LCD vs CRT
ubermensch
Join Date: 2002-12-31 Member: 11692Banned
Join Date: 2002-12-31 Member: 11692Banned
<div class="IPBDescription">for gaming</div>The focus on my GDM FW900 (24" widescreen trinitron) is starting to drift irreparably and I need a replacement.
I'm either gonna pick up another one of these (best CRT ever and I know a guy selling em for cheap) or take the plunge and go LCD.
Now keep in mind I run my games with vsync on, at 100hz refresh rate, max_fps 100. NO unbearably ugly and distracting frame tearing, not flaws of any sort. I've become rather accustomed to this over the years.
Will an LCD live up to the same standards? Will I be able to enable vsync and still run at 100fps steady without frame tearing or other distractions? Or is one even able to keep vsync on and run at 100fps on an LCD at all?
I'm especially interested in the thoughts of competitive players and those of the hardware/cfg tweaking mentality, not the "plug & play, golly this looks pretty I think I like it" crowd.
So, are there any LCDs that live up to CRTs for gaming? Any particular models NS players out there can recommend?
I'm either gonna pick up another one of these (best CRT ever and I know a guy selling em for cheap) or take the plunge and go LCD.
Now keep in mind I run my games with vsync on, at 100hz refresh rate, max_fps 100. NO unbearably ugly and distracting frame tearing, not flaws of any sort. I've become rather accustomed to this over the years.
Will an LCD live up to the same standards? Will I be able to enable vsync and still run at 100fps steady without frame tearing or other distractions? Or is one even able to keep vsync on and run at 100fps on an LCD at all?
I'm especially interested in the thoughts of competitive players and those of the hardware/cfg tweaking mentality, not the "plug & play, golly this looks pretty I think I like it" crowd.
So, are there any LCDs that live up to CRTs for gaming? Any particular models NS players out there can recommend?
Comments
First ###### post and already this thread is derailing into a debate about whether the human eye can differentiate 60 and 100 hz. I would ask that people not so thoroughly ravage my OP, but I know better, it's gonna happen anyway <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":angry:" border="0" alt="mad-fix.gif" />
60hz is an average for not noticeing flicker (flicker fusion freq). Some people see it at higher rates, some at lower. This is also an example of Just Noticable Difference (the difference between on and off). However we are still affected by the difference. This is one of the reasons you can get a headache from staring at a CRT or being in a room with Florecent lighting. This is why it is good to turn up the refresh rate on your moniter (less chance of a headache).
However, there is also a difference between FPS and Refresh rate.
IF you really want to get into it then check out <a href="http://www.100fps.com/" target="_blank">100 FPS</a>, and specificly <a href="http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm" target="_blank">How many frames can humans see</a>. It generaly doesnt' deal with video games, but the stuff is there.
As for on topic....
If you are willing to splurge on a good LCD you can get one that will give you better qualety then a CRT (the better picture of an LCD and the higher reliability of a CRT in one box). I can't advise what ones to get, as I am nto familiar enough (I am poor, and thus stick to CRTs)
More pointed question: can one enable vsync and set fps_max 100 and truly get 100fps on any modern LCD?
First ###### post and already this thread is derailing into a debate about whether the human eye can differentiate 60 and 100 hz. I would ask that people not so thoroughly ravage my OP, but I know better, it's gonna happen anyway <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":angry:" border="0" alt="mad-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.....What? Chill out mang.
Im sure there is an LCD out there that can do 100 hz, but it will probably be more exspensive then a CRT with the same ability. However purchasing an LCD screen will serve you better in the long run anyway, they are easy to move around and can fit into many more places. So, I would reccomend an LCD monitor for many reasons, and Im sure you can find one that will be able to do 100 hz... somewhere (Im pretty sure very few companies even bother doing this because of it being unnecessary, so it could be more difficult).
As for the LCD giving 100Hz, LCDs work a bit differently as far as i know. The backlight is an always-on device, and the pixels change (not necessarily refreshing) so something is always on the screen.
Are LCDs equal to CRTs? I'd say no. Probably not even with a 8ms responce time or so. I made the switch from a 17" CRT to a 19" LCD awhile ago and I got used to it, but I can still tell that it's not the same. For a quick comparison of the differences, go to a webpage and scroll at varying speeds. On a CRT it will be a smooth continuous scroll, on an LCD it will ghost and trail a bit. That's the difference you're looking at.
60Hz on an LCD is perfectly fine for me. 60Hz on a CRT is eye-boiling hell. They're simply not comparable.
--Scythe--
More pointed question: can one enable vsync and set fps_max 100 and truly get 100fps on any modern LCD?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Not really:
<a href="http://www.behardware.com/articles/641-6/1rst-lcd-at-100-hz-the-end-of-afterglow.html" target="_blank">http://www.behardware.com/articles/641-6/1...-afterglow.html</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->why work on interpolating an image to double the frequency and not impose real support of 100 or 120 Hz for graphic cards or game consoles? We agree on the fact that none of the current consoles are currently able to sustain this frequency, but our computers do. At least those who have a very good GC and /or who play games that aren´t too performance hungry. (With vertical synchronisation if your card couldn´t hold the 100 fps, you could reduce it to 50). For now there are no answers to this question and we should directly ask panel manufacturers. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are LCDs equal to CRTs? I'd say no. Probably not even with a 8ms responce time or so. I made the switch from a 17" CRT to a 19" LCD awhile ago and I got used to it, but I can still tell that it's not the same. For a quick comparison of the differences, go to a webpage and scroll at varying speeds. On a CRT it will be a smooth continuous scroll, on an LCD it will ghost and trail a bit. That's the difference you're looking at.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With modern 5ms or lower there's usually no ghosting. There's even 2ms ones that you probably couldn't tell the difference on. LCD's have come a long way.
Comparing CRT and LCD frequencies is fruitless. A CRT refresh rate is the inverse of the time it takes to redraw the entire screen from top to bottom. If you slowed time by a factor of 100 you would see the image on the screen sweep down from top to bottom over the period of a second. An LCD updates the entire screen at once 75 (typically) times per second. That means if you slowed down time by a factor of 75 you would see a new, complete image switch in every second. Note that LCD refresh rates generally cap at 75Hz. Vsync and fps_max 75 and you'll be fine.
60Hz on an LCD is perfectly fine for me. 60Hz on a CRT is eye-boiling hell. They're simply not comparable.
--Scythe--
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
60Hz on a CRT is just below unnoticeable. Push up another 10 HZ and you won't even feel anything unconsciously. 60 HZ isn't "eye boiling" but some people, when using it for extended periods of time, will get headaches. If you've got an "eye boiling" CRT monitor it was 45 HZ or lower. Those exist and I hate them.
I game and compute with CRT mostly, because I can't afford the overhead for an LCD that will match the image and animation quality.
Only true for crappy LCD's. Understand that response times are subject to vendor half-truths and tweaking. The first LCD I got was by Sceptre and was supposedly 8ms. Terrible ghosting/trailing unless I tweaked the crap out of the gamma curve.
On the other hand, every single Dell LCD I've ever seen has been 100% ghost/trail free. They make really high quality LCD's and it'll take quite a feat to get me to buy any other brand of LCD in the future.
Even though size differences isn't what you asked for, an offshoot of the smaller size discussion is the fact that smaller depth allows for greater screen size while still fitting the monitor in roughly the same spot as a CRT.
That being said, there's nothing quite like <a href="http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/monitor_3007wfp?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs" target="_blank">2560x1600 resolution on a 30 inch display.</a>. There really is no turning back once you've indulged.
No matter the anecdotal observations of how good they are, I just can't settle for that.
I agree T h e m, the higher the screen realestate and resolution you accustom yourself to the less likely it is you'll ever ever ever be able to downgrade.
p.s. I know practically there's a difference between a CRT drawing the image and an LCD lighting the pixels, but c'mon you nerds, that's an unnecessary semantics quibble.
p.s. I know practically there's a difference between a CRT drawing the image and an LCD lighting the pixels, but c'mon you nerds, that's an unnecessary semantics quibble.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it IS neccessary. You wanted to know if an LCD monitor was available with 100 Hz refresh rate because you like a smooth viewing experiance. However since very few LCDs are available with that kind of refresh rate, it seemed pertinent to point out that LCDs don't need as high of a refresh rate to accomplish the same smooth animation.
It's more than a semantics quibble. A CRT refreshes the entire display, an LCD only changes pixels that change color.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the context of my post the only thing I am concerned about is if it truly refreshes itself at a rate of 100 screen updates per second. How the displays differ in achieving that is completely irrelevant outside of quibbling.
Also, Xyth, if you were any more vague I wouldn't even recognize that you're on topic.
Also, Xyth, if you were any more vague I wouldn't even recognize that you're on topic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me to rephrase.
You wanted a monitor with a really smooth refresh rate, 100 Hz smooth.
It was stated that, while 100 Hz refresh rate is neccessary on a CRT monitor for somebody of your super-human seeing abilities. But, due to the way that LCD monitors refresh, you can achieve the same quality of smoothness (Im not sure what the correct word for that would be) with a lower refresh rate.
In-closing, you don't need an LCD monitor with 100 Hz refresh rate to achieve the same quality of a CRT monitor with 100 Hz refresh rate.
Can you comprehend it now?
[uber's edit]: valid point, but the non-technical fanboyism (yes, that's a technical term describing a real psychological phenomena <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /> ) is polluting the discussion and that makes me upset
"Refresh Rate
Some users of a CRT may notice a bit of an annoying flicker, which is an inherent trait based on a CRTs physical components. Today's graphics cards, however, can provide a high refresh rate signal to the CRT to get rid of this otherwise annoying problem. LCDs are flicker-free and as such the refresh rate isn't an important issue with LCDs."
"Screen (viewable) Size
Most people today tend to look at a 17-inch CRT or bigger monitor. When you purchase a 17-inch CRT monitor, you usually get 16.1 inches or a bit more of actual viewing area, depending on the brand and manufacturer of a specific CRT. The difference between the "monitor size" and the "view area" is due to the large bulky frame of a CRT. If you purchase a 17" LCD monitor, you actually get a full 17" viewable area, or very close to a 17"."
"Physical Size
There is no denying that an LCD wins in terms of its physical size and the space it needs. CRT monitors are big, bulky and heavy. They are not a good choice if you're working with limited desk space, or need to move the monitor around (for some odd reason) between computers. An LCD on the other hand is small, compact and lightweight. LCDs are thin, take up far less space and are easy to move around. An average 17-inch CRT monitor could be upwards of 40 pounds, while a 17&-inch LCD would weigh in at around 15 pounds."
"Price
As an individual one-time purchase an LCD monitor is going to be more expensive. Throughout a lifetime, however, LCDs are cheaper as they are known to have a longer lifespan and also a lower power consumption. The cost of both technologies have come down over the past few years, and LCDs are reaching a point where smaller monitors are within many consumers' price range. You will pay more for a 17" LCD compared to a 17" CRT, but since the CRT's actual viewing size is smaller, it does bring the question of price back into proportion."
"Resolution & Viewing Quality
Resolution on a CRT is flexible and a newer model will provide you with viewing resolutions of up to 1600 by 1200 and higher, whereas on an LCD the resolution is fixed within each monitor (called a native resolution). The resolution on an LCD can be changed, but if you're running it at a resolution other than its native resolution you will notice a drop in performance or quality.
Both types of monitors (newer models) provide bright and vibrant color display. However, LCDs cannot display the maximum color range that a CRT can. In terms of image sharpness, when an LCD is running at its native resolution the picture quality is perfectly sharp. On a CRT the sharpness of the picture can be blemished by soft edges or a flawed focus.
A CRT monitor can be viewed from almost any angle, but with an LCD this is often a problem. When you use an LCD, your view changes as you move different angles and distances away from the monitor. At some odd angles, you may notice the picture fade, and possibly look as if it will disappear from view. "
That's really all you need to know, but let me tell you that gaming on a 17" CRT and then switching to a 28" LCD is like going from a Go-Kart to a Formula-1 Dragster.
There just is no comparison.
<a href="http://www.wisegeek.com/which-monitor-type-is-better-lcd-or-crt.htm" target="_blank">http://www.wisegeek.com/which-monitor-type...-lcd-or-crt.htm</a>
(The input delay varies by model and manufacturer - some have a sizable amount of input delay, some don't)
The higher end LCDs are getting pretty close to the performance of a good CRT, but I'd take a good CRT over a LCD, if only I didn't anticipate having to move around a bit for the next few years. LCDs on the market right now only support a 60hz refresh rate (Even the ones that claim 75hz). Even with a 2 ms response time, a LCD is going to generate more afterimages than a CRT simply because of its nature of persistent images - the blank screen of a CRT allows the eye to "reset" between frames, while the backlight that's always on in LCDs produces a smearing effect. Last I checked, some companies were coming up with new measures to reduce that (Black Frame Insertion, "120hz" refresh rate that extrapolates frames), and I think they're just starting to hit the market now.
But truth be told, most people won't notice the difference.
Oh, and you won't be able to get Vsync on and 100hz. I have a generic no-name brand LCD that has a 25ms response time, and I hate it. Terrible contrast, and when things start moving quickly I can't follow them at all.
It's true that their gamma curve is a bit different. But saying that CRT's are more vivid isn't right. The main difference in color range is that LCD's have a hard time displaying true black.
And I think most game developers use LCD's nowadays. It's 100%* Dell LCD's at Valve.
* Except for the TV's used for Xbox 360 testing.
<!--quoteo(post=1627691:date=May 19 2007, 02:22 AM:name=TheSavior)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheSavior @ May 19 2007, 02:22 AM) [snapback]1627691[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->LCD's are not CRT's. Refresh Rate on an LCD is not the same as Refresh Rate on a CRT. Therefore, comparing 100hz on an LCD to 100hz on a CRT is a fruitless, pointless, time wasting, and otherwise useless endeavor. Stop trying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." - Goethe
It's true that their gamma curve is a bit different. But saying that CRT's are more vivid isn't right. The main difference in color range is that LCD's have a hard time displaying true black.
And I think most game developers use LCD's nowadays. It's 100%* Dell LCD's at Valve.
* Except for the TV's used for Xbox 360 testing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
oO
Which games are in development for the xbox 360?
I thought valve was currently only working on HL2EP2, Portal and TF2. Or do you mean by "Xbxo 360 testing" playing games at work <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
oO
Which games are in development for the xbox 360?
I thought valve was currently only working on HL2EP2, Portal and TF2. Or do you mean by "Xbxo 360 testing" playing games at work <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, what cave have you been living in? HL2, HL2: Episode 1, HL2: Episode 2, Portal, and Team Fortress 2 are all coming to the 360 and the PS3. L4D is also coming to the 360 I think.
If you need to be mobile, live in a dorm, etc... then a LCD is helpful! However, if you are buying something that stays still just get a CRT if you can.
It's true that their gamma curve is a bit different. But saying that CRT's are more vivid isn't right. The main difference in color range is that LCD's have a hard time displaying true black.
And I think most game developers use LCD's nowadays. It's 100%* Dell LCD's at Valve.
* Except for the TV's used for Xbox 360 testing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats what i meant, they show true color. Couldn't think of a word to describe it D:
Not to mention that even if you use a CRT because of its color profile, if you do any kind of computer graphics lots of people will be looking at it with an LCD, so you still have to make sure it looks good on those, too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol. Its like making music- they don't make music on POS logitech surround sets lol they used flat response monitors. It all depends on what you want, quality or crap!