Old CRTs

Scurburg

Scurburg

Scurburg

Associate
Joined
7 Nov 2014
Posts
294
I'm an old(er) gamer still using an old iiyama vision master 450 at 1200x1600 @ 85hz (it can do much higher but limited to 60hz or lower at 100hz) and must be getting on for over 10 years old now but tbh I still love it to bits.

Just wondering if anyone else is still rocking an old CRT.

And to the people using LCD/LEDs, am I missing out on much or would a 1080p (all I can afford) monitor be much better?
 
It's a bit hard to say without knowing your budget, but 19" is very small these days for gaming. Worth trading up to at least 24" - you will notice the difference :). However, for non-gaming 1080p is a less than ideal resolution. I used a 1920x1200 24" display until my recent upgrade. They tend to be quite a bit more expensive than 1920x1080, but if you cannot stretch, maybe you could get a good one 2nd hand?
 
19" may sound small to most, but having used 15" before (yes I'm that old), it still seems big enough for me even after all these years heh. I'm not really that bothered about size. Its lag, fidelity and colour I am though. As for size anyway, is there a reason why people dont use large screen tvs?

With modern monitors, I'm always a bit concerned about added input lag (I play a fair few FPS type games).
Have they overcome these issues over the years or am I going to have to pay through the nose to achieve similar lag as this old CRT?

BTW just had a look at 1920x1200 24" screens...£350+ and that with an input lag of 6ms :eek:

Edit to make clearer.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, unless you are a super twitchy competitive fps player (in which case, "at your age" (:D) all credit to you!) you will not notice the lag. For the vast majority, lag of 1-2 frames is absolutely fine (17-34ms) and less than 1 frame doubly so (I.e. Unnoticeable)

You may not think size is important, but I promise you once you've tried it you won't want to go back! I started my computing with punch card input and printed output 2 hours later and now I have a 3440x1440 34" superwide display :) (yes, I'm no youngster too!).

When it comes to the colour/fidelity of modern displays geometric uniformity is massively improved, i.e. damn near perfect. Colour, to be honest, varies. The best screens now give the best old CRTs more than a run for their money when viewed straight on (typically not a problem for a computer display). Cheaper displays still aren't always that great in colour reproduction.

On the subject of using TVs, some do use them. But if you are worried about lag they tend to be a lot worse even in gaming mode (a lot of processing goes on - they just have a lot more software running.) They have also fallen behind in resolution and/or refresh rate of the best computer displays. And the 1080p ones, of course, have the same vertical resolution issues I mentioned in my first post. 1200+ vertical resolution is definitely good for computer use.
 
Last edited:
Ok well I am at least a little wiser now...do not buy cheap 1080p. Looks like I better start saving.

Anyway you sound like you have a fair bit of knowledge on this subject. Is there any makes I should avoid? or any other details I should be looking at in the specs?

1920x1200 24" Is the aimed for spec but open to other (larger) options if available, as long as a single 280x can power it reasonably).
So now my question has changed some what to which one. Is there a good value for money option or do I really need to head for the best? Any recommendations welcome. Budget is just a matter of time to save.

Thanks for your help.
 
Last edited:
Ahh, I remember moving from my 19" Iiyama Vision Master about six years ago (it died :().

In all honesty I was incredibly disappointed with the LCD displays I tried out at first. I was a keen gamer so went with the low input lag, high pixel response/low motion blur options. I sent the first two back thinking there was something wrong with them. "This isn't fast pixel response," I thought. "I can see ghosting and tearing when I strafe, and dragging the screen in RTS/action RPGs makes it go all blurry."

I finally settled on a screen I liked, but by that time I'd had to accept that moving from CRT I was going to have to get used to blur and ghosting. I also spent an age calibrating the colours until I was reasonably satisfied.

To be honest, I mostly got used to these issue, and enjoyed my monitor for the small desk footprint, easier-on-the-eyes display, and larger screen real estate (22" vs 19" on my old Iiyama).

The point is... you will probably notice some things you don't like about the newer displays, but I know now having recently got a new 24" 1080p monitor that the tech is a lot better than it was in 2008.

You'll not get a monitor that has perfect colours and strong contrast and good uniformity and viewing angles and extremely low motion blur and input lag. You can certainly get monitors that have superb colours and reasonable levels of motion blur, or ones that that almost imperceptible motion blur and no stuttering or tearing and reasonable colours, though. You kind of have to weigh up which is most important. That depends on what you use it for most, which type of games you play most, and basically what your preference is.

Myself, I couldn't stand the motion blur I noticed when I first got an LCD display, so that's always been an over-riding concern with me. I realise that the colour fidelity on my display is not up to the levels of a good IPS panel, but it is pretty good after a bit of tinkering. Other people though can't stand TN colours and happily accept a bit more motion blur in games as a trade-off.

So... what do you think your use, preference and budget would be?
 
strumpusplunket said:
So... what do you think your use, preference and budget would be?
Click to expand...

Motion blur sounds like a nightmare to me, I dont stand still long in any game! FPS and driving games are my main interest. I guess motion blur is my priority, then input lag. I think colour is probably my place to compromise if any. You are starting to make me doubt again haha. Compromising is always hard.

I am not sure about budget really. As I said before, it just a matter of time to save (or wack on the cc). What would be a reasonable budget to aim for to get a low motion blur, reasonable input lag screen 24"+ do you think?
 
Last edited:
Yes, it sounds like you might want to think about motion blur first, and if you're looking at 24" 1080p displays with high pixel response and refresh, you could think about:

YOUR BASKET
1 x LG 24GM77 24" TRUE 144Hz Widescreen LED Monitor - Black /w Flicker FREE Technology **OcUK Exclusive** £215.99
1 x AOC G2460FQ 24" Widescreen 144Hz 1ms Gaming LED Monitor - Gunmetal £169.99




The AOC is the cheapest 144Hz option you can get here, and it does have fairly good reviews. Quite a few people here seem to like the LG and it has its own thread in this sub-section if you look. Neither are horrendously expensive and should give you a good gaming experience.

There are g-sync options that further smooth the experience at choppy frame-rates (something you'd probably notice coming from a CRT straight away), but they require nVidia cards to make use of it (and they're more expensive, starting at just over £300).

Which raises another issue: Freesync monitors are due to be released Q1 next year I understand. These should give you the benefits of g-sync but with AMD cards. And they will probably bring some variety and competition to the monitor sector. If you're happy enough with your CRT right now you could also think about waiting to see what these bring...
 
Honestly, I think you risk overreacting. Things have got A LOT better over 6 years. I doubt you will even notice motion blur on a decent monitor, but if you do it will be a minor trade off for the other benefits. If you are worried go into a store and try out a few LCDs and see what you think.

I really don't think a 144Hz monitor is needed and if you did go that way you would need a substantial step up in GPU to keep it fed. Freesync/g-sync are options but they solve problems that you already have with your current monitor.
 
Hmmm, a 280X would be a good compliment to a good 144Hz display I would have thought. It doesn't mean you have to run at 144FPS all the time to see the benefits, and a 280X should give good frame rates at 1080p in a good range of games in any case. I certainly notice the difference between 60Hz and 120/144Hz now, and I'm sure I would have done even more when I came straight from a CRT.

And my understanding was the g-sync/Freesync do solve at least some problems that are more evident on LCD panels due to their sample-and-hold display nature (even if they aren't non-existent on CRTs) - is that not right? In any case, it is certainly a nice technology. Having experienced it for a couple of weeks I am more impressed with this than I have been with any tech upgrade other than moving to an SSD in the last four or five years.

But yes, certainly having a play around with some displays before making a choice would be a good idea if possible.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, there is truth in all you say, but I'm still not at all convinced that Scurburg needs to be put off by old LCD worries that are, to most peoples satisfaction, eliminated with today's tech. G-sync and Freesync are great, but Freesync isn't available yet and G-sync limits choice and commands a premium, 144Hz ditto. And the options for both are even more limited if he wants more than 1080 vertical resolution. I'm not sure (maybe wrong) that there are any 1920x1200 monitors with those features, so he would need to choose to limit his vertical resolution, which I think he might regret, or choose a 4K or 2560x1440, even bigger, display which would then strain his 280X, especially if trying to run >60Hz. I didn't get the impression he was willing to spend whatever it takes for the ultimate fps setup, just something that is overall better than he has.

But of course, the only person who can weigh all these things is Scurburg and we are all guessing his priorities to some extent.
 
Last edited:
"just something that is overall better than he has"
Couldn't put it better myself. I thought it would be easier to achieve at a reasonable price after all theses years. However it seems the tech could be on its way that would actually accomplish this. I'm in no real hurry as I have slummed it with this old box for so long, a few more months aint a problem at all.
It seems Freesync has potential, so I'll wait and see how that shapes up, and apparently they are going to be cheaper than the gsync ones, thats if what I read is true. Could be just what I'm after, or it could drive down some prices of the other screens.

Thanks guys. Been very helpful and makes me wish I had join this forum sooner.
 
Last edited:
Jong1 said:
Yeah, there is truth in all you say, but I'm still not at all convinced that Scurburg needs to be put off by old LCD worries that are, to most peoples satisfaction, eliminated with today's tech. G-sync and Freesync are great, but Freesync isn't available yet and G-sync limits choice and commands a premium, 144Hz ditto. And the options for both are even more limited if he wants more than 1080 vertical resolution. I'm not sure (maybe wrong) that there are any 1920x1200 monitors with those features, so he would need to choose to limit his vertical resolution, which I think he might regret, or choose a 4K or 2560x1440, even bigger, display which would then strain his 280X, especially if trying to run >60Hz. I didn't get the impression he was willing to spend whatever it takes for the ultimate fps setup, just something that is overall better than he has.

But of course, the only person who can weigh all these things is Scurburg and we are all guessing his priorities to some extent.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with your overall point - it's hard to weigh up someone's priorities, which I think is why sometimes the spec me threads get so few responses in the monitor sub-section.

I wonder too, though, if the emphasis on 1920x1200 is another aspect of "what you're used to". I use my PC for 95% work and 5% gaming (I do love that 5% though... :) ), and I can't say I've ever been bothered by not having more than 1080 vertical pixels.

And your posts did get me wondering if I was just suffering from buyer's confirmation bias. So after playing Crysis 3 on my new display (24" G2460PG), I decided to try it again on my old one (22" 60Hz Hyundai W220D - although a little old still with response times very much up with the best for a 60Hz display). I was really, really stunned by the difference. The display I'd been used to and happily gaming on for years suddenly looked completely intolerable to use. This after only maybe two hours tops of gaming on my new display. It was more blurry, juddery, just unpleasant to look at. Some of this will be down to refresh rate (the blur) and some to g-sync (the judder and lack of smoothness). But really the difference was more stark even than I expected. I would hate to have to go back really (and this is amplified when I remember my displeasure at moving from a CRT to a 60Hz LCD...)

But yes, what would be best for Scurburg is so hard to actually guess, and the fact that he's (sorry if you're a she, just assuming you're a he given the maleness of PC forums in general) not even had experience of any LCD displays yet makes it even harder. My experience was, as a keen gamer, 144Hz and g-sync has been the best upgrade I've made in ages, as I said - but everyone's milage varies as they say.

Scurburg said:
"just something that is overall better than he has"
Couldn't put it better myself. I thought it would be easier to achieve at a reasonable price after all theses years. However it seems the tech could be on its way that would actually accomplish this. I'm in no real hurry as I have slummed it with this old box for so long, a few more months aint a problem at all.
It seems Freesync has potential, so I'll wait and see how that shapes up, and apparently they are going to be cheaper than the gsync ones, thats if what I read is true. Could be just what I'm after.

Thanks guys. Been very helpful and makes me wish I had join this forum sooner.
Click to expand...

:) If I was in your shoes, with a good AMD gfx card and a monitor I still liked I'd do the same to be honest. I happened to have an nVidia card when I wanted to upgrade my monitor and whilst I'm a bit concerned about tying myself in to one brand to get the full benefit from my monitor (having switched between ATI/AMD and nV in the past), I'm pleased I did right now.
 
Last edited:
strumpusplunket said:
I wonder too, though, if the emphasis on 1920x1200 is another aspect of "what you're used to
Click to expand...
That's a fair question. I did have a 1920x1200 display for some years, although I've now moved over to a 3440x1440, but I also use 1080p on my HTPC, connected to my TV and have a 1080p laptop. It is certainly usable, but as he is already using a a 1200 high display I don't know if this is a trade off he is happy with. And there is no doubt that there has always been some dissatisfaction with 1920x1080 as a desktop monitor resolution - just not enough height to work on portrait documents especially and a regression from previous CRTs like Scurburg's.

But good additional input for sure and hopefully it will all allow him to make a better decision that's right for him :)
 
The ultimate answer is a 4K+ (edit: OLED) "retinal" monitor (so 2x 1080p vertical resolution at least) with g-sync/Freesync, 144Hz and an option for 21:9 for greater immersion if you want that, all drivable by a single GPU in games with the quality cranked right up. But that is probably 5-7 years away (my guess) and until then we all have to trade off these various features to get the right balance for us.
 
Last edited:
No LCD will match your CRT, you will need wait on OLED or find an old smaller Plasma esp if colours and blacks/shadow detail matter to you.

I have tried many and went back to monitor in my sig.

The Rog Swift's motion when in G-Sync is near as to what I am used to but all other aspects of it were poor and it had issues so was returned (you can read thread here).
 
I should have added OLED to my perfect monitor - added.

And that Sony FW900 is certainly the pinnacle of CRT tech. Very nice, if you can fit it on your desk :).
 
Last edited:
Put it this way a peep on this very forum posted a few weeks back that his company finally upgraded their CRT monitions to OLED's.

They must have needed far better quality of CRT and LCD obv did not cut it which was case for many years after LCD were common in home you would see the News/Weather on TV and the big CRT's with the weather on them use by the Met Office were in the background (Michael Fish).
 
Last edited:
In the early days of LCD there were massive trade offs; There are still some. But I would definitely argue for 95% of people these days the benefits of a good LCD outweigh any slight downside. But not everyone has your great display nor could fit one in.
 
Peeps think the slimmer a TV is the better and they like to hang it on a wall (most times far too high TBH). ;)

I never have and never will hang a TV on the wall and I know from a thread here others are of the same mindset.

Many family still do now know SD to HD to VD. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom