LCD or CRT?

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.

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/Produc...82E16824116282 .

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/Produc...82E16824001110

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 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/Produc...82E16824001194

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824133165

rabb1t · 03-01-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demmic

if not what alternative and why?

Dell 20.1" 2005FWP ~$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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fozzik

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.