• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

CRT's made obsolete because of power usage?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
magellan

magellan

Member
​
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Was the entire reason CRT's were made obsolete because of power considerations? I know high end LCD panels can consume
less than half the power of a quality CRT. Or was it the fact CRT's produce radiation?

Did CRT's reach a technological plateau as far as research and development? Was it impossible to design thinner, lighter, more energy conserving
CRT's?
 
Power usage. Size. Eye strain. And probably the general trend of the tv market too since tube tv's stopped at what, 35-40" and weren't high resolution. And projection tv's were just friggin huge. I can move a 60" LCD tv by myself. My parents 60" projection tried to crush me when my step father and I moved it down a flight of stairs.
 
Neither reason I would guess. Though its true CRT's use more power than LCD's, I do not think that, or the radiation was a driving factor to move away from it.

I think smaller/faster(no flicker) was the driving factor personally.

Are projection TV's CRT's though?? Its a projector, not an electron beam, right?
 
Yeah no projection tv's aren't crt tech. They were what the tv people used to go bigger than crt tech. I've never seen a tube based tv bigger than like 36", and the last time I moved one it about killed me, and I'm not a small man.

I was just saying tv's went the way of LCD tech and since so many monitors just became 720/1080p tv's without tuners that it probably had something to do with it.

I personally moved to LCD for the flicker. I loved everything about my crt except that the flicker would give me a headache after just an hour or two. I was very dissapointed with the way the early lcds looked, but no headache was a powerful motivation to keep using it.
 
Sony GDM-FW900 CRT (possibly the best CRT ever made)

size: 24" (viewable 19.8")

pixel pitch: 0.23 – 0.27 mm aperture grille pitch (better than any 1080p panel)

resolution:
Horizontal: 2304 dots
Vertical: 1440 lines

supported display ratios:
4:3
16:10
5:4

vertical frequencies supported: 48Hz to 160Hz

2304 x 1440 @ 80Hz
1900 x 1200 @ 85Hz
1900 x 1080 @ 85Hz

If you're seeing flicker on this CRT @ 85Hz you must have eyes like superman.

Power: 170 Watts

weight: 93 lbs.
 
Most likely it was the smaller physical size (more desk space!) that was the main push. Energy saving was considered merely a bonus back then. Weight probably had some effect, but the first generation LCDs weren't that light.

Modern LCDs are in fact very energy efficient. I have a 50" 4K that only uses 40W. In contrast, a plasma of that size is in the 200-300W range. What's interesting is that small plasma displays are still commonly used in automotive applications, though they're being displaced by LCDs.
 
All the projectors I have come across use either LCD or DLP, with the light source being an arc lamp in the older ones and LEDs or lasers in some of the newer ones. The old ones are usually discarded when the bulb burns out.
 
You haven't seen the really old rear projector TVs then. I remember them clearly, as I had to on a number of occasions goto a person home to service them. They were basically 3 tubes in a large heavy base, with each tube being a individual R, G, or B color tube. You had to go through the menu to setup the convergence anytime the unit was removed, and they were still only the standard 720x480 NTSC resolution.
 
One of the reasons CRTs went out of style was that, towards the end, an average quality CRT's retail price was about 50% shipping and handling. Moving a 24" display that takes up 5 cubic feet in a truck and weighs 80lbs across the ocean and across the USA is a lot more expensive than the same display size taking up 1 and a half cubic feet and weighing under 10lbs.
 
I see the downsides to the last gen CRT's, but is there anyway they could've improved on the downsides
of CRT's? IOW, is there anyway they could've made lighter weight, more energy efficient CRT's?
 
Those are plasma, FED, and SED displays. Plasma is more efficient (per area) than CRT but still much less than LCD, while FED and SED are not yet practical to mass produce. What does show promise is OLED.
 
im absolutely positive that sheer size and weight had nothing to do with lcd/any flat screen replaced tubes.
 
There is no single reason, as everything that everyone has said so far has been a contributing factor in why glass tube TV sets have all but been eliminated, including size/weight (cost to transport).
 
Don't they still sell weight sets though (dumb bells, bar bells)? The cost to weight ratio of weight sets was lower than that of high-end computer monitor CRT's.
Who keeps bringing up CRT TV sets? I started this thread to discuss high end computer monitor CRT's, which are far higher res. than any NTSC or PAL TV set ever was.
 
magellan said:
Don't they still sell weight sets though (dumb bells, bar bells)? The cost to weight ratio of weight sets was lower than that of high-end computer monitor CRT's.
Who keeps bringing up CRT TV sets? I started this thread to discuss high end computer monitor CRT's, which are far higher res. than any NTSC or PAL TV set ever was.
Click to expand...

Which increases the cost of manufacture much higher than a standard tube TV. It's the total cost you have to look at, not just 1 item. Cost to manufacture a tube, is way more then a LCD. Cost to ship is more. Cost for packaging is more. Cost to handle. Cost to power. Would you rather spend $200 to manufacture something and get it into stores, but only sell it for $205? Or spend $50 for all, and sell it for the same $205?
 
Mpegger, so there's a lot less profit margin in manufacturing CRT's as opposed to LCD's? I guess the only people who would be interested in high-end computer CRT monitors would be gamers. It's getting expensive to repair old high end computer CRT's too -- even outside of the shipping costs.
I wonder if there are any applications for which high end, high resolution CRT's are still being made? I remember at one point they were still using them in medical imaging.
 
I was selling computers at the time this changeout was occurring, and size was driving consumer purchasing. Large clunky crts did not appeal to casual users at all once a slim lcd was seen.
 
No it was basic supply and demand. People stopped wanting HEAVY CRT's that were massive, aesthetically the demand was for lighter, thinner monitors.

No one can deny that a CRT is better for FPS. However even I after being dedicated to my Iiyama 22" Ha202dT after a decade switched out to a 23" monitor. Was it better? No but I enjoyed it more, now I am on 4 30" monitors.

Basic economics.
 
oh the real estate a crt took up on your desk, a 19 inch screen was 22 inches deep and weighed a ton, people wanted lcd/led and wide screen and even put up with the streached look.
a good curtis mathis was the best you could get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
A Gaming device with lots of power on a low budget
Replies
6
Views
759
deathman20
deathman20
Silver Surfer
Air Cooling vs Water Cooling, Things You May Need to Know.
2
Replies
25
Views
6K
Blaylock
Blaylock
windwithme
SOLVED MSI GE62 Heroes Edition with UHD 4K display and GTX970M graphics analysis
Replies
0
Views
1K
windwithme
windwithme
'Cuda340
Recent FAH work on cancer: Part II
Replies
0
Views
885
'Cuda340
'Cuda340
Theocnoob
(sticky?) TN vs PVA vs IPS, and yes, you can use a TV as a monitor.
2
Replies
21
Views
11K
MooMasster716
MooMasster716
Back