So...question about LCDs vs CRTs...

[Aelfgeft]

Now, I've never owned an LCD. I've gotten them for people, of course, but never owned one myself, save for having one at work. Part of the reason was money. Well, actually, almost all of the reason was money. Now I can afford such technology. However, knowing certain pros of both types of monitor, I am compelled to weigh some more issues.

I am considering two options:

1. A Samsung Syncmaster 21" Widescreen LCD. 4MS response time, and does 75Hz. $220

2. An NEC DiamondTron(trinitron) 22" CRT. Does 1920x1440@75Hz. Free.

Now, first is the obvious con of the CRT. It's nearly 70lbs, and takes up an assload of deskspace. I'm honestly even afraid to test my current desk with it.

However, I've had a 17" Trinitron for a few years and love the sharpness with all my heart.

I want the fastest response time possible if I get an LCD(being a big gamer), and 4 seems ideal.

The ultimate thing I wonder about is refresh rate. Now, being that I'm not an LCD aficionado, why do they only go up to 75Hz max? Is it because it is different technology than the old ray gun? I know that if you achieve 120Hz on a CRT it was always very soothing on the eyes as compared to 60, which seems to be the default on LCDs.

Also, if the max on an LCD is 60Hz, doesn't that mean the visible frames per second are limited to that refresh rate? (IE: 60Hz = 60FPS max?)

 

[Aelfgeft]

Anyone?

 

[SeetheSeer]

60Hz is generally the max for LCDs. However, they work completely differently than CRTs. They don't flicker at all (except for backlight PWM, which isn't related to refresh rate), and so refresh rate doesn't really matter.

However, you will be limited to 60 fps. I highly doubt that your monitor does 75 hz, I don't think I've heard of any that do. Whatever it is, make sure you know what you're getting because I don't really want to look it up. If it really is 75 Hz, it should actually do 75 Hz, though you might still be hindered a bit by pixel response rates, as 4ms is a best case scenario.

Generally, the response time of the pixels is too high for much more than 60 fps anyways. With the much faster response rates nowadays, however, we might see some use for higher refresh (aka polling) rates on lcds.


WRT your choice:

I would go for the CRT, they always have much better picture quality, unless they're getting old. Plus, it's free. Also, a much higher resolution.

 

[mathesar]

Honestly I'd go with the Dimondtron if you can get one in good shape, I have a 6ms NEC 20WMGX2 LCD and Sony FW900 CRT sitting side by side and although I love the vibrancy & sharpness of the LCD it has some weaknesses when it comes to gaming:

1. Refresh rate maxes at 60hz which forces me to enable Vsync (otherwise I get ugly screen tearing) , It lets me choose 75hz in windows but the monitor's OSD still reports it running at 60hz. Im used to running 100hz + Vsync disabled on the CRT. It's also worth noting that even when running BOTH monitors at 60hz w/ Vsync disabled the screen tearing is twice as bad on the LCD , Im not sure why this occurs ..My guess is it has to do with the way each technology refreshes the screen and / or response time differences.

But to answer the "I know that if you achieve 120Hz on a CRT it was always very soothing on the eyes as compared to 60, which seems to be the default on LCDs" query , I dont know the technical answer to that but I do know LCDs dont refresh the same way as CRTs, so even at 60hz you wont notice any flickering whatsoever on an LCD (google for more info lol).

2. Framerate fluidness, The LCD has some motion blur during gaming, its not bad at all but with a CRT sitting next to it the blurring is all to obvious, For example in a game like Quake when looking around the texture details are lost ( blurred ) until you stop moving, this doesn't happen on a CRT ,Details remain crystal clear even during high speed movement. Even when i'm not seeing any 'blur' the framerates just arent as fluid on the LCD.

3. Resolution flexibility, Having to stick with one optimal Native resolution on the LCD can be annoying, luckily if you find a game that doesnt support your monitors res you can (most the time) edit the .cfg etc. to make it run in the desired resolution. Running out the monitors native res takes a noticeable hit in sharpness and causes more than usual motion blur to occur.

4. Black levels, This is my biggest gripe with LCDs.. If you like gaming at night or in a dark room the LCDs black levels will look pretty bad (especially if its your first LCD) ,It's especially noticeable when watching movies . The blacks are more of a milky bluish grey which causes a washed out effect, The only way to combat this problem is to have a light on near or behind the LCD which helps A LOT in this area, (at the same time a CRT actually loses black level / contrast vibrancy in a bright environment) Even tho my LCD is rated 1600:1 contrast ratio its still a far cry from a CRT's average of 10,000:1 (black levels were never a concern on most CRTs which is why you'd never see contrast ratio specs for them).

Also keep in mind the Samsung you mentioned (As well as any other sub 6ms LCD) is going to be a 6-bit panel instead of 8bit , this will cause color banding to occur in certain situations, not sure how important that is to you (The 20WMGX2 is actually 8bit which surprised me being its 6ms)

If your wondering what the heck I use my LCD for (after all the complaining) I actually use it for web browsing / chat / anything text related ,There's no denying an LCD has superior sharpness & brightness due to there digital nature, also looking at photos on the LCD is like looking through a window at times. So until something comes out that can do all of the above (SED / OLED?) I've decided to run LCD & CRT together (both are widescreen models) Best of both worlds I suppose