LCD vs CRT

I was wondering why LCD monitors are not as good as CRT monitors for gaming yet?

Is there a particular technology holdup that prevents them from being as good as a CRT?

Will they ever catch up to a CRT, or will a CRT always be the best choice for a gamer now and in the future?

Just wondering if anyone on here can give the brief explination as to why?

Of course they will catch up. CRTs will be RIP here in a few years.
The reason they dont preform as well is b/c it takes time for the liquid crystals to twist and untwist, and right now most budget LCDs have slow twist/response times. Now i have a budget LCD and i cant really tell.

The fastest response time out right now is 16ms (which is pretty good and considered the minimum for gaming). Samsung is supposed to release a 12ms response time display soon.
LCDs also pretty much only look good in one resolution as well. I use a 17inch Kogi it does fine. Personally I will stick with LCDs from now on. The color and picture sharpness just blow my old crt away. Also be sure to get a good brightness level.
I read somewhere over a year ago that theres some alternative to LCDs thats cheaper and better. Not sure what it was called or when if ever its going to be implemented like it said.

TFT?

I'm not sure, but I've heard of it. I'm thinking of saving up for a nice 17" LCD, but right now the cost makes it somewhat hard.

Think it's something like organic paper... or maybe I'm just making up stuff, I'll have to check my old links. But I don't think that technology (whatever it's called...) will really pull through; last I heard they had tons of problems with voltages. And the implementation is very similar to TFTs, so it's extremely likely that we'll have to go through all the issues we had with TFTs.

Anyway, ghosting is a thing of the past with the 16ms TFTs anyway. 12ms/10ms LCD screens are definitely within the realm of capable production - in fact, some Taiwanese manufacturing company claimed to meet 12ms spec in early 2003 - but even today they're still low yield. That's one big reason branders aren't picking these screens up.

The other problem is that we need a new standard digital transfer medium. DVI is archaic... very low bandwidth and thus can't support high Hz. For example DVI can't support more than 85Hz at 1600x1200, so anything less than 12ms response is pointless at that res. Maybe when some higher standard is introduced and agreed upon by videocard makers (like HDMI perhaps), we will start seeing faster screens.

well.. for me... my crt is dying... and i plan on gettin another crt to replace it when it dies... I have no reason to go to LCD, even if it is much lighter, smaller footprint and all. I dont have a need to have that kind of bragging rights. Its a choice we consumers make whether we need that space or not. and for me... dont need that extra room or less weight

I've heard that the 16ms displays are cheaters, in a way. They are like only 16-bit color displays, or something and use dithering that can be visible in viewing DVD movies and such.

I think something better will come along. LCD's are terribly complicated, with over 3 million individual LCD elements on a typical monitor. Getting an LCD with no dead pixels is unlikely, so obviously the manufacturing is tricky and problematic.

However, LCD's are pretty, easy to read, low power consumption, small footprint, but expensive. I'm still wanting one myself as the hulk on my desktop is an ergonomic burden. If CRT's were shallow (no huge box behind the screen) they'd be the answer for me.

I've heard a rumor of some sort of projection technology that's supposed to change "everything".

Buhammot said:

well.. for me... my crt is dying... and i plan on gettin another crt to replace it when it dies... I have no reason to go to LCD, even if it is much lighter, smaller footprint and all. I dont have a need to have that kind of bragging rights. Its a choice we consumers make whether we need that space or not. and for me... dont need that extra room or less weight

Click to expand...

Well, there ARE still a lot of other advantages of LCDs...

I had been saving to purchase a 19" LCD, but after much research I found that unless you have a major space constraint there is no advantage to spending all the extra money on an LCD. Also, I have an LCD at work (Samsung SyncMaster 171n) and it works fine for office apps and internet, but the quality of my 19" ViewSonic CRT at home is much better especially for games and video/picture editing. The colors are truer and more vibrant on my CRT. Unless you need a smaller form factor, get a CRT, the LCD technology is getting better, but you will pay a lot more for the LCD.

i've found the opposite to be true in my experiance, out of the 4 LCD monitors i've own 3 have had more vibrant true colors than an CRT monitors i've worked on and I do cad work so i'm used to working on expensive $1000+ 21-22' CRT's (the other was a cheapo LCD, was still comparable to your average priced CRT though), the LCD's also maintain a consistant sharpness across the whole screen where as CRT's noticably lose sharpness in the corners, especialy on the larger monitors, LCD's also cause far less eye fatigue which is a big plus when you spend large amounts of time in front of a computer.

probably the biggest downside to LCD's is they don't look as good outside their native resolution, but I run everything at 1600X1200 which is my monitors native resolution so doesn't make a difference to me.

my apple studio display is a bless from god....best hardware i ever got...i'd rather give up my dual 1.8 than my lcd. it is bright, it is true to color, it is every my eyes want and more, not to mention the fact that i can play any game without noticing any ghosting whatsoever.

PatrickBateman said:

I've heard that the 16ms displays are cheaters, in a way. They are like only 16-bit color displays, or something and use dithering that can be visible in viewing DVD movies and such.

Click to expand...

Missed this earlier... some of the 16ms screens do use the full-fledged 16.7mil colors (256/subpixel). IIRC the screen used in the Dell 20.1" 16ms is one of these. But you are right, many of the 17" 16ms panels use only 64k.