Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays Entertainment Games

Are LCD Displays Ready For Gaming? 170

Posted by Cliff from the can-they-handle-the-framerate dept.
Player issues this query: "Since the holiday season is rolling around, I've been contemplating shelling out the big bucks for a nice LCD display. I'm a die-hard gamer, with several choices of monitors in the market today, it can get a little confusing. Ghosting seemed to be a problem with intense games, but with displays reaching 8ms-16ms response time, is it really an issue anymore? Is it time for this gamer to move on to greener pastures, or stay the course with my trusty CRT?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are LCD Displays Ready For Gaming? More

Are LCD Displays Ready For Gaming?

Comments Filter:

  • Yes. (Score:4, Informative)

    by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @10:29PM (#10695800) Journal
    I've got a 17" Sony LCD w/ 16ms response time. I don't notice any problems. It's many times smaller and lighter than the 19" CRT I left at home.

    In a vaguely related topic, does anybody know why DVI cables are so freakin' expensive?

    • Re:Yes. (Score:3, Funny)

      by mike_sucks ( 55259 )
      "In a vaguely related topic, does anybody know why DVI cables are so freakin' expensive?"

      I think it's because they are really five billion cables in one: analogue VGA, digital VGA, a few USB, a few firewire,, something like that.

      /mike

      • Re:Yes. (Score:2, Informative)

        by rapjo ( 211658 )
        I believe you are confused with ADC, Apple's propreietary cable to its Cinema Displays (now discontinued). ADC carried power, usb, and DVI, AFAIK.

        • Re:Yes. (Score:3, Informative)

          by mike_sucks ( 55259 )
          Hmm, I think we are both half correct. DVI can carry an analogue VGA as well as digital if you get a DVI-I cable. If you get a plain DVI-D cable, it can only do digital. Have a look at this overview [totalsem.com].

          I knew ADC also carried power and the expansion buses, but I thought DVI may also carried at least USB. Oh well.

          /mike

    • Response times = marketing gimmick (Score:5, Informative)

      by keilun ( 771946 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @01:08PM (#10700747)
      Figured I'd say my bit here since most of the posts keep referring to how they have a 16ms response time or 25ms response time and there is no ghosting.

      First off, I own two LCD monitors, a VG175 and a VP171b. The former was from back in the day when ghosting was prevalent and the VP171b is newer and definitely nice for gaming. The VG175 was ok for gaming, but would ghost now and then.

      Before I went and purchased the second LCD I did a lot more research on the area. What I found surprised me. The specification for 'Response Time' is a marketing gimmick. It has no bearing on how well the monitor performs for playing back DVDs and games. That's the kicker...

      Response time is measured as the time for the monitor to goto *full black* to *full white* and back to *full black*. Which you would guess is the proper way to do it. Unfortunately, many LCDs out there optimize the hell out of the black to white switching and leave the switching between colors incredibly slow. This can lead to ghosting.

      So how do you figure out which is best? Research opinions on the net, but most of all, insist that you see the monitor in action before purchasing it. It's the only way to tell. There was a tech site that I went to that detailed the spectrum analysis of the VP171b and that's what got me to buy into it. Seeing it action made it real and so I bought it. There were a few others in contention that claimed to have lower or equivalent response times, but they couldn't handle the picture as well as the VP171b.

      Granted, I purchased the VP171b almost a year ago now. So it's quite likely that there's something better out there. But my advice to you is to try before you buy.

      Hope this helps.
      • "There was a tech site that I went to that detailed the spectrum analysis of the VP171b and that's what got me to buy into it."

        WHAT site?
        (please)
        • Toms Hardware does a full spectrum response time analysis on all their latest LCD monitor reviews.

          As for me, up until a few weeks ago I believed LCDs were still not ready to replace CRTs for gaming. Most of the ones with good enough response time have other unforgivable shortcomings like TERRIBLE scaling in non-native resolution, and poor color rendering.

          But then my roomate bought a Dell 2001FP. Advertised 16ms response time, even the worst-case response in games produced no ghosting.

          Best of all, the s
          • Good point - I bought my NEC MultiSync LCD1765 based on a Toms Hardware review of a similar monitor. The 1765 doesn't have a DVI input, which almost put me off to it, but I am sooooo glad I have it, I can't even begin to think of life without it.

            It's 17" with 1280x1024 native resolution. I used to use it with a ViewSonic N6 video processor and I ran cable TV, my Playstation 2 (as a component source @ 720p) and my computer through it. Even with the fastest PS2 games, I never had a problem with ghosting.
          • $599 [dell.com] for the 2001fp right now at Dell (through tomorrow.)
            Enjoy, I think I'm gonna get one too.
            • I bought a new Iiyama Visionmaster Pro 454 about a year ago. At the time I decided that flat panels were still not up to task, and that my NEXT purchase (in 4 or 5 years) would be a panel. So no, I won't be taking advantage of this deal.

              But it is nice to know that I will have an acceptable replacement when I'm looking to buy. Furthermore, competing technologies like OLED and ThinCRT should make the market interesting by the time I'm shopping around.

  • Where have you been? (Score:5, Informative)

    by GrandCow ( 229565 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @10:32PM (#10695824)
    This question is about a year too late.

    The simple answer is yes, they are and have been ready for gaming.

    I play on a 25ms response time Samsung SyncMaster 191t and I see no ghosting at all. It's just like playing in front of a CRT only your eyes don't hurt when you have a somewhat long gaming session. If you are really worried about it, get a 16ms response time CRT and you'll be fine.
    • There are already 16ms LCD. I know LG is making some of these panels which gets manufactured by other vendors like BenHQ for example.
      • I recently upgraded to a ViewSonic 16ms 20" lcd, it's superb for gaming.
        One of the most handy features of LCD's for me is that they can be rotated 90deg and then display large documents easily. It's a lot easier for coding to have the code all there in front of you/or the API.

      • Re:Where have you been? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Guspaz ( 556486 )
        Actually, 16ms is old news, they passed 12ms, and ar e now two levels down at 8ms.

        Everybody has 16ms now.

        That said, I have a 25ms LCD on my laptop. Is there ghosting? Yes. Is it so bad I can't play? No. I get used to it. The only place I really notice it is in Counter-Strike Source in de:dust, it has some rather high contrast points, the eges of those very well lit areas blurs a bit. Looks kind of cool, however, and I've grown use to it all.
    • I really don't know what you're talking about. I too have a Samsung SyncMaster 191T. It's positively dreadful for gaming. The motion blur (if that's what you meant by ghosting) is almost unbearable, especially when changing from one bold color to another (blue to yellow for example). Smoothly scrolling down a text-laden webpage is a visual chore as well.

      Although I'll agree that ghosting in the traditional sense (fuzziness of the image/a sort of duplicate image) is absent given the digital interface, th
    • I must point out that most LCD monitors are terrible for 2D games. If it involves a lot of sideways-scrolling text (Marquee style), they will ghost to heck. If you have sharp, crisp, bright lines moving next to dark lines, they will ghost on the best monitors. If you're moving around in 3D space trying to shoot other marines, you'll probably be OK. Generally you don't get as sharp a contrast between adjacent pixels in 3D games as you do in 2D games, and when you do lose that little bit of image quality

  • Well (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phosphor3k ( 542747 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @10:32PM (#10695826)
    I'm not a die-hard gamer, but I play the latest RTS games with regularity and go on the occasional FPS binge. I have a Dell 2001FP 20" 16ms( or was it 20?) response time LCD. Doesn't bother me any while gameing and I don't notice any tearing or screen door effects. I think they can be had for about 620$ shipped.

    • Re: Dell 2001FP (Score:5, Informative)

      by Goyuix ( 698012 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @10:39PM (#10695891) Homepage
      I have one of these (actually got in on one of the first shipments!) and I must say it is SWEET! At first I had it hooked to a geForce 3 but that wouldn't drive the DVI at 1600x1200 (native res), so I upgraded on the cheap ($20 at the time) to a FX5200 that would. DVI made all the difference at that high of a res, I didn't notice the difference that much below it.

      About a month ago I finally scored a 6800GT and I must say that I play UT2004 1600x1200 quite regularly (and some other games) and there is no ghosting at all. Halo, which is notoriously bad for, I don't notice any ghosting. I also watch movies and again, no ghosting. Very, very nice monitor.

      The age is here, and the recent Dell deals have had this particular monitor down in the low 600's. If you can afford that chunk of change, as well as a video card powerful enough to drive it, life will be great. A 19" would certainly be a more modest purchase.... but since when have gamers cared about that?

      • Re: Dell 2001FP (Score:3, Informative)

        by kisielk ( 467327 )
        The only thing about the Dells is that the colors seem somewhat dull compared to some other displays. The company I work for bought about 50 Dells before we switched to Samsung, and the difference in the image is very noticable, especially if they are side by side. We used the 17", 19" and 20" Dells...

        I really miss the stand on the Dell monitors though, it's simply awesome. The built in USB hub is very handy too. We'd probably still be buying them if Dell didn't try to pull a fast one on us regarding prici
      • but since when have gamers cared about that?

        *raises hand*

        $600 ... Well, at full price that's 12 games that I could've played instead.

        I got a good deal on a 19" Viewsonic professional line CRT (roughly $300, about 2 years ago), and I can assure you that the image quality on this thing is better than any LCD in the sub-$1000 price range. I use a 20" Viewsonic LCD at work, and aside from the portrait view, I vastly prefer my CRT.

        While I can certainly understand the appeal of LCDs, I'm more than willing
    • As a disgruntled former owner of that monitor, I must beg to differ. The one I got and the four that Dell sent me as possible replacements all had alternating brightness (gamma actually) between pixel rows. See a closeup of the screen [hmc.edu]. After countless hours struggling with Dell tech support I finally got it returned. I went to Amazon and bought a Samsung SyncMaster 213T and am a happy customer.
    • I have the 1800FP (older 18" model), and absolutely love it. Bright, sharp, no ghosting. A really nice monitor.
  • The question is not "Are LCD displays ready for gaming?", it's "Are you ready to for gaming on an LCD display?"

  • My dad has an LCD (Score:4, Informative)

    by 77Punker ( 673758 ) <(ude.tniophgih) (ta) (40rcneps)> on Monday November 01, 2004 @10:39PM (#10695889)
    I went home recently and decided to fire up the original Unreal on his machine. The LCD is a cheap one and I would have rather played it on a CRT, but I was really surprised that it wasn't all that bad. The game was thoroughly playable and the contrast was excellent.

  • It's About You Too (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 01, 2004 @10:49PM (#10695961)
    It isn't just about the response time bla bla bla, but also you. Depending on your eyes, your brain, etc you may see ghosting where others do not, just like some people see the rainbow effect with certain projectors.

    Your best bet is to go into a store and try them out. If the store doesn't have some games to test them with, take a demo cd or something. Additionally, buying in a store is one of the few ways to guarantee you don't get a bad pixel or ten.

    • Re:It's About You Too (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Twanfox ( 185252 )
      I don't know how you'd know if the LCD you were buying had a bad pixel in it. It's not like they unbox YOUR purchase, power it on, and let you see it in action before you call it good. They generally grab a box from a stack and say "here you go."

    • Re:It's About You Too (Score:3, Informative)

      by FoxWing ( 796255 )
      I know of one good way to test out the ghosting on a LCD at the store without bringing anything in, if you can get to the desktop that is.

      Goto Start>RUN and type dxdiag. Click on the display tab and run the Direct 3D test. (spinning cube with directx on it)

      With the good monitors you will be able to read the text on the sides of the cube with no problem (the text will stay sharp and clear), but with the majority of the ones I've seen it'll be hard to read (a blurry streaking mess! ^_^)

  • Weigh up the benefits (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the_unknown_soldier ( 675161 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @10:49PM (#10695969)
    For a regular lan gamer, i think that lcd is the only way to go. with response time getting down to 8ms there really is no excuse to carry that 100kg monstrocity around with you to a lan. I play on a 152x, and it is fine, I don't see any ghosting on a 25ms screen. If people say they can, i think it is just a placebo.
    • The problem is that some people *can* see the difference. I know some people that can endure a 60 Hz CRT computer screen all day with no problem, but I know other people who get headaches from it.

      I'ts like any sense; some people have a more developed sense of something than other people.
      • I'm one of these people that get severe headaches from 60Hz...not sure what it is, but used to get headaches all the time, until I tried 100Hz+...was in heaven! Have a Viewsonic P95F+B and run it at 1024x768 w/ 120Hz. Found that my eyes don't hurt if viewing an LCD (60Hz) however...go figure :D
    • "there really is no excuse to carry that 100kg monstrocity"

      100kg?!
      what monitor weighs that much?
      My 21-inch (8.5cm) Hitachi high-end CRT weighs about 60kg.

  • Probably (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cuteseal ( 794590 )
    Regarding ghosting, I think you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless you sat a CRT and LCD side by side.

    For digital photography, that's another matter. I find the colours very muted and less vibrant/realistic than CRTs.

  • I got a dell 1800 ultrasharp series two years ago (november 2002). It is absolutely gorgeous and just fine for gaming, I hate hearing people bitch about LCD's not being ready yet, they obviously havent seen anything too recent. That wasnt referring to the article submitter, just in general.

    I imagine LCD's coming out today are even better than what I have. I play a lot of games, quake 3, unreal tourney 2004, tribes vengeance, etc, with a radeon 9600 pro, this LCD is absolutely fine, very vibrant colors, ver

  • motion blur != ghosting (Score:5, Informative)

    by mike_sucks ( 55259 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @11:12PM (#10696136) Homepage
    Come on people, get the terminology right. Ghosting and motion blur are not the same thing!

    Ghosting is when you get a faint duplicate of the entire on-screen image, slightly offset from what it should be. I don't think this can even occur on LCDs, I think it is a CRT-only problem, but if you use crappy analogue VGA cables, then who knows?

    Motion blur is what you thing ghosting is. It is caused by poor refresh times, more specifically it is caused the amount of time it takes for a pixel to become unlit, or "switch off". So LCD screens that have a poor response time often show a trail after a moving object that looks like a ghost of the object.

    Understandable that you could get the two confused, but still wrong.

    /mike
    • Ghosting is when you get a faint duplicate of the entire on-screen image, slightly offset from what it should be. I don't think this can even occur on LCDs, I think it is a CRT-only problem, but if you use crappy analogue VGA cables, then who knows?

      It can happen (using a VGA connection with cheap cables and some good interferrence coming from something). Annoying as hell too. To me it seems worse on a LCD than a CRT...just so un-natural.

    • Re:motion blur != ghosting (Score:5, Insightful)

      by adolf ( 21054 ) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @12:19AM (#10696665) Journal
      Good points.

      I'd like to add that ghosting is usually due to bad or damaged cabling, and that all high-frequency analog signals (including those used by LCD monitors with VGA inputs) are susceptible to it.

      It's easy to demonstrate, too: Just take a length of VGA cable, and bend it in half, hard, as if you were a secretary busily rearranging "all those ugly wires". After that, bundle it up with a bread tie, and place the corner of your desk on it.

      Or just pretend you're a gamer, strung out from seventeen consecutive hours of cheap beer, bad coffee, and Counterstrike. You're loading the PC into the car, and slam the trunklid on the monitor cable, crimping it something nasty.

      Ghosting? You betcha. We expect these cables to run up to about 350MHz. If you thought Ethernet over Cat5 was finicky, you haven't pissed off a VGA cable lately.

      [/me patiently awaits the return of monitors with replacable, BNC-equipped cables...]

      • "/me patiently awaits the return of monitors with replacable, BNC-equipped cables..."

        Those were the days! I remember my old 21" trinitron had BNC in, but I've never seen a PC equipped with BNC out. Or maybe the old 3dfx daughter cards did? Can't remember.

        Still, I'm waiting for some wireless monitor technology to come out. Why have a PC in every room when you can just walk around with a wireless LCD, keyboard and mouse?

        /mike
    • Ghosting is when you get a faint duplicate of the entire on-screen image, slightly offset from what it should be. I don't think this can even occur on LCDs, I think it is a CRT-only problem, but if you use crappy analogue VGA cables, then who knows?

      Motion blur is what you thing ghosting is. It is caused by poor refresh times, more specifically it is caused the amount of time it takes for a pixel to become unlit, or "switch off". So LCD screens that have a poor response time often show a trail after a movin
      • Well since just about anyone who uses these, sells them, or just talks about them refers to the effect as "ghosting"

        In other news, it is also correct to refer to Internet Explorer as "the Internet", or to call a monitor "the CPU."
  • ut 2004 and doom3 look rather amazing on my 23" cinema display. i don't think LCDs have had issues ever since they hit 16ms (~60 fps) they work just fine for games.

  • 16 is borderline (Score:4, Interesting)

    by photon317 ( 208409 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @11:17PM (#10696183)

    1000/60 = 16.66666

    Therefore 16ms response time ~= 60 frames/second is the maximum framerate you can expect to acheive without seeing the effects of the LCD lag. That's too close for comfort in my book, especially since that 16ms number might've be kinda whacked (like, taken at a very warm temperature or some crap).

    If they advertised 8ms max, and the manufacturer was reputable, I would consider it.

    • Re:16 is borderline (Score:5, Insightful)

      by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @11:48PM (#10696420) Homepage
      You're right. 60hz is pretty bad for a CRT. It hurts the eyes.

      However, you've got to consider a few facts: The time it takes each pixel to begin to change is near-instantaneous with DVI. It just take 20ish ms to fully and completely change. Since it's also rare for every single pixel to be dramatically changing each and every frame -- while a higher latency will cause ghosting, motion on an lcd today looks quite fluid and natural.

      Also, the reason why 60hz is awful for a crt. The screen redraws itself 60 times. In between the times the screen is redrawn, it is blank (though you would never notice it with your own eyes). This is because of flicker which is the main reason why 60hz just sucks so much on a CRT. I've read that in double-blind tests, most humans couldn't distinguish framerates once they went over 30fps, and virtually nobody could distinguish over 45

      The only departments which LCDs can't match a CRT for is Brightness and Contrast. Right now, most LCDs can perform equally to a decent CRT, but nowhere nearly as good as a professional-level one. This is a fundamental problem with LCDs which is never likely to be solved completely. Still, I find it adequate.
      • The only departments which LCDs can't match a CRT for is Brightness and Contrast

        And the number of displayable resolutions.

      • The only departments which LCDs can't match a CRT for is Brightness and Contrast.

        & refresh rate, can't run those LCD shutter glasses as 60Hz you need 100-120hz for those

        & price : my 21" CRT was $300 and copes easily with Quad XGA at 2048 x 1536

  • A few months ago, I picked up a ViewSonic VP171b, based on reviews from Tom's Hardware and Anandtech. It was pretty expensive for a 17" LCD display, at $550 from Newegg, but I couldn't be happier with it. I haven't seen any ghosting whatsoever (20ms response time), and the picture quality is nothing short of amazing. It came with 1.5 dead pixels, but they're stuck on black and nearly impossible to notice; I basically have to put my nose to the monitor to see them, unless it's a single-color image or somethi
    • I will concur. Got mine for $450 on some whacky promotion from CompUsa almost a year ago. Looking for another one at the same price, and could not find the same deal again. It is an awesome monitor.

      UT2004 at 1280x1024 -- perfect.

  • Biggest reasons I haven't switched... (Score:5, Informative)

    by eviltypeguy ( 521224 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @11:31PM (#10696277)
    Biggest reasons I haven't switched?

    1) Price vs. CRT tech, a high quality 19" CRT (18.0 viewable) is at least a few hundred dollars cheaper than a really nice 19" LCD

    2) Non-native resolutions suck (I play a lot of older games that can't run at resolutions higher than 640x480 or 800x600, don't forget emulators like SNES9X, etc... look best at SNES native res to some people), and forgot about my old dos games (sniff)
    • I have a Dell UltraSharp 2000FP LCD and am able to run it at 1600x1200, 1280x1024, 1024x768, 800x600, 640x480, even 320x200 works. Haven't had trouble with any resolutions that I've tried and I love to run some of those old emulators (dos as well.) I don't notice any ghosting in games on it.

      The biggest reason I did switch was for my eyes. I didn't like radiation shooting at my eyes and head most of the day.

      Also the space saving, and ease of portability compared to what I had before. A few things that ha
    • More than a year ago, there were some reputable studies which demonstrated that the life-time TCO is lower for LCDs, even for home users.

  • Refresh Rates (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ipoverscsi ( 523760 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @11:32PM (#10696292)
    Just keep in mind that 16ms is 60Hz refresh (i.e. 1/60 = 0.016). If you're a hard core gamer with whom frames matter, you'd probably want an LCD a 12ms (~75Hz) refresh.
    • As someone else pointed out, refresh rates go a long way on LCDs compared to CRTs because LCDs never "blank". When the gun isn't drawing on a CRT, there is simply no image there, so it's black. That causes flicker. Because the pixels of LCDs are supposed to be always on, you won't notice the flicker even on a lower refresh rate. Instead you'll notice motion blur, and frankly, at 60hz, you won't notice much, if any.

    • As far as I know, all 12ms displays and all but the most expensive 16ms displays use 6-bit panels.

      So if you want good-looking colours, you're effectively stuck with 20ms models.

  • Sooo.... why upgrade? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Monday November 01, 2004 @11:39PM (#10696335)
    It sounds like your nice 19" Samsung CRT is working just fine, so what's the deal? Is it that you're running out of space on your desk? Or did you find another use for your CRT monitor? If not, I think you need to tell us more about why you need a new monitor in the first place.

    Are you sure you're not posting here just because you want the world do know that you're a "gamer" and that you're cool and rich enough to upgrade gear without any good reason?

    • Maybe he's just sick of having a massive CRT on his desk. I bought a 19" LCD because I got sick of having a monitor so big that I had to move my desk in front of a recessed window and hang the ass-end of the CRT into the window well. Add in the massive amount of heat generated by a large, professional grade CRT and moving on to an LCD just made sense.

  • Don't Forget (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Plake ( 568139 )
    .. that with LCD's the viewable range is larger then the equivilant CRT. I just picked up a Samsung 172X [samsung.com] screen which about equal to an 18'.

    I game a decent amount and I must say for my LCD which is 12ms I don't have any problems with ghosting. Also, I find it's significatly easier on my eyes when I'm looking at it. I'll never be able to go back to a CRT now.

    Also, most LCD's only support up to 1280x1024. You'll have to spend big bucks to get higher resolutions.

  • LCD Way fast enough (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gorgoth ( 815511 )
    the human eye cannot see much beyond 30-50fps (movies are 25fps) so anything faster than a 20 is not noticeable the only problem is that the advertised responce times for lcd displays is the optimum and often the diplay will not have a responce time anyawre near as good a advertised for all colours most of the time when people have problems with ghosting on 20ms displays it is because it has a good peak (ie lowest) and has a crap average responce time
  • I have a 2 year old Sony 18" LCD, probably with a 25ms refresh. It's worked great for everything from Half-Life and Doom 3 to DVD's. Personally I'm never planning on buying another CRT again (monitor, or TV), the new lightweight LCD's and rear projection TV's are the way to go.

  • They've been good enough for quite awhile. (Score:4, Informative)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @12:53AM (#10696925) Homepage
    I've played 3D shoot-em-up games on active matrix TFT-LCDs since the high end models hit 40ms (13ms rise, 27ms fall). I noticed some "ghosting" on those LCDs, just as I notice "ghosting" on the latest wiz-bang LCDs. The Apple Studio Display and Silicon Graphics 1600SW were both excellent LCD monitors for DTP, photo, and games back in 1998.

    I think there are other issues that make LCDs a turn-off to some:

    Not used to LCDs. If you've been a CRT user for more than a solid year, an LCD will seem strange at first. It's hard to describe, but the image just looks a bit different, a bit, "strange".

    Pixel density & fixed pixels vs multisync CRT phosphors. While there is really no perfect display for using a variety of resolutions, CRTs are still better than LCDs in this respect. A high quality 19" CRT will display 1024x768 just as nice as it will display 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. Most modern LCDs have very good interpolation circuitry to display non-native resolutions, but you can still spot the fuzzyness.

    Adapting to a poor video signal. If you're using an LCD, use DVI, period. LCDs tend to be much less tolerant of a poor analog video signal (typically from a cheap gamer card and/or a poor vga cable). What looks nearly perfect on a CRT might be blurry or even flicker little "sparks" of dropped pixels on a LCD, even at native resolution.

    Pixel density. I've noticed this most often on 18.1" LCDs. At 1280x1024, the native resolution for most 18" LCDs, I can usually notice the "screendoor" grid that outlines the pixels. Even with subpixel rendering (which to my eyes reminds me of the awful Apple II "almost-white" text on a color monitor days) and/or various amounts of anti-aliasing, the onscreen text just doesn't look right at first.

    That said, I think monitor preference is generally based on one's time with a certain tech, be it LCD or CRT. Both can produce good quality images, both can be adjusted for color correctness. Buy whatever fits best on your desk (and/or budget) and spend a month with it.

  • ISO refresh rate problems (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheSacrificialFly ( 124096 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @02:00AM (#10697297)
    I recently bought a Sony SDM-S204/B 20.1" LCD and while pretty pricey, it looks amazing both playing games and on the desktop. I did quite a bit of research on these and it seems like the response time stats given by manufacturers are pretty meaningless - they vary widely in the specification measurements.

    Basically, the ISO standard measures the time taken to move a pixel from totally black to totally white (actually to within a small percentage). This ISO standard for response times is not very good and needs to be replaced - mostly because this is not a typical scenario, pixels are much more likely to be moving from some percentage on to some percentage off, or vice versa. If you have a major colour change, the voltage differential is going to be much greater so the movement will be faster. Panels are being created that manipulate the standard measurements to only improve the black to white transitions, totally ignoring the common case scenario for benchmarking performance. This [tomshardware.com] anandtech article gives a pretty good (and brief) explanation on why these times are basically completely meaningless.

    One other thing to be wary of is the interpolation methods some of the cheaper monitors use when not displaying in native resolutions. Try setting the desktop to 800x600 and even 640x480 in the store just to see how fuzzy things get. The sony has a native resolution of 1600x1200, but I don't often get to play games in that res - but running 3d and 2d games in 1024x768 and 800x600 even both still look fantastic. This wasn't the case with my previous (cheap) lcd, and it certainly wasn't the case with a lot of the monitors I checked out in the store.

  • Widescreen LCDs? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Earlybird ( 56426 ) <slashdot&purefiction,net> on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @02:11AM (#10697366) Homepage
    Slightly off topic, is Apple the only ones producing cheap widescreen standalone LCDs these days? I'm thinking of upgrading my CRT, but after getting used the PowerBook's 15" widescreen, that's the kind of aspect ratio I would want. Minimum 1600 pixels horizontal resolution. Any recommendations?

  • Any BenQ users? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rsax ( 603351 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @02:30AM (#10697480)
    I recently came across a BenQ 19" [futureshop.ca] LCD monitor and the price was pretty reasonable. Call me ignorant but I haven't come across any BenQ monitors before. Is anyone out there using any of these displays and has any comments about them? So far I haven't come across any useful reviews.

  • Contrast Ratio (Score:5, Informative)

    by swat_r2 ( 586705 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @02:35AM (#10697509)
    I'm suprised no one's mentioned on of the big drawbacks of LCD - Contrast Ratio. You just won't get the true deep, rich black levels that you would on a CRT. What's an average CR for an LCD display, 500:1 or so? Maybe 750:1 for a high end display? Even with my 1500:1 CR DLP Projector the blacks appear a bit washed out and greyish as compared to my CRT's. CRT's are still the king of displays, eventually digital will catch up, but they are tried and true. Of course the bigger they are, the more chance you have of putting out your back ;) You can't beat the sleekness and modern styling of the flat panels though, they do look wonderful.
    • I don't like how I cannot use other resolutions than its native resolution. The image looks weird especially with pixels. I also don't want those black sides. I use resolutions from 800x600 to 1280x1024 depending on games.
      That's why Barco still sells CRT projectors, some of their clients demand that sort of contrast ratio. Even some home theater buffs shell out the money for the HT version from Runco. (A modified Barco projector and a monster image processor box, unmatched quality, but you need a fairly da
    • I think the reason nobody has mentioned it is because you're in the minority for caring about it. Prior to this post I didn't know what a CR was, and having used many of both CRTs and TFTs any apparent problems with the contrast didn't even enter my mind.
      • You may not have realized it, but it's a well known fact among those who have invested a little time in researching displays.

        If it doesn't bother you, that's great, ignorance is bliss. If you want to spend a few minutes, I'd suggest googling "CRT vs LCD" and "Black Levels". Or check out www.avsforum.com. Or here:

        http://www.vartechsystems.com/pressroom/aprnews l et ter2003/crt-lcd-comparison.htm

        There's no argument, it's a well known fact that CRT's are the best, and LCD's are among the worst when it com

    • I'm suprised no one's mentioned on of the big drawbacks of LCD - Contrast Ratio. You just won't get the true deep, rich black levels that you would on a CRT.

      You can't get any blacker than when it's switched off, for either sort. Look at a powered off monitor and that's as black as it gets.
      Your brain sees the monitor as blacker than it really is in relation to other parts of the picture - you don't perceive the LCD as being as black as the CRT because it isn't as bright. Try having a CRT on in a darkened

      • You need to do some research. Mind you I'm not an LCD hater, I think they look very nice. But technically they still have a lot of catching up to do to reach CRT performance and saturation, black levels, you name it.

        http://www.vartechsystems.com/pressroom/aprnewsle t ter2003/crt-lcd-comparison.htm

        Spend some time on Google if you must, or read one of the 1,000,000 threads on www.avsforum.com, but there's absolutely no contesting that CRT technology provides the best picture.
        • I don't hate or even dislike either technology.
          All I am saying is that there exists no technology to make either type of screen blacker when it is on than when it is off. A switched off monitor is as black as it can get.
          Now an LCD may have more problems producing a grey near to black than a crt, so the range of tonal values produced is not be even. This could be true for crt also (unklikely but there some bad crts) but worse for LCD at this part of the tonal range. This doesn't affeect my point that black
    • I was under the impression that straight LCD contrast ratios are really good. Even a low end LCD monitor will pull 700:1. LCD *projectors* on the other hand don't have nearly the contrast ratio that a CRT projector will have. Projectors in general will tend to have washed out and grey blacks compared to any non-projection monitor.

  • Native resolution and price... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @03:57AM (#10697850) Homepage Journal
    I don't like how I cannot use other resolutions than its native resolution. The image looks weird especially with pixels. I also don't want those black sides. I use resolutions from 800x600 to 1280x1024 depending on games.

    Price is another issue especially for a high quality LCD monitor. I am still sticking with CRTs for now.
    • I don't like how I cannot use other resolutions than its native resolution. The image looks weird especially with pixels. I also don't want those black sides. I use resolutions from 800x600 to 1280x1024 depending on games.

      One solution is to get a 19" LCD with a native 1600x1200 resolution and a graphics card with plenty of fillrate. For the simpler games, you can run at native resolution. For more demanding games, you can run pixel-doubled at 800x600.

      Of course if you're going to get a beefy card, you ma
    • I just made the jump to a Dell 2001 FP. Apart from a dead pixel and a dead subpixel (that I'm going to try to get a refund for, even though it's less than their official return mark), I have no complaints running UT2k4 at 1152x864 stretched to its native 1600x1200. Stretch quality was a serious worry for me, since I'm still running a Ti4200, but I'm happy.
  • ... with NetHack. Just a beautiful, crisp picture, no ghosting, no motion blur, even when I fall down the stairs...

    With serious gaming, DVI is the way to go.

  • Since the holiday season is rolling around, I've been contemplating kicking out the big words for a nice TLA abbreviation. I'm a die-hard gamer, with several choices of grammar in the market today, it can get a little confusing. Ghosting seemed to be a problem with TLAs, but with displays reaching 8ms-16ms response time, is repeating the last word redundantly really an issue anymore? Is it time for this gamer to move on to greener pastures, or stay the course with my trusty TLA?"
  • In their "Graphics and Displays" they have very in depth reviews of LCDs and have whole sections of the articles discussing their gaming performance.

    So far, it seems like it's "close but no cigar" for LCD panels being perfect for gaming, although its very close.

    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/index.h tm l
  • Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
  • I tried the 19" Sony LCD and did not like the lack of crispness and the refresh problems. Everytime a web page is moved or anything is moving on the screen the entire screen seems to vibrate! Serious headaches!

    I tried and now have an Apple 20" Cinemas Display.

    I know it may not be within everyones budget but I can not recommend this monitor enough. Very crisp at 1680 x 1050! It truly is an unbelieveable monitor in every category! Wide view is especially helpful for peering around corners, etc.! :-)

    Vote

  • Put simply... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ProudClod ( 752352 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @03:24PM (#10702579)
    Yes.

    I wasn't convinced at first, then I was sent one of these gaming flat panels [gamerseurope.com] to review. I wept openly when the courier came to collect it, and I'm meant to be a hardened journalist type.

    The 12ms response time means that it's infallible when it comes to blurring, the image remains pinsharp. Plus it weighed a whole 16 kilos less than my current gaming CRT.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close