POLL: THE FINAL LCD vs. CRT thread = Lets draw the line!

[fkloster]

OH btw, the reason why the cheap LCD's you see in the store have fuzzy images is because they probably aren't set at NATIVE resolutions...

Woah... LCD monitors that are not set to some 'native' resolution bring about fuzzy images??!! Wow that sucks!! :Q

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: fkloster

OH btw, the reason why the cheap LCD's you see in the store have fuzzy images is because they probably aren't set at NATIVE resolutions...

Woah... LCD monitors that are not set to some 'native' resolution bring about fuzzy images??!! Wow that sucks!! :Q

your being sarcastic here right??

 

[fkloster]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: fkloster

OH btw, the reason why the cheap LCD's you see in the store have fuzzy images is because they probably aren't set at NATIVE resolutions...

Woah... LCD monitors that are not set to some 'native' resolution bring about fuzzy images??!! Wow that sucks!! :Q

your being sarcastic here right??

I knew LCD monitors like only 1 or so set resolutions but I didn't know the image is screwed up if you don't use that res....I just thought it would'nt fit right on the screen or something....I had know idea!

 

[Yomicron]

Untill I can get an LCD with a resolution of 1600x1200 (preferably 18 or 19in) for <=$300, I'll be sticking with my CRTs.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: fkloster

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: fkloster

OH btw, the reason why the cheap LCD's you see in the store have fuzzy images is because they probably aren't set at NATIVE resolutions...

Woah... LCD monitors that are not set to some 'native' resolution bring about fuzzy images??!! Wow that sucks!! :Q

your being sarcastic here right??

I knew LCD monitors like only 1 or so set resolutions but I didn't know the image is screwed up if you don't use that res....I just thought it would'nt fit right on the screen or something....I had know idea!

LCD monitors function reasonably well when not in Native Resolution but the TEXT is not as crisp. for gaming and movies and such you won't see a huge difference but for windows desktop, text etc, it won't be as clear when you aren't in native resolution.

in native resolution the picture is clearer than w/ a crt in my opinion.

my dell 17" for example has a native resolution of 1280 x 1024. this means (i could be wrong here) that there are literally 1280x1024 transistors in the LCD monitor. hence in that resolution you will get w/o question the best image.

 

[Eug]

There's two ways to run a lower resolution on an LCD.

1) Run using only a portion of the screen with black bars around it. This looks excellent, but you lose screen real estate.
2) Interpolate. You keep your screen real estate but it doesn't look so good.

Anyways, I am looking at 2D text 95% of the time, and game or do Photoshop 5% of the time. Thus for me LCD is superior. If it was the other way around I might pick CRT. Actually I probably wouldn't. In the latter case I'd probably pick BOTH, with dual monitor.

BTW, I don't having ghosting issues with UT2003 or Q3. Maybe its there but I don't notice it.

I have a Samsung 172T which is AnandTech's favourite LCD monitor. I would not accept a low end LCD or a low end CRT. Both are crap. If you go LCD, you have to spend the coin to get a good one. The benefit of CRT is you can still get a good one for the price of a low end LCD.

 

[chizow]

my dell 17" for example has a native resolution of 1280 x 1024. this means (i could be wrong here) that there are literally 1280x1024 transistors in the LCD monitor. hence in that resolution you will get w/o question the best image.

Close enuff Just for the panel, but you need to multi that by 3 for each of the RGB transistors that make a single pixel.

Also, regardless of native vs. non-native resolutions, you simply CANNOT base your judgement on what you see at a store unless it is directly hooked up to a working PC. They use some sort of interpolated image split from who knows what. I don't even think its a VGA image being projected on the monitors at Best Buy, its probably closer to RCA or S-video. LCDs at places like that look like crap and nothing like you would see if it were hooked up directly to a DVI on a PC. The geometry and display is always off-center, that alone should give you an idea of how far those displays are from the real thing.

Chiz

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: chizow
Also, regardless of native vs. non-native resolutions, you simply CANNOT base your judgement on what you see at a store unless it is directly hooked up to a working PC. They use some sort of interpolated image split from who knows what. I don't even think its a VGA image being projected on the monitors at Best Buy, its probably closer to RCA or S-video. LCDs at places like that look like crap and nothing like you would see if it were hooked up directly to a DVI on a PC. The geometry and display is always off-center, that alone should give you an idea of how far those displays are from the real thing.

Most of the places I've indeed do have LCDs hooked up to PCs directly, but even that isn't ideal. Most are low end LCDs and without even a DVI input. Furthermore, the VGA cards they use often are crap low-end nVidia cards which don't have good 2D in the first place. This used to be OK with low end CRT monitors, since the 2D on those are suck anyway.

I guess they don't want to spend the $ to put a Radeon with DVI and top notch VGA in every PC they have hooked up to an LCD monitor.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: chizow

my dell 17" for example has a native resolution of 1280 x 1024. this means (i could be wrong here) that there are literally 1280x1024 transistors in the LCD monitor. hence in that resolution you will get w/o question the best image.

Close enuff Just for the panel, but you need to multi that by 3 for each of the RGB transistors that make a single pixel.

Also, regardless of native vs. non-native resolutions, you simply CANNOT base your judgement on what you see at a store unless it is directly hooked up to a working PC. They use some sort of interpolated image split from who knows what. I don't even think its a VGA image being projected on the monitors at Best Buy, its probably closer to RCA or S-video. LCDs at places like that look like crap and nothing like you would see if it were hooked up directly to a DVI on a PC. The geometry and display is always off-center, that alone should give you an idea of how far those displays are from the real thing.

Chiz

ya ya ya. i knew that. i should have written cluster of transisters. but you knew what i meant.

 

[DX2Player]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: DX2Player

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: HokieESM

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: DX2Player
Umm 17" LCDs dont have 18" viewable sory

uhhmmm, 19" crt's don't have 18 in viewable EITHER.

Do you have a 17" lcd in front of you?? I didn't think so. i'm sitting here looking at both a 19" crt and a 17" lcd. don't tell me they aren't the same size. they are both 17" diagonally. an 18" LCD would be bigger than the 19" crt.

SO a 19" CRT = 17" LCD and that's only a good 19" crt.

Actually, I have an 18" LCD and an 19" CRT (Sony G420P)... and they're the exact same viewable size. 18".

not that it REALLY matters, to a degree, though.... I run them at completely different resolutions.

are all 19" CRT's 18" viewable?? NO.

I clearly said that a HIGH END CRT is better than a HIGH END LCD.

i don't know why we are getting side tracked on the issue of size as size is only ONE of the reasons people buy displays.

I'd take a good 15" LCD over a low to mid range 19" CRT.

Do you realize that for the price of a low end LCD, (yes low end LCDS blow just go to store and look they are blurry), you can get a near high end CRT that would compeltly own it.

And if your saying that my $240 monitor is somehow high end beign that its 18' viewable than well for $240 you can get a high end CRT but still cant aford a low end LCD with same viewable

You backed yourself into that one

i didnt back into anything. you just have this strange love relationship with your monitor. i was just speaking generally. yes LCD's are more expensive. For my clients, however, an LCD is mandatory. they just don't have the space available to put 19" monitors on their desks. and for them because of their usage and proximity to the monitor, a 15" serves their purposes better than any 19".

you are focused on trying to prove that your 19" is a bit bigger than a 17" lcd and that you got a good buy. way to go, you got a good buy.

but really that isn't the issue here is it. the issue is not what you have and what you paid but what works better for people.

in general i find that low end LCD's (although MORE expensive than low to mid range CRT's) are preferable to a low to mid range CRT.

DVI is nice but it isn't necessary in order to have a nice display.

OH btw, the reason why the cheap LCD's you see in the store have fuzzy images is because they probably aren't set at NATIVE resolutions because in MOST stores they will put a whole group of monitors on the same PC using splitters and they all have to be set at the same resolution. well guess what, NOT ALL LCD's have the same native resolution.

Your clients? Well duh a LCD is the better choice when you dotn have the space for a CRT, your clients and their space have nothing to do with it. Thats like saying a BMW 740 is better than a Saleen S7 because the Saleen cant bring clients around to show them real estate.

And for the love thing with my monitor what are you talking about I simply use my monitor as an example because its what I have experience with the most.

Basically here is how I see it

If you have limited space buy a LCD
If you work with text more than graphics get an LCD

If you dont care about space get a CRT
If you have a Budget but still need size and performance get a CRT
If you play games a lot get a CRT
If you do graphics rendering where color percision is important get a CRT


But for me I have tons of space but not tons of money, I play games, surf the net, and type papers. I think that I fall into the catageory that most non buisness users fall into. So for me the only reason to get a LCD is when I dont have the space for a CRT.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: DX2Player
Your clients? Well duh a LCD is the better choice when you dotn have the space for a CRT, your clients and their space have nothing to do with it. Thats like saying a BMW 740 is better than a Saleen S7 because the Saleen cant bring clients around to show them real estate.

And for the love thing with my monitor what are you talking about I simply use my monitor as an example because its what I have experience with the most.

Basically here is how I see it

If you have limited space buy a LCD
If you work with text more than graphics get an LCD

If you dont care about space get a CRT
If you have a Budget but still need size and performance get a CRT
If you play games a lot get a CRT
If you do graphics rendering where color percision is important get a CRT


But for me I have tons of space but not tons of money, I play games, surf the net, and type papers. I think that I fall into the catageory that most non buisness users fall into. So for me the only reason to get a LCD is when I dont have the space for a CRT.

your entitled to your opinion.

me i've seen too many people with Envision or another cheap brand CRT and honestly, they would have been WAY better off with a low end 2 to 3 hundred dollar LCD. I'm not talking gamers here, i'm talking people to cheap to buy a decent CRT.

so one more time, LOW End, LCD dominates low end CRT's. Mid range, ok, i'm willing to concede that there is more wiggle room here. i have a mid range LCD and a mid range CRT. for MOST of what i do, including Star Craft / Brood wars, i prefer the LCD. MB it's because I don't do any FPS games AT ALL. i have Madden 2003 and Simcity 2003, but i don't do a lot of graphic intensive gaming.

High end, w/o question the CRT dominates.

but for MOST people, MOST of the time, a 2 to 6 hundred dollar LCD will serve them better than a Low end and most mid range CRT's.

One more time. THIS IS MY OPINION. THIS IS WHAT I ADVISE MY CLIENTS. and MOST of them go along with it.

 

[chizow]

ya ya ya. i knew that. i should have written cluster of transisters. but you knew what i meant.

Yah I figured you did, hence the

I guess they don't want to spend the $ to put a Radeon with DVI and top notch VGA in every PC they have hooked up to an LCD monitor.

Well thats definitely an issue, no doubt, but thats what OEM boxes from Sony, Compaq, HP etc. etc. come with which is also why I find myself reminding folks that there's a reason nVidia is still the market leader. The cost benefits of investing that much into showcasing an LCD is probably too great. They want to keep their panels in one centralized location, and any panels that are installed elsewhere are hooked up to floor displays of OEM machines. Really a pot-luck of what card it'll be mated to.

But yah, I completely agree with the low-end cards not doing an LCD justice. I've just seen a lot of references to the fuzzy split-feed displays at a large B&M. CompUSA actually does a pretty good job of displaying LCDs on higher-end rigs.

Chiz

 

[Dijay]

good, gooder, gooderer, goodest, goodester, best, bester, besterester, bestesterestist * a chrongillion


k, thats settled

 

[Eug]

but for MOST people, MOST of the time, a 2 to 6 hundred dollar LCD will serve them better than a Low end and most mid range CRT's.

$600 is a lot of money. It will get you a pretty good LCD. In fact it will get you a top of the line 17" LCD.

$200 is nothing for an LCD. IMO $200 is better spent on a 17" shadow mask CRT for most (but not all) people.

 

[DX2Player]

Ok lets help you out here, you cant say low end to low end between the two because they are in two totally different price ranges.

lets be fair and go with normal sized 17" LCD monitors and compair them against 19" CRT ill give you the benifit of the doubt and assume they both have same viewable space

Ok now lets see who wins each budget catageory, this is of course assuming you have enough space for either because no argument is needed when you have limited space and can only use a LCD

$0-150 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range--- very poor quality CRTs
$150-200 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range---low quality CRTs
$200-250 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range---medium quality CRTs
$250-300 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range---above average quality CRTs
$300-350 range: CRT wins---Only dirt cheap generic LCDs in this price range while CRTs are high quality
$350-400 range: CRT wins---Low quality names like Hyundia, CTX, Acer LCDs vs High quality CRTs by Samsung, Viewsonic, and NEC
$400-500 range: Tie depending on needs outside of space constraint---High quality CRTs and mid range quality LCDs
$500-600 range: Tie depending on needs outside of space constraint---Very high quality CRTs and mid/high range LCDs
$600-800 range: Tie depending on needs outside of space constraint---Very high quality CRTs and High quality LCDs
$800+ range: CRT wins---This price range belongs to graphics designers where the exact reproduction of image color is needed

 

[fkloster]

Originally posted by: DX2Player
Ok lets help you out here, you cant say low end to low end between the two because they are in two totally different price ranges.

lets be fair and go with normal sized 17" LCD monitors and compair them against 19" CRT ill give you the benifit of the doubt and assume they both have same viewable space

Ok now lets see who wins each budget catageory, this is of course assuming you have enough space for either because no argument is needed when you have limited space and can only use a LCD

$0-150 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range--- very poor quality CRTs
$150-200 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range---low quality CRTs
$200-250 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range---medium quality CRTs
$250-300 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range---above average quality CRTs
$300-350 range: CRT wins---Only dirt cheap generic LCDs in this price range while CRTs are high quality
$350-400 range: CRT wins---Low quality names like Hyundia, CTX, Acer LCDs vs High quality CRTs by Samsung, Viewsonic, and NEC
$400-500 range: Tie depending on needs outside of space constraint---High quality CRTs and mid range quality LCDs
$500-600 range: Tie depending on needs outside of space constraint---Very high quality CRTs and mid/high range LCDs
$600-800 range: Tie depending on needs outside of space constraint---Very high quality CRTs and High quality LCDs
$800+ range: CRT wins---This price range belongs to graphics designers where the exact reproduction of image color is needed

Well done DX2player.... I 100% agree!

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: DX2Player
Ok lets help you out here, you cant say low end to low end between the two because they are in two totally different price ranges.

lets be fair and go with normal sized 17" LCD monitors and compair them against 19" CRT ill give you the benifit of the doubt and assume they both have same viewable space

Ok now lets see who wins each budget catageory, this is of course assuming you have enough space for either because no argument is needed when you have limited space and can only use a LCD

$0-150 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range--- very poor quality CRTs
$150-200 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range---low quality CRTs
$200-250 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range---medium quality CRTs
$250-300 range: CRT wins no LCD in price range---above average quality CRTs
$300-350 range: CRT wins---Only dirt cheap generic LCDs in this price range while CRTs are high quality
$350-400 range: CRT wins---Low quality names like Hyundia, CTX, Acer LCDs vs High quality CRTs by Samsung, Viewsonic, and NEC
$400-500 range: Tie depending on needs outside of space constraint---High quality CRTs and mid range quality LCDs
$500-600 range: Tie depending on needs outside of space constraint---Very high quality CRTs and mid/high range LCDs
$600-800 range: Tie depending on needs outside of space constraint---Very high quality CRTs and High quality LCDs
$800+ range: CRT wins---This price range belongs to graphics designers where the exact reproduction of image color is needed

do you read anything that i post??

I said over and over again. a LOW END LCD tho MORE expensive than a LOW end CRT is a better solution.

I didn't say at the same price point.

You can't just dismiss size as that is ONE of many possible considerations.

LCD's also have the advantages of privacy because of limited viewability from the sides, in many offices this is actually a good thing.

LCD's generate less heat. if you have an office w/ 20, 30 or more monitors, this is a factor.

BTW, you mentioned your monitor for 240 and yet there are many here on AT that have purchased Dell 17" LCD's for $350.00, would a Dell LCD monitor be considered a cheapo?

you are taking a general post I made and making wayyy too much of it. It has been my opinion and MOST of my clients have agreed with me that a low end LCD, tho more expensive than a CRT, is still a better deal. it has benefits that the CRT cannot provide and for my CLIENTS, the CRT has no benefits that the LCD cannot provide. so hmm, what decision to make.

No, for ATer's. is my rule of thumb the best for all ATer's. NO, so what, does a rule of thumb have to apply to EVERYONE at all times?? NO, otherwise it wouldn't be a rule of thumb it would be an absolute LAW. i'm not claiming it as such.

as a rule of thumb, i find that low end LCD's are better for most people than a CHEAPO crt. even better than mid range CRT's. I think at the exreme highend, the CRT is clearly the better monitor for the purposes a high end monitor will be used for.

now, when you have someone that want's to pay $200.00 for an LCD and have it perform like an $800 CRT, well, it's just not gonna happen. you get what you pay for.

at the low end, the LCD even tho more expensive than a low end CRT, is better than the CRT for what it will be used for.

someone who is just gonna go out there and buy a $80 monitor is better off spending the extra $180 or so and getting a low end LCD.

someone that is looking to spend $250 or more on a CRT has more choices. the CRT has some advantages and LCD's (tho more expensive) have some advantages.

At the high end, someone who is looking to do high end graphics, intense resolutions, wants to to 2 page spreads, a lot of high motion video, video editing, etc are probably better off with a high end CRT. it's hard to beat the top of the line sony's, unless of course you need something like a 23" LCD in which case the LCD is probably better than an equivalent CRT.

key words, RULE OF THUMB. i never claimed that my rule of thumb was ABSOLUTE.

 

[Eug]

LeeTJ,

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but we disagree.

The problem here is that your low end LCD still costs a significant amount of money. Sure a low-end CRT sucks, but like everyone else is saying, you can't compare things this way. $240 will get a reasonably good 17" CRT. Sure a Dell $350 15" LCD might be OK, but that's not $240.

The reason people buy cheapo CRTs is because they're cheap. $240 if far from being a cheapo 17" CRT.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Eug
LeeTJ,

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but we disagree.

The problem here is that your low end LCD still costs a significant amount of money. Sure a low-end CRT sucks, but like everyone else is saying, you can't compare things this way. $240 will get a reasonably good 17" CRT. Sure a Dell $350 15" LCD might be OK, but that's not $240.

The reason people buy cheapo CRTs is because they're cheap. $240 if far from being a cheapo 17" CRT.

BTW that was a 17" dell LCD screen for $350.00

you just gotta get it at the right time.

 

[DX2Player]

Well they are on sale now for only $500 and at that pricerange I do believe it falls into the "tie depending on needs range" Here

The $350 price is probably only part of an incentive deal that they offer when you buy a computer

 

[chizow]

BTW that was a 17" dell LCD screen for $350.00

you just gotta get it at the right time.

$384 for an 18'' Dell Panel sounds even better

Edit: Link fixed for the non-subscribing peons.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: DX2Player
Well they are on sale now for only $500 and at that pricerange I do believe it falls into the "tie depending on needs range" Here

The $350 price is probably only part of an incentive deal that they offer when you buy a computer

Nope. i was mistaken it was 380 for an 18" lcd. i misread the hot deal the first time thru.

just look at post below you dude.

 

[DX2Player]

says only for subscribers

 

[LeeTJ]

copy link. paste it into explorer and change subscriber to forums.

 

[DX2Player]

Ok fine they have a superhot sale that lasts 24hrs but its not avalible normally, im shure they have sales like that for other itesm as well sometimes but those can hardly be considered the norm