This may be an IMHO thread, but in window-shopping for a new computer, I see so many are now offered with LCD flat screens. I love using them for work…but how do they stack up for gaming?
So it’s a real question.
Alternatively, if this thread gets moved…what type of screen would you prefer to have given the choice?
Given the choice of a 20-inch CRT and a 20-inch LCD, I’d take the LCD if I didn’t have to pay for it.
However, given that I can get a good used 20" CRT for about $350 and a 20" LCD will cost three or four thousand, the choice is determined more by economics than visual preference.
I’ve heard that LCD screens are designed to only really work well in their native resolution – if you try to run it at a different resolution, it will look really fuzzy. Since games are often run at different resolutions, you may want to check this before buying something super expensive.
Really? I’d take the CRT, really. They’re a “proven” technology, and reliable, while LCD is still in the “improvement” stage. If I ever got an LCD, I’d be waiting at least 5-10 years
LCD’s still have motion blur. It cant handle games well.
This is true in a general sense but there are plenty of quality LCDs that perform quite similarly to CRTs. I’m not an expert but I recall various specs that indicate quality.
One of them involved the brightness or something measured in cd/in[sup]2[/sup]. Higher is better, probably something on order of 300 or higher.
Two others measured the time it took for a pixel to turn on and off. Don’t remember what was good but lower is better. This is affects the blurriness mentioned by fallom.
Another measured the maximum viewing angle vertically and horizontally. As close to 180 as possible is the best.
All of these have an effect on how well a LCD will perform and similarly, how closely it performs to a CRT. Hopefully someone will come by and provide the detailed answers you probably seek.
If price was no option, surely I would choose the LCD.
If you use that logic, you’d never be able to buy anything high-tech. Besides, LCDs have been around for decades. I’ve seen 10-year old laptops whose color LCD displays are still perfectly functional. And I have a 3-year old 14" LCD monitor which has been reliable so far.
LCD’s can’t push the resolution/refresh rates that games should desire.
Also, pixels go bad on CRT’s, more so with the newer types. One or two, you won’t notice, but it can add up. My buddy had to send an iMac FP back due to excessive dead pixels.
If you have the money to burn, go for a Sony 24" CRT, though their 21" is pretty much gamers heaven.
Check out Team Excess for all your monitor needs. I picked up a 21" Hitachi .22dpi for $230. Can’t beat their prices. I’ve bought 3 monitors from them and never had a problem.
(Brutus, I think you meant to say “LCD”, not “CRT” a couple of times)
According to most of the literature, they don’t continue to go bad over time, but it’s common for pixels on LCD’s to fail shortly after initial use. Due to current manufacturing limitations, it’s hard to avoid, and most LCD manufacturers have a stated number of “dead pixels” they consider acceptable. After you’ve used the thing for a while, all the pixels that are going to die should be dead.
Most of the drawbacks for gamers have been covered - there are latency problems with quickly changing images, and LCD’s have a native resolution. When running at lower resolutions, the driver has to interpolate, and you get, in most cases, “jaggies”. I had a driver which even took the tack of doing lower resolution by restricting itself to a smaller image in the center of the screen.
I’m not a gamer, so I’m never going to run my monitor at lower than the highest resolution, so that fact and the latency problems don’t bother me. They may seriously bother you, though, if you try to play games on an LCD.
The other major drawback with LCD’s (besides price) is viewing angle - though they are getting better.
LCD’s produce much crisper text, and are usually good for digital photography, but the images they produce aren’t to everyone’s taste, and they aren’t suited to every purpose.
One feature of the industry I consider very ironic is the “impedance mismatch” between display vendors and video card vendors. The former are pushing LCD screens like mad, including DVI digital interface. The video card makers, locked in a 3D frame rate war with each other for the “hearts and minds” of the gamers, have dragged their feet on DVI support, and the selection of cards compatible with your LCD has always been limited (this is also getting batter, but is still a factor).
That may be another reason a gamer might not want an LCD, at least a DVI / DFP based one. The high-end video card you’ve got your eye on might not support it.
“I picked up a 21” Hitachi "
LCD?
What does that weigh? about 90lbs? an LCD monitor on the other hand, weighs a lot lot less.
Best thing to do is visit a computer store & compare yourself with your eyes. I only play games
on a 27" CRT, e.g. a TV.
From what I’ve seen of even the best LCD panels, I don’t think game “motion” will be handled as well as on a CRT (yet) and panels do not like to switch from native resolution. For text and net browsing (good) LCD panels are the way to go, a big flat CRT screen with a tight pitch and good specs is still the way to go with games.
I have both a crt and an lcd (albeit a cheap one) hooked up to my computer at home. I wouldn’t dream of using the lcd to game with. It’s very sharp and clear (and glare-free, too, I might add), but it can’t handle fast motion at all. Plus, it can only output at one resolution, which is not ideal for gaming.
Go with a crt. The only way to get reasonable performance out of an lcd would be to spend way too much money (think $1000 plus). At those prices, you’d be better off getting a high definition television to output your computer too…
If you’re an excessive gamer and have tons of desktop space, don’t care about the heat generated on hot summer nights (i.e., have A/C), don’t find the CRT image fatiguing, and need accurate color presentation, then go for a CRT. However, if you only moderately game, have tons of cash, need your desktop space, and need to have an image that is easy on the eyes, get an LCD. Both have their own pros and cons, so choose accordingly.
Also, most of the more expensive LCDs don’t have many problems with motion blur and dead pixels. Most computer gamers will probably say that, currently, the biggest problem with LCDs is the lack of large UXGA displays.
Personally, I couldn’t think of going back to CRT after using an LCD because of the lack of desktop space used up with, and the clarity of, LCDs. I also like the colour that LCDs produce, even if it is not as accurate.
BTW, there certainly is no factual answer to this question. It belongs in IMHO.
If you’re an excessive gamer and have tons of desktop space, don’t care about the heat generated on hot summer nights (i.e., have A/C), don’t find the CRT image fatiguing, and need accurate color presentation, then go for a CRT. However, if you only moderately game, have tons of cash, need your desktop space, and need to have an image that is easy on the eyes, get an LCD. Both have their own pros and cons, so choose accordingly.
Also, most of the more expensive LCDs don’t have many problems with motion blur and dead pixels. Most computer gamers will probably say that, currently, the biggest problem with LCDs is the lack of large UXGA displays.
Personally, I couldn’t think of going back to CRT after using an LCD because of the lack of desktop space used up with, and the clarity of, LCDs. I also like the colour that LCDs produce, even if it is not as accurate.
BTW, there certainly is no factual answer to this question. It belongs in IMHO.