Ok so right now i have a 19" CRT Monitor.. I've been looking at the Samsung 226BW 22" LCD Monitor.. I've read from the reviews that it is a very nice LCD but as a strict gamer myself i have doubt wondering if this is for me or not. I usually play games on 1024x768 resoltution on my 19" CRT and am not really sure if the LCD is for me.. can i get some input on whether or not i should look into getting a new LCD? I just cant decide.. =/
CRT vs LCD?
- Thread starter jbiggs09
- Start date
- Status
VvWolverinevV
Posts: 119 +0
I found that switching from a 17" CRT to a 22" widescreen LCD was significantly more straining on my eyes during long episodes of gaming. I think it had to do with the amount of eye movement necessary to look from one side of the widescreen to the other.
Then again, if you don't play WoW, you probably won't be playing consecutively for half as long as I was
Then again, if you don't play WoW, you probably won't be playing consecutively for half as long as I was
herringtonjc
Posts: 47 +0
I went from a 17" CRT to a 19" wide screen LCD Flat-Panel. Personally, I love it. I also happened to come across it for cheap. 160$ My friend has a 22" CRT and he loves it, but it also weighs 75lbs. and he can't even put his desk against the wall because the back of the monitor hangs off the back just so it will fit on his desk. I do alot of gaming, and I find I can do it generally just fine. When I first made the switch it took me awhile to get used to looking at a much wider screen. When you go to a wide-screen, you definitely notice it. My current resolution is 1440x900 =D
As an old school gamer, I've always found quality CRT's are much, much better than LCD's for gaming. There is just no comparison.
That being said, for space reasons or whatnot, when an LCD is being considered, there are some that will suffice.
I've actually used the 226-series from Samsung (both the 226CW and 226BW) and my opinion of them is:
1) Despite highly rated viewing angles, these things suffer from a "fishbowl" effect. This means with your "head" dead center looking at the LCD, the top and bottom will be a bit darker. You have to kinda shift your head up and down to clear this effect. It's annoying but plagues a lot of LCD"s of this size. The Samsung's are a bit more noticeable than compared to say HP's or Dells of the same size.
2) The "3000:1" dynamic contrast really amounts to about 700:1 equivalent contrast.
3) Reaction time/speed, brightness and color are above average to exceptional. The fast response time is definitely not a problem with gaming/ghosting.
So there ya have it: Samsung 226 series:
Pro's: Nice color, brightness, response times- very game friendly.
Con's: Viewing angle is bit shorter than some in this size. Expect a slight fishbowl effect when viewing straight-on with top and/or bottom 1/2" of screen being a bit darker. Contrast is average at best.
That being said, for space reasons or whatnot, when an LCD is being considered, there are some that will suffice.
I've actually used the 226-series from Samsung (both the 226CW and 226BW) and my opinion of them is:
1) Despite highly rated viewing angles, these things suffer from a "fishbowl" effect. This means with your "head" dead center looking at the LCD, the top and bottom will be a bit darker. You have to kinda shift your head up and down to clear this effect. It's annoying but plagues a lot of LCD"s of this size. The Samsung's are a bit more noticeable than compared to say HP's or Dells of the same size.
2) The "3000:1" dynamic contrast really amounts to about 700:1 equivalent contrast.
3) Reaction time/speed, brightness and color are above average to exceptional. The fast response time is definitely not a problem with gaming/ghosting.
So there ya have it: Samsung 226 series:
Pro's: Nice color, brightness, response times- very game friendly.
Con's: Viewing angle is bit shorter than some in this size. Expect a slight fishbowl effect when viewing straight-on with top and/or bottom 1/2" of screen being a bit darker. Contrast is average at best.
howard_hopkinso
Posts: 21,238 +17
You might find this article of use in deciding whether to get an lcd or crt monitor.
The bottom line is this: If you`re going for an lcd monitor, make sure you get one that has a fast response time and is of good quality.
Regards Howard
The bottom line is this: If you`re going for an lcd monitor, make sure you get one that has a fast response time and is of good quality.
Regards Howard
TimeParadoX
Posts: 2,222 +4
I have a Samsung 24" Widescreen LCD 2ms response / 3000:1 color ratio, it has very good image and the monitor isn't really bright so you can look at it for awhile and not hurt your eyes
I use to have a CRT ( notice the words use to ), It nearly made me blind with the horrible response times and ugly & bright monitor colors
LCDs vs. CRT - LCD wins
I use to have a CRT ( notice the words use to ), It nearly made me blind with the horrible response times and ugly & bright monitor colors
LCDs vs. CRT - LCD wins
I heard that gamers generally go for LCD because of the faster response time of the moniters and because they don't gurt your eyes if you are playing for long periods of time. Also because you gain so much space on your desk when using a LCD.
From what I've heard, the advantage of a CRT is that the colors are more precise, since it is an older technology and all. That's why lots of digital artists would rather go with a CRT moniter.
I personally have a 17" CRT, I'm pretty happy with it.
Also, I hear that LCD's take up "all" the moniter space. Like every pixel the moniter has available is used.
So if you're a gamer, find an LCD moniter with a very quick response and if you are very limited. If either of these is not you're issue, I'd go with which ever is cheapest, in this case a CRT.
From what I've heard, the advantage of a CRT is that the colors are more precise, since it is an older technology and all. That's why lots of digital artists would rather go with a CRT moniter.
I personally have a 17" CRT, I'm pretty happy with it.
Also, I hear that LCD's take up "all" the moniter space. Like every pixel the moniter has available is used.
So if you're a gamer, find an LCD moniter with a very quick response and if you are very limited. If either of these is not you're issue, I'd go with which ever is cheapest, in this case a CRT.
LCD is better than CRT.
I used a Samsung 959NF CRT for quite some time and thought I wouldn't replace it for a very long time, but that was until I saw my friends 20.1" Widescreen LG 206-something which was amazingly more sharp than the blurry screen which was my not a low cost CRT.
So I had to replace it, bought a Samsung 931BW, thinking that the lower resolution of this 19" widesreen would be more suitable for gaming. Since I really didn't have any real knowledge I thought this TN based panel would suit my needs just fine, but it certainly didn't. The viewing angles were absolutely horrid (160/160), you really had to sit centered to have a decent image quality.
It also made an annoying noise so I sent it back and replaced it with a larger (I realized I needed 1280x1024 resolution for older games atleast, which the 19" Samsung couldn't provide) 20.1" Philips 200WP7ES widescreen S-IPS or P-MVA panel (it varies) which I can truly recommend.
The sharpness is amazing compared to any CRT monitor I've ever seen, and the viewing angles at 178/178 is certainly good enough. There's no turning back to CRT. Two things that one has to get used to with these new monitors, they scale the image rather poorly to other resolutions and the blacks are not as good as a with a good CRT, but the upsides weigh in more than the downsides.
There's also a little bit of ghosting when shifting from some colours to others, I've seen a slight effect with some textures in HL2 (which I don't really play a lot anyway), but overall this 8ms screen is fast enough for almost any game out there.
I have actually noticed that I've seen some ghosting on 2ms screens as well. But luckily this isen't something one notices a lot.
LCD is better for the eyes, the image is far more solid, far less flickering.
I used a Samsung 959NF CRT for quite some time and thought I wouldn't replace it for a very long time, but that was until I saw my friends 20.1" Widescreen LG 206-something which was amazingly more sharp than the blurry screen which was my not a low cost CRT.
So I had to replace it, bought a Samsung 931BW, thinking that the lower resolution of this 19" widesreen would be more suitable for gaming. Since I really didn't have any real knowledge I thought this TN based panel would suit my needs just fine, but it certainly didn't. The viewing angles were absolutely horrid (160/160), you really had to sit centered to have a decent image quality.
It also made an annoying noise so I sent it back and replaced it with a larger (I realized I needed 1280x1024 resolution for older games atleast, which the 19" Samsung couldn't provide) 20.1" Philips 200WP7ES widescreen S-IPS or P-MVA panel (it varies) which I can truly recommend.
The sharpness is amazing compared to any CRT monitor I've ever seen, and the viewing angles at 178/178 is certainly good enough. There's no turning back to CRT. Two things that one has to get used to with these new monitors, they scale the image rather poorly to other resolutions and the blacks are not as good as a with a good CRT, but the upsides weigh in more than the downsides.
There's also a little bit of ghosting when shifting from some colours to others, I've seen a slight effect with some textures in HL2 (which I don't really play a lot anyway), but overall this 8ms screen is fast enough for almost any game out there.
I have actually noticed that I've seen some ghosting on 2ms screens as well. But luckily this isen't something one notices a lot.
LCD is better for the eyes, the image is far more solid, far less flickering.
sghiznaneck
Posts: 394 +0
One item that has to be mentioned about LCD's is the maximum resolution of the monitor in reference to the maximum resolution of your graphics card. After I installed my 8800 GTX last December, I then used left over Christmas money to purchase an LCD widescreen. Granted, the picture is much sharper and for gaming, it wins hands down in my opinion. BUT, it's limited to 1440X900 resolution. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't bother me that much and games like Bioshock, Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander (to name just a few) look amazing, I can't take full advantage of the cards other resolutions. I'm happy with it and won't go back to a CRT monitor, but if I want to utilize what my card can do, I'd have to get a different monitor and that can really be expensive.
beef_jerky4104
Posts: 782 +3
LCD wins hands down. Picture quality is superb compared to CRT's. Oh and besides an LCD doesn't give you cancer like a CRT does
J
jtickner1
19 inch LCD widescreen monitors for the world!
nz0r said:
CRT is not as pleasent for the eyes as LCD is:
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Consumer-Advice/LCD_vs_CRT/
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Monitors-1521/LCD-vs-CRT.htm
you use a 286
Posts: 58 +0
LCD is a waste of money, stay w/ ur CRT monitor
TimeParadoX
Posts: 2,222 +4
CRT monitors are for hardcore ub3rpr0 gamer people, because their eyes are so screwed up from playing 23/7 that it doesn't bother them any more...
LCDs are better for me because I do more then just gaming, I do like photoshop & make maps for CSS / cs1.6 and stuff.
LCDs are better for me because I do more then just gaming, I do like photoshop & make maps for CSS / cs1.6 and stuff.
- Status
Similar threads
