Seriously, why the hell are video cards even being equipped with a VGA connector?

[imported_humey]

Yes a low res 15" crt would be sh1t today, but at 1 time that was the dogs b0ll0cks and would have cost the earth.

 

[Bar81]

Originally posted by: LoserSlayer
To those saying LCDs suck, my little HP 15" LCD is sweet. It's better than the 15" CRT Flat screen on the family computer. Besides the fact that the picture looks different at an angle and it is naturally a bit brighter than CRTs, they're ok. Took less than two weeks for me to get used to it. Though then there is the problem about applying pressure on the screen, but you shouldn't have your hand on the screen anyway, unless you are cleaning it.

Props for the ASRock, damn I love that company

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: humey
JackBurton , dont talk out your butthole and try pick fight with measwell as others, that monitor wasnt out 5 yrs ago and crt is like 75yrs old invented here in SCOTLAND ie the TV, i never bought the bottom url one thats 1000's dollars are you mad, you obv aint reading post properly, you can stick your big lcd up ur butt sideways

Im am playing btw but less of cheek and IMO lcd is POS for gamming 8ms - 50fsp go read all over web even 3dman site and his hot chick of wife will tell u she not get lcd yet till response times r down, i really dont give a toss for this flame going on but IMO i stick to crt and later on shallowcrt.

That is one incoherent ass response. First off, I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you. Secondly, go back and read my post again. I didn't say I got the same monitor as you did 5 yrs ago genius. I said I got one with pretty much the same specs as your "state of the art CRT" you just bought. I know you bought the DP2070SB-BK but you brought up the second link with the $4999 monitor. I was just linking you to an LCD that slaps it around, and is even cheaper. You're hung up on response times? I'm hung up on how small and low res that $4999 CRT monitor is.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Bar81
Except they're not doing what YOU think they are doing Try taking a look around the marketplace for the reality of the situation.

Umm, CRTs are going away and LCDs are selling at a much higher rate? Seems like we ARE moving toward dual DVI cards after all.

 

[Bar81]

Except when you actually look at the cards on the market. Your wishful dual DVI movement doesn't exist. How about we compare how many X800 and 6800 cards come with dual DVI versus DVI/VGA so that we can see the strength of this movement.

As to LCDs significantly outselling CRTs. I don't have any numbers but EVEN IF that is the case, it will take years before LCDs take a significant share of the market from the established CRT base and one that continues to grow despite your best desires to pretend CRT is dead.

 

[alius]

I also want to pipe in that I bought an LCD last year and I love it, I'm even considering buying a new one with my next overall upgrade with a better native res and response rate. So in a little under a year add another .0001 to that .003 dual LCD adoption rate, woo!

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Bar81
Except when you actually look at the cards on the market. Your wishful dual DVI movement doesn't exist. How about we compare how many X800 and 6800 cards come with dual DVI versus DVI/VGA so that we can see the strength of this movement.

Um, that was my main complaint. I realize that is what is going on now. But I predict probably as early as the next gen high end graphics cards, you'll see more dual DVI than DVI/VGA cards.

As to LCDs significantly outselling CRTs. I don't have any numbers but EVEN IF that is the case, it will take years before LCDs take a significant share of the market from the established CRT base and one that continues to grow despite your best desires to pretend CRT is dead.

You're numbers are, the big players in the CRT game (Sony Mitsubishi) have just about totally dropped out of the game. Sony's not selling any CRTs, and I think Mitsubishi is just selling 22" CRTs and I think they are leaving the game VERY shortly too. Dell is pretty much bundling all their awesome desktop deals with LCDs. I also don't hear the common consumer or even alot of the geeks here at AT saying, "man, I'm trading my CRT in for another CRT." Yes, there are some that will go to another CRT, but the majority are moving to LCD. There is no denying that.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Umm, CRTs are going away and LCDs are selling at a much higher rate? Seems like we ARE moving toward dual DVI cards after all.

I am assuming by the fact that you can post on these forums in something within the league of being understandable that you have an IQ over 80, why is it that you have such a hard time with the market reality that the overwhelming majority of LCDs are VGA only?

Oh yeah man, the monitor you just bought, I bought one with specs like that....5 YRS AGO!

Sony CPD-G500
2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz

I can understand why you think so poorly of CRTs, an extremely poor display with a lousy refresh rate and disgustingly poor convergence. Have you ever seen a decent quality CRT?

But I wouldnt say a Diamondtron can match a 30inch LCD like the Apple Cinema, or a 24" Dell... or (IMO) even the 2005/2001FP.

Thank heavens the Diamondtron can't match those LCDs. The color accuracy is so poor I wouldn't use them to edit images for a newspaper- they are a joke on nearly any technical level when it comes to producing an image. They are extremely slow and inaccurate in terms of color reproduction. That is point of fact, not arguable. I have seen a good CRT next to the 2001FP and the Dell looked like the POS it is.

Too bad.
Enjoy your CRT and analog. It looks like crap.

Your CRT might, mine certainly doesn't.

Companies are choosing not to cater to the tightwads and they are putting dual DVIs on the $400 cards.
That trend will only continue.

LCD users are all about compromises- that is a key point in being a LCD user. Very slow, horrible colors and fixed resolutions. I honestly think that there should be no high end gaming boards with DVI- obviously the people who buy them are not concerned enough about performance to warrant a second thought when it comes to top tier gaming performance. Take that 'uber' IBM LCD linked to a few pages back- TWELVE hertz refresh rate. 12Hz. Only an LCD fanatic could try and present that as a viable display for actual use in anything outside of staring at static images. You would have to be legally blind to not notice the extreme ghosting even slow scrolling with that thing.

Running a DVI equipped monitor through a VGA port is completely different to running a CRT monitor through a DVI port via an adaptor (DVI-I to DVI-A). Sure there might be ever so slight signal degradation due to the fact that you're using a $2 part using most definitely not the top-of-the-line circuitry inside, but even the basic DVI-VGA adaptors that come with your average GeForce/Radeon card should produce an artifact free image.

Maybe on low end CRTs- at 2048x1536 piping through the signal degrader(or DVI-VGA adaptor) there is so much artifacting it is almost as bad as a LCD monitor when gaming- well maybe that is a bit over the top but it is a very steep fall off in signal quality.

LCD users (with DVI connections) can't do dual displays AT ALL UNLESS they have a card that supports dual DVI connections.

So the less then 1% of the market with dual DVI based LCDs that are all too happy to compromise their gaming performance should dictate to the rest of the market how things are done?

Use an Apple 30" for a week and let me know if you'll go back to your CRT.

Why wouldn't you?

On a more general note- LCDs are certainly not the wave of the future in terms of large displays. The large LCD displays mentioned in this thread are easily humiliated sitting next to a decent DLP display- and those are in production and the prices are quite comparable(actually, DLPs tend to be cheaper). There are numerous other technologies coming that also are easily superior to the extremely poor LCD tech.

 

[Bar81]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Bar81
Except when you actually look at the cards on the market. Your wishful dual DVI movement doesn't exist. How about we compare how many X800 and 6800 cards come with dual DVI versus DVI/VGA so that we can see the strength of this movement.

Um, that was my main complaint. I realize that is what is going on now. But I predict probably as early as the next gen high end graphics cards, you'll see more dual DVI than DVI/VGA cards.

As to LCDs significantly outselling CRTs. I don't have any numbers but EVEN IF that is the case, it will take years before LCDs take a significant share of the market from the established CRT base and one that continues to grow despite your best desires to pretend CRT is dead.

You're numbers are, the big players in the CRT game (Sony Mitsubishi) have just about totally dropped out of the game. Sony's not selling any CRTs, and I think Mitsubishi is just selling 22" CRTs and I think they are leaving the game VERY shortly too. Dell is pretty much bundling all their awesome desktop deals with LCDs. I also don't hear the common consumer or even alot of the geeks here at AT saying, "man, I'm trading my CRT in for another CRT." Yes, there are some that will go to another CRT, but the majority are moving to LCD. There is no denying that.

Again, you're missing my points. As to the whole dual DVI movement. You're SPECULATING without *any* basis in fact that dual DVI is imminent. It will come, just not in May when you think it is. There are simply too many CRTs still out there and being sold to justify that.

I think your whole problem with CRTs is that you're looking at it from the US perspective. Except that developers sell their games globally and I can tell you that there are a LOT of CRTs being sold due to their price versus the comparitively expensive LCDs. Second, the fact that LCDs may be outselling CRTs in the US for the last couple of years means nothing. There is still a HUGE CRT base that doesn't have LCDs and games. Until LCDs even approach the user base of CRTs card manufacturers will not abandon CRTs for the sake of satisfying the less than 1% of users who want dual DVI *especially* when, for a few more bucks, you can buy a dual DVI card. The world isn't revolving around you, me, and the rest of the LCD users, it revolves around numbers and profits and given that well over 90% of monitors in the world are CRT, CRT is not only not dead, but will live in for quite a while.

 

[ZobarStyl]

I think the point Jack is missing is that for every gaming card sold to someone who wanted dual DVI there are at least 3-4 people who bought that same high end card to push heavy fps on a CRT monitor without degrading the image. Most people buying high end GPU's want the highest resolutions, high fps and absolutely no ghosting, and you don't get that with most LCD's or with a DVI/VGA adapter.

So basically between you (consumer A) who wants dual screen DVI, and another guy (consumer b) who wants high quality CRT output without signal degradation, you're saying you're the more important of the two, even though there are usually dual DVI versions of most high end cards that you could easily get? You're saying having your option isn't good enough, it's now necessary that all other people's options be thrown out as well?

By the way, this is coming from a dual screen CRT user who already takes a image hit on one monitor, and thinks losing IQ on both to better suit your leisure is just weak.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Very few of the regulars here on AT that I have spoken to bought their LCD's because they do what their CRT's did for them better.

Alright, that supports my position that LCDs haven't totally eclipsed CRTs yet.

Sorry about that - I made a massive mistake in that sentence. I meant to say that LCD buyers didn't purchase their displays for looks, but because they felt they performed better for their applications.

 

[housecat]

This thread has become another useless CRT vs LCD debate.. with a sidenote of the CRT fanboys (what an elite crowd it is) denouncing dual dvi ports.


Well, thats all fine and dandy but we've established that top cards have gone and are goign dual dvi, and Diamontron/Trinitrons are dead.

 

[alius]

LCD users are all about compromises- that is a key point in being a LCD user. Very slow, horrible colors and fixed resolutions. I honestly think that there should be no high end gaming boards with DVI- obviously the people who buy them are not concerned enough about performance to warrant a second thought when it comes to top tier gaming performance. Take that 'uber' IBM LCD linked to a few pages back- TWELVE hertz refresh rate. 12Hz. Only an LCD fanatic could try and present that as a viable display for actual use in anything outside of staring at static images. You would have to be legally blind to not notice the extreme ghosting even slow scrolling with that thing.

You must not have used a quality LCD for any extended period of time, even the 25hrz refresh rate LCDS had little noticable ghosting if they were the upper teir ones. My LCD is very usable in any motion related platform (dvds, gaming). I've been using it for over a year and there is nothing about it I'm upset with. Its been known for quite a while that a majority of ghosting issues were related to signal degridation from cheap cables. LCDs aren't as bad as people make them out to be and I'm sure that 12hz IBM is an excellent moniter. Yes the color reproduction might not be as good as your multithousand dollar CRT but gimme a break.

You weren't giving much up a year ago in a crt to lcd transition, besides a fat wad of cash, and now you are losing such a minute amount of functionality that the common user won't notice or care.

Edit: Oh, forgot to mention that fact that I'm far from legally blind. Last time I had a vision test it was near perfect.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Bar81

I think your whole problem with CRTs is that you're looking at it from the US perspective. Except that developers sell their games globally and I can tell you that there are a LOT of CRTs being sold due to their price versus the comparitively expensive LCDs. Second, the fact that LCDs may be outselling CRTs in the US for the last couple of years means nothing. There is still a HUGE CRT base that doesn't have LCDs and games. Until LCDs even approach the user base of CRTs card manufacturers will not abandon CRTs for the sake of satisfying the less than 1% of users who want dual DVI *especially* when, for a few more bucks, you can buy a dual DVI card. The world isn't revolving around you, me, and the rest of the LCD users, it revolves around numbers and profits and given that well over 90% of monitors in the world are CRT, CRT is not only not dead, but will live in for quite a while.

This will be my final quoting of text from this thread. I think that LCD will become the dominant technology for this exact reason: price.

An LCD uses MUCH less raw material than a CRT and should eventually be significantly cheaper to manufacture than CRTs. Furthermore, LCD panel manufacturing is a cutthroat market with Korea, Taiwan, and other countries pumping out displays as cheaply as possible. Over the next few years we should see a dramatic decrease in the manufacturing cost of LCD screens (and possibly even the death of a major player in the LCD market).

CRTs are currently cheaper to manufacture because the process has matured over nearly a century. LCD is a technology that will become significantly cheaper to produce than CRT, especially in displays about 20" or less.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Since this thread has degenerated into trench warfare and excessive quoting (which I sadly helped perpetuate as much as several others), I'm going to make a post based on my opinion of what I have read and what I believe. I'm not going to claim I know the answer to anything, but merely state what I feel should happen (and has a good chance of happening).

Personally, I think it is completely illogical for CRT to remain the dominant force in the computer industry (generally speaking 20" or less for screens). The vast majority of computer users do nothing more than process text in a variety of ways: at the office or at home, on the internet, in Word, Excel or other programs. Why use a bulky, power hungry CRT to do the same job that a smaller LCD screen does equally well or better - I'm talking about simple internet browsing at the screen's native resolution here, not playing Far Cry for 3 hours.

Even gamers don't "need" CRT's, and if they took the time to use a 12ms or less screen for a month or two would for the most part become happy with LCDs. As with any major technological change there will be resistance. 3dfx purists hated Nvidia cards when they came out and it took forever for many of them to let go of their Voodoo cards. PCI is still going strong despite the emergence of PCI-Express (which will eventually become the standard).


For hardcore gamers and image quality purists, I can see why LCD isn't optimal, especially since LCD is still developing and changing. LCD has several inherent problems for gaming/movies/etc. First of all, the contrast ratios are crap compared to CRT technology (typical LCD's range from 300:1 to an overrated 1000:1 contrast ratio, whereas CRT TV's (and computer monitors) are in the 5000:1 and up range). This is why no LCD can draw as pure or true a black as the best CRT's (although certain ones, ie PVA screens, do a nice job nonetheless).

Second of all, the response/redraw time of the screen is 25ms and below for LCD's, while it's a fraction of a millisecond for CRT's. For people who used earlier generation LCD technology, ghosting was readily apparent and sometimes unbearably bad since grey>grey times were frequently in the 80ms-100ms range (my Samsung 191T has a grey>grey time of about 85ms!). It's significantly better these days, with the 710T being about an actual 12-15ms response time for both black>white and grey>grey, however obviously not equal to CRT.

However, I think the benefits of LCD far outweight CRT's. Forget the "sexiness" appeal, the LCD to CRT argument hilights the american "size is better" mentality that has existed since the muscle cars of the 50's and 60's . Why use something big, heavy and wasting a lot of raw materials when you can use a smaller, less power hungry, less wasteful device that performs similarly? Do we all really need to run dual 21" CRT's for our gaming rigs, sucking down >200W of power? I'm not trying to be a hippie here, but for the masses, I think LCD is FAR more practical.

But if these threads prove anything, it's that everyone (myself included) are convinced by the merit of their own words, and these threads turn into a clash of opinion where a bunch of people who have made up their minds shout at eachother (again, which I am equally responsible for).

So, I'm not trying to say that CRT sucks, or that LCD is the best thing since sliced bread, but I have my reasons for liking LCD. To me, it's far more practical, I prefer the brightness, and text looks a bit better than my best CRT.

Most people here have a skewed perspective of CRT or LCD because they have either seen bad CRT's or bad LCD's and it colours their perspective. When I talk about CRT technology, I'm not picturing my 7 year old 19" Viewsonic G790 which looks fine at 800X600 but blurs to high hell above 1024X768, I'm talking about the best CRT's I've used (that aren't absurdly priced): my 19" Dell Sony Trinitron screen and the couple of Sony G420's I've used, versus my Samsung 710T DVI screen and the Dell 1705FP screens I used at work. Not the decent but middle of the pack Samsung 173V (VGA) or Dell E173FP (VGA).

 

[Bar81]

Yet, as long as LCDs command such a price premium over CRTs, they will remain the dominant force.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Umm, CRTs are going away and LCDs are selling at a much higher rate? Seems like we ARE moving toward dual DVI cards after all.

I am assuming by the fact that you can post on these forums in something within the league of being understandable that you have an IQ over 80, why is it that you have such a hard time with the market reality that the overwhelming majority of LCDs are VGA only?

Um, you are aware that the majority of cheap VGA LCD owners don't purchase $400+ video cards, right? You are also aware that my push is for high end dual DVI cards, right? And even further, if DVI>VGA adapters cause slight signal degradation on high res CRTs, I HIGHLY doubt there will be any problems with cheap VGA LCDs. So judging by your poor reading and comprehension skills, I'd guess your IQ is more around the 79 mark.

I can understand why you think so poorly of CRTs, an extremely poor display with a lousy refresh rate and disgustingly poor convergence. Have you ever seen a decent quality CRT?

I like this genius remark. If my CRT is lousy, then 98% of the other CRTs out there are a total sh!t piles. Let's think next time before lashing out, shall we. This little statement hurt your arguement rather than help it.

And I'm not going to start a Larry post again and start replying to each quote you make. We will see if I'm right. Only time will tell. Like I said, my predictions is that most next gen high end gaming video cards will be dual DVI. If not next gen, then next we should see more DVI/DVI than DVI/VGA.

 

[housecat]

You are correct. There will always be some cheapskate who doesnt wnat to treat themselves to something nice to love the old stuff.

 

[kmmatney]

"On a more general note- LCDs are certainly not the wave of the future in terms of large displays. The large LCD displays mentioned in this thread are easily humiliated sitting next to a decent DLP display- and those are in production and the prices are quite comparable(actually, DLPs tend to be cheaper). There are numerous other technologies coming that also are easily superior to the extremely poor LCD tech. "

I have to disgree. A DLP is superior to an LCD "projection" type TV - they are pretty much the same thing - one uses an LCD projector while the other uses a DLP projector. However the new 45" LCD TVs blow both of those away. Just go to BestBuy and compare Sharp Aquous 45" LCD panel versus any plasma or projection TV of any type. It cost $6000 at BestBuy when I was there, which is insanely high, but its not hard to imagine that this is the future. The techonolgy certainly isn't "poor".

 

[housecat]

and not only that, but all these ppl ripping LCDs are more than likely not sitting there with some HDTV DLP to play games on.

they are likely sitting in front of a old 15" CRT.. but doing alot of smack talking on vastly superior LCDs to their setups

and those ppl are the last ones to ever move to a new tech anyway, even the ones they propose blow LCD out of the water.

DLP is nothing new at all. Its a frickin projection TV. Something you'd never catch me touching with a 20foot pole. It'd been great for 1989.
I'll take a LCD tv anyday.

 

[RelaxTheMind]

ok ladies i think the opinions have been stretched enough. There is new LCD technology coming out. SO maybe we will get a better view of what will happen when it does.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: housecat
and not only that, but all these ppl ripping LCDs are more than likely not sitting there with some HDTV DLP to play games on.

they are likely sitting in front of a old 15" CRT.. but doing alot of smack talking on vastly superior LCDs to their setups

and those ppl are the last ones to ever move to a new tech anyway, even the ones they propose blow LCD out of the water.

DLP is nothing new at all. Its a frickin projection TV. Something you'd never catch me touching with a 20foot pole. It'd been great for 1989.
I'll take a LCD tv anyday.

I'll quote this time because it's something I'm familiar with and it's completely unrelated to the desktop LCD market.

DLP is not "projection TV.". Projection TV (also called "rear projection TV") is a CRT television that has essentially been zoomed in on to make a larger image from a smaller tube (since there are no commercial front projection CRT tubes above 36").

DLP is a brand new rear projection technology. It involves a spinning colour wheel that has a backlight shone through it which is either let through or reflected by a series of tiny mirrors where each mirror represents a pixel. DLP is therefore a fixed pixel display just like LCD TV whereas projection TV is just essentially a "trick" (albeit an effective one) for making a smaller TV tube provide a larger image.

Rear projection LCD TV's are not the be-all end-all of Television technology. Believe it or not, there are excellent LCD TV's, DLP's and yes even Plasma displays if you're willing to go high enough in price. LCD TV also has the same disadvantages of regular LCD's of a low contrast ratio, although it does have excellent clarity (like most fixed pixel displays). An additional problem on low-end LCD TV's is what's called the screen-door effect, where since the pixels are so large you can literally see them and they're quite distracting, although this is not a problem on new/high end LCD TV's which look stunning.

Right now, it's a battle between LCD TV, DLP and PDP (plasma) in the HDTV market, although RPTV (rear projection TV's) are also a cheaper alternative and a newcomer, Toshiba's SED displays will shock everyone in 2006 (although they will be debut at an out-of-reach pricepoint for the masses).

But seriously, keep this off topic discussion out of this thread, which is about DVI on video cards.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I see that my last question made you go out and do some research before you answered too quickly and stuck your foot in your mouth:

Are you saying there are no gaming video cards out now that support dual 30" LCD displays?

I could have told you Apple's the only kid on the block that offers that. I find it hard to believe that someone that knows so much about LCDs :roll: would not have known about that. Weird.

Gee, I see that you lack the reading comprehension to see a rhetorical question when one is asked. Btw, when I told you earlier to just drop $600 and buy a dual dual-link DVI card to drive your two Apple LCD displays, what card did you think that I was referring to? Don't you think that it was a bit more than just coincidental that I mentioned the exact price of the above-mentioned card, without mentioning it specifically? Hmm. Maybe I knew what I was talking about in the first place.

So who's got their foot in their mouth now?

 

[acx]

In the immortal words of Johnny Storm: "Flame on!"

BTW, I don't recall him ever saying "Flame off." I guess turning himself back into a normal person isn't as exciting.

 

[Avalon]

My eyes are just fine, thanks.
Both CRT and LCD have their benefits.