TFT vs CRT

by Theophany • 2 Mar 2007, 00:47 • Journals
I switched my old 21" CRT for a 19" TFT today, the CRT was getting old and I needed the desk space back. I booted up ET for a test run earlier this evening though and found I couldn't hit anything. Is it all in my head or is there a definite link between mouse and screen?

I used to run ET at 1600x1200@100Hz w/100FPS
I now run ET at 1280x1024@75Hz w/100FPS

Any thoughts or suggestions as to my setup?
Comments
35
▼
raki 2 Mar 2007, 00:51
get ur crt back :)
▼
Theophany 2 Mar 2007, 00:53
But it's too big and weighs like 30kg :(
▼
raki 2 Mar 2007, 00:54
hmmz
i couldn't play with any tft x)
▼
huumeantti 2 Mar 2007, 00:56
i play with tft @ 1280x1024@75hz, you just have to get used to it, i know it sux, its quite hard to duel if the enemy is moving fast left and right :[
▼
vis 2 Mar 2007, 01:27
I know the feeling :[
Parent
▼
huumeantti 2 Mar 2007, 01:28
me 2 :[
Parent
▼
vis 2 Mar 2007, 02:01
how much ms does your monitor have? :P
Parent
▼
Ronner 2 Mar 2007, 09:52
ms is useless info in this case imo
Parent
▼
Adacore 2 Mar 2007, 01:07
It's supposedly just getting to the stage where TFTs are good enough to almost equal CRTs, and they've certainly been close for a few years now - my 3 year old TFT is decent for gaming, but lately I've actually been thinking (just as all the LANs and stuff switch over to TFTs) that I should go back to CRTs because they still have a slight edge :D
▼
Theophany 2 Mar 2007, 01:07
at least I'm not the only one complaining then :)

I can't go back now, rock on tfts!
▼
TosspoT 2 Mar 2007, 01:09
I have a CRT at home, a TFT and a laptop, I can see no difference between any monitor.
▼
pe0p 2 Mar 2007, 01:47
U must have some pretty nice laptop screen then cus the screen @ my compal hel80 rly sux in duel everything gets blurry. I could really notice a big difference with my good old iiyama visionmaster @ 120hz although latop screen is sharper.
Parent
▼
ILLY-YA 2 Mar 2007, 09:28
that's because you're low-med Tosspot ;)))

i can instantly spot a difference between any tft or my crt at home. ghosting sux.
Parent
▼
Ronner 2 Mar 2007, 09:53
seriously, go see an eye-doctor
Parent
▼
Sgt.Pepper 2 Mar 2007, 01:45
CRT is better
▼
suA 2 Mar 2007, 02:54
I actually have a question on this matter...

a tft-screen with 2ms, would update 500 times/sec, which is 500Hz... then in the OS you set up the Hz to the max (75Hz for the most tft-screens)...

does that mean that the screens tft-matrix updates 500 times/sec, but the OS only sends 75 updates to it, or what ?
▼
overdrive 2 Mar 2007, 04:49
the 2ms gets added to the 1/75s delay
Parent
▼
suA 2 Mar 2007, 05:36
thx, that actually gives sense
Parent
▼
ILLY-YA 2 Mar 2007, 09:31
also those 2ms specifications are bullshit. before they used to specify for instace 4 or 8 ms response time but they don't say for which change. Usually it meant it takes 4 or 8 ms from white to black, but changing from color to color takes twice or even three times as long. Now they usually specifiy G2G (gray to gray) which is a slightly better approximation but still bullshit. Whatever specification on your LCD multiply it by 2 to get a realistic number.
Parent
▼
Ronner 2 Mar 2007, 09:55
nah.. just know that with a tft you simply won't see any more than 75 FPS, which are then even delayed to show on your screen by at least twice the MS specification it tells on the box ;-) <-- that would be much closer to the truth imo :-)
Parent
▼
suA 2 Mar 2007, 12:58
oooh so it's should actually be read as minimum 2ms ?

or is it an average of 2ms (some changes/updates takes longer, some shorter) ?

(i'm really clueless when it comes to tft etc.)
Parent
▼
Ey0n 2 Mar 2007, 02:56
Sure that tft rocks etc. But I think I'm going to buy some tft at the PC Dump days in Amsterdam Rai. Just because it needs less space on my desk wich I need :o
▼
darv 2 Mar 2007, 03:34
the tft's are so pwwweetty ... alltho they give you ghosting, shite fps and other crap they remain pwetty!

its still shit though, crt > tft anytime
▼
Spirea 2 Mar 2007, 05:35
u should wait until TFTs got 100Hz
▼
zwitter 2 Mar 2007, 07:01
Well i coudnt find good tft so i bought second hand eizo T966 22'.
It weight 34kg [if im not wrong] its big ugly etc, but im able to get 160mhz on r_mode 6 so i dont care.
I played on tft [i have one in house] and it feels strange - like swiming or smth
▼
Theophany 2 Mar 2007, 08:27
That's the monitor I just threw away. It won't sure you wrong, enjoy it.
Parent
▼
shepherd 2 Mar 2007, 08:34
See Are Tea is bettah!
▼
aZraeL 2 Mar 2007, 08:34
CRT > LCD
kthxbye
▼
topher 2 Mar 2007, 10:28
1440x900 tft @ 60hz / 125fps, no tearing and no ghosting. (or 75hz / 76fps if you cant get 125) syncing is the key!
▼
suA 2 Mar 2007, 13:25
why is [ 60hz / 125fps ] better than [ 75hz / 76fps ], your computer might calculate data for 125 updates/sec, but your screen only shows you 60 updates/sec ?
Parent
▼
topher 2 Mar 2007, 13:36
Because 60hz syncs with 125fps, (i dont care what anyone says about b_fixedphysics i still think 125 real fps makes a difference) and ofc to the human eye 60hz is fine.

I spent days messing with cfg when i got my tft, and i found that if r_display refresh doesnt sync with com_maxfps (or a multiple of) then the screen jumping is unbearable.
Parent
▼
suA 2 Mar 2007, 14:15
and ofc to the human eye 60hz is fine.

i see a huge difference between 60hz and for example 100hz, so dont know where you have got that fact ?

(btw b_fixedphysics does in fact work, so np there)
Parent
▼
fleX 5 Mar 2007, 01:20
Response time was first stated in black to white to black, which happends faster then changing a pixel between two different colours. That's why most companies started to use a more correct response time, G2G(grey to grey).

Most LCD screens with active matrix (TFT) do support up to 75Hz, which limites them to draw 75FPS or change the colour of a pixel 75times pr second.

Another issue with LCD monitors is input lag. Depending on the monitor, input lag times between 10ms and 65ms have been measured. No manufacturers advertise the input lag of their displays, likely because the trend has been to increase input lag as manufacturers find more ways to process input at the display level before it is shown. This input lag is caused by HDCP, DRM, and DSP techniques that have been employed to reduce the effects of ghosting, however no conclusive investigations have been performed, and the cause may vary depending on the model of display. Here's a clip that demonstrates input lag in quake3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2OE6hSh00
Back to top