LCD or CRT?

[shiningpathb4me]

Historically, the conventional wisdom has been that CRT's outperform LCD's for gaming. SInce I'm in the market for a new screen, I thought I'd give ya'll the opportunity to weigh-in on this subject.  I've just spent an hour or two reading various hardware review websites and discovered that the most recent article on this subject was summer of 2005.  Some of the models reported as being "acceptable" for gaming have been updated to even faster specs since then. I've found a couple of 17" LCD's with 2,3, and 4ms gray to gray (GTG) response times. This is much faster than the 12ms models reviewed last summer.

In general, I found most of the reviews a little tedious, especially considering that almost all of the screens are manufactured by the same company (mostly samsung) and are therefore, for the most part, identical no matter who's name is on the box. For this reason, a large portion of these reviews concern ergonomics.

I can figure out a way to place any screen for optimum viewing during game play, so the ability to adjust or move around doesnt seem terribly important. What is important - is how the image looks when I'm flying around or driving a tank. What happens when I check my six, look down over a wing, or zoom in on a plane I'm chasing, etc.

So . . . Are any of you using LCD's? How do they perform compared to CRT?
Should I forget the LCD? $135 for the basic CRT seems pretty attractive. An LCD would reduce my desk footprint, making more room for my X52, keyboard,  mouse, and a cup of coffee.

[Brooke]

I prefer CRT's.  This topic has been debated a lot here in the AH message boards.  If you search around some, you'll find other topics devoted to it.

[shiningpathb4me]

It seem that many people unpack their new LCD only to discover a dead pixel, or one stuck on red. I've had monitor failures, but very few have come out of the box broken. (in my previous careers, I've unpacked several hundred at least, maybe thousands). WHen you have to have 8 dead pixels before they'll take it back, you could get stuck w/ a pretty crappy monitor. What would a dead pixel look like in the game? A fighter at 20k that's always there? Imagine having 7 of them wherever you flew!

[eagl]

I switched to LCD because I wanted a nice big monitor but was tired of the weight, size, and heat output of the big CRTs.  The fast "gaming" LCDs have crummy color reproduction and the good color LCDs will have some streaking, but overall I think LCDs, even slower ones, are still ok for gaming in my opinion.

The only smearing that I notice with my Dell 1905 is red bandit icons against a blue sky, and that isn't irritating to me for whatever reason.  I strongly prefer accurate colors over response time, and that is why I went with this monitor (that plus the closeout price I paid).  I have 2 LCDs and neither has any dead pixels.

The last thing I'll say in favor of LCDs is that it makes it very easy to set up dual displays.  I didn't think I'd be using dual display when I got my second LCD, but after hooking them both up just to test the new one out, I'm going to keep the dual display setup for good.  I really like having 2 displays now that I've tried it.

But like everyone says, for a perfect image it's hard to beat a nice big modern CRT.

[Ghosth]

The one thing I havn't seen anyone bring up in this discussion.

If you shop around you can get a much bigger CRT for the same $$ as a  LCD. Just checked pricewatch. 17" lcd with dvi about 140, 22" crt about the same. Even if all other considerations were equal (which they are not).
This point alone would tip me to CRT's for flying.

I have a friend with a couple of lcd's that he loves, both 16" viewable.
And for the money he spent for each one I could have gotten a new 21 " flat CRT.

Eventually that will change, as more people buy LCD and fewer buy CRT.
But that day is not here yet, not that i've seen.

[Brenjen]

I have played AH on an LCD (my dads machine - yes the 70 year old guy is still alive & playing on the computer) & on my CRT & I prefer the CRT hands down.

[Stone]

Just want to mention, that CRT's are beginning to be a huge problem in the offices. (well at my work they are, and I assume other have same problem also).

You see, the users in offices wants an LCD so they are getting perfectly good CRT replaced with LCD. Now the problem is that the IT departement now has lots of good CRT that no body wants.

Well I wanted one, and got a 2-3 years old ~20" SONY for free

So any one who wants to save some $ should consider to ask around. Our IT dep. was more than hapy to get rid of a CRT.

There is nothing wrong with CRT if you have the space for it.

I do not think a CRT consumes more wats, or gets hotter than LCD. But arent 100% sure about that.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

There is a major problem with CRT's and it's the tube technology. Eye strain, flicker (especially when combined with fluorescent lights), radiation etc.

Even though I strongly prefer working with LCD's and love them for eye friendlyness, I'm typing this on a Samsung Syncmaster 21" that I got practically free from recycle depot. I'm actually thinking of getting 2 more and investing in the Matrox triplehead2go.

But nevertheless I don't like the eyewear the tubes give me even at highest refresh rates. Nowadays I get an instant headache from 60hz screens which are surprisingly common on our clients even today. The first thing I do is to adjust the refresh rate. Sometimes the screens are so old and crappy, though, that they snap out of sync.