LCD vs. CRT for gaming

[PismoGuy]

Hi all,

Got a question about the quality of game graphics on LCD and CRT monitors. I have a Pismo (duh,check my name :D) and had a pc with an NEC 17" LCD. Currently I use an emac and my pismo is basically a desktop connected to a KDS 17" CRT cause its display is badly cracked. I want to purchase a LCD monitor but am worried about the burriness of lower resolutions. From my experience it isn't pleasant to play games that require 640*480 or 800*600 on LCDs with higher native res. I want my new lcd to have max res of 1280 * 1024 or more and want to get good detail on lower resolutions. This is a big issue for me because I can't (and probably even with a new comp and great graphics card) play at such a native res with good frames. My CRT's are burning holes in the back of my head and want to get a LCD this year (lot of elbow room huh?) so I would appreciate some feed back on some of your experiences/recommendations.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Crt's are faster.

[Quixcube]

An LCD looks best at its native resolution. However, and this is a big however, with the right hardware you can get a picture that doesn't look like crap.

The best results I have had with scaling have been with an SGI 1600SW LCD and an acompanying SGI Multilink adapter. The native resolution in this setup is 1600x1024, but even 640x480 looks OK. (Not crisp, but not laughable.) The downsampling is handled by some high-end hardware in the Multilink, which also handles 720p HDTV (a nice perk ;)). It isn't a cheap setup though. The Multilink still runs about $600 to $700, and the 1600SW LCDs have never been easy to find.

I said good results with sampling... but not with the LCD itself. Now that I think about it, the 1600SW really had a terrible ghosting problem that became apparent when things moved too quickly. They date from about 1999 or so... so this is to be expected. It really was a great LCD for its time though.

Maybe you should stick to the CRT and just wrap your head in aluminum foil? Punch some eye-holes...

?

[PismoGuy]

HAHAHA... thats funny.
Maybe you should stick to the CRT and just wrap your head in aluminum foil? Punch some eye-holes...

LOL indeed

Ok... so for scaling LCDs... suck, but they don't give me a friggin headache. Man its hard to decide. Thanks guys. Now any thoughts on possible new technologies in the works that will rectify this problem with scalablity?

[Phatpat]

I find lcds with a response rate of 16ms or better are great for gaming. They're on the expensive side of the price ranges, but its worth it.

[AkiraK]

I'll second Phatpat's recommendation. The higher end LCD's work just fine...but expensive isn't quite the word for it. Ghosting continues to be a problem on even the better midrange LCD's I've seen, and the amount of money some of these companies want for a high-end LCD can only be qualified as insane...especially given that a decent 19" CRT can be had for under $200 (a great one for under $400). I would vote for the CRT.

[PismoGuy]

How do APPLE's displays measure up?

[AkiraK]

Apple's displays rock. A friend of mine has the 20" cinema display, and has almost no ghosting issues at all (at least none that he or I have ever noticed). Still, $1300 would buy a sweet CRT (and you wouldn't have to put up with the window-boxing on games that don't support widescreen--i.e., most of them).

[Quixcube]

I know you have probably already tried this, but when I used to work with CRTs all day I got headaches pretty often too. That was when 72 Hz was pretty standard for refresh rates.

Have you tried pushing the refresh rate through the roof? Something around 100 or so?

But whatever you do, *don't* get a cheap LCD. You may suffer more from poor contrast/ghosting on a cheap LCD than you suffer from a CRT. I recently bought 4 Viewsonic VG800b monitors (please don't flame me Viewsonic supporters) and I am really disappointed with them. They were only about $400 or so, but they look it. They have a washed out quality to them that I can't tune out. They are analog only, which also has turned out to be a pain. They blink on an off something fierce when resolutions change etc. I got the 4 Viewsonics together for about what I pay for a single Eizo LCD, but I am going back to Eizo. (Or the dept. is rather, it isn't my bill to foot thank god.)

Sadly, you get what you pay for. I wonder to whom we have to speak to get that changed?



:rolleyes:

[aethier]

The lcd, on my Aluminum Powerbook, goes very well, even in gaming.

aethier

(i am pretty sure apple displays are rebranded {and new cased} sharp LCD's)

[PismoGuy]

Quixcube, I try to increase my refresh rate as high as they can go on whatever computer I am using at the moment, but with my current machines I don't have the flexibility of choosing my refresh rates; or going above 85 Hz.
My setup:
Note: I will not use anything under 1024*768
Pismo (Bad LCD; acting desktop w/ KDS 17" CRT monitor)
Possible Refresh rates
640*480:60/75/85/90/100/120Hz<<<nice but ... 640 ...
800*600:60/75/85/90/100Hz<<<nice but ... 800...
1024*768:85/75/60Hz
1280*1024:60Hz

eMac:
Note can't choose rates
640*480: 138Hz<<<nice but... 640...
800*600: 112Hz<<<nice but... 800...
1024*768: 89Hz
1152*864: 80Hz
1280*960: 72Hz

Personally a refresh rate of 80/85 or higher doesn't bother me... it is the ... I don't know. All I know is that CRT and regular TVs cause my eyes to strain and LCDs/Plasmas/Projectors don't:rolleyes::( . Even though I really don't need a LCD it would be nice. I'll probably wait until I get my Rev C G5 PM. ;) If anyone else has any comments on LCD's... I'm all ears.. um eyes:p

[PismoGuy]

(i am pretty sure apple displays are rebranded {and new cased} sharp LCD's)

My Pismo's LCD was made by LG Philips and I narrow mindedly suspected all apple's LCDs as such, but what you say is true... Shame on me :o :D.

[lind0834]

I found the problem of my CRT headaches was having a Refresh to High. It was nice for a while to have a higher refresh, but when you are constantly switching between a few computers, I found it was best for my sanity to have them all set to the refresh of the lowest capable.

If you stare real hard i can remember why I used to have higher refresh settings, but it's worth is.

[1macker1]

The 17" LCD on my iMac looks amazing. I dont have any type of problems with it. I'm playing Warcraft III and Neverwinter Nights, and it is stunning.

[Sol]

I have an Apple 15" display and a SONY 17" CRT connected to an nVidia Twinview 32MB card. I prefer the CRT for 3D games because the refresh rates are higher than any LCD. The lower the resolution, the faster the refresh rate. Fast refresh rates are more important in 3D games than a high resolution because the motion of the graphics needs to be smooth.

Having said that, I use the LCD as my main desktop and I simply can't be bothered changing the Displays preference pane for those games that do not allow monitor selection. At the lowest resolution the Apple display looks slightly blurry but there is no ghosting. Personally I do not mind the slight blurriness as it gives the display an artificial analogue-signal look.

[Flickta]

Buy LCD, if you aren't going to upgrade your computer soon. Because nor your eMac neither Pismo are great performers in 3d games. For that quality settings LCD's response and scaled resolutions are ok. Checked many times with Apple's "inertialess" LCD's (25 or 26 ms) and PB's