Crt Vs Lcd

[[TT]BrundleFly]

Everone can do whatever they like. The thing here is that soon, new CRT's will simply not be produced.

I have:
30 Inch Dell 3007WFP - 2560 x 1600
24 Inch Dell 2405FPW - 1920 x 1200
20 Inch Dell 2005FPW - 1680 x 1050
22 Inch BenQ FP222WH - 680 x 1050
20 Inch Sceptre X20G -Naga III - 1680 x 1050
19 Inch Acer Blah Blah - 1440 x 900

The 30 Inch Dell is simply incredible IMO. I don't care what anyone says/thinks. The 24 Inch Dell is also excellent. The best part is with so many monitors I can play at many different native resolutions if my rig is too slow...

Woot !!!

[kaluro]

Well isn't it capped at 90 fps online anyway?

No, it's not. Set your "internet speed " to "LAN" in the options and it will NOT be capped.

[bclagge]

If I had a 30" CRT I'd use it too!

[Brutal]

GUYS i dont care about fps . i care about my eyes that start to hurt if im on an lcd monitor 1 hour \crt monitor on 85 refrash rate..


so what lcd mobitor should i buy to get performers that similer to the crt 100 refrah rate?

Theres like a plastic u can put in front of the screen so i wont burn your eyes.

[Gherkin]

I don't know if it's been mentioned (I skimmed the posts but did not read them all in detail), but one thing to keep in mind is that any LCD will only look truly sharp at its "native" resolution. If the native resolution is 1280x1024, then it basically has a matrix of 1280 pixels by 1024 pixels (some of you tech heads can correct me if I'm explaining this incorrectly). Any resolution less than that will be displayed on the same 1280x1024 pixel grid, but it will spread some lines across multiple LCD cells, so you will notice some "fuzzyness" in the display.

On the response time: manufacturers have indulged in a bit of slight-of-hand here. The rule of thumb used to be that for a good gaming monitor you needed a response time of better than (less than) 16ms "black to black". This was the time it took the cell to go from blackest black to whitest white to blackest black again. Nowadays the listed specs are typically for "grey to grey", which is not as difficult a standard. If you see a monitor advertised as having a 2ms response time, it is talking about grey to grey. That said, however, just about any modern LCD monitor with an advertised response time of 8ms or less is not going to show any ghosting.

As others have posted, refresh time is not as big a factor for LCDs. For a CRT, the pixel would fade over time, and for refresh rates lower than about 60 Hz there would be discernable flickering as the individual pixels faded and were "brightened" repeatedly 60 times per second (Hz). I personally would get a headache looking at anything bright white (i.e. open Windows) under about 75 Hz. LCD displays don't fade. You can think about it as a stage light with multiple colored covers. Once the computer says "red", the cell throws a red cover over the light and leaves it there until it told to do differently, so there is refreshing going on.

One thing to watch out for on an LCD is dead pixels. These are cells that will not turn on or off when told to. Some manufacturers warrant no dead pixels on arrival. For others it is 3. So do your research on your model.

I switched over to an LCD from a CRT about a year ago and never looked back. I had the same concerns the original posted did, but my LCD is awesome.

[Oddside]

On the response time: manufacturers have indulged in a bit of slight-of-hand here. The rule of thumb used to be that for a good gaming monitor you needed a response time of better than (less than) 16ms "black to black". This was the time it took the cell to go from blackest black to whitest white to blackest black again. Nowadays the listed specs are typically for "grey to grey", which is not as difficult a standard. If you see a monitor advertised as having a 2ms response time, it is talking about grey to grey. That said, however, just about any modern LCD monitor with an advertised response time of 8ms or less is not going to show any ghosting.

Grey-to-Grey is in-fact, the slowest transition on any LCD based display the reason being that in order to make a small change only a very small change in voltage is required & the speed of an LCD cell is proportional to the change in voltage, so a big change in voltage causes a fast response, a small change a slow response.

So, put simply, the time it will take for an LCD pixel to change depends on what voltage was driving it AND the new driving voltage, if the difference is small the response time will be high. Newer display have 'response time compensation' this basically overdrives the LCD cells as necessary, if done well it results in a faster display, if done badly it results in image artifacts.

As others have posted, refresh time is not as big a factor for LCDs. For a CRT, the pixel would fade over time, and for refresh rates lower than about 60 Hz there would be discernable flickering as the individual pixels faded and were "brightened" repeatedly 60 times per second (Hz). I personally would get a headache looking at anything bright white (i.e. open Windows) under about 75 Hz. LCD displays don't fade. You can think about it as a stage light with multiple colored covers. Once the computer says "red", the cell throws a red cover over the light and leaves it there until it told to do differently, so there is refreshing going on.

LCD displays DO refresh, just not in the same way as CRT displays, the pixel brightness also fades with time (the voltage is stored on a capacitor so that's exponential decay, just like a CRT pixel) it just happens relatively slowly so that the pixel never actually fades to black before the next refresh (unlike a CRT). Each whole row of pixels on the screen is refreshed in turn (on at least some displays) whereas a CRT refreshes each pixel in turn. However, as you say, the refresh rate is not a big factor for LCD's. Response time is by far the most important factor.


As for contrast ratio arguments that only really matters if you plan on using the screen in a very dark (or pitch black) room, with normal lighting/daylight the contrast ratio of any screen is nowhere near the specified level, so under those circumstances it's an irrelevant parameter.

[thejinx]

I don't know if it's been mentioned (I skimmed the posts but did not read them all in detail), but one thing to keep in mind is that any LCD will only look truly sharp at its "native" resolution. If the native resolution is 1280x1024, then it basically has a matrix of 1280 pixels by 1024 pixels (some of you tech heads can correct me if I'm explaining this incorrectly).

QFT.
Try to keep your Monitor needs in mind as well as what games you play when you run an LCD, native res is always best, and should be matched up with your GPU like Peas and Carrots.

If you HAVE to cut your res, try to do it in exactly 1/2 increments (it's actually 1/4, but you get the drift). Such as: Cut a 2560x1600 down to 1280x800, NOT to 1600x900. This will ask what is basically a square dot etcha -sketch to create round curves, and results in blocky artifacts that just don't belong. Quartering it far less noticeable, and continues to give you squared pixel draw.


As for headaches:
Try changing your posture
Try moving the screen closer or further, if you are near or far sighted
Turn up or down the brightness, or turn up the lights in your work space
Try a bigger screen. Focusing on a smaller screen kept my neck too stiff and rigid and gave me some serious tension headache after more than 2 hours of typing.

LCD's should be EASIER on you eyes, the most "active" ingredient is just the backlight. A CRT is actually shooting BEAMS OF RADIATION DEATH at your face man! Congrats, you may become a mutant and get your own comic book though.

[gargorias]

If anyone can show me an LCD with better image quality then my My 22" NEC Diamondtron CRT then I will buy it. So far nothing I have seen or had has!

[xeonshock]

If anyone can show me an LCD with better image quality then my My 22" NEC Diamondtron CRT then I will buy it. So far nothing I have seen or had has!

CRTs still have better blacks, color reproduction, and viewing angles, but LCDs are more vivid, have sharper images, widescreen ratios, are easier on the eyes and don't weigh 500000 lbs!

[*BareVibes*]

Common problem. Unfortunately since Epic went with grey's and dark shades for UT3, it caused a problem were most of the colors look washed out. Thats because all LCD's of today cannot properly produce dark shades of colors. If anybody wants to check, try running your LCd and CRT in clone mode and you will see a significant difference. This was the same problem with Doom 3 when it was released.

If you want the best detail and color, a CRT will be best for dark games (e.g Bioshock, UT3, Doom 3, Gears of War). If your running a game like Hl2, World in Conflict, COD4 a LCD will produce a much brighter and vibrant picture when compared to a CRT.

[[FfFC]_-(MAD)-_]

Newer CRTs have some Options like superbright. Thy will produce an extreme contrast and color-depht. TFTs wont come into this range.

[xeonshock]

So even with LCDs (mine has a refresh of 60hz) is it recommended to leave Vsync on as any frames higher than that are only partial frames?

[Ultron]

That's my opinion, xeonshock.

[xeonshock]

Do you notice any difference at all in how smoothly it performs or is it all psychological?

[subby99]

The only thing i notice with v-sync off on my lcd is tearing, so i have it on by default, i just cannot stand to see tearing on my screen.

Anyways, if you are going to buy a new monitor in this day and age you get a LCD, i find them to be much better then CRT and they take up 1/5 of the desk space.