LCD or CRT for gaming?

[BenSkywalker]

Most people don't run their CRT's at pin-prick sharp resolutions (< .258mm). Very rarely have I heard of people running a 19" CRT at higher than 1280X1024 (90% of 19" CRT's look like crap above 1024 or 11xx), and most people with 20" or 21" screens just do 1600X1200.

Have you met a gamer in your life? I'm curious as this post doesn't make it sound like it

Every gamer I know with a CRT runs at the highest tollerable resolution they can(RR and performance allowing). Maybe when you have been running LCDs for a very long time you forget that just because fonts may too small at high resolutions on a CRT doesn't mean that gaming visuals won't be significantly improved.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Most people don't run their CRT's at pin-prick sharp resolutions (< .258mm). Very rarely have I heard of people running a 19" CRT at higher than 1280X1024 (90% of 19" CRT's look like crap above 1024 or 11xx), and most people with 20" or 21" screens just do 1600X1200.

Have you met a gamer in your life? I'm curious as this post doesn't make it sound like it

Every gamer I know with a CRT runs at the highest tollerable resolution they can(RR and performance allowing). Maybe when you have been running LCDs for a very long time you forget that just because fonts may too small at high resolutions on a CRT doesn't mean that gaming visuals won't be significantly improved.

Not everyone shares the same opinion. Many people, myself included, do not see much of a difference, if any from 1280 X 960 to 1600 X 1200 in games. Most 19" CRT's were unable to handle 1600 X 1200 at an acceptable refresh rate. For that matter, most 21" CRT's were unable to 1600 X 1200 @ 85Hz +. Always going to be a few that could, but most could not.

In the end it is personal preference that matters, so any advice on this subject is pretty much all subjective.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
[Most people don't run their CRT's at pin-prick sharp resolutions (< .258mm). ]

It's not something you can choose to run at . Finer dot pitches give you richer, more saturated colors. The pixel size you scan at has a lot more to do with how sharp the image looks, which I think was your point. Dot pitch is something else.

I just traded in a very good NEC 19" CRT for a 2405fpw, and I am not at all unhappy about it. I do tend to agree that CRTs are faster, smoother, and sharper. Its kind of like arguing that reel-to-reel tape drives give the best musical reproduction. It's true, but all the other factors outweigh that. My 2405 runs cool, takes up a lot less space, is perfectly flat, has perfect geometry (anyone who is a CRT afficianado knows the angst of waiting to see one that you bought sight unseen run for the first time; then you look anxiously at the corners and the image boundaries along the edges, hoping they will be square), is very bright with sharp text and rich, full colors. It is good enough in gaming that what flaws it has in no way overpower the advantages.

Very True! That is the main reason I support LCD over CRT. Having perfect geometry is really important to image quality. CRT's have a lot of adjustments, but they are not perfect and image quality suffers as a result. However, CRT's have great color and a great refresh rate.

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

I'm mainly using a 21" CRT and a 19" LCD (dual monitor) right now . . . all I have to say is my CRT pwns my LCD in gaming but there's no way I would choose my CRT over my LCD for general usage . . .

I even played HL2 at 2048x1536 on my CRT and it looked great (no AA obviously) . . . (though there is flickering at that res)

As for 1600x1200 @ 85Hz, my monitor can do that fine . . . it runs 1600x1200 at 87Hz infact

Hell even my older 17" CRT can do 1600x1200 @ 75 Hz and 2048x1536 @ 60 Hz . . .

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: 1Dark1Sharigan1
I'm mainly using a 21" CRT and a 19" LCD (dual monitor) right now . . . all I have to say is my CRT pwns my LCD in gaming but there's no way I would choose my CRT over my LCD for general usage . . .

I even played HL2 at 2048x1536 on my CRT and it looked great (no AA obviously) . . . (though there is flickering at that res)

As for 1600x1200 @ 85Hz, my monitor can do that fine . . . it runs 1600x1200 at 87Hz infact

Hell even my older 17" CRT can do 1600x1200 @ 75 Hz and 2048x1536 @ 60 Hz . . .

Many people do not find that 75Hz or below is acceptable for a CRT. It personally gives me an instant head-ache. To me, 1600 X 1200 is useless if it causes eye strain, and without needing to say it, that applies to 2048 X 1536 as well. That is why I specified 85Hz in my post above, because 85Hz is generally acceptable. Some people 75Hz might not bother, same with even 60hz, but these eyes certainly cannot tolerate it.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777


Very True! That is the main reason I support LCD over CRT. Having perfect geometry is really important to image quality. CRT's have a lot of adjustments, but they are not perfect and image quality suffers as a result. However, CRT's have great color and a great refresh rate.

So you'd throw away the fact that CRT's offer resolution flexibility, true black levels, accurate color , no viewing angle restrictions or response time concerns just because of Geometry? heh..thats a pretty weak excuse.

Besides geometry is much less of an issue on Trinitron / Aperture grille based monitors because of the design, A shadow mask based CRT uses a single sheet of metal with a bunch of holes ,the problem with this is overtime the heat generated by the CRT causes this sheet to warp giving you geometry errors, Aperture grille is made up of a bunch of seperate thin strips of metal wich do NOT become warped over time, My 3 year old FW900 widescreen CRT still has excellent geometry as shown in this recent (not even 3 week old) pic I took. Of course a digital camera introduces its own geometry errors (barrel distortion) but as you can see its still pretty darn straight either way.

Aperture grille monitors are noticably brighter(contrast),crisper and more colorful than Shadow mask based CRT's as well, It's to bad so many people judge LCD vs. CRT based on owning a Shadow mask CRT.

I do agree LCD's have the best Text output and if I were looking for a display for the office or mainly Text work then I would go with an LCD, but for movies and gaming an LCD just cant compete with a high end CRT.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: JRW
Aperture grille monitors are noticably brighter(contrast),crisper and more colorful than Shadow mask based CRT's as well, It's to bad so many people judge LCD vs. CRT based on owning a Shadow mask CRT.

I do agree LCD's have the best Text output and if I were looking for a display for the office or mainly Text work then I would go with an LCD, but for movies and gaming an LCD just cant compete with a high end CRT.

I've had my shadow mask CRT for 6 years now. It happens to be one of the best CRTs ever made. Hitachi SuperScan 812. The second I sit down at an aperature grill CRT, I can instantly spot both lines, sometimes I even try to wipe them off thinking they are marks on the monitor screen. I plan to go LCD soon, infact I cashed in on that 2005 FPW for 400 a few days ago. Not really for graphical reasons, I'm just tired of having a 75 pound monitor when I could have something slim. Here is hoping it doesn't suck in comparison or I will have to ditch it.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Most people don't run their CRT's at pin-prick sharp resolutions (< .258mm). Very rarely have I heard of people running a 19" CRT at higher than 1280X1024 (90% of 19" CRT's look like crap above 1024 or 11xx), and most people with 20" or 21" screens just do 1600X1200.

Have you met a gamer in your life? I'm curious as this post doesn't make it sound like it

Every gamer I know with a CRT runs at the highest tollerable resolution they can(RR and performance allowing). Maybe when you have been running LCDs for a very long time you forget that just because fonts may too small at high resolutions on a CRT doesn't mean that gaming visuals won't be significantly improved.

Personal attacks aside (I know you were kidding ), yes I have met and know many gamers. Back when I and all my friends all had 19" CRT's, we would usually run them at 1024X768, simply because focus and clarity turned to crap above that resolution. Those with trinitron screens could afford to run at 1280X1024 (or1280X960), although performance oftentimes wasn't there (except within the last few years), so 1024 was often a perfect compromise.

It's only since getting an LCD that I can even tolerate, for example 1280X1024 on a 17" screen, since the text is sharper and the brightness is higher.

The vast majority of gamers don't run >1280X1024 on a 19" screen, only pedantic nitpickers who make such claims as: "OMG the jaggies are hurting my eyes" or "I won't buy a new card because the anisotropic filtering is unacceptable" . What kind of video card do you run Ben, and what have you run the last 3 years? Have you played any demanding recent games such as Doom3, Half Life 2, Far Cry at 1600X1200 or above? With AA/AF?

I see a lot of discussion in your posts about running uberhigh resolutions, AF that cards aside from the X1800's don't support, but when it comes down to it, what resolutions are practically feasible for you in new games? Have you tried the FEAR demo yet? It will bring whatever card you have to it's knees. Give that one a shot at 19xx by 14xx or 19xx by 12xx (depending on which aspect ratio you prefer) and crank the AA/AF and let me know how it performs...

 

[n7]

LCD FTW!

 

[HighCalibreHooch]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
CRT definitely - better colours, better refresh rates, the ability to run at whatever resolution you please and no ghosting.

once again QFT BFG10K

 

[JRW]

The 2 lines on an Aperture grille monitor never bothered me..in fact as I type this and look at them its almost comical to me that someone would complain about these incredibly thin and nearly transparent lines.

The hitachi 812 certainly doesnt look like 'one of the best crt's ever' judging from its specifications (only .27 dot pith?) but ive never seen one in person, I have heard in the past that Hitachi made the best Shadow mask based displays but personaly I couldnt go back to Shadow mask after seeing the improved contrast vibrancy on a Aperture grille display. I have a 5 year old Sony G400 on another PC here that still has a very bright picture to this day (Contrast set at 75). Any shadow mask ive seen (especialy if its alittle older) tends to have the contrast set at max in order to get decent brightness.

Anyhow good luck with the 2005FPW ... I hope it has better black levels than my 2001FP did

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777


Very True! That is the main reason I support LCD over CRT. Having perfect geometry is really important to image quality. CRT's have a lot of adjustments, but they are not perfect and image quality suffers as a result. However, CRT's have great color and a great refresh rate.

So you'd throw away the fact that CRT's offer resolution flexibility, true black levels, accurate color , no viewing angle restrictions or response time concerns just because of Geometry? heh..thats a pretty weak excuse.

Besides geometry is much less of an issue on Trinitron / Aperture grille based monitors because of the design, A shadow mask based CRT uses a single sheet of metal with a bunch of holes ,the problem with this is overtime the heat generated by the CRT causes this sheet to warp giving you geometry errors, Aperture grille is made up of a bunch of seperate thin strips of metal wich do NOT become warped over time, My 3 year old FW900 widescreen CRT still has excellent geometry as shown in this recent (not even 3 week old) pic I took. Of course a digital camera introduces its own geometry errors (barrel distortion) but as you can see its still pretty darn straight either way.

Aperture grille monitors are noticably brighter(contrast),crisper and more colorful than Shadow mask based CRT's as well, It's to bad so many people judge LCD vs. CRT based on owning a Shadow mask CRT.

I do agree LCD's have the best Text output and if I were looking for a display for the office or mainly Text work then I would go with an LCD, but for movies and gaming an LCD just cant compete with a high end CRT.

To answer the question in the way you asked it, No. But you asked it incorrectly with a spin. I would throw it away concerning the following: Size, Weight, Power, Geometry, No eye strain.

Here let me return the question in the same way that you did to me. So you would throw away the fact that LCD's have perfect geometry, require less space, less power, offer no eye strain and weigh significantly less just for more accurate black levels? Heh. That is a pretty weak excuse.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: JRW
The 2 lines on an Aperture grille monitor never bothered me..in fact as I type this and look at them its almost comical to me that someone would complain about these incredibly thin and nearly transparent lines.

The hitachi 812 certainly doesnt look like 'one of the best crt's ever' judging from its specifications (only .27 dot pith?) but ive never seen one in person, I have heard in the past that Hitachi made the best Shadow mask based displays but personaly I couldnt go back to Shadow mask after seeing the improved contrast vibrancy on a Aperture grille display. I have a 5 year old Sony G400 on another PC here that still has a very bright picture to this day (Contrast set at 75). Any shadow mask ive seen (especialy if its alittle older) tends to have the contrast set at max in order to get decent brightness.

Anyhow good luck with the 2005FPW ... I hope it has better black levels than my 2001FP did

Good to know that a dead pixel would not bother you, or rather, a lot of them. Because that is pretty much what it is, in effect. I have to question how much care you put into image quality if you are willing to live with two noticable thin lines all the way accross your screen. Thanks for reminding me of those on my AP monitor, I havn't used it in a while and forgot about that.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Most people don't run their CRT's at pin-prick sharp resolutions (< .258mm). Very rarely have I heard of people running a 19" CRT at higher than 1280X1024 (90% of 19" CRT's look like crap above 1024 or 11xx), and most people with 20" or 21" screens just do 1600X1200.

Have you met a gamer in your life? I'm curious as this post doesn't make it sound like it

Every gamer I know with a CRT runs at the highest tollerable resolution they can(RR and performance allowing). Maybe when you have been running LCDs for a very long time you forget that just because fonts may too small at high resolutions on a CRT doesn't mean that gaming visuals won't be significantly improved.

Personal attacks aside (I know you were kidding ), yes I have met and know many gamers. Back when I and all my friends all had 19" CRT's, we would usually run them at 1024X768, simply because focus and clarity turned to crap above that resolution. Those with trinitron screens could afford to run at 1280X1024 (or1280X960), although performance oftentimes wasn't there (except within the last few years), so 1024 was often a perfect compromise.

It's only since getting an LCD that I can even tolerate, for example 1280X1024 on a 17" screen, since the text is sharper and the brightness is higher.

The vast majority of gamers don't run >1280X1024 on a 19" screen, only pedantic nitpickers who make such claims as: "OMG the jaggies are hurting my eyes" or "I won't buy a new card because the anisotropic filtering is unacceptable" . What kind of video card do you run Ben, and what have you run the last 3 years? Have you played any demanding recent games such as Doom3, Half Life 2, Far Cry at 1600X1200 or above? With AA/AF?

I see a lot of discussion in your posts about running uberhigh resolutions, AF that cards aside from the X1800's don't support, but when it comes down to it, what resolutions are practically feasible for you in new games? Have you tried the FEAR demo yet? It will bring whatever card you have to it's knees. Give that one a shot at 19xx by 14xx or 19xx by 12xx (depending on which aspect ratio you prefer) and crank the AA/AF and let me know how it performs...

/Agree

On another note, Ben will get out of this by saying something like "No good new games exist on the market, or I would" That is the excuse he uses in all the other threads. Basically if his machine cannot handle it, then it isn't a "good" game. F.E.A.R would not even be playable for him on his 9800 Pro at the resolutions he claims to run.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777


To answer the question in the way you asked it, No. But you asked it incorrectly with a spin. I would throw it away concerning the following: Size, Weight, Power, Geometry, No eye strain.

Here let me return the question in the same way that you did to me. So you would throw away the fact that LCD's have perfect geometry, require less space, less power, offer no eye strain and weigh significantly less just for more accurate black levels? Heh. That is a pretty weak excuse.

Black levels are *VERY* important to overall image quality wich was painfully obvious with my CRT & LCD sitting side by side (dual monitor config) but that wasnt the only reason I went back to CRT,
My 2001FP had inferior black levels,viewing angles and although the response time wasnt bad framerates were still noticably smoother on the CRT no matter what game or settings,I also realised not being able to change resolutions wasnt a good thing after all, You say theres less strain on LCD but honestly the 2001FP was a VERY bright display even with the brightness set on 0 and it actualy seemed to stress my eyes more than a CRT if anything ,I've always ran my CRT at high refresh rates so eye strain has never been an issue.

My CRT sits on my desk and I dont do LAN parties so I dont care if it weighs more than a Boat anchor .I never have to move it!, My main priority is image quality so weight & power consumption are not a factor.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777


To answer the question in the way you asked it, No. But you asked it incorrectly with a spin. I would throw it away concerning the following: Size, Weight, Power, Geometry, No eye strain.

Here let me return the question in the same way that you did to me. So you would throw away the fact that LCD's have perfect geometry, require less space, less power, offer no eye strain and weigh significantly less just for more accurate black levels? Heh. That is a pretty weak excuse.

Black levels are *VERY* important to overall image quality wich was painfully obvious with my CRT & LCD sitting side by side (dual monitor config) but that wasnt the only reason I went back to CRT,
My 2001FP had inferior black levels,viewing angles and although the response time wasnt bad framerates were still noticably smoother on the CRT no matter what game or settings,I also realised not being able to change resolutions wasnt a good thing after all, You say theres less strain on LCD but honestly the 2001FP was a VERY bright display even with the brightness set on 0 and it actualy seemed to stress my eyes more than a CRT if anything ,I've always ran my CRT at high refresh rates so eye strain has never been an issue.

My CRT sits on my desk and I dont do LAN parties so I dont care if it weighs more than a Boat anchor .I never have to move it!, My main priority is image quality so weight & power consumption are not a factor.

You are right, I was just messing around with you on the black levels anyway, I hope you knew that. It was sort of like, how does it feel to get asked a question that isn't accurate? Ya know?

Anyway, I agree, black levels are not that great on an LCD. But they do not bother me! That is why so much of this is personal preference. For me, 60-75Hz gives me a near instant headache and causes my eyes to water. For me, the black levels of the LCD, though noticable, do not bother me. Color? Well, Color isn't the best on LCD's, but I do find it satisfactory. CRT's are being phased out though, so the overall industry believes that LCD is the future... They will be better in most, if not all aspects eventually, just give them time.

For now, just enjoy the fact that you can own both

 

[SynthDude2001]

In an ideal world...I would like to have a big CRT for gaming. In fact, I did have a big CRT for gaming - specifically, the NEC/Mitsubishi 2141SB-BK (basically, their highest-end consumer 22" CRT that cost about $600). I loved it mainly for the high refresh rates (1600x1200 at 109Hz was unbelieveably smooth, and 2048x1536 was even usable at 85Hz). However, the clarity/focus just wasn't there. It was fine for games, but for just regular Windows use (lots of text)...it just wasn't that sharp. Geometry was decent, but convergence was an issue too - I just couldn't get it adjusted perfectly (even though NEC has very good software for the adjustments). The high resolutions (1600x1200 and up) just weren't usable for me in Windows - they were "OK" I guess, but when I spend $600 on a monitor I really want it to be more than just "acceptable, I guess" for something I was going to be using the monitor for hours a day on. 1600x1200 85Hz was noticeably a bit blurry - it seemed to sharpen up a little bit when lowering the refresh rate, but obviously that wasn't an option for normal use. So I called Dell and asked for a replacement, thinking that I just got a bad monitor or something - but nope, the replacement was exactly the same. I was really disappointed, because while it was really quite nice for gaming (where you don't have to read much fine text), it just wasn't there for text applications. I realize that the monitors had focus ports on the side, but I didn't have the right tool to use them, and after a week or two of messing with the monitors and settings (and using them on different video cards), I just sent them back for a refund.

So...I ordered a Dell 2005FPW LCD a few weeks later. While nothing (yet) seems to be "the perfect monitor", I'm very impressed with it (more so than the CRT obviously, since I ended up keeping this one). Text and geometry are absolutely perfect (using DVI of course), colors are every bit as bright and vibrant as the CRT. Black levels are not quite as good, but are acceptable; gaming at 60Hz(/60fps) is obviously not as smooth as 100+Hz, but it's still very good, even for fast-paced action games. Then there's the separate fact that it weighs 50 pounds less than the CRT, which while not important to everyone, is another advantage for the LCD for me. I'm satisfied with both text and gaming on this monitor, not just gaming like for the CRT.

So for me, the LCD obviously won out, and I'm happy with my decision. And I did actually try both for myself instead of only listening to others' opinions - not everyone can go through the hassle of buying more than one monitor, but it helped me know that I wasn't "missing anything" from the other side once I settled on a monitor. If things had been different, and the CRT had been more sharp with text, then maybe I would have kept it (even despite the weight disadvantage) - but it wasn't, and neither was the second one, so I didn't want to bother with it anymore. I've heard that quality control has really gone downhill with CRT's in the past year (since so many companies are phasing them out), and I wouldn't be surprised after my experiences. I wouldn't mind trying out another CRT sometime in the future maybe if I have the money to do so (and don't live on the fourth floor of a building with no elevator anymore), but for now, I'm more than happy with my LCD.

Edit: Forgot to mention resolution scaling - obviously it's a bit better on the CRT, but I've had no problems running my LCD at lower resolutions (and I'll probably have to do a lot more of that in the coming months as my 6800GT starts to be unable to drive the latest games at 1680x1050).

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
In an ideal world...I would like to have a big CRT for gaming. In fact, I did have a big CRT for gaming - specifically, the NEC/Mitsubishi 2141SB-BK (basically, their highest-end consumer 22" CRT that cost about $600). I loved it mainly for the high refresh rates (1600x1200 at 109Hz was unbelieveably smooth, and 2048x1536 was even usable at 85Hz). However, the clarity/focus just wasn't there. It was fine for games, but for just regular Windows use (lots of text)...it just wasn't that sharp. Geometry was decent, but convergence was an issue too - I just couldn't get it adjusted perfectly (even though NEC has very good software for the adjustments). The high resolutions (1600x1200 and up) just weren't usable for me in Windows - they were "OK" I guess, but when I spend $600 on a monitor I really want it to be more than just "acceptable, I guess" for something I was going to be using the monitor for hours a day on. 1600x1200 85Hz was noticeably a bit blurry - it seemed to sharpen up a little bit when lowering the refresh rate, but obviously that wasn't an option for normal use. So I called Dell and asked for a replacement, thinking that I just got a bad monitor or something - but nope, the replacement was exactly the same. I was really disappointed, because while it was really quite nice for gaming (where you don't have to read much fine text), it just wasn't there for text applications. I realize that the monitors had focus ports on the side, but I didn't have the right tool to use them, and after a week or two of messing with the monitors and settings (and using them on different video cards), I just sent them back for a refund.

So...I ordered a Dell 2005FPW LCD a few weeks later. While nothing (yet) seems to be "the perfect monitor", I'm very impressed with it (more so than the CRT obviously, since I ended up keeping this one). Text and geometry are absolutely perfect (using DVI of course), colors are every bit as bright and vibrant as the CRT. Black levels are not quite as good, but are acceptable; gaming at 60Hz(/60fps) is obviously not as smooth as 100+Hz, but it's still very good, even for fast-paced action games. Then there's the separate fact that it weighs 50 pounds less than the CRT, which while not important to everyone, is another advantage for the LCD for me. I'm satisfied with both text and gaming on this monitor, not just gaming like for the CRT.

So for me, the LCD obviously won out, and I'm happy with my decision. And I did actually try both for myself instead of only listening to others' opinions - not everyone can go through the hassle of buying more than one monitor, but it helped me know that I wasn't "missing anything" from the other side once I settled on a monitor. If things had been different, and the CRT had been more sharp with text, then maybe I would have kept it (even despite the weight disadvantage) - but it wasn't, and neither was the second one, so I didn't want to bother with it anymore. I've heard that quality control has really gone down with CRT's in the past year (since so many companies are phasing them out), and I wouldn't be surprised after my experiences. I wouldn't mind trying out another CRT sometime in the future maybe if I have the money to do so (and don't live on the fourth floor of a building with no elevator anymore), but for now, I'm more than happy with my LCD.

Edit: Forgot to mention resolution scaling - obviously it's a bit better on the CRT, but I've had no problems running my LCD at lower resolutions (and I'll probably have to do a lot more of that in the coming months as my 6800GT starts to be unable to drive the latest games at 1680x1050).

The Ebay seller I bought my 24" FW900 from still has some available if you (or anyone) wants this amazing CRT, He sells them for $400 (shipped) and even offers a 3 year warranty for I believe $30 extra, Considering this monitor retailed for $2,300 I think its a great deal, His latest auction is here. and theres an ever growing thread on this monitor & ebay seller in this thread. The good thing about the FW900's he sells is that they are NOT refurbished units wich tends to be a bad thing with CRTs (depending on who refurbished it), Mine has near perfect geometry & convergence and has excellent text visibilty @ 1650x1080 / 100Hz refresh and is by far the best gaming monitor I've owned.

 

[xtknight]

Colors may be more accurate on a CRT (really only matters to graphics pros which should be using that high-end 108% gamut NEC LCD anyway), but they sure look more vibrant on my LCD. Comparing my 6-bit+2-bit (FRC) LCD to my mom's HP shadow mask CRT, my LCD wins hands down for color "pop out". You can't buy any aperature grille CRT anymore besides refurbished ones (for the most part), so it doesn't matter. AG CRTs are great, but they aren't being sold anymore. It sucks.

So the color RGB(202,201,200) on a CRT is RGB(202,201,200) while on an LCD it is RGB(200,204,198). Big deal. Are you going to notice 7/(256^3) of a difference? Not really. And I'd take the it if the color looked extremely vibrant. Point is, LCDs can produce a more vibrant color than any CRT sold today (from what I've seen). Maybe AG CRTs were better. But like I said, they aren't being sold en masse anymore, and some have had to go through 4 to get one without issues due to poor QC.

There's times I can get my LCD to look like I'm actually there (in the case of a picture of vegetation), but that makes other apps look like crap. That's why we need the 10-bit gamma LUT. Should solve most color problems on an LCD. CCFL backlighting affecting black level will still be a problem, but if the backlight is replaced by several superbright LEDs, you can kiss that issue goodbye as well (for all practical purposes).

As for response time (on today's best LCDs), it's like the alignment lines on an AG CRT. You forget about it. Don't pay attention to it, and just enjoy your game. Same with dead pixels.

Let's say SEDs win. Or, that LED-backlighted Brightside LCD which owns every one of these monitors.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: JRW
The Ebay seller I bought my 24" FW900 from still has some available if you (or anyone) wants this amazing CRT, He sells them for $400 (shipped) and even offers a 3 year warranty for I believe $30 extra, Considering this monitor retailed for $2,300 I think its a great deal, His latest auction is here. and theres an ever growing thread on this monitor & ebay seller in this thread. The good thing about the FW900's he sells is that they are NOT refurbished units wich tends to be a bad thing with CRTs (depending on who refurbished it), Mine has near perfect geometry & convergence and has excellent text visibilty @ 1650x1080 / 100Hz refresh and is by far the best gaming monitor I've owned.

Really? That's not too bad...if this guy has any left in a few months, I might think about getting one. I'm not sure it would be worth it when I'm already happy with my current monitor, but it would be nice to have one before there aren't any new or decent ones left, I guess. Thanks for the heads-up in any case.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Colors may be more accurate on a CRT (really only matters to graphics pros which should be using that high-end 108% gamut NEC LCD anyway), but they sure look more vibrant on my LCD. Comparing my 6-bit+2-bit (FRC) LCD to my mom's HP shadow mask CRT, my LCD wins hands down for color "pop out". You can't buy any aperature grille CRT anymore besides refurbished ones (for the most part), so it doesn't matter. AG CRTs are great, but they aren't being sold anymore. It sucks.

Aperture grille's are known to have brighter color than Shadow mask but to top that off I have the "Digital Vibrance" setting on Low in Nvidia display properties, this gives an additional boost in overall color and looks very nice. Im not sure if ATI cards offer such an adjustment but I'd assume they do.


edit: heres a pic of the display window for digital vibrance, you can even adjust the overall Sharpness of the monitor from here although I prefer it on default.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: JRW
Im not sure if ATI cards offer such an adjustment but I'd assume they do.

Nope, they don't last I checked.

 

[ITPaladin]

I never notice the lines on my dying PF790 unless it is brought to my attention and I actively look for them.

If you don't care so much about what color it is you can get the Ebayer's HP branded CRT that I chose over JRW's monitor because it is $75 cheaper.

 

[Nickrand]

everyone has their own personal preferences when it comes to gaming and at what settings. For me, resolution > AA/AF. I usually run 16x12 with little to no AA or AF. I have (and love) a 19" CRT.

If looks/size/weight are important than a LCD wins hands down. If you buy a quality screen you'll be able to game with no issues and it'll look and run great. If you want value and could care less what it looks like sitting on your desk, a CRT is still hard to beat.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Comparing my 6-bit+2-bit (FRC) LCD to my mom's HP shadow mask CRT, my LCD wins hands down for color "pop out". You can't buy any aperature grille CRT anymore besides refurbished ones (for the most part), so it doesn't matter. AG CRTs are great, but they aren't being sold anymore. It sucks.

Point is, LCDs can produce a more vibrant color than any CRT sold today (from what I've seen). Maybe AG CRTs were better. But like I said, they aren't being sold en masse anymore, and some have had to go through 4 to get one without issues due to poor QC.

I'm personally a big CRT fan despite a crazy RMA experience (I was the guy who went through four), but this much is true. Shadows mask CRTs are indeed crap compared to aperture grille ones and doubly so compared to the final generation high brightness models. (I have an NEC shadow mask of the same size to compare with) But you can hardly buy any brand new aperture grilles nowadays and there are certainly none in production, and out of the ones available half are defective in some way. If you manage to get one that is both a high end aperture grille model and well calibrated / not defective, it will beat the pants off any LCD for gaming except the insanely expensive ones, but that is a very challenging task these days.

One very important factor is the external lighting conditions you use the monitor in. In pitch dark, the differences between CRTs and LCDs are really amplified a lot. A lot of LCDs, even pretty good ones, look quite okay in the daytime but are crap in pitch dark.

The one wild card with LCDs is the glossy high contrast coating, which makes them look remarkably better. They still aren't quite up to high brightness AG CRT quality, but I would have seriously considered buying one of those if they were available in some decent sizes/resolutions. I don't know why this coating has not really caught on with desktop LCDs despite having been around for a while now.