AMD Processor vs Intel Processor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Codeine said:
I dont understand how people can bash CRT... First LCD max resolution is 1200/1200. Most LCD's have 1200/700, while most CRT have 1600/1200+. Personally i cant stand when people bash CRT, becasue they are soo much better then LCD.

If your watchong LCD from a angle, then the monitors coloring starts to get all shady. Plus CRT has alot more depth. All the shadows and glears in video games just look so much better. Again even better with that 2000/1600 resolution. While they have better quality, they still cost less. I mean why even go LCD, is size really that important? I mean what would you guys rather do. Spend 800$ on a 19inch LCD with 1200/1200 resolution, or spend 800$ on a 22inch CRT with 2000/2500 resolution?? Its pretty obvious witch is the better choice.

but i would NOT want to lug around a 22" CRT monitor...i might get a hernia lmao. some people need LCD's for that reason alone...and i mean the LCD isn't "terrible" by any means. it just lacks certain requirements/standards that you personally want. most people i know use 1024*768 max res, 65hz refresh rate lmao...they dont care about anything higher. i like the smaller screen size 100hz on my CRT.

also 1200*1200 is NOT max res for LCD monitors...i don't know what you mean. This one here can do 1600*1200....

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=24-116-299&DEPA=1
 
Yeah, even though I like the quality and cheapness of CRT's, I'm pretty sure my next monitor will be an LCD. Hauling my 19" CRT around to LAN parties takes a lot of energy, and I'm getting to the point where I feel like staying home from a LAN party rather than endure the pain of lifting and carrying 50 lbs all over the place. Hopefully within the next couple years, by the time I'm in need of another monitor, LCD's will compare very close to CRT's in refresh rate, resolution, etc.
 
I prefer CRT's personally, I do not think that LCD's "suck" although for gaming they are not as good as CRT's, but a descent one will do the job.

CRT's generally have a higher maximum resolution than LCD's, although I'm not saying that LCD's cannot have high resolutions

and I agree that I don't really want to be lugging around a heavy CRT all the time. I have a 21" CRT which is a really good monitor, I typically run my desktop at 2048x1536, although is friggin heavy as. I don't really want to be taking it to LAN's all the time, so I was thinking of getting a descent LCD to take to LANs and use the CRT at home where I use my PC most

also, CRT's are dangerous to repair

and VIII: your sig is far too long.. 22 lines. see the signature rules here
 
Codeine said:
I dont understand how people can bash CRT... First LCD max resolution is 1200/1200. Most LCD's have 1200/700, while most CRT have 1600/1200+. Personally i cant stand when people bash CRT, becasue they are soo much better then LCD.

If your watchong LCD from a angle, then the monitors coloring starts to get all shady. Plus CRT has alot more depth. All the shadows and glears in video games just look so much better. Again even better with that 2000/1600 resolution. While they have better quality, they still cost less. I mean why even go LCD, is size really that important? I mean what would you guys rather do. Spend 800$ on a 19inch LCD with 1200/1200 resolution, or spend 800$ on a 22inch CRT with 2000/2500 resolution?? Its pretty obvious witch is the better choice.

comp is for one person, if other people want to watch then let them go behind or not at all.. LCDS are great against screen cheaters too :)

Of course LCDS arent up to the standards of CRTS, how long have CRTS been used for, umm like forever lol.. LCDS came out sometime in the last decade so in time, lcds will be just as good as crts in the refresh rates and such... the difference in those factors between CRTS and LCDS really dont alter game play too much imho..

Oh ohhh we got another AMD vs PENT going lOlZ

PS- Sorry bout my sig, ill fix it.. Just gota re download photoshop and ill sort it out
 
AMD kinda looses on price because i its hard to find anything that isn't a 64 bit and under 3200+ its hard to find a 3200+ in Australia now which means people who want a cheap option have to go with Pentium
 
3lite Bullet said:
AMD kinda looses on price because i its hard to find anything that isn't a 64 bit and under 3200+ its hard to find a 3200+ in Australia now which means people who want a cheap option have to go with Pentium

...that's because they don't make any of the XP chips anymore lol. they are still widely available, but when they are all bought out then they are gone forever. you can't really blame AMD for not holding on to older and slower technologies, they'd be losing alot of money still pumping out archaic chips to the small population of people who are not interested in there newer stuff or can't afford it. a 754 system can be had for almost the same price as a nice XP3200+ system, maybe less.
 
This thread started with AMD vs. Intel, and then went to CRT Vs. LCD? To many preference wars...let's focus on what really matters! ATI or nVidia? Lol

jk
 
3lite Bullet said:
AMD kinda looses on price because i its hard to find anything that isn't a 64 bit and under 3200+ its hard to find a 3200+ in Australia now which means people who want a cheap option have to go with Pentium
that's not true, you can get athlon 64 2800+ socket 754's, and 3000+ 754 and 939's, and also Sempron 3100+'s in 754
the semprons are not 64-bit either
 
Yup, I think I'll hold onto my XP for years to come for nostalgia :D

I completely destroyed a 1GHz duron couple years back because I didn't know about computers and simply thought 'ehh its worthless'

Oh well live and learn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom