[JB-Barton]

I'm looking to buy a new monitor. 19" 8ms is what I have in mind. I've been searching for a monitor for a couple days now.

So my question is, what should one look for in buying a new monitor, feature and performance wise, as this monitor is for gaming.

Thx.

[RicoDirenzo]

A high end CRT monitor will do. Chose the one with the fastest pixel response times. Besides being hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars less expensive than LCDs, CRT monitors generally deliver superior color fidelity and better video and motion performance. Where LCDs are often able to produce a limited number of colors (usually 16.7 million), CRTs are capable of displaying an infinite range, an advantage for exacting graphic artists. CRTs offer other benefits as well, such as unlimited viewing angles and the ability to display a variety of resolutions with relatively little quality loss. Perhaps most significantly, whereas LCDs' current pixel-response times are too slow to accurately display the fast motion in movies and games, CRTs keep images sharp when the action starts.

[shenlingstyle]

Are you living in the 1990s?

As far as I know, LCD's have been hitting the 2 ms response times. How is that too slow to 'accurately' display the fast motions in movies in games'?

You don't need to bash LCDs, they have their advantages. If they were so inferior as you described, why are stores selling tons of LCDs and not CRTs?

[GoodNews101]

The Viewsonic VX724 (17") and VX924 (19") models have a response time of 3ms. I just ordered the 17" model. That being said, I still believe CRTs are still quite viable. I think it is more of a marketing ploy for LCDs because that's where the money is and CRTs are fading, but slowly. Don't take me wrong, I like LCDs, but you can still find CRTs. The thing that is a killer is the shipping costs due to weight.

[beedubaya]

It just blows my mind how everytime somebody posts about getting an LCD, people jump in here and scream how CRTs are so much better.

What Rico is describing is an old, cheap 25ms LCD with a 300:1 contrast ratio, like many that are shipped with computer bundles. Before you start bashing LCDs, how about you actually use a good one firsthand. Then start ranting about how much they suck.

I have a whole lot to say about this issue, but instead of reposting it, Ill just link you to the currently active thread about this same topic.

http://www.tech-forums.net/showthrea...threadid=81000

[TheMajor]

The most important thing about a monitor is the picture quality; not how the casing looks. CRT's have been around for over 50 years. LCD's only 15 years or so. They still beat LCD's in almost any field (except for a very few like the casing/weight).

[beedubaya]

You win Major, CRTs rock, LCDs suck...we should all go back to cassettes and vinyl records, because hey, they work! Lets go back to the gas hogging cars of the 50s and 60s...they work! And they've been around forever too!

:rolleyes:

[TheMajor]

That's not what I am saying. New technology needs some time to develop. Some things only get worse over time. Like those clock radio's. Old ones sound awesome, the modern ones sound cheap. But I'm sure LCD's will only get better. They used to be really crappy 5 years ago.

It's all about the picture. So it's CRT for me.
If you are looking for something that looks nice in the living room or office, get LCD. My opinion.

[SouthIowa]

Both have good qualities. I have to say I prefer LCD though.

[PZEROFGH]

I perfer LCD's too, i just swithed over to LCD's a couple of weeks ago. AMAZING MAN the LCD is so brighter and vivid. I have a dual monitor setup, one with my LCD as my default and the other with my CRT as secondary, i can totally see a difference between the two. i mean im using my CRT monitor and then i switch that over to my LCD. BAM! my eyes are blind cause its so bright, i mean its amazing, this is like a cheapy crappy monitor like 17" 16ms 450:1 i mean i wonder what a 700:1 8ms LCD monitor is like, i cant even imagine it :amazed: