1600x1200 CRT or 19" LCD?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There may be a big difference between the 8ms LCDs and CRTs, but as far as ghosting goes, thats not even a problem. 8ms removes ghosting, so thats a non-issue.

So crts are better as far as performance????? wow
I learn something new every day at this forum.....

Not necessarily. Thats what we're arguing.
 
Well I'll give a definitive answer on that point shortly! as I say I have a 19" LCD in the post but I currently use a 19" IIyama Visionmaster pro424.

I assure you i'll be looking *very* closely in games like CS:S and BF2 etc for any sign of inferiority.

Currently I'm of the opinion that CRTs are best for gaming but that could change!
 
MrCoffee said:
Well I'll give a definitive answer on that point shortly! as I say I have a 19" LCD in the post but I currently use a 19" IIyama Visionmaster pro424.

I assure you i'll be looking *very* closely in games like CS:S and BF2 etc for any sign of inferiority.

Currently I'm of the opinion that CRTs are best for gaming but that could change!

Also look at how it compares in Windows and movies, etc.
 
Ok preliminary results are in though I have to point out that its not an entirely fair comparison for several reasons:
The CRT is old and is infact going blury which is why its being replaced.
The CRT was top of the range when bought but the LCD is minimum gaming spec.

anyway heres some pics of the two monitors together, I think its quite easy to see the advantage of the LCD monitor here though I do have plenty of desk space.
Also you'll notice that the 19"LCD has a full viewable 19" screen where as the 19" CRT has only 18" viewable.

Together.jpg


togeter2.jpg


slimfat.jpg


I have to say desk space, weight, and power consumption the LCD wins hands down. However the LCD is not without its faults...

Fault no.1
Dead pixels: Dead pixels happen, and I have a dead sub pixel :( , with most warrenties these days you just have to put up with less than about 5 dead sub pixels.

dead.jpg


Fault no.2
Native resolution: the image looks majorly crap in anything other then the native resolution, I have some comparison pics here and maybe you can see the difference.
THis is mostly only important because my native resolution is 1280x1024 which is quite demanding for my Graphics card in computer games.

1024x768

nonnative.jpg


1280x1024

native2.jpg


Fault no.3
Ghosting: OK so I have tested CS source and found the 8ms response to be prefectly playable on this monitor *but* although the ghosting is minimal to the human eye, it is there as you can see in the pic below. i'm not sure if this pic is really fair as there are other factors to concider like camera shutter speed and graphics card frame rate.

TFTGhost.jpg


Ok well in conclusion the FP91G+ LCD I have here is a great monitor for the price and I will be buying another one! however I have to say that a good quality CRT which you can get for less will give you much better colours, dot pitch, and a nice sharp image in a range of resolutions AND you will never get a dead pixel ;).
For amatuer gaming an 8ms LCD (this one anyway) is perfectly fine, infact if you didn't know that LCDs ghosted you probably wouldn't notice.
 
Nope, definitely not the 19", they use the same resolution as the 17" and I'm pretty sure making the resolution larger just makes it fuzzy. Either get a 17" or 20.1".

CRT's are fine too if you have the space for it.
 
Is that Ghosting picture, Actually as it is viewed by the human eye? or is it much more unnoticeable than that.
 
It's not by the human eye, read the picture desription.

CRT's also don't have a response time it's theoretically instant but then again they're bad on power consumption, heat emmission, desk space and weight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom