Jump to content

Monitors: LCD vs CRT


Recommended Posts

I've seen a lot of discussion on the pros and cons of each with thier relation to 3D Games.

I've had this 17" CRT for about 5 years now, and it's failing fast. I'll be loucky if I I get more than 6 more months out of it, so it's time to do some research. I hate the bulk of this thing, it's such a pain, I'd much rather have an LCD monitor if I can, but will that be a problem?

Do any of you use LCDs with GR on a PC like mine (check Sig)? Do you get the "ghosting" everyone talks about? Is there a way around this Ghosting through refresh rates?

When I look for the monitor I want, what things am I going to be looking for? What's a good Dot pitch for example.

And of course, how much?

TIA Guys,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my humble opinion



- Relatively cheap now, you can get a 19" flat screen for cheaper than a 15" LCD

- Better if you like to do photo editing because rich colors, sharp at any resolution

- Fast refresh rates for gaming and watching movies

- Good viewing angle


- Takes up lots of space on your desk, heavy to move around



- Small desktop footprint, they just look more awesome on your desk

- Recent LCDs with 16-25ms refresh rate is acceptable with most 3D games and movies, I've never personally noticed much ghosting

- Newer models approaching quality of CRTs, but must use it at default resolution


- Only one default resolution that looks best. If you need to reduce resolution (like a newer 3D game that taxes your video card) the images don't look very sharp. So if you get a 17" LCD and above, make sure the games you play can run smooth with your Radeon 9500 at 1280x1024 for the best image.

I've mainly recommended Samsung LCDs to friends in the past year because they have the best price/performance ratio. They are not always rated the very best (Sharp and Dell have taken top honors) but Samsung makes their own TFTs, so they can sell them for cheaper. They also have the nice thin edge frame so they look really good on your desk :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an HP Pavilion f1703 and i love it. Its an LCD monitor. I have no ghosting, no lag on any games. The graphics looks smoooooth, and run fast. Did i mention i actually have a desk now? well not really anymore but the first day i put the monitor down i had a desk, now the space removed by the crt to lcd move is now covered in papers lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys.

It looks like the verdict is a Flat Screen CRT for what I need (PC Games and Photo/Image Editing).

Now the next step.

What brand? I want a decent 17" (maybe higher) for relatively cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruin, if you have the desk space, seriously consider getting a 19". The extra screen real estate definitely comes in handy for multiple windows while doing Photo/Image editing, etc.

You probably will pay less now for a 19" than what you paid years ago for you 17", and you have to use your new monitor for a few more years, so it's worth the investment if you are a serious computer user.

I currently use a 19" ViewSonic CRT (old PS790) for my main rig. (I have a LCD for my wife's system as she only does 2D stuff.)

For CRTs, I've had good luck with ViewSonics. They have good support too. I once had a problem with a 17" E70f, and they sent me a G75f (higher end model) to replace it :thumbsup:

My criteria are:

- .25 dot pitch or less.

- 1600x1200 resolution should still do at least 72Hz refresh rate (less eye strain)

- Flat screen (less distortion at the edges)

You may pay more for the above specs, but if you sit in front of your system hours a day, it's worth it.

Beware of cheap 17" monitors (even by Sony, Samsung, ViewSonic or whoever). It's cheap likely because it can't support higher resolutions, has a low dot pitch or low refresh rate. In the end, you get what you pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 12ms out now.. and they work very nice with 3d games. 500 to 1 .  :D

12ms sounds good, but the LCDs that currently boast this refresh rate are actually bad for 3D/gaming because they are made of PVA matrix.

Check this article for more details:


Quote "The situation with SyncMaster 172X has become quite mysterious. Notwithstanding the manufacturer’s claims about a 12msec TN matrix, it has a regular PVA matrix. This dramatically changes the range of possible applications: fast TN matrixes suit for gaming monitors, while PVA ones, on the contrary, make a good office monitor, but are quite bad at displaying action-full computer games. Thus, you should consider 172X if you are searching for an office monitor. If you want to buy a SyncMaster 172X for games, I strongly recommend that you check out the matrix type before the purchase."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...