120Hz LCD Problem with ATI cards

There are currently 2 LCD monitors out with 120hz refresh rates: Samsung 2233rz and the Viewsonic 2265wm. Acer is about to come out with one that looks better than these 2, but it's been delayed since last summer. I've heard it's expected in Feb, but who knows. Not wanting to wait, I bought the Viewsonic. These are true 120hz, not to be confused with 120hz LCD TVs that are really 60hz with interpolation.

They seem to run fine with nVidia cards. Problem is I have a new ATI 5850 card and the damn ATI drivers seem to keep it stuck in 60hz. I can't even get it to change to 120hz in windows. Other people say they can get it to change but it's glitchy. Per the ATI forums, I've read it's due to the GPU clock cycles being too low for 120hz. Apparently, the drivers don't detect that a higher clock speed is needed. There are a variety of suggested work arounds (plug in 2 monitors, overclock), none of which sound like they work well. Has anyone had any luck with this? I'm running Windows 7 64 bit.

The posts I see from people who can run at 120hz say it's awesome. Sometimes people see what they want to see to validate their purchase, but I've seen enough posts to make me think it really is a big improvement.

I don't think it makes as much of a difference as you think it does.

That being said, try buying an Nvidea

it actually does tranthor, a huge fucking difference, you get to see 120 fps visually compared to 60fps?

Refresh rates have nothing to do with FPS. LCDs do not operate like Cathode rays, where low Refresh is bad.

What he said.

Not to mention, 60 fps is more than sufficient for any purpose. You, being a simpleton, imagine that you see an enormous difference when really it's marginal. Same thing as people who think they can play way better with 30 ping than with 60

Tranthor wrote:What he said.

Not to mention, 60 fps is more than sufficient for any purpose. You, being a simpleton, imagine that you see an enormous difference when really it's marginal. Same thing as people who think they can play way better with 30 ping than with 60

I find anything around 60FPS on 60Hz then I have tearing with vsync dissabled but if its 100FPS or ABOVE hten tearign is all but eliminated.
I wonder what the effect of having 60fps would be like on 120Hz refresh rate?

Ping depends on the game, some games haare forgiving T HIGH pings like HL2DM CS:S etc but games like Quakelive and Quake4 ar prety rubbish at higher pings even 60 is much noticably worse than 30.

So, you cannot choose 120hz in Advanced Display options? If you cannot choose and get 120hz consistently in Windows, i doubt it is the FPS of your card effecting anything.
Something is screwy. Windows SHOULD sense the native refresh frequency automatically, or at least allow you to select it and stay there.
If Windows doesn't do it, why would a game do it? See what i mean?
Maybe its a 7 problem, which of course, MS will blame on ATI or Samsung or Al Qida.

How about the ATI Driver, isnt there an option?

Another thought: Does one or both monitors have a step down ability to 60hz for whatever reason, in their settings?
Maybe check that. If one monitor is set at 60hz, it may reset Windows to 60. Just an outside thought.
Okay, maybe i thought you were running 2 monitors, but id still try monitor settings to make sure it is broadcasting 120hz to the driver.

I think it's an ATI driver issue. There is a long thread on the ATI forums about it. nVidia cards seem to be fine, but ATI cards have problems with 120hz. An admin there said it was a GPU clock cycle issue. When you switch from 60hz to 120hz you have to push more pixels and need the card to jump to a higher clock speed. The driver doesn't realize this. People were trying work arounds like using dual monitors (under the assumption that it would force the card to a higher clock speed) and overclocking the card. There were so many conflicting reports (e.g one post "solved it", 5 posts later "still not working") that I thought I would ask here to see if anyone had it working. I don't have a second LCD to try the dual monitor setup, and my old CRTs don't seem to work properly.

I go into the ATI's Catalyst Control Center to change the refresh rate, I hit 120hz, it shows a preview of what it will look like, and that preview shows the desktop with a bunch of horizontal lines across the middle, similar to the ghosting that sometimes happens when you drag a window across the screen. My mouse cursor disappears, so all I can do is wait for it to time out. Other people's experiences vary. Some report a BSOD, others can change it, but the screen jitters when they go into a game.

I have a separate issue with my mouse: Razer Lachesis under Windows 7 64bit. The drivers won't install and the firmware won't update. Poking around on the web I see a bunch of people with the same problem. It's a pain in the ass because if I accidentally hit one of the thumb buttons, the mouse goes dead for about 3 seconds. Not a great feature in a DM game. Also, has anyone successfully removed mouse acceleration under Windows 7?

On the bright side, I can finally play HL2DM on high settings. I've been playing so long with everything at low that it's like a new game. The explosions sound totally different. When I get these issues straightened out, it's going to breathe new life into my desire to play.

The difference between 75hz and 150hz refresh on a crt is massive. Whether or not the difference will be as massive going from 60hz to 120hz on an lcd is a good question, but therell will be a difference, no doubts there.

I managed to get the mouse drivers to install. I installed the xp drivers on an xp machine I have. Updated the mouse's firmware. Then with the updated firmware, I was able to install the drivers on the Windows 7 machine. Something is still not right though. In game, everything is sluggish, like I'm in water.

use window unistaller, then reboot into safe mode and use "driver sweeper" to get rid of the drivers windows left behind. then install your new drivers. if you dont do this the new drivers will conflict with the old ones. do this for you video card as well. i think this will help you out.

I'll try that, but I 'm not sure that's it. The new PC came with the latest video drivers so I didn't have to install any, and the only mouse drivers installed were the generic Microsoft ones. Once you uninstall all the mouse drivers, your mouse stops working right? Do you then run driver sweeper from the keyboard only? Do you have to have your mouse unplugged when you do this?

Fooling around with stuff makes me understand why people turn to consoles. Damn it Jim, I'm a gamer, not a computer technician! Take the video drivers for example. There are 4 freaking different version numbers. There's the Catalyst package number, the driver version number, the driver file version number, and some other damn number I can't remember at the moment. Windows reports different driver version depending on where you look. If it wasn't for info on the Web, I probably would have taken a baseball bat to my PC by now.

As for the monitor, Viewsonic said it won't work unless you install the latest display drivers, whereas the PC manufacturer tech said display drivers don't really matter, it's the GPU driver that matters. Well, I had already installed the Viewsonic driver, but I uninstalled and re-installed the one they sent me. Same problem. Then I tried leaving it at 60hz in windows, but using a -refresh 120 launch option for DM. I didn't see any jitters, but all the combine were bright shiny white (almost like pure white cutouts) and so was my weapon, but the rebels looked normal. Everything seemed brighter, but other than that pretty normal as far as I could tell.

One last question. Why do you get the bright pink and black checkerboard on a map? I thought it was a missing texture file, but I was playing a map, it looked normal, then I tabbed out to windows and changed something (not sure what, I think it was the mouse acceleration in the razer config) and when I came back it was all pink checkerboard.

That checkerboard bug is old and relatively harmless. Doing a quick start/stop demo record session or alt tabbing a second time will usually fix it.

first of all, you are WAAAAYYY over complicating your situation for playing hl2dm. the things you are trying to do would be something a person would do for crysis or the like. hl2dm can run on the simplest of machines. no offense but it doesnt sound like you know what you're doing, so it might be best to work with simple to moderate adjustments for now until you do some research. you can unistall your mouse drivers and windows will still have enough information to use the mouse. use driver sweeper to clean any mouse drivers left behind(if there is any). then install the latest drivers. as for your vid card, go on to the ati site and read some stuff in the support section, this will help you become familar with your cards needs and settings. as for your monitors, i have no clue what you're trying to do there or why you are doing it. for the most part LCD monitors dont even operate with refresh rates they have response times. if you are trying to use dual monitors, one being an LCD and the other being a CRT then you are just retarded. here is a good article for you.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_7.html

hey, all i'm trying to do is to get my mouse and monitor to work as advertised. first, i previously did uninstall all the mouse drivers, and no, the mouse does not work if you do that. you have to do everything by the keyboard, which is kind of a pain in the ass. what i take it you are saying is to uninstall the razer drivers, but not the generic drivers. but if you read the posts above, the razer drivers were never installed. the problem i was having was getting them to install. i finally did get them install, as described above. this is a known issue. i saw plenty of posts about it happening to other people. the subsequent problem i was having appear to be related to mouse acceleration in windows 7. there are also a lot of posts about this with mixed results. some people say the CPL fix doesn't work in windows 7, some say it does. Someone suggested a work around by going to Ease of Use and setting some sliders to high. This is supposed to get rid of almost all acceleration. I had done this, but I had set it to low by mistake. Setting it to high seemed to fix it (at least, last night I didnt' have any problems).

second, the concept of refresh rate does apply to LCDs, but differently than CRTs. It determines how often the card sends updates to the monitor. So regardless of response time, the LCD can't display more than what the card is sending it. Almost all LCDs use 60hz, which means every 1/60 of a second, the card tells the monitor "display this". There are 2 relatively new LCDs out that have 120hz refresh rates (and more on the way), which means every 1/120 of a second the card says "display this". The bottom line is this: with a regular 60hz LCD you get a FPS of 60, with a 120hz you get FPS of 120.

Here's an article that even retards like myself can understand: http://knol.google.com/k/refresh-rate-f ... chnologies#

I already have the latest drivers for my video card, but ATI drivers have issues with LCDs at 120hz, so for now, it appears that I am stuck with 60hz.

no fucking shit you cant uninstall the default mouse drivers..............ugh. gl hf.

reading comprehension not your strong suit?

When you uninstall drivers, Windows 7 usually detects new hardware and installes its own drivers so that your mouse will work. Did you have the Detect New Hardware function disabled? I didnt try the CPL mouse fix, I just turned off the Enhance pointer precision and put the pointer speed to the 4th dot from the left. I havent had any problems with my mouse (Logitech G5) in any games.

No. There seems to be a problem installing the Razer drivers in Windows 7. Other people have reported the same problem I had. One tip I read said to try uninstalling everythiing including the default mouse drivers . I tried that but it still didn't work. Eventually I got it to work by installing the XP drivers on my other PC that runs XP, updating the firmware, then installing the drivers on 7. The key seems to be that the firmware has to be updated for the drivers to install in 7 (but the firmware won't install without the drivers). Then for acceleration, I turned off Enhanced pointer precision, turned it off in the Razer config program, and did one other thing (don't remember exact words here) under Ease of Use, Make Keyboard easier to use, Mouse Setup, then there is a slider for Acceleration and if you slide it to the right, it minimizes acceleration. That seems to work fine. When I slid it to the left by mistake, it sucked, even though I had the other 2 settings set to turn off acceleration. Didn't mean to belabor this issue, just thought I would document the solution in case anyone else runs into this.

Razer drivers are a problem in XP!
They suck.
I had a copperhead that would never remember its firmware, id hook up another mouse and they would load and then go away.
Sometimes it just wouldnt work and you had to replug the USB cable and it was fine.

You don't even need them.
The Razer should work fine with Windows driver. Razer drivers are only good for profiles and shit.
Who needs that!??!
Your games already have that, called SETTINGS.

As for the monitor, thats bull about the monitor affecting your GPU output.
Monitors just receive the output from your card.
If what you say is true, my 60hz LCD would limit the FPS to 60, where i get as much as 300.
LCDS don't work remotely like a CRT. Refresh times are nonsense. They have constant continuous backlight and individual pixel response.

You just need an ATI driver that will take advantage of your monitors 120 hz and THAT IS ALL.
And maybe WIN 7 is a problem, which means you should make sure those are the latest.
Its either a Viewsonic matter or ATI dropped the ball, which wouldn't be unusual for their drivers
You should go to be able to choose 120 in Display properties. If it isn't an option, i doubt your PC will use the 120 hz.

Not sure about 7 but you should fiind Display/Advanced/Adapter/List of Modes. Choose your default rez and freq. there.
Have you even done that?

The Argumentalizer wrote:If what you say is true, my 60hz LCD would limit the FPS to 60, where i get as much as 300.

Sorry to break the news to you but with 60 hz it doesn't matter if it's 60 hz on a CRT or 60 hz on a LCD, 60 hz is 60 hz.
Not going to go into all the technical data but simply put a 60 hz monitor is not capable of displaying more than 60 fps.

So even though your video card is putting out 300 fps, your monitor is not displaying more than 60 refreshes a second, which in turn means you are effectively getting/seeing 60 FPS.

Yep, what he said.

On the Razer drivers, the Lachesis seems to be different. I've had other Razer mice and run them w/ and w/o Razer drivers without any problem (in XP). With the Lachesis, w/o the Razer drivers, any time I hit the thumb mouse buttons, the mouse would stop working for about 2-3 seconds. Wait for it.... "then don't hit the thumb buttons". I seem to hit them by accident a lot (based on how often the mouse was freezing up). Plus, I like mapping 'use' to on of the thumb buttons.

"Sorry to break the news to you but with 60 hz it doesn't matter if it's 60 hz on a CRT or 60 hz on a LCD, 60 hz is 60 hz.
Not going to go into all the technical data but simply put a 60 hz monitor is not capable of displaying more than 60 fps."

Sorry to inform you but monitors do not display FPS.
They do not display FPS.
The game is generated at FPS.
You do not see FPS.

They are entirely different concepts.

"which in turn means you are effectively getting/seeing 60 FPS."
You do not see FPS and the monitor does not display FPS.
Do you SEE the difference between 60 fps and 1000 in game?

When you watch TV at 30 FPS do you SEE FRAMES!??!?
Does your LCD TV display 30FRAMES per second?

I don't get the idea of relating game generating fps to output, with LCDs that change pixels only when they change and at up to 3 ms., with continuous backlighting.
LCDs do not refresh the entire screen at once.

The way I understand it works is your video card may be generating 300 FPS but your 60Hz LCD monitor only displays 60 of them. Every 1/60 of second, the video card says to the monitor "this is what I've got, display it". The LCD then changes whichever pixels need to change (as opposed to painting the screen like a CRT). Refresh rate is a factor. With a 120Hz LCD, the video card would be sending the frame every 1/120 second. Response time is a limiting factor on LCD refresh rates because there is no point in having a refresh rate that is faster than the response time.

No, that is NOT correct. The LCD does not refresh the whole screen like a CRT at all.
It does not refresh every pixel all the time.
60hz LCD has nothing to do with how smooth the game is running, or fps.
60hz isn't even accurate. There is no total screen refresh at 60 times per second.
The LCD is more a continuous fluid display.

All talk of displaying FPS is nonsense.
And anything over 60 (notwithstanding a CRT flicker) is just smooth, and doesn't make much difference.

I know one thing, when I am on a badly optimized map and the FPS fluctuates all over the place or its down around 20 I sure as hell notice it. I get headaches and the game does not look right.

ether wrote:reading comprehension not your strong suit?

installing fucking mouse drivers not your strong suit? i assumed that you had some drivers, older versions of the drivers installed, thats what i meant by use driver sweeper to remove them. i didnt realize i needed to specify not to unistall the default mouse drivers. i was trying to help you and now you are being a asshat. maybe if YOUR reading comprehension and common sense skills were a little sharper you could figure out how to read fucking instructions in the read me files or on the website.

The Argumentalizer wrote:No, that is NOT correct. The LCD does not refresh the whole screen like a CRT at all.
It does not refresh every pixel all the time.
60hz LCD has nothing to do with how smooth the game is running, or fps.
60hz isn't even accurate. There is no total screen refresh at 60 times per second.
The LCD is more a continuous fluid display.

All talk of displaying FPS is nonsense.
And anything over 60 (notwithstanding a CRT flicker) is just smooth, and doesn't make much difference.

I think this guy just proved what we all knew already. Ether don't know what he's talking about

You know, i'm not watching any more H264 hi-def movies on my 24 inch widescreen Hi Def monitor because it isn't displaying more than 60 FPS!?!??!?!

Or because it operates at 60 hz and that means i can only see 60 fps output?!?!?!

Uh huh.

The Razer situation is one in which, to use profiles and such, you must LOAD Razer firmware. It is not IN the mouse like a G-5, which needs nothing at all extra. I never used any Razer software with my Copperhead, unless they changed.
The firmware would disappear, the mouse required replugging because it didnt work at all and i got tired of trying, using another mouse and shit for something i would never use.
Like i said, what do you need the Razer profiles for anyways?!?!? Set Windows at 6, delete all acceleration and set your sens in game.
And you don't need an applet like the CPL Mouse fix. Try to find a registry edit to do it.

I didn't say every pixel updated. I specifically said it does not paint the whole screen like a CRT. Only the pixels that are changing are updated. CRTs have flicker because the phosphors are illuminated and then turned off. LCD pixels stay on until they are told to change. But, the message to change whatever pixels need changing is only sent every 1/60 of a second on a 60hz monitor.

Most films are shot at 24 fps anyway, so if your TV is showing more than 24 FPS, you're just seeing frames repeated. Please read this article: http://hometheater.about.com/od/televis ... efresh.htm

Yeah thats my whole point!

{EE}chEmicalbuRn wrote:installing fucking mouse drivers not your strong suit? i assumed that you had some drivers, older versions of the drivers installed, thats what i meant by use driver sweeper to remove them.

lol. alright, my bad. it's probably not my strong suit tbh. i thought i had made it clear in an earlier post that i hadn't installed any drivers. the reason i was confused about what you were saying is that in researching this issue, some people were saying exactly that: you have to uninstall the default mouse drivers and install the Razer drivers using the keyboard. given you were trying to help, i apologize for the sarcasm. anyway, the problem is solved, as described above, more than once.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Yeah thats my whole point!

Sorry, man. I'm just not grasping your point. Higher FPS doesn't matter for films, but it does for shooter games. With 60Hz, you will only get 60 updates of the screen a second. With 120hz, 120 per second. The whole screen is not updated (only the pixels that are changing are updated with each refresh on an LCD). Are we in agreement on that?

"Sorry, man. I'm just not grasping your point. Higher FPS doesn't matter for films, but it does for shooter games. With 60Hz, you will only get 60 updates of the screen a second. With 120hz, 120 per second. The whole screen is not updated (only the pixels that are changing are updated with each refresh on an LCD). Are we in agreement on that?"

Higher FPS generation of the game matters, not whether your display is 60 or 120 on an LCD.
Thats why i said my card runs the game anywhere from 60 to 300 fps, and it all looks just fine and dandy at 60hz.
Hence, the notion my monitor means i am only seeing 60FPS, which is not true.
I doubt you will see a tadpoles difference at 120hz, unlike a CRT.

The Argumentalizer wrote:"Sorry, man. I'm just not grasping your point. Higher FPS doesn't matter for films, but it does for shooter games. With 60Hz, you will only get 60 updates of the screen a second. With 120hz, 120 per second. The whole screen is not updated (only the pixels that are changing are updated with each refresh on an LCD). Are we in agreement on that?"

Higher FPS generation of the game matters, not whether your display is 60 or 120 on an LCD.
Thats why i said my card runs the game anywhere from 60 to 300 fps, and it all looks just fine and dandy at 60hz.
Hence, the notion my monitor means i am only seeing 60FPS, which is not true.
I doubt you will see a tadpoles difference at 120hz, unlike a CRT.

Sorry you have been misinformed, but yes you do see a difference. Why do you think the major LCD tv manufacturers are constantly building their TV's to run more hz? Duh because they perform better/faster/look better/smoother. If there was no performance to be gained by increasing the hz then why did lcd tv's start out at 60, then go 120 and now are at 240? Waiting for logical answer to that one and don't try to change the subject or inject some random bullshit.

Selling points for folks with delusions maybe?

hz is a big issue only to a point even with CRTs.
The notion running at 240hz gives you anything is silly.

If the game runs at 60 or even some that are designed to run at 30 well, wtf is 240hz going to do!?!?
Yes, your eye can tell the difference between 60hz and 120. SO WHAT!?!? telling the difference and MEANING a difference are not the same.
LCDs pixels work at up to 3ms. do you know how many times per second 3 ms is?
And 120 hz does what?!?!?

My point is also, we don't see FPS. The human eye sees continuously and not in frames.
After the eye perceives smoothly an image, more does not mean much difference.
I imagine that above your own hz (brainwave) setting, there is no difference in perception, although differences may be noted.

By the way, turn your head really really quick to the side!
Do you see any blurring!??! LMAO. Of COURSE. Games are even building BLUR into the game, while you wait for the latest 240hz flatscreen to give all sorts of goodies.
Sucker. One born every minute.

The Argumentalizer wrote: I doubt you will see a tadpoles difference at 120hz, unlike a CRT.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Selling points for folks with delusions maybe?

EXACTLY WHAT I FUCKIN SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE

"The problem is that with LCD, some viewers can perceive motion blur in fast-moving objects on standard 60Hz models (motion blur like this isn't an issue with plasma or other display types, whether 60Hz or otherwise, because they use different methods to create the illusion of motion). To reduce blurring, most 120Hz LCD displays use interpolation--called MEMC for "motion estimation-motion compensation"--to create a new frame between each of the original frames, so there's one interpolated frame for every true frame. An interpolated frame is composed of the processor's best guess as to what should be there, based on the contents of each of the true frames.

At CES, LCD TV makers announced new models with 240Hz refresh rates, which are designed to reduce motion blur even further. There are two distinct methods used by different manufacturers to arrive at that number. I've reviewed one 240Hz display, the Sony KDL-52XBR7, which uses MEMC again to basically double the 120Hz process described above--so for each "true" frame there are three interpolated frames. Samsung also uses MEMC to get to 240Hz.

LG, Toshiba, and Vizio, on the other hand, use what's called "scanning backlight" technology. Instead of interpolating a second time, it uses MEMC once to get to 120Hz, in combination with a backlight that flashes on and off very quickly, to claim a 240Hz refresh rate. Notably, Toshiba used the careful phrase "240Hz effect" at its press conference to describe the scanning backlight method, although we doubt the distinction will filter down to the product packaging. I haven't reviewed any displays that use this method yet, so I can't speak to whether one method is better than the other.

Despite having reviewed only one HDTV with 240Hz, however, I'm fairly confident that the feature, regardless of how it's implemented, is not worth waiting for on its own, unless you're the kind of highly sensitive viewer who already perceives motion blur in 120Hz models.

Personally, I have a difficult time perceiving motion blur in standard 60Hz LCDs, even in side-by-side comparisons with 120Hz LCDs or plasmas, unless I'm using specialized test material. (I'm talking about motion blur only here, not "smooth" dejudder processing, which is separate from refresh rate and quite easy to perceive.) "
=============================================================================================
So, your game is putting out 60fps. your awesome new 120hz FAKES extra frames to make more frames per second. WOWIE!
I you WIN! Its so blur free, you are now better at FPS because more fps is better even when the game limits fps, or the monitor limits fps or adds fps, or soemthing, i forgot. Its fps world!
Hopefully, they will make cheap 240hz monitors so i can play Bioshock at 30 fps but add a lot of extra frames so the gam doesn't blur, like you natural vision does in rl.

LOL! I remember when Ko had his old system that was barely running DM, but by god he could swear cranking up the CRT hz made a difference. It was pretty funny. 30fps delivered at 100 times a second made all the difference!?!??!

This is what i mean by MEANING a difference.

If you want to believe that to make yourself feel better about your 60 hz monitor that is fine and dandy, there are no delusions here what so ever. I have done my own extensive side by side testing with my 1920x 1200 60 hz lcd monitor and 1280 x 800 150 hz crt to know first hand what the difference is so maybe I have better eyes than you or the person for whom you copied that review. I have also seen the exact same difference in my home tv, used to have a 60 hz sony bravia now I have the 240 hz bravia and I put them side by side too (I dont care what kind of software tricks they used to achieve 240, it works). The time you really notice it on the tv is during fast moving sports like football or car racing, it's so much smoother its hard not to notice it, the same thing can be said about gaming and seeing your game at 60hz/60 fps vs 150 hz/150fps again first hand experience and I can see a huge difference. Seems to me you have not seen it first hand side by side and if you have (which I doubt or we wouldn't be having this conversation) you are just trying not to see the differences or you need glasses.

In regards to Ko, Im pretty sure he won CAL 1v1 that season so yeah apparently cranking up the hz and seeing more fps even on a old dog of a machine does help.

Really. In what game? at a steady fps? or a Hi Def movie at 24 fps? Or did you run Bioshock at 30 fps and see a difference between 30fps at 60hz having nothing to do with CRTs?


"In regards to Ko, Im pretty sure he won CAL 1v1 that season so yeah apparently cranking up the hz and seeing more fps even on a old dog of a machine does help."
And this is a good conclusion? That he had a pitiful PC running at 30 FPS and his 175hz made a difference!??! That is just bizarre.
Did the monitor help out old crappy card?
I believe Ko could win at 30fps and 100fps, with or without 175hz. Its called skill.

And when i watch an H264 hi def movie shot at 24 fps, my 60hz looks horrible?!?!
And 120 will look better?

I do know this. this 24inch 1080p looks better than any CRT i've ever used and i had the big hoss awesome crt.
I have never noticed any blur or tearing on this monitor.
It has 3 ms response.
As for better eyes, that is possible, though i qualified expert in 7 different infantry weapons, so its pretty good.

Here is something to consider. When watching movies and TV, consider, they are filmed, meaning cameras are the eye.
There is never a lot of blur because it is not desirable.
In other words, what you see is not like FPS, where you turn and look.
And there maybe blur.
TV means even less when talking about THE EYE.
Is that granted?
That a 24fps movie can look great because it is a stationary camera or view?

I admit games are different.
High fps is smoother, but i am talking about the eye and what it sees naturally.
I believe, even if you took out all blur, with 300 fps games running 300hz, your eye would create blur.
Or your brain would know the difference and negate it.
The info between here and there ie quick turns, is negligible.
That the mind puts these things in perspective.

I submit that parameters outside what you can consciously tell from moment to moment, are irrelevant.
That, although you can TELL differences, your brain may not care to keep up with what it can discern.

And L2K, you know there is NEVER any disrespect intended.
I remember you from a while back, as a good guy.

Let me get this correct: You put a 1080 wide screen Hi def monitor up against ANY old CRT and the CRT WON SOMETHING?!??!

Fail. A Complete FAIL!~
Let me explain it to you.
Hz does not overcome tech.
CRTS are NOT better in ANY way than my best monitor.
You can talk about TVs all day.
They are not Gaming displays~!
You do not play games on your NEW 240 TV.
Do you get that?
STOP diverting the CONVO!

You know damn well there is NO CRT that is worth owning against a new 1080p widescreen.
So, go **** yourself.

Whether 120 fps versus 60 fps lets you play better is subjective. I agree that above some point, it's not going to make any difference, but what that point is probably varies from person to person. So lets put that argument to the side.

Whether a particular LCD looks better or worse than a CRT is a different issue. Other factors come into play like resolution and contrast ratio. So lets put that to the side as well.

Whether an LCD monitor is showing more or less fps at 60 hz or 120 hz is not subjective. What I understand you to be saying is that the monitor's refresh rate has no bearing on the fps displayed by the monitor. I am saying a 60 hz LCD refreshes the screen 60 times per sec. Not every pixel changes on a screen refresh (we agree on that), but every 1/60 of a second the monitor reads another frame from the frame buffer and then changes the pixels that need changing. The 300 fps you cited above is the rate at which your video card is writing frames to the frame buffer. The refresh rate is the rate at which the monitor is reading frames from the frame buffer. That's how I understand it.

If you disagree with that what is the significance of an LCD monitor's refresh rate? What does the 60hz refer to?

ether wrote:Whether 120 fps versus 60 fps lets you play better is subjective. I agree that above some point, it's not going to make any difference, but what that point is probably varies from person to person. So lets put that argument to the side.

Whether a particular LCD looks better or worse than a CRT is a different issue. Other factors come into play like resolution and contrast ratio. So lets put that to the side as well.

Whether an LCD monitor is showing more or less fps at 60 hz or 120 hz is not subjective. What I understand you to be saying is that the monitor's refresh rate has no bearing on the fps displayed by the monitor. I am saying a 60 hz LCD refreshes the screen 60 times per sec. Not every pixel changes on a screen refresh (we agree on that), but every 1/60 of a second the monitor reads another frame from the frame buffer and then changes the pixels that need changing. The 300 fps you cited above is the rate at which your video card is writing frames to the frame buffer. The refresh rate is the rate at which the monitor is reading frames from the frame buffer. That's how I understand it.

If you disagree with that what is the significance of an LCD monitor's refresh rate? What does the 60hz refer to?

100% on target

The Argumentalizer wrote:Let me get this correct: You put a 1080 wide screen Hi def monitor up against ANY old CRT and the CRT WON SOMETHING?!??!

Fail. A Complete FAIL!~
Let me explain it to you.
Hz does not overcome tech.
CRTS are NOT better in ANY way than my best monitor.
You can talk about TVs all day.
They are not Gaming displays~!
You do not play games on your NEW 240 TV.
Do you get that?
STOP diverting the CONVO!

You know damn well there is NO CRT that is worth owning against a new 1080p widescreen.
So, go **** yourself.

Until you have done this:

maybe you should just stop talking about it.
There is a reason my 1080p capable CRT is sitting in the center and the 1080p LCD is on the side. The CRT flat out looks better all the way around and performs better.
Yes I play and watch Blu ray movies on it, yes it looks better and the colors are more accurate.
I think the problem here is you not only don't know what you are talking about, you probably have never seen such a crt.
The sony GDM FW 900 was a 2000.00 monitor when new, now even 7-8 year old one still fetch 700.00 on ebay if they are in top condition.
I have purchased 4 of them from a movie production company in hollywood, who still uses them and prefers them over LCD's for the post production work and editing, why? becuase they are better, its simple.
Also you should go read one of the numerous threads on them over at [H], some of them exceed 300 pages and if after that you still don't understand whats up with the FW900 then I'm sorry for you.
Better yet you should go get one and put next to your special LCD and see for yourself.
Here you go:
http://cgi.ebay.com/SONY-GDM-FW900-24-F ... 749wt_1165

My crt looks smoother then my LCD at 85hz, but the colours look shit on it compared to the LCD, and can only run on 1280x1024@85hz. I could not bring myself to play at such a low res with such a beast.
I did hear though that there will be LED monitors coming out for PC with even better looking colours and higher refresh rates?
Also i have another monitor in mind that will pwn the shit out of all others if it ever comes out.

Pernicious wrote:My crt looks smoother then my LCD at 85hz, but the colours look shit on it compared to the LCD, and can only run on 1280x1024@85hz. I could not bring myself to play at such a low res with such a beast.
I did hear though that there will be LED monitors coming out for PC with even better looking colours and higher refresh rates?
Also i have another monitor in mind that will pwn the shit out of all others if it ever comes out.

Yeah will be interesting to see how the LED's perform for sure. I do agree that with other CRT's I owned the performance was so/so on some of them but the FW900 flat out kills everything hence the high price and demand for them.

All I know is I really like the greater desk space I have with my 2 LCD screens than I had with 1 17" CRT.

Paradox wrote:All I know is I really like the greater desk space I have with my 2 LCD screens than I had with 1 17" CRT.

Can't argue with that, the space is great when using lcd's. I'd still take the performance in my case with my corner desk, but you never know when something better is going to come along and pull me away from the old FW.

lol if anything is limiting my game performance, its not my monitor, its my uncoordinated fingers...

It really figures you are talking about a $2000.00 dollar CRT, that isn't MADE any more, that is 7 years old, that few own, and you can't buy new.

I really thought we were discussing the real world and not your artifact.
Figures.
I should have known there was a reason you were going on and on about CRTs.
You have a 2000.00 dollar CRT.
It all makes sense.

used ftw

www.directron.com/crt.html



if its not a scam that is

google crt monitors for sale
personally, I still don't want one
I don't believe they are that much better and I don't want a 100 lb rock on my desk.

I don't care.

The ingame difference between 60hz and 150hz (mainly the drastically reduced motion blur / improved overall smoothness) is massive, theres no other way to put it. The difference is most noticable when doing anything that requires fast transitions, ie snap 180s or prop jumping across a map. The vastly improved fluidity makes aiming and quick reactions far more precise and reliable.

Also, lcds didnt replace crts because they were better (theyre not), but because they cost a shit ton less to produce. Simple matter of the effect of 5lbs of materials vs 50lbs on the firms bottom line. And of course those who arent crazed movie buffs or serious competitive gamers generally wont benefit from the crts superior visuals and abilities in any case, and are happier with a monitor that leaves more desk room and doesnt take any effort to move around.

Um, they replaced CRTS completely because they are better in every way possible, excepting a little snap 180 blur and maybe correct color for those who really need it.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Um, they replaced CRTS completely because they are better in every way possible, excepting a little snap 180 blur and maybe correct color for those who really need it.

You clearly know nothing about business. Is an automatic transmission better than manual? So why is it the vast majority of cars are automatic in any developed country? But yet why do race car drivers drive manual? Is plastic better than metal?

CRTs are big, since everything we buy is made in China that means shipping is heavy and cargo space is more limited. Ask yourself this is a 16:9 monitor better than a 16:10 for computers were most work is done on web pages and other vertically oriented content? So why are they moving to 16:9? I will tell you why because a 19" 16:9 is has less surface area and pixels than either a 4:3 or 16:10 monitor. Its not because it is better. It is cheaper and the companies are happy to claim it is somehow better because its the same ratio as movies. Over the years the display companies have quickly screwed people into buying an inferior product, then they slowly add features people always had on a CRT and sell them back to you. By the end of 15 years of using LCDs my guess is you will finally have a monitor that was as good as your CRT was 15 years ago.

It is about costs, they sell you some crap because you are stupid enough to buy it. And the few people who know better eventually are trampled by the millions of clueless consumers who cause mass production of the better product to slow down and eventually die. Everyone just wanted thin and small cause it was cool. Never mind the fact a basic CRT at the time of the transition destroyed an LCD in every single class except size and power consumption. Contrast, speed as in hz and 0 response time, color reproduction, ability to display many resolutions natively, and even display life if you realize dead pixels were common place. Now days almost 8 years later LCDs are much better but the funny thing is they still are not as good as high end CRTs were 8 years ago.

There are thousands of products out there that were replaced by an inferior product because it was cheaper to make or other factors came in. There are certainly advantages to LCDs they can be made bigger easier and can come in oddly elongated sizes and reduce cost while doing it. They take up less space and use less power even though the power is really nothing in the basic costs of living now days. But those things are irrelavant to gamers.

As for hz, Humans have the ability to learn and I believe that extends to eye site and refresh rate. I know a physiology professor who claims that no human can see faster than 15 fps. This is because individual cone cells in the eye were tested for their refire rate. I dare you to turn your FPS down to 15 and see if you do not notice it. When I first started gaming people claimed no one could see faster than 30 fps because that was determined by scientist and implemented in movies. Once again try things at 30 fps and tell me you cannot see a difference. Now days people seem to be settled on 60 for gaming reviews as what is acceptable. The fact is no one knows yet. And people who play games more with higher end equipment will probably gain the ability to see faster. I know I personally cannot stand to use LCDs since I am used to CRTs with 100hz or higher all the time.

Consider this the US air force was testing pilots who could correctly identify and read numbers from jets flashed on a screen for 1 frame at 200 hz. There are problems with that method but it is evidence that we may be able to go faster.

As I said before the LCD companies will feed you a line of horse shit about 60 fps till everyone has bought it, then they will turn around and turn the fps up and resell you a new tv telling you that you need it. We already see this happening in the TV market and its coming to Monitors soon what will you say then?

also want to clarify something about LCDs. Every pixel on the screen is probably sent an instruction which effectively means it changes. Even if it did not would that matter or even make sense in gaming or movies where 16 million colors are displayed meaning that with shading there are probably very few times when a single pixel stays the same at any time anyway? Just look at your game and think logically about it, it does not make any sense at all to make the claim that that matters. Show me where in an average game of lockdown r5 any stretch of pixels have exactly the same color and will stay the same for more than 1 frame. Now factor in that most decent gamers are flipping their view around very fast. Even at 100 hz with a good video card I see lag and wish it was clearer.
Here is what is different.
In the CRT you have an electron gun (the cathode ray) and you point it at a pixel and shoot it, then the pixel lights up and slowly fades away till it is black over about 30 ms. The gun can hit every pixel on the screen accurately in 16.6 ms and start over (60 hz). During that time you saw some fading which you interpreted as flicker. If you turn the refresh rate up the flicker is less noticeable because at 100 hz there is only 10 ms in between a pixel being hit with the electrons. Now think about that, most people say 100 hz is noticeably smoother. So your eyes are capable of detecting changes in light that are only different by 7 ms. So at 7 ms that is 140 hz.
Now with an LCD you have an LCD panel in the front of a fluorescent lamp that blocks light. Each pixel can change but to do that the crystal must rotate and block light. But the trick here is that the light in the back is always on so you never see flicker. The LCD manufacturers used the lack of flicker as an excuse to say that LCDs did not need a higher refresh rate. But this does not really mean that there is any magical difference with LCDs that excuse them from the laws of physics and allow them to render a slower scene faster.
The first obvious flaw was in what we call response time which is the time it takes those crystals to rotate and block or allow light through. But until recently they had still ignored the fact almost all LCDs were only built to only display 60 hz. And mark my words they will be shoving faster LCDs down your throat soon. Personally I will be happy but still pissed off it took them and the consumers so long to catch up to CRTs.
Don't even get me started on TVs. Those things are so full of funny math it is unbearable. For instance 240 hz is usually not 240 hz it is actually 120 hz and the back light is flashing in between 120 hz frames apparently to make things more clear. And of course we know that most TVs will not accept any signal faster thatn 60 hz so all the rest is interpolated frames which creates input lag.

Yeah, Like i said, CRTs were replaced because LCDs are better in every way, and after all that, i don't see an argument against this notion!

Cheaper, more energy efficient, less heat, smaller, sleeker...

What part of better in every way didn't you understand?
The 180 snap blur that they are making go away?
The color gradient, which is not a huge concern?

Businesses OF COURSE seek to increase market and profits.
They can't do this if people don't like it, or perceive there isn't an advantage.
That is how markets work.
If it doesn't sell, it doesn't move.

Perhaps you like the gunnysack cellular!?!?!
How about the TAPE?
Or record?
Do you like instant on demand water heaters?
You say i don't know anything about business and markets?!?!?

Maybe i'll go buy a pearwood driver and a Guta ball to play golf!?!
How about an old Tube radio? Do you want one?

Are CRTs different? Do LCDs sell in SPITE of CRTs being better technology!??!
I don't get it

Fearsome* wrote:also want to clarify something about LCDs. Every pixel on the screen is probably sent an instruction which blah blah etc.

I would like to emphasize the fact that he clearly is making it up as he goes along

The Argumentalizer wrote: Perhaps you like the gunnysack cellular!?!?!

Heh. Good one

Yeah, well what if you have a 125 hz CRT and you are playing Crysis at 60 fps!??!

I mean, really! After a while, this tech talk gets silly.
My old 8800 gts still plays every game acceptably.
And i still see a blur when i turn my head quickly, so why doesn't that effect games?

lol i just tested ur theory of quick head turning in real life. There actually wasnt any blur, felt like playing a game at a really high frame rate + refresh rate lawl.
BUT, if u do see some blur then it is most likely ur eyes focusing.
How many times does light reflect off of the world and up into our eyes every second? I imagine it is alot.

The Argumentalizer wrote: My old 8800 gts still plays every game acceptably.

Old? I'm running a 6600 gt

lol 4 pages.

I replaced my 17" CRT with a 19" LCD and maybe the CRT was poor quality but the image was definatly clearer on the LCD. The CRT couldn't handle the resolutions that the LCD can. It simply was not made for it.

I now have a "gaming quality" 22" LCD with 2ms refresh rate and a 10,000 to 1 contrast ratio etc.

I don't believe that an older technology, 0 ms, 100 htz CRT is going to give a gamer of equal skill, reflexes, computer power and internet service any kind of advantage over the one with the 60 htz LCD such as mine.

To each his own. If you want to have the 100 pound dinosaur sitting on your desk, be my guest. Id much rather have the smaller, lighter LCD and be able to push up my screen res and enjoy the scenery in relative clarity/sharpness.

Paradox wrote: I don't believe that an older technology, 0 ms, 100 htz CRT is going to give a gamer of equal skill, reflexes, computer power and internet service any kind of advantage over the one with the 60 htz LCD such as mine.

I posted earlier that I respect others opinions so don't take this the wrong way but do you really feel responsible saying something like this with out trying it first hand? Also we are not just talking about 100hz, we are talking 140-150 depending on the res. and in the world of hz even +10 makes a difference. I also said I could understand that with space constraints a LCD made more sense but if you can fit it, the high end crt can't be beat.

Paradox wrote:I don't believe that an older technology, 0 ms, 100 htz CRT is going to give a gamer of equal skill, reflexes, computer power and internet service any kind of advantage over the one with the 60 htz LCD such as mine.

While i wouldnt say the difference is going to be monstrous- itll more likely be minor to minimal depending on the players style- i would say that in hl2dm (or other fast paced dm games) the couple extra successful snap 180 shots, or landed attacks during a tiny window of opportunity (someone moving @ 500 past the other side of a small doorway etc) that the extra visual smoothness and clarity may grant have a good chance of deciding the match.

Of course the slower / less execution intensive the game, the less this sort of thing matters, so its not going to matter as much in tf2 as in hl2dm, even less in one of the modern 64v64 war sims compared to tf2, and im fairly sure someone could own up a wow competition quite successfully on an old black and white tv from the 60s.

Also, a technology being older doesnt in any way mean its inferior. Lcds may have the advantage in size/weight, power consumption, ease of use and of course profit margins for the monitor makers, but crts still thrash them when it comes to pretty much all those things one actually uses a monitor for.

"Also, a technology being older doesnt in any way mean its inferior. Lcds may have the advantage in size/weight, power consumption, ease of use and of course profit margins for the monitor makers, but crts still thrash them when it comes to pretty much all those things one actually uses a monitor for."

Umm, yes, the older technology IS inferior in every way that isn't related to eggheads who believe there is a thimble's worth of advantage to the old technology.

I already pointed out they DON'T EVEN MAKE the technology you are talking about?!?!
2'000 dollars high tech monitors are on Punk's desk and hardly anywhere else.
Maybe you could name some situations where a CRT is absolutely necessary?!?!
WHERE? WHO? WHY?

I can only thing of one older tech that is better: Tube amps for guitar.

I had a 22 inch NEC NEW, and it sucked, it made the whole room hot and didn't look that good.

No offense taken. We are having a discussion, one in which both sides are pretty entrenched in their opinion.

If CRTs were THE deciding factor in any fast paced FPS, then CRT users would outscore any and all LCD users in any sort of competition. LCD users wouldnt be able to kill the CRT users nearly as much as they do.

As far as trying it first hand. I did own a CRT at one time and I found the LCD to be better with its sharper image and higher resolution giving me a finer crosshair for more precise aiming. Also, I have other things to blow $2000 on besides a 100 pound boulder to sit on my desk, not to mention the extra $200-$300 I would need for a bigger desk to hold it.

Sorry I dont buy it. I do not believe that a CRT has any measureable advantage over a LCD, all else being equal.

Until we can clone Fearsome (scary thought) and put him in a room on a LAN with equal machines, one with LCD, one with CRT and do some experiments relating monitor speed and human reaction we will never be able to prove it either way. Impala, we gota make sure we slip a mickey into the CRT Fearsome's water bottle.

The Argumentalizer wrote: I can only thing of one older tech that is better: Tube amps for guitar.

That's for damn sure

The Argumentalizer wrote:I can only thing of one older tech that is better: Tube amps for guitar.

And 33s compared to cds, for the first 100 plays or so anyway. Though, youre proving my point with that comment: That a superior technology may be replaced with inferior, in the name of better profit margins for the producers and better cost and ease of use for the consumers. Case in point- who really notices the difference between tubes and solid state except a tiny handful of audiophiles?

Gaming is no different- none of the top end gamers during the heyday of competitive quake/pk/etc liked being forced to use lcds at lans when they started phasing out crts, for the reasons already mentioned previously in this thread, and if you look at the cal 1v1 history, 3 out of 4 champions used crts as well. Seagull switched to an lcd when his died, and noticed the degraded refresh / transition smoothness right away (though of course the impact on end results was minimal, as ive already mentioned it will be in most cases). Fearsome used the same crt as Punk last i checked, and ill eventually be using one too, if i ever get round to having it shipped . And even my current generic 19" crt (cost: $40) still outperforms the top lcds when it comes to gaming (i test the new lcds from time to time, and so far they always come up short).

Also its not just the crt that makes the difference- its the combo of the crt, plus a well honed config and net settings, plus a kb that doesnt jam on 3-4 keystrokes in the wrong places, plus a mouse that doesnt flip out if pushed too fast/slow, etc, etc. All those little tweaks add up and can have a rather profound effect on the end result in a fast / complex game like hl2dm, all other things being equal (not that they ever are, just saying!).

The difference between tube amplifiers and solid state amplifiers or digital modelling amps is enormous, don't pretend you know what you're talking about.

Solid state technologies are perhaps more practical, and considerably cheaper, but nearly impossible to confuse for the tone of a tube amp.

and digital modelling jsut sounds like shit.

"And 33s compared to cds, for the first 100 plays or so anyway. Though, youre proving my point with that comment: That a superior technology may be replaced with inferior, in the name of better profit margins for the producers and better cost and ease of use for the consumers. Case in point- who really notices the difference between tubes and solid state except a tiny handful of audiophiles?"

I do not prove any point you are attempting to make. Record Player and Tape is in NO WAY superior, when one takes sampling rates into consideration.

Just like the CRT, you maybe the ONLY human alive that wants to go back to VINYL. I don't. Record players hold no advantage whatsoever, unless you are dj'ing or something.
Your point is ridiculous. Inferior technologies NEVER replace better technologies. Ever.

Even your point "for the first 100 plays or so anyway" is telling. That is better technology, sound that deteriorates everytime its used!??!? LMAO.

You seem to equate less expensive with lower quality, which is wrong.

Luddite comes to mind. CRTS give hardly any advantage and please stop talking about history. Its over.
They don't make the CRTs you want anymore, but if they did, only a crazyass would spend 2000 dollars for .005 advantage in a FREE GAME.

LPs have greater harmonic range than CDs; this is fact. I didnt mention tape, though its a great example of completely inferior tech (cassettes) replacing wholly superior tech (LPs) just to improve non-audio related stuff like ease of use and size/form factor. Theres a reason LPs are still produced, and its not for djs or wannabe rappers. Also, i never said i wanted a return to vinyl.

As for the rest... well, youre living up to your name, what can i say!

Ko-Tao wrote:.

As for the rest... well, youre living up to your name, what can i say!

Ko-Tao wrote:LPs have greater harmonic range than CDs; this is fact. I didnt mention tape, though its a great example of completely inferior tech (cassettes) replacing wholly superior tech (LPs) just to improve non-audio related stuff like ease of use and size/form factor. Theres a reason LPs are still produced, and its not for djs or wannabe rappers. Also, i never said i wanted a return to vinyl.

As for the rest... well, youre living up to your name, what can i say!

What do you mean harmonic range? Digital has more frequency range, as analog is limited to the physical grooves or magnetized tape.
Frank Zappa was one of the first to switch to Digital because of the incredible range, without woof.
In fact, one criticism of digital is the huge dynamic range.
The problem with CDs is low sampling rate decided upon early on.

Analog has a place in music, like preamps and mikes and even Tape.
It is still not better technology.

And Cassettes did not replace LPs. Cassettes came along because they were better than 8 track and you could play them in a car, which you could never do with an LP, but an 8 track could.
Another point is that digital was NOT cheap when it came out. It became cheaper because of market efficiencies.

If you are still making the argument CRTs and analog LPS are better technology, good luck buying a 60 inch Hi Def CRT and a Apple I-LP-POD.

Yeah, records are still made on tape, in about the same quantity as the 2000 dollar CRTs out there.
No major studios use analog tape.
Digital is superior in every way except to Luddites who believe analog sounds warmer or CRTs give them some advantage in gaming.

(I will admit this, my one criticism of digital is a distortion of the stereo field, which is less noticeable on higher quality equipment.

While vinyl was eventually replaced by superior digital tech (sacd, dvd-a etc) generic cds certainly didnt fit the bill. The same arguement could be made for laserdisc vs dvd, where dvd tended to have inferior audio at first (generally not the case now), and didnt offer nearly as much viewer control over the source material (still doesnt). In the same vein, its likely that lcds will eventually equal or exceed many of crts visual capabilities, but unlike the 2 above examples, its simply not there yet.

Id dig up an image of a 50s~70s circa below-glovebox shock-mounted car LP player, but let it suffice instead to say: It existed. Probably somewhat less common than the FW-900 (the infamous 4-figure crt), though- which, btw, none of us are paying $2,000 for (which ill assume you knew, and kept emphasising the original price for the sake of arguement).

Paradox wrote: I don't believe that an older technology, 0 ms, 100 htz CRT is going to give a gamer of equal skill, reflexes, computer power and internet service any kind of advantage over the one with the 60 htz LCD such as mine.

It will by the mere fact that it is an advantage. It of course rests on several conditions. IE the person actually has to skilled enough to take advantage of the feature. And it may be something they have to get used to. But every single thing we do in DM gaming is about small advantages. If you add all these little things up they mean something. No one little thing will turn you from a noob into a pro but if they do not matter then why is this community running around scripting sensitivity to weapons and net setting? People know that these things can result in something (but not everything) when it comes to winning frags. Maybe it only results in 1 extra kill in a match, but that one kill results in 3 spawn kills for your team, and those kills result in better item control. You see where I am going? Things add up they compound on each other. Never mind the fact it is just a much more enjoyable experience using a CRT that is fast, I know this because I just went to a LAN with Luke and I did not feel like lugging my 22 inch 100 lb CRT in so I used my laptop. My laptop is good it pulls 200 fps in zeta so there was no problem with the hardware but shit the LCD was just obviously laggy. And when I returned home I could see a massive difference going to my CRT running at 100hz. Some people cannot tell and I have concluded they simply have not trained their eyes to be fast enough to notice or perhaps they are genetically incapable which is less likely.

Now I have met lots of people that hated CRTs most of them were running the refresh at 60 hz so they never saw a difference moving to an LCD. Also CRTs are inherently analog devices and things can get out of whack. Your focus on the beam could be bad causing you to have a blurry image other things can go wrong. But a CRT in working order has top notch picture quality, color reproductions, unmatched contrast ratio and unmatched speed. Most of the time I can correct anyones problem and fix their CRT with 5 minutes in the displays control menus.

Tranthor wrote:

Fearsome* wrote:also want to clarify something about LCDs. Every pixel on the screen is probably sent an instruction which blah blah etc.

I would like to emphasize the fact that he clearly is making it up as he goes along

The Argumentalizer wrote: Perhaps you like the gunnysack cellular!?!?!

Heh. Good one

I am not making things up at least I was honest enough to say I do not know for sure but I can make a logical guess on the matter which is far better then the trolling you are doing. Are you suggesting that an LCD actually runs a compare command on every single pixel that goes through it and if they are the same it does not send the command for color to that pixel? Ha that's pretty stupid don't you think why not just send the data into the matrix no matter what and save your self the processing time? Oh wait maybe they are and this is where the input lag CRTs lack is coming from?

Make a guess I.E. making it up as you go along. Good try.

Plus, I don't give a rat's about what kind of monitor I'm using, the difference it makes is marginal at best. I've never had any less gaming success while using a lousy monitor.

So basically you guys have admitted there are many examples of inferior technology supplanting superior technology in the name of costs. And this not only extends from CRTs to LCDs but even right within LCDs. Almost every one of you here will probably be using a TN panel in your LCD and that is cheaper to make then a vastly superior S-IPS panel which has more consistent fast response time and better color reproduction and viewing angles.

Also all of your are probably quoting dynamic contrast ratios on your LCDs where are another funny marketing ploy.
http://carltonbale.com/the-truth-about- ... ast-ratios

And tranthor maybe that's because all the monitors you have used were garbage? And like I said alot of times you have to learn to use it. A race car driver learns to use a stick shift because it will result in a better race. Just the same as people have to learn to use new configs to improve their game.

What I've got right now is 22 inch, 2ms response time, 60HZ, 20000:1 contrast samsung LCD

"So basically you guys have admitted there are many examples of inferior technology supplanting superior technology in the name of costs. And this not only extends from CRTs to LCDs but even right within LCDs. Almost every one of you here will probably be using a TN panel in your LCD and that is cheaper to make then a vastly superior S-IPS panel which has more consistent fast response time and better color reproduction and viewing angles. "
==============================================================================
I don't admit there are ANY examples of inferior technology supplanting superior tech.
Ko and Fearsome seem to narrow SUPERIOR to a minor parochial concern that does not equate to superior.
Because there is a no minor tearing that an elite gamer might take advantage does not equate to CRTs are superior technology.
Because some may like the warmer quality of analog music, does not make LPs superior to CDs.
Granted, Tube amps are still made for Audiophiles and command huge prices, this is a SMALL NICHE, like the elite gamer. Digital, as a technology, not just the original standards for CDs, is superior in every way except minor distortions of the stereo field.
And we have Blue-Ray, so...

Its like saying Clay-mation is superior to digital graphics.
Inferior technology never supplants superior technology.
And new technology is isn't invented because it will be cheaper, necessarily.
The price falls as manufacturing efficiencies come into play.

The fact some niche finds some advantage to older tech doesn't equate to BETTER.
It means different, in a way they, a niche, enjoy.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Inferior technology never supplants superior technology.

Plenty of examples have been given in this thread. You trolling?

No examples have been given. Your definition of superior technology does not fit reality.

I clearly explain that technology gets better and not vice versa.
Yes, there are a small group of folks that like the old. I am one of them, as i like tube amps.
That doesn't make it superior to the majority of folks.
I own two Mesa Boogies.
I also have a Vox modeling amp and two tabletop modelers (Johnson and Pod) and digital CUBASE recording, with digital plugins.

If you are going to tell me that analog delivery and analog storage is superior to digital, you are smoking something.
If you are saying CRTs are superior because it gives you a small advantage in elite gaming, you are very high.

Whether LCDs or CRTs are better depends on your set of values. Someone might value cost & weight higher than performance. Someone else might value refresh rates more than any other feature. You can't say one is right, and the other wrong. If you talk about individual measurable features, then you can say one is better than the other in that respect, but not in general in absolute terms. You could even extend the argument to what better means with respect to individual features. Just to pose a theoretical, and probably absurd example, what if I liked heavy bulky monitors? Maybe my biggest concern is whether someone will steal my monitor.

It's the same thing with superior/inferior technologies. New technologies are not always superior in every respect. If they gain market share, then they are judged to be superior by the market, but that doesn't mean they are superior to every individual making a value judgment, which is why you have niche markets.

The reason LCD monitors are better is that you can easily turn a CRT monitor into a bomb.

On guitar amps, I will give you that Roland solid states sound amazing (the JC-120 is possibly my favourite amp of all time), but I've heard very few other solid state amps I have enjoyed the tone of, and I've never heard a passable digital amplifier. I run a Mesa/Boogie F-50 (badass) and a Kustom Quad 100DFX (horrid; I only use it for the trippy Hall Reverb effect in my psych rock band)

I used to play a Ricky thru a JC-120. And sometimes a Strat. Long time ago. Still have the JC.

lol.... the 100 pound CRT as a theft deterrant

I had 2 people steal a 100 pound outboard engine off my boat in October. If they want it that bad they will take it.

Valvtronix and Line 6 HD, and Peavey's new line sound very good.
Also the B52s and Marshall MG series kick ass.

And there is always Randall (Pantera!?!?)

I hate Line6, I loathe the Marshall MG series (not a big fan of any Marshalls, actually...). haven't heard the Valvetronix yet, but Peaveys are generally decent.

My next amp will probably be either a Mesa Mark V or a VHT Deliverance 60. Or maybe an Engl Powerball.

ether wrote:I used to play a Ricky thru a JC-120. And sometimes a Strat. Long time ago. Still have the JC.

Rickenbackers are the greatest, I want one so bad. I also could go for a Hagstrom, and I've long been drooling over Gibson Marauders

The Argumentalizer wrote: If you are saying CRTs are superior because it gives you a small advantage in elite gaming, you are very high.

I am telling you CRTs are superior because of way more than that. These are the things you judge in a display. Assuming that the displays are of equal size.

Picture quality, does the image look good. LCDs only look good at 1 resolution their native resolution otherwise they look like a lossy jpeg. CRT +1W
With this or separate could go ability to display any resolutions size.

Color reproduction. Nearly all CRTs produced the 100% of the NTSC color gamut most LCDs only produce 70%. +1 CRT

Viewing angles this is obviously important on most of your crappy TN panels like Tranthor's you can see color shifts just moving your head a little off center. CRTs can be viewed from any angle with no color degradation. +1 CRT

Speed the ability to display images that are changing quickly without blur this is usually taken care of by the refresh rate. 2 LCDs can do 120 hz now if configured properly nearly every one of you is only running at 60 hz. +1 CRT

Response time, the time it takes individual pixels to change. CRTs are instant for all practical purposes. Most LCDs do not even report the correct response time they use the over inflated gray to gray values which is where 2ms comes from vs something more real like average response time or longest response times. This causes ghosting separate from the slow frame rate, different parts of the screen are updating the image at different rates on an LCD. +1 CRT

Contrast ratio, CRTs beat LCDs hands down since each pixel on a single frame can be independently controlled. Your numbers like 20000:1 are a joke and a marketing gimick the LCD manufacturers came up with to sell you another LCD. +1 CRT

Evenness of the display. With CRTs this was never an issue but with LCDs you have the back light bleeding through and causing some parts of the screen to have different colors. +1 CRT

Power consumption LCDs use less power +1 LCD

Size the mass and foot print of the monitor, +1 LCD

Cost this one is hard to tell cheap CRTs ran around 100$ and cheap LCDs still run at that level the real home run for LCDs was in shipping and stocking stores with more of them. Tie.

So CRTs win 7-2 and yet you still claim LCDs are superior, I guess just 2 things were worth so much that they out weigh everything else.

You just characterized a NICHE that needs some features of a CRT. Overall, the LCD is a superior technology.

Frankly, because they don't even make most CRTs anymore, you argument is LESS convincing.

Frankly, refresh is not even a factor except for a very small group of elite gamers.

So, who needs a CRT? Ko and Punk and fearsome and Seagull. So what!?!?
Who else? Serious graphics people maybe?

For everyone else on earth LCD is superior technology, in a non-egghead way.
Your argument of exceptions is not convincing, period.
If the CRT was superior in more than s couple of exceptions, people would be buying them.
Your notion of superior technology is absurd.
Good bye.

My definition of "superior" is generally "better at fulfilling its intended purpose than the alternatives". The intended purpose of a monitor is viewing images, be they still or moving. And as far as fulfilling this purpose goes, CRTs win out against LCDs (and pretty much every other monitor technology to date) hands down. Decreased weight/size, lowered material/shipping costs, increased manufacturer profits, greater ease of use- these are the only ways in which LCDs are superior to CRTs, none of which have anything to do with image reproduction at all.

The general public caring more about the above non-image related benefits than they do the actual images, and the manufacturers caring more about the bottom line than anything else, doesnt change the fact that they are switching to a wholly inferior monitor technology, and accordingly driving the market to phase the superior technology out.

Fearsome* wrote:
Viewing angles this is obviously important on most of your crappy TN panels like Tranthor's you can see color shifts just moving your head a little off center. CRTs can be viewed from any angle with no color degradation. +1 CRT

.

There are other issues with viewing from other angles that CRTs do have

Yea well obviously both camps are pretty entrenched in their positions. Bottom line for me is I still have been able to kill you in HL2DM even with your CRT so I do not see it as an advantage over other things that have a greater effect IMO.

I killed people in hl2dm with the generic, 400dpi, i-like-to-randomly-snap-to-the-ceiling-and-spin mouse that came free with my original 10 dollar keyboard. Hardly a solid basis for an "all mice are relatively equal" arguement, however. My mx518 shits all over that mouse in every way (except price, obviously).

As Fearsome and i have both mentioned in this thread, when you add enough minimal~moderate advantages up, it becomes major and will change match outcomes.

No it won't.

Trolls

It's fine all the normal people will have received the point.

Tranthor wrote: There are other issues with viewing from other angles that CRTs do have

Now you're making stuff up.

Fearsome* wrote:all the normal people will have received the point.

"My definition of "superior" is generally "better at fulfilling its intended purpose than the alternatives". The intended purpose of a monitor is viewing images, be they still or moving. And as far as fulfilling this purpose goes, CRTs win out against LCDs (and pretty much every other monitor technology to date) hands down."

For 96% of the world, the New tech is far superior in every way to CRTs.
You just delude yourself that a majority of others are like you and they are not.

For general viewing of images, a CRT is DEFUNCT, on its way out altogether.
Good bye, sayonara, and it isn't because its Superior technology.
New Screens, that aren't CRTs, will replace the High falutin PRO CRT any moment now.

The point is, you make the argument that inferior technology replaces superior technology and that is false.
If it did, its because the "superior" tech was faulty in some way and taken from the market.

You are a niche and CRT fits you. That doesn't make CRTs better overall technology.
The essence of this argument is not superior but TECHNOLOGY.
Sometimes superior technology offers high quality features at far lower prices, despite PRO considerations.

Whats normal? There is no 'normal'.

Fearsome* wrote:

Tranthor wrote: There are other issues with viewing from other angles that CRTs do have

Now you're making stuff up.

Screen's domed. Glare.

Tranthor wrote:

Fearsome* wrote:

Tranthor wrote: There are other issues with viewing from other angles that CRTs do have

Now you're making stuff up.

Screen's domed. Glare.

So you have never heard of a flat screen CRT because you have been living under a rock for 20 years?

The Argumentalizer wrote:Blah blah troll troll

You just typed an entire page where you never once explained a single way LCDs are superior for anything you said. Your like a mac user always claiming something is better but never having a single reason why.

Actually, YOU are the MAC user, the 5% who thinks its superior tech!

Let me put it this way: Your notion that CRT technology is superior is ridiculous.
Where are the relatively inexpensive 60 inch Hi Def CRTS!??!
Punk talked about his 2'000 dollar CRT, which, for the average consumer, would buy WHAT in an LCD?!??!
A huge Hi Def flat panel that mounts on the wall, uses less energy, puts off less heat, does not radiate the area...

Did i need to tell you what the tech advantages are?!?!
Do you not understand them?

You and Ko narrow the definition of Superior Technology to a tiny niche.
Refresh rate (when it doesnt even apply the same way to LCDs) and correct color, which the AVERAGE user doesn't need.

LCDs deliver LARGER screens, in vivid color and Hi Def, using less energy and producing less Heat and radiation for far less money
to far more people than CRTs.

THATS the definition of SUPERIOR Technology!

Consider your argument shredded completely.

"$2000 crt etc etc"
The $100 new crt i bought with my previous rig 5 years ago still outperforms (in all display-related ways except max resolution) every lcd to date.

"vivid color"
My old commodore 64 monitor managed that. Vivid =! accurate or clean.

"Hi Def"
Higher end crts have been capable of 1920x1200 for over a decade. Lower end lcds still arent capable.

"far less money"
Modern lcds cost roughly the same as comparable crts of similar screen sizes did just before crts were phased out.

"bigger screens"
Both technologies have screens as large as anyone could fit in their house, and the ability to move to a front projector for theatre level size if needed.

"a load of sub-features that have nothing to do with displaying text or images"
Yup, lcds generally win out there.

"average user doesnt need crt tech"
The average user also chose vhs over laserdisc, yet no ones going to claim vhs was the superior technology.

"thats superior technology"
It is if you alter the standard accepted definition of "superior technology" first!

You guys both sure do bitch a lot

Not trying to continue to stir the pot here, just posting some articles for historical perspective on this issue.

Article from 2004.
http://www.techimo.com/articles/index.pl?photo=202

2006
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2 ... 578,00.asp

2008
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/53626 ... 41h-gaming

It appears as time goes on, the LCDs are getting better and better and the arguement is largely fading away.
Could also be because LCDs are much more prevalent than 5-6 years ago and thats what everyone is getting anyway.
.

Still, your notion CRT is superior is bullsh!t.

Evidently, superior technology is:
-heavier
-bigger
-less energy efficient
-generates more heat
-throws off radiation
-is incapable of being flat
-delivers less features for the money
-is more expensive to manufacture
-contains toxic lead
-causes eye strain

All because you perceive it gives your elite gamer an little advantage
and it displays absolutely correct color, which most people don't need.

Its really crazy!
VHS didn't win over laserdisc, it was concurrent when laserdisc was expensive, clunky, and limited in titles.
It didn't catch on and both were supplanted by DVD and then Blueray.

Again, superior technology supplanted inferior.

It NEVER works the other way around and CRTs are not an example.

My 24 Wide 1080 2ms Gateway looks better, is more pleasant to look at, more colorful than ANY CRT i have owned, including my old 22" NEC.

That list once again contains nothing to do with the actual purpose of a monitor (except "cant be flat", which is false, and "causes eye strain" which is only the case if the user is clueless/stupid enough to run an extremely low refresh rate).

If your lcd looks better than your crt, it shows only that you didnt know how to properly tweak your crt, not that lcds are superior at displaying images (its fact that theyre not, something the most minimal research on the subject would reveal).

Anyway superior tech gets supplanted by inferior all the time, usually in the name of increased profits to the producer or increased accessibility to the consumer. Its happened often in the past- plenty of cases-in-point available if one bothers to look!- and is sure to happen again.

Lastly, this thread has become a fine example of "circumference sporting prominent dentition". Unless someone has something new and factual to add, pretty sure were done here.

Agreed, this topic has been well chewed and beaten beyond a pulp.

Jesus Christ. A topic that has at least 25 unrelated posts in it and Chemical Burn being a dick to the OP lol. Cant anyone just answer this dude's questions and move along. LCDs and CRTs both have advantages for certain individuals. There are reasons to use both. It should be left at that.

Ether, here is the lachesis driver for win 7. I've used it and my lachesis works fine in win 7.
http://www.razersupport.com/index.php?_ ... =353&nav=0

As for the ATI issue, it's not surprising that the drivers are having issues as the market for 120mhz monitors are just starting. So it is quite possible that ATI hasnt updated their drivers to work with 120mhz. Just wait it out.

"That list once again contains nothing to do with the actual purpose of a monitor (except "cant be flat", which is false, and "causes eye strain" which is only the case if the user is clueless/stupid enough to run an extremely low refresh rate)."

There is NO such thing as a flat Cathode Ray Tube. Its a fact
CRTs emit radiation
All of those features of the LCD indeed are features of technology.
Your argument is absurd. Features like energy, size, weight, cost...have nothing to do with technology!??!
Your problem is, you are a narrow thinking type of person.
For 95% of Human Beings, LCD is superior technology.
For a small group of delusional people, it is not.
Evidently, superior means "better for a small group of people out of the mainstream".

"If your lcd looks better than your crt, it shows only that you didnt know how to properly tweak your crt, not that lcds are superior at displaying images (its fact that theyre not, something the most minimal research on the subject would reveal)."

It really only shows you have no experience with the best and newest LCDs. Properly tweak a CRT?!?! Wow, how do you do that? turn a few knobs!??!? What nonsense. How much tweaking can you do?

"Anyway superior tech gets supplanted by inferior all the time, usually in the name of increased profits to the producer or increased accessibility to the consumer. Its happened often in the past- plenty of cases-in-point available if one bothers to look!- and is sure to happen again."

You assertion depends on your conclusion. If you cannot forge a convincing case that CRTs are superior tech, your conclusion here is false. You keep talking about superior supplanted by Inferior, yet you make no case other than your faulty logic about CRTs. And you show a distinct leftist viewpoint that new technology is developed to increase profits, which is nonsense and false.
If that were true, CRTs, laserdisc, ... SHOULD be profitable, instead of dead.

"Lastly, this thread has become a fine example of "circumference sporting prominent dentition". Unless someone has something "new and factual to add, pretty sure were done here."

I'm done. I don't believe your argument is one bit convincing, so there is nothing else to say.
My monitor is still the best purchase i have ever made and superior to any CRT i have known and that is a fact.

If you and Paradox must have the last word, post, then lock this.

Man, living up to ur name x 50.

LED screens, lets hear more about them. I am curious to know wen they are coming out, and wat kind of specs to expect, havent done any research yet.
/Attempt to steer subject.

Impala, its just becoming a circular arguement/discussion. No one is saying anything new just repeat after repeat after repeat. I think we all get each other's points. In short, we dont agree and we wont ever agree.

@Sacrafist. lol I think we pretty much gave up on that one.

@Sacrifist. lol. thanks. buried somewhere within the 100+ posts, i posted that i solved the Lachesis driver issue. The driver wouldn't install nor would the firmware update in Windows 7. I eventually updated the firmware using an XP box. Then I was able to install the drivers under Windows 7. I like the Lachesis, except that one of the thumb buttons constantly sticks, which is kind of disappointing for a mouse in that price range.

@ Sacrifist. PS. You are right about the drivers. The latest version (10.1 I think) was supposed to solve the 120Hz issue (the release notes say as much), but it still doesn't work for me. I get options for 60, 100, 110, 120. They all seem to work except 120. The monitor instructions say to only set the refresh to 60 or 120, so I'm not sure what's exactly happening at 100 and 110. I've seen a lot of posts that 120Hz works fine on nVidia cards; it's only ATI cards that have the problem.

Don't mind me. Just passing through.

Sacrifist wrote:Jesus Christ. A topic that has at least 25 unrelated posts in it and Chemical Burn being a dick to the OP lol. Cant anyone just answer this dude's questions and move along. LCDs and CRTs both have advantages for certain individuals. There are reasons to use both. It should be left at that.

Ether, here is the lachesis driver for win 7. I've used it and my lachesis works fine in win 7.
http://www.razersupport.com/index.php?_ ... =353&nav=0

As for the ATI issue, it's not surprising that the drivers are having issues as the market for 120mhz monitors are just starting. So it is quite possible that ATI hasnt updated their drivers to work with 120mhz. Just wait it out.

The bigger problem here is just ATI, I recently bought 2 of their cards because they are currently in the lead performance wise, and both have driver issues. ATI just sucks at writing drivers. Unless you are using your ATI card for basic 1 monitor common hardware setups ATI has always had more problems for as long as I have been using their products. Makes me wish I would have waited to just get an nVidia product. 120 hz should not be a problem since CRTs could do it for decades. I had problems getting my ati card to allow me to use any refresh I wanted also eventually after some registry entries I was finally able to get it. Those 120 hz LCDs have been out for a really long time and the sad thing is ATI being a company which heavily markets to gamers should not have any excuse to not have full support for these. Good luck waiting could be months if not a year.

Fearsome* wrote:

Sacrifist wrote:Jesus Christ. A topic that has at least 25 unrelated posts in it and Chemical Burn being a dick to the OP lol. Cant anyone just answer this dude's questions and move along. LCDs and CRTs both have advantages for certain individuals. There are reasons to use both. It should be left at that.

Ether, here is the lachesis driver for win 7. I've used it and my lachesis works fine in win 7.
http://www.razersupport.com/index.php?_ ... =353&nav=0

As for the ATI issue, it's not surprising that the drivers are having issues as the market for 120mhz monitors are just starting. So it is quite possible that ATI hasnt updated their drivers to work with 120mhz. Just wait it out.

The bigger problem here is just ATI, I recently bought 2 of their cards because they are currently in the lead performance wise, and both have driver issues. ATI just sucks at writing drivers. Unless you are using your ATI card for basic 1 monitor common hardware setups ATI has always had more problems for as long as I have been using their products. Makes me wish I would have waited to just get an nVidia product. 120 hz should not be a problem since CRTs could do it for decades. I had problems getting my ati card to allow me to use any refresh I wanted also eventually after some registry entries I was finally able to get it. Those 120 hz LCDs have been out for a really long time and the sad thing is ATI being a company which heavily markets to gamers should not have any excuse to not have full support for these. Good luck waiting could be months if not a year.

Yeah that is true. ATI drivers are more picky, but I've found that Nvidia drivers are much more unstable.