While Intel Man already did this, I want to provide my own input.
This was relevant in the early 2000's. In 2017, the input lag on gaming monitors are < 2ms. 100% not noticeable.
The LCD monitors I have and still use are from that period. Early 2000s monitors are basically what I use.
If you're a gamer, you likely have mid-high end computer hardware. No high end video card in the last several years support VGA out which is what most CRTs use. Plus the refresh rate of a CRT is what, 60-75Hz? Gaming monitors are 2-3x that and include features such as Free Sync and Gsync to improve the quality of game play.
I don't quite use much mid-high end stuff, and the mid-high end stuff I do use are from a few years before, a good portion of which do use VGA. If I had the budget to get a top of the line LCD, I wouldn't be aimed at getting a CRT, would I. (OK, I have to admit, I probably would be, but likely for a DOS machine.)
This is false. High end LCD displays are significantly brighter.
Again, I had the budget, I'd get one. This is the part where people laugh at me, but my gaming monitor is from '04 and is 1280x800. I both wouldn't and couldn't get one.
IPS LCD panels have a very wide viewing angle, why exactly are you gaming when looking at the side of your monitor anyways?
I often tower over monitors, and I often have to look down. I need a new desk.
You won't find one.
You can't buy them anyways. So yes, you will likely get it cheaper since you'll have to pick one up at the dump or swap center.
Hmm... so in a world where you can buy a Commodore 64, an NES, and DOS 5.0 on 5 1/4 disks on the internet, all of the sudden, I can't buy a CRT? Okay then...
A multi-monitor setup with a CRT would be horribly unpleasant, and you'd need to find a desk capable of supporting that much weight.
I didn't say I would use multiple CRTs, rather a CRT and an LCD.
