CRT or LCD monitor?

[Templ]

Which monitor is better for gaming - 19' Flat trinitron CRT or 17' Samsung 172X LCD. I know that LCD is much better for my eyes, but what about the response time? The new Samsung's rs is only 12ms, but is that enough?

 

[Nebor]

The CRT will still be better for gaming. The thing is, how MUCH better will it be, and is it worth the compromise. How much time will you spend doing non-game things, like surfing these forums. And is your vision bad already? Because using a CRT will only make it worse.

 

[PowderBB3D]

LCD's are great on the eyes. They have laser sharp text and everything is crystal clear. The problem with LCD's is their streaking/ghosting effect. Let me tell you that it's a bit touch and go. I have a Samsung 173p, which has a response time of 25ms. I can play fast paced games like Unreal Tournament 2004 in it just fine. But when I play Counter-Strike the ghosting toasts my eyes like no other - I can't play it on this monitor because it starts to physically hurt and it effects my aim. I don't really know why there's this large difference but it's there - I can definately notice streaking on CS, but on UT2K it is well below tolerable levels.

Since I'm worried about CS:Source streaking as well as HL2 and D3 I'm RMAing my monitor and getting a 710T, which has a 12ms response time. I'll let you know how that one works out when it arrives on Tuesday/Wed.


CLIFF NOTES: CRT > LCD for games/movies, LCD > CRT for everything else.

 

[Gurck]

Screen area's important. For the same price you get much more of it with a CRT. You also don't have to worry about dead pixels.

 

[Templ]

Originally posted by: Nebor
The CRT will still be better for gaming. The thing is, how MUCH better will it be, and is it worth the compromise. How much time will you spend doing non-game things, like surfing these forums. And is your vision bad already? Because using a CRT will only make it worse.

Well, after 16 years of using many CRT monitors (from the old eye-killer to the trinitron sony), my vision is still perfect. But i don't think it's wise to push my luck any further. I don't play games so very often, but when i don't like to see motion blur every now and then. But i still think that the new Samsung with 12ms response time is a good buy and that motion blur is not detectable very often.

 

[Gurck]

There's more to ghosting than response time.

 

[EviLRas]

i asked the same question a few weeks ago. the reply i got was basically, 16ms lcd's are easy to find. 25ms is the norm, and crap for games. 12ms is good, but some people again still complained of ghosting? i'm still not sure. getting my moniter in the next month or so. i think i can get a 17" 16ms benq for like £270. or an hitachi 19" with 17" footprint flat screen CRT for £140..

LOTS of the replies said get an lcd for browsing the net and stuff, and a 22" CRT for gaming...
ouch said the wallet to the foolish man..


Rascle

 

[PING]

Why not go with dual monitor? CRT+LCD. :evil: IMHO, that would be the ultimate set-up. The hell with cost and desktop space.