Gamers who use LCDs....Why?

[marks70]

Well its just nice to know that I'm not the only person who shares the same feelings about LCDs and gaming.

Thanks for everyone's input!

 

[svi]

alse ending. Now let's get to the real story. These are the real facts and not some made up BS opinion. CRT's are superior in some ways to LCD's and LCD's are superior in other ways to CRT's. Whether you buy a CRT or LCD is up to personal preferences and each individual will have to decide for themselves whether a CRT or LCD is right for them.

It's true that a good CRT is superior in some ways to a good LCD. However, there are many advantages that a LCD has that even the best CRT can't touch. You want perfect geometry? CRT's can't produce perfect geometry because it's never calibrated perfectly. I'm sure you can point me to some super ultra expensive CRT that can do perfect geometry. I can also point you to pre-production LCD's that will match or beat a CRT's rear end in color production.

How about flickering? This is a problem that plagues CRT's, especially when you have more than one device plugged into the same outlet. I know because I see it all the time. Flickering images will cause headaches. That is a problem LCD's do not have. I KNOW for a fact that sitting side by side, my LCD does not flicker and it's plugged into the same UPS that my CRT is plugged into (dual monitor setup). The LCD has absolutely no flickering while I notice flickering on the CRT. True, most times the flickering is very minor and I have to stick my face into the monitor to see it. However, when I turn on the TV or even worse, when I plug in an electric heater it is extremely noticeable flickering on the CRT while the LCD is flicker free.

Size and weight is an area where an LCD also is superior to a CRT. Ask the typical corporation that is constrained for space whether they want bulky (and heavy) CRT's on the desks of their employees or LCD's which gives more desk space for work. I sure wouldn't want to carry a portable computer with a CRT attached to it instead of a LCD. There are also power users who require multiple monitors for their work and multiple CRT's are just too bulky.

I agree with everything that you said EXCEPT for the color reproduction statement. A properly calibrated CRT will always beat a properly calibrated LCD in the same bracket (e.g. budget, midrange, high-end) assuming both are good choices in their bracket, and there are no LCDs that can actually match properly calibrated high-end/TotL CRTs in this area. Some come quite close now, of course, and most LCDs these days are certainly more than good enough for the average desktop user or gamer, but that last 5% can be very important if you do desktop publishing for a living (or are anal about these things). Personally, I use a very good LCD (color-wise; good S-IPS panel, 10-bit gamma correction, reasonably well-calibrated) for my normal work computer, and I still would rather use a good AG CRT (probably a G520-based monitor, maybe an F520) if I could afford to have something that enormous on my desk.

Oh, also, don't forget power consumption. When you've got 20, 30, 40 computers in a single room, cutting off 50+W per computer (CRT->LCD) can make a BIG difference in room temperature and A/C costs.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Garlic

Originally posted by: Makaveli
What is this nonsense about flickering CRT's in the last 6 years, with my CRT's plugged into a powerbar, i've never had any issues with flickering. I've even had a Air conditioner plugged into the same power bar no flickering!

Only the uneducated complain about flickering because they simply don?t have the knowledge or know how to set the refresh rate from 60 Hz to 85+.

Flickering CRTs are only an issue with the uneducated and inexperienced.

Bravo Garlic. Spoken like a true ignoramus. My monitor is set at 100mhz. This is a tad higher than 85 if you know how to do math properly. Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't have the cleanest power source in my room even though my computer equipment is running out of a UPS that's suppose to filter out the most of the bumps. Either way, it still flickers if I turn on the TV and especially if I plug in the heater or air conditioner.

I think it's kind of rediculous to expect one to buy power line filters/conditioners to get rid of flickering on a monitor. That or run a seperate power outlet into my room just for that monitor. Or, even more rediculous, not plug anything else into my room but the monitor. Not that I usually have all that much stuff plugged in, and I do try to keep the AC and heat down to a minimum due to electricity costs.

BTW, power line noise is a reason for bad TV (and CRT) signals as well as affecting audio equipment. An audiophile can easily spend $1000 or more on a good line conditioner. It's why Makaveli uses a power bar (power line filter/conditioner).

Of course, Garlic, you knew all that since you're so much more educated than we are.

 

[alimoalem]

i'm happy with my ViewSonic 17" CRT

 

[BFG10K]

Well its just nice to know that I'm not the only person who shares the same feelings about LCDs and gaming.

Far from it. Non-native resolutions and ghosting are big minuses against LCDs, along with cost of course.

 

[Powermoloch]

Simple...if your a lan gamer..it's pretty lighter than a hunky chunky clunky CRT. LOoks up to date also

 

[farp96]

I had to ring in here. I've tried about 3 different LCD's the Viewsonic Vp191b, the Hyundai L90D+ and the Viewsonic vx922. All of them were 8ms LCD's except the vx922 which was 4 ms. I hooked it up via the dual dvi output on my 7800 gtx video card. Then I compared the two. On the LCD's for desktop work, no question the LCD's were better looking all around, the CRT I had didn't even compare to the LCD's in desktop performance. Text colors everything looked better than my CRT. Then I loaded up BF2. If I was standing perfectly still the LCD's looked better than my CRT, which is a Mitsabishi diamond pro 930SB. But as soon as I moved or jumped into a jeep or helicopter, forget it, the LCD's blurred big time. THe movement on my CRT was sooo much smoother than the LCD's. Half the time I couldn't make out what was going on action wise during the game because it was so dam blurry when moving fast. So for me anyway LCD's may be king for desktop use but for games they stink. Not too mention if you have a slow computer your stuck running at the native resolution which is usually 1280x1024 and if you have a slow computer then your games are going to run like a slide show and if you change the resolution to anything other than native its going to look like crap. So until LCD's are about 2ms across the board and when they allow you to change resolutions then I'll get one, but until then if your a hardcore gamer then nothing beats a CRT at games certainly not an LCD. Yeah LCD's take up less space use less power etc.. but if all you do is game then stick to an CRT for now. Wait until those new SED monitors come out or until LCD's get to the specs I listed above. Of course this is my opinion. All my friends are in agreement too, they all use CRT's still.

 

[farp96]

Here's a screen shot from BF2 on an LCD....This is with a very fast computer btw...



http://www.thecowsaysmoo.org/budwise/pics/%5bH%5d%20Forum/BF2001.jpg


That's why CRT are still better for games...

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: farp96
Here's a screen shot from BF2 on an LCD....This is with a very fast computer btw...



http://www.thecowsaysmoo.org/budwise/pics/%5bH%5d%20Forum/BF2001.jpg


That's why CRT are still better for games...

According to the EXIF data of that image, the exposure time was 1/20 of a second...so assuming the game was running at or over 60fps, the camera would have had the shutter open long enough to capture at least three separate frames - yes, even on a CRT.

Note - I don't deny that CRT's are still better than LCD's as far as how many frames they can display per second, but your picture by itself doesn't prove that.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Shrugs shoulders, pats his 2405FPW and his 7800GTX watercooled and enjoys ghost free native and nonresolutions gaming.

I notice no ghosting at all on Half Life 2 or Unreal Tournament 2004 at 1920 X 1200 resoultion and Dungeon Siege 2 looks great at 1600 X 1200 or 1920 X1200. Oh well I will enjoy my crappy gaming monitor (and yes I am joking)

 

[farp96]

True maybe that picture doesn't prove anything. But When playing BF2 on the LCD's I had it would do that exact same thing. Where as my CRT would not. And I guess the people that say they have no blurring or ghosting on their LCD's either ignore it, deny it, or just get used to it. I for one when I buy something don't want to ignore something or get used to it, I want it to work perfect like its supposed to. I have a friend that swears his 8ms LCD doesn't ghost or blur. I have even pointed it out to him, "See that, that's ghosting or Blurring" and he still says he can't see it, even though its right in front of him. I'm not an LCD hater at all, I want an LCD badly, I would love to replace my CRT with one, if all I did was desktop stuff I would have do so long ago. But I game 90% of the time, so for now CRT. I even got my Dad for christmas the L90D+ which we have at work, which is beautiful for desktop use.

 

[SilentZero]

I game on dual dell 2405fpw's and I don't see any limitations at all. These are by far the best monitors I have ever owned.

 

[Jules]

Funny how i have a envision en7600 and have zero ghosting on it and looks perfect

 

[BigfootKevin]

I went from a 19inch MAG to my Dell 2005FPW. The response time difference was amazing. The MAG had pretty bad ghosting. I doubt i'll ever use a CRT again cause they're just too damn big.

 

[Slickone]

I see nothing arrogant about the OP. Wow, people really do get upset when you talk about the shortcomings of LCD! Maybe because they've spent good money 'upgrading' to LCD. Also several people use words such as 'got used to', 'got adjusted to'.

A little ghosting wouldn't bother me (how is that much different than motion blue that 3DFx even had as an added feature in their last years), but as many people still claimed, and as it looks to me, colors are still more vibrant and deep on a CRT. I see no flicker and get no headaches from my 19" Sony Trinitron (AG) 400PS CRT. Slightly off screen geometry has never bothered me.

One of the only arguements some LCD owners give is the leighter weight and smaller footprint, but I've never needed to move my CRT, and I wouldn't be using anything behind my monitor anyway. And if your desk can't support a CRT, you need a better desk.

Also what if I want to play older games (640x,800x,1024x) on an LCD with a native res of 1280x1024 or 1600x1200? I have a lot of old games I still want to play. What do newer LCD's do to handle non-native res better? And as far as newer games, I'm not ready to upgrade to a beefy enough system to play them at the native res.

I'd like to have an LCD when they're better all around, but I've never been the type of person to jump on the bandwagon just because everyone else has, or because it's kewl. So I still wait.

Now on my PC at work, I'm trying my best to get them to get me an LCD.

 

[cryptonomicon]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
For a dedicated FPS fan, nothing will ever replace a GDM-FW900. Buy one while you still can.

THAT IS FREAKING SWEET

SICK REFRESH RATES

<3 TRINITRON

 

[elGatoXL]

I am looking at buying a new monitor to replace my aging/dying CRT and have found this discussion quite useful.

Originally posted by: Slickone
Also what if I want to play older games (640x,800x,1024x) on an LCD with a native res of 1280x1024 or 1600x1200? I have a lot of old games I still want to play.

Good question as my kids have lotsof games that require low resolutions. How do LDCs handel this?

 

[Caly]

That was answered earlier in the thread.
Some of the newer LCDs give you a "letterbox" format option with the game at its regular resolution and blackness around it.

I have a WS LCD and set the games that aren't set up to the same resolution to simply "stretch" to fill. It looks fine to me but I'm not too picky about games.

Now my Mac which I use for graphics has a CRT.

 

[sourceninja]

I use a 2001FP at home and at work. I play all sorts of FPS games, I can't see any issues. I love this monitor. Plus I like the space on my desk and the fact that the room is cooler.

 

[Wolfshanze]

I see nothing arrogant about the OP. Wow, people really do get upset when you talk about the shortcomings of LCD! Maybe because they've spent good money 'upgrading' to LCD. Also several people use words such as 'got used to', 'got adjusted to'.

A little ghosting wouldn't bother me (how is that much different than motion blue that 3DFx even had as an added feature in their last years), but as many people still claimed, and as it looks to me, colors are still more vibrant and deep on a CRT. I see no flicker and get no headaches from my 19" Sony Trinitron (AG) 400PS CRT. Slightly off screen geometry has never bothered me.

One of the only arguements some LCD owners give is the leighter weight and smaller footprint, but I've never needed to move my CRT, and I wouldn't be using anything behind my monitor anyway. And if your desk can't support a CRT, you need a better desk.

Also what if I want to play older games (640x,800x,1024x) on an LCD with a native res of 1280x1024 or 1600x1200? I have a lot of old games I still want to play. What do newer LCD's do to handle non-native res better? And as far as newer games, I'm not ready to upgrade to a beefy enough system to play them at the native res.

I'd like to have an LCD when they're better all around, but I've never been the type of person to jump on the bandwagon just because everyone else has, or because it's kewl. So I still wait.

Now on my PC at work, I'm trying my best to get them to get me an LCD.

Ditto... especially the native-res thing with old games I still enjoy.

 

[Chaotic42]

I don't notice any ghosting or anything with my 2405. I run BF2 at 1920x1440 with 4xAA with no problems on it. I should also note that I moved over to the 2405 from an IBM P260, which is a quality CRT.

I haven't run into any situation that would make me choose the 260 over the 2405.

 

[wayliff]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: pontifex
WoW looked a lot better on my LCD than it did on my CRT.

I'll attest to that. RPGs are nicer on LCDs.

WoW 37" 1920x1080 8ms ownage

drools..........

 

[zephyrprime]

Yeah Marks, LCDs have a lot of weak points but people just put up with it.

A lot of people have low visual accuity and can just don't notice resolution interpolation and ghosting a lot.
Most people (like me) only run the LCD at native resolution but that means we sacrifice flexibility. (by the way, I CRTs have a sort of native resolution also but it really high - in the ~2500 line range)

Viewsonic is coming out with a 2ms LCD. It'll probably be more like ~6ms if measured realistically but that's still pretty good.

 

[AlucardX]

my problem with LCD's.. even if i could look past the ghosting (i'm sensitive to it), is the fixed resolution. i'm tired of spending money on computers so i'm done with constantly upgrading, but i still want to play quake4 competitively. you need that counter stuck at 60fps as much as possible, and i can't be running quake4 in 1280x and expect to do well and hit my rails. i run the game in 800x and it plays great in q4max mod with r_vertexlight (single light only). i tried 1024x and it already started getting slugish. i just don't see LCD's being optimal if you game in FPS's alot, considering you dont want to upgrade but you still want to play the new games. it's just not economical.

i have a nforce 2 DFI, amd-mobile 11.5x200, 1gig pc3200, 6800nu OC 16p/6v

 

[One43637]

Originally posted by: marks70

Originally posted by: GamerExpress
I too felt the same about LCD monitors for gaming until I played on a friends new 2405FPW, now I own one myself and enjoy all aplications on it including games!!!

Are you saying that you don't have any issues with ghosting whatsoever, because that is probably my biggest gripe?

i don't have any issues with ghosting on my 2005fpw. i just wish i bought a 2405 instead. =/