[Madison]

Hello all,

My buddy (Dell user) insists that a CRT is better than an LCD monitor for gaming, is this true? The LCD monitors I see from Apple in action are AWESOME and incredibly clear and crisp, am I all wet here or what? I suppose this is a subjective issue, and I believe what my eyes tell me, but he says that all the articles that he's read agree with him. Why would all the computer makers be migrating to a monitor that is inferior? I'll admit if I'm way out in left field, here, what do you folks say?

Thanks,
Tom King

[Cadaver]

While it certainly is subjective, the thing your friend is referring to is the pixel speed of CRTs vs. LCDs, screen refresh rates, and multiple native resolutions. Let me elaborate.

LCD pixels are slower to "turn off" than a pixel on CRT. This can lead to visible ghosting, or an after-image, on an LCD display. This can be especially distracting for a fast-moving object or even sometimes watching a DVD movie. While there are some LCD displays that have fast 16ms pixel refresh times, some people with sensitive eyes still may see some ghosting. While Apple doesn't publish (I don't think) the pixel speed of their LCD displays, they are reasonably fast, though far from the fastest on the market. While I personally don't see much ghosting on my two desktop LCDs (22" Cinema display and a 17" Studio display), I know others can.

Additionally, LCD displays, both VGA and DVI/ADC) will "refresh" at a fixed 60 times per second (60Hz). Because of this, game frame rates greater than 60fps may produce some visible "tearing" in the image (the screen refreshing as one frame is being drawn over the other, resulting in a distinct visual artifact). Good CRTs, on the other hand, can have refresh rates as high as 120Hz for some resolutions (video card permitting). This allows for much higher frame rates without visible tearing. Most games have a monitor sync feature that will lock the frame rate at the same speed as the display's refresh rate, but for LCDs this will limit the game's frame rate to a maximum of 60fps (as higher would produce image tearing). Some hard core gamers feel this is too low for ultra-smooth motion. I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

CRTs can also allow for multiple different resolutions without image distortion. LCDs on the other hand, are fixed-pixel devices with a specific native resolution. Running it at a lower resolution will produce some image artifacts and blurring, though again, how much this bothers you in a fast-moving game is a matter of personal opinion.

Most hard-core game mavens still insist on CRT displays. What you choose is up to you.

[Link]

Ok, first off if he's a hardcore gamer why is he using a dell? anyone who wants the title 'hardcore' better have either really good stuff or have made the machine themself.

The issue is debated, the fastest LCDs on the market refresh at 16ms whereas the best CRTs get as low as 8ms I think.

But yet again, it's subjective. Your friend probably doesn't have much ground to stand on since 1. he's using OEM hardware, and 2. probably a boob tube.. if that's the case... pound him.

Truth be told it's the gamer. I know for a fact pro gamers can kick butt on anything, while good hardware helps, if you REALLY have to have a 400fps rate to win you're probably not very good lol.

Apple's 20" display is one of the best large format displays you can get as far as refresh goes, IF I'm right, it's between 20 and 24ms.. which isn't bad at all. I doubt you'll see any prob at all.

[Steve]

Wow. I mean, I hate to do it, but the above post is absurd. Looking down on someone because they are using OEM hardware? That's a pretty foolish thing to do, since Dell produces some *great* hardware (especially on the top end).

Anyways, I personally experienced tearing with most LCDs until I used one of the new 16ms displays. My eyes couldn't pick up much ghosting on them at all.