CRT or LCD? Just so you know, I'm a big FPS gamer.

[Rick67]

I'm currently using a 19" Sony CRT. I've got a real bad itch to buy an LCD. I really like the new Sony SDM-HS73/H. It has a 20ms response time. However, it doesn't have DVI. Also, it's a 4:3 screen and I'd like to move up to a widescreen.

What should I do? Are LCD's finally good enough for FPS games? Should I stick with my CRT?

How many gamers here have switched to LCD's and are glad they did?

 

[KillaBong]

I don't mean to shoot down lcd's, but I have always liked good big flat crt's the best. I got this brand new 19" flat sony for about $170 out the door. I basically only play games anyway, so why would I pay three times as much for something not as good?

 

[Schadenfroh]

crts = cheaper and great for games

 

[Mem]

How many gamers here have switched to LCD's and are glad they did?

I find LCDs are not great for image quality when you use a lower resolution in gaming compared to the native resolution of LCDs.

My advice would be to have both a CRT and LCD then you`ll have the best of both worlds,yes you need a video card that can handle both but it`s worth it in my opinion,if you don`t have the space for both then I would suggest you try a LCD first in all the resolutions with games you will use,this could save you being disappointed,however they do look awesome in native resoultion.

Ghosting on fast LCDs is not really a problem,but there are other factors like image quality at lower res.

I game a lot and find my CRT is needed for certain games since even on my Samsung 191T some old games look like crap in lower res which they only support,having said that I enjoyed playing quake 3 arena at 1280x1024 on my LCD(native res).

Bottom line it`s really your call, but you know I still need my CRT for certain games.

As for DVI,I did notice the improvement in image quality on mine with my Belkin Pro series DVI cable,I think it`s worth getting a LCD with DVI input since most new video cards now have DVI connection.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
crts = cheaper and great for games

Bingo. You'll get by with an expensive LCD for gaming, but nothing matches the response, clarity, and brightness of a good CRT. Get a 19" and you'll be in gaming heaven for a good while.

- M4H

 

[Rick67]

So what does it look like when you play a game at a lower res then the native LCD res? I've heard if you run the game at a lower res and use the whole screen it looks like crap but if you don't use the who screen it looks fine except you end up with the picture being smaller (framed). Is this true?

I've got a Radeon 9700 Pro. Can I hook two monitors up to this card and switch between the two whenever I want?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Rick67
So what does it look like when you play a game at a lower res then the native LCD res? I've heard if you run the game at a lower res and use the whole screen it looks like crap but if you don't use the who screen it looks fine except you end up with the picture being smaller (framed). Is this true?

Unless the LCD has the ability to switch modes and refresh rates, it will either look blocky like a NES or cropped to fit.

I've got a Radeon 9700 Pro. Can I hook two monitors up to this card and switch between the two whenever I want?

Look at the back. Are there two plugs? Then you can hook up two monitors.

- M4H

 

[Mem]

Look at the back. Are there two plugs? Then you can hook up two monitors

Yep even if you buy an analog only LCD,you can use the DVI/analog adaptor for the DVI connection for your LCD and the other VGA for your CRT or vice versa.Buying a DVI LCD would be the best solution for the DVI connection for best image quality like I said.

 

[Jeff7181]

You'll be limited to a 17 inch LCD if you want one good enough for games. Generally 16ms and lower is the rule... even so... some 17 inch 16ms LCD's still seem to have ghosting problems. LCD technology just hasn't advanced enough yet to take over. I give it a couple more years until you can get any size LCD you want and not have to think about ghosting... then another couple years for them to be reasonably priced.

 

[sep]

I recently made the jump to LCD when my 5 year old KDS 19" monitor died on me. My options were to replace this with a good 19" CRT for under $200 or get a excellent 17" LCD. I bought the Viewsonic V17b (something like that) with the 16ms response, 500:1 contrast, 140viewing angle, etc. The top reason I went to LCD was weight/space. I host lan parties and got tired of toting this 54lbs monitor.

CRT ($200+)? If you can get passed the weight and mass the CRT takes up and really need to run games other than your LCD's opt. res. then get a CRT.

LCD ($400+)? If you don't mind a little ghosting (19" LCD, no higher than 30ms, 500:1, etc.) and can run all your games at monitor's opt. res (usually 1280x1024) then get an LCD.

See, it's really up to you.

FYI,
I played RTCW and ET at 1024x768 and 800x600. It looked just like my CRT. When playing games at 1280x these games look great! Only complaint I can make is I can't figureout why my ingame screen captures are so dark!

 

[BoomAM]

Im a heavy gamer myself, and i also has my doubts about buying a TFT over a CRT. But since i brought a TFT, i havnt looked back since.
I have an Hitachi CML174SXW 17" TFT. 16ms responce time. Its perfect for games. Amazingly sharp images, no ghosting/lag. Its the perfect display for ME.
However. To get the crispest images from a TFT, you need a powerful video card, as most TFTs have a native of 1280x1024. Lower resolutions dont look as good as the native, but on the Hitachi, 1024x768 & 800x600 dont look as bad as other TFTs running at these Resolutions.
If you are going for a 17" TFT, and want the sharpest images out of it, then no less that a GF4 Ti4600 will do.
Its upto you really. Find a CRT & a TFT that you want, and compare them, play around with them, see if the shop assistants will let you try a bit of gaming on them.

 

[BoomAM]

Forgot, if you get a TFT with a DVI interface, and use that to connect to your video card, then the lag and ghosting gets cut down a bit, compared to using the DSUB.

 

[Mem]

Just a follow up on my previous post,yes if you use the central part of the screen when you are using a lower res(below native LCD res) the picture is still excellent(at least on my 191T Samsung) it`s just when you go into expand mode to use all the screen it looks pretty poor,I like to use central part of the screen on my LCD then or CRT depending on the game and resolution in question.

LCDs have come a long way IMHO at the moment and in a few years time we`ll see great specs and quality by then.

 

[BFG10K]

If you're a FPS gamer then you shouldn't be considering LCDs at all. CRTS are cheaper, bigger, can run at any resolution you like and have higher refresh rates.

The best LCDs are 16 ms and that's only 60 Hz; if you're getting more than 60 FPS you're going to suffer.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
If you're a FPS gamer then you shouldn't be considering LCDs at all. CRTS are cheaper, bigger, can run at any resolution you like and have higher refresh rates.

The best LCDs are 16 ms and that's only 60 Hz; if you're getting more than 60 FPS you're going to suffer.

Im a FPS gamer. And ive done more that consider LCD/TFT`s. If you have a card capible of of the native resolution, then LCDs/TFTs are perfect.
As for being limited to 60hz, just switch off V-Sync and you`ll get higher than 60fps.

 

[Mem]

I game a lot as well,I will say the colour detail on a LCD is amazing compared to a CRT,anybody that has a LCD knows what I`m talking about.
The good thing with LCDs is they can only get better,can`t wait for my Samsung 195T down the road .

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Mem
I game a lot as well,I will say the colour detail on a LCD is amazing compared to a CRT,anybody that has a LCD knows what I`m talking about.
The good thing with LCDs is they can only get better,can`t wait for my Samsung 195T down the road .

I know your on about, but CRT owners wont have it.
Ive noticed that people who say that TFTs are rubbish for games and cant compare to CRTs, are people who havnt used a TFT for a decent amount of time in games.
The first thing that ive noticed when using my TFT, is the textures just seem that much more sharper.

 

[Rick67]

Maybe I'll go over to Circuit City and pick up a LCD. They've got a good return policy if I'm not happy with it.

So what do you guys think of the newer widescreen LCD's that are just now starting to hit the streets?

 

[psmcginnis]

If you're buying from Circuit City I'd recommend the NEC 1760V. They have a good deal going on right now for that monitor. 16ms response time. Great screen. Only downside is that there is no dvi--but the one's I've seen didn't appear to be suffering from the analog input.

 

[BoomAM]

If you can though, get a 16ms TFT with DVI. Using DVI reduces the ghosting significantly, not that there is any on 16ms TFTs.

 

[BFG10K]

If you have a card capible of of the native resolution, then LCDs/TFTs are perfect.

So not only do you buy something twice as expensive you also have to run it at a certain resolution and hope to hell that your video card can handle the next game you buy at that resolution.

Forgive me, but I'm struggling to see how that promotes LCDs as the better choice. Why not buy a CRT at half the price that looks just as good at any resolution below its maximum?

As for being limited to 60hz, just switch off V-Sync and you`ll get higher than 60fps.

Vsync is irrelevant. The point is that an average CRT's 75 Hz is always better than the best LCD's 60 Hz.

 

[AEB]

i need to get a LCD so my eyes wont get tired reading all these posts! I am going to get an LCD soon and im big on gaming, i think DVI is important as well as a good video card. Samsung makes a pretty nice 21" that is native at 1800x1200. but 1200 is too spendy

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
So not only do you buy something twice as expensive you also have to run it at a certain resolution and hope to hell that your video card can handle the next game you buy at that resolution.
Im fortunate to have a video card that can handle the reccommended resolution all the while. I have a 9700pro.

Forgive me, but I'm struggling to see how that promotes LCDs as the better choice. Why not buy a CRT at half the price that looks just as good at any resolution below its maximum?

Cos they take up more space, arnt as sharp, imo, and in relation to the first reason, i want to use my desk, as a desk, not as a stand for the monitor.

Vsync is irrelevant. The point is that an average CRT's 75 Hz is always better than the best LCD's 60 Hz.

Refresh rates arnt used on LCD/TFTs as they are on CRTs, so i dont know why were even arguing about it.

 

[Jeff7181]

Refresh rates arnt used on LCD/TFTs as they are on CRTs, so i dont know why were even arguing about it.

Correctomundo. LOL Refresh rates are pretty much irrelivant with LCD's because as people have stated thousands of times before, the human eye cannot detect more than 30 frames per second. The reason it matters with a CRT is because the whole screen isn't refreshed all at once. It scans from left to right, top to bottom. That's where the flickering comes from. Also, the whole screen is redrawn with a CRT, whether it changes or not. With an LCD, only the pixels that need to be changed get changed... so if you're looking at an LCD, the refresh rate could be 1 Hz, and if the screen didn't change, you wouldn't see any difference at all.

 

[BFG10K]

Im fortunate to have a video card that can handle the reccommended resolution all the while. I have a 9700pro.

That doesn't make the LCD better because you're fortunate to have a 9700 Pro. That's like saying "my Lada is better than a Ferrari because I'm fortunate enough to have a jet engine instead of a standard engine". The fact is LCDs with their single native resolution are inferior to CRTs that can run at any resolution below the maximum.

Cos they take up more space, arnt as sharp, imo, and in relation to the first reason, i want to use my desk, as a desk, not as a stand for the monitor.

Your reason of saving desk space (which is valid for you but doesn't automatically make LCDs superior because not everyone needs to save desk space) has nothing to do with the issue of LCDs being locked into one resolution.

Refresh rates arnt used on LCD/TFTs as they are on CRTs, so i dont know why were even arguing about it.

Any device capable of refreshing at 60 Hz (or 16 ms, or whatever measurement you want to use) can only display 60 full frames per second and it doesn't matter whether it's a CRT, an LCD or whatever. Another device that can refresh at 75 Hz is capable of displaying 75 full frames per second and is therefore superior. You can turn off vsync of course but the second device will still always be better in situations that have more than 60 FPS.

Refresh rates are pretty much irrelivant with LCD's because as people have stated thousands of times before, the human eye cannot detect more than 30 frames per second.

If you want to argue the topic at hand then you should start by not talking absolute rubbish.

That's where the flickering comes from. Also, the whole screen is redrawn with a CRT, whether it changes or not.

Where did I mention flickering at all? Oh that's right, I didn't.

so if you're looking at an LCD, the refresh rate could be 1 Hz,

And you think that 100 FPS will be displayed just fine on a device that's capable of refreshing only once per second?

and if the screen didn't change, you wouldn't see any difference at all.

You mean something that never happens in a 3D game?