Gamers who use LCDs....Why?

[CDC Mail Guy]

Originally posted by: marks70

Originally posted by: CDC Mail Guy
More room on the desk to eat my nachos!

Nice!

As mentioned in a previous response, for those that keep claiming I haven't tried a good monitor, and therefore have no basis for my claims, I have tried the ViewSonic VP191B (Link), which is supposed to be an awesome gaming monitor. Well, it went back because of the issues I mentioned.

Glad you like nachos as well!
I have a Samsung SyncMaster 710T, and I love it. No dead pixels whatsoever. Not noticed poor gaming, but SOMETIMES when I watch one of my movies I notice a lot of pixelation/blurriness...but that could be from poor video quality.

 

[eXx08]

I use it because I don't have much room on my desk.

 

[SynthDude2001]

The "limitations" of LCD's just aren't an issue for me. It's true that CRT's still have a few advantages in the areas of response time and contrast ratios, but after trying two NEC FP2141SB's early this year and being totally dissatisfied with their lack of "crispness" or sharpness or focus, I sent them back and bought a 2005FPW. I can see very slight motion blur if I'm looking for it - but as others have said, I play my games to play them and enjoy them, not to go looking for a reason to dislike my monitor. Image clarity over DVI is unbelieveable after using CRT's for years, a huge difference to my eyes. Resolution scaling is quite adequate and I could use lower resolutions all day even for text if I for some reason wanted to. The monitor is not perfect (nothing is), but it's close enough for me. At this point, realistically, I'd never go back to using a CRT - while it would be kind of nice to have something like a GDM-FW900 to play with just for the hell of it, I see no point in replacing something I'm very happy with. Not to mention the size and weight issues - desk space is nice but can be worked around, but the weight of any big CRT is just way overboard for me. I go to lots of LAN parties and live on the fourth floor of a building with no elevators, so the 65 pound 22" CRT would not have really worked anyway. The remaining advantages of CRT's (and good AG CRT's have been rapidly disappearing over the last year or two) are not worth it to me, to have a monitor with 4x the weight and not look as clear or sharp.

You still prefer CRT's for gaming? Great, everyone has their preferences (since neither technology can be considered the absolute best at this point). Just don't come in here and post flamebait basically asking why everyone bought crappy monitors (which you did). :thumbsdown:

 

[Garlic]

There aint no LCD out there that can match the image quality and contrast of my 21" IBM P275 (sony trinitron) monitor. LCDs today dont stand a chance.

If you have the room there is no reason to buy an LCD. Unless you want to feel "cool" about yourself *yawn*,

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: marks70

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
I think you must be related to the guy that still insists we learn DOS at college.

Funny. I suppose I should have jumped on the BETA bandwagon when it came out because it was the hot new technology also.

Since when has DOS been in BETA? LCD's have been around for quite some time.... more than enough to consider them out of any beta period.

 

[marks70]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: marks70

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
I think you must be related to the guy that still insists we learn DOS at college.

Funny. I suppose I should have jumped on the BETA bandwagon when it came out because it was the hot new technology also.

Since when has DOS been in BETA? LCD's have been around for quite some time.... more than enough to consider them out of any beta period.

I was referring to Betamax, as in video tapes for your VCR. Maybe before your time.

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
You still prefer CRT's for gaming? Great, everyone has their preferences (since neither technology can be considered the absolute best at this point)

Bwahahaha. Sorry, everyone here should know I'm a hard-core CRT fan for my heavy graphics usage. But LCDs do reign completely supreme now. It's just that $50,000 pricetag

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Garlic
There aint no LCD out there that can match the image quality and contrast of my 21" IBM P275 (sony trinitron) monitor. LCDs today dont stand a chance.

If you have the room there is no reason to buy an LCD. Unless you want to feel "cool" about yourself *yawn*,

More drivel. The best LCDs will deliver a wider color gamut than your monitor. Some colors at the calibrated level have a lower DeltaE than CRTs. They will never flicker, so you can enjoy games much longer without getting eye strain. Not to mention you don't have to risk your life to adjust the focus of them. Increasing video bandwidth does not make the pixels blur either. No glare and perfect geometry. Landing/purity issues nonexistent. No harmful X-radiation (no deflection yoke), and no interference with other electromagnetic devices. Much better aesthetics and portable for LAN parties. Cheaper in the long run after you count in electricity and heat bills.

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: xtknight
More drivel. The best LCDs will deliver a wider color gamut than your monitor. Some colors at the calibrated level have a lower DeltaE than CRTs. They will never flicker, so you can enjoy games much longer without getting eye strain. Not to mention you don't have to risk your life to adjust the focus of them. Increasing video bandwidth does not make the pixels blur either. No glare and perfect geometry. Landing/purity issues nonexistent. No harmful X-radiation (no deflection yoke), and no interference with other electromagnetic devices. Portable for LAN parties. Cheaper in the long run after you count in electricity and heat bills.

There is still no LCD under $17k that can match a $5k CRT

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: xtknight
More drivel. The best LCDs will deliver a wider color gamut than your monitor. Some colors at the calibrated level have a lower DeltaE than CRTs. They will never flicker, so you can enjoy games much longer without getting eye strain. Not to mention you don't have to risk your life to adjust the focus of them. Increasing video bandwidth does not make the pixels blur either. No glare and perfect geometry. Landing/purity issues nonexistent. No harmful X-radiation (no deflection yoke), and no interference with other electromagnetic devices. Portable for LAN parties. Cheaper in the long run after you count in electricity and heat bills.

There is still no LCD under $17k that can match a $5k CRT

This will deliver a wider color gamut if that's what you mean. Important for photo-editing.

http://www.necdisplay.com/products/Prod...lassificationFamily=1&Classification=3

But anyway, Garlic saying there's 'no reason' to get an LCD is ridiculous. They have their disadvantages but they also have a lot of advantages. It's a personal preference thing, so you can't blankly state one is better than the other. It's subjective.

 

[ribbon13]

That's irrelevant because the CRT was already pretty much beyond the limitations of the human eye except for those with superhuman sensitivity. However the human will rapidly notice the low contrast ratio and motion blur for anything over 35FPS on that LCD (Yes, I've used it).

 

[drpootums]

I notice no ghosting, and it's nice to be able to use my desk for more than just a spot for my monitor...

 

[xtknight]

The latest 4ms. AU Optronics panel (consumer, included in BenQ FP91V+) with feedforward driving delivers a faster and sharper black over white text transition than the P22-phosphor medium-short persistence CRT, though color is still a bit slower. See here. http://www.behardware.com/html/news/cat22/page2.html

Samsung recently developed a color filter-less LCD which will drive the response time down to a third of what it is right now regardless of TN/PVA/IPS, etc. After that and highly optimized overvoltage, the motion blur should be as much a non-issue as the human eye limitations you were talking about. While it's noticeable on my 6-bit TN 12ms., it's still a non-issue/not an obstruction.

I'm not entirely certain about contrast ratio, but S-PVA LCDs are definitely up there in terms of this. The white level is probably higher than an AG CRT, while only the black level suffers (just a few tenths of a candela drive the contrast ratio rating much higher on the CRT). The white level of the Samsung S-PVA 770P monitor is 1149 cd/m² measured, while the peak luminance of a CRT (yes, even that UWG one you listed) at 9500K is just 100 cd/m². Once they get LED backlights, the black level will probably be driven down as well, and that's another issue gone.

Resolution interpolation will probably be figured out some time. The main problem now is getting the algorithms fast enough, as there are already decent Gaussian resizing methods available.

The monitor to look forward to will be SEDs, of which I have a big thread about here.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1723498&enterthread=y

 

[ribbon13]

Yeah, I really can't wait for filterless LCD w/ LED backlighting. That will be pretty much the deathblow CRT tech needs. Though I thought of the idea of LED backlighting a long time ago for LCD usage, I guess I should have patented it. It seemed only logical to me. If its good enough for night lights, flashlights, and christmas lights, why no for backlighting. And the great thing about an LED array is you can achieve true black. That being the one critical area where LCDs still can't compete with CRTs for my graphics usage.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Yeah, I really can't wait for filterless LCD w/ LED backlighting. That will be pretty much the deathblow CRT tech needs. Though I thought of the idea of LED backlighting a long time ago for LCD usage, I guess I should have patented it. It seemed only logical to me. If its good enough for night lights, flashlights, and christmas lights, why no for backlighting. And the great thing about an LED array is you can achieve true black. That being the one critical area where LCDs still can't compete with CRTs for my graphics usage.

Were you not satisfied by Eizo's ColorEdge 10-bit gamma LUT/LED-backlit S-IPS monitors? I guess those in particular have an atrocious response time but other than that it seems like they've got it down.

Besides that I thought there existed such a thing as transmissive LCDs which are by default black? Only saw it on some rare LCD panel manufacturers' sites though.

Some interesting info: http://sharp-world.com/products/device/lcd/hrtft.html

 

[ribbon13]

Eizo charges too damn much and transmissive LCDs have only been seen is sizes less than 5" from what I recall (only seen them on digital cameras)

 

[marks70]

Reading your guys' responses makes my brain hurt.

 

[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.

 

[Oyeve]

I use 3 LCDs, mostly for PC gaming and console gaming and while I do notice some ghosting and smearing (especially with reds and solid blacks) it is perfectly playable and I love them. The native resolution on my LCDs is 1280x1024 which is just fine for me. I really dont need to play a game at 1600x1400 or so. And older games like NFSU that dont go any higher than 1024x768 scale just fine on my LCDs. I still have my 22" Sony trinitron monitor on my desk but only use it for DVD movies and art/video editing as the color is much more accurate. I live in bliss with both technologies.

 

[Celeryman]

I know I am bordering on being a troll here when I say this, but this is coming from personal experience.

CRT's ARE GAY

LCD's ARE NOT

Now, to follow those statements with something that too me, makes a big difference. Screen Geometry is one of the biggest reasons I went over to LCD's when they released the first Planar 16ms LCD's. I couldn't stand the curving picture on almost all CRT's. (Yes, I spent many hours trying to correct the geometry on each of my CRT's) Newer CRT's are better, and a good trinitron or diamondtron tube makes some difference, but then there is the second reason I went over to LCD's. Space. I hate a monitor that seemingly takes up the whole desk. Being a big FPS fan, I have played the more popular FPS's on LCD's and don't miss the slight color improvement in CRT's, nor do I notice ghosting or tearing during intense play.

Of course, I believe this is one of the most subjective and controversial subjects dealing with computers and visual technology today.

 

[rbV5]

Gameplay itself means more to me as a gamer. I've had great gaming experiences on consoles for instance, which have far more "limitations" than any particular display solution. My RPTV offers some fun change of pace at times even with its limited resolution support, and I briefly hooked my 27" LCD TV up to my PC and found it pretty kick-ass for 1280x720 gaming, and my primary gaming display is a decent 22" CRT that I've been using for years.

 

[SPARTAN VI]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
That's irrelevant because the CRT was already pretty much beyond the limitations of the human eye except for those with superhuman sensitivity. However the human will rapidly notice the low contrast ratio and motion blur for anything over 35FPS on that LCD (Yes, I've used it).

CRTs at anything lower than 70Hz irritate the crap out of my eyes. About a year ago, when I still had a CRT, I started experiencing headaches, watery eyes, and runny nose. I could only link it to my monitor, at the time, so I did a little research. Found that the refresh rate of 60Hz can really strain the eyes and produce these symptoms.

So I upped the refresh rate to 85hz, and was done with it. Now, whenever I walk by a CRT, I can immediately tell whether or not it's running below 70Hz. There's this flicker to the screen, almost like it's pulsating.

I have a 2005FPW now and there's no game I can't play at its native resolution. The only argument against LCD's (namely widescreens) is their cost; I'm not even speaking about the initial cost, but the total cost of ownership. To keep games at the native resolution, you'll need a pretty beefy videocard(s), as games and such don't look right when running at 4:3. It's a vacuum directly attached to your wallet. I've been fortunate enough to get stellar deals on my video solutions, so I have nothing to complain about.

 

[cr0ssfire]

I use an LCD simply because it's smaller and easier to take with me when I want to go to a LAN party. Sure, it's not going to look as good as a CRT would - especially given that my LCD's refresh rate is a god-awful 40ms - but at least it's got mobility on its side.

 

[w00t]

Originally posted by: SPARTAN VI

Originally posted by: ribbon13
That's irrelevant because the CRT was already pretty much beyond the limitations of the human eye except for those with superhuman sensitivity. However the human will rapidly notice the low contrast ratio and motion blur for anything over 35FPS on that LCD (Yes, I've used it).

CRTs at anything lower than 70Hz irritate the crap out of my eyes. About a year ago, when I still had a CRT, I started experiencing headaches, watery eyes, and runny nose. I could only link it to my monitor, at the time, so I did a little research. Found that the refresh rate of 60Hz can really strain the eyes and produce these symptoms.

So I upped the refresh rate to 85hz, and was done with it. Now, whenever I walk by a CRT, I can immediately tell whether or not it's running below 70Hz. There's this flicker to the screen, almost like it's pulsating.

I have a 2005FPW now and there's no game I can't play at its native resolution. The only argument against LCD's (namely widescreens) is their cost; I'm not even speaking about the initial cost, but the total cost of ownership. To keep games at the native resolution, you'll need a pretty beefy videocard(s), as games and such don't look right when running at 4:3. It's a vacuum directly attached to your wallet. I've been fortunate enough to get stellar deals on my video solutions, so I have nothing to complain about.

I agree with the CRT refresh rate i can tell until 85Hz even 75Hz like almost flickers constant.

edit: 2005fpw here we come x-mas

 

[Makaveli]

You're best bet is to keep up with testing the New LCD's as they come out. Obviously know one in here has same eyes as you, so all you will get is opinons. And no one as really brought up the Dead pixel thing for LCD's, not everyone can try before they buy depending on there location, and I know a few people that have gotten burnt like that. And lets just say that turned them off from LCDs right away. lol and for all the little girls complaining about there desk breaking from a 60lb monitor. Don't buy a POS ****** desk, buy something that is real wood and u won't have this issue. I too own a 21` AG CRT Dell P1110 Triniton, and for games I've not found anything better at the moment. I know my monitor won't last forever, and would like to go for an LCD for my next purchase. hopefully in the next 2 years or so we'll see some more improvements to LCD tech. Resolution scaling is also a big thing for me, I run my desktop at 1600x1200 85hz, and game at 1280x1024 100hz.

You know whatelse really bugs me, seeing people with 2000+ post, who use Anandtech rigs and still don't know how to link it properly.
Just my 2c.

Specs