Gamers who use LCDs....Why?

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: 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.

So the LCD is still running at the same resolution, but puts the game in a small window? I wouldn't want that. And if your LCD is native 1600x, playing a game that runs 800x would be like playing the game on a monitor half the size of what you have (say 9.5"), with half the screen area being black. That'd be like playing on a gameboy. I want my game to fill the screen, or at least most of it.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Slickone
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.

Why they buy them has more to do with space-saving, easier-on-their-eyes, better-for-text-work than being "kewl". Not everybody has the same eyes or eye system as you. Some people get headaches from from each type of display, believe it or not. For some, the flickering bothers them more than the bright bluish-cast fluorescent lamp. The people who can notice the flickering tend to have better visual acuity from what I've observed. There was a thread here a long time ago about that.

This especially is why gamers might use them. Gaming on a CRT for hours is eye torture for some people. Long distance CRT viewing doesn't bother me, but when I'm up close to it, it is 100x more bothersome. Sure, when it comes to color brightness in the lower spectrum and response time, CRTs are better all-around. But it's not worth it for the headaches I get from it.

The Samsung 930BF LCD (fastest 19") actually measures ~8 ms now, not 16 ms like most "8 ms", so for the vast majority, the response time isn't an issue. What's left? Native resolution and color contrast. We'll see the color improve when LED backlights are implemented in affordable models. When it does, it may surpass CRTs in terms of gamut (which has already been done with the expensive NEC LCD), and that's good news for everybody. As for native resolution, Windows Vista will likely use vector scaling so text will always be crisp. For games, most people use lower-res because it's faster. Unfortunately Vista won't fix that.

Originally posted by: 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.

The CRT's native resolution is its max resolution, the number of dots in the shadow mask. Despite being an avid LCD user, I can't stand the resolution interpolation either (my brother thinks it's really good though). But I also have a 7800GT so it's not really a problem using native (1280x1024). If you're a high-end gamer, you probably upgrade your graphics card a lot, so I can't really see how the native res is an issue there, unless you have a huge 1920x1200 resolution which almost nothing can do HIGH settings on yet.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: xtknightThe Samsung 930BF LCD (fastest 19") actually measures ~8 ms now, not 16 ms like most "8 ms", so for the vast majority, the response time isn't an issue.

Are you sure about that? review. Also, the samsung 970 is out now.

The CRT's native resolution is its max resolution, the number of dots in the shadow mask.

This is what most people think, but it's actually not true. The number of dots on a crt's shadow mask is greater than the crt's max resolution. This is why CRTs are good at displaying a wide range or resolutions. It's because they are actually downsampling from a super high resolution. If a crt had only as many dots as its max resolution, it would experience the same sort of resolution interpolation problems as LCDs do now.

 

[Metron]

All other arguments aside, OP, how can your eyes stand staring into a TV set for x hours per day?
I don't know about you, but I typically spend 12 hours a day staring into my LCD panels (8 at work and at least another 4 at home). Before I switched totally to LCD's, my eyes were constantly tiring and my vision steadily declined over years of sitting in front of CRT's. I'm not talking about cheap CRT's either, I used to use the 20" Sony Trinitrons myself.

Given that I depend upon my eyes to work, the choice was a no-brainer. My vision stopped declining and my eyes stopped hurting once I stopped sitting inches from a 20" TV set... no more electron guns firing directly into my eyes. Good luck with that...

*edit* and yes, I game on my system at home.

 

[theMan]

imo, the main limitation is resolution. if i get a big lcd, i would have to run all my games at 1600x1200, or whatever, and theres no way i can do that on my 6600gt. with my CRT, i can run older games at 1600x1200, and the really new ones at 1024x760 or 1280x1024. its just nice.

 

[IHYLN]

Originally posted by: Tick
Well, I hate lcd's, but not for the ghosting. Rather, the even on premium lcd's, the image looks, well, fake. That's not the right word, as it doesn't reall describe it, but for some reason, the image just doesn't look true to life for me, even on properly configured lcds. It just seems like all the images are toy-story-ish. They all seem like the clarity is to high, like I'm viewing them through an exotic gas atmosphere. They litteraly aren't blurry enough for me to believe. The world is slightly blury, as air isn't totaly transparent. CRT's convey that effect. LCD's don't.

It helps if you aren't high.

 

[IHYLN]

Originally posted by: Garlic
Oh ya, people here failed to mention that when you change the resolution of LCDs to anything other than native resolution it looks like CRAP!

One reason I dont want an LCD as my primary monitor. Having a native resolution is a HUGE limiation because everything else looks like CRAP!

LCDs are for noobs/home users.

noobs and home users? wow, is this the level of discussion we have reached at AT?

First off, why don't you do some research first. I have a Dell 2001FP and obviously I cannot play every game at 1600x1200 so i play at 1024x1024 with CS/WoW just fine and looks just as sharp as native mode.

Only noob here is you!

 

[professor1942]

I can't stand CRT's anymore... too fuzzy, even the best ones.

And my inexpensive Samsung LCD works perfectly for games, even at lower resolutions.

 

[NYTRIDR]

lol, love how the morons are badmouthing LCD. problem is, the best players in the world use LCD. they must be noobs too huh? as for what game i play (bf2), LCDs work great. talk to anyone from TFS (the final stand) or 20ID about what monitor they use.

 

[ForumMaster]

Originally posted by: marks70
Added....
Also, How do you cope with having only one resolution that is native to the monitor? For text, if you take an LCD out of its native resolution, it looks like crap. So how do you deal with this when it comes to games that won't run in your LCD's native resolution (for whatever reason)?

well that depends. i play gta san andreas and it supports my 1280 by 1024 res. most new games do. and anyway, if u get a 20in.+, the native resolution is 1600 by 1200. perfect 4:3. so just get a one bigger then 19in and ur set. i got this noname CMV V372 17in lcd moniter. they claim 8ms. i don't wanna judge anything, but i have never seen and ghosting. i also play fps shooters like the UT series and Wolfenstein:Enemy Terretory.

 

[NeezyDeezy]

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

qft