What's the Difference?
- Thread starter TupacRulz
- Start date
For some the eye strain can be far less then a crt. But you generally have to get used a higher screen resolution like 1280x1024 on the larger screen models as opposed to the average 800x600 or 1024x768. Lcds do have one other thing over crts. The estimated averages are around some 50,000 hour life spans compared to the average 17,000 seen on crt models. These are not figures carved into stone however. The individual usages can have a bearing on that. And yes, if you are cramped for desktop space you'll have more available with an lcd there then a crt.
LCDs are different technology. They use less power and some people say they are easier on your eyes. They don't have true refresh rates but look for something at 8ms or better for gaming, 12ms is probably good enough for movie watching. Also, they don't have good picture quality unless they are running on their native resolution
The native for any lcd over 15" viewable becomes 1280x1024 default with detection by Windows while will run at 1024x768 for periods of time. The best response I've seen for those that want seriously game was a 2ms seen on one 19" BenQ model. Gaming with one at 12ms does have drawbacks on the visual quality as I've noticed here. That has been noticed on videp playback as well. But they are energy savers over the standard cathode ray tubed models. You will see places of business prefer them for that reason.
computermaineack
New Member
The biggest plus over my LCD over my old CRT is the radiation. the radiation being emitted from my CRT, along with my abusrd closeness to the monitor, led my eyes to go like this- 20/20 one year, 20/50 the next, 20/100 the third. i actually just got my lenses changed....i dont know now what my eyes are but i do know my perscription (for glasses) is -2 in each eye.
that was pretty off-topic. but yeah, for gaming, LCD's are better because of the higher resolution. the first time i turned on my monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 730B) I was like "whoa...that's really amazingly clear."
that was pretty off-topic. but yeah, for gaming, LCD's are better because of the higher resolution. the first time i turned on my monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 730B) I was like "whoa...that's really amazingly clear."
The main thing besides less eye strain from long hours of being in front of any lcd is the expanse of game details in the background you can see while having the picture clarity at the same time. For gaming you want an lcd with a much faster response time then the one I've been running. Where I thought it was about 12ms a review of the specifications saw 25ms! That's slow yet the only annoyance at times with this one is a slight blurring of small text.
Archangel
VIP Member
I ditched my 21" 1991 CRT a while ago, to get a 19" LCD ( 8ms 1280x1024 )
all i can say,.. the Resolutions of the LCD were lower as the CRT, however, the colours of the images look much brighter.
my suggestion would be, If you have the space, and your CRT is big enough, and working fine, stick to it till it dies. because now the really high resolution LCD's are beeing released, so waiting a bit longer is worth it i guess
all i can say,.. the Resolutions of the LCD were lower as the CRT, however, the colours of the images look much brighter.
my suggestion would be, If you have the space, and your CRT is big enough, and working fine, stick to it till it dies. because now the really high resolution LCD's are beeing released, so waiting a bit longer is worth it i guess
When I picked out the BenQ 17" here I wasn't looking for gaming performance at the time but rather needed a larger screen for video editing along with being able to watch dvds, MPEG IIs from video captures, and more free space on the station here without having a monitor in the face. That felt rather cramped especially when many hours were spent. Now I just spotted a 19" by the same brand with a faster response of 2ms instead of 25ms! So it does seem to help holding back on some occasions since the price of the newer model is rught about what I paid for this one.
Geoff
VIP Member
I wouldnt say they suck.TupacRulz said:
With CRT's, there much heavier, dont look as good, smaller viewing area, use more power, give off more radiation, lower contrast ratio, lower brightness, and most of them have a curved screen.
LCD's usually have a higher response time, but as long as its under 8ms you cant really notice it, they can be much brighter and have a higher contrast.
All-in-all, CRT's do have higher resolutions and lower response times, however an LCD screen usually looks much better. Not to mention its not as bulky as a CRT.
I game regularly to even beta test a few demos on occasion. The one thing true about lcds is the brightness. Where crts use knobs and side by side buttions to adjust brightness and contrast lcds use buttons often to enter menus where the ranges are not as wide if you want to dim them down. The view angle is also far better with lcds since you can waik around them and still have crystal clarity while crts have a point where they start to blur out of focus. Many games do not support over 1024x768 where the default on a good number of make and model lcds above the 14-16" viewable screens(if there are any 16" that is?) is at 1280x1024. Some even support higher resolutions upto 1900x1600. But that gets real small. Most under 20" will easily run at 1024x768 for gaming.
Most if not all CRTs use the same menu system now.
LCDs have a point where the contrast goes to crap at oblique angles, they are getting much better, but CRTs don't have that...also I'm not seeing any blur on mine when I walk around it (maybe it happens then I'm behind it
) I may not be able to read it but thats because its a flat surface and I'm viewing it at about a 10* angleWhat lcds see mainly from various viewing angle is a far greater degree of clarity regarding color contrasts not going to the level of blurring seen with crts. It's not that text will not see blurring from different angles as characters seem to mesh together. The newer lcds obviously have improved greatly over the first widely marketed models. Just compare a BenQ FP731 17" model with 25ms as a response time over the newer FP93GX seen at: http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=3876308 That is a big difference there even when comparing models as low as 4ms.