Best gaming CRT out there

[Star_Hunter]

LCDs are still mostly at 75Hz and for gaming I would want higher than that. Therefore, that leaves me with CRTs. So I am wondering what is the best CRT out there for gaming. I have heard of the MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PRO 2070SB-BK 22" as being one of the best but was wondering if anyone knew of better ones. Obviously will likely be one of the only options since all the good CRTs are now discontinued.

[Davros]

No lcd's are mainly 60hz not 75hz but refresh rate with a lcd doesnt matter (dont know why your quoting it) what does matter (or did before all lcd's had a low one) was response rate which is around 8ms for for current lcd's

[Rainbow Man]

LCDs are still mostly at 75Hz and for gaming I would want higher than that.
It's a waste.

Even people with fast raction times would only have an eye-hand response time of say 0.2 seconds at the low end. That's 12 frames minimum even at 60Hz. How could that not be enough? :cool:

Network lag si probably going to be a much bigger obstacle for you.. Heh.

So I am wondering what is the best CRT out there for gaming.
There aren't any gaming CRTs. There never were in fact. Not sure why you think you need one any one is likely to serve you as good as anything yoiu can find.

Just buy one if you absolutely feel you have to buy one but personally I feel it's a total waste. It's likely to be crappier than a LCD anyway from most respects and draw more pwer and consume more resources to build and haul around the globe. And it'll bombard your face and brain with gamma radiation how nice!

I just can't imagine going back to the electricity-suckihng-distorted-geometry-moire-ridden-convergence-flawed days of vacuum tubes from the 19th century. :cool:
Peace.

[vazel]

With LCDs as stated the thing you're looking for is response times not refresh rates. If you're going CRT any Trinitron or Diamondtron is excellent.
It's likely to be crappier than a LCD anyway from most respects...
Except when it comes to resolution scalability and color/contrast.

[Moloch]

In addition it's a straw mans argument to suggest that crts blast your face with any measureable amount of radition :roll:
Crts are simply well above lcds when it comes down to color accuracy (read; not saturation), constrast and obviously resolution scaling.
I do game on a an lcd (dell 22") but my old 17" trinitron blows it out the water when it comes to everything but size and absolute resolution.
I only got it because it was big, had a wide AR and was cheap.
There's a reason all new display tech is always compared to crts ;)
They simply pwn.
Use a decent crt before saying they suck, pretty please.

[Rainbow Man]

Except when it comes to resolution scalability and color/contrast.
The useful resolutions on a CRT is no larger than on a corresponding LCD. Sure you can bump up the res above what an LCD manages but things just get fuzzier from then on and the analog connection often start to become a bottleneck above 1280 anywa.y

Thanks I've been using computers for long enough to have experienced this a lot firsthand.

Contrast isn't an issue that I've noticed and color much less so.
Pewace.

[vazel]

I meant the scaling artifacts you get on a fixed pixel display when you go to non-native resolutions. Contrast is still very much an issue, it's impossible for a device that gets its brightness from a backlight to have as good contrast as a CRT. Color has gotten very good on LCDs but you have to pay for it, most people are getting the mediocre LCDs that any CRT you can buy for $20 off eBay will cream in picture quality.

[{Sniping}Waste]

Sony did make a 24" widescreen CRT Trinitron in the past that was very good.

The only ones you can fine are used ones or referbs.
http://computers.search.ebay.com/24_18-Inch-Larger_W0QQsacatZ116350

[Skrying]

If I were to buy a CRT it would certainly be the 24" Sony widescreen. If a used one is in decent condition it would certainly be a kick ass display if you want to deal with the size. I for awhile gave some very serious thought of buying one but in the end decided that a 22" LCD would be a better choice for me. I mainly went with the LCD because of size issues, power consumption, and some features of the specific LCD I bought (component inputs, PiP, etc).

I would highly suggest you look at as many displays as possible. Try to go to Best Buy or some place and more specifically look at the LCD screens that are hooked up to an individual computer. Play with the settings a bit and see if you like it or not. That's the only real way you'll find the right display for you, be it CRT or LCD.

[Ike Turner]

One of the most important thing when looking for an LCD is checking what type of panel it has. TN(6bit),TN-Film(6bit),MVA, PVA(8bit), S-PVA(8bit), S-IPS(8bit).
For fast response time TN (6bit panels) panel are the best, but anything else other than gaming sucks (color contrast, viewing angle,brightness). 75/80% of the LCDs available are TN panels (basically the cheapest/most affordable).
On the other hand you have the S-IPS (8bit panels) equipped LCDs who have the best viewing angles, best colors, brightness and fairly good response time, really starts to rival CRTS. Only problem is that they are the most expensive and rare to find ( Apple cinema displays, Dell Ultrasharp displays if you are luckyhttp://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1111100 (lucky) to get one, some NEC displays to).
S-PVA aren't bad but have some response times probs compared to S-IPS panels.

Check this site to find the panels of every LCD ever made : http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php

[Skrying]

I much rather have a TN panel than a xVA type panel. xVA (the 20" Viewsonic that was very popular especially comes to mind) always seemed to have a purple tent to the screen when I did not view one dead on, this was extremely distracting, many other using such panels have had the same issue to me, the colors while dead on where better but I couldn't handle the screen in otherwise daily use.

[Ike Turner]

I much rather have a TN panel than a xVA type panel. xVA (the 20" Viewsonic that was very popular especially comes to mind) always seemed to have a purple tent to the screen when I did not view one dead on, this was extremely distracting, many other using such panels have had the same issue to me, the colors while dead on where better but I couldn't handle the screen in otherwise daily use.

Dunno about xVA (MVA or PVA) panels (but checking some forum posts, they obviously have some problems with viewing angles). I only used S-IPS panels so far (LG L1920B and Dell 2007WFP)..

[vazel]

The FW900 is my dream display. Here's (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788) a big thread on it.

[Blazkowicz]

No lcd's are mainly 60hz not 75hz but refresh rate with a lcd doesnt matter (dont know why your quoting it) what does matter (or did before all lcd's had a low one) was response rate which is around 8ms for for current lcd's

you're right that LCDs are 60Hz, those that accept a 70 or 75Hz cheat (they just drop frames). But you're wrong (and the others are wrong) about higher than 60Hz being useless. the temporal aliasing is very noticeable, you need some more fps for the movement to appear really smooth (a constant 100fps is really perfect). tearing with vsync off is also much more bearable with the typical refresh you use on a CRT (85, 100 or 120Hz depending on resolution and the specs).

[Frank]

Use your big LCD TV as monitor. If you sit ~1.5 meters from it, you get free AA, other resolutions look fine, and you still have a bigger picture than with a large monitor. And it's great for browsing as well. That's what I do.

I really cannot go back to using CRTs. They hurt my eyes and look horrible.

[Skrying]

you're right that LCDs are 60Hz, those that accept a 70 or 75Hz cheat (they just drop frames). But you're wrong (and the others are wrong) about higher than 60Hz being useless. the temporal aliasing is very noticeable, you need some more fps for the movement to appear really smooth (a constant 100fps is really perfect). tearing with vsync off is also much more bearable with the typical refresh you use on a CRT (85, 100 or 120Hz depending on resolution and the specs).

Typical? Maybe your typical, but I promise that out of all CRT monitors in the last 15 years the average refresh rate was probably 60Hz. Including millions of gamers in that to. How do people bear it? I'm not sure myself, but I can count the number of times on one hand that I've seen someone besides myself using a refresh rate over 75Hz and then double that for anything besides 60Hz.

[pakotlar]

If I were to buy a CRT it would certainly be the 24" Sony widescreen. If a used one is in decent condition it would certainly be a kick ass display if you want to deal with the size. I for awhile gave some very serious thought of buying one but in the end decided that a 22" LCD would be a better choice for me. I mainly went with the LCD because of size issues, power consumption, and some features of the specific LCD I bought (component inputs, PiP, etc).

I would highly suggest you look at as many displays as possible. Try to go to Best Buy or some place and more specifically look at the LCD screens that are hooked up to an individual computer. Play with the settings a bit and see if you like it or not. That's the only real way you'll find the right display for you, be it CRT or LCD.


Ive seen the 226BW, 2007WFP, and my 24" Sony smokes them. But Yes it was heavy. I could cary it up 2 flights of stairs myself without much problem though. But then again I'm jacked :O!

[pakotlar]

Typical? Maybe your typical, but I promise that out of all CRT monitors in the last 15 years the average refresh rate was probably 60Hz. Including millions of gamers in that to. How do people bear it? I'm not sure myself, but I can count the number of times on one hand that I've seen someone besides myself using a refresh rate over 75Hz and then double that for anything besides 60Hz.

Theres nothing wrong with 60hz if the flicker doesn't bother you. I'm not an expert on it, but refresh rate on CRT's does not impact your performance. Your brain interpolates frames (well actually, your retina splits up frames into 7 distinct "information distinct" frames anyways, and vector motion is only 1 component, but I digress) anyways, so unless redraw rate is severely low, you should not have much problem. I'm not sure how refresh rate affects LCD's, but I suspect it works differently, since the speed with which the liquid crystals can change state is the limiting factor for motion response there.

I suspect the talk is mostly related to input/output lag, but that has little to do with refresh rate (except, possibly for timing issues such as cadence issues with 24fps material and 60hz LCD's). It is a processing issue in the LCD (overdrive being the prime culprit), and that would certainly effect reaction times in fast paced games, and would be especially pronounced in low-lag matches online where your opponent had lower output lag.

But otherwise, 60hz is more than fine. You can have faster reaction times than 1/60 s with 60hz monitors because of your ability to predict motion vector. If your game is running at ~120-200 fps (depending on the person) you are maxing out the reaction times of most people even with a 60hz CRT. Peace.

[Blazkowicz]

Typical? Maybe your typical, but I promise that out of all CRT monitors in the last 15 years the average refresh rate was probably 60Hz. Including millions of gamers in that to. How do people bear it? I'm not sure myself, but I can count the number of times on one hand that I've seen someone besides myself using a refresh rate over 75Hz and then double that for anything besides 60Hz.

why mention 15 year old monitors?

well the crappy low end 17" CRT did/do 1024x768 85Hz. 85Hz is my personal minimum refresh (or 75Hz on a 15"). sure, people never set up their monitor so millions CRTs run 1024x768 60Hz with black borders and distorted geometry, that must be why people like LCD so much (they still run them at 1024x768 though)

[Skrying]

Theres nothing wrong with 60hz if the flicker doesn't bother you. I'm not an expert on it, but refresh rate on CRT's does not impact your performance. Your brain interpolates frames (well actually, your retina splits up frames into 7 distinct "information distinct" frames anyways, and vector motion is only 1 component, but I digress) anyways, so unless redraw rate is severely low, you should not have much problem. I'm not sure how refresh rate affects LCD's, but I suspect it works differently, since the speed with which the liquid crystals can change state is the limiting factor for motion response there.

I suspect the talk is mostly related to input/output lag, but that has little to do with refresh rate (except, possibly for timing issues such as cadence issues with 24fps material and 60hz LCD's). It is a processing issue in the LCD (overdrive being the prime culprit), and that would certainly effect reaction times in fast paced games, and would be especially pronounced in low-lag matches online where your opponent had lower output lag.

But otherwise, 60hz is more than fine. You can have faster reaction times than 1/60 s with 60hz monitors because of your ability to predict motion vector. If your game is running at ~120-200 fps (depending on the person) you are maxing out the reaction times of most people even with a 60hz CRT. Peace.

Yet I know so many people who used 60Hz and often complained about stairing at a monitor for not much longer than even 30 minutes. The issues was quickly resolved when informed about upping the refresh rate say anything about 75Hz. I still hear this on a regular basis when people bring in their computers.

why mention 15 year old monitors?

well the crappy low end 17" CRT did/do 1024x768 85Hz. 85Hz is my personal minimum refresh (or 75Hz on a 15"). sure, people never set up their monitor so millions CRTs run 1024x768 60Hz with black borders and distorted geometry, that must be why people like LCD so much (they still run them at 1024x768 though)

In the last 15 years, that in no way limits monitors to just 15 years ago. Not sure how you could have went with that interpretation of my comments.

[Frank]

There is another important thing: with CRT monitors, the pixels are only "on" for a very short time during each refresh. Their luminance varies greatly during each frame, from much too bright, to black. While with LCD monitors, the pixels are always on. Their luminance is pretty much constant during each frame.

[t0y]

Typical? Maybe your typical, but I promise that out of all CRT monitors in the last 15 years the average refresh rate was probably 60Hz. Including millions of gamers in that to. How do people bear it? I'm not sure myself, but I can count the number of times on one hand that I've seen someone besides myself using a refresh rate over 75Hz and then double that for anything besides 60Hz.

I hope I understand what you're saying correctly, but if 60hz was the average rr, then a lot of people you know were using interlaced "yucky" mode at 43hz or something like that.

The last monitor I used at 60hz was part of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptiva) original IBM PS/1. It had a glorious 12" VGA monitor that boasted a max 640x480 resolution at 60hz. After that I had a 14", a 15" and I still have a 17", all belonging to the cheapest price brackets available and all of them could do 1024x768 at least at 75hz with the last two working at 85hz flicker free with no problems. I personally prefer to use the 17" at 1280x960@75hz for a bigger desktop and it would be great for games with AA if I had a video card that could do it. :)

Believe me, 60hz would be useless for me. I used to live next to a power station and under its cable towers, if you could see the picture jumping around like it did under 85hz you would understand. ;)

[megatron]

electricity-suckihng-distorted-geometry-moire-ridden-convergence-flawed days of vacuum tubes from the 19th century. :cool:
Peace.
What was the 19th century like, and more to the point how old are u, 108?:grin:

[Skinner]

Eizo T966:)

But I would love to see how an Eizo ColorGraphic CE210W would perform with the 14 bits tech. (no banding).

[Bolloxoid]

Your brain interpolates frames (well actually, your retina splits up frames into 7 distinct "information distinct" frames anyways, and vector motion is only 1 component, but I digress) anyways, so unless redraw rate is severely low, you should not have much problem.
That's nonsense.

[Skrying]

I hope I understand what you're saying correctly, but if 60hz was the average rr, then a lot of people you know were using interlaced "yucky" mode at 43hz or something like that.

43Hz would be..... very much earlier than the last 10 years. Unless someone changes the monitors default refresh rate then its going to be 60Hz, I don't recall in the last 10 years seeing a CRT that did not default to 60Hz. 15 years? Maybe a few below that. Most people simply do not alter the settings of the monitor and never go beyond changing the resolution maybe for video settings go. I've often times seen people knock resolutions down from default because they found the test to small.

[zsouthboy]

My 19" trinitron does 85hz at 16x12 which is my preferred res.
I think it does 100hz at 12x10 too, if you like that.

Should be cheap to pick up one in good condition.

It weighs 4000 lbs though :P

[t0y]

43Hz would be..... very much earlier than the last 10 years. Unless someone changes the monitors default refresh rate then its going to be 60Hz, I don't recall in the last 10 years seeing a CRT that did not default to 60Hz. 15 years? Maybe a few below that. Most people simply do not alter the settings of the monitor and never go beyond changing the resolution maybe for video settings go. I've often times seen people knock resolutions down from default because they found the test to small.
To achieve 1280x1024 in one of my older monitors I had to use interlaced mode and a 43.5Hz refresh rate. Remember: we're talking interlaced in here.

If you mean that the default RR was 60hz for most monitors I would agree [even though it's a responsability of the OS], but you said it was the average, not the default. For it to be the average, someone would have to use less, hence my 43hz reference.

They used to be a pretty common way to get to higher resolutions without buying a new monitor, but then again, it was really yucky. Here (http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/Config7.html) are some common video modes available when monitors weren't so powerful, note specially the ones marked as 'interlaced'.

[Skrying]

To achieve 1280x1024 in one of my older monitors I had to use interlaced mode and a 43.5Hz refresh rate. Remember: we're talking interlaced in here.

If you mean that the default RR was 60hz for most monitors I would agree [even though it's a responsability of the OS], but you said it was the average, not the default. For it to be the average, someone would have to use less, hence my 43hz reference.

They used to be a pretty common way to get to higher resolutions without buying a new monitor, but then again, it was really yucky. Here (http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/Config7.html) are some common video modes available when monitors weren't so powerful, note specially the ones marked as 'interlaced'.

Average, as in the must used, as in people who buy Dells, HPs, etc never change it.

[megatron]

I used 1024*768 85hz on a trinitron that came with a Gateway, only reason I have a viewsonic vx922 now is because I thought I could get rid of the mains hum but its the same with the LCD if u get close enough. It could do 1280*1024 @75hz and 1600*1200@65hz.

[Blazkowicz]

mine does those two latter resolutions as well. so your monitor probably supported what I am using as well : 1024 100Hz, 1152 (or 1200x900 as a custom res) 85Hz, 800x600 120Hz and 640x480 150Hz (which I now use for some stereoscopic gaming, will try to find some movies)