Support NeoGAF

[Biff Hardbody]

Well, after building my new pc a few months back I swore I'd get a new monitor for Christmas. I'm using a Dell 19 inch crt that is on its last legs. Everything gets fuzzy, colors bleed and burn out. I need a new one. Its that time of year now, so I'm looking. Right now I'm trying to decide what is best for me. Basically, I want it for games. I play stuff like UT2K4, HL2, Rome Total War...ecd. I want it to look and perform as well as possible.

Size is an issue for me. I see some of those mammoth CRT's and they weigh like 40+ lbs. I don't know if I want something that heavy, but I do want something big (19 inches or over). From what I understand, the lower response time the better. Anything under 16MS is good, 12 ms being the best out there right now?

Are LCD's still inferior for gaming? Even with the low 16 and 12 response times?

I notice most LCD's have native resoultions around 1280X1024. Does that mean any other res will not look good?

Thanks for your time. Any suggestions are appreciated.

 

[xsarien]

Today's LCDs are adequate for gaming, but it depends on what you're playing. They're obviously going to be better suited to RTS than FPS, for instance. But as for everything else, LCDs are excellent, as long as you plug it into your machine using a DVI cable. Absolutely zero adjustments to be made, a nice and raw digital signal, and no refresh rate-based headaches.

 

[Biff Hardbody]

So by adequate you mean they aren't at the level of crt's? I want the best possible experience playing games, and I play allot of FPS games. Will LCD's cripple my performance compared to what I would get out of a crt? Thank you for your reply.

 

[heavy liquid]

I'd go with CRT for gaming.

 

[Ecrofirt]

CRT, no contest.

 

[cybamerc]

Biff Hardbody:

> Are LCD's still inferior for gaming? Even with the low 16 and 12 response times?

Yes. Although games are perfectly playable on LCD screen.

> I notice most LCD's have native resoultions around 1280X1024. Does that mean any
> other res will not look good?

Yes.

 

[Biff Hardbody]

Thank you guys for answering my questions. Time to check the hardoc forums and newegg for best CRT out there. Damn, I wanted to save some room...but I'll be damned if it ain't the best!!! yarrrr!

 

[xsarien]

Damn, I wanted to save some room...but I'll be damned if it ain't the best for gaming!!! yarrrr!

Fixed.

I love my LCDs, they make long nights in Flash and Photoshop bearable.

 

[Vandiger]

I'd go with LCD. You got a selection of them under 16ms that is satisfactory for gaming. The only thing that may be a factor is brightness and contrast which crt has an advantage, current LCD monitors can probably match that. I bought a decent Samsung SynchMaster 17" which is equivalent to my old Viewsonic 19" CRT monitor.

 

[tedtropy]

While LCDs are certainly getting better by the day, in the kingdom of gaming, the CRT still reigns supreme. An LCD's biggest pitfall (and it is a very big one) is that it has only one native resolution. If you can run current games at said resolution (which tends to be high on modern average sized ones, at least in the 1280 X 1024 area) you're great, everything else has to be resampled and the effect is very noticeable. In some games, this resampling isn't too bad, in others, it's incredibly noticeable, especially if you have to run it in lower resolutions. And of course, while the response time of LCDs is getting much better, it still can't match a good CRT when it comes to fast motion stuff. When it comes to desktop publishing, general surfing/Windows stuff, LCDs are great. Perfect geometry and no dicking around with settings in that regard - you're never going to get a perfectly square picture out of a CRT. Dammit, just wish they could somehow combine the strengths into some sort of...super display.

 

[Neo_ZX]

Anyone know of a 19"+ LCDs (widescreen also welcome) with low response time but also with TV tuner and direct component/RCA/S-video inputs?

Now that's what I want!

 

[Biff Hardbody]

Thanks guys. I would go for the LCD, but I am a fps junkie. I'm looking at this right now-

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-002-091&depa=0

65 fucking pounds!!!

I hear its the best though.

tedtropy, I hear you about native resolution. Thats probably the biggest reason why I'm steering towards crts...I use a variety of resolutions in my games.

 

[Dilbert]

Have any of you actually PLAYED games on an LCD? If so, what settings were you using?

I have a 19" LCD monitor (Samsung 191t+) connected through a DVI cable, and I've NEVER had a problem for gaming, even though it "only" advertises a 25ms response time. I run everything at the native resolution, and it's sharp, colorful, and easy to view. The only small complaint is overall brightness, but that's true of ANY LCD monitor -- in a sunny room, you will struggle to make out dark details.

Unless you're going to be running a game at some ungodly frame rate, I don't see how tearing is a real concern. I've NEVER seen any tearing on my display, and I usually get 90+ fps in most games I play. (Also, if you're moving your perspective around fast enough in a game to produce tearing, I'd also submit that you're going to be too busy trying to save your ass from getting killed to notice that kind of thing.)

CRTs are HUGE, heavy, produce eyestrain, and require frequent calibration to keep at a reference level. I can't imagine wanting a CRT at this point unless you were doing professional-quality digital image manipulation.

 

[tedtropy]

Have any of you actually PLAYED games on an LCD? If so, what settings were you using?

I have a 19" LCD monitor (Samsung 191t+) connected through a DVI cable, and I've NEVER had a problem for gaming, even though it "only" advertises a 25ms response time. I run everything at the native resolution, and it's sharp, colorful, and easy to view. The only small complaint is overall brightness, but that's true of ANY LCD monitor -- in a sunny room, you will struggle to make out dark details.

Unless you're going to be running a game at some ungodly frame rate, I don't see how tearing is a real concern. I've NEVER seen any tearing on my display, and I usually get 90+ fps in most games I play. (Also, if you're moving your perspective around fast enough in a game to produce tearing, I'd also submit that you're going to be too busy trying to save your ass from getting killed to notice that kind of thing.)

CRTs are HUGE, heavy, produce eyestrain, and require frequent calibration to keep at a reference level. I can't imagine wanting a CRT at this point unless you were doing professional-quality digital image manipulation.

I think the main gamer complaint about LCDs is that it's going to require a pretty significant investment in the video card department if you plan on running the latest games at the native resolution of most high-quality larger LCDs. Some of those suckers are pushing 1600X1200. Most boxes out there are probably running Doom 3 at around 800X600. Resampling to such a low resolution is going to be a noticeable quality dip on an LCD. But I suppose if one has the money to invest in a great LCD, they'd probably have money to invest in a modern card as well. Believe me, I'm tempted to just go all out and grab a nice 19" LCD, but the one native res thing irks me and I wouldn't be able to afford both a good LCD and bleeding-edge card to back it simultaneously. Nice Samsung, by the way.

 

[Dilbert]

I think the main gamer complaint about LCDs is that it's going to require a pretty significant investment in the video card department if you plan on running the latest games at the native resolution of most high-quality larger LCDs.

That's a good point -- you definitely always want to run at the native resolution, and that does require more horsepower. I can't imagine running a 1600x1200 monitor at a viewing distance of a couple of feet, though. On a laptop where the viewing distance is much closer, that's slightly more acceptable...but that would be murder on the eyes on a desktop.

 

[FortNinety]

Too bad the best LCDs out there is for a computer that doesn't have the hottest games in a timely manner.

 

[border]

Oh man, but when you do get to play games on it.....they are awesome. Never have Breakout (and SUPER Breakout!) looked so alive and vivid!

 

[tedtropy]

That's a good point -- you definitely always want to run at the native resolution, and that does require more horsepower. I can't imagine running a 1600x1200 monitor at a viewing distance of a couple of feet, though. On a laptop where the viewing distance is much closer, that's slightly more acceptable...but that would be murder on the eyes on a desktop.

You'll want at least a 19" CRT to run at 1600X1200, and even then alot (if not most) people won't like it. I think 1280 X 1024 tends to be the sweet spot so long as you're running a decent quality CRT that's 17" or larger. I generally set the 17" crappo monitors we get with our Dell systems at work at around 800X600, otherwise the old people get cranky. There's nothing quite as beautiful as a big-ass LCD running desktop stuff in its high native resolution. The high-end Dell 19" LCDs we setup for the overpaid people in marketing are VERY tempting. Personally I'm running a 17" Phillips 107P4 Brilliance CRT at home. Not to be mistaken for the shit economy monitors Phillips makes, this thing has a very nice aperature grille tube, and while I see alot of nice LCDs at some of the lan parties I frequent, none have matched the color quality of it. Although those same people certainly laugh at me as I heft it in and out of my little car. All about preference I suppose, there is no definitive perfect display...

 

[Vandiger]

Yeah, my LCD runs natively runs at 1280x1024. I usually play most of my games at that resolution since I do have a 6800GT. If you have a heavy duty video card just get the LCD why bother going CRT unless you have the desk space. I even run some games at 1024x768 and they look perfectly fine. I don't really see ghosting but I'm not really a nitpicker when it comes to graphics. One thing I love about my LCD is no more eye strain, I think I ruined my eyes looking at CRTs for so many years

 

[Biff Hardbody]

Thanks forthe advice, fellahs.

I think I'm going with this one-

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-002-037&depa=0

It seems like the best 19 inch crt out there. If anyone knows of anything better, I'm all ears.

 

[xsarien]

Too bad the best LCDs out there is for a computer that doesn't have the hottest games in a timely manner.

I'm pretty sure you can hook those up to a PC just fine.

 

[God's Hand]

Too bad the best LCDs out there is for a computer that doesn't have the hottest games in a timely manner.

HP offers (http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review1695.html) the same display panel that Apple uses at less the cost and with more features. Seriously... anyone who buys the Apple display is either stupid or hasn't looked around. The alternatives are better and cheaper. And in this case, it's the exact same panel.

 

[border]

So if I play a game on an LCD and set the game to run below native resolution, will visual quality be compromised? Or is that only when you try and run above the native resolution?

 

[God's Hand]

I think current LCDs have horrible scaling. You can either run a game at like 1024x768 in the middle of the screen (black bars around, so it's essentially still at the native res, but displaying a 1024x768 window in the middle), or you can have it stretch, which is shitty. Future LCDs will come with a built-in proper scaling chip, like in Photoshop.

 

[Miguel]

Where the hell are you these days? Gimme the info Don. NOW.

 

[xsarien]

So if I play a game on an LCD and set the game to run below native resolution, will visual quality be compromised? Or is that only when you try and run above the native resolution?

Your mileage will vary depending on the monitor and video board. But the general rule of thumb is that if you go below the native resolution, there will be some amount of scaling issues.

LCDs aren't ideal for gaming in this regard, I always recommend them for PC gaming friends with very stern qualifications. But for me, where most of my gaming is done on the consoles (I still have the odd, new adventure game. Like Syberia), it's simply not an issue. I'm never going back to CRTs. Ever. You'll have to drag me kicking and screaming.

 

[tedtropy]

So if I play a game on an LCD and set the game to run below native resolution, will visual quality be compromised? Or is that only when you try and run above the native resolution?

You can't really run an LCD above its native resolution. Depending on the video adaptor's drivers, doing that will simply display a scrollable screen that matches the resolution but is still, in fact, displaying in the native res...if that makes any sense. Whenever you run below an LCD's native resolution, it's still outputting at the only resolution it can, but it resamples that lower resolution UP to its native, doubling pixels and basically guessing what the picture would look like stretched. Imagine this, you take a small picture and resize it to a larger size in Photoshop. Obviously it's going to look blurrier and, likely, plain crappy.

 

[GONZO]

On a side note I was thinkin of buying this bad boy.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t..._alx-jeb-9-1_ce_5645153_1/002-8181861-5238460


The no name brand does worry me but from the few reviews I've read the contrast is great and the screen has great colors. Are there any other lcd tv monitors in this price range?

 

[Ecrofirt]

So what's the best 19'' CRT? This Dell M993s that came with my computer is a disappointment. It starts shimmering after it's been on for awhile, and at any time if I look at one area too closely, I'll notice that the entire screen is wobbly. This is at anything > 60Hz.

 

[bionic77]

LCD seems to be so much easier on the eye when reading text. For that reason alone I can't go back to CRT.

 

[tedtropy]

So what's the best 19'' CRT? This Dell M993s that came with my computer is a disappointment. It starts shimmering after it's been on for awhile, and at any time if I look at one area too closely, I'll notice that the entire screen is wobbly. This is at anything > 60Hz.

Your system still under warranty? Even a basic economical monitor shouldn't be doing that...

 

[Suikoguy]

If space is no object, Get a CRT still the best quality.. but damn if those 21 inch monsters are not beasts!

Otherwise, LCD technology has improved, and the prices have dropped. If you must save the space its not as bad now as it was. Just find one with the best update rate so there is less blurring.

 

[Warm Machine]

For color reproduction and refresh rate you cannot beat a CRT. Any artist that works with color and uses an LCD monitor needs a punch in the back of the head.

Viewing angle on LCDs suck. I watch guys in the office play World of Warcraft and Half-Life 2 on their LCDs and the games look terrible. As if the gamma is ruined. I then position myself at the sweet spot and I can actually see what they are seeing. Still, deviation a few degrees either side produces adverse effects.

 

[Xenon]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=41807&item=5144067088&rd=1


get a used 21" Diamondtron. I have had an older model I bought used for 4 years and it still looks great.


21">>>>>>> 19"

 

[border]

Does all of this still hold true for television sets? Is CRT still ahead of plasma and LCD?

 

[Vieo]

LoL. I've got a 19" NEC SuperBright Diamondtron from www.newegg.com; the FE991SB. Think I paid about $272 for it. The SuperBright mode, when theres a game that can benefit from it, KICKS ASS. Warcraft III looks like... a really bright oil painting. You can't even tell you're looking at a screen unless you look at the aperture grill lines which are difficult to see. It looks like you're looking at... the sun or something.

I wouldn't go with anything over 19" though because to me the price is a bit steep just to add on one or two more inches of viewable space, not to mention the 19" is so huge(but somewhat smaller than other 19" CRTs) that it takes up nearly my entire deskspace and is superheavy that if I chose a bigger one my desk would have surely fallen apart upon setting it up.

Though, if you're got a desk made of reinforced steel or at least really thick wood, and you don't mind the price difference, I'd go for the larger monitor. =)

 

[xsarien]

For color reproduction and refresh rate you cannot beat a CRT. Any artist that works with color and uses an LCD monitor needs a punch in the back of the head.

My DVI connection and Samsung Syncmaster beg to differ. Color reproduction is fine, and the blacks are wonderful. (And the "Refresh rate" issue is leagues ahead on an LCD. The pixels update, not the entire screen. So less headaches for me.)

 

[btrboyev]

I could never go back to using a CRT

 

[BigGreenMat]

My DVI connection and Samsung Syncmaster beg to differ. Color reproduction is fine, and the blacks are wonderful. (And the "Refresh rate" issue is leagues ahead on an LCD. The pixels update, not the entire screen. So less headaches for me.)

You know though that each pixel on the screen of an LCD actually color slightly differently given the exact same signal? LCDs can be not bad, but you can't trust their color reproduction to any great degree. Yes the DVI supplies nearly perfect information, but the crystals do not display that information anywhere near perfectly. They aren't trustworthy to me. Geometry is good though.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

I have two monitors (one LCD, one CRT) sharing the same video connection through a video distribution amplifier. The LCD is a native 1280*1024.

Provided you get a 'good' LCD, the only difference you'll notice, even when gaming, is that you never really get true 60fps or greater because the monitor can't keep up refresh-wise. Also, the black levels aren't as good and luminance isn't even.

You have to be really anal to even notice half that though.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...5144067088&rd=1


get a used 21" Diamondtron. I have had an older model I bought used for 4 years and it still looks great.


21">>>>>>> 19"

Radiation isn't good for you.

 

[xsarien]

You know though that each pixel on the screen of an LCD actually color slightly differently given the exact same signal? LCDs can be not bad, but you can't trust their color reproduction to any great degree. Yes the DVI supplies nearly perfect information, but the crystals do not display that information anywhere near perfectly. They aren't trustworthy to me. Geometry is good though.

And unless you're willing to spend some time adjusting your CRT's controls, you're not going to get "perfect" color and image reproduction either. The point is that the digital signal cuts that part out, and all that's left to worry about is variance in the actual crystals. And all things being equal, it's not something that's going to fuck anything up to any major degree.

 

[Forsete]

Im glad I ordered a 19" LCD for my new computer.

 

[Biff Hardbody]

LoL. I've got a 19" NEC SuperBright Diamondtron from www.newegg.com; the FE991SB. Think I paid about $272 for it. The SuperBright mode, when theres a game that can benefit from it, KICKS ASS. Warcraft III looks like... a really bright oil painting. You can't even tell you're looking at a screen unless you look at the aperture grill lines which are difficult to see. It looks like you're looking at... the sun or something.

I wouldn't go with anything over 19" though because to me the price is a bit steep just to add on one or two more inches of viewable space, not to mention the 19" is so huge(but somewhat smaller than other 19" CRTs) that it takes up nearly my entire deskspace and is superheavy that if I chose a bigger one my desk would have surely fallen apart upon setting it up.

Though, if you're got a desk made of reinforced steel or at least really thick wood, and you don't mind the price difference, I'd go for the larger monitor. =)

That is the one I'm buying next week. Thanks for the impressions! Any negatives?

 

[Vieo]

That is the one I'm buying next week. Thanks for the impressions! Any negatives?

No negatives except needing the space for it. My desk has about 2feet of space for it's depth(from the front of the desk to the back). With the monitor on it, from the screen to the edge of the desk, I have about 7.5 inches of space left. :lol Though it's not as bad as it sounds since I use one of those slide out keyboard cubby things that keeps me about 22" inches from the monitor.

Ususally with large CRTs, people complain about them getting so hot that they heat up the entire room or that they make a loud humming noise. This montior has none of those problems.

I run it at a 1280x1024 resolution with a refresh rate of 85Hertz. It's pretty rock solid. =)

 

[Biff Hardbody]

Thanks for getting back to me. This model is actually smaller then my current 19 inch dell, so size isn't a problem for me. I'm eager to get this now. Thanks again!

 

[DHGamer]

Are LCD's still inferior for gaming? Even with the low 16 and 12 response times?

I notice most LCD's have native resoultions around 1280X1024. Does that mean any other res will not look good?

I have a Sony Xbrite HS73 (new model) 17" (1280 native) and it's incredible for gaming. Never get any ghosting whatsoever and the picture is excellent even down to 640x480 res. The 19" model is just as good but offers 1600 native res. I run all my games at 1024x768 with 4x AA, 16x AF on my x800XTPE and they look like a painting. Good stuff.

Everyone who looks at the picture comments on it and the strain on my eyes has been virtually non-existant compared to my old CRT. I should add, even after 10+ hours of WoW my eyes still feel good

If you don't have any qualms about the cash then I highly recommend the Sony 17" (16" view) for $550. The 19" was going for $800 last I checked.

oops.. forgot to add I play FPS games heavily online including HalfLife2, UT2k4, CStrike. There is absolutly NO ghosting on this model. Matter of fact HL2 looks F'n amazing.

 

[Dilbert]

You know though that each pixel on the screen of an LCD actually color slightly differently given the exact same signal? LCDs can be not bad, but you can't trust their color reproduction to any great degree. Yes the DVI supplies nearly perfect information, but the crystals do not display that information anywhere near perfectly. They aren't trustworthy to me. Geometry is good though.

Actually, I don't suspect that's much of a problem, and it would be pretty easy to check, right? Simply create a monotone background and observe whether you can see significant pixel-to-pixel differences. Based on the fact that I don't see such variation in large areas of a single color in day-to-day use (web page background areas, etc.), I'd be stunned if it was a noticible effect to the eye.

The real limitation of LCDs with color is that they can't reproduce as MANY colors as a CRT...yet. Most LCDs are capped at 16.7 million colors, but I'm pretty sure that CRTs have a greater palette. This affects digital image editing (read as: Photoshop) since you are trying to make subtle adjustments to images...but the monitor itself is messing with the "in-between" color steps, since it has to fit them into a discrete color that it can display.

 

[Grifter]

Dell's been having great deals on their 20.1" 2001FP if you check the usual bargain sites. I just grabbed 2 (one for my GF's WoW) for about $1100. Their widescreen 20.1" is the same price but it has less actual space, prolly great for movies or WoW/HL2 in widescreen.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...ew&sku=320-1578&c=us&l=en&cs=19&page=external

 

[tedtropy]

Actually, I don't suspect that's much of a problem, and it would be pretty easy to check, right? Simply create a monotone background and observe whether you can see significant pixel-to-pixel differences. Based on the fact that I don't see such variation in large areas of a single color in day-to-day use (web page background areas, etc.), I'd be stunned if it was a noticible effect to the eye.

The real limitation of LCDs with color is that they can't reproduce as MANY colors as a CRT...yet. Most LCDs are capped at 16.7 million colors, but I'm pretty sure that CRTs have a greater palette. This affects digital image editing (read as: Photoshop) since you are trying to make subtle adjustments to images...but the monitor itself is messing with the "in-between" color steps, since it has to fit them into a discrete color that it can display.

Hence why alot of people who make their money in Photoshop or other graphic-editing fields still swear by their CRTs. For the other 99% of the world though, the colors produced by a good LCD will still look great, but they'll certainly experience color gradation issues before a CRT would. If you want to test your LCDs limitations in this regard, just create a Photoshop image and use its gradient tool to start with one color at the top of the image and ending on the bottom with its extreme opposite. Chances are you'll notice some slight banding on the LCD versus a good CRT. The technology is improving rapidly though, and for most people, LCDs are going to be wonderful.

 

[Biff Hardbody]

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-002-037&depa=0

Got it two days ago. Best money I've spent in a long time. I am actually noticing small graphical details I never noticed before in games like T2, UT2K4. The picture is much sharper then what I was used to, and the color is extremly vivid in game. At first I was not impressed with the monitor when doing things like web browsing, viewing pictures ecd. ,It looke dgood, but not much better then what I was used to. However when I started playing games...it was really allot of fun. Superbright mode really makes a difference in some games, and that with the sharpness of the pictures makes it really impressive. Games just look much better.

Thanks to all.

Just one thing. I've heard that windex hurts the anti glare coating. What would work best toc lean this?