LCD screens really worth it for gaming?

Newsboys2004 said:
BTW, the normal desktop crt is actually 700:1 contrast :cool: , so an lcd with 800:1 is actually BETTER, it's problem is that it's subtractive coloring and can't show blacks.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter how it's done, the fact remains that LCD blacks are terrible compared to CRT, and that's all that matters. And who runs their CRT at 60hz anyway?
 
Sanctuary said:
It doesn't really matter how it's done, the fact remains that LCD blacks are terrible compared to CRT, and that's all that matters. And who runs their CRT at 60hz anyway?
Click to expand...

Yup. Actually the fact that the CRT is reflective makes the effective contrast ratio somewhat less than what is often quoted. But fire up Doom3, Thief, etc. and do the comparison and it's no contest.
 
Kaldskryke said:
I've heard of SED technology before and considering how many times it has been delayed, I'm not going to hold my breath and wait for it.

So invar shadow mask CRTs suck terribly? The CRT stopgap I was considering is an invar shadow mask type, so perhaps I'll just end up going LCD despite their issues.
Click to expand...


Yes ISM CRTs sux even so called high end ones. But I'm very picky in my main display. I have a brandnew hitachi CM721F in my warehouse (considered a good ISM) if you want to buy it for $100.

They have a grainy texture to them caused by plate with millions of holes in it for photons to pass, the dead space is dark and causes griany.

They arnt as bright as even cheapest LCD or AG CRT because of same design.

They can't from sharp edges if you look close because of same design of millions of holes which are round.
 
Newsboy: be careful quoting any stat from these monitor makers. They are in fierce competition with one another and tend to 'game' stats such as contrast ratio, repsonse time, veiwing angles and even color.

I read a lot of monitor testing and never has an LCD scored above 500:1 contrast, quite a differece from the 1600:1 listed on the side on my NEC box.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/19inch-4.html


In response time - A 16MS Dell is repeatly beating 8ms and 5ms displays. How do you explain that? I'm not one to call people liars but it sure looks that way to me. IF a 16ms dell beats on 5ms displays
http://www.behardware.com/articles/638-4/22-the-new-size-that-will-take-over.html

Viewing angles..SPVA claims 180 now which is a total BS.. PVA start bluring at about30 degrees off center and become nothing recogniable at 80.

and on and on.. Basically if you go by what written on the box you are making a mistake since they review so much different.. Plus they can say anything they want.. UL and other certifiation bodies only tests power levels, EM and circutry.. they don't make sure a monitor is 5ms is samsung like says .... Some monitor maker are worse than others,,, usually the cheapies.. show better stats accross the board than NEC, dell etc.. uh huh whatever. Half the price and twice as good? I was'nt born yesterday products don't work that way..
 
Greenwit said:
I was happy with my NEC FE2111sb CRT but when I put together my new Conroe system with a 7900gtx video card, my CRT didn't like it. It didn't like the DVI outputs and the DVI to VGA plug made the screen noisy. Point is, now you pretty much can't get a high end video card that has VGA outputs. Yup, it sucks that LCDs have taken over the video world. My Samsung 215tw LCD is inferior to my NEC FE2111sb but I gotta use the LCD because it is more compatible with the DVI standard.
Click to expand...

Ive never heard of that, are you sure you didnt overlook something? Ive seen multiple CRTs connected via DVI to VGA adapters and they all looked fine.
 
mathesar said:
Ive never heard of that, are you sure you didnt overlook something? Ive seen multiple CRTs connected via DVI to VGA adapters and they all looked fine.
Click to expand...
many people have said it screws up the image on the conversion. I don't know I don't have a high quality CRT to test it.
 
mathesar said:
Ive never heard of that, are you sure you didnt overlook something? Ive seen multiple CRTs connected via DVI to VGA adapters and they all looked fine.
Click to expand...

Nope. To test what I thought I was seeing, I bought a gadget from Ratshack that allows you to connect two computers to one monitor and switch between them using one keyboard/mouse combo. Hit scroll-lock twice and you switch computers. My old rig uses a x850xt which has both a VGA and DVI output. My new rig uses a 7900gtx with two DVI outputs. I copied one set of text to both rigs and switched back and forth and the DVI output from the gtx (had to use a DVI to VGA plug) was definitely more noisy than the VGA output from the ATI. Then I went with the DVI output from the ATI and the text looked very similar to the gtx. I even tried different DVI to VGA plugs (DVI-A and DVI-S). It's very possible that my eyes are just sensitive to this. Whatever....I got headaches using the 7900gtx with the DVI to VGA (or d-sub) plug.
 
Greenwit said:
Nope. To test what I thought I was seeing, I bought a gadget from Ratshack that allows you to connect two computers to one monitor and switch between them using one keyboard/mouse combo. Hit scroll-lock twice and you switch computers. My old rig uses a x850xt which has both a VGA and DVI output. My new rig uses a 7900gtx with two DVI outputs. I copied one set of text to both rigs and switched back and forth and the DVI output from the gtx (had to use a DVI to VGA plug) was definitely more noisy than the VGA output from the ATI. Then I went with the DVI output from the ATI and the text looked very similar to the gtx. I even tried different DVI to VGA plugs (DVI-A and DVI-S). It's very possible that my eyes are just sensitive to this. Whatever....I got headaches using the 7900gtx with the DVI to VGA (or d-sub) plug.
Click to expand...

Hrm I believe you its just I havent witnessed this symptom before, my previous PC had a 6800GT with a standard VGA output and when I built my current rig with a 7800 GTX 512mb (Dual DVI outputs, no VGA) I noticed no differance in video quality with both my Sony G520P and Sony FW900 CRTs.
 
mathesar said:
Hrm I believe you its just I havent witnessed this symptom before, my previous PC had a 6800GT with a standard VGA output and when I built my current rig with a 7800 GTX 512mb (Dual DVI outputs, no VGA) I noticed no differance in video quality with both my Sony G520P and Sony FW900 CRTs.
Click to expand...

I only notice this problem when it involves text.....web browsing, email, etc. Games, movies, jpgs, etc. look just fine to me.
 
If you get a high-end display like the NEC 20WMGX2, sure. Anything less and I'd rather use a CRT for gaming. The blacks on my 20WMGX2 are awesome and the whole thing is very uniform (none of that backlight seepy crap).
 
Doing that will KILL YOUR MONITOR in the first place. Monitors with no digital sub, being attached digitally, will have their lives shortened.
 
I get the lovely blacklight bleed on this vga, but it's a magical svga. You must find a s-ips panel to find the real joys of lcd.
EDIT: SHIT I did it again :(
 
Scyles said:
For me, the only things I care about that LCD's have over CRT, is perfect geometry and better cosmetics. CRT dominates in all other catagories. The purpose of a display is to produce a quality image, and LCD's are a a giant step backward in this respect.
Click to expand...

Agreed, LCDs are highly overrated. I'd prefer an CRT for gaming any day of the week. There's simply no question. The only advantage LCDs have for me on a pure display-quality basis is sharpness of text. Personally when I again have more space I will be purchasing a CRT for gaming and an LCD for work. Then you have the best of both worlds by selectively using each display for it's best application.
 
Newsboys2004 said:
Doing that will KILL YOUR MONITOR in the first place. Monitors with no digital sub, being attached digitally, will have their lives shortened.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. If you use a CRT for long enough you get cancer of the eye socket anyway. If you don't die from the malaria they all carry first.
 
Newsboys2004 said:
If you go with an older video card, and a crt, there's really no exception: Get a 24" sony trinitron for $200 off ebay.I
Click to expand...

But that little CRT weighs right at 100 lbs! Dang.
 
I had the 24" Trinitron. Awesome monitor in many respects. Could do insane resolutions and was an DVD monster for sure. Dunno though. I got the 24" Acer LCD now and it sure does nice for gaming. I'm being forced to play BF2 at 1024x768 and it doesn't seem stretched or weird. this is a 16:10 monitor with a native res of 1920x1200 and it does anything awesome just like the Trinitron. Just not as high a resolution. WoW at 2500x2200(something like that) was insane lol.
 
CRTs still have better response rates but decent fast LCDs (not the cheapest fast ones) are now pretty good for gaming. I don't play many games but if I did, I'd choose an LCD unless they had CRTs that were only a few inches thick.

And I hate these theads. Stop talking about SED. It isn't out yet and probably won't be for years. And then when it does come out, it will cost $2000 for a monitor and won't be affordable for many years after that.

Wait for SED = 10 years = not acceptable

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top