=GB&catalogType=CONSUMER&proxybuster=XQD012LSJQKS5J0RMRCSHP3HKFSESI5P

Fozzik

03-04-2006, 08:50 AM

The ISO spec contains multiple classes (always does). Just saying you adhere to the ISO specs doesn't mean anything unless you say Class 1, 2, 3, etc.

If they adhere to the ISO 13406-2 class 1, that is very good...it's a no dead pixel policy. Class 2 is not so hot... it allows for 2 full always on pixels, 2 full always off, and 5 dead sub pixels before a monitor is considered faulty. Class 3 isn't even worth talking about.

Grey to grey is a somewhat better measurement, but still basically useless, especially when the numbers are quoted by a manufacturer. Without an independent review showing the response times across the full range of color, I just wouldn't bother with response time.

It does appear to be an updated panel... and it still appears to be an 8-bit panel, which is always the first thing I worry about when I see quoted response times under 10ms.

Seasiu Laitya

03-05-2006, 06:50 AM

Fozzik, I thought the same thing until a couple days ago. Then I emailed NEC about their dead pixel class (I - IV), and they told me that ISO 13406-2 means ISO standard 13406 class II. I verified that be googling for 13406-4, which is indeed 13406 class IV.

Most modern TFTs are class II, or 13406-2. However, in the EU we have the 'distance selling' rules, which means we can return any monitor for any reason if bought online or over the phone for a full refund, if we notify the company in writing within 7 days of receiving it :)