LCD or CRT for gaming?

[nitromullet]

Sony doesn't even make the FW900 anymore... Why bother discussing it when the only place you can still buy one is from one guy on Ebay? The FW900 is certainly a sweet piece if CRT, but it's history.

I looked on newegg for 20"+ CRT's to get a more current state of affairs, and 2 of the 7 I found were ViewSonic G810's (black and biege), and from my experiences with this CRT, I would never recommend one of these to anyone... I got a brand new one of these at work a few months ago, and I actually prefer to use my 1024x764 laptop screen as opposed to the G810's 1600x1200 (75Hz)... It looks that crappy. Pretty much all that is left are bargain CRT's like this one, the days of the high end CRT are over since Sony and NEC/Mitsubishi quit making them. IMO, the argument that a high end CRT beats an LCD is academic at this point, since one of the two ceases to exist.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Have you played any demanding recent games such as Doom3, Half Life 2, Far Cry at 1600X1200 or above?

Of course, D3 doesn't play well at that setting for me, nor does FC unless details are scaled back- HL2 is an antiquated engine tech wise no problems running at mid res there(19x14) although high res for me is pushing it performance wise(20x15). Of course, FC was good for a single play through and HL2 and D3 dreamed about being that good, so it isn't like it bothered me too much I couldn't crank them up.

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?

Can you point me to a new game with demanding visuals that is any good? Rome: Total War is playing pretty smooth @20x15- that's probably the newest thing I've played a decent amount of for more then a couple of days for the PC in quite some time(nothing good has been hitting).

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...

Is edge aliasing really that bad for you? AA really isn't that important to me, although I suppose if forced to drop my res to 19x14 it may become that way. AF on almost all of the new parts is so bad it isn't worth using anyway

 

[Insomniak]

I'm never going back to CRT. LCDs are superior in every way except the flexible resolutions.

Image is sharper and colors are BETTER when the monitor is properly calibrated (even then correct it in software if you have to), no glare, MUCH less heat produced and desk space taken up, and NO EYESTRAIN. Perfectly FLAT image, all digital signal from GPU to cable to monitor. Larger viewable size.

LCDs are better by miles.

The only real downsides are the extra cost and lack of flexible resolutions.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: Dainas
CRTs win hands down 9/10th of the time, any good CRT (like a 19inch phillips 109b $180) will have far better colour, definition and refresh rate, which shouldnt be a concern if you spend more than $100 on it. LCD people who argue; ether never have played on a good CRT and dont know what their missing, are bitter about their lack of space or that fact that they payed $350+ for a display that only shows up to 1280x1024 and ghost like mad. There are good LCDs, the problem is the decent ones that can compaire to a good 19 or 21inch CRT cost $600+

There are LCDs that dont ghost or have higher resolution than 1280x1024, or have nice colour for less than $600, problem is not one of them has all of these.

my dell 2005fp replaced a $600+ 19" Viewsonic that i ran at 1600x1200@85hz. i dont notice any ghosting or problems with the 60hz refresh rate (it doesnt matter)

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Have you played any demanding recent games such as Doom3, Half Life 2, Far Cry at 1600X1200 or above?

Of course, D3 doesn't play well at that setting for me, nor does FC unless details are scaled back- HL2 is an antiquated engine tech wise no problems running at mid res there(19x14) although high res for me is pushing it performance wise(20x15). Of course, FC was good for a single play through and HL2 and D3 dreamed about being that good, so it isn't like it bothered me too much I couldn't crank them up.

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?

Can you point me to a new game with demanding visuals that is any good? Rome: Total War is playing pretty smooth @20x15- that's probably the newest thing I've played a decent amount of for more then a couple of days for the PC in quite some time(nothing good has been hitting).

No I can't because your argument is based upon a subjective opinion. Any games that I found good or interesting (Far Cry, HL2, Doom3 (kinda boring), the FEAR demo and hopefully the final version of FEAR), you can just argue that you don't think they're any good. I'm happy you can play RTSes at as high a resolution you want, but many people here like to play FPS games as well.

You can make a blanket statement like 'Far Cry is good for a single play through' and then say that D3 and HL2 aren't even worth that, and though it may be true for you, other people can play these games as much or as little they want. Also, saying something like this is clearly an attempt to obfuscate the fact that these games are unplayable on all but the latest hardware at resolutions in excess of 1600X1200. I can see why you don't find them worth playing, seeing as you'd be running them at unplayable framerates, all the while maintaining your precious principles .

The way you feel about resolution I generally feel about framerate - I hate choppiness and (generally speaking) I'd rather disable AA to get a higher/smoother framerate then save my vision from jaggies (which never really seem to bother me). Personally, I find AF to provide a much more tangible benefit in many games.

 

[ponyo]

9800pro can run HL2 at 19x14 no problem?

I know you're very picky with playable framerates. What kind of framerates you get at that "mid res"?

 

[CP5670]

I can get smooth framerates (60fps minimums) in HL2 with no AA and 4x AF at 1600x1200, but that is with an overclocked 6800 GT. If I turn on 2x AA or go up to 1856x1392 it struggles. It might be possible to get it smooth at these settings if the graphics options are turned down though.

The way you feel about resolution I generally feel about framerate - I hate choppiness and (generally speaking) I'd rather disable AA to get a higher/smoother framerate then save my vision from jaggies (which never really seem to bother me). Personally, I find AF to provide a much more tangible benefit in many games.

Same here. I hardly ever use AA since resolution is more important to me and I almost always run into framerate limitations well before I can max out the resolution. I think I only have one game in which I can use both 2048x1536 and 2x AA comfortably.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I don't get why people like to disable features to get higher resolutions, either. IMO if you're disabling in-game features (draw distance, details, etc) then it often looks worse or takes away from the game more than dropping resolution a notch (on CRT).

---------

Naustica - I'm also curious as to how HL2 at 19x14 on a 9800 Pro can be considered playable. I've run HL2 on a 9800 Pro, an X800 Pro, an X800XL and an X850XT PE at 1280X1024, and I found the 9800 Pro would chop-up at times - the X800 Pro was needed for a completely smooth experience...

 

[moonboy403]

they're only talking about lowering AA
it's the same idea b/t increasing resolution and enabling aa anyway
either one would smooth the edges
sometimes....one would take a harder performance hit than the other with similar outcome in terms of jagged edges

 

[Stretchman]

I'd say LCD is the way to go. I've been gaming on one since late 2002, and for me there's no going back to CRT's. The sharp colors, space saving virtues and low power usage are all big pluses in my book.

 

[moonboy403]

i hope gaming on lcd's as good as it sounds
cause i just placed an order on Rosewill R910P 19" 8ms
anyone knows how it performs?????

 

[imported_Amuro]

CRT for compettive/professional gaming if you want to stand a chance at all. LCDs are fine for non-competitive gaming. BTW, response time is very improtant but not the only factor.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Sony doesn't even make the FW900 anymore... Why bother discussing it when the only place you can still buy one is from one guy on Ebay? The FW900 is certainly a sweet piece if CRT, but it's history.

I looked on newegg for 20"+ CRT's to get a more current state of affairs, and 2 of the 7 I found were ViewSonic G810's (black and biege), and from my experiences with this CRT, I would never recommend one of these to anyone... I got a brand new one of these at work a few months ago, and I actually prefer to use my 1024x764 laptop screen as opposed to the G810's 1600x1200 (75Hz)... It looks that crappy. Pretty much all that is left are bargain CRT's like this one, the days of the high end CRT are over since Sony and NEC/Mitsubishi quit making them. IMO, the argument that a high end CRT beats an LCD is academic at this point, since one of the two ceases to exist.

The point is that you can get the FW900 in excellent condition from ebay with a 3 year warranty for $430 *RIGHT NOW*, The seller in question has sold MANY FW900s all with positive feedback,This was one of Sony's absolute highest end PC CRT's wich retailed for literaly $2,300, I assure you these FW900s from ebay ,even being 3 years old, totaly destroy any monitor Newegg is selling new right now. in fact I'm seriously considering buying a second one just to store as backup.

 

[touchmyichi]

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Sony doesn't even make the FW900 anymore... Why bother discussing it when the only place you can still buy one is from one guy on Ebay? The FW900 is certainly a sweet piece if CRT, but it's history.

I looked on newegg for 20"+ CRT's to get a more current state of affairs, and 2 of the 7 I found were ViewSonic G810's (black and biege), and from my experiences with this CRT, I would never recommend one of these to anyone... I got a brand new one of these at work a few months ago, and I actually prefer to use my 1024x764 laptop screen as opposed to the G810's 1600x1200 (75Hz)... It looks that crappy. Pretty much all that is left are bargain CRT's like this one, the days of the high end CRT are over since Sony and NEC/Mitsubishi quit making them. IMO, the argument that a high end CRT beats an LCD is academic at this point, since one of the two ceases to exist.

The point is that you can get the FW900 in excellent condition from ebay with a 3 year warranty for $430 *RIGHT NOW*, The seller in question has sold MANY FW900s all with positive feedback,This was one of Sony's absolute highest end PC CRT's wich retailed for literaly $2,300, I assure you these FW900s from ebay ,even being 3 years old, totaly destroy any monitor Newegg is selling new right now. in fact I'm seriously considering buying a second one just to store as backup.

The FW900 is awesome if you can deal w/ the heavy weight of it. But yeah, if you want the advantages of a CRT that's definently the way to go. Widescreen is an absolute must.

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

I've yet to see any CRTs that can compare to the LCDs I've owned. To me the only factor that makes a CRT worthwhile is it's much lower price.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I've yet to see any CRTs that can compare to the LCDs I've owned. To me the only factor that makes a CRT worthwhile is it's much lower price.

You obviously havent owned any good CRT's then

Besides that I paid more for my last 21" CRT than I did my Dell 2001FP LCD.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I can get smooth framerates (60fps minimums) in HL2 with no AA and 4x AF at 1600x1200, but that is with an overclocked 6800 GT.

6800GT averages around 100FPS at those settings. I don't consider that too bad for a very slow paced shooter. That is with all settings maxed, no AA or AF. For multiplayer or a fast paced shooter like SS obviously much higher would be desired.

No I can't because your argument is based upon a subjective opinion. Any games that I found good or interesting (Far Cry, HL2, Doom3 (kinda boring), the FEAR demo and hopefully the final version of FEAR), you can just argue that you don't think they're any good.

I've offered my views on them from back when they launched- you can check the archives if you like. I don't tailor my view on a game to fit a debate ever.

I'm happy you can play RTSes at as high a resolution you want, but many people here like to play FPS games as well.

So do I, I've just found that they have been very stale as of late. I think FarCry was the last one I would consider decent that hit. D3 was exactly what I expected, boring and stunning- HL2 I was extremely let down by. Boring, tedious and a very weak sequel to the greatest FPS ever made.

Also, saying something like this is clearly an attempt to obfuscate the fact that these games are unplayable on all but the latest hardware at resolutions in excess of 1600X1200.

HL2 is very simplistic to render at very high resolutions. The others you certainly won't find me implying anything else anywhere else. Also- you notice how you are currently narrowing down what you think of as viable titles to a very small handful of games- I own hundreds and the overwhelming majority of them that can run at 20x15 will without performance issues.

The way you feel about resolution I generally feel about framerate - I hate choppiness and (generally speaking) I'd rather disable AA to get a higher/smoother framerate then save my vision from jaggies (which never really seem to bother me).

If you had a high end display I think you would find that AA becomes significantly less important- I almost never use it(old titles that won't render in a decent res being the main exception). AF would be great if it was done properly- but it introduces considerable aliasing unfortunately. I also hate choppy framerates- but for slow paced single player shooters 60FPS average is certainly tollerable. BTW- I'm running paired with an AXP ATM, it isn't like I'm taking much of a performance hit upping the res anyway.

Personally, I find AF to provide a much more tangible benefit in many games.

Absolutely, but unfortunately we have only had psuedo AF up until the 1xk series since the NV25.

To me the only factor that makes a CRT worthwhile is it's much lower price.

I paid quite a bit more for my CRT then I could have to pick up a 2001FP(2K5 and 2405 weren't out yet)- and it was incredibly well spent money.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: JRW
The hitachi 812 certainly doesnt look like 'one of the best crt's ever' judging from its specifications (only .27 dot pith?)

"you cannot necessarily compare [dot pitch on] shadow-mask and aperture-grill CRT types, due to the difference in horizontal and vertical measurements." - http://computer.howstuffworks.com/monitor8.htm

 

[VIAN]

I`m looking for a monitor, it will be used on gaming machine (7800gtx), i read lots of reviews, Samsung 4ms looks nice, but still not faithfully showing colors, and i dont like the fact that all of them LCD-s have some issues when playing DVD movies.
So shoud i buy quality 21" CRT or 19" LCD with 4ms?

Using Dell 1704FPT 12ms and colors look good to me. Haven't seen anything in movies yet, although I have only watched just one movie.

My only beef with my particular model is viewing angles and contrast while playing dark games.

 

[AlucardX]

24" sony ftw..

i really want one of these but its just too heavy to deal with. moving would be a pain in the ass, and i'm pretty sure my $30 used computer desk from goodwill wouldn't hold up with a 100lb monitor on it.

 

[CP5670]

I have my monitor on some 15 year old oak office desk. It would certainly support an FW900 if I had one, as it holds two 2070SBs and my computer case without any problem. (I had two of them at times when I was running through the RMAs and who can resist trying out a dual monitor setup in such cases )

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Amuro
CRT for compettive/professional gaming if you want to stand a chance at all. LCDs are fine for non-competitive gaming. BTW, response time is very improtant but not the only factor.

Not this baseless nonsense again. What difference does it make if you are playing competively or not? The server updates movement at the same rate regardless of whether you're playing competively or not. It doesn't matter.

 

[BenSkywalker]

as it holds two 2070SBs

:| :|

Wishing I picked up the second 2141 I was planning on before they vanished