Monitor Speed: CRT Vs. LCD

[angry_ducky]

my viewsonic has an 8ms response, it looks great, and no ghosting

 

[Pain]

The math is simple really but feel free to correct me.

If you have a refresh rate (in case of LCD response rate is the proper term really) of 2 milliseconds, then you can refresh/change the pixels on the screen 1/0.002 = 500 times a second, hence referred to as 500 frames per second, or 500 fps. (8ms rr = 125 fps, 12ms = 83 fps, etc). Sending over all pixel related information to the LCD in order to get it displayed is a lot faster than milliseconds, so effectively all pixels of the LCD are changed/updated in parallell (if it wasn't you'd get to see all kinds of weird mismatches on parts of the screen; the actual problem with older screens was "ghosting", a sort of afterimages of pixels not getting refreshed in time for keeping up with the game framerate).

There used to be a difference between frames and a full screen in analog television, where a frame is only half a screen and two frames interlaced make a screen (PAL, NTSC). This is not the case with monitors (CRT's or LCD's): a frame is a full screen.

Now that I am at it, there is some common misconception as to that your eyes can only absorb about 25 to 30 fps. This is utter nonsense. Two things are confused here, the framerate required to give the human visual system the suggestion of fluid motion (on the screen, which is indeed 25 to 30) and the ability of the human visual system to detect changes on the screen within a certain timeframe. I've read on the web somewhere that jet fighter pilots are specifically tested for this, and there are known cases of people having a detection rate over 300 fps (meaning they detect changes between two frames when the screen is refreshed over 300 times a second).

So if some gamer is complaining about getting shot or missing shots because of his 100 fps, there is a (slim) possibility that he's not bragging. Needless to say, the 2ms LCD's will make an end to that debate from the LCD side of the equation. Then framerates will really be determined by only the cpu and the gpu.

I think I understand that you are making that point, but it is confusing how it is writen.

I've seen those same things you mention about fps and the human eye. Here is one site, but there are others.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

[RedGrandt]

There seems to some confusion on this thread.
Pixel response time (or what some mean by Monitor response)
has nothing to do with frames per second.
Pixels respond individually. Unless you are looking at a single color screen, the ghosting is a pixel falling behind the color change it is required to make. You get a blur because you are seeing a confused pixel (or many that didn't respond quickly enough). It is about motion. 8 to 12 milliseconds should be fine. This time is measured differently by manufacturers. White to black and back to white or whatever. None of this has anything to do with game fps or refresh rate.

Crt are cathode ray BEAM devices and operate as hertz or cycles per second. At a low refresh rate, the screen flickers because you can see the scan against the frames, like when you see car wheels go backwards on tv. Because youare seeing the refresh, it is irritating and gives you a headache. Because CRTs have different possible refresh rates available, you adjust the refresh rate till its comfortable. MORE is NOT better.
LCDs don't have a refresh rate, but operate at 60 hertz. You will never see a flicker because there is NO beam scan.

FPS is how many Frames per second your cpu/video card is producing and sending to the monitor. Here more is better! Televisions produce 30 frames per second because that is broadcast standard. Because TV has a small # of big pixels, it can only look so good, but is presentable and smooth. FPS of your game varies from second to second, depending on how much information is in the frame and your CPU/GPUs ability to produce it. Play COD2 -the Russian portion with lots of snow and soldiers and gunfighting- most cards that arent the newest 7800/7900/1900s, will lag and slow badly. Games have a cap of possible FPS. At some point, your eye will not notice any differnce in a game at higher FPS, probably something better than 30 to 60 FPS, depending on the game code.

The latest SLI setups are great because you can have the latest lighting effects and shaders running at high resolutions with smooth frame rates.
At some point, it is not about MORE FPS or smoothness, but effects and 3d quality. Any good CRT OR LCD will show it off.

The point is that 2 ms doesn't have anything to do with 500 frames per second. No game or PC produces 500 FPS anyways! It is a question of what your eye can see and be comfortable seeing and smooth game play.

I had an NEC 22' CRT
that was looking dull. It had great color correctness or saturation, but didn't look that colorful! It was huge. It was an energy hog. It raised the temperature in my PC room! I replaced it with a Synchmaster 930 B and couldn't be happier! 8 ms and there is NO discernable blur or ghost. Whats strange is some games are ADDING in motion blur, because that is what your continuous vision sees with rapid movement. That is the point of the link posted on this thread(Thanks, a good but difficult read).
Does it have a problem with Doom 3 and all the black? You bet. Some of the shadows are so dark the lcd makes them look slightly shiny, like a negative. It's not a huge problem because its not that bad and DOOM 3 sucks anyways.
The LCD is cooler, uses less energy, takes up way less room, and the 19' has the same viewing area of a 21-22 inch CRT. No Ghosting and it has a brighter and more lively color quality. The display IS grainier, but it LOOKS GOOD! FEAR, COD2, HL2, SWAT4 all look fantastic.

In short, My LCD has a slightly grainier but more lively in your face quality.
It doesn't do well with the black shadows, but is only noticeable in DOOM3.
Shadows in HL2 look fine. The price is now down to around 299.00 (dollars) for the Samsung 19"" 930B and along with my AMD 4400 and X-FI card, are the best purchases i have ever made (of all purchases)!

 

[Jebazor]

Wow, there is some confusion about response time and refresh rates, here's the deal:

As previously mentioned, response time has little to do with frame rates in the sense that fps can be determined in two ways, the framebuffers fps and the monitors physical display. There is a threshold when comparing response to actual fps, because respones dictates how quickly the pixels on an lcd can change. In the case of a 3ms monitor having over 500fps, it is not likely to achieve this visual, but it can NOT go above it. As for the whole "I got over 200fps playing this certain game" rant, your graphics frame buffer achieved this, not your monitor, which may be confusing.

Overall, yes, response time in lcds can limit fps being displayed in a game, but this doesn't really matter when people can't see any difference in the frame rates when they go higher than a certain level.

 

[chuckshissle]

There are many LCD monitor that suits for gaming but a lower ms response time is better. Mine has 12ms and it is fast for gaming and if you want something lower then you could find one for 2ms response time like the one from ViewSonic.

 

[Dns]

Well there is one test on toms with 2ms monitors.Is the viewsonic vx922 , and from what i have seen it`s the fastest monitor on the market and it`s better then the samsung 940BF which has 2ms also
the real response time of the viewsonic vx922 is around 5-10ms, and that is really fast compared to other lcd monitors , also it has a good contrast and the AMA accelerator is the best , it took an A in the test.For gamers is the best LCD out there....

 

[koogco]

thanks for finding that article pain.. it was great reading.. (and it was not that hard to understand =P.. i dont speak english everyday, but i understood it.. - never mind.. just me showing off =P)
anyway, it showed that it is not as simple as one number (used to think they eye took something like 60 pics a sec.) but there is alot of variables..
maby this could teach us not to generalise (though i doubt it).

 

[WRX-Rated]

CRT pwns LCD when it comes to FPS's. That response time is 'in addition' to your lag/ping. There is no response time with CRT's because the light is adjusted at the gun and no pixel signal is required to change colors as with lcd's. Video editing and other color-intensive programs work better with CRT's. For surfing the net, RTS's, RPG's and just about everything else, you'll want an LCD.

I'll say this though - If I ever had to choose one or the other (my Benq 19" LCD, 8ms that I spent over $350 on, or my Viewsonic 19" CRT that weighs over 350lbs AND costed less) I'd choose my CRT hands down.

A couple other things I want to mention - I personally can see the difference between 60 frames per second and 150 (or even 100 and 300 for that matter). Gaming with my crt and gaming with my lcd is like night and day when it comes to fps's and lets be honest - that's what everybody plays (*when they're not stinking up their house with WoW*). I think if you are a quick-twitch player like I am, and you are moving from CRT to LCD you tend to notice the switch a lot more than most people. I guess I cannot speak for everybody, but I never got used to my LCD's slow response (even if it is only 8 ms - probably morel ike 15 to 20, realistically).
Also - Most games can achieve just about any fps you want, assuming you know how to tweak your configs and remove the max fps ceiling implemented by default. I've found that anything over 300 is pointless, however.

 

[koogco]

i am personaly going to move from a Medion 19" CRT to an Acer 19" LCD..
if the LCD is alot worse to play at then the CRT, then i will return it and buy a new CRT (the other one is my mom's)

 

[Dns]

A couple other things I want to mention - I personally can see the difference between 60 frames per second and 150 (or even 100 and 300 for that matter). Gaming with my crt and gaming with my lcd is like night and day when it comes to fps's and lets be honest - that's what everybody plays (*when they're not stinking up their house with WoW*). I think if you are a quick-twitch player like I am, and you are moving from CRT to LCD you tend to notice the switch a lot more than most people. I guess I cannot speak for everybody, but I never got used to my LCD's slow response (even if it is only 8 ms - probably morel ike 15 to 20, realistically).




The human eye can see at 30fps ,so you really can`t see a real difference between games that play at 150fps or 300fps...

 

[aeval-]

2ms equates to 500fps. I don't know of any CRT that even comes close to that. Good stuf. 8ms is good enough for solid gaming for the majority of us mortal game freaks.

Not sure what you mean on that. CRT'S have no input latency and absolutely no ghosting which would mean close to around 0 for a response time. There is no way any lcd screen can beat an electron gun as far as performance.

 

[casualcolors]

Not sure why you would necro a 5 and a half year old thread, but CRT's in 2012 are too expensive to justify purchasing anymore. Any quality CRT monitor is also serious dough these days.

 

[rorouni]

Throw away CRT Monitors

 

[mkeir]

Dark games (like Doom 3) are better experienced on a CRT. However, it's my
understanding that some of the better LCD's do a better job of black.
Still, games like Doom 3 are still totally playable on my LCD, they're just
not quite as good as a CRT. Keep this in mind as you shop around. For me,
I didn't care very much since I got a great price on my BenQ