What's the deal with LCD's and Gaming?

[Dudley Moore]

I don't mean to start a flame war.. but I don't understand how anyone can
take LCD monitors seriously for gaming these days.

I know, there are like 16ms response time monitors out there.. but even
they seem to suffer from motion blur for my eyes.

Why do some people swear by these monitors for gaming, when a cheaper CRT
will do better?

Can someone explain this to me?

I think that actually LCDs are great for the desktop (as long as you
aren't doing photo editing where the contrast differences from left to
right or top to bottom mess with your head). But I also think that people
that have spend upwards of $600, even $1000 on their LCD monitor are
probably suffering from cognitive dissonance that is impairing their
judgement. They can't bring themselves to acknowledge that their LCD is
not in every way superior to someone else's $250 CRT. When in some ways
it is superior, but in a lot of other ways it is not..

-Dud

 

[James Whitehead]

I have two LCD's, would never replace them for CRT's again.
They are clearer, brighter, more crisp, smaller footprint, and I am not
sitting 30cm from a radiation producing CRT tube.
The only downfall I can see from them is that they dont warm the room as
much anymore.

 

[Dudley Moore]

I have two LCD's, would never replace them for CRT's again.
They are clearer, brighter, more crisp, smaller footprint, and I am not
sitting 30cm from a radiation producing CRT tube.
The only downfall I can see from them is that they dont warm the room as
much anymore.

They have problems reproducing colors as well as a good CRT, and they
suffer from ghosting/motion blur. This is a big deal to the gamer.

I do agree that they operate cooler and consume like 20% less power. They
are much easier on the eyes, and for most things the colors are crips and
vibrant enough.

BUT, for gaming, they are still not there yet. The motion blur thing is a
show-stopper. Also, the fact that if you operate at anything but the
native resolution of the LCD, you will get picture quality as poor as a
cheap CRT. This isn't an issue for the desktop user nowadays that has
even the minimum video card, but for gaming sometimes you need to turn
down the resolution for the newer games that are too demanding on the
graphics processor.

No, I think for gaming CRT is still better than LCD, for the time being.
Maybe someday LCD's will be there.. but not yet.

-Dud

 

[John]

They have problems reproducing colors as well as a good CRT, and they
suffer from ghosting/motion blur. This is a big deal to the gamer.

I do agree that they operate cooler and consume like 20% less power. They
are much easier on the eyes, and for most things the colors are crips and
vibrant enough.

I agree thats why I was on the edge about getting a LCD or CRT
monitor when I wanted to replace mine recently. I waited because I
thought the costs of a LCD were ridiculous and the drawbacks didnt
make it worth buying yet. They had gotten dramatically cheaper the
last 2 years so I was on the fence and people kept talking about the
improving response times.

However , before I was about to buy I did hear more grousing about
how the response times were quite good enough stll for some though
others felt they could live with the blur with the fastest monitors
and though the LCDs had gotten cheaper - the CRTs had gotten even more
cheaper - so I went with a flat screen CRT Viewsonic for $200 19".

Im a little worried now though because I expected to get a LCD
probably this year thinking the prices were goign to continie their
dramatic slide and maybe actually go for $279 for a good 19" but
prices for many things seem to have stalled and actually gone up so I
dont really see that many great deals on them and the response times
which were supposed to get better and better also seemed to have
stalled a bit.

The urge to get one is undeniable though since eveyrone is getting
them now theres the herd instinct gravitational pull and just the
coolness factor of having something so different - a slim flat panel
vs a humongoid heavy hot CRT taking up half your desk space.
The almost garish colors and crisp contrast of the LCD screen for
everyday use , like surfing the net also seems better until you do
some graphics stuff on some monitors. Some of my neighbors LCDs -
Samsung and other makes , tend to look almost overly vivid cartoonish
which looks great on net stuff but you look at some pics etc and they
look slightly weird.

Some of the earlier LCDs also seemed to almost have a metallic like
sheen to the colors that looked weird.

Im tempted now because Ive seen a few clearance sales with
dramatically lower prices so I was thinking of getting one but when it
really comes down to it I really dont need one now.

 

[Alien Zord]

I don't mean to start a flame war.. but I don't understand how anyone can
take LCD monitors seriously for gaming these days.

I know, there are like 16ms response time monitors out there.. but even
they seem to suffer from motion blur for my eyes.

Why do some people swear by these monitors for gaming, when a cheaper CRT
will do better?

Can someone explain this to me?

I think that actually LCDs are great for the desktop (as long as you
aren't doing photo editing where the contrast differences from left to
right or top to bottom mess with your head). But I also think that people
that have spend upwards of $600, even $1000 on their LCD monitor are
probably suffering from cognitive dissonance that is impairing their
judgement. They can't bring themselves to acknowledge that their LCD is
not in every way superior to someone else's $250 CRT. When in some ways
it is superior, but in a lot of other ways it is not..

I have a 17" LCD and a 19" CRT side by side and prefer the LCD for
everything except colour editing. Its pin sharp, rock stable, image does not
change size as the monitor warms up, does not suffer from any reflections,
no distortion whatsoever, because of the thinnest of its front glass the
image appears closest to a printed page. And they are both top of the range
monitors, NEC and Iiyama.

 

[Noozer]

No, I think for gaming CRT is still better than LCD, for the time being.
Maybe someday LCD's will be there.. but not yet.

Naw... LCD may be a good technology for some things, but there are better
things coming down the pipe.

OLED monitors will be even thinner, cooler and better looking. They don't
need a backlight, will be cheap to produce once the process is perfected and
will just be better suited to displays. They can even be made flexible!

 

[Dudley Moore]

I agree thats why I was on the edge about getting a LCD or CRT
monitor when I wanted to replace mine recently. I waited because I
thought the costs of a LCD were ridiculous and the drawbacks didnt
make it worth buying yet. They had gotten dramatically cheaper the
last 2 years so I was on the fence and people kept talking about the
improving response times.

However , before I was about to buy I did hear more grousing about
how the response times were quite good enough stll for some though
others felt they could live with the blur with the fastest monitors
and though the LCDs had gotten cheaper - the CRTs had gotten even more
cheaper - so I went with a flat screen CRT Viewsonic for $200 19".

Im a little worried now though because I expected to get a LCD
probably this year thinking the prices were goign to continie their
dramatic slide and maybe actually go for $279 for a good 19" but
prices for many things seem to have stalled and actually gone up so I
dont really see that many great deals on them and the response times
which were supposed to get better and better also seemed to have
stalled a bit.

The urge to get one is undeniable though since eveyrone is getting
them now theres the herd instinct gravitational pull and just the
coolness factor of having something so different - a slim flat panel
vs a humongoid heavy hot CRT taking up half your desk space.
The almost garish colors and crisp contrast of the LCD screen for
everyday use , like surfing the net also seems better until you do
some graphics stuff on some monitors. Some of my neighbors LCDs -
Samsung and other makes , tend to look almost overly vivid cartoonish
which looks great on net stuff but you look at some pics etc and they
look slightly weird.

I completely agree with your sentiment. I also feel that LCDs have a
_tremendous_ coolness factor. They are so sleek and beautiful as pieces
of furniture. They just look cool. I also have a tremendous urge to buy
an LCD, but still can't bring myself to sacrifice things like response
time and variable-resolutions. I think those two drawbacks don't justify
the cost. If I am going to spend so much on a display, I want it to be
superior in _all_ aspects, not just a few.

Still though.. I hope they advance as a tech. They are so much cooler to
have around than CRTs. I am so disappointed with this LCD I just bought
-- a Samsung 213T. I am returning it today. It is a work of art as a
piece of furniture.. it takes up very little desk space and produces no
heat and can be rotated and swiveled in any direction -- yet, as a
display, it is lacking compared to a CRT. The motion blur makes me suffer
-- as does the fact that it can't do anything but 1600x1200 properly.

Oh, how I really wish LCD's were good enough...

-Dud

 

[Dudley Moore]

I have a 17" LCD and a 19" CRT side by side and prefer the LCD for
everything except colour editing. Its pin sharp, rock stable, image does not
change size as the monitor warms up, does not suffer from any reflections,
no distortion whatsoever, because of the thinnest of its front glass the
image appears closest to a printed page. And they are both top of the range
monitors, NEC and Iiyama.

I have heard extremely good things about the state of the 17" LCDs. Tom's
hardware says some of them are 'good enough' for gaming. However, I
am hesitant to believe that without trying one. I know they mentioned
Iiyama as being excellent as far as lack of motion blur goes.
What is your experience with it? Are you a gamer? Do you play fast-paced
games like Unreal Tournament? Can you shed light on this for me?

Also, keep in mind that some people are less picky than others as far as
motion blur goes. Some people aren't bothered by it but others (like me)
are really sensitive to it. Is there any motion blur?

Sadly my 21" Samsung 213T was not good enough for gaming and I had to
return it. But I swore to myself that one day I *will* get an LCD for
gaming.. just not yet.

 

[J.]

I have two LCD's, would never replace them for CRT's again.
They are clearer, brighter, more crisp, smaller footprint, and I am not
sitting 30cm from a radiation producing CRT tube.
The only downfall I can see from them is that they dont warm the room as
much anymore.

[...]
BUT, for gaming, they are still not there yet. The motion blur thing is a
show-stopper. Also, the fact that if you operate at anything but the
native resolution of the LCD, you will get picture quality as poor as a
cheap CRT. This isn't an issue for the desktop user nowadays that has
even the minimum video card, but for gaming sometimes you need to turn
down the resolution for the newer games that are too demanding on the
graphics processor.

This is something I've never understood! I too tried changing the
resolution on a Sony LCD once in a store and the image quality became
totally unusable IMO. How can any gamer even consider getting one?? I have
a few games and game demos and I don't think I use *any* of them at the same
resolution. It would be absurd to have a $1500 monitor with a new PC today,
only to not be able to play 2-yr old games at max. resolution or
alternatively to have to use FS2006 (next year? at 10 fps because you
can't choose a lower res. What am I missing here? Because although they
are on average extremely stupid, I don't think most gamers would fail to
notice this problem...

I thought 16ms would've eliminated any blur. But you can still see it? Are
you sure it was a 16ms model?

 

[Dudley Moore]

This is something I've never understood! I too tried changing the
resolution on a Sony LCD once in a store and the image quality became
totally unusable IMO. How can any gamer even consider getting one?? I have
a few games and game demos and I don't think I use *any* of them at the same
resolution. It would be absurd to have a $1500 monitor with a new PC today,
only to not be able to play 2-yr old games at max. resolution or
alternatively to have to use FS2006 (next year? at 10 fps because you
can't choose a lower res. What am I missing here? Because although they
are on average extremely stupid, I don't think most gamers would fail to
notice this problem...

I thought 16ms would've eliminated any blur. But you can still see it? Are
you sure it was a 16ms model?

Yeah it was! But they lie.. or something. I have learned not all 16ms
LCD monitors are created equal. Some of them have far less motion blur
than others. Don't know why. Even tom's hardware has to compare them in
actuality because they even say you can't trust the response time to tell
you anything..

 

[Fleabus]

I don't mean to start a flame war.. but I don't understand how anyone can
take LCD monitors seriously for gaming these days.

I know, there are like 16ms response time monitors out there.. but even
they seem to suffer from motion blur for my eyes.

Why do some people swear by these monitors for gaming, when a cheaper CRT
will do better?

Can someone explain this to me?

I think that actually LCDs are great for the desktop (as long as you
aren't doing photo editing where the contrast differences from left to
right or top to bottom mess with your head). But I also think that people
that have spend upwards of $600, even $1000 on their LCD monitor are
probably suffering from cognitive dissonance that is impairing their
judgement. They can't bring themselves to acknowledge that their LCD is
not in every way superior to someone else's $250 CRT. When in some ways
it is superior, but in a lot of other ways it is not..

-Dud

Hi:

What I see:

Video system and related parts.

ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256MB AGP retail Catalyst 4.6
DV-I: Monitor #1 Samsung SyncMaster 213T Black 21.3" TFT
1600x1200 32bit 60Hz (native) .25ms
VGA: Monitor #2 ViewSonic P225f 22" Aperture Grille CRT
1600x1200 32bit 85Hz
TV OUT: S-video to 36" Sony Wega XBR-400 HD ready
1024x768 32bit 60Hz NTSC

Asus P4T533-C s478/i850e
P4 2.8b/533MHz FSBus retail
1GB OCZ PC1066 RIMMs
TerraTec DMX 6fire LT sound card to Denon AVR-3802 7x110W based HT
system
WindowsXP HE SP1 full/clean; DX 9.0b
etc.

I am very pleased with the Samsung in all performance aspects. As
an example I play bf1942+ all add-ons and many mods (especially DC &
DCX) at the LCD's native setup and all the eye-candy maxed. I see no
ghosting/motion blur nor any other artifacts. Ditto for Halo and many
other games I've tried.
The Samsung replaced a ViewSonic 21" P817 shadow mask (usually at
1600x1200 32bit 85Hz) that is likely the best CRT ViewSonic ever made.
Since I have the TFT and a decent CRT side by side its easy to compare
results.
I am very pleased with the Samsung.

Happy trails,