Intel P4 vs AMD

theonejrs ,heres a 2ms LCD Veiw Sonic montior

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/xse...

 

For word processing that might be somewhat true but the point that I've been making is that in fact CRT's cause less fatique. LCD's have lower refresh rates than CRT's by quite a bit and higher refresh rates reduce eye strain. That's why I stated earlier that a refresh rate of 75 Hz is the minimum, 65 us too low and that 60 is unthinkable.

I can't get any higher than 1600 by 1200 at 85 Hz 32 bit true color without giving up something, which is good, because my vid card won't support it. To add a higher refresh rate at that resolution would seriously reduce frame rate count.

Theonjrs

That's why you don't use low end cards if yo want to watch quality video without suffering fatigue.

 

Refresh Rate
Some users of a CRT may notice a bit of an annoying flicker, which is an inherent trait based on a CRTs physical components. Today's graphics cards, however, can provide a high refresh rate signal to the CRT to get rid of this otherwise annoying problem. LCDs are flicker-free and as such the refresh rate isn't an important issue with LCDs.

http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Hardware_Software/2005/all_about_monitors.asp

The link above is where I pulled that paragraph from and goes into a good comparison of CRT and LCD monitors.

 

@ theonejrs

If you've had a bad experience with a certain brand such as Princeton, why would you even consider it once again?

Just curious...

 

Sophocles & ScubaBud,

I wouldn't call a $300 X800GTO AGP video card, low end! What I have now I would call low end.

On the Princeton, I figure that maybe they have improved their quality as they are still in business (either that or the consumers are idiots).

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

Again that's wrong it's the other way around, LCD's introduce tiresome flicker CRT's are way above that with 85 Hz refresh rates and higher dending on video card needs. I could be running mine at 100 Hz but it will reduce my frame rates and lower the life span of my monitor and 85 is highly acceptable. There's not an LCD that I know of that's running my resolution and 85 Hz refresh with virtually zero latency. At 32 bit color, 85 hz refresh rate, and 1600 times 1200 resolution one would be looking for flicker that's beyond human vision capability. Trust me if you have an LCD screen, then you're seeing more flicker than I am.

 

No, consumers are just tight. Lol.

Actually my school has some acer monitors, about 60 of them to be exact, and the later 1716 models do look better than the earlier 1511 and 1711 ones.

 

http://www.bigbruin.com/techtip.php?file=005

http://www.geeks.com/pix/techtips-121604.htm

A couple more links above about comparing CRT's to LCD's

@ theonejrs

Well if you purchase one and are unhappy with it then welcome to the ranks! <G>

Just like automobiles, once you’ve had a bad experience it’s usually tough to pull yourself to purchase that same make again. As you hinted quality could change with time such as the Hyundai has in the automotive world. As far as Princeton is concerned, I have two of them for personal use and several at my store along with many other brands and sizes. The Princeton’s are less then 3 years old, and to this date are still working well. Good luck once again with whatever decision you make.

 

scubabud

Not a well known site and the claims were amateuristic.

http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/hardware/monitors/0,39034914,39072006-1,00.htm



And CRT's are way out in front for color accuracy which is the heart of my debate.

 

That article's more like you'd see at the dell home page than anywhere technical.

The quote one,not the URL one.

 

Sophocles

What's the date of the Asia article, referring to 15" LCD's and 17" CRT's? <G>

 

Don't know but at least it's from a believable source. I do know this, that people who do professional video editing or computer drafting and drawing still prefer CRT for its superior all around fidelity. The flicker problem with CRT's are a thing of the past. CRT's are capable of incredible refresh rates that far exceed those acievable on a LCD.

This one was done in October.

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/computers/computer-monitors/fullstory.html

http://manufacturing.cadalyst.com/m...ticleDetail.jsp?id=181163&sk=&date=&&pageID=1

This one last month:

 

Sophocles

Above is what I said earlier and it seems that what you have listed is agreeing with my quote above. I'm still in total agreement that for certain professionals and maybe some gamers a CRT is needed. If you’re not a CAD enthusiast, (very few are,) the above statements still agree LCD’s are just fine so most have no need for a 100lb 21" CRT on their desk.

 

ScubaBud

I didn't agree with your quote because its wording downplayed its use in CAD not mention in studios such as Pixar. The only real advantages of LCD are they're brighter better in brighly lit offices, great for word processing, they use less power, and smaller in size


You missed the most important use, the one that I use it for, DVD editing and viewing. For Video playback CRT's are better. CRT's color reproduction is 2 to 3 times more accurate than LCD's are. I'm still hoping for the day when the fixed pixel problem can be resolved and I'll be able to buy that 32 inch monitor I've been dreaming of, but not until the color, resolution, and latency issues are resolved.

 

ScubaBud,

Yea, well! It wouldn't be the first time. I've been "ranked" before! Besides it was the only 20.1" widescreen LCD monitor I've found with a recomended resolution of 1280x1024. I went to Newegg and put in Widescreen and 1280x1024 under LCD monitors and the Princeton is the only one they list! Neovo has a 19" widescreen that runs at 1440x900 as it's native resolution but it wouldn't be as tall a picture as my present 19" CRT flatscreen. That and I don't find that (1440x900) resolution listed on any of the video card specs either. Do these LCD widescreens need special video cards?

I've seen both the Sceptre and the Neovo demoed and both look great. I want the Sceptre so I'll just have to keep hunting until I find a video card that will run it! Besides $359 with a 800 to 1 contrast ratio is a great price.

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

Costco has the Sceptre 20.1 also. Their return policy is no questions asked and at least 6 months for computer related items. That would seem to give you a good oportunity to test it out basically risk free. I believe they carry it in their stores as well. Here is what I pulled on it below:

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11097928&whse=BC&topnav=&browse=

Sceptre 20" Wide DVI LCD
8ms 800:1 300 cd/m2
1680 x 1050 WSXGA+
Digital & Analog Connections
Built In Speakers

$379.99
Item # 957556
Plus Shipping & Handling

 

Always remember that demos are going to make the item look its best.

As for LCD vs CRT.

I stated that earlier. I go for the bulky CRT because I do a lot of video work. My computer desk was especially designed for CRT. In other words, size is no problem.

I'm going to purchase a LCD as a space saver to use for limited space situations and portability. So when I think space saving, I think LCD, when I think high quality, I think CRT. Sophocles covered the technical aspects well. I don't know what the testers were viewing that ScubaBud quoted, but I've never noticed flickering on the CRTs I've used. If my only pursuit was surfing the web and maximizing my deskspace, then I might consider parting with my CRT monitor.

The higher price one is paying for LCD isn't for higher quality, but for space savings. In this instance people are willing to pay more for design than function, unless space utilization is considered function. As I said, LCDs give decent viewing images. So put that together with the sleeker appearance and you have a good seller. A good seller doesn't mean it's the best performer, just that it has the balance of features the current consumers want. I realize no one wants to carry a CRT to a LAN party. I just hope that the manufacturers continue to offer the high quality CRTs for my market segment that prefers the higher quality over saving desktop space.

 

Brobear

Just a quick question if you will. With doing video work, how would a CRT benefit a person over an LCD? Are we talking about DVD burning or are we talking about professional video editing?

 

There are a number of ways that one can realize the difference. One doesn't just back up a DVD if they want the best quality, they ustilize numerous editing methods and a high quality backup system such as DVD RB and Cinema Craft Encoder or Procoder2. Sometimes one is choosing to deinterlace the DVD or use filters such as undot to fill in dead pixels in the original content. The sharpness and color can be increased or decreased depending on how good you want your backup to be. You can also use it to detect video artifacts such as macro blocking and the mosquito effect. If you just use a quick and dirty method such as DVD Shrink or any other transcoder then monitor quality difference doesn't really matter unless you're discriminating playback quality.

I also do video captures which I used to use ulead to edit with but for the last year I've gone to Adobe premier 1.5 which is a DVD authoring application. I also make screen savers from movies and to do that one has to really look closely at each exported frame. DVD's utilize three types of frames I, P, and B frames. Some parts of the DVD that looks clear with motion is actually an intentional blur that is visually irrelevant because a blur is a natural part of actual motion but when you freeze the frame, instead of getting a sharp still you see the blur effect. A suttle shift forward or back can allow one to hone in on the prefect frame capture which makes for better screen savers.

Here is a link to a screensaver that I made by sifting a DVD frame by frame.

http://www.freewarefiles.com/program_13_127_17546.html

 

ScubaBud
I do a lot of amatuer video editing, encoding and the like. Sophocles and I use some of the same programs. He is into editing a bit more than I am. However, the CRT monitors are better suited to our pursuits.

There's nothing wrong with your LCDs if that's what you're happy with. You, along with the majority of consumers, prefer the sleek, space saving size of the LCDs. Some give a good quality picture at their native resolution. However, for best quality across the viewing spectrum (with the possible exception of word processing) the CRT monitors are superior when talking about good equipment. BTW, I have no problem with word processing on my monitor.

Comparing a quality LCD to a cheap CRT with no video card isn't much of a comparison. I suspect the flickering CRTs may be found amongst the lower end items. I try not to use low end components or systems, so I haven't paid much attention to that problem. If the form factor isn't an issue, a person can pick up a better quality monitor for the buck with a CRT.