Monitors CRT vs LCD Comparison

Sirusness

Disciple
>>>>>>Cathode Ray Tube monitors use a ray gun similar to a television to beam a path of electrons on the screen. One of the greatest strengths of the CRT is its flexibility with resolution. A good CRT will handle any resolution you throw at it, from 640x480 to 1600x1200 and higher.

The most common complaint about CRT's is their weight and size. A 21" CRT will rob you of valuable desk space and can weigh upwards of 50 pounds! All around, CRT's reproduce color, brightness, and picture clarity better than anything else, which is why they are used as a benchmark for all other monitor types. If CRT's are your game, there are only two tubes you want powering your beast. A Sony Trinitron or NEC/Mitsubishi Diamondtron. These tubes use aperture-grille technology - nothing can beat them.

>>>>>>>Liquid Crystal Display technology is the comparative newcomer to the monitor arena, but the new guy packs a powerful punch! Unlike those clunky CRT monitors, LCD displays usually weigh in under 10 pounds and are only 3 inches deep - that will certainly give your back a break when lugging equipment to a LAN party.

Weight and size are the LCD's big advantage; now here's the tricky parts: view angle, native resolution, and response time. "What's those" you may be asking? Well, look at a CRT from the side and you can still easily view what appears on the display. This is true 180-degree precision. LCD's have less than perfect view angles, usually around 169 degrees at best. So if for some reason you're sitting at an odd angle to the monitor, color will be affected and the picture may literally start to disappear.

LCD's have a hardwired number of pixels within its matrix, which means it has a fixed (native) resolution. This is the big thing to look for when purchasing a LCD. Some have huge 1600x1200 resolutions, while other skimp along at 1024x768. While changing the resolution on a LCD is possible, it must compensate using mathematical algorithms. Bottom line is that running a LCD at any resolution other than the native setting will lead to a drop in performance and quality. The latest top-tier models offer improved scaling algorithms, and hopefully within a few years the difference in picture quality will be gone. Still, you will still be stuck with those black bars around the edges unless running native.

>>>>>CRT vs LCD Comparison

Size and Weight: LCD's get the big win. Their small footprint makes them extremely adaptable to just about any surface. Many even have special mounts so you can hang them on walls.


Picture Quality: In a few years this category could very well be a tie. Right now, LCD's still lag somewhat due to less than true colors, brightness, and lack of flexibility with resolutions.


Real Estate: While there are 24" CRT's, none are recommended. The best models are 21". Also remember when choosing a CRT, your screen size is roughly the whole size of the next smaller monitor. This works backwards for LCD's, another bonus when choosing them. A 19" LCD is actually closer to 20", which explains their pricing.
>>>>>Final Thoughts

For hard core gamers, choosing the right monitor is even more important. If you're a Larry the LAN Lizard type, LCD is the way to go. Lugging a CRT through acres worth of tables trying to find an empty spot is never fun. Don't be afraid to get one with the uber-high resolution of 1600x1200. In the gaming world, higher rez = higher killz. This is possibly an urban legend, but one which I will buy.

Overall, CRT is still the king of the hill in my opinion, but LCD's are so close in every category - even ahead in a few - that it is ultimately a choice only you can make.
HERE IS THE ANSWER Grrrh ASKED IN MY ASUS Monitor Post.
 
>>>>>CRT vs LCD Comparison

Left out two more important factors : More Common Complaints i guess.

1. Power Consumption : CRT are way too bad. They consume hell lot of power.
2. Ergonomics : LCDs are healthier. CRTs kill your eyesight soon.
 
LOL CRTs suck. Once you get used to the crispness of an LCD display, you'd never go back to a CRT. It just looks like a horrible blurry mess :p.
 
Chaos said:
LOL CRTs suck. Once you get used to the crispness of an LCD display, you'd never go back to a CRT. It just looks like a horrible blurry mess :p.

yeah, the cross-hair in games especially is so crisps and just bulges out of the rest of the picture, where as on a crt, the same looks blury and at times fades out in background color....
 
^^Duh looks like you still live in the last century :p. If you haven't seen a high end LCD in action, please do take a look at any 20" or higher display. You'll change your mind.
 
Chaos said:
LOL CRTs suck. Once you get used to the crispness of an LCD display, you'd never go back to a CRT. It just looks like a horrible blurry mess :p.
God forbid you ever have to play anything below the native resolution of your LCD.
I believe the term you will be looking for is 'a horrible blurry mess'. ;)

LCD's are soothing to the eye and look great.
But you have to pay a bomb to get display quality and real estate comparable to your old CRT.

CRT's have impeccable colour reproduction and I can still play Diablo 2. :p
 
LCDs have only now progressed to the stage where you can run em for 10 years (or so the manufacturers claim). Previous useful lifespan was a couple of years, after which the backlight pretty much died out.
 
it pretty much depends on the requirements. for gamers, there are lcd's with 4ms response time, which is almost as good as CRT. not to mention the minimal strain on the eye (i believe this is an important factor. at least thats the main reason im upgrading to a LCD)

and the cost of lcd's is also coming down rapidly. 5 years back, i got my 17" crt for 12.5k and thats the price of a 17" crt now. and being a relatively new technology, costs are bound to come down in a couple of years.
 
lcds will never have the colour rproduction of crt's anytime soon.

remember that most 4ms and 8ms panels are 6 bit.

and if youre a gamer, lcd's force you to have a high end graphics card. the advantages of crt are too many, except for size and wieght, and power consumption.

when this technology matures, then maybe we can have a real discussion , not now, when theres too many compromises with lcd tech.
 
pastry ur point is valid to som,e extent..for serious designers for whom color n light editing on screen is their bread n butter CRTs score over LCDs...Many lighting artists at the studio I woirk in refuse to even work on LCDs if theres a critical shot...

But for general use n any other design work LCDs are the king...

And eyes are precious...more precious than anyth....For me LCDs rule....I do lot of graphic wrk n I love the LCD...

LCDs over CRT anyday for me....
 
ASUS rocks is out with PG191 (19" Gaming Monitor) LCD with a zippy 2-millisecond response time. No word yet on pricing or availability. But surely it would be a bomb...
 
First of all, India is always atleast two years behind in display technology and pricing of the same.Second, its almost impossible to get large CRTs in the states(the one country that does count when it comes to matters hardware), and are mostly sold as standard items with bargain PCs after MIRs.When I bought my computer last year, there were still about 50% CRTs at the local circuit city, now its less than 20% of all monitors there.CRTs are gonna be almost dead in a few years.
 
Back
Top