Gamers who use LCDs....Why?

[So]

Originally posted by: marks70

Originally posted by: GamerExpress
I too felt the same about LCD monitors for gaming until I played on a friends new 2405FPW, now I own one myself and enjoy all aplications on it including games!!!

Are you saying that you don't have any issues with ghosting whatsoever, because that is probably my biggest gripe?

I have a 2005FPW and no, I've never noticed any ghosting. I also have an older 16ms Hitachi LCD (now my secondary) and even that had ghosting that was barely noticable at worst in fast games.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: xtknight

The monitor to look forward to will be SEDs, of which I have a big thread about here.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1723498&enterthread=y

Agreed. SED's are definitely a tech. to watch.

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: marks70
Its seems like everyone and their grandma is buying LCDs nowadays. I agree they are great and superior to CRTs for every day usage such as Internet, word processing, etc. and are a perfect fit for the corporate environment. However, gaming is a different story. Despite claims of under 10ms response times and what have you, every LCD monitor out there simply cannot handle graphic intense games, especially first person shooters. Ghosting and tearing plague LCDs, no matter how fast they are. Yet gamers are buying them in droves.

So my question is, why do gamers buy them? Are you saying you don't experience the symptoms I mentioned above...or do you just ignore them, pretend it isn't happening, or do you have really bad eyesight? I say this kind of facetiously, but I'm really curious because I (as well as friends) have tested supposedly some of the fastest LCDs out there, and no matter how much I want to like them, the ghosting and tearing keep me away.

Added....
Also, How do you cope with having only one resolution that is native to the monitor? For text, if you take an LCD out of its native resolution, it looks like crap. So how do you deal with this when it comes to games that won't run in your LCD's native resolution (for whatever reason)?

To answer your question objectively, most gamers will consider the ability to move the monitor easily and take up a lot less space very high on their list of wants in a monitor. I bought Dell 2001FP's purely because of this. Admittedly going from a Sony 21" Professional Series Monitor to the 20" FP I did immediately see differences in screen detail and quality, but I mean I was comparing it to a 21" CRT that was of very high caliber as far as image quality. So I guess I wasnt too put off. I guess my main gripe with the 20" FP is not the ability to use lower resolutions (I mean come on, why would you) but that I couldnt do higher than 1600X1200 anymore. As far as looking at text in lower than native resolution, why would you want to do that?

Who doesnt use native resolution on their FP? And if they are, they are mostly doing that because they are blind. But in any case, the 2001FP looks fine when displaying other resolutions. I do not know what you are talking about when saying they look like crap. Maybe old monitors, or people who dont know how to adjust their settings in windows and monitor settings to make things look their best... Oh well, just my opinion, and really who cares. People can buy what they want... What does it matter? It doesnt sound to me like you are really asking this question to be convinced otherwise, but to call attention to what others might be doing wrong... Just an observation.

 

[Wolfshanze]

I tried switching from a 19" CRT to a 19" LCD... in native resolutions, I found the LCD to be superior to my CRT... however, the deal-breaker for me was non-native resolutions, of which I did spend a fair amount of time in... I had another 19" CRT in the same room as the 19" LCD and I would load-up the same screens in non-native resolutions... the CRT was clearly superior... eventually it bugged me too much and I went back to using the CRT (and gave the LCD to my wife).

I'm not downing LCDs at all... I agree that in native resolution, the LCD is superior to the CRT, and in my experience I could find no ghosting or image problems in the LCD... I really liked it as long as I was in native resolution. It was leaving for differant resolutions that really upset me.

If using an LCD in 1280x1024 all the time is what you will do, the LCD is the clear choice to go with today... if you spend a lot of time in non-native resolutions, it's still best to stick with a CRT... I wish I could spend all my time in one resoution, because I really like LCDs, but for me, it's not really an option.

 

[natep]

Not sure if anyone said this, but you can get around the limitations of resolutions in most games. In FEAR for example, you just go into the settings.cfg and change the width to 1280 and the height to 1024, and it will start in that. In BF2, you can add text to the game shortcut to start it up at 1280x1024.

I went from a Diamondtron to a Samsung 710n and I like the Samsung more in every way.

 

[0roo0roo]

well it used to be more of a problem when videocards running decent framerates in games at 1024x1280 were very expensive.. now.. if u can afford the lcd, u can afford the videocard to match dropping down resolutions is a nonissue.

 

[w00t]

OLED is going to take out SED no doubt.

 

[0roo0roo]

naw FED pwns all

 

[w00t]

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze
I tried switching from a 19" CRT to a 19" LCD... in native resolutions, I found the LCD to be superior to my CRT... however, the deal-breaker for me was non-native resolutions, of which I did spend a fair amount of time in... I had another 19" CRT in the same room as the 19" LCD and I would load-up the same screens in non-native resolutions... the CRT was clearly superior... eventually it bugged me too much and I went back to using the CRT (and gave the LCD to my wife).

I'm not downing LCDs at all... I agree that in native resolution, the LCD is superior to the CRT, and in my experience I could find no ghosting or image problems in the LCD... I really liked it as long as I was in native resolution. It was leaving for differant resolutions that really upset me.

If using an LCD in 1280x1024 all the time is what you will do, the LCD is the clear choice to go with today... if you spend a lot of time in non-native resolutions, it's still best to stick with a CRT... I wish I could spend all my time in one resoution, because I really like LCDs, but for me, it's not really an option.

you have a BFG GeForce 6800GT OC i dont understand how you cant run any game at that res.

 

[Garlic]

The bottom line is a good CRT is SUPERIOR to any LCD out there

These are the facts and they are undisputable. There is just no arguing. CRT is superior. That?s it. Game over.

Its laughable reading people post that they get headaches from CRTs when set at 60hz, well Duuuuu, no $het, Set it to 85hz and problem solved......morons...sheesh...

You have to remember most people in these forums are uneducated teenagers and their inexperience shines through out their posts.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Garlic
The bottom line is a good CRT is SUPERIOR to any LCD out there

These are the facts and they are undisputable. There is just no arguing. CRT is superior. That?s it. Game over.

Its laughable reading people post that they get headaches from CRTs when set at 60hz, well Duuuuu, no $het, Set it to 85hz and problem solved......morons...sheesh...

You have to remember most people in these forums are uneducated teenagers and their inexperience shines through out their posts.

You know what, we don't need your immature rambling, and stop trying to force your opinion upon people. From your posts it sounds to me like you're the uneducated teenager with inexperience. It is not a fact that something looks better than another. It's an opinion...O-P-I-N-I-O-N.

 

[Darien]

Originally posted by: Garlic
The bottom line is a good CRT is SUPERIOR to any LCD out there

These are the facts and they are undisputable. There is just no arguing. CRT is superior. That?s it. Game over.

Its laughable reading people post that they get headaches from CRTs when set at 60hz, well Duuuuu, no $het, Set it to 85hz and problem solved......morons...sheesh...

You have to remember most people in these forums are uneducated teenagers and their inexperience shines through out their posts.

LOL. This whole post is comedy gold

 

[Finns14]

Garilc you are truely hard dude


ethug alert

CRT yes are slightly better but I'm sure at 19 I know just as much or more than you do with reguards to most computing things

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Originally posted by: Celeryman
CRT's ARE GAY

LCD's ARE NOT

An electronic display's sexuality should have no bearing on its value and self-worth. I am offended that you think LCD's are better because they're heterosexual.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Garlic
Oh ya, people here failed to mention that when you change the resolution of LCDs to anything other than native resolution it looks like CRAP!

One reason I dont want an LCD as my primary monitor. Having a native resolution is a HUGE limiation because everything else looks like CRAP!

LCDs are for noobs/home users.

Blanket statements that can easily be proven false. Shows how much you actually look at both sides of the issue.

Newer LCD's actually handle non-native resolutions quite well. However, you wouldn't know this because you do no research on it and you also are biased. Without looking at both technologies and see the pros and cons of each your opinion matters little if at all. I have used recently released LCD's and can tell you that while the native resolution will always look the best, non-native resolutions are not automatically crap looking. Heck, I would wager the average computer user wouldn't even notice it if you set a new LCD in front of them and didn't set it to native resolution.

Originally posted by: Garlic
The bottom line is a good CRT is SUPERIOR to any LCD out there

These are the facts and they are undisputable. There is just no arguing. CRT is superior. That?s it. Game over.

Its laughable reading people post that they get headaches from CRTs when set at 60hz, well Duuuuu, no $het, Set it to 85hz and problem solved......morons...sheesh...

You have to remember most people in these forums are uneducated teenagers and their inexperience shines through out their posts.

False ending. Now let's get to the real story. These are the real facts and not some made up BS opinion. CRT's are superior in some ways to LCD's and LCD's are superior in other ways to CRT's. Whether you buy a CRT or LCD is up to personal preferences and each individual will have to decide for themselves whether a CRT or LCD is right for them.

It's true that a good CRT is superior in some ways to a good LCD. However, there are many advantages that a LCD has that even the best CRT can't touch. You want perfect geometry? CRT's can't produce perfect geometry because it's never calibrated perfectly. I'm sure you can point me to some super ultra expensive CRT that can do perfect geometry. I can also point you to pre-production LCD's that will match or beat a CRT's rear end in color production.

How about flickering? This is a problem that plagues CRT's, especially when you have more than one device plugged into the same outlet. I know because I see it all the time. Flickering images will cause headaches. That is a problem LCD's do not have. I KNOW for a fact that sitting side by side, my LCD does not flicker and it's plugged into the same UPS that my CRT is plugged into (dual monitor setup). The LCD has absolutely no flickering while I notice flickering on the CRT. True, most times the flickering is very minor and I have to stick my face into the monitor to see it. However, when I turn on the TV or even worse, when I plug in an electric heater it is extremely noticeable flickering on the CRT while the LCD is flicker free.

Size and weight is an area where an LCD also is superior to a CRT. Ask the typical corporation that is constrained for space whether they want bulky (and heavy) CRT's on the desks of their employees or LCD's which gives more desk space for work. I sure wouldn't want to carry a portable computer with a CRT attached to it instead of a LCD. There are also power users who require multiple monitors for their work and multiple CRT's are just too bulky.

 

[Zebo]

Simple they don't manufacture decent CRT's anymore..

but instead crappy third world destined- dome shaped/grainy pixels invar shadow masks tubes which sucked then next to FD's and U-NX's and suck even more now.

I really feel sorry for both CRT and LCD users who never experianced a DaimondPro 2070 or sony G520.

Edit well, they still do make a real CRT, the Diamondtron UWG RDF225WG but it's $5000.
http://www.necdisplay.com/products/Prod...lassificationFamily=1&Classification=1

but it takes up your whole desk and weighs 80+ pounds.

I did'nt relise we had so many females posting at AT with snap together lincoln logs for desks.

 

[Earsly]

LCDs are great for rpg, strategy games and such but I still don't think they are that great for FPS games. I use to be a hard core gamer and I still notice the "lag" if I'm making a fast movement during bf2 or halflife. I got a 2405fpw + xfx 7800gt, X2 3800+, so my system isn't gimped at all. Hardcore gamers can always feel the lag if playing fps games but is that worth not using an LCD? Not at all....LCD ftw!

 

[aatf510]

I am guess it's because most people have slow eyes and low requirment on images.
I mean I have settled with a 2405fpw for a few months now, and I can still see terrible motion blur and frame tearing on it.

 

[Reapsy01]

I know everyone loves Dell lcd's but I've just seen this

Belinea 102035W 20.1" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Black/Silver

same size as the Dell 2005, half the response time, higher contrast ratio and brightness and it's cheaper (in the uk anyway) what do you guys think?

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: toattett
I am guess it's because most people have slow eyes and low requirment on images.
I mean I have settled with a 2405fpw for a few months now, and I can still see terrible motion blur and frame tearing on it.

tearing has nothing to do with it being an lcd. turn on vsync.

 

[IdaGno]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
For a dedicated FPS fan, nothing will ever replace a GDM-FW900. Buy one while you still can.

Why do you suggest buying while you still can? Is this another great product about to go out of production, or what?

 

[Makaveli]

What is this nonsense about flickering CRT's in the last 6 years, with my CRT's plugged into a powerbar, i've never had any issues with flickering. I've even had a Air conditioner plugged into the same power bar no flickering!

 

[aatf510]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze
tearing has nothing to do with it being an lcd. turn on vsync.

Maybe in theory it doesn't have anything to do with LCD.
However, the truth is that it's extremely annoying on a LCD, and I was never able to see it on CRTs before. Turning on vsync render too much of a performance hit that I would like.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: toattett

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze
tearing has nothing to do with it being an lcd. turn on vsync.

Maybe in theory it doesn't have anything to do with LCD.
However, the truth is that it's extremely annoying on a LCD, and I was never able to see it on CRTs before. Turning on vsync render too much of a performance hit that I would like.

It actually can be more of an issue with LCDs because response time usually isn't equal across all transitions. That can cause some to change slower than others and likewise cause more tearing.

 

[Garlic]

Originally posted by: Makaveli
What is this nonsense about flickering CRT's in the last 6 years, with my CRT's plugged into a powerbar, i've never had any issues with flickering. I've even had a Air conditioner plugged into the same power bar no flickering!

Only the uneducated complain about flickering because they simply don?t have the knowledge or know how to set the refresh rate from 60 Hz to 85+.

Flickering CRTs are only an issue with the uneducated and inexperienced.